Langford to zone against cell towers
news.omega
Bill Cleverley, Times Colonist
http://www.canada.com:80/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=91ebbcd8-baa7-4317-a89a-55d9a5f4f82a&k=58766
<http://www.canada.com:80/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=91ebbcd8-baa7-4317-a89a-55d9a5f4f82a&k=58766>
Published: Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Langford is changing its zoning to make it illegal for transmission
towers to be erected in residential neighbourhoods.
In the face of residents' complaints about a 29-metre cell tower
proposed for 709 Latoria Road, the municipality is changing its zoning
bylaw allowing towers to be constructed only in commercial areas.
It has also has formed a consultation committee of staff and residents
to quickly draft a municipal policy on tower siting.
Mayor Stew Young hopes the move will stop the Latoria Road tower.
Nancy Chamberlayne, a multiple sclerosis sufferer who would be living in
the shadow of the proposed Latoria Road tower, urged council this week
to take any steps it could to stop the construction. She's worried about
health effects.
"I've worked really, really hard to keep the MS stable, so attacks are a
minimum, but now I'm scared," Chamberlayne said.
"Over 22 years, I've lost the use of both these legs, both these arms,
my hearing; I've had double vision three times. I've lost the use of my
balance, I've lost use of my bladder, and I've had numbness and
tingling. I've done a lot of healing. I don't want to backward. I want
to go forward."
She urged council to be proactive.
"We don't need to be looking at the same thing as asbestos and
thalidomide and lead and cigarettes and hear in 10 or 30 years from now,
'Sorry, we made a mistake, cell towers are hazardous to our health.' "
The zoning change has been prompted by Young's frustration with what he
considers to be a lack of public consultation over tower siting, coupled
with Industry Canada's practice of issuing permits for new towers in
residential neighbourhoods in defiance of Langford's official policy.
He said requiring that towers be built only in commercial areas would at
least force a rezoning process complete with public hearings.
David Carroll, who lives on Kelly Dawn Place right across the street
from where the tower would be located, said Industry Canada's approach
isn't consultation but "autocration."
He said more than 340 people in the area have signed a petition against
the proposed tower.
"This location for the tower is inappropriate. It's on a residential lot
in a residential area," he said.
Carroll said the municipality needs to develop an official consultation
policy on the siting of towers. Without it, Industry Canada follows its
own guidelines for public consultation.
Young said the new zoning requirement will form part of Langford's tower
consultation policy.
"What we believe is in existing neighbourhoods to put up a tower for
commercial use changes the zoning of a person's property from
residential to commercial use."
bclev...@tc.canwest.com <mailto:bclev...@tc.canwest.com>
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New video links to EMR and mold
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNBrh6p1oNA
followup to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRXe1DeDvhk
Omega Group
Omega Group
Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics Telephone: (212)
305-3644
630 West 168
Street
New York, NY 10032
Telefax: (212) 305-5775
EMAIL: mb...@columbia.edu
September 11, 2008
An open letter
to
Mayor Young and the Langford Council
Langford, B.C.
Re: Health effects of cell tower radiation
I have been an active researcher on biological effects of
electromagnetic fields (EMF) for over twenty five years at Columbia
University. I was also one of the organizers of the 2007 online
Bioinitiative Report on the subject. Because of this background, I
have been asked to provide background information regarding current
discussions about the proposed cell tower.
There is now sufficient scientific data about the biological effects
of EMF, and in particular about radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to
argue for adoption of precautionary measures. We can state
unequivocally that EMF can cause single and double strand DNA breakage
at exposure levels that are considered safe under the FCC guidelines
in the USA. As I shall illustrate below, there are also epidemiology
studies that show an increased risk of cancers associated with
exposure to RF. Since we know that an accumulation of changes or
mutations in DNA is associated with cancer, there is good reason to
believe that the elevated rates of cancers among persons living near
radio towers are probably linked to DNA damage caused by EMF. Because
of the nature of EMF exposure and the length of time it takes for most
cancers to develop, one cannot expect 'conclusive proof' such as the
link between helicobacter pylori and gastric ulcer. (That link was
recently demonstrated by the Australian doctor who proved a link
conclusively by swallowing the bacteria and getting the disease.)
However, there is enough evidence of a plausible mechanism to link EMF
exposure to increased risk of cancer, and therefore of a need to limit
exposure, especially of children.
EMF have been shown to cause other potentially harmful biological
effects, such as leakage of the blood brain barrier that can lead to
damage of neurons in the brain, increased micronuclei (DNA fragments)
in human blood lymphocytes, all at exposure rates well below the
limits in the current FCC guidelines. Probably the most convincing
evidence of potential harm comes from living cells themselves when
they start to manufacture stress proteins upon exposure to EMF. The
stress response occurs with a number of potentially harmful
environmental factors, such as elevated temperature, changes in pH,
toxic metals, etc. This means that when stress protein synthesis is
stimulated by radiofrequency or power frequency EMF, the body is
telling us in its own language that RF exposure is potentially
harmful.
There have been several attempts to measure the health risks
associated with exposure to RF, and I can summarize the findings with
a graph from the study by Dr. Neil Cherry of all childhood cancers
around the Sutro Tower in San Francisco between the years 1937 and
1988. Similar studies with similar results were done around
broadcasting antennas in Sydney, Australia and Rome, Italy, and there
are now studies of effects of cellphones on brain cancer. The Sutro
tower contains antennas for broadcasting FM (54.7 kW) TV (616 kW) and
UHF (18.3 MW) signals over a fairly wide area, and while the fields
are not uniform, and also vary during the day, the fields were
measured and average values estimated, so that one could associate the
cancer risk with the degree of EMF exposure.
The data in the figure are the risk ratios (RR) for a total of 123
cases of childhood cancer from a population of 50,686 children, and
include a 51 cases of leukaemia, 35 cases of brain cancer and 37 cases
of lymphatic cancer. It is clear from the results that the risk ratio
for all childhood cancers is elevated in the area studied, and while
the risk falls off with radial distance from the antennas, as
expected, it is still above a risk ratio of 5 even at a distance of
3km where the field was 1μW/cm2. This figure is what we can expect
from prolonged RF exposure. In the Bioinitiative Report, we
recommended 0.1μW/cm2 as a desirable precautionary level based on this
and related studies, including recent studies of brain cancer and
cellphone exposure..
As I mentioned above, many potentially harmful effects, such as the
stress response and DNA strand breaks, occur at nonthermal levels
(field strengths that do not cause a temperature increase) and are
therefore considered safe. It is obvious that the safety standards
must be revised down to take into account the nonthermal as well as
thermal biological responses that occur at much lower intensities.
Since we cannot rely on the current standards, it is best to act
according to the precautionary principle, the approach advocated by
the European Union and used by the scientists involved in the
Bioinitiative report. In light of the current evidence, the
precautionary approach appears to be the most reasonable for those who
must protect the health and welfare of the public.
Martin Blank, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of physiology and cellular biophysics
Informant: Martin Weatherall