Cellphone towers often unwelcome neighbours
With 2,400 towers in GTA, residents and local councils are starting to push back against the rules governing where they can go.
ANDREW FRANCIS WALLACE / TORONTO STAR
The Guglietti family has a cell tower 15 metres from their home that was set up after they started building their house. Bureaucrats say this example shows all that is wrong with the way cellphone towers are approved.
All across the country, cellphone towers have become the neighbour nobody wants. But under current federal policy, there is almost no way to stop them from moving in.
Local governments have long been frustrated that they have almost no say in where a cellphone tower can go or not go, since approval falls under jurisdiction of Industry Canada. And in cases where a tower is less than 15 metres high or new antennas are added to an existing tower, according to federal regulations, municipalities and residents don’t have to be told at all.
Fed up, councils have started to push back. And residents who wake up one morning to find a tower beaming down at them, are launching grassroots campaigns spurred by a nagging feeling that living next to a tower emitting radiofrequency electromagnetic energy (known as RF) all day long — even at low levels — might not be good for them.
RELATED:
“Most people don’t think about it until it is literally in their backyard,” said Wendy Cockburn, an Oakville resident who tried to stop antennas from being put up on the roof of a fire station near her home. She has now become part of a grassroots organization called Citizens 4 Safe Technology. “But they quickly realize that it goes beyond their communities.”
But even activists admit that the growing reliance on our devices makes it an uphill battle to fight. Already more than 27 million cellphones are in use in Canada today — nearly one for every person in the country — and it is estimated that data traffic on some wireless networks increases at a rate of 5 per cent a week. As the demand for better and faster coverage grows, industry experts say more wireless infrastructure is needed closer to people than ever.
“The carriers only put up the towers as a result of consumer demand,” said Marc Choma, spokesman for the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. “And that demand just keeps growing and growing.”
The hot spot
The best place to use your cellphone in the GTA should be at Yonge and Queen Sts.
There are more than 80 cellphone towers in and around that intersection, making it the hottest “hot spot” in the region, according to data collected through Industry Canada and compiled by Loxcel, a Mississauga-based geomatics consulting firm that specializes in mapping large data sets.
There are currently 2,400 towers in the GTA, the bulk of them in Toronto. The towers, made up of antennas and electronic equipment, communicate with your cellphone when you make a call, emitting low-power RF energy back and forth.
In the suburbs, the towers are often stand-alone structures. Downtown, cellphone towers usually refer to buildings or other structures that have antennas added on. Most of us hardly notice their presence, but the towers line the highways and adorn rooftops. Some have even been disguised as crosses on churches, flagpoles or, in cottage country they look like trees on steroids.
While people may notice the towers first, it is the antennas that are responsible for the cellular capacity. In areas like Halton, the number of antennas has increased from 1,300 to 2,700 over the past four years, said Kevin Macdonald, a partner with Loxcel.
“Changing usage patterns supported by gigabyte smartphone data plans will require carriers to deploy even more antenna,” said Macdonald. But that doesn’t necessarily equate to more towers, he said. In recent years, the government has asked carriers to share antennas and deploy new ones on existing towers.
All the towers around us have been approved by Industry Canada, which has a mandate to eventually provide blanket cellular coverage from coast to coast. The last auction of wireless spectrum, in 2008, raised $4.3 billion for Industry Canada from telecom companies.
According to the agency’s rules, a cellphone provider that wants to build a tower must inform the local municipality, and the neighbours, set up a forum for them to ask questions and allow them to make comment on the proposal. But such requirements are waived if a tower under 15 metres is being built, or if antennas are being added to a pre-existing structure without increasing its height more than 25 per cent. In times of conflict, Industry Canada has the final say — which is almost always yes.
As a result, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association came together earlier this year to develop a new protocol asking cell companies to notify communities about all tower proposals and allow consultation on all towers, regardless of size.
“Before this there was absolutely no obligation on telcos to provide notification if a tower was less than 15 metres, and this is what one of the biggest concerns was starting to be,” said federation president Karen Leibovici. “Industry Canada is still the last decision making authority, but through this we can help influence the esthetics and figuring out where land may be potentially less controversial.”
As nice as it sounds, the new template hardly changes a thing, say frustrated local politicians. Municipalities still can’t stop a tower from being built. All they can do now is get their feelings off their chest — officially. In the last few months alone, half a dozen municipal councils in the GTA have passed motions rejecting cell tower plans.
Markham recently said no to a 12-storey tower in Thornhill, as did the Town of Richmond Hill. Councillors in Aurora have asked Industry Canada to offer dispute resolution over a 60-metre tower recently built to provide cellular service to nearby King Township. Pickering council has been stalled on a vote to allow a Rogers tower to be built on conservation lands. And Oakville, which has seen several high-profile cell tower conflicts play out in recent years, has put in stringent requirements for new proposals including a 200-metre setback from “sensitive land use areas” and a letter of endorsement from the local MPs.
“According to Industry Canada guidelines, the providers have . . . permission to go anywhere that they like,” said Joe Nethery, a manager in planning services for the Town of Oakville. “At the council and staff level, we have a problem with that.”
Residents are also taking matters into their own hands. A new proposal by Public Mobile for a 25-metre tower near a cluster of townhouses in Markham, at Middlefield and Denison Sts., has turned the mostly immigrant community into activists. They have gathered 700 signatures, met local politicians and lobbied their MP to intervene.
But even when it comes to protests, Industry Canada is particular on what is a valid reason for refusal of a tower. Concerns about esthetics and property values do garner some sympathy. The federal agency no longer considers health concerns surrounding radiofrequency emissions a sufficient reason for refusal.
