Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015-09-10_Council Public Agenda Package (additions - Appt. 9:00 a.m. Comments from Robert White and Dennis Connolly regarding Eastlink Cell Tower ) MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER CHESTER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 8:45 a.m. AGENDA 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER. 2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 2.1 Council – Thursday, August 27, 2015 3. MATTERS ARISING: 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS: 4.1 Committee of the Whole – Thursday, September 3, 2015 – Warden Webber a. Deferral from Committee of the Whole September 3, 2015: Tender T-2014-016 – Septage Lagoons Dredging. 4.2 RCMP Advisory Board – Tuesday, July 21, 2015 – Warden Webber 4.3 Any other Committee Reports. 5. CORRESPONDENCE: 5.1 Report from Solicitor dated August 31, 2015 regarding Proposed Changes to the Municipal Election Act. (follow-up from the August 27, 2015 Council Meeting) Email from David Atchison, AMANS regarding request from the Department of Municipal Affairs seeking feedback on proposed changed to the Municipal Government Act as follows: a)Discussion Paper – Municipal Government and School Board Elections – Proposed Changes, Current Issues, and Discussion Questions – Summer 2015 (Feedback will be accepted by mail or email until September 4, 2015 and submitted to: localelections@novascotia.ca or th Minister of Municipal Affairs, PO Box 216, Halifax, NS B3J 2M4. b)Department of Municipal Affairs – Participant Feedback from the Local Elections Workshops held in July. 5.2 Email from Lunenburg/Queens Local Food Team dated August 28, 2015 regarding proclaiming September 19-27, 2015 as Local Food Awareness Week. 5.3 Letter of thanks from Mahone Islands Conservation Association dated August 24, 2015 regarding financial donation toward the acquisition of Squid Island. 5.4 Email from Fire Services Coordinator dated August 31, 2015 regarding proclaiming October 4-10, 2015 as Fire Prevention Week “Hear the BEEP where you SLEEP. Every Bedroom Needs a Working Smoke Alarm ©.” Page 1 of 2 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 For Information from CAO dated August 31, 2015 regarding Duke Street Sidewalk – Phase 3A - Award of Tender. 6.2 For information from CAO dated August 31, 2015 regarding Sewer Systems – Clean and Video Inspection. 6.3 Request for Decision for Senior Planner dated August 28, 2015 regarding Water Quality Monitoring Program and test results to date. 6.4 Request for Decision from Senior Planner dated September 3, 2015 regarding Eastlink Monopole Structure - Chester Village. 6.5 Request for Decision from CAO regarding Expression of Interest – T-2015-016 Energy Project Development. (to be circulated separately) 7. ADJOURNMENT. APPOINTMENT 9:15 a.m. Jim Pattillo, Rob White, Dennis Connolly, Jon Dimick, Norm Chandler and Kerry Crofton regarding Eastlink Monopole Structure - Chester Village. In Camera following regular session under Section 22 of the MGA Page 2 of 2 10 -APT 06 Robert White's Comments to Chester Council re Eastlink cell tower, September 10,2015 Thank you Warden Webber, council and staff for the opportunity to appear before you today. We request that Council rescind the Letter of Concurrence previously issued to Industry Canada on the basis that: (1) due process was not served (2) material issues with the representations in the Eastlink application (3) the health risks (4) the outdated standards of I®dustry Canada's Code 6 (5) the culpability and financial and legal liability of Council (6) the tower not meeting the goals of the planning department or its residents particularly given its location in the center of the historic village of Chester. We believe that due process in regard to the Eastlink application has not been fully served. As a result the Village Commission and Municipal Council were not fully informed of: Eastlink's full disclosure related to the tower; the concerns of the residents; the related health risks; and the impact of the tower on the historic Village of Chester. The public meetings related to this application with the Village Commission were seriously underrepresented with only four residents in attendance including Jim and Sue Pattillo and the Warden for St. Stephens, all well respected members of this community. The poor attendance was NOT based on there being a lack of interest, rather on the purpose of the meeting being poorly