Newspaper / Wednesday, October 02, 2002 02:42 PM
Cell tower variation opposed by residents
City politicians turned thumbs down on Telus plans
to erect two 43-metre (140-foot) cell phone towers in South Surrey.
Telus Mobility and Wireless Development Services asked
council for a variation from the usual maximum tower height of 12 metres
(40 feet) to allow construction of one tower at 18809-0 Ave. and another
at 3133-188th St. Telus wants to install a chain of towers along 0 Avenue,
from Surrey to Abbotsford, to improve cell phone service for the increasing
number of drivers who use the road.
Nearly 100 residents turned out for Monday's public
hearing on the towers to tell council they don't want them. Most raised
concerns about potential long-term health risks some believe are associated
with radiation from cell phone antennae.
Milt Bowling has made a crusade of fighting the proliferation
of cell phone antennae. He told council Industry Canada, which regulates
electromagnetic radiation from such towers, uses a guideline called Safety
Code 6. The code, he said, only deals with the thermal effects of radiation
on the human body and sets the safe limit of exposure to less than that
which would raise body temperature by one degree in six minutes. "These
geniuses in Ottawa say, if it doesn't cook you, it doesn't hurt you,"
Bowling scoffed. He referred to U.S. EPA studies which conclude the long-term
effects of other aspects of exposure are unknown.
Bowling said people have reported ringing in the ears,
headaches, sleep disruption, short-term memory loss, nose bleeds and increased
frequency of seizures in children with epilepsy which they believe are
associated to radiation from cell towers.
Morrie Finn of Wireless Development Services, one of
the proponents, said no study has produced definitive proof cell towers
cause health problems. Two recent U.S. lawsuits claiming damages for ill
health caused by cell phones were thrown out by the courts, Finn said,
an indication there is no connection between the technology and disease.
The audience wasn't buying that argument, though. "They
said the same thing about tobacco," resident Dan Johnson said. "How
many years did they have court cases thrown out before they finally made
In the end, council unanimously voted against both
proposals. Coun. Marvin Hunt noted the city doesn't have the technical
expertise to make a decision based on the disputed safety aspects of cell
phone technology. "That's Health Canada's business. We will never
have the expertise. We can only decide on the variance and vote for or
against," Hunt said. Asked later if Telus could go ahead and install
the 12 metre (40 foot) towers allowed under Surrey bylaw, Hunt said they
could, but he doesn't believe that will happen. "My expectation is
they will do nothing, or go to the CRTC for a ruling." The CRTC can
overrule council's decision, Hunt noted.
Telus Mobility could not be reached for comment before
the Now's press deadline.
2 of 3
Surrey Newspaper / Monday, November 18, 2002 10:42 AM
Students say no to cell tower
Students at Sullivan Heights secondary school have
joined the growing throng of opposition to the installation of a cell
tower at their school. Shawn Slavin, president of the student council,
told trustees Thursday night they have no business permitting the installation
of a cell phone antenna array on their school "unless they're 100
per cent sure there are no side effects."
Although trustees decided this week to put the controversial
project on hold, Slavin says students, staff and parents worried about
health risks posed by low-level radiation want the project killed. Slavin
vowed that students, and parents, plan to keep up the pressure on the
board. "We want to bring it to the public's attention and we want
to show the board that we're not taking this lightly," Slavin told
a reporter after his presentation to the board. "We're going to make
sure that a cell tower does not go on our school."
Earlier this week, Liz Walker, the mom spearheading
the anti-cell tower campaign, complained about a lack of consultation
regarding the project, a sentiment that was echoed by Slavin at the meeting.
School board chairwoman Mary Polak says the issue was
widely covered in the media when it was first broached and claims there
was no wave of opposition. Trustees gave approval to Rogers AT&T to
install the cell tower at Sullivan Heights at a school board meeting in
September 2001. Polak said the board put the project on hold to allow
trustees to consider the concerns raised by the parents and students.
Opponents of the cell tower maintain that despite the
mass of research and studies done on low-level radiation, there is no
conclusive evidence that cell towers pose no danger.
Polak told Slavin the board will give a response at
the next board meeting. If the board goes ahead with the project, Walker
has threatened to move her kids to another school. "I know my two
kids will be moving if the cell tower goes up. They'll be moving to another
school. I can't risk it."
3 of 3
Surrey Newspaper / Wednesday, December 04, 2002 02:23
Reach out and find another way to raise cash
Re: "Cell decision stays on hold," the Now, Nov. 30.
I am writing in response to the stupid idea of putting
a cell phone tower on the top of my school, Sullivan Heights secondary.
Before those in favour of the cell tower object by saying that the tower
will be atop the Bell Centre for Performing Arts, and not the school itself,
I would like to take the time to roll my eyes and give those wretched
excuses a look of pure disgust.
