This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Follow-up petition on the impact of cellular phone transmitters on human health

Petition

[personal information withheld at the petitioner's request]

June 27, 2008

Ms. Sheila Fraser,
The Auditor General of Canada,
Commissioner of the Environmental
and Sustainable Development,
240 Sparks Street,
Ottawa, Ontario. K1A 0G6

Attention: Petitions

Dear Auditor General:

Re: Supplemental to Petition 230

I respectfully request your help and am attaching a supplementary petition under the Auditor General Act in resolving a health matter that has forced me, my wife and three children from our 138 year old family home. We have had to live away from our home for the past 28 months and have suffered severe physical, financial and emotional harm.

The responses to my petition from the Ministries of Health and Industry were inadequate. Please forward these supplemental questions to the respective Ministries. I anxiously await their response.

Yours truly,

[Original signed by the petitioner]

Petition

The background of my personal situation is already on file in Petition 230. My family and I have been unable to live in our home since February 2006 because I began suffering from Electromagnetic Hypersenstivity due to the installation of a Rogers cell phone tower on the water tower directly behind home.

The following are questions that I would like Health Canada to answer:

1. What are the top 5 studies that Health Canada is relying on that state that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phone base stations is safe? Please include in your response the name of the study, the names of the scientists, the dates of the studies, where the studies can be found and who funded the studies.

2. What are the 5 most important studies that Health Canada has considered but rejected and why were these studies rejected? Please include in your response the name of the study, the names of the scientists, the dates of the studies, where the studies can be found and who funded the studies.

3. Health Canada’s response to question 2 of Petition 230 stated “weight of evidence approach is used when formulating the health risk assessment of RF fields.”  Of all the peer reviewed studies performed to date; please provide the number that were Industry funded, Government funded or independently funded.

4. Did Health Canada communicate in any way with the Norfolk County Health Unit regarding the installation of the Rogers Cell Phone Tower on the Union Street water tower?  If so, please provide copies of all communications.

5. How many items of correspondence (letters, emails, telephone inquiries) has Health Canada received over the past ten years regarding cell phone towers?  What was the nature of the concern (ie/health concerns) stated in the correspondence? Has the volume of inquiries received by Health Canada regarding cell phone towers increased over the past ten years? What response has Health Canada given to these concerns?

6. What is Health Canada doing to protect the health of Canadians regarding the electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phone towers in light of Environment Canada’s statement on the precautionary approach/principle?

Environment Canada states that the precautionary approach/principle “is a distinctive approach to managing threats of serious or irreversible harm where there is scientific uncertainty.” Environment Canada further states that “the precautionary approach recognizes that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone decisions where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm.”  (www.ec.gc.ca/econom/pamphlet_e.htm)

7. Studies/reports such as the Bioiniative Report state the “the scientific evidence is substantial enough to warrant preventative action for RF”.  Given the scientific evidence and the definition of the precautionary principle as defined by the Government of Canada, why is Health Canada not adopting more stringent standards such as those in some European countries for RF exposure?

8. Health Canada stated in their response to Petition 230 that Canada's "human exposure guidelines are still among the most stringent science-based human exposure limits in the world." Please provide a list of all the countries that have cell phone technology, human exposure standards and indicate their exposure limits? Please rank them from strongest to weakest.

9. Why will Health Canada not meet with me to discuss my situation?  They have held meetings with other Canadian citizens to discuss their concerns with this technology (ie/ the residents of Chelsea, Quebec).  A letter was sent to Dr. Bradley from the Honourable Diane Finley dated April 25, 2008 requesting a meeting with Dr. Bradley and myself. To date, I have not heard from Dr. Bradley.

The following are questions that I would like Industry Canada to answer:

1. Why did Industry Canada ignore a false attestation signed by a Professional Engineer on behalf of Rogers stating that there were no buildings within 15 metres of the installations and that the installation did not represent a significant modification?

