Loading...
Menu

Cell Tower Sitting Considerations

 

Cell Tower Sitting Considerations

Why a Cell Tower should be n o ne’s ackyard

Dedicated to the thousands of people world wide standing up to the Telcos and their pressure to impose cell towers against the peoples wishes, with a big thank you to all those that contributed to the knowledge base behind the reasons provided here. From scientists with some of the most significant Universities and medical schooler in the world to those with personal experiences and concerns about the proliferation of electromagnetic radiation sources.

By Norm Ryder

[+ [email protected]+]

© 2015

About the Author

Norm received a large dose of Microwave Radiation while Surveying for the Province of BC. Thirty years later a massive Acoustic Neuroma Tumor (a benign tumour on the 8th cranial nerve) was diagnosed in the same location the dose of radiation was received. The tumor and 2 life altering operations (the second in 2010) inspired Norm to begin an exhaustive search into the causes of Acoustic Neuromas. Fortunately the scientific awareness of the cause was beginning to formally recognise the association between the tumors and microwave radiation. In 2011 the International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC) formally reecognised the association when they declared Radio Frequency Energy (microwaves) a Group 2 B Carcinogen for a number of reasons – on of the biggest being its association with Acoustic Neuromas.

The more Norm studied the effects of microwave radiation in association with a claim he started with WorksafeBC, the more it be came clear microwave radiation what ever the source was a serious danger to the health of the planet. This book is a compilation of much of the knowledge he acquired related to the harm of the Radiation is causing to people, flora and fauna, and specifically why one does not want a cell tower in anyone’s backyard, including nature’s backyard.

Table of Contents

Forward 7

Cell Tower Sitting Considerations
Why a Cell Tower should be In No One’s Backyard 9

Introduction 9

Zoning considerations 12

Rezoning 12

Property Values/Tax Assessment 13

Insurance/Liability 15

Lloyds of London 15

Re-insurers 15

Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd 15

Potential impact on the insurance industry 16

Provincial Public Health (lack of) direction 18

Mis information/incomplete information 19

Vienna Medical Association calls for cell phone free zones in public spaces 20

Worksafe BC 22

Worksafe BC regulations state: 22

A Multi-discipline discussion 23

The Science 25

What is the Microwave Radiation 26

Microwave Radiation and its many parameters 26

Of increasing awareness and concern 26

Digital Radiation Or Analog 26

Intensity or Power Density 27

Energy – Wave or Particle? 28

Pivotal to understanding radio frequency energy is recognising the duality of how energy operates. Dr. Max Planck first recognized the duality of the energy currently discussed in the Wave -Particle Duality Theory, the (BCCancer agency prefers to avoid telling someone the frequency of the radiation used in their therapy but instead prefer defining it in terms that are more consistent with photon theory), Yes a very complex science and one that it is doubtful anyone can truly discuss both the physics and medical aspects with any expert authority. 28

Cumulative Radiation 28

Wi-Max 30

TETRA 30

Non-Ionizing Radiation Too Little Energy 30

Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) 32

Side Lobes 33

Modulation and Channels 33

Modulation 33

Table 1 Analog Modulation 33

Table 2 Digital Modulation 33

Table 3 Spread Spectrum 34

Channels 34

Near Field/Intermediate/Far Field Radiation 35

Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) 36

Safety Code 6 37

Safe Radiation Limit 38

Cellular Frequencies 38

Seletun Scientific Panel 39

Standards – Canadian and International 39

International Scientists and resolutions 41

PlanetWorks (North Vancouver Company)Cautionary cautionary note 41

Warning from the Bioinitiative report 43

Bioinitiative Report 44

WHO/IARC“Radio Frequency is a Group 2B Carcinogen” 45

Governments Around the World 46

United States 48

India 48

Switzerland 48

Canada 49

Interior Health Authority – BC 49

US Embassy in Moscow 1953-1977 50

Biological Effects and Physiologically Noticed Effects 52

Radio Frequency Directed Energy weapon (DEW) 55

“the effects of Electromagnetic Radiation weapons on human beings are in fact both chilling and dramatic ” 55

US Patent No. 7,629,918 B2 Multifunctional (Radio Frequency Directed Energy System) 55

“Background of the invention 55

A New Cold War? 55

Health and the Natural Environment 56

Bees Pollinators and the Natural Environment 56

Documents associating EMF/EMR with harm to bees and other pollinators 57

Increased Mortality Rate. 57

Municipal Powers and Authority 58

Fundamental powers 58

Nuisances 58

Other Municipalities 58

Long term implications 59

Studies reporting biological effects 59

Table Source Non-thermal Biological Effects of Microwaves Igor Belyaev 61

Microwave radiation on planes and how it affects people/potatoes 63

Sack of potatoes stand in for passengers as Boeing engineers work to improve onboard wireless 63

Human Health Concerns 64

Health Effects Associated with Electromagnetic Radiation 64

Hospitals and other Health Care Facilities 65

My Personal Experience with Hospitals and Cell Towers 66

Increased Mortality Rate. 68

Arrhythmia, heart palpitations, heart flutter, or rapid heartbeat 68

Addictions 68

Autism 69

Epilepsy 70

Learning Challenges 70

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) 71

Living with EHS has been compared to living in a prison by some 72

Cumulative Effects and Accumulated Effects. 73

Cumulative Effects 73

Accumulative Effects 73

Required Warning signs 74

Ten Questions to ask a Cell Tower Proponent 75

Summary 76

Human Health Rights Declaration 79

Fundamental Human Health Rights 79

Appendix 1 80

Appendix 2 81

Scientist not in the BioInitiative Report 2007 cited elsewhere in this report 81

Videos of Note 81

Appendix 3 82

 

[][] Forward

While speaking about safety concerns related to wireless technology .