The theatre and the school are not two separate buildings.
The theatre is right in the middle of the school, next to the Hub (cafeteria).
Myself being an avid band dork, I spend a lot of time whizzing about on
stage in the theatre. Our school assemblies are held there. So are our
drama presentations. It is a part of our school as far as I'm concerned,
and I can safely say the majority of the school population would agree
with me on this issue.
The suggested tower would emit low levels of radio
frequency radiation in all directions (not just up and out to cell phone
users, but down to students as well) 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
This radiation has been shown to cause DNA fragmentation and certain forms
of cancer. It has also been shown to cause lack of concentration, among
a slew of other maladies. I would also like to add that while the levels
of radiation that this tower would emit would be well within the safety
guidelines of Canada, it has been found by scientists that levels much
lower than this standard caused the same detrimental effects.
What a joke! The very school board that is supposed
to be improving students' success in schools is putting its "valued
students'" health at risk. And for what? A couple thousand dollars?
I don't care if the school board were to receive a million dollars up
front; our health and well-being is not for sale. Have a bake sale, hold
a car wash (me and the seven other lowly teens planned a carwash to raise
money for band by ourselves and made $289 - imagine what you pro adults
could do). Whatever you do, find some other way to make money. Putting
a cell tower on top of my school is the lamest, most senseless idea if
there ever was one.
Furthermore, that money would go to the school board,
not Sullivan. Sullivan might get some of that money, true, but a lot would
also go toward other schools. Why should kids in Tamanawis and QE (not
that I have anything against these schools) benefit from my exposure to
unnecessary levels of radiation?
Personally, it is not unusual to see me still at school
at four zipping around doing something for student council or yearbook,
and there are kids (and teachers) who stay much, much later than that,
and on a daily basis. Granted, by the time the tower would probably be
put up, I would be in my final year of high school and this issue will
not affect me for very long, but what about my sister who will be in Grade
10? Or my friend's little brother, who will be starting the first of five
years of unnecessary exposure? One teacher I know stays until 9:30 p.m.
occasionally. Does this teacher deserve to be put at risk? Absolutely
To quote my science teacher, who also feels very strongly
against this tower, we as individuals are losing our ability to limit
our exposure to potential toxins. I can't stop everyone in the Lower Mainland
from driving and polluting my air, but I can certainly stand up and express
my disdain for being exposed to stuff that could give me creepy radiation
diseases in my school.
Grade 11 student,
Sullivan Heights secondary
Informant: Gotemf and Robert Riedlinger
Science-Nature China plans
health limits on mobiles
Informant: Robert Riedlinger
Tom Bearden Website update
Dr. Terrence Barrett very kindly sent us a copy of
1991 paper on Tesla's nonlinear oscillator-shuttle-circuit
The Tom Bearden Website/ Cheniere Press
Dear Friends & Strangers: I have been working on
the development of the International Criminal Court since 1996, and I
can assure you that the 100 lawyers cited below are not just whistling
Dixie. Furthermore, the International Criminal Court is empowered to hear
cases of Aggression, which by any definition this attack on the state
of Iraq will amount to.
AFX European Focus, January 24, 2003 Friday,
GENERAL, 332 words,
Lawyers warn Bush that attack
on Iraq could lead to war crimes prosecutions, NEW YORK
A group of more than 100 legal experts warned President
George W. Bush in a letter that senior officials could face prosecution
if US soldiers committed war crimes in Iraq.
The experts said violations of international humanitarian
law by US and allied forces "were extensively documented" during
the 1991 Gulf War and military campaigns in Kosovo in 1999 and in Afghanistan
in late 2001.
"Given these past violations, there is a reasonable
basis for assuming that in any future military action against Iraq, these
requirements will once again be breached," they wrote.
The letter, signed by more than 100 law professors
and non-governmental organizations, was also sent to US Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Canadian counterpart,
Previous violations included "indiscriminate methods
of attack," the use of cluster bombs and fuel-air explosives, and
attacks on electricity supplies and dams, it said.
One of the signatories, Michael Ratner, President of
the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, said: "I hope this
unjustified war never happens, but if President Bush proceeds to war,
we fear it will be a war that unlawfully targets the Iraqi people as was
the case in 1991."
The letters "are putting the US, UK and Canadian
governments on notice that such illegal tactics cannot and must not be
used again," Ratner said.
Britain and Canada are both parties to the statute
of the new International Criminal Court, set up on July 1 last year to
try cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
"While the US did not ratify the treaty establishing
the court, US officials involved in committing certain international crimes
may nonetheless be held responsible under principles of Universal Jurisdiction
and the War Crimes Act," the lawyers said.
Omega: SAY NO TO WAR IN IRAQ!