This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Installation of cellular towers in Simcoe, Ontario

Petition

[personal information withheld at the petitioner’s request]

December 12, 2007

The Auditor General of Canada
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
240 Sparks St.
Ottawa, On
K1A 0G6

Attn. Petitions

Dear Auditor General,

Please accept this letter as a petition under the Auditor General Act. I am submitting this petition because a cellular tower was installed in my backyard with no notification what so ever. I am concerned about this form of radiation and am suffering from symptoms specific to this form of emission and have been diagnosed as such.

I hold the Government of Canada, as the sole custodian and dispenser of licenses for this technology, responsible for the resolution of this issue.

The Facts:

1. In the early part of 2006 an antenna mysteriously appeared on the water tower on Union St. that is nestled in a quiet residential area in Simcoe, ON.
2. Rogers was the service provider and it appears that they secured a lease from the County of Norfolk.
3. Rogers, we are told, advised the County that providing public notice was not required.
4. The County, which did not have a cellular antenna siting policy, agreed and the cellular antenna were installed on the tower.
5. The County signed an 18 year lease with the first renewal date in March 2008.
6. On reviewing the documentation we have found the following:
   • The first preferred site on Virginia Av in Simcoe was turned down for the same antenna because public consultation was required.
   • This site got approval because of plain omission, misinformation or in the worst case lying on the attestation form by Rogers. Lying is defined as conveying a false image or impression.
   • Furthermore Industry Canada is grossly complacent because it allows cell companies to self attest and install antenna without any review of the attestation. Mr. Jack Holt from Industry Canada indicated in a meeting that I had with him that "these guys know what they are doing; they install thousands of these antenna." What does that imply? Who is in charge?
   • In the attestation Rogers attested that a) the there was NO building within 15 meters. Well there are 2 residences within 14 meters. How does a professional engineer with all the technical tools at his disposal get it wrong?
   • They also stated that the antenna was not significant. In fact the water tower had a 44 W FM antenna which was used by the OPP prior to 2006. Rogers added more than 3000 W of Radio Frequency and Microwave power to the water tower and then attested that the installation was NOT SIGNIFICANT.
   • Industry Canada was asked in 2004/5, well before the installation in Simcoe, to define SIGNIFICANT installations/modifications. They did not and have yet to define significance. This has allowed Rogers and others to self "attest" and answer the significance question with a resounding NO without any fear of sanctions.
   • What is the significance of answering NO to the questions in the attestation, notwithstanding the fact that they not truthful? The answer is that it avoids a review by Environment Canada which could delay installations and could precipitate public consultation. This is something Rogers and others don't want and are soundly supported by Industry Canada. This support prompted me to ask Mr. Holt who Industry Canada represented: me a Canadian Citizen or Rogers.
   • I pointed out to Industry Canada through Mr. Holt that the Client Procedure Circulars issued by Industry Canada include sanctions for answering improperly on the attestations. The fact is that Industry Canada does very little, if anything, to audit or review the process. By answering NO to all the attested questions, Environment Canada never gets to do its review.
   • This insidious methodology allows for antenna to get installed in neighbourhoods without consultation.

What should have happened:

1. Rogers should have filled out the attestation truthfully and answered YES to the question on distance of 15 meters from a building.
2. This would have allowed Industry Canada and Environment Canada to do their assessment before the antenna was installed notwithstanding the outcome. Note: As a Professional Engineer I am required to sign numerous attestations—passports, environmental certificates of approval, pre start health and safety reviews etc. Does the Government of Canada not require me to sign these attestations truthfully? Imagine if I took it upon myself to LIE on an attestation because I assumed that the outcome was not in my favour or inconsequential. This is the situation we have here.
3. The Industry Canada FAQ document, issued to the general public, clearly states that all interested parties have an opportunity to consult if one is aware of an antenna or tower that is being erected in a neighbourhood. Please reference the document that was in force in 2005 just before the erection of this tower. Industry Canada has indicated that they want to change this FAQ and the attestation. In other words "fit the evidence to the crime". This is what the FAQ states "What should I do if I am concerned about a proposed tower in my community? Industry Canada recognizes that local community may have concerns about …………..If you have concerns about a proposed tower in your community you may wish to make your views known to your local municipal officials…………."
4. The residents in the neighbourhood of the Union Street tower in Simcoe should have had the opportunity, as stated in the FAQ, to a public consultation. We DID NOT get this opportunity.
5. Industry Canada was repeatedly asked, and this is well documented, at the National Tower Review Consultation well ahead of the Union Street tower installation in Simcoe, to define SIGNIFICANT installations and modifications. They did not and have yet to do so. They allow the cell companies to do so and then justify the installation after the fact with NO basis for a definition. In this situation the power was increased 10 fold and was defined as NOT SIGNIFICANT by Rogers.
6. Industry Canada DOES have a dispute resolution mechanism BEFORE a tower goes up but DOES NOT have a dispute resolution mechanism after installation. Even Canada Post has one!!! Hence the only recourse is the Auditor General. Jack Holt from Industry Canada has pointed me in this direction.