[_“ _]

Frank Clegg, former president of Microsoft Canada ^^1^^

[_The video documentary “Full Signal” includes a number of interviews with internationally recognised published scientist experts on the topic of Electro Magnetic Radiation“Full Signal” may be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZSczgtK9o _]

Radiation from microwave towers has been implicated in forest die-off, reproductive failure and population decline in many species of birds, ill health and birth deformities in farm animals, and the worldwide decline of amphibians. 2

January 2013 the Bioinitiative Working Group released an update to their 2007 Bioinitiative report. The report recognises the reasons for concern regarding all forms of EMF is even more serious than they originally thought They recommend reducing the allowable limits of pulsed forms of EMF radiation to 0.3 nanowatts/cm2 (0.0003 µW/cm2 or 300 picowatts/cm2 – Canada’s Safety Code 6 (2009)^3^ has a lower limit of 1,000,000 nanowatts/cm2 or 1,000,000,000 picowatts/cm2 4

Bellens, head of Belgacom (Belgium operator) does not like the Wi-Fi waves and says that GSM is “dangerous”! – 07/12/2012^5^

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), meeting in Kyiv at Standing Committee level, today called on European governments to “take all reasonable measures” to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, “and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours”.^6^

Over 100 physicians and scientists at Harvard and Boston University Schools of Public Health have called cellular towers a radiation hazard. And, 33 delegate physicians from 7 countries have declared cell phone towers a “public health emergency”.^7^

The associated issues with any wireless use are complex if one wishes to delve into the depths of the subject, one quickly is immersed into complex and unfamiliar considerations such as: how do quantum mechanics affect DNA replication?

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “Where data are scarce, the absence of evidence of harm should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence that no harm exists^^8^^

{color:#00F;}Bulletin of the World Health Organization

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “^^9^^^^10^^The most common aperture antennas employ a parabolic reflector.

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. NTRIA TM 90-145February 01, 1990N^^11^^

[][] Cell Tower Sitting Considerations[
**]Why a Cell Tower should be In No One’s Backyard

[][] Introduction

It has been known for decades that microwave radiation is harmful to humans, the science to support these concerns has been well established.^^12^^ The effects of radiation on cells was noted in papers written by Arsene d’ Arsonval by 1893^^13^^

Harold J. CooK, Nicholas H.:Stenjck etal, in “Early Research on the Biological Effects of Microwave Radiation” noted General Electrics Research Division brought experts in from the Department of Physiology of Albany Medical College in 1928 to instigate the headaches and other unpleasant symptoms experienced by technical personnel working· with new high-power, short-wave.

In 1990 the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the US. In a document stated

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “Aperture antennas have been known to be a potential source of harmful radiation to humans for at least 30 years because of their ability to strongly focus RF power. Most operate in the VHF SHF (>200 MHz) range where the human body is at quasi-resonance with this class of non-ionizing radiation The most common aperture antennas employ a parabolic reflector.”

In 2013 Gómez-Perretta et al. In their paper “Subjective symptoms related to GSM radiation from mobile phone base stations: a crosssectional study. published in the British Medical Journal noted:

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “A review of this topic in 2010 found that 8 of the 10 studies evaluated through PubMed had reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances <500 m from BS. (aseS

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting health.” bold emphasis a

When formal scientific review studies are noting cancer clusters in zones of people regularly exposed to cell phone radiation with in 500 meters of a cell tower^^19^^ . The minimum separation from residences, place of employment, schools etc must be 500 metres or greater. The only discussion is how much greater the separation needs to be protect against all negative health effects caused by cell tower radiation, are people and the flora and fauna adequately protected from the harmful effects. Antennas with greater output power and those with high antenna gains could extend the outer perimeter of the unsafe zone a considerable distance.

A 2010 study in Selbitz, Germany reported a “significant dose response relationship” in a wide variety of symptoms associated with Electromagnetic Poisoning or Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) symptoms.^^20^^ Numerous other studies from around the world have shown a dose response pattern dependent on factors such as signal strength or distance from the Cell Tower.

Gómez-Perretta et al concluded fatigue, irritability, lack of appetite, sleep troubles, depression and lack of concentration were especially related with exposure from the Cell Towers in their study area.

The British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) and the National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health (NCCEH) published the Radiofrequency Toolkit for Environmental Health Practitioners^21^ in 2013. Their introduction states:

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “The Radiofrequency Toolkit was developed in response to requests from BC’s medical and environmental health officers to the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) for assistance in assessing and communicating the risk to health of the many devices and applications which emit radiofrequency (RF) waves.”

The subject of Radio frequency and it’s health effects is one few of us know and understand. The RF Toolkit is far from comprehensive in scope in the study of health effects in humans; it does note in the order of 100 negative health effects in areas as diverse as male reproductive issues (for some unexplained reason they did not look at female reproductive issues), neurophysiology and cognitive performance, heart and some cancers and other health issues. Sections 2 to 5 inclusive are a good “primer course” in the electrical engineering aspects of the subject. Sections 6 to 12 are primarily devoted to health issues, the remainder focuses on options to improve the electromagnetic environment.

The toolkit does not delve into the many other issues related to flora and fauna associated with Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR); a report fully encompassing all the related aspects would necessarily be a large one and would require a review of in the order of 25,000 scientific papers. The RF Toolkit should be a mandatory read for any politician or bureaucrat as well as the general public dealing with any issues related to Electromagnetic Radiation in the Environment.

There are many parts to the whole discussion, each part with its own almost overwhelming complexities. The synergistic effect of the combined parts is a staggering complex discussion. One also needs to consider radiation in terms of particles or photons and not just waves of energy as was originally suggested by Max Planck, and later Albert Einstein in the Wave Particle Duality Theory. Yes, it does branch into Quantum Mechanics, a study few of us understand, a study very relevant to understanding radiation.

