This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Potential impact on human health of electromagnetic radiation emanating from telecommunication towers on Triangle Mountain, British Columbia

Petition

Environmental Petition submitted to the
Auditor General of Canada July 21, 2008

Request to remove transmission towers from
Triangle Mountain, Colwood, British Columbia

Environmental Petition to the Auditor General

Request that transmission towers be removed from Triangle Mountain, Colwood, British Columbia.

Sharon and Dennis Noble
818 Bexhill Place
Victoria, British Columbia
V9C 3V5
July 21, 2008

On June 25, 2008, [name and position withheld], conducted a survey of our neighbourhood. [Name withheld] discovered that the electromagnetic radiation coming from the FM towers on Triangle Mountain reached an extremely high level. How long they had been at this level we can only guess because no monitoring has been done by Industry Canada.

It is not enough to be aghast at the loose EMR standards that Canada has in relation to much of the civilized world, at the inept and, quite possibly, collusive testing that was done here in 2001 by Industry Canada that yielded a suspicious 114 microwatts per square centimeter (114uW/cm2). But when [name withheld] test at our home yielded an astounding 455 uW/cm2, it appears to us that Health Canada and Industry Canada are out of control. The cavalier attitude at these two departments about the danger they put us in as well as the rest of the residents of Triangle Mountain is positively incomprehensible.

Let me put this in perspective. The BioInitiative Report, a collection of 2000 peer-reviewed, non-wireless industry funded, world class scientific studies, recommends a precautionary limit of .01 uW/cm2. That means, right at this moment while sitting in our home, we are being exposed to EMR at levels 45,500 times higher than the Report recommends.

Are we worried? Of, course.

Do we think that the people who allowed this, who supported this, who engineered this, deserve to have their fingers rapped? It has crossed our minds. Termination of employment should be the least of their problems.

Do we think that the residents of Triangle Mountain should pay the $3,000,000 fee that the broadcasters are demanding from us in return for moving their towers to a non-residential site that their engineers have already deemed acceptable and, in some ways, superior to the current site (in letters between David Emerson, former Minister of Industry, Jody Twa, Mayor of Colwood, and Gary Paugh, Industry Canada, 2005)? If we had the money, we’d pay them off. Gladly. Any suggestions as to where we might find the money would be greatly appreciated.

QUESTIONS:

1. Do Industry Canada and Health Canada not consider it appropriate that they pay the $3,000,000 fee that the broadcasters are demanding to move their transmission towers from Triangle Mountain to a non-residential site that their engineers have already deemed acceptable and, in some ways, superior to the current site since it was Industry Canada and Health Canada that allowed the broadcasters to place their towers and transmitters in the midst of a residential area? If not, why not?

2. How many sites in Canada have more than two transmitters on them?

3. How many letters, emails, phone calls, and other communications has Industry Canada and Health Canada received each year during the last 5 years from the public concerning electromagnetic radiation, transmission towers of all sorts, and transmitters of all sorts?

4. How often have the field strengths of the transmitters been monitored over the last 5 years?

5. How many reports of breaches of emission guidelines have been reported over the last 5 years?

6. How many random tests (tests that have been conducted without warning the broadcasters in advance) have been carried out over the last 5 years?

7. How many non-random tests have been carried out over the last 5 years?

8. Given that the “modeling” approach Industry Canada allows the broadcasters to use has proven to be inaccurate on Triangle Mountain, how is Industry Canada ensuring that emission levels at other sites, especially where there are antenna farms, are within Safety Code 6 guidelines?

9. Are there consequences to broadcasters found guilty of excessive field strength? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

10. Will Industry Canada immediately undertake random (eg. with no advance notice to the broadcasters) testing of the field strength of the transmitters on Triangle Mountain?

11. Will Industry Canada immediately, during that random test, determine total exposure levels from all of the many transmitters in the area?

