Dear Roy,maybe you could throw this into the ring...The long deliberations and
good intent of our local committee have finally borne fruit, and we, the IROCA
group on Salt Spring Island in British Columbia, Canada, would like your opinion
on their recommendations. l include the complete report.Kindest Regards,Enid
Turneron behalf of Island Residents Opposed to Cell-phone Antennae.IROCA ADOPTED
Cellular Phone Transmission Antennae Location: Recommendations of the Salt
Spring Advisory Planning Commission
January 23, 2001
The Salt Spring Island Advisory Planning Commission (APC) was asked by the local
Islands Trust Committee to address the issue of Cellular Phone Transmission
Antennae and to provide it with policy guidelines to assist in decision-making
with regard to the siting of such antennae.
>From the outset it was made clear to the APC that, given that the installation
of the antennae is legal within the current Canadian standard (Safety Code 6),
and given that the licensing of such antennae comes under federal jurisdiction,
there is no legal framework within which the construction of cell-phone antennae
or their installation on existing structures could be completely blocked by the
planning authority.
The concerns which the APC considered were three-fold: (1) the health impact of
cellular phone transmission antennae, (2) the visual or aesthetic impact of
antennae towers, and (3) the environmental impact of cellular phone transmission
antennae.
The APC also held a consultation meeting with representatives of (i) citizens’
groups which had concerns regarding the health impacts of the cell-phone
antennae (Island Residents Opposed to Cell-phone Antennae, IROCA,) (ii) groups
which sought to have improved cell-phone service in the downtown Ganges area
(Chamber of Commerce and Emergency Responders), (iii) Industry Canada which has
the final jurisdiction over the licensing of cell-phone antennae, and (iv)
cell-phone companies (Telus and Rogers AT&T). Representatives from an
organization called Electromagnetic Solutions were also in attendance. Input
from the public in the form of written submissions was requested and received.
Having considered the extensive information at its disposal and debated the
issue in depth, the APC recommends the following to the Islands Trust.
On the health issue:
The APC recognizes that its expertise on the question of the impact on human
health of the electromagnetic fields ? in this case specifically radio
frequencies emitted by cell-phone antennae ? is limited. It therefore had to
rely on the conclusions of studies and reviews conducted by others, as well as
on the recommendations of regulatory bodies. The APC reviewed a voluminous
quantity of material supplied to it, and individual members also undertook their
own research on the subject on the internet. Several sources of particular value
are listed at the end of this report.
The balance of information would lead the APC to conclude that there is no
conclusive evidence at this time to indicate that electromagnetic radiation
emitted by cell-phone antennae complying with current Canadian safety code
standards poses a health risk to citizens. At the same time, given the
relatively recent implementation of this technology, and the paucity of
consistent and repeatable long-term studies, it is impossible for the APC to say
with any reasonable certainty that there are no health risks. Because of this,
the APC believes that a precautionary approach should apply. The APC therefore
recommends that, to the maximum extent possible, the antennae should be sited as
far away from facilities concerned with continuous human activity as is
practically feasible. They should not be located close to schools, hospitals, or
senior care facilities.
The APC recommends adoption of a "500/2" principle, as follows. No cell phone
antenna should be installed within 500 metres of any facility concerned with
continuous human activity. A proponent wishing to install an antenna closer than
this distance should demonstrate, using an independent consultant acceptable to
the Islands Trust, that incident power density is less than 2 microwatts per
square cm at any facility concerned with continuous human activity within 500
metres of the proposed antenna. Additional antennae to be mounted on existing
towers must also meet these standards, so that incident power density at any
facility concerned with continuous human activity stays below 2 microwatts per
square cm.
This recommendation is based in part on the findings of the Health Promotion and
Environmental Protection Office of Toronto Public Health. In their final report
(Basrur, 2000) they concluded that:
i)"…given the ongoing research and conflicting evidence on the health impacts of
low level radio frequency (RF) emissions, federal guidelines did not adequately
address uncertainties in available health data", and that
ii)"…a prudent avoidance policy should be adopted. This policy incorporates and
additional ‘margin of safety’ to keep exposure to radio frequency emissions from
cell phone towers 100 times lower than current federal guidelines".