The Town of Olvera, Spain, became the first town to opt to become “Electromagnetic Pollution-Free”^^22^^ the City Council approved the decision unanimously. Other towns, especially in Europe where the concentration of EMR is higher than in Canada have discussed and are making moves in the direction of becoming “Electromagnetic Pollution-Free”, before we are drowned in electromagnetic smog would it not be prudent to be ahead of the curve and restrict the number of EMR emitting sites?

The mechanisms responsible for radiations low-intensity bioeffects are not known, nonuniform energy absorption within the mammals may cause microwave-specific thermal gradients and heating rates that depend upon the wavelength and polarization of the field, the orientation, size, shape, and composition of the absorbing body. ^^23^^ Electromagnetic Field Activation of Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels is a recent theory that has been advanced and appears to hold many answers.24

The same as a child playing with-es or fire, society has no idea of the inferno they are about to release or may have already released. The devastating effect of radiation in the long term may be worse than the worst predictions of climate change, the radiation may be one of the factors contributing to climate change. An important video to watch is “Resonancehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p42Oj8hV6L0 Before another word is read the 1 /1/2 hours spent watching this video will be well spent.

Dr. Johansson ^^25^^ provided the link to the video. Dr. Johansson has been studying the effects of non-ionizing radiation – microwave in particular on the human body for approximately 40 years, Dr. Johansson has suffered pressure from industry to discredit him. Despite the pressure he freely gives of his time and energy to communicate the reason why microwave energy is dangerous. In 2012 he sent a letter to a local school board wifi committee, He has sent letters to the BC Provincial Medical Health Officer pleading with him to show leadership and take a stand with the scientific evidence and recognise microwave radiation is harmful. In May of 2015 a large number of International Scientists Appealed to U.N. to Protect Humans and Wildlife from Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology ^^26^^

A few brave Telecom Industry leaders have taken public positions on EMR in the environment

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “Mr. Helge Tiainen, former head of the Nokia Consumer Electronics in Sweden once said that “The results of Olle Johansson’s research could very well deeply shake the world’s electronics industry, but mankind still has to know!”

When the statement of Mr. Tianen is considered alongside the one from Frank Clegg, the former president of Microsoft Canada “^28^ one should have serious concerns. What do these 2 men know about radiation that the public does not know?

When society puts the wealth of an individual ahead of the health of the people, flora and fauna , even the planet itself, something is seriously wrong. I know which of health and wealth is more important. An incident with microwave radiation many years ago and I now have neither. I know which is the most important. Without health as people of the planet, we can not have wealth.

The federal government in Canada along with their counterparts in countries such as the U. S. And Britain have been as deficient in providing leadership. Our Chief Provincial Health Officer, the senior levels of government have provided no leadership in this matter, preferring the head in the sand approach.

Municipal governments are jointly charged along with senior levels of government with public health. With the lack of leadership from the senior levels, the municipalities, local land use authorities and the public need to step up and take active measures to protect the public’s health. A decision on the rezoning or continuation of an EMR related contract or use should be tabled until the local land use authorities and the public have an opportunity to fully appreciate the words of the former president of Microsoft Canada “We have a responsibility as adults, as parents, as legislators to inform people so they can make intelligent decisions,” The intent of these words are echoed in the advise PlanetWorks (a consulting firm in North Vancouver) has provided to landlords, property owners etc.

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “The biggest challenge with the calculated approach is the collection of accurate data. In sites shared with other RF operators, a list is developed of all other tenants and their antenna systems, output powers and frequencies. And even with this listing of information, there always concern over accuracy as operators tend not to keep their as-built data current with their licensed data. For the many unlicensed systems prevalent at shared radio sites, data collection is exceedingly difficult as it involves contacting each unlicensed operator and asking for the information.

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. So who tracks and asks for the certifications?

{color:#000;} Industry Canada requires new operators to ensure their sites meet SC6 as part of the initial licensing process. Beyond this stage, all safety code 6 reporting testing is honour based. The managers of the roof tops landlords, property managers, strata owners etc, collectively referred as roof top managers -are ultimately responsible to ensure that the roof top is safe for all those accessing it. Fall arrest procedures and equipment are common place. The same argument can be made for RF safety. And just like designing roof tops and specifying roof top access to minimize fall hazards, roof top managers can request that their RF tenants design RF installations as safe for the general public. Property managers, strata owners, concerned citizens, all roof top managers, can all request their roof top to be tested to SC6. In fact, we recommend to roof top managers that every time one of their RF tenants on the roof top requests a change to their antenna arrays, that the tenant produce a SC6 certificate for the site upon completion. Also during the contract renewal process, we recommend that the roof top manager require from the renewing tenant, a SC6 certificate for the site. Ultimately we would like to see the SC6 certificate posted at the entrance to each site in the same manner as fall arrest procedures certifications are today. ^^29^^

All tower application should be a matter for a all area land use authorities to discuss. Ideally a public meeting for all the residents of the greater land use area should be held to inform people so they can make intelligent and informed decisions.

 

[][] Zoning considerations

A rezoning for a Cell Tower is bigger than the usual land use/community plan or even the aesthetic appeal of the structure considerations. Matters that the traditional zoning and land use mechanisms have evolved to work with. The unseen effect of the operation of the tower is an important consideration. A discussion not unlike trying to understand the effects of smoke and second hand smoke without the benefit of smell or being able to observe a visual haze. The direct visual effect of the tower is relatively easy to contend with. In some communities the towers are constructed to appear as palm trees. A 50 meter palm trees here would be be a source of derision but other places have used pine trees as a model, in Coastal BC a 50 meter Douglas Fir would not appear seriously out of place.