12. If these random tests indicate excessive exposure levels at any location, will Industry Canada force immediate removal of the offending transmitters from this residential neighbourhood?

13. On July 19, an article appeared in The Times Colonist, our Greater Victoria newspaper, which featured Mayor Twa of Colwood castigating Industry Canada and Health Canada for the high transmission levels we are subjected to. The very same day my wife and I monitored the transmission levels on Triangle Mountain and found them to be 400% lower than they had been for the previous 2 weeks. If Industry Canada should monitor the FM transmitters, how will it ensure that the broadcasters do not immediately lower their broadcasting levels for the period of the testing?

14. Industry Canada has stated (Gary Paugh, Victoria, July 8, 2008) that it would have no reason to warn the broadcasters on Triangle Mountain that Industry Canada was about to monitor them (thus allowing them to temporarily lower their transmitting power). But since it is Industry Canada’s policy to random monitor only if there is a demonstrated need to do so and the need to do so, of course, can only be shown by random monitoring, a high reading would prove that Industry Canada was quite remiss in fulfilling its responsibility and, therefore, would have good reason to warn the broadcasters. How can Industry Canada assure the public that any monitoring it does is without prior notification of the broadcasters?

15. What studies can Health Canada cite that demonstrates that time-weighted averaging of EMR is a more accurate and effective indicator of possible radiation harm than a reading of the peaks?

16. If Health Canada cannot provide conclusive proof that the time-weighted average of EMR is a more accurate and effective indicator of possible radiation harm than a reading of the peaks, please justify advocating it instead of measuring the peaks.

17. What studies can Health Canada cite that demonstrate that living in the actual shadow of cell phone and FM transmission towers is safe?

18. If Health Canada cannot provide conclusive proof that living in the actual shadow of cell phone and FM transmission towers is safe, please justify allowing residents to be put in possible jeopardy.

19. On what basis does Industry Canada contend, as it does in its policy documents, that it is not responsible for, nor will it discuss, loss of property value or impairment of health due to transmitters?

20. On what basis is Industry Canada not responsible, as it contends in its policy documents, for loss of property value or impairment of health when it is the failure of Industry Canada to adequately monitor the emission levels that contribute to that loss and impairment?

21. Will Industry Canada make available its test equipment to its citizens, at no cost, provided they have a qualified expert to use it? If the answer is no, please provide the rationale behind it.

22. If the answer to #21 is yes, will Industry Canada allow an independent source to determine whether the expert the citizens have chosen is, indeed, qualified? If the answer is no, please provide the rationale behind it.

23. If it is Industry Canada’s responsibility to police the broadcasting industry, who is it that polices the “Police“?

24. The Standards Council of Canada has a mandate “to benefit the health, safety and welfare of workers and the public…” If Health Canada is failing in its responsibility to protect the health and well being of the citizenry, can the Standards Council establish a service to provide those benefits? If no, please provide the rationale in support of this response.

25. Would the Standards Council see in Health Canada’s close ties to the industry as documented in our petition #255 an indication that its objectivity has been compromised? If not, please explain?

26. Does the Standards Council feel that because industry is so imbedded with Health Canada and only a complete change in personnel will resolve the problem, that a new oversight service would be in order? If not, please explain.

27. Would the Standards Council take into consideration standards of safety with regard to electromagnetic radiation that are in effect in other countries, and are recommended by many credible scientists, but which have been disparaged and ignored by Health Canada? If no, please provide the rationale.

28. Will the Standards Council establish a new service that eschews wireless industry influence and relies strictly on science-based, peer-reviewed studies published in accredited scientific journals which have no industry funding? If no, please provide the rationale.

29. Would the Standards Council establish a new service made up of distinguished scientists without ties, direct or indirect, to industry and who will not benefit, directly or indirectly, from the results of their decisions? If no, please explain why not.

30. Under what conditions would the Standards Council provide funding for public input to aid this new service in fulfilling its obligations?

