Subject:  Any more siting protocols out there? (Maitman)..
Date:     Thu, 11 Nov 1999 181321 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------


.......This message is very encouraging.....  As Mark says (below),
we have been negligent in our treatment of the health issue in
establishing siting protocols.....  That happened because too many
people accepted the industry's and the FCC's assumption/dictum
that "health effects" from the antennas was/is not an issue.....  

Well, health is THE issue!!!  And this deficiency in the thinking 
of many was bound to catch up with us......  It has!!!  Read below -- 
one community has decided to make it the issue.....

It should be in YOUR community, too.....

Cheerio.......  (Hope Mark gets plenty of help from those of you who
have been involved in these siting "wars.")

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
                       NEW!!!  Website 
...................People are more important than profits.................

              DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST???

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:50:26 -0500
From: Breakthrough Associates 
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: any more siting protocols out there?

Hi Roy,

Our situation is this:  On Monday, the Medical Officer of Health for
Toronto will present a report to the Board of Health that recommends a
policy of "prudent avoidance," to include an output limit of one hundredth
of the current federal safety code for cell base stations.  Yesterday I met
with the author of that report and a keen member of the Planning
Department, who together are charged with the resonsibility of devising a
siting protocol that has some teeth. They have invited me to participate in
the process.

This is exciting stuff, but here's our problem:  Of the protocols we have
reviewed for precedents, none actually takes the potential health risk into
account.  They treat the towers as a new structures only, with no mention
of the radiation they are emitting, and do not even apply to transmitters
that are added to current structures, like water towers and apartment
buildings.

The city's people don't think they can make a safety zone fly with City
Council, as it will seem arbitrary, but want to give residents the
opportunity to prevent having a transmitter aiming at them from 50 feet
away, even of it meets the new output requirement.

So again I'm asking for help! These guys are bureaucrats dealing with the
scary prospect of doing something completely different.  Does anyone know
of a siting protocol anywhere in the world that actually acknowledges
community health concerns?

Thanks again,

Mark

[NOTE FOR ROY: WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO SEND YOU THE COMPLETE PRESENTATION AND
RESEARCH REPORT DONE BY TORONTO'S HEALTH DEPARTMENT?]


Mark Maitman & Dale Sutton
Citizens for a Healthy Future
brkthru@istar.ca





Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com