in Norfolk County, Ontario, Canada.
Von: Martin Weatherall
Datum: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 23:59:46 -0400
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anca Gaston <email@example.com>
Date: Jul 5, 2007 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: RE : Response
To: Jim Oliver <Jim.Oliver@norfolkcounty.ca>
for the response. Regardless of whether Mr. Simpson acted rightly
or wrongly, I think it is important that the Mayor himself disregarded
procedure by involving himself
debate. In the past, previous chairs have told us that they have no capacity to
voice an opinion, the only thing they can do is vote if there is a tie. I
do not see how the Mayor could even be allowed to do that after he himself
stated where he stands on this issue. Notice that under by-law no. 207-
69, part 14 (2) under "the Rules of Debate": "The
Mayor may answer questions and comments in a general way without leaving the
chair, but if he/she wishes to make a motion or speak on a motion, taking a
definitive position, and endeavouring to persuade council to support that
position, then he/she shall first leave the chair".
clearly disregarded this rule, he took a definitive position and did not first
leave the chair. How would it be if there was a trial and the judge
started the meeting with a speech about how guilty and insane the
defendant was, and how the whole trial was a huge waste of his time? Wouldn't
that go against all the rules of 'assuming one is innocent until proven guilty'
and listening to the evidence with an open mind?
We all know
that Industry Canada's measurements will fall within Safety Code 6 - therefore
they are useless. The problem lies with Safety Code 6 - and this is the
reason why several countries in the world and municipalities have enforced
stricter regulations. These include China, Austria, New Zealand,
Switzerland, Russia, and Italy ( http://www.mountshastaecology.org/17other01cellphones.html). In February, 2005
the Vancouver School Board passed a resolution [attached] banning cell towers
from school property or within 1,000 feet until proven safe.
I think that in light of all of this information, the
Mayor and council are taking a huge risk by hanging their hats on a standard
created by the Industry, a standard which protects the corporation - NOT our
The numerous scientists from all over the world who
are advocating stricter standards, and the numerous countries and
municipalities which have already adopted these standards have nothing to gain
by doing so. These are intelligent people - many of them experts in their
fields - and they are doing the smart thing - they are listening with an open
mind - something that our council still needs to prove it can
This issue is not going to go away. We are concerned about our
health - and rightly so. We do not need to be radiated in our
homes. People are sick - despite what you may believe. They are
suffering from the same symptoms that people all over the world - who are
exposed to this type of radiation - suffer from. If you have read the
binder that was provided then you know what I am talking about.
On 7/3/07, Jim Oliver <Jim.Oliver@norfolkcounty.ca > wrote:
was certainly concerned about the way that the meeting on the 26th ended, not
because of the way mayor Travale handled the meeting, but because Mr. Simpson
would not respect the authority of the Chair when requested to do so. The mayor
had no real alternative but to close the meeting when that occurred.
preference would have been to hold a separate special meeting of Council to
hear the 22 deputations - it would not have been appropriate to take up to 3
hours of a regular Council meeting, with a number of other agenda items,
in order to allow everyone to speak, even if some would be presenting similar
information. At this point I feel Council must await the results of the testing
program before having further discussion on the issue.
for your continued interest in this issue. I am sorry i didn't get to meet you
the other evening.
Date: ven. 2007-06-29 23:44
À: Jim Oliver
Objet : Response
Dear Councillor Oliver,
I write in response to Mayor Travale's
accusations and comments made on Tuesday, June 26th on the issue of
the Union St. Simcoe cell phone tower. I was one of the individuals on
the deputation list. Since neither the deputees nor the councillors were
allowed to respond at the council meeting, please allow me to offer this
rebuttal in the form of an email.
The Mayor made several erroneous statements as
well as contradicted himself several times. I will be addressing several
of his points in a numbered fashion:
1. The Mayor held up a brochure issued
by Industry Canada that deals with "Frequently Asked Questions" and
asked audience members whether the "people knocking on their doors"
were giving them this pamphlet. He explained that this brochure is an
invaluable resource that each one of us should read.
a. We are all indeed familiar with this
brochure, and unfortunately, it appears that the Mayor himself did not read it.
In it, the following two questions and answers appear:
What should I
do if I am concerned
proposed tower in my
Canada recognizes that the local community may have
about the location of a radiocommunication tower. As a
the Department requires proponents of significant antenna
to consult with municipal land-use authorities. If you have
about a proposed tower in your community, you may wish
make your views known to your local municipal officials. Local
can be taken into consideration during the consultation
with the proponent of the radiocommunication facility.