described. The notice was for a meeting about a "monopole", not for a telecommunications or cell tower and did not mention Eastlink. Most residents thought it was a pole for the fire departments use. In contrast, once residents were put on notice of a meeting in regard to an Eastlink cell tower there was a high level of attendance and expression of great concern articulated by the 50 to 100 residents at the Village Commission meeting at the fire hall a few weeks ago, which was advertised only by word of mouth. At the original Village Commission meeting specific concerns and requests for information were made in regard to the specificities of the tower and the process of approval by at least one resident, Jim Pattillo. The Village Commission went on record and gave an undertaking to address the issues of concern, provide requested documentation and inform the residents of the future process for evaluating the application for the tower. Mr. Pattillo did not receive a response from the Village Commission on any of the above-mentioned issues or undertakings. Mr. Pattillo has subsequently made similar follow up requests with the Village Commission with again with no response. 1 The Village Commission has chosen to be unresponsive and has failed in their fiduciary duty and responsibilities as elected officials and leaders in protecting the best interests and well-being of its residents. The Village Commission did not undertake or complete a thorough due diligence or examination process in evaluating the cell tower application. The Village Commission failed to engage, solicit input or fully inform the residents of Chester as to the basis of the Eastlink application. Due process was unfortunately not well served under the steerage of the Village Commission. We recognize that the Village Commission is an organization that is comprised of members of our community that undertake an oath to do there best in representing its residents. In fact we are very appreciative and recognize the fine deeds of work they have done in the past. The Eastlink tower application is however a situation that perhaps was not within their area of expertise. We believe that Eastlink took advantage of the Village Commission and put its interests ahead of the public interest. Eastlink was driven purely by its own commercial profit motives and self interest and had very little regard or sensitivity for the best interests of the Village of Chester and its residents. Eastlink negotiates a ground lease with landlords, such as the Village Commission, secures its approvals, and erects it tower. Eastlink then becomes a landlord by "multi -tenanting or co -locating" the tower which means that it sub -leases space on the tower to other wireless and paging tenants like Bell and Rogers. Eastlink earns a handsome long-term income stream for having put the deal in place and becoming the landlord of the tower. In Chester, Eastlink was able to negotiate a sweet deal, a below market rent, of only $2,000 per annum. Eastlink has served their best interests and in this case showed very little regard, respect, or sensitivity for the 250 year history and historic nature of this unique and quaint seaside village or the health and well being of its residents. 2 This Council relied upon and acted in good faith trusting that the Village Commission had completed a thorough due diligence and satisfactory public process, which unfortunately did not happen. Due process was unfortunately compromised once again by the Municipal Council of Chester. The required notice to the residents that live within 75 meters of the tower did not happen. Based on the number of residents that have come forward and are willing to go on record by way of an affidavit confirming they did not receive notice, it is clear the process of service of notice failed. There appears to be no record of Proof of Service of the notices being delivered. The protocol for the Chester building department is to provide service by registered mail to potentially affected residents when an application for a variance is filed in order to serve fair and due process. The Eastlink application should be treated on the same basis as a variance based on the change of use and height restrictions for the property. Putting a potentially dangerous and harmful broadcasting tower should be of at least equal importance as a residence wanting a variance on the height restriction of a garage. It is unclear why the protocol of delivery by registered