Wi-Fi controversy reignited in Thorold
Trio urges council to move transmitter towers for pilot project away from residential area
Posted By Tiffany Mayer, Standard Staff
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca:80/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1035309&auth=Tiffany+Mayer%2C+Standard+Staff
Anca Gaston worries there are strings attached to the wireless broadband network being tested in a Thorold neighbourhood.
Those strings, she fears, lead to a tangled mess of potential health issues that had Gaston, along with a resident of the affected Confederation Heights neighbourhood and a Brock University employee, who becomes physically ill in the presence of Wi-Fi, urging Thorold council Tuesday night to do away with the pilot project altogether or move the transmitters to industrial areas, limiting residents' exposure to potentially harmful radiation they're emitting.
"My recommendation would be to minimize exposure...," said Gaston, a St. Catharines resident. "(It's) a frivolous technology. We've lived with cables for years."
Although Wi-Fi was too new a technology for many studies to conclude there are health risks, Gaston cited those examining potential dangers associated with radiation emanating from other communications transmitters, such as cellphone towers.
The result of such exposure can create a condition called electrohypersensitivity, with symptoms such as cognitive dysfunction, vertigo, depression, irritability and poor sleep, she said. Gaston also cited studies linking the radiation to cancer.
"The presence of Wi-Fi in the community will only worsen the symptoms of people with sensitivities (to radiation) in the community," Gaston said.
That had Coun. Tim Whalen requesting a response to Gaston's concerns from ReliaClear Canada Inc., the company that installed the technology earlier this month. He also reiterated a request for a project status report from ReliaClear, including subscription rates and customer satisfaction.
The suggestion sparked a two-hour debate on the issue, reopening a divide in council that erupted in March when councillors voted narrowly to move ahead with the project.
Mayor Henry D'Angela said ReliaClear was being singled out unfairly.
"We're not looking at the big picture here. We're attacking ReliaClear and Wi-Fi technology when there are other Wi-Fi technologies here," D'Angela said. "If we're going to single out one company, that's inappropriate. My philosophy has been to treat everyone the same."
Coun. Jim Handley feared the request, if obliged, would set a dangerous precedent for council.
"Are we going to eliminate all wireless technology?" Handley asked, pointing to cellphone towers throughout the city.
"Next week, we're going to have someone here with scientific studies about buses.... Jogging behind buses is bad.... Are we going to get rid of buses?
Handley suggested inviting a Health Canada representative to speak to council about Wi-Fi's potential health risks.
Still, Coun. Shawn Wilson said until there were proven health problems, he would be "hard-pressed to force" ReliaClear to remove the transmitters.
Wilson also said the trio was using "scare tactics" to get its wish.
"I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I could go onto the Internet and find something that says this carpet is emitting toxins...," Wilson said, motioning to the floor in council chambers.
"I find it ludicrous the presenters are coming here using scare tactics.... I can find you ... studies saying it's not (dangerous). Let's compare apples to apples," Wilson said, noting he asked ReliaClear if there were ill-health effects and was told no.
"I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a scientist. I don't take a presentation as gospel. It's a ridiculous request and I won't support the motion."
Gaston retorted by likening the issue to smoking. At one time, health officials warned of potential health effects, but it took decades for regulations "to catch up" to science, she said.
"In order to prove it's harmful, people have to get sick and die from it. That's the wrong way to prove it," she told Wilson.
That struck a nerve with Coun. Nancy Rogers, whose husband had been a smoker and died of leukemia. Rogers said there likely weren't any studies when her husband started smoking that highlighted the potential health risks he succumbed to.
The lack of conclusive studies on Wi-Fi health risks shouldn't stop council from acting now, she added, noting Thorold was one of the first municipalities to impose a ban on pesticide use, despite being presented with studies saying there were no ill effects from using the chemical concoctions to treat lawns.