31. How does the Standards Council provide for public participation?

32. How is the public able to access funding in order to participate in the process?

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Health Canada

28 November 2008

Ms. Sharon Noble and Mr. Dennis Noble
818 Bexhill Place
Victoria, British Columbia V9C 3V5

Dear Ms. and Mr. Noble:

This is in response to your environmental Petition No. 255-B of July 21, 2008, addressed to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

In your petition you raised concerns about the radiation emitted from the Triangle Mountain transmission 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 to the questions covered by 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 Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health]

Leona Agglukkaq

Enclosure

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

Health Canada Response to
Environmental Petition No. 255-B filed by
Ms. Sharon Noble and Mr. Dennis Noble
under Section 22 of the Auditor General Act
Received July 21, 2008

Petition to request to remove transmission towers from Triangle Mountain, Colwood, British Columbia

December 3, 2008

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

1. Do Industry Canada and Health Canada not consider it appropriate that they pay the $3,000,000 fee that the broadcasters are demanding to move their transmission towers from Triangle Mountain to a non-residential site that their engineers have already deemed acceptable and, in some ways, superior to the current site since it was Industry Canada and Health Canada that allowed the broadcasters to place their towers and transmitters in the midst of a residential area? If not, why not?

4. How often have the field strengths of the transmitters been monitored over the last 5 years?

Answers to Questions 1 and 4:

Industry Canada is responsible for siting, licensing and compliance of towers and transmitters, as well as for monitoring and conducting tests on field strengths of transmitters.

3. How many letters, emails, phone calls, and other communications has Industry Canada and Health Canada received each year during the last 5 years from the public concerning electromagnetic radiation, transmission towers of all sorts, and transmitters of all sorts?

Answer to Question 3:

Health Canada conducted a search of its records and identified approximately 5-50 pieces of correspondence received each year during the last 5 years related to these subjects. However, please note that Health Canada does not necessarily record and archive every e-mail and phone call received.

15. What studies can Health Canada cite that demonstrates that time-weighted averaging of EMR is a more accurate and effective indicator of possible radiation harm than a reading of the peaks?
16. If Health Canada cannot provide conclusive proof that the time-weighted average of EMR is a more accurate and effective indicator of possible radiation harm than a reading of the peaks, please justify advocating it instead of measuring the peaks.

Answers to Questions 15 and 16:

Safety Code 6 is intended as a safety document for the installation and use of radiofrequency (RF) and microwave devices that operate in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 kHz. The code can be found at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/99ehd-dhm237/index-eng.php.

The basic restrictions outlined in Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 guideline are similar to both the Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz (IEEE C95.1), adopted by the American National Standards Institute, and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines, adopted by most western European nations. The Guidelines can be found at the following link: http://www.icnirp.net/documents/emfgdl.pdf and http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/std_public/description/emc/C95.1-1991_desc.html. Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 however, is more restrictive in terms of compliance; it has a lower localised Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) limit and requires 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 greater accuracy with Safety Code 6.

The exposure limits for the general public, as specified in Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, were designed to take into account individuals of all ages of varying health status (which include susceptible groups or individuals such as children, pregnant women and the aged) who are unaware of potential risks. Again, when exposures remain below the safety limits recommended by science-based RF exposure standards, including Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, no adverse effects are anticipated.

Six minute time averaging in Safety Code 6 was originally intended for application to industrial use of microwave or RF energy as in the case of heat sealers and plastic welding machines. In these situations, the RF energy is used intermittently and "ON" and "OFF" times can be accurately set by the operator. In telecommunications environments, emission levels from the source are relatively constant over the span of minutes. For a variety of reasons, actual exposure levels at a distance away from the source may fluctuate, so it is up to the skill and knowledge of the surveyor to choose an appropriate averaging time for compliance measurements. In some cases, averaging times may be as short as a few seconds or where longer term fluctuations occur, up to six minutes or even longer. However, when averaged over any six-minute interval, if an exposure level (when spatially averaged) is above the limits in the code, then it is not in compliance and should be brought to the attention of the regulator.