mail was not carried out. It is also unclear what compromised the chain of custody of the letters being delivered. All that is known is that a few owners received them while the majority did not. The result has unfortunately undermined the public process with a lack of opportunity for Council to receive input and feedback from the community and affected residents and has resulted in a failed process with an unacceptable outcome. The failure of due process both at the Village Commission and the Municipality of Chester have resulted in the interests of the Village of Chester and its residents being unfairly served. Industry Canada relied on the Municipality of Chester's Letter of Concurrence to issue a license to Eastlinlc to erect and operate the tower without itself doing any of its own investigating and due diligence. As you can see there has been a series of failed processes involving all three levels of government that have been mandated to review the Eastlinlc application. 3 It is not our intent today to lay blame or to point fingers, this is unproductive and leads to bad blood and ill will and ultimately undermines the quality and good nature of the community. We can however recognize that due process was not fairly served resulting in a failed outcome. As leaders we have the opportunity today to decide what is in the best interests of the community and its residents and work collaboratively towards getting the Eastlink cell tower relocated to a more appropriate location. In regard to the Eastlink application: We have concerns with the representations that Eastlink made in its application to the Village Commission. An accurate description of the use and design of the tower was not provided to the community for their consideration and review. In its application to the Village Commission, Eastlink described the tower as being a "monopole". Eastlink provided a picture taken from a distance of a tall skinny pole with a man standing at its base. This description and picture was not distributed to the community at large for consideration. The tower that was erected does not look like the picture submitted. After the tower was erected Eastlink subsequently re -characterized the description of the tower as a "Stealth" tower that would be multi -tenanted. Eastlink as a requirement of the Industry Canada application also provided a Safety Code 6 Compliance analysis, an electromagnetic radiation propagation report. The report is based on a computer model that simulates, maps and estimates the parameters of the radiation field that the tower will emit when broadcasting at conservative levels. The report has major qualifications to it including that the simulation is done based on the tower being on a flat and level surface; radiation patterns can change and be influenced by topography, trees, buildings, etc. I In other words there are many external factors that can influence and affect the direction, magnitude and intensity of the pathway of radiation broadcasted including the complex site-specific conditions of the environment and landscape. The model provides an estimate based on general universal parameters and not based on the specificities of the specific location. The report is also based on the assumption that only Eastlink RF (radio frequency) equipment will be on the tower and that the tower will not be co -tenanted with any other carriers. The report indicates the model was developed based on three line items of active pieces of RF (radio frequency) equipment and three line items of RF equipment in the future with minimum ascribed values. This is very relevant because it is our understanding that Eastlink is going to multi - tenant the tower. The underlying fundamental assumptions of the report are therefore inconsistent with how Eastlink intends to operate the tower. If the tower is multi -tenanted by 5 or 6 co -locates, which is common practice, the levels, intensity and size of the fields of radiation broadcasted would be materially and substantially greater than what Eastlink has submitted as the basis of their application. Given that Industry Canada is currently encouraging a policy of co -location on towers in order to reduce and limit the footprint and number of towers being erected across the country, having multiple tenants and co -locates on the tower is considered common practice. Eastlink also included in their application that the reason they needed a new tower in a new location was because of their