1) CREST emergency communications towers have been or are being installed all over Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands. See:
(click on photos to enlarge)
I have yet to find the technical specifications but one page says the P25 system uses the 700MHz frequency which is strong and penetrates everything, including bodies, very well. It seems that Mr. Horth, the CREST person involved with the siting of the CREST towers, is either misinformed about or ignoring a change in ISED policy in 2014 which closed a loophole that exempted consultation and notification for towers that were lower than 15 meters in height. Based on Mr. Horth’s information, the Mayor and Council believed that no consultation was necessary and there was no public meeting to inform those in the area about this new tower. Please see letters below.
Of course, one of the prime concerns is that once a tower is in place, more transmitters can be installed on it. Emergency systems are necessary but they should be sited away from homes, schools, hospitals, etc. and assurance should be given that only the emergency transmitters will be on these structures. In addition, as with any microwave radio or radar gun, the persons using them should be fully informed of the possible health risks.
2) Given the Russian studies done decades ago, that the CIA released in 2000 which were in recent updates, you might find it interesting to see that the US knew 40-50 years ago about the dangers of EMR and made deliberate decisions to support the military industrial complex at the expense of human health and safety. This previously classified document was one of the thousands provided to Dr. Magda Havas by Dr. Zory Glaser upon his retirement from the US military. This conspiracy to protect industry at our expense continues to this day.
Research on Biological Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation in Eurasian Communist Countries, 1976.
“February 24, 2011. The Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States released a document referenced below that had a security classification as “confidential” and has since been “unclassified”. This document may help us better understand why the U.S. military is interested in opposing a more protective guideline for microwave radiation.
Adams, R.L. and R.A. Williams. 1976. Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves) – Eurasian Communist Countries (U). Prepared by U.S. Army Medical Intelligence and Information Agency Office of the Surgeon General and was released by the Defense Intelligence Agency. 34 pp. Unclassified.
Abstract: This study was undertaken to provide a review and evaluation of the current Eurasian Communist country state-of-the-art in the area of the effects of radiowaves and microwaves. It generally covers the 1968-1975 period. The major topics include discussions of the effects on humans and animals. The study provides information on the general trends of research with special attention to possible military applications. Where appropriate, information on safety standards and research personalities and facilities is provided.
The section dealing with biological significance of radiowaves and microwaves include the following topics for which there is considerable research: blood, cardiovascular system, cells, central nervous system, digestive system, glands, metabolism, reproduction, visual systems, internal sound perception as well as miscellaneous effects.
There are two disturbing paragraphs in this document that clearly indicate the U.S. military’s perspective opposing more stringent guidelines for microwave radiation.
“If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military function. The Eurasian Communist countries could, on the other hand, give lip service to strict standards, but allow their military to operate without restriction and thereby gain the advantage in electronic warfare techniques and the development of antipersonnel applications.” [page vii]
“Should subsequent research result in adoption of the Soviet standard by other countries, industries whose practices are based on less stringent safety regulations, could be required to make costly modifications in order to protect workers. Recognition of the 0.01 mW/cm2 standard could also limit the application of new technology by making the commercial exploitation of some products unattractive because of increased cost, imposed by the need for additional safeguards.” [page 24]
Note that the “less stringent safety regulations” refers to U.S., Canada, Great Britain and several European countries as well as to the guidelines recommended by ICNIRP and WHO. It seems that the authors of this document value military and commercial financial considerations above worker health. There is little doubt that the U.S. military played a key role preventing safer and more protective U.S. guidelines for microwave radiation.
Microwave weapons are outside the scope of this document, although there is reference to antipersonnel applications of microwave technology including inducing neurological effects, metabolic diseases, heart seizures and neurological pathologies resulting from breaching the blood-brain barrier, as well as intracranial production of sounds and possibly words at very low average power densities. On page 26, a section dealing with microwave weapons seems to have been removed.
