----- Original Message -----
From: Daryl Vernon
To: minist...@ontario.ca ; jgerrets...@liberal.ola.org
Cc: mkwinte...@liberal.ola.org ; Martin Weatherall ; François
Therrien ; Milt Bowling ; robe...@shaw.ca ; Dennis and Sharon Noble
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 7:03 PM
Subject: Will the Ontario government via its Environment Ministry...
Please consider together the several emails reproduced below. They
have all been addressed to different Ontario Government Ministries,
and such letters with variant focus can and might be addressed to
other Ministries still. The issue is the comprehensive one of
environmental and health damage done by overexposure to overly
permissive levels of electromagnetic radiation, especially microwave.
When considered as a whole, it should be obvious that a comprehensive
approach is required to address governance of this phenomenon novel in
its endangering extensiveness, and still subject to woefully obsolete
federal regulation. It should be a natural one to come under the
umbrella of an Environment Ministry.
Environment Ministries are a recent development in Canadian
governance, in response to increasing awareness of the
interrelatedness of branches of human activity subject to such
governance. The exploitation of radiofrequency as it has proliferated
in latter years touches on virtually all areas of provincial
governance. But where sane regulatory action and political leadership
is called for, in Canada there has been interjurisdictional and
interdepartmental disablement. For example, where Toronto would wish
to have enforced its "prudent avoidance" policy regarding microwaves,
it forbears lest it traipse on Industry Canada's domain. If Industry
Canada would want to specify more sanely restrictive standards on
microwave emissions, it feels it must defer to Health Canada. Health
Canada cannot legislate health matters that are under provincial
purview. An Ontario Health Ministry might defer to the federal one for
whatever unsound reason, and other Ontario Ministries can be expected
to direct that this issue be taken up with the needlessly self-
disabling provincial Health Ministry. And on it goes, while people
and wildlife actually perish.
Will the Ontario government via its Environment Ministry undertake to
regulate regarding the wide-ranging effects of electromagnetic
radiation in Ontario? The energetic environment is more comprehensive
still than the comprehensive categories of air, water and land
referred to by the Ministry as being under its purview. To the
control over pollution of air, water and land in Ontario, it is
respectfully submitted that be added control over what has come to be
referred to, using pollution vocabulary, as "electrosmog".
Below are the letters submitted just today to five Ontario
Ministries. It is hoped that from this reading the necessity of
comprehensive Crown oversight and governance be taken seriously by
your government, and that it would lead the way in safely dealing with
the diverse effects of this artificial phenomenon.
Thank you for your prompt consideration of this grave matter.
416 631 1495
addressed to Attorney-General:
Re: constitutional court challenge
Is the Ontario Attorney-General aware of the actions of his Quebec
counterpart, in joining with a municipality (Terrebonne) in litigation
to reassert provincial jurisdiction relevant to cell mast antennae
broadcasting radio frequency? The Telus vs. Toronto decision a few
years ago clearly established the federal purview of
telecommunications under Industry Canada. But the fundamental issue
of health protection was not dealt with, health being a provincial
Crown constitutional responsibility. As has been known in dissenting
scholarly circles for decades, the dangers to human and animal health
of the ongoing proliferation of wireless installations is becoming
more widely known to the general public. Would the Ontario Attorney-
General join with his Quebec counterpart in reassertion of the
relevance of provincial jurisdiction with regard to the effects of
cell mast antennae, to the point of demanding dismantlement of
existing structures, as is being sought in Quebec, and as has been
already done in France and Chile on various grounds relating to health
This is an ongoing and grave concern responsibility for which in
Canada ultimately rests with the provinces as it regards protection
from endangerment of health. We trust that the Minister will regard
the matter with due urgency and seriousness and reply in a short delay
by the preferred email, phone or if absolutely necessary by post to
the address provided.
416 631 1495
addressed to Minister of Transport:
Re: proximity of cell mast antennae to highways
As has been known in dissenting scholarly circles for decades, the
dangers to human and animal health of the ongoing proliferation of
wireless installations is becoming more widely known to the general
public. Adjacent to very many Ontario roadways are cell mast antennae
broadcasting radio frequency which, while at levels even well below
the federally set limits, many consider dangerous for prolonged
Has the Ministry noted the effects of prolonged proximity to cell
masts of travellers using Ontario highways? Will the Minister demand
in the name of public safety that broadcasters adhere to much reduced
levels of radiative output so as to not risk endangering road users?
A couple from a great many local examples:
On the south side of 401 highway between Keele St. and Dufferin St.
exits there is a mast apparently operated by Rogers Communications
that almost abuts the elevated roadway, exposing drivers and
passengers at very close range to its emissions. This highway is
frequently at a standstill or near standstill, and road users forced
to a tarry by the transmitters are involuntarily exposed to very
strong doses of electromagnetic radiation that are known to induce
negative health effects from the severe to just enough to dangerously
disrupt concentration on driving (notwithstanding other recent
measures regarding restricting actual cell phone use in vehicles).