concern that the location of the existing tower was TOO CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBOURING RESIDENCES. In order to meet Industry Canada's guidelines of minimum tolerances of acceptable radiation emission, Eastlink manipulated the computer model, which resulted in locating the new tower approximately 116 feet from the existing tower. The new tower is also a significantly larger and taller tower structure being 25 meters high. It is therefore of great concern for the neighboring residents who are likely to be directly impacted by the radiation path, that the assumptions of the computer generated electromagnetic radiation propagation model may be substantially underestimating the levels, intensity and magnitude of the path of radiation being broadcasted. 5 Given that the tower was only moved approximately 116 ft. from the existing tower it is our concern that the buffer zone or margin of tolerance being modeled is unacceptable and potentially puts many residents at serious risk. Please take note that the computer model is not perfect. It is designed and run by theoreticians and operators who are not residents of the community and who cannot take into account the multi -variables of this specific location. The model is also run on the basis of ideal conditions, which rarely ever happen. Eastlink are trying to hide behind the Industry Canada, Code 6 standards. The code 6 standards were written in the 1970's and have not been updated. This was well before the cell tower industry and proliferation of cell tower antennas had even started to be commercialized. In regard to Health Issues: We understand that council doesn't want to address or deal with the health related issues of the tower. They however can not be ignored. We are all in a difficult position when it comes to dealing with the potential harmful effects of cell tower antennas. Municipal Councils, School Boards, administrators, and the general public, should be able to rely confidently on the accuracy of federal regulations, and regulators, and not be placed in the vulnerable position against financial and litigation claims in which they often find themselves in this new digital age. Most Council Members do not have, nor should they be expected to have, the scientific or technical expertise to evaluate opposing positions regarding community exposure to the wireless radiation from cell tower antennas. Nor should these local officials have to referee the heated debate between those with obvious vested interests - the wireless industry and local groups who receive financial and other benefits vs. concerned citizens - some so distraught they lose credibility, and some respected professionals with reasoned positions. In regards to legal vulnerability, Councils and their elected or administrative officials are vulnerable to potential litigation from health-related claims, as many insurance companies, including Lloyds of London, now exclude coverage for some of these claims. Very few Council's even know if their current insurance policies would protect them from litigation regarding this potentially hazardous environmental exposure in their community. I If this radiation were a toxic effluent, hazardous wastewater, from a local industry whose location had been approved by Council, would they not be at risk from litigation? And would they have insurance coverage for such claims? The major insurance companies have stopped covering the wireless industry many years ago and the industry is self- insuring. Did the insurance companies see enough convincing science? With the proliferation of WiFi and cell tower antennas, we are in the early days of tobacco, the early days of asbestos, where federal regulations are not accurate, not in line with the science, and not protecting public health. This is why officials around the world are opting for the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE and deciding on the side of caution where children, pregnant women, those with compromised health and the elderly are most at risk, as well as protecting themselves from financial culpability. The Industry Canada Code 6 standards can no longer be relied on. There are thousands of peer-reviewed studies with clear evidence of harm at non - thermal levels of exposure - far below existing safety standards. This is why the World Health Organization categorized non -thermal RF as a "possible carcinogen", along with DDT and lead. Please see the letter from oncologist