Please provide Industry Canada's definition of "significant modification".

If Industry Canada was aware of the false attestation, why did they not act on it? Further, now that they are aware of the false attestation, why are they not acting on it?

If Attestation Forms can be ignored, why does the Government of Canada have them? Why does the Government of Canada establish rules and then not act on them?

It is important to note that had Industry Canada acted on the false attestation form submitted by Rogers, and initiated the environmental assessment and given public notification; this installation would not have been sited on the water tower.

2. Was the Minister of Industry made aware of the meeting held between myself, my wife, area residents and [name withheld] in November of 2007 and what took place at that meeting? 

Contrary to Norfolk Council and media interpretation, [name withheld] denied that [name withheld] claimed the cell phone tower was safe during [name withheld] report to Norfolk Council on the testing results.  Further, we requested that [name withheld] act on the false attestation where the Rogers license would be put in abeyance, that the application be refiled correctly, that public notification be given and that an environmental assessment be conducted.  [Name withheld] response was that would be a “career shortening move” for [name withheld].

[Name withheld] was to put forward a recommendation to the Minister of Industry on resolving the matter. Did the Minister of Industry receive the recommendation?  If so, please provide a copy of the recommendation.  

3. Industry Canada’s Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03 was significantly revised effective January 1, 2008 immediately following the cell dispute in Simcoe ON.  Industry Canada's response to question 2 of Petition 230 indicated that the changes were a result of a review of the antenna siting policies.  Please provide the timeline (what was done and when) from March 2003 when Professor David A. Townsend was retained to conduct a review of the antenna tower policies to January 1, 2008? 

4. Why are water towers exempt from public consultation when cell phone antenna are installed on them? Why are these installation different from any other?

The Government of Canada, through its Ministries of Health and Industry, have caused me physical, emotional and financial harm. These same Ministries deny that a problem exists in the first place yet won’t or can’t back up their claims. I need a resolution now.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Health Canada

29 October 2008

[name and information withheld]

Dear [name withheld]:

This is in response to your environmental petition no. 230-B of June 27, 2008, addressed to Mr. Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD).

In your petition you raised concerns about the health effects of the electromagnetic radiation emitted from cellular phone towers.

I am pleased to provide you with the enclosed Health Canada response to your petition. I understand the Minister of Industry will be responding separately to the questions which come under the purview of his department.

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. Scott Vaughan, CESD
The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., M.P.

Health Canada Response to
Environmental Petition No. 230-B filed by [name withheld]
under Section 22 of the Auditor General Act
Received July 14, 2008

Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted from cellular phone towers

November 11, 2008

Minister of Health and the Minister for the Federal Economic
Development Initiative for Northern Ontario

1. What are the top 5 studies that Health Canada is relying on that state that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phone base stations is safe? Please include in your response the name of the study, the names of the scientists, the dates of the studies, where the studies can be found and who funded the studies.

2. What are the 5 most important studies that Health Canada has considered but rejected and why were these studies rejected? Please include in your response the name of the study, the names of the scientists, the dates of the studies, where the studies can be found and who funded the studies.

Answer to Questions 1 & 2:

All credible peer-reviewed scientific studies are included in Health Canada’s weight-of- evidence approach for risk assessment. Each study is evaluated individually for its scientific quality, the important factors being, proper scientific design and analysis. No single study or small subset of (five) studies provide the definitive evidence for the health risk assessment. Listing the five most important studies relied upon would inaccurately reflect the nature of how the risk assessment process is undertaken at Health Canada. No studies were rejected outright. As indicated in the response to Petition No. 230, certain studies with identifiable weaknesses (e.g. insufficient sample numbers, thermal confounding etc.) receive little weight, while properly conducted studies (e.g. complete dosimetry and environmental controls etc.) receive relatively more weight. Therefore, some studies carry less weight due to technical flaws—but they are not completely ignored.