Toronto’s recommended safety level is 1/100 of that prescribed by Safety Code 6.
This is equivalent to a power density of between 2 and 10 microwatts per square
cm, depending on the frequency of the EMR. They also note that power density is
more readily assessed than SAR, thus our choice of these units.
On the visual/aesthetic issue:
The APC recommends that, wherever possible, visual impact from cell-phone
antennae should be minimized. Specifically, site options where the antennae
would be attached to existing structures (e.g.high voltage transmission towers),
should be given preference, as long as they also meet the standard above.
Co-location by multiple providers should be encouraged.
On the environmental impact issue:
The APC recommends that the environmental impact from cell-phone antennae towers
should be minimized. Specifically, new antennae towers should not be constructed
in ecologically sensitive areas and particularly on shorelines, in wetlands, and
within areas comprising Garry oak and old growth forest. Furthermore, both new
and additions to existing towers should be designed to minimize negative effects
on threatened and endangered wildlife populations and, generally to minimize
bird mortality.
Application Process
The APC recommends that applications for all new antenna installations,
including co-located antennae, be referred to the Islands Trust, and that the
public be notified of all applications received by the Trust Committee. Public
consultation will be at the discretion of the Trust Committee. Th e Trust
Committee will refer each application to the local Medical Officer. Applicants
will be asked to supply information relevant to the potential impacts of the
installation, including information relevant to the current OCP guidelines for
telecommunication facilities. Information provided should include
2.
(i) predicted EMR power density levels at any facilities concerned with
continuous human activity within 500m of the proposed antenna;
(ii) a site plan indicating distances from schools, residential areas, hospitals
and senior care facilities;
(iii) facility plan indicating whether it is a new facility or an addition to an
existing facility;
(iv) possible visual aesthetic impacts: and
(v) possible adverse or detrimental environmental effects on:
a) ecologically sensitive areas:
b) water bodies, ground water or soil;
c) legislated protected areas such as national parks, historic canals
or other protected areas; and
d. terrestrial and aquatic habitat for wildlife and fisheries.
Given the continuing debate on the safety issue, the APC will review information
in 2002 and periodically thereafter as deemed necessary. Should significant new
information appear, the recommendations of the APC may be modified.
Selected references
City of Toronto references:
Basrur, S.2000. Backgrounder: Toronto Public Health & the prudence (sic)
avoidance policy on cellular phone base antenna. 4p
Basrur, S.1999, Health effects of radio frequency fields near base telephone
transmission towers (technical report). 35p
Basrur, S.1999, Health effects of wireless telephone transmission towers ?
update. 8p
These references can be found at:
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/health/hphe/pubs.htm
Other references:
Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (2000) Report ? Mobile Phones and
Health, complete text at:
http://www.iegmp.org.uk/IEGMPtxt.htm
RSC (1999) A review of the potential health risks of radiofrequency fields from
wireless telecommunication devices. An expert Panel report prepared at the
request of the Royal Society of Canada for Health Canada.
http://www.rsc.ca/english/RFreport.html
_________________________
--------------CB6FC5FA1BCD69EDDEF5FC59
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
...........From EMF-L.......
From Canada, we receive a "community recommended" set
of rules or standards for the siting of cell phone antennas.
It
takes a different approach than the Salzburg Resolution.
It is much more lax (in my opinion).......
Be sure you read the "health issue" section!! It strikes
me that
they have certainly made an honest effort...... Whether or not
the final results will adequately protect the citizens is not for me
to say......
Perhaps the most important fact is that "regulation" has begun!!
All such initial "rules" or "standards" MUST BE subject to
future change -- either tighter or more lax -- if genuine public
health protection is to be the result.........
"A" for effort....... Final grade is probably an "incomplete."......