Peak electromagnetic field exposure quantities, on the other hand, are seldom used except in the case of high-powered pulsed field sources. Such fields are not encountered in broadcasting and telecommunications facilities.

The Safety Code 6 limits for frequency modulation (FM) broadcast and microwave frequencies are based on exposure thresholds derived from short term, reversible behavioural modification in animals arising from induced thermal loads. These are the only effects consistently demonstrated from a weight of evidence review of the scientific literature. Therefore, since the effects for which the code is intended to protect against are related to the rate of deposition of radiofrequency (RF) energy, which is subsequently manifested as thermal (temperature) increases in tissues, it is appropriate that measurement averaging times are used that reflect this thermal nature.

(Note: Every measurement instrument employs some kind of time averaging even if it is not apparent to the user. Even if no overt averaging mechanism is present, an instrument’s response time constitutes a form of time averaging. For example, old-fashioned analog meters equipped with a moving needle had a response time partly determined by the mass of the needle.)

With respect to measurements of electromagnetic energy for compliance to safety standards such as Safety Code 6, usually long averaging times are specified. The reasons lie in the fact that temperatures in living endothermic (warm-blooded animal) tissues rise relatively slowly in response to an energy input. In this case the energy input in question is the absorption of electromagnetic energy but it could also be from exercise or changes in ambient temperature. If an energy input is intermittent (ON for a period of time then OFF) the tissues can absorb a greater amount of energy during the “ON” times while still maintaining a relatively low temperature rise. The averaging time specified in Safety Code 6 that is deemed appropriate in this situation is six minutes*. This does not mean that the body can only tolerate an exposure of six minutes, but rather that in any six-minute period, tissue temperatures will not rise if the exposure, when averaged, is within the limits. This allows for exposures to be above the limits for one period of time and below the limits (or zero) for another period of time provided the two periods add to six minutes and the average of the two exposure levels is within the limits.

Six minute time averaging in Safety Code 6 was originally intended for application to industrial use of microwave or RF energy as in the case of heat sealers and plastic welding machines. In these situations, the RF energy is used intermittently and "ON" and "OFF" times can be accurately set by the operator. In telecommunications environments, emission levels from the source are relatively constant over the span of minutes. For a variety of reasons, actual exposure levels at a distance away from the source may fluctuate so it is up to the skill and knowledge of the surveyor to choose an appropriate averaging time for compliance measurements. In some cases, averaging times may be as short as a few seconds or where longer term fluctuations occur, up to six minutes or even longer. However, when averaged over any six-minute interval, if an exposure level (when spatially averaged) is above the limits in the code, then it is not in compliance and should be brought to the attention of the regulator.

In addition to thermally-based exposure guidelines, studies of non-thermal bio-effects almost universally report time-averaged exposure levels as the exposure metric. This is obvious for continuous wave (CW) experiments, but, for other types of pulsed waveforms used in telecommunications such as GSM and CDMA, the time average (usually referred to as the root-mean square or RMS field quantity) is the quantity most often reported. This allows direct comparison of results across different experimental approaches and assists in confirming whether exposures could be potentially thermal in nature.

In summary, peak electromagnetic field exposure quantities are seldom used except in the case of high-powered pulsed field sources, which, in this case, is to protect against air breakdown and spark discharges. Such fields are not encountered in broadcasting and telecommunications facilities. The parameter most often used in specifying the intensity of exposure is a time-weighted average. If fluctuations in the exposure intensity are of short duration, then short averaging times are adequate. If fluctuations are in the order of minutes, then averaging over the six minutes specified in the Safety Code 6 would be appropriate. If fluctuations span hours, then the appropriate measure of exposure is the worst-case six-minute average over the time span. Of course, spatial averaging must also be carried out to fully evaluate the true exposure levels with which to compare to the guideline limits. Finally, because of the complicated and highly technical nature of the task, compliance measurements of electromagnetic field exposures should be carried out by technically qualified persons using appropriate, calibrated instrumentation.