Industry Canada expect
consultation process ensures that local municipal land-use
have the opportunity to influence the location of
antenna structures. Industry Canada expects
all involved parties will examine the proposal, consider each
concerns and attempt to arrive at alternative solutions that
not unduly restrict the antenna structure. The consultation
attempts to resolve concerns at the local level.
the brochure advocates community consultation, saying that "local concerns
can be taken into consideration during the consultation process". No
consultation took place with respect to the Union St. Water tower cell tower,
no citizen was notified, and our views were not taken into consideration.
This goes against Industry Canada's very own suggestions.
2. The Mayor called one individual a
"rogue" running through the neighbourhood and accused him/her of
"fear-mongering" and of telling neighbours that the cell tower causes
cancer. He further stated that no science exists linking cell towers to
cancer and that claiming such is akin to "yelling fire in a darkened
room", a phrase which he plagiarized from Monte Sonnenburg's Simcoe
Reformer editorial dated June 2006..
a. In response to the comment about the
"rogue", I am personally acquainted with this individual and I can
assure you that running through the neighbourhood and scaring citizens was the
last thing he did. Rather, neighbours sought this person out, and,
volunteered information about their illness on their own. In fact, 71
people in total approached us and complained that they have experienced
symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, ringing in the ears, etc. since the cell
tower went up.
b. The Mayor's comments about no
science existing that links cell towers to cancer makes it obvious that he did
not even open the binder which he and each councillor were provided with.
In it, he would have found several peer-reviewed and published studies that
found an increased incidence of cancer in people living near cell phone
antennas. Among these was a review of 220 studies (done by the
independent research firm ECOLOG Institute) and sponsored by T-mobile, a cell
phone giant. This report concludes: "Given the results of the
present epidemiological studies, it can be concluded that electromagnetic
fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a
role in the development of cancer" (p.33)
3. The Mayor referred to the science that
those concerned about the cell tower were presenting as "mumbo-jumbo from
a. This again merely illustrates that
he did not even look at the binder that was provided. Had he opened it,
he would have found a study which found a four-fold increase in cancer in
people living near cell phone base stations (Wolf & Wolf, 2004). This
study was published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention, Vol
1, No 2, April 2004. Every study provided had been published in a
peer-reviewed, internationally recognized journal and is available at any
university library. These studies are difficult to find on the internet
and usually require a subscription to a university library. I was able to
obtain them because I am currently a Teaching Assistant and Course Co-ordinator
at Brock University.
4. The Mayor personally insulted and
defamed Dan Currie. He accused Mr. Currie of being sick only in the
presence of the Union St. water tower. He also suggested that perhaps something
else – a chemical used in the renovations, something in the house – might be
making Mr. Currie sick.
a. This is inaccurate. Mr. Currie
has been diagnosed as electrosensitive by specialists in the field of
electrical hypersensitivity at Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto. This is a
condition that is afflicting more and more people all the time. Mr.
Currie is sensitive to ALL cell towers, not just the one on Union
St. Mr. Currie has experienced sickness in other communities, in
stores, whenever he is in the presence of a cell phone transmitter.
b. Since Mr. Currie becomes sick in the
presence of other cell towers as well, it is obviously not the renovations that
are causing his symptoms. In addition, Mr. Currie becomes sick without
even entering his house, therefore it is nothing inside the house.
c. His symptoms are consistent with
those of people all over the world who are being diagnosed as suffering from
'electromagnetic hypersensitivity". In Sweden, this condition is a
nationally recognized disability and provisions are made to allow these
individuals to work in safe environments. Dr. David Fancy, a professor
at Brock University, is among those afflicted, and was scheduled to give a
deputation on Tuesday. Brock University has made provisions for him to
teach off-campus given the presence of cell antennas on the Brock campus.
5. The Mayor mentioned several times
that only "new information" shall be presented and anything else will
not be tolerated.
a. The council before which we were
presenting has several new councillors as well as a new Mayor. Do these
new councillors not deserve to have the same background information as the
others? In fact, these new councillors personally welcomed and requested
this information. I am also curious as to whether Mr. Travale himself
attended last year's council meeting held on June 6, 2006 . If he did
not, how can he justify preventing any overlap of material? Even more
absurd – how can he even identify overlap of material?
6. In reference to the letter signed by
11 doctors and to Dr. Tschirhart, the Mayor made several comments. He
made reference to the fact that the letter was not written by them and almost
insinuated that they were somehow forced into signing it. He then
concluded by "selectively" reading part of another letter from
Tschirhart which said that further studies are needed.
a. Does the Mayor believe that these 11
medical professionals would sign their name to a letter whose contents they did
not agree with? One only knows that within the professional community it
is customary for busy individuals to request others draft letters that they
b. Since Dr. Tschirhart recommends
further studies be conducted, is Mr. Travale recommending that the citizens
living in the vicinity of the cell phone tower be the subjects of this