Despite initially rebuking Handley's suggestion to invite a Health Canada representative to speak to the issue, Whalen agreed to add it to his motion. But it came only after his original request went through several incarnations, including getting staff to research the issue.
However, city clerk John Bice told him no one on staff was qualified to determine whether the technology was safe.
Whalen, who voted against the Wi-Fi pilot project, also followed the advice of fellow councillors Mike Charron and Jonathan LePera to focus on the health risks associated with Wi-Fi technology in general, leaving ReliaClear out of the issue entirely.
D'Angela asked for an inventory of all Wi-Fi technology in the area also be done.
"What we are interested in is the Wi-Fi component, period," Charron said.
Here is my letter to the editor in response to the article in the St. Catharines Standard about the Thorold City council meeting
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the article “Wi-Fi controversy reignited in Thorold”
Is it really necessary to have wifi transmitters on poles, blanketing whole neighbourhoods with radiation? Residents already have cable and phone lines into their homes to connect to the internet. If they choose to have wireless technology in their homes, then that is their choice. But what about residents who do not want to be irradiated by this technology? They don’t have a choice. The technology is being imposed on them against their wishes. These wifi units are transmitting into the homes of those who don’t subscribe to the service. They are emitting radiation and we all know the health harm radiation can cause.
There are already so many sources of radiation in our environment; why add another source, especially when there are safer alternatives?
As for Councillor Handley’s comment about scare tactics…. In Sept. 2007, the German government issued a warning to its citizens, “The Environment Ministry recommended that people should keep their exposure to radiation from Wi-Fi "as low as possible" by choosing "conventional wired connections". It added that it is "actively informing people about possibilities for reducing personal exposure". (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/germany-warns-citizens-to-avoid-using-wifi-401845.html)
Are they using scare tactics? They are obviously more concerned about their citizens’ health than the money this technology would generate. They are exercising the Precautionary Principal that states, “…. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” (Article 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163)This is a United Nations Declaration that all UN members agreed to and signed.
One councillor also mentions that studies can be found saying the technology isn’t dangerous. True…. but who paid for those studies? The most reliable studies are those that are not paid for by the industry that is churning out this technology. I agree, “let’s compare apples to apples”.
This councillor also says that he asked the wifi company if there were ill-health effects from this technology. They told him there weren’t. De ja vu; remember what the cigarette and asbestos industry told us? How many years was it before government listened to the scientific studies saying these products are harmful to health? And how many people became ill or died in the mean time? Even with the knowledge that cigarettes cause illness and death, the government still allows their production, sale, and use. Why? Because there is a lot of money to lose if they are banned, by the government and the industry. Let’s weigh it out: dollars vs. healthy citizens…and the winner is… dollars….again.
The Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada, has a series of safety codes that specify the requirements for the safe use of radiation emitting devices. Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 KHZ to 300 GHZ - Safety Code 6 (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/99ehd-dhm237/index_e.html)
One problem with this safety code is that it only protects us from the thermal (cooking) effect of microwaves. It does not protect us from the biological effects of microwaves and as stated by the BioInitiative Working Group (An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals), “the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health”.
Another problem with this safety code is that it was last revised in 1999. In the eight years since then, wireless technology has become much more powerful and its use is much more wide spread. This code is years overdue for another revision.
In 2007 The BioInitiative Working Group (An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals), published a report that documents serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life. (http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm)
The 14 members of this group reviewed 2000 scientific studies before coming to this conclusion. To use the councillors own words, that is “comparing apples to apples”. This study was not funded by industry and is therefore very reliable. In fact it was this report that spurred the German Government to warn its citizens about the technology.
In conclusion, there is evidence that this technology causes health harm and the safety standards set by the Government of Canada and other governments around the world, are inadequate to protect us from it. We can argue it until we are blue in the face but in the mean time, what of the health of those people who are unwillingly exposed to this radiation? Shouldn’t the precautionary principle be adopted to protect the health of Canadians?
It’s time to ‘butt out’ to reduce the exposure of non-users, to second hand radiation.