What has happened since:

As a result of the "fight" from the residents around this tower in Simcoe, ON, Industry Canada has now revised it Client Procedure Circular, http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/sf08777e.html, as of January 2008 stating:

• That new towers or upgrades will require consultation if installed in sensitive residential areas such as ours. The distance defined for consultation is 3 times the tower height which would have included my residence.
• That the Cell companies by default have to conduct consultation if the host County lacks a siting procedure.

My Petition:

1. Given the gross lack of public concern for due process including the host of issues surrounding the omission, misinformation or blatant lies in the attestation and Industry Canada's "cover" for Rogers I am petitioning Industry Canada to reverse this situation in Simcoe and force Rogers to go through the process of public consultation if they still desire to use the water tower. Attention Industry Canada
2. Given my health issues and diagnosis I need to know why Health Canada, who is fully aware of this situation, chooses to ignore it. There is ample evidence that there are adverse health effects from being very near cell towers. This one in particular is very, very low in height, sits adjacent to homes, an elementary school, a hospital and a nursing home. Where is the precautionary principle as espoused by Environment Canada under CEPA? Attention Heath Canada
3. Does the Government of Canada know about health studies that contradict Health Canada's assertion that "no studies exist" on the biological effects of towers that are "buried" in neighbourhoods like ours. How does Health Canada explain the following studies:
   • "Naila Study" in Germany, which is very closely scripted to the Simcoe Union Street Tower. In this study the newly developed cancer rate increased 4 fold, 10 years after the erection of a tower in Naila. The cancer rate outside the 400m radius remained unchanged.
   • A similar study in Israel?
   • The Santini et al study in France that describes significant and adverse illnesses within 300 m of a tower?
   • That RF radian illness is a recognized illness in Sweden?
   • That numerous countries have moratoriums on the installation of towers near residential areas, schools and hospitals?
   • That the last update to Health Canada information is 1999? Is it no wonder that they can say that they are "not aware"?
   • That TMOBILE buried a massive peer reviewed study done by ECOLOG an independent scientific institute? Is the AG aware that TMOBILE was the sponsor of the study?
   • That the cellular industry commissioned a study in China and then again buried it after the study determined DNA breaks? Attention Heath Canada
4. Note: There is an opportunity for the relocation of this tower in the next 4 months. The first lease renewal comes up in March 2008. Another provider has offered to co-share a tower with Rogers. This option requires the Government to act immediately to facilitate this action. The County of Norfolk, who signed the lease, has stated publicly that they will terminate the lease if Rogers agrees. What does the Industry Canada intend to do to Facilitate this? Attention Industry Canada
5. What does Environment Canada intend to do faced with a tainted attestation form by Rogers? Attention Environment Canada.

Conclusion:

We in Simcoe did not get the opportunity to use the dispute resolution mechanism available prior to the installation. Had there been consultation or had the process been followed truthfully this situation would not have existed. On the contrary we have been told that we are hypochondriacs. Given the poor performance or lack of, by the Government through Industry Canada and Health Canada, and its complacency in the erection of this particular tower I am requesting that you the Auditor General conduct an inquiry into this matter and force the removal of this tower by March 2008. My health, the health of my family and neighbours is paramount.

Sincerely

[Original signed by the petitioner]

[personal information withheld at the petitioner's request]

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Environment Canada

27 March 2008

[name and information withheld]

[name withheld]:

I am responding to your Environmental Petition No. 229, to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, regarding the effects on human health of radiation from cellular phone towers. Your petition was received in the Department on December 20, 2007.