Last summer while travelling the length of southbound highway 400, we
paid close attention to bodily effects discernable from exposure to
these masts, very many of which have been deployed the length of the
highway. On various segments of roadway my wife and myself were able
to predict the imminent appearance of a cell tower as we approached,
this by the well-known effect of microwave hearing. The mechanism of
this hearing is not established, but it is thought to be activated in
part by brain penetration. While under normal traffic conditions one
passes quickly by such possible dangers, it is not true that the
general danger abates, for as soon as one is at distant range from one
transmitter, another and another appear again very near the roadway.
What has MTO done to ascertain that driver health and behaviour is not
negatively affected by these transmitters by roadways it governs?
Please accept our request that this query be dealt with in the
shortest delay, preferably by return email communication, or phone, or
if absolutely necessary by mail to the address provided.
416 631 1495
addressed to Minister of Energy & Infrastructure:
Re: "smart" meters
Is the Minister aware of the serious, sometimes life-threatening,
difficulties encountered by people who have become hypersensitive
(EHS) to electromagnetic radiation (EMR)? This condition, induced by
prolonged exposure to EMR at levels yet deemed acceptable by federal
guidelines, forces victims to isolate themselves as much as possible
from EMR even at minute levels, this at great personal cost because of
the need to avoid almost every otherwise normal location, inundated by
EMR from the proliferation of wireless installations and applications
these past several years.
Some have had to resort to screening their homes from excessive
penetration of EMR which would otherwise endanger them. But even that
refuge afforded by such measures is endangered by the closer-to-home
mass installation of "smart" meters.
These meters dispense with visual reading, monitoring and
communicating electricity usage at constant and very frequent
intervals throughout neighbourhoods, using the meters themselves as
antennae-repeaters for radio frequency transmission.
Apart from adding to the ambient "electrosmog" endangering EHS victims
by outdoor exposure, it seems as well that the EMR is conducted into
residences via household wiring, posing a potentially serious danger.
This has already been our own experience in our Toronto residence,
where an EHS victim had somewhat successfully taken refuge, now
endangered by the new meters' transmissions.
We have been in correspondence with Toronto Hydro (as well as HydroOne
regarding another property metered with similar new equipment). Thus
far the result has been inconclusive, and as we await adequate redress
our EHS, as well as other household members, suffer. While these
other members suffer thus far what would probably be deemed
subclinical (but still wholly inappropriate) symptoms, the former has
recently suffered a first recurrence of epileptic seizures since
obtaining protection here at sufficient distance from radiative
sources early last year.
Since meter deployment some weeks ago, I myself have suffered
incessant microwave hearing, an effect thought by some scholars to
result from brain penetration by EMR. The very frequency of
transmissions to and from our Elster-EnergyAxis meter is in the range
(around 900mHz) long understood as optimal for such skull penetration,
thus likely endangering health at even minute exposures, especially if
Will provision be made by the Minister for sufferers to be excluded
from the smart meter programme?
Are the current meters deployed province-wide set to the absolute
minimum radiative output required for functioning? On what basis have
the meter manufacturers determined the frequency and transmission
What would empower a utility such as Toronto Hydro to utilize the
meters' ability to allow remote turning off of power from a household?
The Electricity Act of 1998 refers to "discretionary metering". Under
this rubric can special provision be made for households in need, to
revert to visual meter reading, facility for which the new meters are
mandated to retain?
We urgently await your reply, preferably by email or phone, but if
necessary by mail.
addressed to Minister of Natural Resources:
Re: radio-free zones
Queen Elizabeth II Wildlands Provincial Park was recently
established. It's proximity to the most populous areas of Ontario as
well as its unusual relative distance from cellular telephone
radiofrequency transmitters, make it attractive to explore the
possibility of establishing a particular type of refuge habitat.
With the increasing proliferation of wireless installations and usage,
more and more people are becoming electrohypersensitive (EHS). This
has happened from prolonged exposure to electromagnetic radiation at
levels unfortunately still deemed safe by federal regulators. Until
such time as these regulations are sensibly revised drastically
downward, the health of such EHS victims is endangered almost
everywhere. This is true even if they avoid wireless applications
themselves, because the ambient radiation levels, principally from
ubiquitous cell phone mast antennae, are dangerously high for them. A
very large group of scholars dissenting from the regnant regulatory
mindset in Canada believes even non-EHS people to be progressively
endangered as well. One study of the international increase in EHS
from the 1980s until recently, projects from linear progression that
by 2017 half our population would suffer so!
