Green Party Supports Charlottetown Cell Tower Opponents
The Guardian
The Green Party of Canada supports a group of Charlottetown residents fighting construction of a Rogers cell tower in their neighbourhood and is dismayed that both Industry Canada and Rogers would proceed after the City of Charlottetown voted to not allow construction.
“Federal guidelines for allowable human exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell towers are hopelessly outdated,” said Peter Bevan-Baker, Green Party Candidate for Malpeque. “Canadians can be exposed to electromagnetic radiation from cell towers at levels that are many times greater than those allowed in the European Union. Charlottetown citizens should not have to resort to blockades and demonstrations to protect themselves and their families from this serious threat to their health.”
A resolution passed at the Green Party’s policy convention earlier this year calls for replacing Canada’s inadequate guidelines with regulations currently enforced in Germany, where citizens receive significantly more protection from harmful cell tower radiation. In a 2004 German government study, people living within 1300 feet of a cell tower had three times the normal cancer rate.
Citizen action in other countries has led to reversals of decisions to locate cell towers near schools due to the risk of cancer to children.
“Federal legislation needs to change so that local governments and citizens have the right to say no to cell towers based on health and environment concerns,” said Elizabeth May, Leader of Canada’s Greens. “The scientific evidence tells us that electromagnetic pollution is harmful at levels well below Canadian guidelines and that current wide-spread exposure to unprecedented levels of radiation from cell towers, cell phones and wireless devices is an emerging public health problem that has no precedent in human history.”
The Guardian is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. The forum you are in now is a result of our continuing efforts to facilitate a dynamic online conversation among our readers.
This is a moderated conversation. Once a reader follows the steps to register and submit his or her comment it goes to a moderator for the website. Once it has been approved, your comment will be displayed on the website. A comment may be edited or deleted for reasons of content or language.
All readers wishing to join a conversation must first sign in and agree to the Terms of Usage, which explain the rules of acceptable content.
Annoyed in PEI from PE writes: What about Aliant towers?? They are really old and close to many residential areas, specifically at their office in Ch'town on Belvedere Avenue. Aliant has had a monopoly in PEI for many years and now that Rogers has finally got their stuff together after over 20 years of having just one tower on PEI, people are fighting them. If you want Aliant to continue to supply some of the worst plans in the country then continue to fight Rogers, but it you want healthy competition, then allow Rogers to continue to put a dent into Aliant's monopolized customer base by expanding its network service reliability.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Thank You Elizabeth! from PEI writes: Finally somebody joining these brave Protesters and confirming the facts that Industry Canada or our Ruling Goverment can't even bother to review or update!!! Sad very Sad.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
vick from PEI writes: Of course their in support of banning the tower thats their slogan BAN BAN BAN oh trust me Sharon will have her face around there soon enough as will LEO....Get a life people and put all your free time and energy into OBESITY education....have laws passed against OBESITY and then we will see real results in people living longer and healthier!
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
The Observer from Stratford, PE writes: It's obvious no one wants Rogers services in this province. Maybe Rogers should just pull out completely?
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Tbear from Ch'town, PE writes: The Observer: You're right, clearly people here strongly dislike Rogers - first because they can't get reception, second because they want to put up a cell tower to fix problem number 1. If they pack up and leave the province then there will be Problem # 3 (I'm quite sure): Some people here will THEN complain that there isn't enough competition for Aliant & Telus and complain about their rising prices and say there aren't enough options, etc. after they make other companies leave.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Sharon Labchuk from Millvale, PEI writes: She wrote the news release and spoke at the rally tonight. :)
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Ken S from Ramara Tsp, ON writes: We had a similar event in our community when Bell told residents that a cell tower would be erected and there was nothing you or your council can do about it. Within footsteps of the tower site was a farm, a church, a deli and residential homes. Luckily my home is a distance away.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Life from ON writes: To think that Canada bases its tower placement program on the US Telecommunications Act of 1996 (disallowing contention about tower placement based on valid health concerns)!
How preposterous. Health Canada has become a joke, much like the FDA. It's just another case of industry's wishes taking precedence over the well-being of people. Guess why Health Canada doesn't base their standards on independent, biological effect studies, choosing, rather, the outdated thermal effect model? Because they full-well know that a progressive view of this issue would render their current standards obsolete.
They already are obsolete, anyway...but to acknowledge the truth would cause a great deal of (justified) mistrust in this agency, as well as their suffering the wrath of the telecommunications industry, from whom they undoubtedly, directly or indirectly, receive money.
Fun fact: One of the Health Canada buildings in Ontario has cellphone antennas on its rooftop. You can see them as you drive by.
People, seriously. Wake up! Unless companies find a way to lower the radiation emitted by phones and their wireless networks by thousands of times, the only good phone reception is no reception. We've lived all this time without wireless technology. I challenge those who think they can't live without their phones; in reality, it will become apparent that you can't live WITH your phones.
Take what I've said to apply to DECT phones, Bluetooth, WiFi, WiMax and broadband over powerline.
Yes, access to high speed internet matters today. But for everyone's sake, do it safely. Use fiber optics or cable; NOT wireless.
For your reference:
http://mastsanity.org/
http://powerwatch.org.uk/
http://www.antennafreeunion.org/info_research.htm
Read. Learn. Put pressure on these companies. And tell Health Canada to get their act together, and stop defiling what their name should represent.
By the way, much applause to the Green Party for having the guts to take on this issue.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
NOTE
The management of this site emphasizes that it is in no way liable for persons, physical or legal, who are hosted here. Moreover, the managers of this site may not be held liable for errors and omissions that may slip into the information displayed in these reader comments. Everyone who submits a comment should read, understand and agree to the Terms of Usage for this section.
6
