1) The people in Qualicum Beach are justifiably upset because Telus wants to erect a new 147 ft. tower rather than put its transmitter on towers already in place. I suspect (based on cynicism alone) this is because Telus wants to be able to get the money for allowing many more transmitters to be added along with its 5G. Below is a letter to Grant Ries of ISED from someone complaining about the notification/consultation process. Here are a couple of links, one of the comment form to which the writer refers and the other is an approximation of what the tower would look like that was in the local newspaper.
(click on photos to enlarge)
from: http://chng.it/LphqXjPj
2) Most of us are most concerned about the health effects associated with living within 500 meters of a cell tower, but there are other reasons for concern as well. Another that ranks high is property values, and ISED will not allow either of these issues to be considered by Councils. The statistics below are not recent and no doubt any current survey would show even greater impact because many more people are educated on the health issues. Wait until 5G transmitters are on towers as well as microcells in front of homes!
Do neighborhood cell towers impact property values?
“A recent survey by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy (NISLAPP) found that 94 percent of homebuyers are “less interested and would pay less” for a property located near a cell tower or antenna.
Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability? also found that properties where a cell tower or group of antennas are placed on top of or attached to a building is problematic for buyers.
Of the 1,000 people who responded to the survey, 79 percent said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas, and almost 90 percent said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers in their residential neighborhood.”
https://www.parealtors.org/cell-towers-impact-property-values/
https://www.parealtors.org/cell-towers-impact-property-values/
DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE
“Residents are justifiably concerned about proposed cell towers reducing the value of their homes and properties. Who would want to live right next to one, or under one? And imagine what it’s like for people who purchase or build their dream home or neighborhood, only to later have an unwanted cell tower installed just outside their window?”
https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-value
3) Phonegate (Dr. Arazi), the Chicago Tribune and Dr. Om Gandhi combined have tested and found hundreds of smart/cell phones, currently in use and still being sold, to emit drastically higher levels of EMR than allowed even by our ridiculous Safety Code 6. As you saw in response to my letter to Health Canada, this agency says it has no responsibility for ensuring cell phones are not in violation of this guideline — ISED is. Yesterday I shared the response I got from ISED [see 3) & Letters – https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/2020-08-21-wireless-devices-like-smeters-and-insulin-pumps-vulnerable/], which refused to address this issue but obfuscated, repeating Health Canada’s mantra that cell phones are so safe that even children could use them 24/7/365. Will it take more children dying of glioblastomas and perhaps some lawsuits before Health Canada and ISED respond?
Cancer Survivors Speak Out About Cell Phone Lawsuit
“Cancer survivors are speaking out as they await the outcome of several lawsuits concerning radiation and cell phones.
The suits challenge the Federal Communication Commission’s radiation guidelines, the radio-frequency or ‘RF’ levels from cell phones, and safety notices required by the City of Berkeley.
Courtney Kelley, a young mother who has beaten back breast cancer twice, said she used to keep her phone tucked into her bra – but not anymore.
“I use headphones when I talk, or speaker phone,” said Kelley. “I don’t sleep with my cell phone near me. I never put my cell phone in a pocket or in my bra. I’m even uncomfortable with it in my purse next to my body, I try to keep it far away.””
https://www.activistpost.com/2020/08/cancer-survivors-speak-out-about-cell-phone-lawsuit.html
Smartphone Class Action Lawsuits Consolidated. FCC Accredited Lab Confirms Models Exceed RF Safety Levels Up to 500%
“In August the Chicago Tribune published a report that 11 smartphone models exceeded federal RF safety levels. This led to FeganScott law firm starting a class action lawsuit against Apple and Samsung. Consumers claim they were not adequately warned about radiation exposure risks from these devices. In fact, no “safe” level of cell phone radiation has still been scientifically determined for children or pregnant women.”
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/12/smartphone-class-action-lawsuits-consolidated-fcc-accredited-lab-confirms-models-exceed-rf-safety-levels-up-to-500.html
4) Too many people do not know that many studies have shown the relationship between EMR, especially cell phone use, and glioblastomas. And the Cancer Society is just one agency guilty of not providing this information to the public.
We Are Living with Brain Cancer. Here’s How Biden Could Help Us.
“If Joe Biden reaches the White House, he will have more direct experience with cancer than most presidents. His eldest son, Beau Biden, died in 2015, at 46 from glioblastoma, the most aggressive form of primary brain cancer. Glioblastoma is deadly — median survival from time of diagnosis is only 14 months — and notoriously difficult to treat.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/22/opinion/glioblastoma-biden-cancer.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/22/opinion/glioblastoma-biden-cancer.html or
Letters:
To: Bernie Ries, ISED, Regional Director (IC) <bernie.ries@canada.ca>;
From: X
Dear Mr. Ries,
I am a resident of Qualicum Beach and live within the ISED Default Public Consultation Process boundary for a proposed new Telus Telecommunications Tower and as such received the attached document. I refer to the Comment Sheet at the end of the document and in particular to Question 2. I also have taken a screen shot and included it below.
Please note there are only 3 questions asked in the Comment Sheet and nowhere is the respondent asked “Do you want a new Telus Telecommunications Tower?”. Instead, question 2 asks the respondent to choose between Location Option 1 or Location Option 2. It takes effort on the part of the respondent to consider a third unnamed option – are you in favour of a new Telecommunications Tower – yes or no. I know because I had to hand-write “Neither” in the Comment Sheet.
I have an undergraduate degree in Consumer Behaviour, an MBA and am a CPA,CA. How people make choices is an area I have researched and is the focus of Behavioural Economics (Behavioural Economics is the study of psychology as it relates to the economic decision-making processes of individuals and institutions – Investopedia.com). When you give people 2 choices they are most likely to choose one of the 2 options offered. In a court trial it might be called “leading the witness”. This may be ok when marketing soap or magazine subscriptions. In my opinion, it is not acceptable when considering an infrastructure item like a telecommunications tower.
I request that Telus repeat its Public Notification process with a revised Comment Sheet that adds the simple question – Are you in favour of a new Telecommunications Tower at the corner of Island Highway and Village Road – yes or no?
Sincerely,
X
attachment:
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“We win with facts that are well expressed and frequently communicated; we lose with silence and indifference to the broader social context.” Richard Edelman