1) Time sensitive re. Salt Spring ROGERS/CREST tower. I hope that you will consider writing a short letter with your reasons for opposing this project. It must be sent by noon tomorrow (Friday, April 16) to:
publicconsultation@cypresslandservices.com
and
ssiinfo@islandstrust.bc.ca
This may help prevent commercial and emergency services from teaming up for other projects. Please see “Letters” below.
2) Telecom union workers in the USA are lobbying for Internet providers to be regulated as utilities. This would, supposedly, protect customers from arbitrary rate increases, provide more security for their data, ensure more resilient networks, as well as returning more responsibility for oversight to the states and the utility commissions. It will be interesting to see what more is in it for the telecoms….
AT&T/Verizon workers’ union urges states to regulate ISPs as utilities
“The Communications Workers of America (CWA) union is lobbying state governments to regulate Internet service providers as utilities.
The CWA, which represents more than 150,000 workers at AT&T and over 30,000 at Verizon, announced on Monday a “multi-state effort to pass state legislation that would establish public utility commission oversight of broadband in public safety, network resiliency and consumer protection.”
“Legislation has already been introduced in California, Colorado and New York, and CWA is in active conversations with policymakers in state houses across the country about its model bill, the Broadband Resiliency, Public Safety and Quality Act,” the union said. In addition to broadband regulation, the model bill calls for regulation of the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) home phone services offered by cable companies and other ISPs, which have replaced the old copper-wire landlines for many consumers.”
3) Thanks to Dr. Don Maisch for sending this significant article about the telecoms’ potential liability for employing ICNIRP guidelines to justify their wireless device and practices. The telecoms know that ICNIRP is biased and refuses to even consider the thousands of independent studies showing non-thermal radiation is dangerous. ICNIRP doesn’t force them or WHO, or FCC, or Health Canada to hide behind ICNIRP, so ICNIRP is home free. Those who blindly comply, according to this article’s author, will bear the legal responsibility for the harm done.
5G is testing the limits of trust
“ICNIRP safety guidelines are what they say, just guidelines. No one is legally bound to use them. This means that even if the guidelines were proven to be in error, nobody could legally sue ICNIRP for this error.
The telecom industry and the national radiation protection organizations, however, in choosing to use ICNIRP safety guidelines, becomes legally responsible for any health hazard caused by the radiation-emitting devices they produce, even if they comply with the ICNIRP guidelines. Once the telecom and the national radiation protection organizations accept and use ICNIRP safety guidelines, it is they, and not ICNIRP, that has legal responsibility should the devices ever be shown to cause health harm….
In this scientifically and legally complex situation, there is an urgent need to perform an independent validation of the results of ICNIRP’s review of science and of the validity of the ICNIRP safety guidelines.”
https://blogbrhp.medium.com/5g-is-testing-the-limits-of-trust-8180d578e140
4) On March 24, nearly 100 satellites were sent into orbit, and Arthur Firstenberg found that many people had suffered physical problems soon thereafter. In a newsletter, he asked for people to report if they or anyone they knew had any health problems at that approximate time. He received 1,000 from around the world.
(click on photos to enlarge)
Survey Results
“On Thursday, March 25, 2021, almost everyone I spoke with, both here in Santa Fe and elsewhere in the U.S. and Canada, said they were not feeling well and had not slept well the previous night. Since that was my experience as well, I began to ask for details and started taking notes. The stories were consistent and shocking.
By the next day it was obvious to me that something extraordinary was happening. I did some research and discovered that we are still in a time of low solar activity, so I ruled that out as a cause. However, my research suggested a reason: an unprecedented number of satellites had been launched into space the previous day. SpaceX had launched 60 satellites Wednesday morning (4:28 UTC) and OneWeb had launched 36 satellites Wednesday night (2:47 UTC Thursday). In addition, SpaceX had suddenly increased the speed of its satellite internet connections on Wednesday to more than 400 Mbps, as reported online by some of the people who are beta testing its service.”
Click to access Survey-Results.pdf
https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Survey-Results.pdf
Letters:
From: Oona McOuat (name given with permission)
To: “Tawny Verigin” <tawny@cypresslandservices.com>, “Peter Grove Islands Trust” <pgrove@islandstrust.bc.ca>, “Laura Patrick” <lpatrick@islandstrust.bc.ca>, pluckham@islandstrust.bc.ca, “SSIInfo” <ssiinfo@islandstrust.bc.ca>, ghorth@crest.ca, “Public Consultation” <publicconsultation@cypresslandservices.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:57:33 PM
Subject: Why I Strongly Oppose the Rogers-Crest Channel Ridge Tower
Hi Everyone,
I live less than a mile from the proposed Rogers-CREST tower site. A few years ago, Dr. Alda Blanes put an offer on a property near ours on Langs Road. As a part of her purchase inspection, she had a radiofrequency radiation (RFR) survey done. It was deemed by the building biologist who conducted the test that the ambient RFR levels on the property were unsafe, with the likely source being the Telus cell tower that is already at the proposed Channel Ridge site.
My husband is a professional wildlife photographer. At a time when birds and insects are rapidly disappearing, he is so fortunate that our yard and St Mary Lake across the street are a haven and a home for many songbirds and waterfowl, including endangered trumpeter swans, as well as butterflies, bees and so much more. We also grow most of our food on our land, and our harvest depends upon healthy pollinators.
Telus has just applied to the Universal Broadband Fund for a grant to upgrade their existing cell sites on our island to 5G. Given the plethora of peer-reviewed research that shows that all wireless signals, but untested 5G in particular, have a deleterious effect on insects, this is already of grave concern. But the thought of yet another large commercial tower literally towering above us, filling the air with even greater levels of electrosmog – which we do not use, as we do not use smart phones or Wi-Fi – is unthinkable and deeply disturbing.