3. Health Canada's response to question 2 of Petition 230 stated "weight of evidence approach is used when formulating the hea1th risk assessment of RF fields.” Of all the peer reviewed studies performed to date; please provide the number that were industry funded, Government funded or independently funded.

All credible peer-reviewed scientific literature is included in the weight-of-evidence approach for assessing the possible health risks of electromagnetic field (EMF). Thus, both adverse and no‑effect studies are included as are those funded by industry or via other funding sources. The source of the research funding does not influence the evaluation process, only the quality and impact of the research outlined within the individual research papers are considered in the evaluation.

4. Did Health Canada communicate in any way with the Norfolk County Health Unit regarding the installation of the Rogers Cell Phone Tower on the Union Street water tower? If so, please provide copies of all communications.

5. How many items of correspondence (letters, emails, telephone inquiries) has Health Canada received over the past ten years regarding cell phone towers? What was the nature of the concern (i.e./health concerns) stated in the correspondence? Has the volume of inquiries received by Health Canada regarding cell phone towers increased over the past ten years? What response has Health Canada given to these concerns?

Response to Questions 4 & 5:

The information requested by the Petitioner could possibly include personal information, confidential third party information, advice or recommendations to the Minister, or information subject to solicitor-client privilege, all of which are protected under the Access to Information Act. For this reason, Health Canada believes that it would be more appropriate for the Petitioner to submit these requests under the Access to Information Act, in order to ensure that the Act's exemptions are properly applied.

6. What is Health Canada doing to protect the health of Canadians regarding the electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phone towers in light of Environment Canada's statement on the precautionary approach/principle?

Environment Canada states that the precautionary approach/principle "is a distinctive approach to managing threats of serious or irreversible harm where there is scientific uncertainty." Environment Canada further states that "the precautionary approach recognizes that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone decisions where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm." (www.ec.gc.ca/econom/pamph1et_e.htm)

Health Canada endorses the precautionary principle and its approach to decision making can be found at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/advice-avis/decision/index-eng.php. Adverse health effects at radiofrequency (RF) exposure levels below the limits specified in Safety Code 6 are not anticipated.

7. Studies/reports such as the Bioinitiative Report state the "the scientific evidence is substantial enough to warrant preventative action for RF". Given the scientific evidence and the definition of the precautionary principle as defined by the Government of Canada, why is Health Canada not adopting more stringent standards such as those in some European countries for RF exposure?

The opinions expressed by the authors of the Bioinitiative report are not consistent with the conclusions drawn from the broader base of scientific literature reviewed by Health Canada or a large number of other national and international standards bodies (e.g. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection [ICNIRP], Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers [IEEE] C95.1). Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 takes into account all possible biological and/or health effects of radiofrequency (RF) fields, including short-term heating effects, non-thermal effects and/or long- term effects. While some European municipalities have adopted more stringent limits, these recommendations are based upon socio-political considerations.

8. Health Canada stated in their response to Petition 230 that Canada's "human exposure guidelines are still among the most stringent science-based human exposure limits in the world." Please provide a list of all the countries that have cell phone technology, human exposure standards and indicate their exposure limits? Please rank them from strongest to weakest.

The basic restrictions outlined in Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 guideline are similar to both the IEEE C95.1 and ICNIRP guidelines, which have been adopted by most western European nations and the U.S. Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 is more restrictive in terms of compliance as it requires serious adverse reaction (SAR) evaluations to be conducted using an averaging volume of 1 g of tissue, whereas a 10 g volume is used for both IEEE C95.1 and ICNIRP guidelines. This means that possible small areas where hot-spots could occur are not missed using the Safety Code 6 approach during the dosimetric evaluation, as may be more likely to occur with the IEEE C95.1 and ICNIRP approach due to averaging of total energy over a larger tissue volume.

The information you request regarding national exposure guidelines is available on the World Health Organization (WHO) EMF project website:
http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/EMFStandards/who-0102/Worldmap5.htm.