Before proceeding to a rezoning hearing, would it not be appropriate to suggest to the applicant they should submit a plan to minimise the negative impact of the visual appearance and the negative impact on surrounding property values? There are no other similar towers in the area, a 50 meter tower would stick out like a sore thumb and have a negative impact on the property values in the greater surrounding area. Other areas have used other variation such as a replica of a church steeple.

Pine Tree Antenna

Palm Tree Antenna

[][] Rezoning

Cell Tower rezoning applications are vastly different than a typical rezoning application. The effects of the rezoning will be felt through out the district. Far more than other postage stamp size or spot zoning applications

A infill rezoning can at time be contentious and complex to deal with, even at its most contentious and complex it is minor when compared to this application.

table<>. <>. |<>.
p={color:#000;}.  

|<>. p={color:#000;}. Infill Rezoning |<>. p={color:#FFF;}. Application | <>. |<>. p={color:#FFF;}. 1. |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. Municipality still retains control over development of the land, |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. Control of the development will be ceded to Industry Canada | <>. |<>. p={color:#FFF;}. 2. |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. Visual effect limited to approximately the block |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. Visual effect will be noticeable for kilometers. | <>. |<>. p={color:#FFF;}. 3. |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. No unseen hidden but harmful emissions |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. Radiation has been shown to have negative health effects for kilometers surrounding towers. | <>. |<>. p={color:#FFF;}. 4. |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. Has minimal affect on Flora and fauna |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. Known to destroy bee and other pollinator colonies, negative effects on other flora and fauna | <>. |<>. p={color:#FFF;}. 5. |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. May possibly increase local property values |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. Reduced property values in the adjoining neighbourhood as much as 21% | <>. |<>. p={color:#FFF;}. 6. |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. Increase in the total Municipal Assessments |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. Decrease in total Municipal Assessments | <>. |<>. p={color:#FFF;}. 7. |<>. p<{color:#FFF;}. “Another taxpayer” lightens the load for the rest and reduces the mill rate. |<>. p={color:#FFF;}. Shifts increases of the mill rate loading onto the rest of the Municipality. |

No positives and a large number of negatives for the rest of the taxpayers in the municipality. The increased health cost, need for greater psychological services, more policing costs, and negative effect on the learning ability of children in particular are all costs that the radiation from the tower will contribute to increasing.

[][] Property Values/Tax Assessment

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “In suburbs where there is a CPBS [cell phone base station] constructed, it will be possible to observe that discounts are made to the selling price of homes located near these structures.”

{color:#000;}Industry Canada (August 30,2012)^^30^^31^^

Not particularly surprising the property values in the surrounding area may be reduced when the impact of the tower is felt by many people in the area..

Other have found that property values and by extension tax assessments have gone down in areas near a cell tower “You can see a buyer’s dismay over the sight of a cell tower near a home just by their expression, even if they don’t say anything.”^^32^^ Even if the cell transmitter can not be seen from the property it can still have a detrimental effect on a prospective purchasers comfort level with the property.

According to Andrew J. Campanelli, “If your home is near a cell antenna, the value of your property is going down at least 4 percent. Depending on the size of the tower and the proximity, it is going down 10 percent.” ^^33^^ The property values may be lowered in an area as much as 2 km away from the tower.

A study in 2007 reported negative impacts on housing prices by as much as 21% in some Florida suburbs. ^^34^^ The same study also noted that in general the closer to the cell tower the greater the decrease in property values. A difference typically averaging 15%. Interesting to compare the 21% loss in property values with the large amount of press regarding the reduction in local property values in the order of 3% according to the BC Assessment Authority.

Overall a cell tower may not change the amount of property tax raised in the municipality but, it will shift the burden of taxation to other areas of the municipality that do not have a tower. Is it just a coincidence that the more affluent areas with higher property values in Greater Victoria such as Oak Bay have virtually no cell transmitters – the same can not be said for lower economic areas of Greater Victoria. Will the concentration of Cell Towers in this area of the municipality have the effect of GHETTOIZING the local area?

Other headlines referring to the negative impact on surrounding property values include “Appraiser: Cell Tower Will Affect Property Values”^^35^^, “Hundreds oppose planned cell tower” ^^36^^

A cell tower does little to diminish the land owner’s property value, will the property value continue to not be lessened when the full impact of the insurance liability hits as the insurance companies fear? Knowingly favouring the economic well being of one individual in the municipality at the expense of his neighbours is not acceptable. Will the municipality be required to compensate the neighbours whose property values and major investment decreases?Consequences of Rezoning

The longterm implications of any rezoning are different than those the municipality typically faces.

In effect the rezoning will turn the authority for the land over to Industry Canada. Currently the application is for one specific tower. In the future the applicant could erect as many towers installed with as many antennas as he can as long as interference from the new transmitters does not override the existing transmitters. The municipality will have no say if Industry Canada choses to consider municipal land uses concerns as minor incidentals to the matter.

The proposed area to be included in the new zoning is nearly 1 hectare. Often one can find a number of towers constructed in an area of less than 1 hectare. Once the rezoning is done the municipality would lose all input on the number of towers that could be constructed on the site. The height could be modified or adjusted at the whim of the applicants and Industry Canada. Even areas of inspection normally considered within the realm of the municipality such as building inspection will no longer be within the District’s purview. Is turning over a portion of the municipality to another jurisdiction consistent with the intent of the OCP, consistent with the standards values and expectations of the residents of municipality?

Yes, it is less than a hectare this time but, it does not take many little zones before the ambiance of the municipality is forever changed. An ambiance that many have invested both their accumulated financial resources and their lives as well. Will it benefit the landowner? Who will benefit from the application when the land changes hands if the land goes into foreclosure? The bank? Will the applicant even have control of the property by the time the rezoning is complete? Will the prime beneficiary of the rezoning by the fiscal bottom line of the bank that holds the mortgage?