Is the day now approaching when responsible independent
data will make possible a more definitive judgment.....??
Who can say? There is not much research activity pointing
to a near term resolution, is there?
In the meantime, all such community efforts as we see below
must be judged "worthy". Good work, IROCA...... Keep it
up!
Don't quit now. This must be a continuing process.....guru......
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: |
a measure of success for IROCA ? |
| Date: |
Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:09:44 -0800 |
| From: |
"George&Enid Turner" <geturner@uniserve.com> |
| To: |
"roy beavers" <roy@emfguru.com> |
| CC: |
"hans karow" <core@vip.net> |
Dear Roy,maybe you could throw this into the ring...The
long deliberations and good intent of our local committee have finally
borne fruit, and we, the IROCA group on Salt Spring Island in British Columbia,
Canada, would like your opinion on their recommendations. l include the
complete report.Kindest Regards,Enid Turneron behalf of Island Residents
Opposed to Cell-phone Antennae.IROCA ADOPTED
Cellular Phone Transmission Antennae Location: Recommendations
of the Salt Spring Advisory Planning Commission
January 23, 2001
The Salt Spring Island Advisory Planning Commission (APC) was asked
by the local Islands Trust Committee to address the issue of Cellular Phone
Transmission Antennae and to provide it with policy guidelines to assist
in decision-making with regard to the siting of such antennae.
From the outset it was made clear to the APC that, given that the
installation of the antennae is legal within the current Canadian standard
(Safety Code 6), and given that the licensing of such antennae comes under
federal jurisdiction, there is no legal framework within which the construction
of cell-phone antennae or their installation on existing structures could
be completely blocked by the planning authority.
The concerns which the APC considered were three-fold: (1) the health
impact of cellular phone transmission antennae, (2) the visual or aesthetic
impact of antennae towers, and (3) the environmental impact of cellular
phone transmission antennae.
The APC also held a consultation meeting with representatives of
(i) citizens’ groups which had concerns regarding the health impacts of
the cell-phone antennae (Island Residents Opposed to Cell-phone Antennae,
IROCA,) (ii) groups which sought to have improved cell-phone service in
the downtown Ganges area (Chamber of Commerce and Emergency Responders),
(iii) Industry Canada which has the final jurisdiction over the licensing
of cell-phone antennae, and (iv) cell-phone companies (Telus and Rogers
AT&T). Representatives from an organization called Electromagnetic
Solutions were also in attendance. Input from the public in the form of
written submissions was requested and received.
Having considered the extensive information at its disposal and debated
the issue in depth, the APC recommends the following to the Islands Trust.
On the health issue:
The APC recognizes that its expertise on the question of the impact
on human health of the electromagnetic fields in this case specifically
radio frequencies emitted by cell-phone antennae is limited. It therefore
had to rely on the conclusions of studies and reviews conducted by others,
as well as on the recommendations of regulatory bodies. The APC reviewed
a voluminous quantity of material supplied to it, and individual members
also undertook their own research on the subject on the internet. Several
sources of particular value are listed at the end of this report.
The balance of information would lead the APC to conclude that there
is no conclusive evidence at this time to indicate that electromagnetic
radiation emitted by cell-phone antennae complying with current Canadian
safety code standards poses a health risk to citizens. At the same time,
given the relatively recent implementation of this technology, and the
paucity of consistent and repeatable long-term studies, it is impossible
for the APC to say with any reasonable certainty that there are no health
risks. Because of this, the APC believes that a precautionary approach
should apply. The APC therefore recommends that, to the maximum extent
possible, the antennae should be sited as far away from facilities concerned
with continuous human activity as is practically feasible. They should
not be located close to schools, hospitals, or senior care facilities.