Professor Hardell, MD to the WHO urging them to upgrade RF radiation even further to a "probable carcinogen." In my submission to Council I have included a letter and fact sheet dated September 2, 2015 to the Honorable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport) from technology expert, Frank Clegg, (former CEO of Microsoft Canada) who explains why relying on Canada's RF protection standards, Code 6, is no longer a valid and safe position. The Parliamentary Health Committee dedicated three sessions in March and April 2015 to Safety Code 6. The evidence presented and Health Canada's own comments leave little doubt that Safety Code 6 in its current form does not protect Canadians. Highlights of the hearings include: Mr. Andrew Adams, Health Canada admitted there are studies that show harm below Safety Code 6 levels. Health Canada's document "determined that 36 studies were of sufficient quality for inclusion in the Risk Assessment in the following categories": Cancer is linked in 6 7 studies; Brain/nervous system impacts in 13; Biochemical disruption in 16; and Development and/or learning behavior impacts in 7. The challenge is that the Industry Canada Code 6 guidelines have unfortunately not kept up with the rapid development of the technology. The Parliamentary Committee's recommendations has indicated that Safety Code 6 has fallen behind the times and does not give Canadians the protection that they expect and deserve. Canada has fallen behind countries such as France, Taiwan and Belgium. Council may therefore be exposed and vulnerable to health related litigation if they rely on the current Code 6 guidelines. The evidence shows significant risk to human health when placed within 500 meters, or one half a kilometer, from a cell tower and is supported by many peer reviewed studies. In 2010 Dr. Khurma reported in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health that 8 out of 10 published epidemiological studies reported increased adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living within 500 meters (1,640 ft.) of cell towers. In 2011 a Brazilian study led by engineer Adilza Dode, PhD also linked cell tower radiation with cancer deaths among people living within 500 meters. It's not just cancer; a long-term study from Rimblach Germany, published in 2011, showed harmful effects on neurotransmitters - electrical impulses in the brain. I submit to Council a map of Chester with a 500 meter radius drawn from the tower. As you will note it covers the better part of the whole Village of Chester bordering from the shore of the back harbor to the west, south of Pleasant Street to the south, Hwy 3 to the north, and the north end of Nauss Point Rd to the east. In other words almost all of the residents of the Village of Chester are exposed and potentially at risk. Council can therefore no longer take the position that it is not our responsibility to deal with the health issues related to the tower. Council also cannot take the position that Industry Canada is responsible for the tower and we cannot do anything as itis out of our jurisdiction. Given the volume of medical evidence and the current review by Parliament and Health Canada in regards to Code 6 it is up to elected officials and administrators to •, in fact take responsibility and be highly aware of the medical evidence and related risks of RF radiation. We therefore ask Council for an undertaking that you require Eastlink to produce a list of peer reviewed published studies showing that long-term exposure to human population living within 500 meters of a cell tower antennae has not produced any significant adverse health effects. It is our intent to assist Council to avoid culpability and financial and legal liability and as it is our understanding that you are currently at risk, particularly given that Lloyds of London and other insurance companies are developing exclusions for such radiation exposure. We strongly advise you to check with your insurance company to see if you are even covered for individual or class action health claims related to radiation exposure issues. This Council has the opportunity and must take action. It would therefore not be in Council's best interest to potentially expose the residents of Chester to high levels of electromagnetic radiation and themselves to litigation claims when it can easily be avoidable by relocating the tower to a less impactful location. I'm sure this is not the legacy that this Council