Sutton, February 23th, 2014
Mister Daniel Brassard
Conseiller Services immobilier et Relations municipales200, Boul. Bouchard, 5CS
Dorval, Qc, H95 5X5
Mister Daniel Brassard,
We have received your letter, dated 17 February 2014, and the
"Analysis Report of Compliance” of various levels of radiation (RF)
according to Safety Code 6." Following our reading, several crucial
questions arise that have not been answered.
REPORT BIASED TO SERVE THE PROPONENT
If the report is to establish proof of compliance with the standards
established by "Safety Code 6", the evidence used is not presented
clearly and convincingly for laypersons such as ourselves. It appears from the
report that it does not apply to us precisely because it ignores the public
that it claims to address. Additionally, it does not answer the most
fundamental question of the impact of RF on our health.
RF TRANSMISSIONS IN THE MIDDLE
OF VILLAGE
The proposed site by Bell Mobility is in the middle of a populated area,
closely surrounded by houses where families live permanently with children,
parents and seniors. We expressed our concern to Bell Mobility to preserve the
health of our families and our environment as clearly as possible. Our petition
of over 100 local citizens, demonstrated that we were, and are strongly opposed
to the proposal, and despite this our voices were ignored during the clandestine
public consultation process. We spoke
loud and clear, prior to the deadline (the postmark authentic) and were ignored.
Although Safety Code 6 standards are actually met, it must be acknowledged that these standards were developed following experiments based on very short-term exposure. This is not at all comparable to the permanent exposure in which Bell Mobility will force upon the population of Sutton Junction.
EFFECTS ARE VASTLY TRIVIALIZED
Safety Code 6 standards were established by Health Canada in 1999 on the
basis of a period of exposure to radiofrequency fields for a period of six
minutes. Exposure of longer duration has not been evaluated by Health Canada. Let
us compare these results with the potential effects of radiofrequency radiation
on living organisms that are exposed 24 hours/day, 365 days a year, over many
years. DURATION exposure is essential to consider if we are to know how RF
radiation is harmful to human health, and all that is alive! The entire
ecosystem is affected as RF waves travel through everything they encounter. Please
refer to the recommendations of the AQLPA (Quebec Association against
atmospheric pollution) in its submission on the revision of Safety Code 6
presented to the Royal Society of Canada October 28, 2013 ( 1 ) .
WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF EFFECTS ?
The "Review Committee of Safety Code 6 of the SRC" already
admitted in 1999 in its report: "There is a growing body of scientific
evidence indicating that exposure to RF fields, even at intensities well below
to levels which may cause a rise in temperature, can affect cells and tissues'
(2).
Here is a brief summary of a scientific study that has taken place in a
comparable environment to our situation in Sutton Junction ( 3). Conducted over
a period of 18 months, this research focused on 60 people, including children,
at the time of the installation of an RF relay tower in their village. The
results show that continuous exposure to microwave radiation causes the brain a
significant increase in stress hormones. Levels of dopamine and
phenylethylamine drop severely. These neurotransmitters control the stimulation
of several areas of the brain responsible for movement, posture, mood, sleep
and are absolutely necessary to cerebral acuity, concentration, memory, and libido,
among other things. According to experts these effects are long lasting and
potentially degenerative. Other short-term research reported severe risk of
depression, cancer , heart problems, hearing, and even DNA damage . This list
of adverse effects is incomplete, but enough to alert us gravely.
Finally, there are countless studies showing that RF has effects on
human beings with scientifically proven indicators of harm (5) (6)
SAFETY CODE 6: HAZARDOUS
REFERENCE
Industry Canada and Health Canada still rely on the antiquated Safety
Code 6, 1999 to determine acceptable levels of exposure to RF. Following
extensive research conducted over the past 15 years in America and Europe, it
is clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt that this reference is not only outdated
but dangerous.
Safety Code 6 does not take into account the duration of exposure and
the proposed thresholds are far too tolerant. For example, the Austrian Medical
Association (1) states that regular exposure of more than four hours per day is
expected to be ≤ 1 μW/m2 within normal
limits. However, the Canadian limit is 6,000,000 μW/m2, which appears rather worrying for permanent
exposure to RF, day after day, year after year.