[][] Insurance/Liability

[][] Lloyds of London

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “In April of 1999, The London Observer reported that a leading Lloyds of London underwriter decided against insuring cell phone manufacturers due to the “concern about the safety of mobile phones … [and] the risk of damage to users’ health… [and] fears that mobile phones will be linked to illnesses such as cancer and Alzheimer’s (Ryle, The London Observer 1999”^^37^^

Lloyd’s emerging risks team report compares Cell Phone Technology to asbestos, the concluding lines in the “Electro-magnetic fields from mobile phones: recent developments” report warns of concerns regarding negligence:

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “The issue of asbestos and its implications is widely known throughout the insurance industry, and many comparisons can be drawn withEMF– the initial impression that it was a ‘wonder product’ coupled with potential very long-term serious health issues not understood at the start of its use. Like asbestos anyEMFlitigation will probably be long and complex.

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. …………………….

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. It will also be instructive to review the outcome of Murray v Motorola, as this case could prove a turning point inEMFlitigation if it is found that manufacturers have suppressed evidence of harmful effects ofEMFand are guilty of negligence. ”

In October 2007 the Canadian Underwriters magazine reported “Lloyd’s of London is preparing for the next big liability action for personal injury damages based on the use of cell phone technology.”^^39^^

The above reports were before the WHO/IARC classified radio frequency as a Group 2b Carcinogen in 2011.

[][] Re-insurers

Re-insurers are attaching exclusions to their policies specifically excluding Electro-Magnetic Radiation:

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “This insurance does not apply to:

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. (1) “Bodily Injury,” “property damage,” or “personal and advertising injury” arising out of, resulting from, caused by or contributed to byElectromagnetic Radiation,provided that such injury or damage results from or is contributed to by the pathological properties ofElectromagnetic Radiation;or

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. (2) The costs of abatement or mitigation ofElectromagnetic Radiationor exposure toElectromagnetic Radiation

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. This exclusion also includes:

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. (a) Any supervision, instructions, recommendations, warnings or advice given or which should have been given in connection with the above; and

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. (b) Any obligation to share damages with or repay someone else who must pay “damages” because of such injury or damage.

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “Damages” means compensation, only in the form of money, for a person or entity who claims to have suffered a

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “bodily injury” or “personal and advertising injury,” or who claims to have sustained “property damage.”^^40^^

[][] Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd

In 2013 Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd released their Re SONAR Emerging risk insights ^^41^^predict the negative impacts of Electromagnetic Radiation will have a HIGH impact within >10 years on the insurance industry. The also predict a potential for a Medium impact within 3 years from Cyber attacks on critical infrastructure. The Cell tower/cell phone network is part of our current critical infrastructure system and one can assume would be a very tempting target during periods of crisis.

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “Unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields

{color:#000;}The ubiquity of electromagnetic fields (EMF) raises concerns about potential implications for human health, in particular with regard to the use of mobile phones, power lines or antennas for broadcasting. Over the last decade, the spread of wireless devices has accelerated enormously. The convergence of mobile phones with computer technology has led to the proliferation of new and emerging technologies. This development has increased exposure to electromagnetic fields, the health impacts of which remain unknown.

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. Anxiety over the potential risks related toEMFhas risen. Studies are difficult to conduct, since time trend studies are inconsistent due to the still rather recent proliferation of wireless technology. The WHO has classified extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as radiation emitted by cell phones, as potentially carcinogenic to humans (Class 2B carcinogen). Furthermore, a recent ruling by an Italian court suggested a link between mobile phone radiation and human health impairment. Overall, however, scientific studies are still inconclusive regarding possible adverse health effects ofEMF

[][] Potential impact on the insurance industry

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “If a direct link betweenEMRand human health problems were established, it would open doors for new claims and could ultimately lead to large losses under product liability covers. Liability rates would likely rise.”

Insurance companies in Europe are also backing away from insuring against microwave radiation damage. ^^43^^

A court ruling in Italy in the Fall of 2012 could be treated as an update to the liability issue. An Italian Supreme court upheld a ruling that a business man’s use of a cell phone caused his brain tumour ^^44^^, Normally a ruling of a supreme court has little effect on another country’s laws, in this case the global authorities and courts have noticed.. While the court ruling is interesting in its own right, it is the reaction of the Global Insurance Industry that is more interesting. The Industry “Journal Claims Journal” (US Based) published an article discussing the Italian Court ruling and the global insurance implications they stated:

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “With respect to RF radiation risk,third-partyworkers performing their jobs on numerous properties withwireless transmission antennas are in a position to suenot just the wireless service providers for bodily injury liability damages, but also theproperty owners and any others that facilitated the placement of those antennas without hazard notification

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. …….The wireless eco-system includes service providers, and all those property owners hosting antenna sites,including government entities

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. The Italian court ruling could open the floodgates on RF radiation claims. “^^45^^

No, the article is not a legal opinion but, is certainly an expression of concern on the part of the industry. Is the municipality in a position to withstand the liability if the worst case scenarios of the insurance industry are the future reality.?

In another article titled “EMF Radiation Poses Significant Emerging Risk for Insurers” in 2010:

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “In the late 1990s, some U.S. insurers became concerned about emerging EMFEMF

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. Cell Phones/Towers Are Proliferating and Pose Danger to Health” (original source bold emphasis)

The National Law Review published an article “Insurance for 50 Years? Check Cell Tower Leases” ^^47^^ cautioning one on the need to have insurance with a competent insurer for the life of the tower contract. The trend is for allowable exposure standards to be more protective of public health. Is the local land use authority confident a future authority or municipal residents will not become liable for health issues that may arise in the future? Many of the health ailments have long latency periods, a decision today may come back and “bite” future generations. The insurance companies are starting to express concerns about the pool of claimants around the corner. The number may be staggering, their concerns extend to the “ wireless eco-system” which they define as “The wireless eco-system encompasses all FCC licensees (federal, state, local and commercial), site owners, property managers, contractors, third-party workers, the utility industry, hospitals, schools and universities, church organizations, banks/financial institutions, and the insurance industry. It involves every person or entity that may be physically or financially harmed by RF radiation.” ^^48^^ (Substitute Industry Canada and province in place of FCC and State in the preceding quote for Canada.)