wants to leave with this community. We place our trust and faith in your hands to protect us. The community is asking Council for their leadership in this very unique and difficult situation. We ask that you use your common sense, wisdom, sound judgment, and compassion for your fellow neighbors and residents. Please protect us from the commercial objectives of Eastlink who have put their financial interests ahead of the common good of the community and the residents of the Village of Chester. We ask Council to rescind the Letter of Concurrence and work collaboratively towards getting the Eastlink cell tower relocated to a more appropriate location. Thank you for your consideration. Robert White 9 11 i�i5C(t15 sug[ n 'N erilutr . 81 y vi idk:t)CIYf SI ern MMc zi �1nig70 SI.' - Yi 1-b",''' rave 11 ' -3. -Bo klrnrL?oly - _ �, Dinh int 1. and Honourable Lisa Raitt Minister of Transport Via email: MINTC tc..,c.ca RE: Use of Wi-Fi for mobile device connectivity in-flight Sept. 2, 2015 Dear Minister Raitt: PO Box 33 Maple Grove Village Postal Outlet Oakville, ON L6J 7P5 I would like to comment on your email to Dr. Crofton, August 8, 2015 entitled "use of Wi-Fi for mobile device connectivity in-flight". You state that: "non -ionizing (low-level radiation), which is generally perceived as harmless to humans and multiple international peer-reviewed studies and literature reviews have concluded that Wi-Fi fields are well below such protection standards and are not harmful to humans." As you may be aware, the Parliamentary Health Committee dedicated three sessions in March and April, 2015 to Safety Code 6, Health Canada's guidelines regarding wireless radiation. The evidence presented and Health Canada's own comments leave little doubt that Safety Code 6 in its current form does not protect Canadians. The following are highlights from the hearings: Mr. Andrew Adams, Health Canada admitted there are studies that show harm below Safety Code 6. ' Health Canada's document "determined that 36 studies were of "sufficient quality for inclusion in the Risk Assessment" in the following categories:" • Cancer is linked in 6 studies, Brain/nervous system impacts in 13, Biochemical disruption in 16 and Development and/or learning behaviour impacts in 7. ii During the hearings, the committee passed the following motion, "It was agreed, - That the Standing Committee on Health direct Health Canada to provide detailed information in the form of a full scientific monograph on the reasons for acceptance or rejection of 140 studies on EMR submitted by Canadians for Safe Technologies with regards to Safety Code 6." The motion by Conservative MP Lizon passed unanimously. This motion references the studies in the above document. The Chair of the Standing Committee on Health reported to the Government on June 17, 2015. The final report included 12 recommendations. The recommendations cover four categories: Education and Awareness, Elect rose ns itivity, improving Health Canada's process and Research." Page 1 of 2 Canada has fallen behind countries such as France, Taiwan and Belgium in protecting Canadians from the unsafe use of wireless devices lv v v1 Safety Code 6 does not provide protection for children and pregnant women A V""X The attached Fact Sheet summarizes testimony on damaged and reduced sperm; links to brain cancer, recent concerns re breast cancer, Electrosensitivity can affect 3% of the population in the short term and up to 30% in the long term, proof of DNA damage and finally, how Health Canada's recent review of Safety Code 6 fails all major criteria for the evaluation of scientific evidence based on international best practices Minister, as you know, the Parliamentary Committee process is a non-partisan partnership. The report on Safety Code 6 achieved unanimous support among the major parties in the interest of public health. We believe that it is clear from the Committee's recommendations that Safety Code 6 has fallen behind the times and does not give Canadians the protection they expect and deserve. We respectfully ask that you invest the time to understand the shortcomings involved with Safety Code 6 before you allow the dissemination of Wi-Fi on all airplanes in Canada. Sincerely, Frank Clegg CEO, Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST) fran &g4st.orc�, cc: Dr. Kerry Crofton 'htt : www. arl. c.ca HausePUblications Publication.as x?Dodd=7892702&Lan ua e=E&Mode=1&Par1=41&Ses =2 at time 1540 ihtt www.c4st.or ima es