UBCM Votes Yes to Having a Say in Microcell Placement

Contact Oona McOuat
SALT SPRING, September 28 – At the UBCM this morning, the province’s local governments voted to support a resolution on giving them a say when microcells are placed within 100 meters of homes, schools and hospitals in their communities.

Enjoy this 1-minute animation on the Resolution:

Why This Resolution Matters
Despite a substantial body of evidence showing wireless technology is harmful to humans and the environment, Innovation Canada allows microcells to be placed on lampposts and utility poles by our homes without our consent or often knowledge.
Aesthetics, property value, liability, industry control-for-profit over the public right of way, cyber-security, public safety, health, and well-being – there are many reasons why local governments are concerned about microcells.

The Resolution That Was Passed:

MOTION of Grand Forks City Council
WHEREAS public consultation on the placement of cell towers is mandated; and
WHEREAS new technology is moving away from these large towers to microtransmitters which do not require local government or public consultation;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED  that the AKBLG request the UBCM petition relevant provincial and federal governments to mandate consultation with the land use authorities and the public regarding microcell transmitter siting within 100 meters of residences, schools and hospitals.

What’s a Microcell?
Microcells are small cellular transmitters that broadcast wireless radiation 24 -7.  Anywhere from 3 to 10 of them are being placed on one residential street. Wireless radiation is linked to an increased risk of cancer, as well reproductive and neurological problems – like disturbed sleep. It is conservatively defined as a 2b carcinogen, which means it is in the same category as DDT.
Out of Sight, Out of Mind?
Industry is coming up with some sneaky ways of designing – or is that hiding – small cell transmitters. But that doesn’t mean their effects will not be felt.
The wireless industry would like us to believe the jury’s still out on whether wireless radiation has harmful health impacts. However, thousands of peer-reviewed studies show evidence of harm. Over 180 scientists and physicians just sent out a plea for a halt to the rollout of 5G transmitters in Europe. To protect their health, California firefighters won an exemption from having small cells placed on their fire halls. The question is, don’t the rest of us deserve this same protection? 
Safe Connectivity is an Option
Connectivity does not have to be primarily EMF-based and does not have to continue to escalate the amount of this scientifically deemed hazardous substance to which we are all exposed. 

Direct fiber optic connections, G-Fast technology which connects fiber optic cables to existing copper wires, strategically placed low-EMF emitting public transmitters like those piloted in Paris, France  – why are telecoms choosing to put the well-being of all of us, including wildlife and plants at risk, when safe options are available?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *