Canada: Bewijs dat EMV een effect heeft op menselijk metabolisme

zaterdag, 13 april 2013 - Categorie: Artikelen

Bron: .
13 april 2013

The EMF debate changes: Laboratory proof that low powered electromagnetic fields do effect human metabolism.

The following document was prepared to support the municipality of Lachine, Québec in their demand for a moratorium on the installation of Smart Meters by Hydro Québec. Considering the importance of this information, I invite everyone to freely share this document with their own municipal authorities. You can download a PDF copy by clicking here.

Why focus on municipalities? Because they are the one layer of government the closest to the population and people tend to actually have a voice in many municipal issues. For a complete overview of the EMF debate, follow this link.


The implementation of Hydro Quebec's Smart Meter program has lead to a lot of citizen resistance and heated debates over complex scientific issues. Basically the question is should society implement a Precautionary Principle with respect to this technology or continue to allow unrestrained use of wireless technologies under the umbrella of Health Canada's position that non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation has no effect on human health.

I would like to share with you why I believe that in the light of some recent research, the foundation of this debate has changed.

My name is Jon Eakes. My profession is helping homeowners and contractors with housing and renovation for the past 35 years -- you probably know me best in Québec from my 20 plus years on CJAD radio Saturday mornings or in English Canada from my national shows on HGTV.


For a long time I have been uncomfortable with Health Canada's position published in their Safety Code 6 to the effect that non-thermal electromagnetic fields have no proven effect on human health. This is an official policy position that supports Hydro Québec's current choice for reducing their costs of meter data collection with the implementation of these technologically very seductive wireless Smart Meters. It also permits the communications industries uncontrolled proliferation of cell phones and WiFi's.

But ''uncomfortable'' is not a very convincing argument against such useful technological progress. My feeling of discomfort in this present debate about Electromagnetic Fields has led me to both challenge and listen seriously to people like Dr. Joe Schwarcz and Lorne Trottier. They are two of Montreal's most prominent spokesmen for the position that all the fears regarding these technologies are built on ''Bad Science''; studies that do not respect accepted scientific discipline.

You are already aware that there are hundreds of studies and reports supporting both sides of this debate. Laymen are asked to choose which represent good science and which represent bad science, a difficult task when even the scientists all say that the other side is practicing bad science.

For example, to support the ''No-Effect'' argument, many clinical tests are cited showing that supposedly electro-hyper-sensitive people cannot even demonstrate reliably that they are able to actually tell when an Electromagnetic Field (EMF) is ON or OFF. The opponents of the ''No-Effect'' side argue that these tests are too short term - minutes or hours rather than months or years. And the debate goes on.


So let's skip squabbles about clinical protocols and look for the heart of the problem. Even in the construction industry, where I have both studied and taught building practices for the last 35 years, it is often necessary to cut through the rhetoric and speculation in an effort to try and define the heart of a problem, the determining element -- and do that within the framework of good building science principles.

I believe I am being fair in stating that the heart of the ''no-effect'' argument is that no one has used proper scientific methods to arrive at proving that there is a measurable and repeatable effect of low level EMF on human metabolism -- basically demonstrating that such small forces as non-ionizing radiation could have a metabolic effect on human organisms.

There is also some presentation of the argument that the ''mechanism'' by which EMF can affect human metabolism must be found and proved. However it is important not to get mixed up between proving an effect and totally explaining the mechanism by which it happens. Many medical advances happen long before mechanisms are properly explained, and often even accepted ''mechanisms'' are revised as science and experience advances. It is useful to present a mechanism that helps to develop solutions to problems, but with enough isolation of a problem, cause and effect can be proved which leads to public health precautions and adding resources to discovering the mechanisms through which it can be dealt with.

History has often shown that there has been a great deal of human suffering in the time lapse between identifying a problem, proving its source, then discovering its mechanism and finally legislating protection: Lead in paint - asbestos in lungs - tobacco and lung cancer. That is why the side of this debate who believe that ''EMFs Do Affect Human Health'' is proposing the Precautionary Principle. They say that there are a lot of indicators that there is a health problem with EMF and we should slow down until we know more.

But never in history have we had two such critical industries, electrical power distribution and wireless communications, that were so threatened by ''unproven'' health concerns. The ''no-effect'' side points out a basic scientific truism, that you cannot prove a negative. Hence it is impossible to prove that there is ''no-effect''. So it is up to the other side to prove that there is an effect.


Therefore the one piece of research, the one scientific proof that is critical to cut through all the hackling about non-conclusive studies on both sides is:

Prove that low level non-ionizing electromagnetic fields do change human metabolism.

The discovery of this proof alone should be enough to force consideration of the Precautionary Principle and a radical reorientation of research on all sides as well as far more serious thinking about precautionary shielding on the part of the electrical and the electronics industry.

In digging through all the debate, I was shocked to discover that this proof already exists, but few people have seen this particular body of research as being the element that fundamentally changes the debate. That proof was made right here in the Royal Victoria Hospital's InVitro laboratory associated with McGill University. What has clouded the vision?