documents hese Health Canada Res .arse to C4ST Re erences o 140 Missin S _2 iv http://www.complianceandrisl<s com/'France-publishes-law-on-electromagnetic waves/ http://www.dailymail.co.ul</news/article-2929530/Does-toddler-piny-iPad-Taiwan-makes ILLEGAL parents-let-children-two-use-electronic-adets-18s-limit-use-reasonable-lengths html V' expatica.cam/be/news/belgian-news/TMa�-Mobile-phones-ta-be banned -far -children 259994 html v" http://www.ncbLnlm.nih govubmed 8562780 Vill http://www,ece,ncsu.edu/erl/htm12/papers/lazzi/1996/NCSU-ERL-LAllI-96-03 pdf 'x htt wwwaciencedirect.com science article ii 52213879X14000583 Page 2 of 2 C4ST FACT SHEET 1.1 WHAT IS SAFETY CODE 6? FALL, 2015 Safety Code 6 is Health Canada's guideline for recommended human exposure limits to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy, the kind of energy given off by various electronic devices such as cell phones and Wi-Fi, as well as broadcasting and cell phone towers. Safety Code 6 was originally created in the 1970's for the protection of federal employees and visitors to federal buildings • It has been expanded to include Wi-Fi, smart phones, smart meters and cell phone towers • It has not had any major revisions in the last 30 years 1.2 HEALTH CANADA ADMITS STUDIES SHOW HARM AT LEVELS BELOW SAFETY CODE 6 Mr. Andrew Adams, Health Canada: In testimony before the Parliamentary Health Committee admitted there are studies that show harm below Safety Code 6. (1) Health Canada document "determined that 36 studies were of "sufficient quality for inclusion in the Risk Assessment" in the following categories:" • Cancer is linked in 6 studies, • Brain/nervous system impacts in 13, • Biochemical disruption in 16 and • Development and/or learning behaviour impacts in 7. (2) 1.3 CANADA'S SAFETY CODE 6 IS AMONG THE COUNTRIES WITH THE WORST GUIDELINES IN THE WORLD. China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have wireless radiation safety limits 100 times safer than Canada. (3) 40% of the world's population lives in countries with codes safer than Canada. Industry Canada does not measure for the multi -hour, multi -day exposure of today's environment; nor the cumulative effects from multiple devices Manufacturers have safety warnings that are buried in cell phones and tablets (4) Over 50 Canadian MD's and international scientists signed declarations stating that the current levels of Safety Code 6 do not protect Canadians (5), (6) 1.4 CANADA HAS FALLEN BEHIND COUNTRIES SUCH AS FRANCE, TAIWAN AND BELGIUM IN PROTECTING CANADIANS FROM THE UNSAFE USE OF WIRELESS DEVICES. January 29, 2015 France passed the following articles into law: (7) • A ban on the use of Wi-Fi in day care centres and nurseries for children under three years of age - 4, - C484 - Page 1 of 4 • Wi-Fi must be deactivated when not in active use for digital educational activities in primary schools with Wi-Fi already in place, • For primary schools without Wi-Fi, a consultation process must be followed. (Primary schools include pre-school, (ages 2 to 6) and elementary school, (ages 6 to 11)) • All advertisements promoting cell phones must demonstrate a device to limit the exposure of the head to radiofrequencies emitted by the cellular phones. ( eg. ear buds or speaker mode) • A campaign of "awareness and information on the responsible and rational use of mobile devices" will be conducted. February 15, 2015. Taiwanese lawmakers passed new legislation in which: (8) • Parents face fines if they allow children under the age of two to use tablets and smartphones • Youth under 18 years of age are allowed devices for a 'reasonable length of time' March, 2014. It is illegal to market cell phones to children less than seven years of age in Belgium. (9) 1.5 TESTIMONY FROM WORLD RENOWNED EXPERTS TO THE PARLIAMENTARY HEALTH COMMITTEE Dr. Devra Davis, team member Nobel Prize with Al Gore re climate change (10) • Damaged and reduced sperm (11), (12) • ADHD -like symptoms in offspring when pregnant mice exposed to cell phones (13). • Co-author "The underestimation of cell phone radiation, especially in children" (14) Dr. Anthony Miller, visiting senior scientist World Health Org., U. of Toronto (15) • Links to brain cancer referencing Swedish and French studies (16),(17), (18) • Overview of recent information re breast cancer (19) Dr. Riina Bray, Women's College Hospital, Dr. Magda Havas, Trent Univ. (20), (21) • Electrosensitivity can affect 3% of the population in the short term and up