Law firms are issuing “Litigation Alerts” warning about the potential for lawsuits in the future ^^49^^. Maybe just a law firm trolling for class actions but, it is an expression of the direction thoughts are going. The warning is a representation of a growing awareness of the potential for serious issues. Even private citizens are beginning to file radio frequency related lawsuits^^50^^.

The Provincial and Federal Governments are not just oblivious to the issues, they also appear to be in a state of denial and refusal to even acknowledge the body of evidence supporting the drive towards more stringent standards orders of magnitude ahead of Canada’s standards. In the vacuum of leadership from the top will the municipality step forward and protect the residents of the municipality? The municipality has the option of enhancing provincial and federal regulations and standards. Is this an appropriate time for the municipality to step forward and have enhanced regulations to protect the people, the flora and fauna, to stand for the protection of our food producing capacity?

One of the immediate issues of concern is the impact on driver safety and the probability of “epileptic induced motor vehicle accidents”. A near by Highway may have a large volume of traffic traveling at a relatively high speed. Can the municipality withstand the adverse implications of being associated in any way with supporting the installation of a device which can be implicated in causing increased accidents and fatalities on the highway?

In the summer of 2012 Taiwan order the removal of 1500 towers citing the need for assurances the radiation emitted by the towers was safe ^^51^^

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “Lobamba Lomdzala Member of Parliament, Marwick Khumalo, advised that it would be wise to stop the installation of all cell masts with immediate effect, then conduct relevant research that would determine whether or not the project could continue.”

[][] Provincial Public Health (lack of) direction

To date there has been very little effort on the part of the Provincial Medical Health Officer to provide direction in this matter. Most Canadian Health Authorities do not recognise there is a strong probability that biological harm can occur at levels less than the levels recognised in Canada’s Safety Code 6. When pushed for proof to support his lack of concern he refers people to the BC Center for Disease Control (BCCDC).

The BCCDC does have a study, the “RF Toolkit”^^52^^. The introduction to the RF Tookit instructions to the BCCDC staff by the BCCDC radiation specialist Dr. Abderrachid Zitouni state: the report is written for Health Officers and decision makers among others.^^53^^

Further information from BCCDC written by the Medical Director, Environmental Health BCCDC, Dr. Kosatsky to Dr. Kendall (The Chief Medical Health Officer) on August 8th 2012 (email) states he expects the full release of the report by Halloween (presumably Halloween 2012) (The report was released in the Spring of 2013) with the comment “doubt all will find it a treat”. In a letter to Dr. Kendall dated the same day Dr. Kosatsky says that their assessment of the health risks of RF has not changed, he goes on to say the report is generally compatible with the UK and Swiss Health Authorities. ^^54^^

It is difficult to determine what is meant by these statements, The difference between the UK safe exposure Standards and the Swiss standards are significant. The UK limits are similar to Canada’s Safety Code 6 at 1000 µW/cm2 and the Swiss are 4.8 µW/cm2 (less than 1/2000 of the amount allowed in Canada). One may be able to anticipate that the UK limits may be substantially lowered soon based on a recent report released by the UK Health Protection Agency 55 which recognises biological effects at significantly lower levels than their current standards recognise. The comments are also in line with a private email sent to myself by the BCCDC Radiation Specialist Rachid Zitouni

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “”My concerns are well known – I consider the Swiss standards are too lax, the Seletun Scientific Panel Recommendations are the more appropriate level at 0.017 µW/cm ^^56^^(almost 2000 times the amount needed for a cell phone connection). Dr. Zitouni goes on to say“Furthermore, we go along with The IARC/WHO statement of May 31, 2011 onEMFradiation, particularly cell phones, which stresses the need to keep the exposure of individuals as low as possible. “57

The Bioinitiative Report update 2012 provides the scientific rational/proof for even more stringent standards.

Health Canada released an updated Safety Code 6 in early 2015. “The Department is currently in the process of reviewing the code and it is anticipated that an Expert Panel report, with recommendations, will be released by the RSC (Royal Society of Canada) in early 2013.” 58

Globally the trend has been to more stringent standards. It is a strong probability that even before the tower is built the range of allowable power densities will be substantially lower than they are today. Has the municipality considered how the new standards will affect any installation and appropriate zoning?

When the Provincial Health Officer comes forward with his BCCDC supported recommendations, will it be appropriate to use the municipal prerogative and require an enhanced safety limit for within the municipality?

Professor Girish Kumar calculates that India’s standards are equivalent to placing a person in a microwave oven for 19 minutes a day.59. Canadian standards would allow for much more time to roast in a microwave oven, Not a surprise that Dr. John Baltherwick has referred to Canada’s Safety Code 6 as “grossly inadequate”.60

The World Health Organisation/International Agency for Research on Cancer Issued a Press release declaring Radio Frequency to be a group 2b carcinogen61 , During a follow up news conference they specifically stated the 2 b classification included cell towers and other sources of radio frequency62.