* In studies of temperature rises in endothermic tissues from electromagnetic (EM) absorption, it has been found that temperatures rise quickly at first and then slow down, reaching an equilibrium or steady state temperature rise despite continued EM absorption. Both early experimental studies and more recent analytical ones have shown that the time to reach equilibrium is somewhere in the vicinity of 20 to 30 minutes (depending on the tissue type) and follows a well known mathematical relationship. That relationship states that the time required to reach 63% of the final steady state temperature rise is always fixed and is denoted by the term “thermal time constant”. After a second thermal time constant, 63% of the remaining temperature rise is attained or 86% of the total. For each thermal time constant, 63% of the remaining temperature rise occurs and so on. Roughly speaking, five thermal time constants are needed to reach 99% of the steady state temperature rise. Thus, four to six minutes is the typical thermal time constant for human tissues. Safety Code 6 makes use of this when specifying six minutes for averaging intermittent exposures. For more details, the following papers can be consulted.

K. R. Foster and L.S. Erdreich, “Thermal Models for Microwave Hazards and Their Role in Standards Development”, Bioelectromagnetics Suppl 4:52-63 (1999).

G.M.J. Van Leeuwen, J.J.W. Lagendijk, B.J.A.M. Van Leersum, A.P.M. Zwamborn, S.N. Hornsleth and A.N.T.J. Kotte, “Calculation of change in brain temperatures due to exposure to a mobile phone”, Phys. Med. Biol. 44:2367-2379 (1999).

ANSI C95.3-1991. American National Standard. Recommended Practice for the Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Fields—RF and Microwave.
(Recent edition published in 2002).

17. What studies can Health Canada cite that demonstrate that living in the actual shadow of cell phone and FM transmission towers is safe?
18. If Health Canada cannot provide conclusive proof that living in the actual shadow of cell phone and FM transmission towers is safe, please justify allowing residents to be put in possible jeopardy.

Answers to Questions 17 and 18:

It is technically impossible to ever prove the absolute absence of risk/harm for any agent or activity. When doing risk assessment of agents and activities for which there is no evidence of adverse effects (as is the case with low level RF fields), scientists/regulators minimize any possible risks by looking long and hard for evidence of risk/harm. In the case of RF fields, health effects research on the subject has been ongoing for over 50 years and there are thousands of published studies. There is a great weight of evidence that RF field intensities below Safety Code 6 are not harmful. This conclusion is based upon the bulk of scientific evidence from animal, in-vitro and epidemiological studies that have been carried out worldwide, including at a Health Canada laboratory.

There are thousands of research studies on the possible bio-effects of RF fields. A searchable compendium of such studies is available at the WHO EMF project website: www.who.int/peh-emf/research/database/en/index.html.

Other sources include reviews (see below for some examples). It is important to point out that all international science-based exposure standards are based on the same scientific literature and other nations and international exposure guidelines have reached a similar consensus.

Krewski D, Glickman BW, Habash RW, Habbick B, Lotz WG, Mandeville R, Prato FS, Salem T, Weaver DF. Recent advances in research on radiofrequency fields and health: 2001-2003. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 10:287-318 (2007).

Valberg PA, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH. Workgroup report: base stations and wireless networks-radiofrequency (RF) exposures and health consequences. Environ Health Perspect. 115:416-424 (2007).

Moulder JE, Foster KR, Erdreich LS, McNamee JP. Mobile phones, mobile phone base stations and cancer: a review. Int J Radiat Biol. 81:189-203 (2005).

Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A; ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology. Epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 112:1741-1754 (2004).

24. The Standards Council of Canada has a mandate "to benefit the health, safety and welfare of workers and the public..." If Health Canada is failing in its responsibility to protect the health and well being of the citizenry, can the Standards Council establish a service to provide those benefits? If no, please provide the rationale in support of this response.