DECISION MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE
Apparently, Health Canada is unaware (or chose to ignore) what the real
consequences of the continuous exposure to RF radiation. And yet, it allows
companies like Bell Mobility to install microwave towers, which it has not
measured the effects in the medium and long term satisfactorily. One must
conclude Health Canada does not protect the health of Canadians adequately. Conversely,
they promote commercial companies in locating towers, while others recognize
that RF can "affect cells and tissues."
We repeat, Safety Code 6 has not provided any evidence of the absence of
danger for human life during prolonged exposure. With the current level of
knowledge, it is morally indefensible to use the Code 6 as a safety standard.
We are not the only community in the Eastern Townships to refuse the
installation of a microwave tower within populated areas. Municipalities such as
Frelighsburg, Potton and Bolton are working together and rising up against this
arbitrary procedure, and the consequences of long-term RF radiation on the human
body and all life forms.
IN CONCLUSION
It is paramount to preserve the health of the entire population of
Sutton and especially children who are most susceptible to RF radiation.
We also wish to protect all forms of life, which are the wealth and
beauty of the landscape of Sutton, and which ensure its economic vitality.
We reiterate our opposition to the proposed implementation of a tower at 1111 Valley Road, Sutton Junction. This opposition has been expressed clearly and legitimately during the consultation process.
We demand that the ‘precautionary principle’ be applied, and that any
alternative location must be a minimum distance of at least 1000 meters from homes
within Sutton Junction.
We ask that updated standards, revised from Safety Code 6, are applied,
which take into account the latest knowledge of RF effects on health.
Yours sincerely,
c.c. - M. Pierre Paradis, député provincial: pparadis-brmi@assnat.qc.ca
- M. Pierre Jacob, député fédéral: Pierre.Jacob@parl.gc.ca
- Industrie Canada: Steve Killeen, Direction générale des opérations de la gestion du spectre : steve.killeen@ic.gc.ca
- L’Honorable James Moore, ministre de l’Industrie, Gouvernement du Canada: james.moore@parl.gc.ca
- L’Honorable Maxime Bernier, ministre d’État (Petite Entreprise et Tourisme, et Agriculture), Gouvernement du Canada: maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca
- Madame Chris Charlton, porte-parole de l’Opposition officielle en matière d’industrie, Chambre des Communes, Ottawa, Ontario: chris.charlton@parl.gc.ca
- L’Honorable Rona Ambrose, ministre de la Santé: rona.ambrose@parl.gc.ca
- M. Louis Dandeneault, maire, Sutton: dandeneault@gmail.com
SOURCES
1) AQLPA
(Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique) Mémoire préparé dans le cadre de la
consultation du Comité de révision du
Code de sécurité 6 de la Société royale du Canada, 28 octobre 2013
2) SOCIÉTÉ ROYALE
DU CANADA, « Examen des risques potentiels pour la santé humaine associés aux
champs de radiofréquences produits par les dispositifs de télécommunications
sans fil », Rapport préparé par un groupe d'experts à la demande de la Société
royale du Canada pour Santé Canada. Extraits, mars 1999, ISBN 920064-68-X
3) Dr Klaus
Buchner et Horst Eger, « Changes of Clinically Important Neurotransmitters
under the Influence of Modulated RF Fields - A Long-term Study under Real-life
Conditions”, 2011
3) Communiqué de
presse 208, IARC-OMS “Le CIRC classe les champs électromagnétiques de
radiofréquences comme « peut-être cancérogène pour l’Homme »”, 31 mai 2011
5) AFSSET,
"Mise à jour de l'expertise relative aux radiofréquences", Saisine no
2007/007, Rapport d'expertise collective, "Comité d'Experts Spécialisés
liés à l'évaluation des risques liés aux agents physiques, aux nouvelles
technologies et aux grands aménagements", Groupe de travail
Radiofréquences", octobre 2009
6) Agence
nationale de sécurité sanitaire, alimentation, environnement, travail,
Radiofréquences et santé, mise à jour de l'expertise, octobre 2013