[][] Mis information/incomplete information

Normally one would expect to be able to turn to the Regional Medical Health Officer and the Provincial Medical Health Officer for advice and direction. Unfortunately the leadership there is lacking for the most part with the exception of the Radiation Specialist at the BCCDC. The radiation specialist at the BCCDC Dr. Abderrachid Zitouni stated in a private email: [*
bq. {color:#000;}“Furthermore, we go along with The IARC/WHO statement of May 31, 2011 on EMF radiation, particularly cell phones, which stresses the need to keep the exposure of individuals as low as possible.”
*]
p<{color:#000;}. The Provincial Centre for Disease Control has published the previously mention Radiofrequency Toolkit for Environmental Health Practitioners^63^, a report that identifies a number of areas of concern with respect to non-ionizing radiation. A report the Provincial Health Officer and the Federal Health Department appear to ignore.

Our other public health officials seem to want to stay with the official line of “no reason for concern” despite studies sanctioned by them identifying many areas of concern. They prefer to suggest there are thousands of scientific papers to support the “no need for concern approach” yet when asked for these thousands of papers, produce very few if any citing assorted reasons from intellectual property rights, “too complex for the public to understand” and confidentiality as reasons to withhold the documents from the public.

In 2012 Dr. O. Johansson ^^64^^ of the Karolinski Institute in Sweden wrote Chief Medical Health Officer of British Columbia, “please provide independently funded research demonstrating such safety. ” Dr. Johansson made the request on behalf of a number of people in BC that have been stonewalled in their requests. The Chief Medical Health Officer’s response, no response.

Compare the Chief Medical Health Officer’s response of ignoring the request to the hundreds of readily available peer reviewed scientific documents showing reasons for concern. The weight of evidence supporting reasons for concerns is far more overwhelming than the imbalance of a mature bull elephant on a teeter totter trying to balance with a 2 year old child. The overwhelming weight of evidence is in favour of those expressing concern that the radiation is a danger to life.

The Chief Medical Health Officer’s no response is far short of the response from Prof. Girish Kumar Electrical Engineering Department I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai response to a question about EMR. He not only responded in a timely manner with a full and complete answer. He also provided a slide show with his comments and concerns about cell towers and asked for it to be distributed widely. When someone freely and gratuitously offers their intellectual property there is a natural tendency to trust them more than a medical Health Officer who can only offer vague assurance that there is no reason for concern about EMR and refuses to acknowledge requests for supporting information or documentation, Health Canada supports their assurances of safety with a similar lack of documentation.

The official Health Canada and Industry Canada line is: . If this line were correct then, the safety warnings about the safe way to use these products would not be in the Safety Manuals that accompany these devices, nor would Health Canada post instructions on the safe use of Cell Phones and other personal communication devices.^^65^^ The Safety and Product Information for the BlackBerry Bold 9900/9930 Smartphones states:

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “To maintain compliance with FCC, IC, MIC, and EU radio frequencyexposure guidelines when you carry the BlackBerry device on your body, use only accessories equipped with an integrated belt clip that are supplied or approved by Research In Motion. Use of accessories that are not expressly approved by RIM might violate FCC, IC, and EU radio frequency exposure guidelines and might void any warranty applicable to the BlackBerry device. If you do not use a body-worn accessory equipped with an integrated belt clip supplied or approved by RIM when you carry the BlackBerry device, keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.59 in. (15 mm) from your body when the BlackBerry device is transmitting. When using any data feature of the BlackBerry device, with or without a USB cable, hold the BlackBerry device at least 0.59 in. (15 mm) from your body. If you use a body-worn accessory not supplied by RIM when you carry the BlackBerry device, verify that the accessory does not contain metal and keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.59 in. (15 mm) from your body when the BlackBerry device is transmitting.

{color:#000;}To reduce radio frequency exposure consider these safety guidelines:^^66^^“

The manual also states:

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “The long-term characteristics or the possible physiological effects of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic fields have not been evaluated by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL).”

Cell phone radiation is no mere scientific hang-up” followed by “You talk – you die. ……… radiation is emitted by tower-based antennas, and proximity to such towers could be harmful 67“ Yes, it is a lawyer in the US looking for business but, is an indication of the direction the legal issues around cell phone and cell tower radiation are headed.

After a successful lawsuit in Italy, when will the tsunami of lawsuits in the US start, how long after will similar lawsuits become common place in Canada? How many of those in the wireless eco-system will be found to be responsible for the damages? Certainly the Cell providers and tower owners will be on the hook, how many levels of government will be defendants, will the property owner leasing transmitter tower space to the telcos be deemed one of the parts of the wireless ecosystem? Who will pay if a government, the property owner is found liable in part for damages; not the insurance companies – they are already ahead of the curve by writing exclusions for damage caused by Radio Frequencies into their policies ^^68^^. Does any landowner have the resources to satisfy claims? Will future Councils and by extension residents be required to pay any and all claims?

Among other responsibilities the Community Charter in BC charges the municipalities to be in part be responsible for public health and safety. A fundamental principal in terms of public health and safety is to err on the side of caution, or “if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.”^^69^^

There is a significant wealth of information to support those with health concerns if a radio frequency emitting tower is constructed and operated, certainly no consensus of scientific opinion that the operation of the tower will NOT be harmful in the interests of public health and safety. A rezoning application or renewal of a contract lease agreement etc. should not be allowed to proceed until the tower and its operation can be proven safe.

table<>. <>. |<>.
h3(())={color:#000;}. [][] Vienna Medical Association calls for cell phone free zones in public spaces

People need to be brought to a conscious use of mobile technology – recycling measures required

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. Vienna (OTS) – The Vienna Medical Association has called for the establishment of cell phone-free zones – similar to the smoke-free areas in public buildings. This was necessary in order both to minimize the radiation exposure and the other to bring the people to a conscious use of mobile technology, says the Head of Environmental Medicine at the Vienna Medical Chamber, PieroLercher. ………….

|

Allowing a tower to be constructed and the property owner profit from the operation while the remainder of the area has their environment degraded is not acceptable. How can diversifying a resident’s income by reducing the viability of plants and animals be considered beneficial to a local farming community, to the area residents, to the global community?