9. Why will Health Canada not meet with me to discuss my situation? They have held meetings with other Canadian citizens to discuss their concerns with this technology (i.e./ the residents of Chelsea, Quebec). A letter was sent to Dr. Bradley from the Honourable Diane Finley dated April 25, 2008 requesting a meeting with Dr. Bradley and myself. To date, I have not heard from Dr. Bradley.

You have been contacted by Dr. Bradley but a date to discuss your concerns has not been finalized. (Answer will be updated to reflect the most recent status as close as possible to request for Minister’s sign-off.)

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Industry Canada

15 December 2008

[name and information withheld]

Dear [name withheld]:

I am writing to provide you with Industry Canada’s response to your supplemental questions in Environmental Petition No. 230-B, dated June 27, 2008, concerning the installation of a radiocommunication antenna system on the Union Street water tower in Simcoe, Ontario. On July 14, 2008, this petition was forwarded by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Industry. I am pleased to respond to your questions that fall within Industry Canada’s area of responsibility.

Question 1: Why did Industry Canada ignore a false attestation signed by a Professional Engineer on behalf of Rogers stating that there were no buildings within 15 metres of the installation and that the installation did not represent a significant modification?

The attestation to which you refer is the Preliminary Environmental Information and Municipal/Land-Use Consultation Attestation. Industry Canada officials use the information on both this attestation and the radio station licence application to determine whether a proposal is excluded from environmental assessment. I understand that your concern is that the attestation falsely indicated that there is no building within 15 metres of the installation. On review of all available information, including information gathered during a visit to the site, Industry Canada officials concluded that a building within 15 metres of the antenna system would not alter the conclusion that the installation is excluded from environmental assessment.

Regarding the installation not being a significant modification, Industry Canada believes that the addition of the antenna system to the water tower is a negligible increase to the overall physical size of the water tower. As such, Industry Canada does not consider the installation to be a significant modification.

Please provide Industry Canada’s definition of “significant modification.”

Industry Canada has used the term “significant modification” and “significant antenna structure” in Client Procedures Circular (CPC)‑2‑0-03, Issue 3, June 1995, entitled Environmental Process, Radiofrequency Fields and Land-Use Consultation, and the attestation form previously mentioned, to describe installations that are deemed to have a consequential or highly visible impact on local surroundings.

As you are aware, in January 2008, Industry Canada issued CPC-2-0-03, Issue 4, June 2007, entitled Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems.Among other amendments, the newer version of the document has replaced the term “significant” by specifying, in Section 6, specific installations excluded from consultation. The exclusion list describes more clearly installations that are generally considered to not be significant. Of note, the installation on the Simcoe water tower meets the exclusion criteria.

If Industry Canada was aware of the false attestation, why did they not act on it? Further, now that they are aware of the false attestation, why are they not acting on it?

As indicated above, Industry Canada has conducted a site visit and reviewed the particulars of the Preliminary Environmental Information and Municipal/Land-Use Consultation Attestation, and has concluded that the installation did not require an environmental assessment or a consultation and no further action is required.

If attestation forms can be ignored why does the Government of Canada have them? Why does the Government of Canada establish rules and then not act on them?

Industry Canada has reviewed all information provided by the proponent and has considered all relevant information pertaining to the installation of this facility in accordance with the department’s procedures.

Question 2: Was the Minister of Industry made aware of the meeting held between myself, my wife, area residents and [name withheld] in November of 2007 and what took place at the meeting?

On January 30, 2008, my predecessor, the Honourable Jim Prentice, responded to your letter of September 14, 2007, indicating that he was aware of a meeting conducted in your home with Industry Canada officials on November 13, 2007.

[Name withheld] was to put forward a recommendation to the Minister of Industry on resolving the matter. Did the Minister of Industry receive the recommendation? If so, please provide a copy of the recommendation.