Environment Canada has no regulations in place that cover the effects of electro magnetic field radiation on humans and their environment. This is a matter that falls under the responsibility of the provinces and territories. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the Department to take any action in this regard.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by John Baird, Minister of the Environment]

John Baird, P.C., M.P.

c.c.: The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable Tony Clement, P.C., M.P.
Mr. Ronald C. Thompson, Interim Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Health Canada

15 April 2008

[name and information withheld]

Dear [name withheld]:

This is in response to your environmental petition no. 229 of December 12, 2007, addressed to Mr. Ronald Thompson, the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD).

In your petition, you raised a number of health-related questions concerning a cell phone antenna installed on the water tower on Union Street in Simcoe, Ontario.

I am pleased to provide you with the enclosed Health Canada response to your petition. I understand that the Ministers of the Environment and of Industry will be responding separately to questions which come under the purview of their respective departments.

I appreciate your interest in this important matter, and I hope that you will find this information useful.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Tony Clement, Minister of Health and the Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Tony Clement

Enclosure

c.c. Mr. Ronald C. Thompson, Interim CESD
The Honourable John Baird, P.C., M.P., Minister of the Environment
The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., M.P., Minister of Industry

Health Canada Response to Environmental Petition no. 229
Cellular Antenna on Water Tower, Simcoe, ON.
Answers provided to Questions 2 and 3.

Q2. Given my health issues and diagnosis I need to know why Health Canada, who is fully aware of this situation, chooses to ignore it. There is ample evidence that there are adverse health effects from being very near cell towers. This one in particular is very, very low in height, sits adjacent to homes, an elementary school, a hospital and a nursing home. Where is the precautionary principle as espoused by Environment Canada under CEPA? Attention Health Canada.

A2: For the past three decades, Health Canada (HC) scientific staff have continuously monitored the scientific evidence of the biological effects of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, either as participants in standard-setting bodies and international scientific meetings, as academic or peer reviewers for publications, or as part of a continuous program of literature surveillance in support of HC’s Safety Code 6. They are aware of some studies claiming that biological effects may occur at RF energy levels below the Safety Code 6 limits. However, it is important to point out that most of the biological effects at these low levels, reported over the past 30 years, are not scientifically well established or remain unproven. It is technically impossible to ever definitely “prove” that any activity, product or item is absolutely safe. You cannot prove the absence of anything, you can only demonstrate how diligently and thoroughly you have looked and make health risk decisions based on the current scientific evidence. With RF fields, the vast majority of the scientific literature does not suggest any adverse health impacts at human exposure levels below the limits outlined in Safety Code 6.

There exists a wide range of variations in the quality of studies related to the investigation of the biological effects of RF fields. This area of research has been particularly subject to false-positive reports of adverse effects, owing to the complexity of conducting RF field bio-effects studies in the absence of appreciable heating. The majority of studies conducted prior to 1990 had little or no information related to dosimetry and did not adequately control for possible thermal effects. While research methodologies have generally improved in recent years, some research studies are still published where exposure conditions have not been thoroughly controlled.

When assessing the scientific literature related to the possible bio-effects of RF fields (or any other agent), it is important to use the weight of evidence approach to the evaluation of potential risks. This approach looks at all the scientific evidence as a whole, both the negative and positive results, whether they are related to heating of the tissue (thermal) or at exposure levels too low to cause significant tissue heating (non-thermal), and attempts to weigh them on the basis of quality of the study design and reporting. This is the same approach used by all other international, science-based risk assessment bodies such as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). It is the policy of Health Canada to develop guidelines that have a sound, scientifically defensible basis.

In regards to the precautionary principle (PP), it is recommended by the WHO and others that precautionary approaches be implemented in a non-regulatory manner with cost-benefit considerations, and not by arbitrarily adjusting existing science-based limits. This approach to the PP is especially relevant to exposures originating from cellular telephone base stations where levels are typically measured to be thousands of times below current science-based exposure standards. Health Canada encourages dialogue between stakeholders in resolving disputes about tower siting.

Q3. Does the Government of Canada know about health studies that contradict Health Canada's assertion that "no studies exist" on the biological effects of towers that are "buried" in neighbourhoods like ours.

