[All] Fw: Cities and School Boards can stop Cell Towers.

Thu Feb 17 12:25:50 EST 2011

There is some question about the legality of Wind mobile and its foreign
ownership. There certainly might be grounds for asking for a stay until that
issue is resolved.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/globalive-to-appeal-court-ruling/article1911421/

2011/2/16 Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>

>
>
> --- On *Wed, 2/16/11, Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>*wrote:
>
>
> From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
> Subject: Cities and School Boards can stop Cell Towers.
> To: brenda.halloran at waterloo.ca, scott.witmer at waterloo.ca,
> karen.scian at waterloo.ca, angela.vieth at waterloo.ca,
> diane.freeman at waterloo.ca, mark.whaley at waterloo.ca, jeff.henry at waterloo.ca,
> melissa.durrell at waterloo.ca
> Cc: Catherine_Fife at wrdsb.on.ca, SStrickland at regionofwaterloo.ca,
> JMitchell at regionofwaterloo.ca, fr.robert.hetu at sympatico.ca,
> spectrum.london at ic.g.ca
> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 11:10 AM
>
>  Dear Council Members et al.
>
>
> This morning I read how a Cell Phone Tower is to be place at 516 Erbsville
> Road in Waterloo.in the heart of a residential community in Laurelwood, It
> would be less than 500m away from St. Nicholas School where my 6 year old
> attends grade 1, it is in the vicinity of long term care facilities,
> residents etc. Here is a Waterloo Chronicle article about this.
>
>
> http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/229571
>
>
> Cities and Regions do have the power to govern policies in regards to the
> placement of Cell Phone Towers and I strongly recommend the city adopt the
> legislation already in use in Henry County Georgia in the US. For more
> information please visit this website.
>
>
> http://www.co.henry.ga.us/NewsArticle.aspx?AID=339
>
>
> <http://www.co.henry.ga.us/NewsArticle.aspx?AID=339>
> A community in Idaho faced similar challenges in regards to the proximity
> of towers to young children. They successfully stopped this tower after a
> successful public education campaign.
>
>
>
> http://whyfry.org/playground-cell-tower-public-education-campaign-in-north-idaho/
>
>
> The Los Angeles United School Board passed a resolution opposing cell
> towers on school property after the National Institute of Environmental
> Health Sciences classified electromagnetic fields as a Class 2B carcinogen. I
> strongly recommend our school boards adopt a similar policy. For more
> information on that issue please visit here:
>
> I understand the city could be at risk of a lawsuit for rejecting the
> tower, but I also know the economic vitality of our city will also be at an
> even greater risk by not stopping this tower.  I strongly recommend that
> city staff speak with the Chamber of Commerce and the Tech industry about
> this matter and get them on board to recommending the relocating this tower
> away from the long term care facility and schools because this issue
> directly affects our area's corporate image. We need to relocate this tower
> to a safer area otherwise the tech sector will face a PR nightmare. I'm sure
> Rim would not appreciate negative publicity about cell phones but it will be
> impossible to stop this topic from exposing the wider issues about the
> carcinogenic impacts and with our volatile economy this issue is simply not
> worth the risk. I don't want to read news stories about how " The Tech
> Capital of Canada"  is placing the elderly and young school children at risk
> but truth be said that is exactly what will happen should this matter not be
> reasonably resolved in a manner that protects the public interest.
>
>
> To speak candidly, the system currently being used by Industry Canada to
> test products for cancer causing properties is fundamentally flawed.
> According to the staff at the Canadian Association of Physicians for the
> Environment (CAPE) it can can take up to 20 years worth of testing before
> causality is proven using the criteria currently being set by Industry
> Canada. That number is based on how long it takes for the average human to
> manifest cancers after first exposure. The system is wrought with flaws,
> fails to have regard to cumulative exposures to other microwave frequencies
> and environmental factors and basically, it is outdated and places the
> public at serious risk.
>
>
> Currently, the Federal government relies on the industry to conduct their
> own testing and there is no law in Canada to make these companies prove the
> technology is safe before selling it. We could create a bill to mandate the
> testing be done before marketing the product but if it were introduced, it
> would "hamper business" because it would essentially take 20 years of
> testing before products can be sold.  For example, Health Canada has yet to
> establish a reasonable criteria for testing to determine if  genetically
> modified foods are safe for human consumption. Bill C-474 would have
> demanded that the tests be done before the product is sold, however this
> bill was recently defeated. Currently industry tends to get the upper hand
> more often then not even in light of public health concerns.
>
>
> If the Federal government wants to review data gathered by way of industry
> tests, they might have to wait years because often times the data is not
> given freely due to "patent information" and there is no legal obligation
> for industry to provide it. For example, right now Coke Cola has more info
> on Canada's water supply than the Federal government but the government
> can't access the data because this data is literally owned by Coke. It gives
> this company a strategic corporate advantage and there is currently no legal
> obligation or policy to mandated that they have to share their data with
> anyone even if it regards a public resource like water.
>
> When industry is asked if their product is carcinogenic, the standard
> response is, "There is no evidence to prove the link" often times because
>
>
> a) the test criteria has not reasonably been established by Health Canada
> as in the case of GMO foods,
>
> b) tests have not been done
>
> c) their product is less than 20 years old therefore it is theoretically
> "impossible" to tell if there is evidence or not if you follow the strict
> and outdated guidelines of Industry Canada.
>
>
> If you view international findings or findings using more current methods,
> the volumes of studies showing a direct link of Cell Towers to cancer is
> alarming. Here is a report by Angela Flynn, Public Health Advocate giving
> examples of the data being found in many of these studies.
>
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/24352550/Cell-Tower-Rpt
>
>
> It is my hope we can relocate this tower to a more appropriate area.
>
>
> Thank you kindly for your time.
>
> Louisette Lanteigne
> 700 Star Flower Ave.
> Waterloo Ontario
> N2V 2L2
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> All mailing list
> All at gren.ca
> http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110217/64746222/attachment.html>