This question has been addressed to the Standards Council of Canada.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Industry Canada

29 January 2009

Mrs. Sharon and Mr. Denis Noble
818 Bexhill Place
Victoria, British Columbia V9C 3V5

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Noble:

I am writing to provide you with Industry Canada’s response to two Environmental Petitions, No. 255, received June 25, 2008, regarding the effects of non-thermal electromagnetic radiation at Triangle Mountain, Colwood, British Colombia, and Environmental Petition No. 255-B, received July 21, 2008, requesting that transmission towers be removed from there. These petitions were forwarded to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Industry by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I am pleased to respond to your questions that fall within Industry Canada’s area of responsibility.

Environmental Petition No. 255-B

Question 1: Do Industry Canada and Health Canada not consider it appropriate that they pay the $3-million fee that the broadcasters are demanding to move their transmission towers from Triangle Mountain to a non-residential site that their engineers have already deemed acceptable and, in some ways, superior to the current site since it was Industry Canada and Health Canada that allowed the broadcasters to place their tower and transmitters in the midst of a residential area? If not, then why not?

The Triangle Mountain radio site was originally developed for broadcasting service in 1964. At that time, the area was rural in nature. Since then, residential development has moved closer and closer to the site.

In 2000, the existing tower was rebuilt to meet current standards and an additional 48-metre tower was added to the site. Due to allegations of error in procedure, Industry Canada reviewed the process, followed by the proponent, and found no significant issues. Then, due to concerns raised by the City of Colwood, Industry Canada commissioned a third party review which found that the department did not depart in any material way from its established antenna siting procedures. The third party review can be found at http://www.ic.gc.ca/antenna. It also confirms that the use of this site for radiocommunication purposes preceded residential development.

Subsequent to this independent review, the City of Colwood was advised that it may identify alternate locations for the towers. However, the decision to relocate rests with the broadcasters. To date, the broadcasters have not agreed that there is an alternative site that is equal to their existing one at Triangle Mountain. While Industry Canada has committed to facilitate discussions between these parties, there is no justifiable reason for the department to provide funding to relocate facilities, given established process was followed.

Question 2: How many sites in Canada have more than two transmitter sites on them?

Publicly available licence information is available on Industry Canada’s Spectrum Direct website at https://sd.ic.gc.ca. This website is updated daily to provide the most current information. One of the features of the website is a geographic search feature that permits search radii that can encompass all of Canada.

You may be able to obtain the answer to the question being asked via this database by defining what you consider to be a site, using the available data elements.

Question 3: How many letters, e-mails, phone calls, and other communications has Industry Canada and Health Canada received each year during the last 5 years from the public concerning electromagnetic radiation, transmission towers of all sorts, and transmitters of all sorts?

Industry Canada complies with pertinent legislation and policies regarding archiving of public records. However, this does not require Industry Canada to maintain records of all letters, e-mails, phone calls and other communications.

Question 4: How often have the field strengths of the transmitters been monitored over the last 5 years?

Question 5: How many reports of breaches of emission guidelines have been reported over the last 5 years?

Question 6: How many random tests (tests that have been conducted without warning the broadcasters in advance) have been carried out over the last 5 years?

Question 7: How many non-random tests have been carried out over the last 5 years?

Question 8: Given that the “modelling” approach Industry Canada allows the broadcasters to use has proven to be inaccurate on Triangle Mountain, how is Industry Canada ensuring that emission levels at other sites, especially where there are antenna farms, are within Safety Code 6 guidelines?

Question 9: Are there consequences to broadcasters found guilty of excessive field strength? If so, what are they? If not, then why not?

Industry Canada’s Spectrum Management monitors and inspects various technical aspects of transmitters on an ongoing basis as part of the regulatory function it performs. Where non-compliance is identified, Industry Canada ensures mitigation measures are taken, commensurate with the risk associated with the discrepancy, and immediate action is taken on discrepancies that pose a high risk.