I have considered the information submitted by Rogers Wireless, the facts surrounding the installation of this facility, and the recommendations of my officials, all of which are reflected in my predecessor’s letter of January 30, 2008. I conclude that Rogers Wireless has complied with all requirements for the establishment of an antenna system on the Union Street water tower.

Question 3: Industry Canada’s Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03 was significantly revised effective January 1, 2008, immediately following the cell dispute in Simcoe, ON. Industry Canada’s response to question 2 of Petition 230 indicated that the changes were a result of a review of the antenna siting policies. Please provide the timeline (what was done and when) from March 2003 when Professor David A. Townsend was retained to conduct a review of the antenna tower polices to January 1, 2008.

The following is a chronological order of activities leading to the release of CPC-2-0-03, Issue 4:

• On March 28, 2003, the Minister of Industry announced the appointment of the National Antenna Tower Review Committee, chaired by Dr. David A. Townsend, Professor of Law at the University of New Brunswick;
• During the month of September 2003, Canadians were invited to submit comments to the National Antenna Tower Policy Review conducted by Professor Townsend;
• Based on these comments, Professor Townsend developed 34 recommendations to improve Industry Canada’s antenna tower siting and approval processes which, along with the final report, were presented to Industry Canada in December 2004, and publicly released on February 18, 2005;
• After receiving the final report in December 2004, Industry Canada extensively reviewed the findings and recommendations, along with those from the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel (March 22, 2006) and, based on this evaluation, decided to consider additional stakeholder consultation;
• Additional consultation was undertaken with several national stakeholders, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Transport Canada, NAV Canada, the Radio Advisory Board of Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association;
• After extensive consultation, Industry Canada implemented the necessary changes and, on June 22, 2007, announced the release of CPC-2-0-03, Issue 4, entitled Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems;
• Industry Canada allowed for a six-month transition period, during which Issue 3 remained in effect, allowing industry, government and the public time to become familiar with and adapt their internal processes to the new requirements;
• Between June 22, 2007, and January 1, 2008, Industry Canada representatives met with many stakeholders, including land-use authorities, organizations, associations and major licensees to introduce the new antenna siting procedures;
• On December 14, 2007, Industry Canada released its Guide to Assist Land‑use Authorities in Developing Antenna Siting Protocols, Issue 1, intended to assist land-use authorities in ensuring effective local participation in decisions with respect to proposed antennas and their supporting structures within their communities; and
• On January 1, 2008, CPC-2-0-03, Issue 4, entitled Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, came into effect. Details on the announcements and additional information can be found at: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt‑gst.nsf/en/sf07012e.html.

Question 4: Why are water towers exempt from Public consultation when cell phone antenna are installed on them?

Industry Canada promotes the use of existing antenna supporting infrastructure, such as water towers or buildings, that meet the exemption criteria outlined in CPC-2-0-03, Section 6. Industry Canada’s requirements ensure that the concerns or suggestions of the local land-use authorities are considered in the establishment of new antenna infrastructure as part of the local community planning process. The addition of antennas on existing structures, such as the Simcoe water tower, result in low visual impact on the local surroundings given the comparatively small antenna added to the existing structure. As this type of installation results in minimal developmental impact compared with the construction of a new antenna tower within the community, Industry Canada has provided an exemption from land-use authority and public consultation to encourage the placement of antennas on existing structures. It should be noted that such installations must still comply with all other general requirements set out in the CPC, such as radiofrequency exposure compliance and aeronautical safety.

Why are these installation different from any other?

As described above, the use of an existing structure can result in an installation with minimal local impact and is generally more acceptable compared with the construction of a new antenna tower within the community. For this reason, Industry Canada promotes the use of existing antenna supporting infrastructure, such as building rooftops, water towers and existing antenna towers, ahead of establishing new towers.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your petition, and trust that this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Tony Clement, Minister of Industry]

Tony Clement

c.c. Mr. Scott Vaughan
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development