It is doubtful that any other industry has spent as much time, effort and money to suppress the evidence their product can cause serious harm as the Wireless Industry, yes, they appear to have gone to an even greater effort than even the much maligned Tobacco industry and Pharmaceutical industries. Time magazine has reported:^^70^^

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “… independent studies on cell phone radiation found dangers at more than twice the rate of industry-funded studies — though because the cell phone industry is the source of much of the funding of cell phone studies, there are far more of the latter.

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. … Time and again … industry has been able to twist science just enough to stave off the possibility of any regulation — and finds that researchers are afraid of challenging the status quo, lest they find themselves suddenly out of a job, denied the lifeblood of research money.

{color:#000;}Most of the few brave researchers who challenge the prevailing wisdom on cell phone radiation — like the electrical engineer Om Gandhi or the bioengineer Henry Lai — are senior scientists, secure in their positions and their tenure. But a young researcher just starting out is far more vulnerable to industry pressure. Science isn’t as pristine as we imagine it.”^^A^^

*Dr. Om Gandhi Bio^^B^^ Dr. Henry Lai Bio^^C^^

[][] Worksafe BC

It has been well established that radio frequencies have a biological effect – why else would they be used for diathermy (electrically induced heat); they are a biological agent. Using a rational that escapes most people the people at WorksafeBC refuse to recognise radiation as a biological agent

[][] Worksafe BC regulations state:

{color:#000;}
p<>{color:#000;}. “5.1.1 Designation as hazardous substances

{color:#000;}For the purposes of sections 5.2 and 6.33 to 6.40 and Part 30, the following biological agents are designated as hazardous substances:

{color:#000;}(a) a liquid or solid material that is contaminated with a prion, virus, bacterium, fungus or other biological agent that has a classification given by the Public Health Agency of Canada as a Risk Group 2, 3 or 4 human pathogen that causes an adverse health effect;”

Many Workers Compensation Boards around the world cling to radiation is something other than a biological agent and exclude workers in-juried by radiation from many of their safety provisions. Clinging to legal confusions rather than accepting an injuried worker is an injured worker regardless of the cause.A cell tower will create a zone that all workers and their respective employers will be in violation of WorksafeBC regulations. The radiation is not some nebulous substance, it is a photon particle should be Worksafe BC will be required to acknowledge that Electromagnetic Radiation contravenes part 5 of their regulations. An example of discussing microwave radiation in terms of photons as part of quantum physics is ”Generation of Nonclassical States of Microwave Radiation via Single Photon Detection ”^^71^^

Is it the intent of a cell tower proponent to create “no work zones” in the area?

table<>. <>. |<>.
h2<>{color:#000;}. [][] A Multi-discipline discussion

Microwave radiation is used in some very controlled situations for medicinal or biological benefits, but, in other situations the radiation only results in harm. The various military research arms would not have spent billions during the past 60 years developing the use of microwave radiation as a weapon if there was no evidence it could cause biological harm. Those that deny the evidence of biological harm exists are not unlike members of the flat earth society or climate change deniers.

|

“The mechanisms responsible for radiations low-intensity bioeffects are not known, nonuniform energy absorption within the mammals may cause microwave-specific thermal gradients and heating rates that depend upon the wavelength and polarization of the field, the orientation, size, shape, and composition of the absorbing body.”^^72^^ Recent discoveries related to Voltage Gated Calcium Cyhannnels may be part of the key to understand the effects.^^73^^ Not knowing the mechanism that causes the biological effects is not a reason to say the effect does not exist. Mankind survived for many years on the planet before we knew gravity existed, we still do not understand how it works even though we can successfully make use of it.

A key difference between Cell Phone towers or other communication device’s radiation is one has an opportunity to avoid the radiation in many of these other situations. Radiation from a cell tower spews onto all within its sphere of influence, effectively creating a zone within the local area/land use planning authority that some residents are prevented from entering by reason of their environmental sensitivity – a sensitivity the Canadian Human Rights Commission says is to be accommodated.

Radiation from any device is broken down to 3 zones. The size of these zones depends on the frequency, size of the antenna and antenna design. When radiation reaches the far field zone the radiation pattern is generally thought to follow the classic wave pattern model and reduce in intensity in accordance with the “inverse square law”. Also for nerds the impedance in free space becomes 377 ohms and and the electric field, magnetic field, and direction of wave propagation are all orthogonal (very important points for the techies and meaningless to the rest of us). In the near field and intermediate field zones the pattern is not as easy to model and can have spectacular peaks of radiation – possibly as much as 100 times or more the intensity the classic models of radiation may predict.^^74^^ ^^75^^ The intermediate zone around cell towers has been noted at a distance of 100’s of meters away from the cell tower base.

***

Visit: http://www.Shakespir.com/books/view/591084 to purchase this book to continue reading. Show the author you appreciate their work!


Cell Tower Sitting Considerations

Why a Cell Tower should be In No One's Backyard This book is for those presenting reasons to their local land use authority for why a cell tower should not be built in the area. A discussion of the adverse effect on property values, harm to the health of humans and the environment as well as the science of radiation. The discussion includes modulated, pulsed, near field, far field, polarized, pulsed and other science of radiation factors. The duality of radiation being both a wave and a particle consideration. Many of the international resolutions of the 100's of internationally known scientist and Medical Doctors expressing concerns about the growing proliferation of Electromagnetic or Microwave Radiation Includes link to hundreds of online references to peer reviewed published scientific papers.

  • ISBN: 9781310711473
  • Author: Norm Ryder
  • Published: 2015-11-07 01:40:13
  • Words: 45261
Cell Tower Sitting Considerations Cell Tower Sitting Considerations