So – that is my personal heartfelt reason for strongly opposing this Channel Ridge Rogers-CREST project.
I have also carefully studied Rogers’ online resources as well as the engineer’s report and frequency list for this project sent to me by Ms. Verigin and it is clear that:
As outlined in the report, it will house 22 Rogers antennas, at least 6 of which will emit two of the three frequencies Rogers plans to use for their 5G network in Canada. CREST will have one 2-element VHF dipole and one microwave dish on this tower.
Although once a tower is built additional antennas may be added to it with no required further public consultation, the engineer’s report shows that as planned, the only 5G frequency this tower will not emit is in the high or millimetre wave band. When that spectrum is released in Canada over the next few years, ISED policy permits Rogers to install small cell antennas in the ROWs by our homes without notifying or consulting with the public or the Islands Trust. (Proponents need only secure permission from the party that owns the ROWs (the MOT) and the owner of the structures they plan to put small cells on.) Thus, this is our only chance to weigh in on Rogers 5G in our neighbourhood.
Rogers’ coverage maps show almost full 4G and 5G on our island. If there are indeed gaps in coverage that this project plans to meet, then Rogers’ website is misleading customers about available service in our area.
Ms Verigin has stated that there are already “a dozen or so existing cell sites” serving Salt Spring. Given the way cellular signals travel on a forested and hilly island, there is no guarantee that this tower will be the “lucky 13th” that fills any existing coverage gaps.
Credible scientific, legal, environmental and legislative experts from around the world are sounding warning bells about the social, health, liability, cyber-security and environmental costs of wireless densification – with 5G being of particular concern – and are urging us to take a precautionary and conscious approach to connectivity. (See Support Material below.)
A scientific review (found HERE) funded by Switzerland’s Federal Institute of the Environment and the University of Bern and published on April 6, 2021 in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences shows there “is consistent evidence” that wireless radiation at levels much lower than those permitted by Safety Code 6 causes oxidative stress, the precursor to many diseases.
Given our island’s 20 year history of taking a protective approach to radiation exposure, I strongly urge the Salt Spring Local Trust Committee to issue a letter of non-concurrence for a joint Rogers-CREST tower, and to find a solution that allows CREST to provide needed emergency services without inviting commercial providers to add to the electrosmog polluting our island,
Sincerely,
Oona McOuat
SUPPORT MATERIAL
1. Letter Sent by Pitt Meadows, BC Council to MP
In July 2018, the Mayor and Council of Pitt Meadows, BC sent this excellent letter to their MP, voicing concern about a Rogers cell antenna placement in their community, Safety Code 6, Radiofrequency radiation and 5G.
In this groundbreaking document, the state of New Hampshire formulates 15 recommendations to inform and protect the public from 5G. The Majority report is contained in the first 17 pages, and the bulk of the document contains supporting appendices and meeting minutes. On pages 5 and 6 of 11 at the end of the document (Appendix O), Commission members Denise Ricciardi and Dr. Paul Heroux of University of McGill’s Faculty of Medicine counter several oft-repeated points of misinformation on the health effects of wireless radiation.
3. New York State Lawmakers Want Answers on 5G Health Effects
In March 2021, members of the New York legislature introduced a bill calling for a formal investigation into the risks, both health and environmental, of all wireless radiation, but especially that from 5G technology. This special commission is slated to report its findings to the legislature by June of 2022.
4. Most major insurers will not cover wireless radiation because they see it as high risk.
Murray v. Motorola is a class action suit now underway in the US filed on behalf of citizens who developed gliomas (brain tumors) due to cell phone use. In March 2021, Dr. Christopher Portier, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and a scientific advisor for the World Health Organization (WHO), wrote this expert report for the lawsuit in which he examines many studies done since 2010, to find “RF exposure probably causes gliomas (tumors in the brain and spinal cord) and neuromas (growths or tumors of nerve tissue) and, given the human, animal and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and neuromas is high.”
5. Health Canada sets an exposure standard – called Safety Code 6 – based on guidelines established by ICNIRP – an industry affiliated group based in Munich.
This recent article written by the chair of the Environmental Law Committee of the German Bar association explains why we should be wary of 5G and why relying on ICNIRP for our exposure guidelines does not work:
https://www.diagnose-funk.org/publikationen/artikel/detail&newsid=1663
6. Wireless Technology is a huge contributor to global climate change, and this will only get worse as 5G launches the “Internet of Things”.
Ecologistas en Accion is one of Spain’s most important environmental organizations. After 2 years of studying the social, health and environmental impacts of wireless-dependent infrastructure and 5G, last month the group issued this comprehensive statement which calls for a moratorium on 5G technology and a return to safe, stable energy efficient wired connections.
https://ehtrust.org/major-environmental-group-of-spain-issues-statement-on-5g/
7. A Fiber Optic Breakthrough Could Beat 5G for Rural Internet Access
In early January 2020, a research team from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology transmitted a signal through a fiber optic cable for 323 miles at 200 gigabits per second, due to a breakthrough in fiber optic technology. This is 20 times faster than the speeds 5G promises.
This groundbreaking 2018 report by Dr.Timothy Schoechle of the National Institute of Law and Public Policy explains why hard-wired telecommunications infrastructure supports economic growth, bridges the digital divide and diminishes risks to security, privacy, public health and the environment.
Oona McOuat
Oona McOuat.com
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” Winston Churchill