1) The minutes of the Pitt Meadows agenda for the meeting of July 23, in which the resolution was passed, reveals a very interesting history of communications, very similar to the process most communities face when trying to argue against siting of a cell tower. The power, as of today, lies in the hands of Industry Canada [now ISED] which works for industry. That is its mandate.
All policies are geared toward making it easier for telecoms to place their dangerous towers and transmitters anywhere they want, with no concern for our health, welfare, or property values. In fact, these arguments or reasons for disputing a cell tower are not allowed by Industry Canada policy. It’s time we confront both federal departments — Health Canada, that is supposedly responsible for our safety, and Industry Canada who uses it — and demand change.
http://pittmeadows.ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1024&meta_id=133059 (There are 2 sets of numbering. I am using the one at the top of the page which has 78 pages in total)
On page 6/78 is the acknowledgement that once 5G is implemented, Rogers will be permitted to install a 5G transmitter (or transmitters) but does not advise that this will be with no further consultation or notification. Under ISED’s policies, a transmitter/antenna can be put on any existing structure without advising the local government or nearby residents. Many assume this is why microcells are being installed on utility poles — this allows the telecoms to bypass even this insignificant notification process. The utility poles are becoming cell towers, with no information, no opt out, no health consideration.
Under Rogers’s consultation package:
Page 27/78 has a statement by Health Canada that is blatantly untrue.
First, Safety Code 6 is one of the least protective guidelines and it certainly is NOT based on established effects. It is based on heating, which applies to thermal radiation, not the type emitted by wireless devices.
Second, ISED does not monitor to ensure that the guidelines, as bad as they are, are met. Rather, ISED leaves it to the telecoms to monitor themselves. They use computer programs and seldom, if ever, monitor the actual levels at the site where there are multiple transmitters and other wireless devices all emitting microwave radiation, at many different strengths and using many different frequencies.
a) “Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Compliance Health Canada is responsible for research and investigation to determine and promulgate the health protection guidelines/limits for exposure to electromagnetic energy. Accordingly, Health Canada has developed a guideline entitled “Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field in the Frequency Range from 3kHz to 300 GHz – — -safety code 6” -: Canada’s-exposure limits are among the most stringent guidelines that are based on established effects.”
One dishonest statement.
b) “ISED, under its authority, has adopted Safety Code 6 for the protection of the general public. As such, ISED requires all proponents and operators to ensure that their installations comply with the Safety Code 6 at all times.”
Another dishonest statement. Safety Code 6 says in the preamble that it applies to workers at and visitors to federally regulated sites. Not homes. Not schools. Sites like cell towers.
c) Reference is made to Health Canada’s website which provides a disturbing amount of misleading/erroneous information that seems to promote use of wireless devices, even by children. Please read — here is just one “myth” provided on Health Canada’s website. Other agencies that have the responsibility to provide correct information to the public, e.g. Canadian and BC Cancer Societies, BC Centre for Disease Control, the BC Health Authority, all refer to Health Canada and repeat these inaccurate, dishonest statements.
“Busting Myths on Safety Code 6 (this is one example of Health Canada’s dangerously dishonest statements on its website)
Myth: Safety Code 6 limits only provide protection based on limited exposure for healthy adults. The guideline does not account for vulnerable populations such as children or people with electro hypersensitivity disorder.
Fact: Even a small child, following continuous exposure from multiple sources of RF energy, would not experience adverse health effects provided that the exposure limits set in Safety Code 6 are respected.
The Safety Code 6 limits for human exposure to RF energy are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including children, on a continuous (24 hours a day/seven days a week) basis.
This means that if someone, including a small child, were to be exposed to RF energy from multiple sources for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, within the Safety Code 6 limits, there would be no adverse health effects.
A number of people have described an assortment of health symptoms that they attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields. While the symptoms attributed to electro hypersensitivity conditions are real, scientific evidence has failed to demonstrate that they are caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields.”
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/reports-publications/radiation/fact-sheet-what-safety-code-6.html ( I hope you’ll read the other “myths”. Very disturbing stuff.)
d) An excellent letter from a resident of Pitt Meadows is on pages 38-46/78, which the City would have been hard pressed to ignore in making its decision.
2) In France, a Court orders removal of smeters from some homes due to health concerns.
(click on photos to enlarge)
French Court orders the removal of smart meters for health reasons
“The tribunal de grande instance (TGI or the civil court) of Tours considered the case of 121 “anti-Linky” complainants, and threw out 108 of the claims. The remaining 13 were accepted, with the court conceding a possible link between their medical complaints and their Linky smart meters.
One included a seven-year-old child living in Tours, who was – the court said – in “a state of chronic fatigue” and having “difficulty sleeping”, as proven in a medical note, “which could be linked to the Linky meter”.
The court demanded that in the case of these 13 individuals, the Linky [smart] meter be removed, and the households be delivered electricity without the device.
Lawyer for the complainants, Arnaud Durand, said that he would push for compensation for “the people who will not be able to live at home”.
Letters:
From: X
To: mayorsoffice@pittmeadows.ca, council@pittmeadows.ca
Sent: August 3, 2019
Subject: Thank you!
Dear Mayor and Councillors of Pitt Meadows:
I wish to thank you and congratulate you for being the first Mayor and Council in Canada to step forward with concerns about 5G/EMR/Health Canada.
This is a very courageous and forward thinking step that puts biological life ahead of commercial interests.
With much gratitude and respect,
X
_____________________________________________________________________
From: “Sherry Ridout” (name given with permission)
To: mayorsoffice@pittmeadows.ca, council@pittmeadows.ca
Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2019 11:08:50 AM
Subject: thanks for your leadership
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
Just a brief note to let you know how much we appreciate your leadership role in addressing the very real concerns many have regarding EMR, 5 G and the inadequacy of Health Canada to advocate for and protect the citizens of Canada. Thank you so much for taking the time to hear the concerns of your constituents and then to act on them in a proactive way. I will be forwarding your letter to our local municipal leaders in the hopes they too will make these health concerns known to the provincial and federal governments so much needed revisions can be made to Safety Code 6 and to our telecommunication siting policies. Thanks again!
Sherry Ridout
Sharon Noble, director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” Thomas Jefferson.