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

Thu Feb 17 13:38:38 EST 2011

Lulu,

I have been very interested in the electro-magnetic radiation problems  
of cell phones and their towers for over 20 years -- even attending a  
meeting about the latter in Victoria, BC. Also I did publicly caution  
the great Mike Lazoritdus at a UofW meeting about 12 years ago about  
the possible dangers of his cellular devices. (Apparently they have an  
emr testing lab in the basement of one of their buildings off Columbia  
St. which is temporarily put out of commission when Raytheon tests one  
of its radar devices.)

The cell phone (& related devices) industry has so much political- 
economic power (and growing) --- something like the GMO industry --  
that they are able to excessively influence regulators. And of course  
we have RIM as a major economic power in Waterloo (City, Region &  
University). This would make cooperation from City of Waterloo in  
moving any cell phone tower away from residences, schools, etc. a  
great challenge -- possibly more difficult than removing fluoride from  
the drinking water. But perhaps GREN could be persuaded take a strong  
position on this matter including a delegation to council after each  
Councillor has been spoken with about the problem. Unfortunately most  
GREN members likely have little familiarity
with cellular device towers and their health effects. Although if they  
take the time to read your links (and the others that I have included)  
then I suspect they will back your concerns.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3773284/Health-Effects-from-Cell-Phone-Tower-Radiation
http://www.emf-health.com/articles-celltower.htm ("How far is safe?")
http://www.emwatch.com/Cellmasts.htm ("In the long term,  we need to  
find ways of providing cell phone convenience without exposing people  
to the existing dangers of cell tower radiation." )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health  
(Somebody needs to correct this cellular industry distortion of the  
health dangers!!)

Robert

On 16-Feb-11, at 11:14 AM, Louisette Lanteigne wrote:

>
>
> --- 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
>
>
>
> 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/dfa1deb4/attachment.html>