In Sweden, where this condition has achieved some official recognition
long ago, provision has been made to isolate EHS citizens from
endangering radiofrequency exposures. In France recently a private
haven has been established for some EHS victims. It seems right and
natural that this be also provided in Ontario for our afflicted.
Will the Ministry consider the minimal development required to offer a
refuge in the suggested location? There are now so few places of
private refuge, even residential areas far from cell masts now invaded
by mass installation of wireless electricity metering equipment. This
new park has the primary attribute of exceptional distance from
transmitters, in addition to fair accessibility at parts of its
periphery. Some small sections of its massive acreage could
accomodate, in small encampments or minimalist lodgings yet fitted
with sufficient facilities, on ecological priniciples, the current
numbers of EHS sufferers, some of whom we are familiar with, one in
our own household which has diminishing value itself as refuge due to
the ever-increasing encroachment of wireless.
We are long-time appreciative users of the Ontario Parks system. One
feature we particularly appreciate is the radio-free zones made
available for more peaceful camping. This is an age where that
salutary concept needs broadening, since sound waves generated from
radio broadcasts are not the major encumberment to healthful living in
Ontario, rather radio waves themselves are, especially microwaves that
would be of much diminished and thus safer intensity at the park.
Our family is closely familiar with the region for a half century.
But we suggest it absolutely not to the exclusion of any other
appropriate Ontario Parks or other areas offered by the Crown, which
above all must be out to protect its subjects.
Please respond in the shortest possible delay, preferably by email or
phone, if necessary by mail.
addressed to Health Ministries:
Re: radiofrequency exposure
We and many other Ontarians are acquainted with severe sufferers of
afflictions due to radiofrequency exposure. Their illness, variously
expressed, is mostly not officially recognized. After very much
research into the existing copious literature on the topic, we request
that you address our urgent concern, as partly expressed in the
Is the Minister aware of the internationally increasing affliction of
electrohypersensitivity (EHS) having arisen from dangerously long
exposure to levels of microwave radiation yet deemed acceptable by
Is the Ontario Government via this Ministry prepared to act on its
constitutional responsibility regarding the health of Ontarians, by
offering these afflicted citizens accommodation protected from the
widespread assault of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) especially from
antennae broadcasting for cell telephony?
Is the Ministry aware of such provision of low radiation zones in
Sweden and elsewhere?
Notwithstanding Health Canada's unfortunate declaration of EHS as
idiopathic, will the Ministry move to include EHS as medical debility
subject to some measure of government provision of care, on the advice
of the enormous group of researchers and practitioners dissenting from
What legislative requirement could exist that compels your Ministry to
accept federal health guidelines, when constitutionally the provinces
in Canada are responsible for health care? Is it thus not readily
available to your Ministry to require differential practices in
Ontario, compelling telecommunications providers to broadcast within
far stricter limits?
Is the Ministry aware that on health grounds, largely based on the
Bioinitiative Report of 2007 (q.v. online), other jurisdictions have
begun to move against too permissive EMR levels comparable to
Canada's? Most notably this includes France, which has instituted a
test policy in multiple municipalities to progress to an "ALARA"
method of determining allowable radiative output on health grounds
especially, "as low as reasonably attainable" for wireless usages,
which can operate at far lower levels than now?
What position does the Ministry have regarding the Toronto Chief
Medical Officer's longstanding expressed desire for 100x lower levels
than federally allowable, as part of a "prudent avoidance" policy?
Application of this sensible if still partly arbitrary approach is
thwarted by "interjurisdictional immunity", as per the Telus vs.
Toronto court decision of a few years ago. But surely a subsequent
court test based on health grounds, not referred to in that judgement,
would rule differently.
To what extent does the Ministry incorporate the "precautionary
principle" into its approach to dealing with the effects of
radiofrequency on human health?
Is the Ministry aware that the province of Quebec has moved to demand
the dismantlement of contentious cell mast antennae in one
municipality, presumably in re-assertion of jurisdictional
responsibility? Whereas telecommunications clearly fall under Industry
Canada's rule, health is indubitably provincial. Insofar as
telecommunication practices endanger health, does the Ministry not
consider it simple constitutional logic that it prompt the Ontario
Government to act as Quebec has finally begun to?
Would the Ministry defer to local Boards of Health to determine
restrictions on cell mast antennae and other wireless transmitters, if
it will not act directly itself? Would it back municipalities and
their Boards in any court challenges?
Prior to correspondence with provincial officials, we engaged in
copious correspondence with Toronto municipal officials. Without
provincial support, municipalities are disempowered to protect their
citizens. Thus must we direct our attention to your Crown
responsibility directly, and ask if you will review that copious
correspondence of several months late last year.
Please respond preferably by email or phone, but by mail if absolutely
necessary, in the shortest delay regarding what many justly consider
to be a public health disaster in the making.
416 631 1495
Informant: Iris Atzmon