EMR Health Alliance of BC

Protesters concerned about proposed cellphone tower at south Edmonton church

BY CAILYNN KLINGBEIL, EDMONTON JOURNAL

JANUARY 13, 2013

EDMONTON – About a dozen people who protested Sunday outside a south Edmonton church said they will return every week until their concerns about a cellphone tower proposed for the property are heard.

“We’re just getting started,” said protest organizer Marcey Kliparchuk, standing outside Dayspring Presbyterian Church, 11445 40th Ave.

The Greenfield resident’s main worry is that radiation given off by the 30-metre tower Rogers wants to build on the site could be a health risk, particularly for her two children, aged two and 10.

Rogers has said the company needs the tower to improve wireless service in the area and the application will comply with all the requirements of Industry Canada and Health Canada, which states on its website that there is no scientific reason to consider cellphone towers dangerous as long as exposure is within its guidelines.

“We’ll be here every Sunday until they change their mind,” said Kliparchuk. She said in addition to organizing the peaceful protests, she will continue knocking on doors in the neighbourhood and delivering flyers to residents informing them about the proposed tower and its risks.

“I don’t want this in my front yard,” said protester Cheryl Gerdes, holding a sign that read “Protect your children … Stop cell towers where children live and play.”

The signs came from Citizens for Safe Technology, a national coalition concerned about exposure to unsafe levels of radiation from technology.

The protesters waved at parishioners entering the church’s parking lot before Sunday’s service.

Kliparchuk said she has tried to meet with leaders of Dayspring to discuss her concerns and alternatives to a cell tower for raising money, but they have refused.

Dayspring elder and spokesman John Carr said the church has done its research and science does not indicate there are health issues with cell towers.

“They’re entitled to their beliefs and they’re entitled to protest peacefully.”

He said it’s not the church’s job to consult with the community.

“We’ve consulted with the congregation,” he said, estimating more than half of their members live in the community.

Carr said any money made from the tower will go back into the community, through making the building more accessible to residents and such social services as a food bank.

While Dayspring signed a contract with Rogers in 2011, Carr said a timeline for the tower’s construction is not yet known.

Final approval must come from Industry Canada.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/health/story.html?id=7813644&fb_comment_id=fbc_438841636186261_3879147_439678966102528#f3274c19e3ce286

City of Edmonton and Industry Canada:

Stop Proposed Rogers and Telus Cell Towers in Greenfield, Edmonton.

for full details click on Petition Mayor Mandel on the original page here

Petition by Marcey, Edmonton, Canada

Infomation from Havas Oakville Open Letter re: Placement of Cell Towers

Greenfield is not the first community nor will it be the last to deal with the issue of microwave radiation generated by cell phone antennas. This is a growing concern around the world. Levels of microwave exposure are much higher than background levels and are continuing to increase.

I. We have STUDIES documenting the adverse effects of this radiation.
For example,
1. We have at least 3 studies in Israel, Germany, and Brazil that show an increase in cancer for those who live within 350 to 500 meters of cell phone antennas. None of the exposures exceeded our federal safety code guidelines. Indeed, the highest level  documented in the Brazil study (Dode et al. 2011) was 41 microW/cm2, which is 4% of Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 of 1000 microW/cm2.

2. A review of 10 epidemiological studies by Khurana et al. (2010) showed that 8 of the 10 studies documented adverse health effects and all of these were within 500 meters of cell phone antennas. These include 2 of the 3 cancer studies noted above and 6 studies showing neurobehavioral effects. The symptoms are some combination of chronic fatigue, chronic pain, cognitive dysfunction, mood disorders, skin problems, dizziness, nausea, sleep disorders, and tinnitus for those who live within 450 meters of cell phone antennas. Collectively these symptoms are referred to as electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and were previously known as microwave sickness and were experienced by military personal working with radar (which also uses microwave radiation). Epidemiological studies show an associate with an agent (radio frequency radiation) and an outcome (in this case cancer and EHS). They require confirmation with laboratory studies as in item 3 below.