The APC recommends adoption of a "500/2" principle, as follows. No
cell phone antenna should be installed within 500 metres of any facility
concerned with continuous human activity. A proponent wishing to install
an antenna closer than this distance should demonstrate, using an independent
consultant acceptable to the Islands Trust, that incident power density
is less than 2 microwatts per square cm at any facility concerned with
continuous human activity within 500 metres of the proposed antenna. Additional
antennae to be mounted on existing towers must also meet these standards,
so that incident power density at any facility concerned with continuous
human activity stays below 2 microwatts per square cm.
This recommendation is based in part on the findings of the Health
Promotion and Environmental Protection Office of Toronto Public Health.
In their final report (Basrur, 2000) they concluded that:
i)"…given the ongoing research and conflicting evidence on the health
impacts of low level radio frequency (RF) emissions, federal guidelines
did not adequately address uncertainties in available health data", and
that
ii)"…a prudent avoidance policy should be adopted. This policy incorporates
and additional ‘margin of safety’ to keep exposure to radio frequency emissions
from cell phone towers 100 times lower than current federal guidelines".
Toronto’s recommended safety level is 1/100 of that prescribed by
Safety Code 6. This is equivalent to a power density of between 2 and 10
microwatts per square cm, depending on the frequency of the EMR. They also
note that power density is more readily assessed than SAR, thus our choice
of these units.
On the visual/aesthetic issue:
The APC recommends that, wherever possible, visual impact from cell-phone
antennae should be minimized. Specifically, site options where the antennae
would be attached to existing structures (e.g.high voltage transmission
towers), should be given preference, as long as they also meet the standard
above. Co-location by multiple providers should be encouraged.
On the environmental impact issue:
The APC recommends that the environmental impact from cell-phone
antennae towers should be minimized. Specifically, new antennae towers
should not be constructed in ecologically sensitive areas and particularly
on shorelines, in wetlands, and within areas comprising Garry oak and old
growth forest. Furthermore, both new and additions to existing towers should
be designed to minimize negative effects on threatened and endangered wildlife
populations and, generally to minimize bird mortality.
Application Process
The APC recommends that applications for all new antenna installations,
including co-located antennae, be referred to the Islands Trust, and that
the public be notified of all applications received by the Trust Committee.
Public consultation will be at the discretion of the Trust Committee. Th
e Trust Committee will refer each application to the local Medical Officer.
Applicants will be asked to supply information relevant to the potential
impacts of the installation, including information relevant to the current
OCP guidelines for telecommunication facilities. Information provided should
include
-
(i) predicted EMR power density levels at any facilities concerned with
continuous human activity within 500m of the proposed antenna;
(ii) a site plan indicating distances from schools, residential areas,
hospitals and senior care facilities;
(iii) facility plan indicating whether it is a new facility or an
addition to an existing facility;
(iv) possible visual aesthetic impacts: and
(v) possible adverse or detrimental environmental effects on:
a) ecologically sensitive areas:
b) water bodies, ground water or soil;
c) legislated protected areas such as national parks, historic canals
or other protected areas; and
-
terrestrial and aquatic habitat for wildlife and fisheries.
Given the continuing debate on the safety issue, the APC will review
information in 2002 and periodically thereafter as deemed necessary. Should
significant new information appear, the recommendations of the APC may
be modified.
Selected references
City of Toronto references:
Basrur, S.2000. Backgrounder: Toronto Public Health & the prudence
(sic) avoidance policy on cellular phone base antenna. 4p
Basrur, S.1999, Health effects of radio frequency fields near base
telephone transmission towers (technical report). 35p
Basrur, S.1999, Health effects of wireless telephone transmission
towers update. 8p
These references can be found at: http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/health/hphe/pubs.htm
Other references:
Independent Expert Group on Mobile
Phones (2000) Report Mobile Phones and Health, complete
text at:
http://www.iegmp.org.uk/IEGMPtxt.htm
RSC (1999) A review of the potential health risks of radiofrequency
fields from wireless telecommunication devices. An expert Panel report
prepared at the request of the Royal Society of Canada for Health Canada.
http://www.rsc.ca/english/RFreport.html
_________________________
--------------CB6FC5FA1BCD69EDDEF5FC59--
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com