There are approximately 2,500 regular power and another 2,500 low power AM, FM and TV broadcasting transmitters in Canada. In addition to the above monitoring and inspection, Industry Canada carries out an ongoing program that ensures compliance with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 guidelines for the protection of the general public. Industry Canada sets priorities through the use of software to predict emitted levels, coupled with field knowledge of departmental spectrum management officers, in order to anticipate which sites have the potential to exceed the exposure limits set in Safety Code 6.

Then, where warranted, measurements are carried out to confirm that the public is protected. Over the past several years, Industry Canada has required that remedial action be taken on approximately 20 sites. This included actions such as requiring the installation of fences, warning signs and making antenna tower modifications in order to ensure ongoing public protection.

Question 10: Will Industry Canada immediately undertake random (e.g., with no advance notice to the broadcasters) testing of the field strength of the transmitters on Triangle Mountain?

Question 11: Will Industry Canada immediately, during that random test, determine total exposure levels from all transmitters in the area?

Monitoring of the signal levels from the stations on Triangle Mountain were conducted before and after the July 30, 2008 scheduled field strength measurements for Safety Code 6 compliance. Additionally, unannounced field strength measurements were conducted on August 13, 2008, to verify ongoing Safety Code 6 compliance. The results were similar to the July 30 measurements.

Industry Canada uses a Safety Code 6 measurement compliance instrument that automatically combines all the emissions within the device’s operating bandwidth, from 100 kHz to 3 GHz, in order to determine total exposure levels. For all the testing undertaken during 2008 at Triangle Mountain, Industry Canada considered total exposure levels.

Question 12: If these random tests indicate excessive exposure levels at any location, will Industry Canada force the immediate removal of offending transmitters from this residential neighbourhood?

If at any time Industry Canada were to determine that Safety Code 6 was not being respected, then the department would take immediate action commensurate with public risk, including administrative or legal action, in order to remedy the situation. As there are many options available in order to bring an installation into compliance, complete removal of transmitters is unlikely to be required.

Question 13: On July 19, an article appeared in The Times Columnist, our Greater Victoria newspaper, which featured Mayor Twa of Colwood castigating Industry Canada and Health Canada for the high transmission levels we are subject to. The very same day my wife and I monitored the transmission levels on Triangle Mountain and found them to be 400 percent lower than they had been for the previous two weeks. If Industry Canada should monitor the FM transmitters, how will it ensure that the broadcasters do not immediately lower their broadcasting levels for the period of the testing?

Question 14: Industry Canada has stated (Gary Paugh, July 8, 2008) that it would have no reason to warn the broadcasters on Triangle Mountain that Industry Canada was about to monitor them (thus allow them to temporarily lower their transmitting power). But since it is Industry Canada’s policy to random monitor only if there is a demonstrated need to do so and the need to do so, of course, can only been shown by random monitoring, a high reading would prove that Industry Canada was quite remiss in fulfilling its responsibility and, therefore, would have good reason to warn the broadcasters. How can Industry Canada assure the public that any monitoring it does it without prior notification of the broadcasters?

Industry Canada’s past measurements to confirm Safety Code 6 compliance at Triangle Mountain, both announced and unannounced, have confirmed compliance with the Safety Code 6 limits in publicly accessible areas.

Operators are required by Industry Canada to ensure that all radiocommunication and broadcasting installations comply with Safety Code 6 at all times, including the consideration of combined effects of nearby installations within the local radio environment. An apparent reduction of transmission levels by 400 percent would not compromise the requirement to meet the levels set out in Safety Code 6.

Industry Canada monitors radio frequency emissions in order to ensure compliance with the radio frequency spectrum management program, including reasons other than Safety Code 6 compliance.