3. We have laboratory studies with rats showing an increase in primary tumors at levels below our federal guidelines (Chou et al. 1992) and demonstrating damage to DNA (Lai and Singh 1995). These studies show cause effect relationship between radiation and cancer/DNA damage.

II. We have RECOMMENDATIONS for limiting our exposure and for safer guidelines.

For example,

1. The ECOLOG (2000) review funded by T-Mobile provides the following
recommendations:

We recommend the precautionary limit of 0.01 W/m2 [10 microW/cm2, current HC SC6 value is 1000 microW/cm2, so this is 1/100th of Safety Code 6)] independent of the carrier frequency. The rough dependency on frequency with higher limits outside of the resonance range, as it is applied in the concept of SAR, is not justifiable given the results of the scientific studies which conclusively prove non-thermal effects of high frequency fields. Also, the current allowed higher exposures for parts of the body, as long as they refer to the head or thorax are not justifiable.

2. Germany physicians signed the Freiburger Appeal (2002) which states the following [www.feb.se/NEWS/Appell_021019-englisch.pdf]:

Our therapeutic efforts to restore health are becoming increasingly less effective:

the unimpeded and continuous penetration of radiation into living and working areas causes uninterrupted stress and prevents the patient’s thorough recovery. In the face of this disquieting development, we feel obliged to inform the public of our  observations.

What we experience in the daily reality of our medical practice is anything but
hypothetical! We see the rising number of chronically sick patients also as the result of an irresponsible “safety limits policy”, which fails to take the protection of the public as its criteria for action. Instead, it submits to the dictates of a technology already long recognized as dangerous. For us, this is the beginning of a very serious development through which the health of many people is being threatened. We will no longer be made to wait upon further unreal research results – which in our experience are often influenced by the communications industry, while evidential studies go on being ignored. We find it to be of urgent necessity that we act now!

Above all, we are, as doctors, the advocates for our patients. In the interest of all those concerned, whose basic right to life and freedom from bodily harm is currently being put at stake, we appeal to those in the spheres of politics and public health.

3. A review of effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays (Levitt and Lai 2010) recommends lower guidelines than we currently have in Canada. In general, the lowest regulatory standards currently in place aim to accomplish a maximum exposure of 0.02 V/m, equal to a power density of 0.0001 μW/cm2, which is in line with Salzburg, Austria’s indoor exposure value for GSM cell base stations. Other precautionary target levels aim for an outdoor cumulative exposure of 0.1 μW/cm2 for pulsed RF exposures where they affect the general population and an indoor exposure as low as 0.01 μW/cm2 (Sage and Carpenter 2009). In 2007, The BioInitiative Report, A rationale for a biologically based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields
(ELF and RF), also made this recommendation, based on the precautionary principle (BioInitiative Report 2007).

4. The Standing Committee on Health report (HESA 2010) on the potential health impact of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (http://www.magdahavas.com/house-ofcommons-standing-committee-on-health-2/)made the following recommendations.
I am unaware that any of these recommendations have been put in place.

1. The Government of Canada consider providing funding to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in support of long-term studies examining the potential health impacts of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation.

2. Health Canada request that the Council of Canadian Academies or another
appropriate independent institution conduct an assessment of the Canadian and
international scientific literature regarding the potential health impacts of short and long-term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which would include an examination of electromagnetic sensitivity and a comparison of public policies in other countries governing exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation; and report on its findings.

3. Health Canada and Industry Canada develop a comprehensive risk awareness program for exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which would include Health Canada making public in an accessible and transparent way all the studies and analyses undertaken by the Department on the impact of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on human health, as well as the provision of information promoting the safe use of wireless technologies.

4. Health Canada and Industry Canada offer to provide information, including
awareness sessions on exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation.

5. Health Canada ensure that it has a process in place to receive and respond to reports of adverse reactions to electromagnetic radiation emitting devices.