Conservative MP Says Wireless Industry Misleading Canadians on Cellphone Safety


Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Terence Young believes the Canadian wireless industry is misleading Canadians about the health and safety effects of cellphone use and Wi-Fi routers.

The Oakville, Ontario MP introduced a Private Member’s Bill (C-648) two weeks ago which would require safety warnings on all wireless electronics sold in Canada, as the World Health Organization has declared they are potential causes for cancer—the same category as lead and DDT.

Bell and TELUS told Young there is “no health risk” but the MP says “that is wrong and they know it’s wrong”, and considers the actions of both companies akin to the Tobacco industry:

“Warnings for safe use are already buried in the fine print of every device manual,” said Young. “But a spokesman, for both Bell and Telus, has publicly responded to my Bill by saying there is ‘no health risk’. That is wrong and they know it’s wrong. They’re behaving like the Tobacco industry did before scientists agreed that cigarettes cause lung cancer.”

Young referred to recent legislation in France where safety warnings are now required on cellphone packaging and advertising, while also noting it’s illegal there to have Wi-Fi in day care centers.The Bill put forward by Young would have fines of $100,000 per day for any retailer that fails to display health warnings on wireless devices sold.

Former Microsoft Canada president Frank Clegg has pledged support for the bill, agreeing with Young the wireless industry is misleading the Canadian public, as he said in a statement “To state that there is ‘no demonstrated public health risk’ is simply not true.”

Clegg followed up to say “It’s well known in our industry that cell phones and Wi-Fi routers are a Cancer risk. The wireless industry is being a poor corporate citizen on this issue. They are warning us in fine print, then denying the warnings in public.”

Young’s Canadian for Safe Technology website (headed by Clegg) notes Apple’s SAR measurement for the older iPhone 3GS, not the latest iPhone 6 Plus.

Below is the iPhone 6 Plus RF exposure information from Apple’s website:

Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) refers to the rate at which the body absorbs RF energy. The SAR limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram in countries that set the limit averaged over 1 gram of tissue and 2.0 watts per kilogram in countries that set the limit averaged over 10 grams of tissue. During testing, iPhone radios are set to their highest transmission levels and placed in positions that simulate use against the head, with no separation, and near the body, with 5mm separation.

Depending on the dimensions of the device, additional SAR limits may apply.

To reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones, or other similar accessories. Carry iPhone at least 5mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as-tested levels. Cases with metal parts may change the RF performance of the device, including its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been tested or certified.

Although this device has been tested to determine SAR in each band of operation, not all bands are available in all areas. Bands are dependent on your service provider’s wireless and roaming networks.

Screenshot 2015 02 16 14 03 46

What do you think? Should wireless electronic sales come with health risk warning labels?


  • Al

    All I could see was an “alarmists” website. Although I didn’t spend a ton of time on the site, I could not find a link to a single “qualified” source from which they drew their conclusions. I’d be interested to find actual scientific studies referenced and the appropriate links to those studies. But for now, I’m going to assume this is just unfounded hysteria.

    As for the notices of radiation absorption and such, the body can handle a lot more than people assume. I suspect those notices are just there to prevent lawsuits from people who get cancer and are looking for something to blame.

  • coop

    Conservative Member of Parliment is a dick. Alert the media. Wonder what he thinks about immunization? Oh look, he wrote a book called “Death by Prescription”.

    So, not much on science, then.

  • Tim

    Regardless of all this, most people are using less and less voice minutes which are responsible for cell-to-head usage. I’m not worried.

  • Chrome262

    The studies that the WHO reference aren’t all that conclusive and have yet to be reproduced. France is just being sill as always, keeping wifi out of day care isn’t going to protect your kids since all around them is more signal then they can hope to counter, so its a useless political gesture that makes lives difficult for the day care people, Just like this ass.

  • Ollie

    Writing as one person with cancer I am always interested in knowing about sources of cancer causing agents. All products with the capability to adversely affect health should be labeled then let the consumer decide whether or not they wish to elevate their risk. When it comes to cancer “conclusive” proof is seldom affordable, even by a Government and never immediate. Look how many decades it took to get warning labels on cigarettes. How many thousands died before proof was conclusive.