There is a fundamental assumption that both sides have been using that has recently proven to be erroneous, an assumption that has acted as a blanket hiding the discovery of the scientifically proven link between EMF and human metabolism. The assumption is that this mechanism, if it exists, would be related to strength or dosage of EMF; biological effects would show up with increased doses of EMF. Short term clinical tests with people claiming to be electro-hyper sensitive indicate that they do not respond to increased EMF levels. Could it be possible that they are already responding to background EMF and increasing or decreasing the EMF creates no change in their response because dosage is irrelevant? Would they respond to the introduction of EMF where there was no EMF before? No one seems to have tested that.

Dr. Paul Héroux and Dr. Ying Li of the InVitro laboratory decided to test what happened if you compared NO background EMF to MINUTE non-ionizing EMF in their effects on cancer cells. Some say creating a complete EMF free environment for cell study was impossible -- but having worked previously with Hydro Québec on electromagnetic problems, Dr. Héroux designed a way to create this ''EMF-free'' cell environment. If tiny EMF fields can be shown to change metabolic functioning -- suddenly Pandora's Box is open and we must deal with the implications.


Drs Héroux and Li have developed a technique to isolate cell cultures from background radiation and then documented significant chromosome number changes when subjected to tiny fields of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. At the same time they discovered that a little or a lot of EMF made no difference in these tests. EMF effects cells and this effect is not necessarily related to the strength of the fields.

This is the proof that Lorne Trottier and others have constantly asked for. This is the biological affect they say does not exist. This addresses their entire defence against the precautionary principle. And the solid laboratory research was done right here -- just down the street from their own McGill offices.

Drs Héroux and Li have developed an hypothesis on exactly what is happening, but they have proven in documented repeatable experiments that non-ionizing electromagnetic fields do change human cells to a significant degree.

Probably the developing research that motivates them the most is that cancerous and non-cancerous cells both react to EMF but there are strong indications that they react differently to specific applications of EMF. They do not see their work as an attack on the communications and electrical distribution companies but most importantly an open door to eventually replacing chemo-therapy with carefully focused electromagnetic fields; an inexpensive, non-intrusive, non-chemical cancer treatment. It is a bit discouraging to realize that the electronic industry fails to recognize and work in line with this research and that it is difficult to obtain cancer research funding for this totally different approach to cancer.

Independent of their present and future trailblazing research aimed at cancer treatment, they have already opened Pandora's Box showing that Health Canada's contention that non-ionizing radiation has no health effects on humans -- is wrong. It does change chromosome counts in human cells, basic DNA mutations!

Hydro Québec and many others need to take a step back and reconsider what they have already imposed on us before even dreaming of an unbridled expansion of the frequencies and modulations of non-ionizing radiation in our daily lives.

The precautionary principle is necessary as the implications of this scientific proof are brought to light and studied.


Now, it is critically important to separate the EFFECT and the MECHANISM of this effect to not get lost in a secondary debate. Understanding the mechanism helps to treat the problem, but not understanding the mechanism does not negate the existence of the problem.

The ''no-effect'' side of the debate has always argued that the energy level of these non-ionizing fields do not possibly contain enough energy to effect any biological change and they have challenged the other side to propose a possible mechanism by which this could happen.

Drs Héroux and Li's well considered hypothesis on the mechanism draws from established parallels in computer technology, fluid flow mechanics and even biological functions. A very small energy can affect some already functional control mechanism that in turn controls powerful flows of energy from a totally different source; and it is the presence, absence or change in this other energy flow that creates the effect seen when the tiny control signal is activated. A simple analogy is the small power of a fireman's hand can open, close or modify the powerful jet of water that wants to flow through his fire truck's hose. Or the flick of a tiny low voltage switch can cause a transistor to permit a larger flow of electricity to pass through to a relay which can then open or close an entire power line coming from James Bay. Small quantities of energy affect control mechanisms of powerful forces in things all around us.

Human cells require biological elements to get into and out of each cell and these elements pass through various control mechanisms. The present research is indicating that the low powered EMF is constraining that control mechanism. It is not directly changing the cell, it is not the control mechanism -- it is restricting the free functioning of the already present control mechanism. This thesis makes sense, is easily open for debate but exact or not, it does not diminish the proof that non-ionizing EMF is somehow changing the metabolic functioning of cells.

I would like to direct you to three documents about this important research, and encourage you to profit on the fact that the InVitro laboratory is right here in Montreal -- arrange for a visit.

-- One of the clearest commentaries about Drs Héroux and Li's work

- Their own vulgarization of their work

Chapter 16 on this link:

-- One of their scientific publications about this work.


In my opinion, this single piece of research, spanning 6 years of work, is solid enough to justify the imposition of the Principle of Precaution and shift the burden of proof to industry to prove otherwise. The precautionary principle should be applied to the entire field of non-ionizing radiation, including Smart Meters.

The current Canadian political reality is that scientific objectivity cannot be expected out of Health Canada under the present government who does not even recognize that we are in an era of man-made climate change. They will not rapidly adapt their Safety Code 6 to the implications of this research. It will be up to every level of government, including municipalities, to initiate the task of raising precautionary barriers and forcing industry to get back to some basic research that they have conveniently skipped over.

Jon Eakes
April 2013

Lees verder in de categorie Artikelen | Terug naar homepage | Lees de introductie