Q3: (This response should come from outside of Health Canada)

How does Health Canada explain the following studies:

Q3a) "Naila Study" in Germany, which is very closely scripted to the Simcoe Union Street Tower. In this study the newly developed cancer rate increased 4 fold, 10 years after the erection of a tower in Naila. The cancer rate outside the 4OO m radius remained unchanged.

Q3b) A similar study in Israel?

Q3c) The Santini et al study in France that describes significant and adverse illnesses within 300 m of a tower?

A3a), b), c): The Naila and Wolf & Wolf (Israel) studies are epidemiological studies attempting to find an association between how close a person lives to a cellular base station and the incidence of cancer. Epidemiological studies cannot by themselves prove causality of an agent to a disease but can infer it if sufficiently strong associations are found. Neither of these two studies, no matter the diligence and sincerity of the authors, present strong associations despite the relatively high risk ratios quoted in the reports. They both suffer from a number of methodological shortcomings that are not obvious to the casual reader. For instance, in the Naila study there appears to be a discrepancy for the age of study subjects between exposed and control groups. Age is a well known risk factor for many cancers and should be matched as closely as possible. In the Wolf & Wolf study the extremely short time frame from exposure onset to cancer diagnosis (1-2 years) leads one to suspect the validity of the results. If one were to take these numbers at face value, the population of the exposed area would incur illnesses and possibly succumb within a decade.

The Santini study is an example of a questionnaire-type of study where participants are asked to subjectively rate health-related symptoms. This information is then collated to the distance of their residence to a cellular base station where this distance is used as an exposure index. This type of ecological study may be useful if causality has already been established. Unfortunately, this type of study is difficult to conduct in a blinded fashion, meaning the study subjects would not be aware of the cell tower in their midst and would not be aware of the controversies surrounding the technology. This was not the case with the Santini study which subsequently cannot correlate the cause of the symptoms to exposure to RF energy (as opposed to some other hazardous agent).

Q3d): That RF radian illness is a recognized illness in Sweden?

A3d): There seems to be a popular misconception that the Government of Sweden recognises Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome (EHS) as an illness attributable to RF exposure. That is not the case. While the Swedish Government recognises the non-specific symptoms of EHS, it does not recognise or acknowledge these symptoms as arising from exposure to RF fields.

Q3e): That numerous countries have moratoriums on the installation of towers near residential schools and hospitals?

A3e): Some municipalities in some countries have made suggestions not to install base stations near schools and residential areas or have suggested their own additional arbitrary limits for base stations. In those countries, adherence to nationally adopted exposure limits is mandatory, while other locally imposed recommendations are voluntary and not legally binding. The reasoning behind these more stringent recommendations is socio-political in nature and not solidly based on science. Safety Code 6 is a document based on concrete scientific evidence that encompasses all technologies operating at frequencies from 3 kHz to 300GHz. It is not specific to one particular technology or range of frequency.

Q3f): That the last update to Health Canada information is 1999? Is it no wonder that they can say that they are "not aware"?

A3f): Although Safety Code 6 last underwent a major revision in 1999, Health Canada scientists continuously monitor the worldwide peer-reviewed scientific research and to date, no new convincing scientific evidence has prompted an update of the code.

Since 1999, Health Canada’s scientific staff have also carried out independent, internally funded studies of RF fields at a range of intensity levels (both many times greater and many times lower than those specified in Safety Code 6) to investigate the plausibility of some reported non-thermal RF field bio-effects. These studies found no evidence to support the claims of such non-thermal bio-effects. The results of these studies have been published in open, peer-reviewed literature and overwhelmingly support and validate the limits adopted in Safety Code 6. Also since 1999, several members of the RF expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada, originally engaged to review the then proposed revised Code, have undertaken two additional reviews, each time looking at the scientific literature published since their previous review period. In both cases, they concluded that there was no new information published that would cause them to change their original assessment of 1998 that the exposure limits set out in Safety Code 6 provide adequate protection for the Canadian public from adverse health effects.

Q3g): That TMOBILE buried a massive peer reviewed study done by ECOLOG an independent scientific institute? Is the AG aware that TMOBILE was the sponsor of the study?

