Against Bell Tower in Sutton Junction

Sutton, February 23th, 2014

Mister Daniel Brassard
Conseiller Services immobilier et Relations municipales
200, Boul. Bouchard, 5CS
Dorval, Qc, H95 5X5


Mister Daniel Brassard,


We have received your letter, dated 17 February 2014, and the "Analysis Report of Compliance” of various levels of radiation (RF) according to Safety Code 6." Following our reading, several crucial questions arise that have not been answered.


REPORT BIASED TO SERVE THE PROPONENT


If the report is to establish proof of compliance with the standards established by "Safety Code 6", the evidence used is not presented clearly and convincingly for laypersons such as ourselves. It appears from the report that it does not apply to us precisely because it ignores the public that it claims to address. Additionally, it does not answer the most fundamental question of the impact of RF on our health.


RF TRANSMISSIONS IN THE MIDDLE OF VILLAGE


The proposed site by Bell Mobility is in the middle of a populated area, closely surrounded by houses where families live permanently with children, parents and seniors. We expressed our concern to Bell Mobility to preserve the health of our families and our environment as clearly as possible. Our petition of over 100 local citizens, demonstrated that we were, and are strongly opposed to the proposal, and despite this our voices were ignored during the clandestine public consultation process.  We spoke loud and clear, prior to the deadline (the postmark authentic) and were ignored.

Although Safety Code 6 standards are actually met, it must be acknowledged that these standards were developed following experiments based on very short-term exposure. This is not at all comparable to the permanent exposure in which Bell Mobility will force upon the population of Sutton Junction.


EFFECTS ARE VASTLY TRIVIALIZED


Safety Code 6 standards were established by Health Canada in 1999 on the basis of a period of exposure to radiofrequency fields for a period of six minutes. Exposure of longer duration has not been evaluated by Health Canada. Let us compare these results with the potential effects of radiofrequency radiation on living organisms that are exposed 24 hours/day, 365 days a year, over many years. DURATION exposure is essential to consider if we are to know how RF radiation is harmful to human health, and all that is alive! The entire ecosystem is affected as RF waves travel through everything they encounter. Please refer to the recommendations of the AQLPA (Quebec Association against atmospheric pollution) in its submission on the revision of Safety Code 6 presented to the Royal Society of Canada October 28, 2013 ( 1 ) .

WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF EFFECTS ?


The "Review Committee of Safety Code 6 of the SRC" already admitted in 1999 in its report: "There is a growing body of scientific evidence indicating that exposure to RF fields, even at intensities well below to levels which may cause a rise in temperature, can affect cells and tissues' (2).


Here is a brief summary of a scientific study that has taken place in a comparable environment to our situation in Sutton Junction ( 3). Conducted over a period of 18 months, this research focused on 60 people, including children, at the time of the installation of an RF relay tower in their village. The results show that continuous exposure to microwave radiation causes the brain a significant increase in stress hormones. Levels of dopamine and phenylethylamine drop severely. These neurotransmitters control the stimulation of several areas of the brain responsible for movement, posture, mood, sleep and are absolutely necessary to cerebral acuity, concentration, memory, and libido, among other things. According to experts these effects are long lasting and potentially degenerative. Other short-term research reported severe risk of depression, cancer , heart problems, hearing, and even DNA damage . This list of adverse effects is incomplete, but enough to alert us gravely.


Finally, there are countless studies showing that RF has effects on human beings with scientifically proven indicators of harm (5) (6)


SAFETY CODE 6: HAZARDOUS REFERENCE


Industry Canada and Health Canada still rely on the antiquated Safety Code 6, 1999 to determine acceptable levels of exposure to RF. Following extensive research conducted over the past 15 years in America and Europe, it is clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt that this reference is not only outdated but dangerous.


Safety Code 6 does not take into account the duration of exposure and the proposed thresholds are far too tolerant. For example, the Austrian Medical Association (1) states that regular exposure of more than four hours per day is expected to be ≤ 1 μW/m2 within normal limits. However, the Canadian limit is 6,000,000 μW/m2, which appears rather worrying for permanent exposure to RF, day after day, year after year.


DECISION MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE


Apparently, Health Canada is unaware (or chose to ignore) what the real consequences of the continuous exposure to RF radiation. And yet, it allows companies like Bell Mobility to install microwave towers, which it has not measured the effects in the medium and long term satisfactorily. One must conclude Health Canada does not protect the health of Canadians adequately. Conversely, they promote commercial companies in locating towers, while others recognize that RF can "affect cells and tissues."


We repeat, Safety Code 6 has not provided any evidence of the absence of danger for human life during prolonged exposure. With the current level of knowledge, it is morally indefensible to use the Code 6 as a safety standard.


We are not the only community in the Eastern Townships to refuse the installation of a microwave tower within populated areas. Municipalities such as Frelighsburg, Potton and Bolton are working together and rising up against this arbitrary procedure, and the consequences of long-term RF radiation on the human body and all life forms.


IN CONCLUSION


It is paramount to preserve the health of the entire population of Sutton and especially children who are most susceptible to RF radiation.


We also wish to protect all forms of life, which are the wealth and beauty of the landscape of Sutton, and which ensure its economic vitality.

We reiterate our opposition to the proposed implementation of a tower at 1111 Valley Road, Sutton Junction. This opposition has been expressed clearly and legitimately during the consultation process.


We demand that the ‘precautionary principle’ be applied, and that any alternative location must be a minimum distance of at least 1000 meters from homes within Sutton Junction.


We ask that updated standards, revised from Safety Code 6, are applied, which take into account the latest knowledge of RF effects on health.


Yours sincerely,
c.c.


SOURCES


1) AQLPA (Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique)  Mémoire préparé dans le cadre de la consultation du Comité de révision du Code de sécurité 6 de la Société royale du Canada, 28 octobre 2013 
2) SOCIÉTÉ ROYALE DU CANADA, « Examen des risques potentiels pour la santé humaine associés aux champs de radiofréquences produits par les dispositifs de télécommunications sans fil », Rapport préparé par un groupe d'experts à la demande de la Société royale du Canada pour Santé Canada. Extraits, mars 1999, ISBN 920064-68-X
3) Dr Klaus Buchner et Horst Eger, « Changes of Clinically Important Neurotransmitters under the Influence of Modulated RF Fields - A Long-term Study under Real-life Conditions”, 2011
3) Communiqué de presse 208, IARC-OMS “Le CIRC classe les champs électromagnétiques de radiofréquences comme « peut-être cancérogène pour l’Homme »”, 31 mai 2011
5) AFSSET, "Mise à jour de l'expertise relative aux radiofréquences", Saisine no 2007/007, Rapport d'expertise collective, "Comité d'Experts Spécialisés liés à l'évaluation des risques liés aux agents physiques, aux nouvelles technologies et aux grands aménagements", Groupe de travail Radiofréquences", octobre 2009
6) Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire, alimentation, environnement, travail, Radiofréquences et santé, mise à jour de l'expertise, octobre 2013