to 30% in the long term (22) Dr. Martin Blank Columbia University (23) • Proof of DNA damage (24), (25) Dr. Martha Herbert Ph.D., M.D. Harvard Medical School (26) • Links to autism (27), (28) Dr. Meg Sears, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (29) • Health Canada's recent review of Safety Code 6 fails all major criteria for the evaluation of scientific evidence based on international best practices (30) Page 2 of 4 v CAST" 1.6 SAFETY CODE 6 DOES NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN AND PREGNANT WOMEN. Children are not "little adults"; their skulls are thinner The tissues of a child's head, including the bone marrow and brain absorb significantly more energy than those in an adult head. (31) Radiation from a cell phone which penetrated 10% of an adult head, would affect 70% of the brain of a five year old. (32) Safety Code 6 guidelines are based on computer models for heating, not specific human measurements of biochemical changes. (33) 1.7 HEALTH CANADA WASTED OVER $100,000 OF TAXPAYERS MONEY. THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA (RSC) REPORT IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW. The RSC Expert Panel was conflicted; half of the panel members have strong financial ties to industry. (34) The original panel chair resigned only after the CMAJ reported an undisclosed conflict of interest. (35) The RSC invited Dr. Anthony Miller and Dr. Martin Blank as peer reviewers of the report. Their input challenging the report results was ignored. (36) (1)http://www.earl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication aspx7Docld=7892702&Lanuae-E&Mode-1&Part =41&Ses=2 at time 1540 (2)htt www.c4st.or rrta es documents hese Health Canada Res onse to C4ST References of 340 Missing Studies.�adf (3) htt buildin biolo ca media df rf ex osure limits cell antennas, df (4) http://www.c4st.or PMB (5)htt www.c4st.ar ima es documents hc-resaiutlons medical-doctors-submission-to-health-canada- gnglish. df (6)http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/hc-resolutions/scientific-declaration-to-health-canada- eg ish.pdf (7) hql21LWww.com lianceandrisl<s.corn france- ublishes-law-on-electroma netic-waves (8) htt www.dall mail.co.uk news article -2929530 Does -toddler- la -iPad-Taiwan-makes-lLLEGAL- parents-let-children-two-use-electronic- ad€;,ets-lbs-limit-use-reasonable-lengths html (9) ex atica.corn be news be ian-news TMa -Mobile- hones -to -be -banned -far -children 259994.htm1. (1O)htt www. arl. c.ca N0usePUbI cations Pubrcation.as x?Dacld=7945128&Lan ua e=E&Mode=1&Pa r1=41&Ses=2 at time 1640 (11) htt . www.ncbi.nim.nih. ov ubmed 1591.0543 (12) htt /www.ncbi.nlm.nih gov/pubmed/223489O2 (13) http://www,ncbi.nlm.nih.govZpubmed/22428084 (14) htt www.sciencedirect.com science article i! 52213879X14000583 (15)htt www. arl. c.ca Housepublications Publication.as x?Docld=7936469&Lan ua e=E&Mode=1&Pa rl=41&Ses=2 at time 1535 (16) http://www.ncbi.nim.nlh.govbubmed/23261330 (17) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articlesfPMC4211O06 Page 3 of 4 (18) d-2013-101754 (19) http:/Zwww,hind,awi.com/"glEnA!s/crim/2013/354682L (20)Publication.ase=I&Pa rl=41&Ses=2 at time 1530 (21)aspx?Dodd=7936469&LanuaRe-E&Mode-1&Pa rl=41&Ses=2 at time 1555 (22) hjWjLwww.c4storgL imaEesLdo documents cell-tower-situations . . ........ DSB American Academ of Environmental Medicine Letter to �PDSB�.df (23)http:/Zwww.parl.gc,ca/HouseP,ublications/­­Publication.as�.Doc�ld=789�2702&�Lanua �e--E&�Mode--�I&Pa rl=41&Ses=2 at time 1656 (24) (2 5) (26)Publication,ase=l&Pa rl=41&Ses=2 at time 1629 (27) http://www.ncbi,nIMnih.govlpubmed/24o95oo3 (28)hlW wwwncbl.nlmWlh IL .............. govZpubmedL24113318 (29)Publication,ase=I&Pa LI-=41&Ses=2 at time 1540 (30) (31)bllplLwww.ncbl,nim.Wlh,govLpubmed 18562780 (32) f (33)hllp-ILwww,ncbl.nim.n'lh.2.0v�ubme�d 21�999884 (34) 4029-8fdd-101ad78008c6 (35) 87d088-0133-4029-8fdd-101ad78008c6 (36) arch-into-safet -of-wireless- Page 4 of 4 C4SI �S b ,t�•-G�-z�'-�=-�2-,e�� �-'�`�2-1--'-'�is'� ✓%--�'s� C���.°��+ . �,,�-�..l�--cam .�-C�'�'`�P �'-�, , ---��.�.�'-�--�-..�-. ��.-ems,-�-�'�--�,�� �---� �r {� /�� �,�--�- ,�i .,� ��-, ��,�-�-.��--� a a:,/� ..� ,,G'—tom— � .�--���a. ��� �� ?��-c� � � ���� i` �� � �� ✓� 2 / .ASF-'�'-L�./-e'J"-�'..,.-� r .� .ems �,��� � --1�-' 1� / e � ' A ��� - -- - - v ,. ����4�.'�i°Z.`�._..! �'C�•J �.J �✓r.�a��--.�J YJY ...¢„'-G� J �-`--� � V� / �9C'�J�'n-J .,r�.-�.� ✓`- c� • ����u-.- s%� t = � Com---� �_...�� ..�-�' ,