A3g): This portion of the response will need to be addressed by the Auditor General. Health Canada scientists have read the press release in regards to the Ecolog Institute in Germany, however, the study paper has not been peer reviewed as suggested by the petitioner.

Q3h): That the cellular industry commissioned a study in China and then again buried it after the study determined DNA breaks? Attention Heath Canada.

A3h): To the best of our knowledge, the Chinese Study Paper has not been peer reviewed nor published, thus it is not in a position to be addressed at this time. Please keep in mind, however, that no single study or individual can directly impact the standards setting process. It is imperative that the findings of a research group be independently replicated by other organisations before they are taken as a definitive proof.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Industry Canada

18 April 2008

[name and information withheld]

[name withheld],

I am writing to provide you with Industry Canada’s response to your Environmental Petition No. 229, dated December 12, 2007, concerning the installation of a radiocommunication antenna system on the Union Street water tower in Simcoe, Ontario. Your petition was forwarded to me by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I am pleased to respond to your specific questions, as numbered in your petition, that are within Industry Canada’s area of responsibility.

Question 1: Given the gross lack of public concern for due process including the host of issues surrounding the omission, misinformation or blatant lies in the attestation and Industry Canada’s “cover” for Rogers, I am petitioning Industry Canada to reverse this situation in Simcoe and force Rogers to go through the process of public consultation if they desire to use the water tower. Attention Industry Canada.

The “Preliminary Environmental Information and Municipal/Land-Use Consultation Attestation” is an information gathering tool used by Industry Canada in its consideration of antenna installations.  The questions listed on this form, as well as certain information provided on the licence application form, represent various information elements that assist Industry Canada officials to determine whether a proposal is excluded from environmental assessment under the Exclusion List Regulations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). My officials, independent of the information provided on the attestation, have assured me that the addition of the antennas to the Union Street water tower meets the criteria for exclusion from environmental assessment established under the Exclusion List Regulations. As such, it is considered to be a project likely to have insignificant environmental effects from the perspective of the CEAA.

Industry Canada has procedures that require proponents of certain types of antenna structures to consult with the land-use authority, and to seek concurrence prior to erecting an antenna supporting structure.  In this particular case, the antenna supporting structure, in the form of Norfolk County’s water tower, was already in place.  The County concurred with the proposal and subsequently entered into a lease agreement with Rogers Wireless for the use of the water tower as an antenna supporting structure.  The addition of the Rogers Wireless antennas, in comparison with the overall size of the water tower and the existing antennas, was determined by Norfolk County, Rogers Wireless and Industry Canada to be an insignificant additional impact on the local surroundings.  Rogers Wireless has fully complied with Industry Canada’s antenna siting procedures.

Question 4: Note:  There is an opportunity for the relocation of this tower in the next 4 months. The first lease renewal comes up in March 2008. Another provider has offered to co-share a tower with Rogers. This option requires the Government to act immediately to facilitate this action.  The County of Norfolk, who signed the lease, has stated publicly that they will terminate the lease if Rogers agrees. What does the Industry Canada intend to do to facilitate this? Attention Industry Canada.

It is the understanding of Industry Canada’s local officials that Rogers Wireless and Norfolk County have entered into a multi-year lease agreement for the use of the Union Street water tower as an antenna supporting structure. Given that Rogers Wireless has complied with Industry Canada’s requirements, it is Industry Canada’s view that there would be no legal basis for the department to intervene in this matter and compel Rogers Wireless to relocate their antenna system.

Question 5: Please note that although you identified that this question should be directed to Environment Canada for response, my officials have confirmed with that Department that the matter falls under Industry Canada’s area of responsibility. What does Environment Canada intend to do faced with a tainted attestation form by Rogers? Attention Environment Canada.

Industry Canada is the federal authority responsible for approving antenna installations and is responsible under theCEAAto carry out environmental assessments on these types of installations where required. This particular attestation form was developed by Industry Canada to collect information in order to assist with the department’s consideration of whether an installation will meet the criteria for exclusion established under the Exclusion List Regulations. My officials, independent of the information provided on the attestation, have assured me that the addition of the antennas to the Union Street water tower meets the criteria for exclusion from environmental assessment under the Exclusion List Regulations.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your petition, and trust this is helpful.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry]

The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P.

c.c.  Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development