Safety Code 6
Mohsin Masood refers to the Public Mobile tower proposal as a “cancer tower” in an email update he sends out to the community. It’s a bit sensational, says Masood, who is leading the campaign against it, but it also reflects the uncertainty he feels about the science behind the technology.
“The proponents of the tower stated in their publication that according to Health Canada there is no health concern,” said Masood. “We are not experts, we don’t know if it’s good for us or not. But it is new technology with very little research showing either side. ”
Health Canada’s position on RF emissions is based on a policy called Safety Code 6. The generic-sounding policy, determined by Health Canada, considers human exposure to RF energy safe, as long as it ranges from 3 kHz to 300 GHz, with exposure to the upper limit for an average of six minutes. Cellphones, microwave ovens and television antennas all emit RF energy to varying degrees.
The health agency says the guidelines were developed assessing both thermal and non-thermal effects. Health damage associated with RF energy relating to the heating of tissue has long been established, which is why Safety Code 6 says the limits given are for exposure averaged over a six-minute period.
Using these standards, most cell towers are deemed safe. In 2000 and 2001, Industry Canada measured RF levels at 61 locations in Toronto and found that all but one had RF levels 100 times below Safety Code 6. A 2007 reading found the highest cumulative six-minute average level was at the Metro Hall grounds. The level was 47 times less than the safety limit.
But in recent years, there has been a plethora of scientific research worldwide attempting to determine if low levels of exposure to RF emissions can evoke a biological response, including: causing cellular change, disrupting DNA or causing cancer. Health Canada says it constantly reviews scientific literature but hasn’t found the findings to be conclusive. Health agencies in the U.S. and England take a similar stance. That hasn’t stopped a growing number of countries including Italy, China and Switzerland to reduce their limits to 100 times less than Canada.
Toronto Public Health has also urged Health Canada to take a more conservative approach to cell towers and reduce the RF levels from the installations to 100 times below current guidelines.
And in 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Health Organization classified exposure to RF energy emitted from cellphones as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Dr. Jonathan Samet of the University of Southern California, who chaired the working group tasked with determining carcinogenic hazards from RF emissions, said: “The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cellphones and cancer risk.”
Health Canada says the classification is “acknowledgement that some (limited) data exists that suggests RF energy might cause cancer, but this classification also reflects the fact that a large body of scientific evidence does not support this hypothesis.” The agency admits more research is needed.
But a growing number of advocacy groups say it’s time Safety Code 6 is updated, and that in the meantime Health Canada should adopt the precautionary principle when it comes to RF emissions.
“We believe Health Canada should be taking a more cautious approach, as opposed to a ‘let’s wait and see,’ ” said Frank Clegg, the head of Citizens 4 Safe Technology, which is lobbying the government to update Safety Code 6.
Health Canada has asked the Royal Society of Canada to do an independent expert assessment of Safety Code 6, which will be released this fall. But the panel will not be looking at any non-thermal (i.e. biological) adverse health effects, said Sara Lauer, a spokeswoman for the agency.
Limits for children
It’s a room with a view nobody would want.
Lisa Guglietti grimaces as she looks out the window of what will be her 12-year-old son’s future bedroom. Eight cellphone antennas flank the 14.9-metre-high tower of an adjacent telecom company building.
The antennas weren’t there when the family bought the property and started building their dream home last year on Balsam Dr., a tree-lined street in south Oakville. And they weren’t notified by the company when the antennas were put up a few weeks later, almost overnight. They’re 13 metres from their house.
“When they changed the font on the front of their building, they sent us a letter to inform us,” says Guglietti. “But they put up these antennas and don’t have to tell the neighbours. It’s not right.”
Wendy Cockburn stands next to the Guglietti home, with an impressive-looking meter in her hand. She aims the antenna towards the cellphone tower and takes a reading of the radiation. The number, she explains to Guglietti, is the same as when she measures a cellphone constantly in use.
“This is like strapping a cellphone around every part of my son’s body 24 hours a day,” said Guglietti. “Who would allow their child to be exposed to that?”
Not even Health Canada, it seems. In reaction to the WHO’s warning on RF emissions, Health Canada now recommends that parents limit the exposure of children to phones, while more research is underway. They say such guidelines are not needed for cell towers as the energy is absorbed at low levels across the body.
So the Gugliettis have taken their own precautions. Underneath the drywall in their unfinished home is a layer of an aluminum-like shielding to help keep the radiofrequency electromagnetic emissions from the tower at bay. The $20,000 retrofit is a minor consolation to the family as it’s brought down the RF levels inside the house to more tolerable levels.
“They can’t say for sure if it’s safe or not. But who knows what they will discover in a few years,” she said. “I don’t want my family to be the guinea pigs.”
It’s not just the health concerns that leave the Gugliettis frustrated, but also the federal policy that allows telecom companies to set up the antennas in the first place. They have been told that the Balsam St. tower meets all federal requirements, as set out by Health Canada and Industry Canada.
The “Balsam experience” shows everything that is wrong with the current cellphone tower policy, said Nethery, the Oakville planning manager. The city was never informed about the antennas by the telecom company, he said. It was the Gugliettis who had to alert the city that the antennas were being put up. This specific case forced the town to implement one of the most stringent policies around cell towers in the GTA including a 200-metre setback near homes and schools, and a letter of endorsement from a local MP. It’s a move other municipalities are now considering, but its effectiveness has yet to be seen.
“Our understanding is that even now a municipality can say no, not here, and offer a different location,” said Nethery. “But if we come out with a blanket no, Industry Canada will say that’s too bad, so sad and simply tell them to go ahead like they always have.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/06/17/cellphone_towers_often_unwelcome_neighbours.html
No comments:
Post a Comment