Betreff: Democracy Failing in Norfolk County, Ontario, Canada.

Von: Martin Weatherall

Datum: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 23:59:46 -0400



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anca Gaston <>
Date: Jul 5, 2007 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: RE : Response
To: Jim Oliver <>

Hello Mr. Oliver,


Thank you 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

in the 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".  

The Mayor 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 (  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 health. 


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 do.   


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 < > wrote:

Hi Anca;

I 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.

My 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.

Thanks for your continued interest in this issue. I am sorry i didn't get to meet you the other evening.

Jim Oliver


De: Anca Gaston []
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

about a proposed tower in my


Industry Canada recognizes that the local community may have

concerns about the location of a radiocommunication tower. As a

result, the Department requires proponents of significant antenna

structures to consult with municipal land-use authorities. If you have

concerns about a proposed tower in your community, you may wish

to make your views known to your local municipal officials. Local

concerns can be taken into consideration during the consultation

process with the proponent of the radiocommunication facility.

What does Industry Canada expect

from the consultation process?

The consultation process ensures that local municipal land-use

authorities have the opportunity to influence the location of

radiocommunication antenna structures. Industry Canada expects

that all involved parties will examine the proposal, consider each

other's concerns and attempt to arrive at alternative solutions that

do not unduly restrict the antenna structure. The consultation

process attempts to resolve concerns at the local level.

            Notice that 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 the internet"

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 then sign.

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 experiment? 

 Thank you for your time and I eagerly await your response. 

Anca Gaston