There are many purposes for monitoring a frequency or frequency band, one of which is to check the reliability of information provided to a Spectrum Management officer. Signal level monitoring conducted on the FM transmitter frequencies at Triangle Mountain fell into this category. Some of the results are noted in the 2008 report containing the Safety Code 6 measurements.

Industry Canada’s Spectrum Management representatives are public officers who take their duties regarding compliance seriously, and carry out their duties in a competent and professional manner. Advising the operator of a facility in the instance described would not serve any compliance purpose except where arrangements were required for access to the facility.

Question 19: On what basis does Industry Canada contend, as it does in its policy documents, that it is not responsible for, nor will it discuss, loss of property value or impairment of health due to transmitters?

Question 20: On what basis is Industry Canada not responsible, as it contends in its policy documents, for loss of property value or impairment of health when it is the failure of Industry Canada to adequately monitor the emission levels that contribute to that loss and impairment?

In March 2003, the department selected Professor David A. Townsend of the University of New Brunswick to lead the National Antenna Tower Policy Review with the support and assistance of the National Antenna Tower Review Committee. This committee included industry, academic and health experts, as well as municipal officials. With consideration of many of the recommendations of the National Antenna Tower Policy Review, Industry Canada’s updated antenna siting procedures came into effect as of January 1, 2008.

Professor Townsend’s report provided answers and recommendations on the question of “What evidence exists that property values are impacted by the installation of an antenna tower?” Professor Townsend’s recommendation was that the impact—positive or negative—that a proposed antenna installation may have upon the property values of particular parcels of land should not be the subject of an antenna consultation.

Health Canada has established safety guidelines for exposure to radio frequency fields in its Safety Code 6 publication entitled Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz.

Health Canada has broad responsibilities for protecting the health of Canadians, and acts as the principal health advisor to Industry Canada on protecting the public from potential health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields. While the responsibility for developing Safety Code 6 rests with Health Canada, Industry Canada has adopted this guideline for the purpose of protecting the general public. Through its procedures, Industry Canada makes compliance with Safety Code 6 an ongoing obligation. At any time, antenna system operators may be required, as directed by Industry Canada, to demonstrate compliance with Safety Code 6 by (i) providing detailed calculations, and/or (ii) conducting site surveys and, where necessary, by implementing corrective measures.

Question 21: Will Industry Canada make available its test equipment to its citizens, at no cost, provided they have a qualified expert to use it? If the answer is no, then please provide the rationale behind it.

Question 22: If the answer to #21 is yes, will Industry Canada allow an independent source to determine whether the expert the citizens have chosen is, indeed, qualified? If the answer is no, then please provide the rationale behind it.

Industry Canada has, on occasion, made its staff and equipment available to carry out measurements to ensure that the limits set in Safety Code 6 are being respected. For example, in 2001, Industry Canada’s radiocommunication engineering and technical staff took measurements to ensure that the Safety Code 6 public exposure limits were being respected at Triangle Mountain. Measurements were taken in local residents’ backyards, front yards, and within homes. Industry Canada’s experts were accompanied by a representative of the Colwood Triangle Mountain Citizens’ Committee, who provided input on where measurements should be taken. Using calibrated professional equipment, the same type used by other regulatory agencies, and employing standard measurement methods consistent with good engineering practice, Industry Canada’s measurements consistently concluded that the Safety Code 6 limit for general public exposure was being respected at the measurement locations.

As warranted, Industry Canada will work with local citizens and make departmental technical staff and test equipment available to ensure the limits set in Safety Code 6 are being respected. However, Industry Canada is not prepared to make its equipment available to the public as its care and safekeeping are the responsibility of Industry Canada.

Question 23: If it is Industry Canada’s responsibility to police the broadcasting industry, who is it that polices the “Police”?

Industry Canada is a department established by the Government of Canada under the Department of Industry Act. Accordingly, it reports to the Parliament of Canada through the Minister of Industry.

I appreciated this opportunity to respond to your petition, and trust 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