This document clearly reflects the U.S. military’s resistance to lowering the guideline and their distrust of research conducted in the Eastern Bloc Countries. That distrust and the power wielded by the U.S. military is largely responsible for the status of the current guidelines, which fail to protect public and worker health.”
The full document is available at this link:
Letters:
From: “Janis Hoffmann” (name given with permission)
To: ghorth@crest.ca
Cc: “Ken Williams” <kwilliams@highlands.ca>, firechief@highlands.ca, ann@eco-sense.ca, “gord baird” <gord.baird@gmail.com>, rose26@telus.net, karel@roessong.com, marciemclean@shaw.ca, “leslie corvidconsulting” <leslie.corvidconsulting@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 4:38:10 AM
Subject: Requesting a Moratorium on the installation of the Crest Tower until we have public consultation
Gord Horth,
The amendments to the Antenna Tower Siting Policy that were announced in February 2014 clearly state that the wireless industry must consult with local residents, increase transparency for municipalities and improve communications throughout the tower siting process, regardless of height. Is the Crest Tower replacing another Crest Tower, is this a new tower, or is this “upgrading” to a new tower? Is this Crest Tower extending the height of what is already there? Is the radio transmitter being placed on an existing structure? How would the public know the answers to any of these questions when the public has been denied their right to public consultation?
1) We want to know the location as required per the ISED policy.
2) We want to see the contract between the Landowner and Crest.
3) We want a legal document stating there is no future plans to allow other telecom companies to attach their antennas to the new Crest Tower.
4) We want to know what the antenna looked like before and what the Crest Tower is going to look like when the installation is completed.
Specific changes to the Antenna Tower Siting Policy included:
- Requiring consultation on all commercial tower installations, regardless of height;
- Adding a three-year limit between the time of consultation and the time a tower is built;
- Requiring communications from the company to nearby residents be clearly marked; and
- Encouraging municipalities to get involved early in the tower siting process.
https://www.cwta.ca/for-consumers/tower/
https://www.cwta.ca/for-consumers/tower/
Industry Canada’s default process has three steps whereby the proponent:
1. provides written notification to the public, the land-use authority and Industry Canada of the proposed antenna system installation or modification (i.e. public notification);
2. engages the public and the land-use authority in order to address relevant questions, comments and concerns regarding the proposal (i.e. responding to the public); and
3. provides an opportunity to the public and the land-use authority to formally respond in writing to the proponent regarding measures taken to address reasonable and relevant concerns (i.e. public reply comment).
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08777.html#sec4.2
We are requesting a Moratorium on the installation of the Crest Tower until we have public consultation.
Respectfully,
Janis Hoffmann
********
Subject: Re: Crest Communications Tower
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 11:49:03 -0700
From: Ken Williams <KWilliams@highlands.ca>
To: Janis Hoffmann <iknowjanis@shaw.ca>
CC: Highlands Fire Chief <Firechief@highlands.ca>
Hi Janis,
Thanks for you letter. I will forward it to staff. Here is a response from Mr.Gord Horth, CEO of CREST that I received yesterday. He would be happy to answer your questions just call him at: 250.516.5202
= = =
I understand you have had a few questions raised which I will try and address:
ISED (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada) is the federal agency that regulates communications & they mandate that towers 15 meter or higher should involve some consultation. Communications antennas are regulated by the federal government; the District of Highlands is not the approval authority. Because this tower is 15 meters and can be raised by 25% after a year (one time only) it does not require consultation. A link to the relevant site is https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08777.html
This installation is to replace an existing higher installation that we currently use just to the north. This older facility will be decommissioned later this year. So we are only swapping out one installation for another (not adding).
The power of our new transmission network is much less than our existing network so for those individual who are concerned about electromagnetic sources this is a positive move. The new system uses a different technology than the old, so is more efficient.
If anyone would like any further details please just ask.
Thank you.
Gord Horth
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” John Muir