Residents talk back
By Stefania Moretti
smorett@uwo.ca
Canadians are rising up against telecom companies
working to erect new cellphone towers. Since January 2008, in
Southern Ontario alone, homeowners in Peterborough, Hamilton and
Norfolk have organized to keep looming telecom towers out of sight.
 |
| Courtesy of Bell |
| What the proposed 40-metre-high tower in
Hyde Park may look like, according to Bell. |
Residents in London's Hyde Park neighbourhood may find themselves
next in line to battle a cellular giant. In March, the city received
an application from Bell Mobility planning to build a 40-metre-high
structure at 1075 Sarnia Rd., an area currently being developed
with several new subdivisions.
London's planning and development general manager, Robin Panzer,
doesn't expect the proposal to be a contentious issue for nearby
residents. In the past, only rural towers seemed to receive negative
attention, he said.
But that was then.
Building new cellphone towers has become a lengthy and complicated
matter since Industry Canada, the federal body that regulates
towers, adopted new procedures as of Jan. 1, 2008. According to
the new protocol, telecom companies must now notify residents
in the surrounding area (described as those living within a radius
equal to three times the height of the proposed tower from its
base), and address their concerns over a 120-day consultation
period.
In Peterborough, Hamilton and Norfolk, the debate has mainly
centred on health concerns some fear are caused by electromagnetic
fields and radiofrequency fields emitted from towers, such as
increased risk of cancers, sleep disturbances and chronic headaches.
Diminishing property values resulting from the tall and unsightly
structures are also a common complaint.
Industry Canada's standards regulating radiation outputs are
based on Health Canada's Safety
Code 6, a guide that limits human exposure to a radiation
range between three KHz and 300 GHz. An average antenna, like
the one owned by Telus Corp. at Oxford and Richmond streets in
London, emits roughly 1,900 MHz, which is considerably less radiation
than the maximum allowed. And it's a good thing. The antenna is
located high above an apartment complex where hundreds of people
live, eat and sleep.
 |
| Courtesy of Tony Muc |
| Tony Muc, a U of T professor and non-ionizing
radiation specialist, helped draft the original Safety Code
6 guidelines. |
Tony Muc, a professor at the University of Toronto's faculty
of medicine and a specialist in non-ionizing radiation, helped
draft Health Canada's Safety Code 6. For the most part, he believes
health concerns voiced by residents are overestimated.
"Personally, I think it's the esthetics that bother people
when the huge towers rear their ugly heads," said Muc.
He says radiation has to reach ionizing levels at high frequencies
on the ultraviolet spectrum (such as X-rays and gamma rays) before
adverse health effects like cancer can be considered. Still, Muc
does sympathize with concerned citizens.
Muc compares radiation outputs from cell towers to the headlights
of a car. Since an antenna must be mounted several metres above
ground, you'd have to climb up, put yourself in its direct path
and stare at it for a prolonged period of time before you would
be negatively affected by it, explained Muc.
"You certainly know they are there, but they are perfectly
harmless," he said.
Likewise, AJ Gratton of Telus says that towers aren't as powerful
as people might imagine.
"They only have a two kilometre radiation emission radius,"
said Gratton.
Given their limited reach, and the demand for cellphone reception
increasing daily, towers are likely to continue to pop up rapidly.
According to a Statistics Canada survey released in the spring
of 2007, more than 70 per cent of Ontarians have a cellphone,
and the number is likely higher today.
Whenever possible, Industry Canada urges telecom companies to
mount antennae atop existing structures, a process that requires
no consultation with the municipality or its residents. When existing
buildings won't suffice and a new tower is necessary, some telecom
companies try to make new structures as visually appealing as
possible. Some Telus towers, for instance, double as massive flagpoles.
But that's not enough to appease some folks, including Hamilton
resident John Savoia. Savoia successfully led a campaign that
kept Telus from building a 30-metre-high wireless tower at Crerar
Drive, just metres away from his family home on Timothy Place,
in the city's northwest end.
Savoia has little faith in Safety Code 6, even though the World
Health Organization endorses it.
"Canadian standards are far less stringent than those in
Europe," said Savoia. "Our concerns weren't just cosmetic.
We wanted to address broader health issues," he added.
A Health Canada spokesperson doesn't agree. The European Union
has adopted guidelines endorsed by the International Commission
on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, which he says are similar
to Canada's Safety Code 6.
But Savoia has been encouraging Hamilton's health and planning
committees to tackle the issue much like the City of Toronto has.
In November 2007, Toronto's Board of Health adopted the Prudent
Avoidance Policy on Sitting Telecommunication Towers and Antennas.
The bill aims to keep radiofrequency levels 100 times below Safety
Code 6 standards in areas where people normally spend time, until
more is understood about the potentially harmful effects of cellphones
and towers.
Although Savoia and his neighbours were able to keep a Telus
tower out of their community, the issue hasn't disappeared. Hamiltonians
still need cellphone coverage.
"We don't just decide that tomorrow we'll build a tower
in your neighbourhood," said Gratton. "We collect customer
feedback to determine network dead spots that need better service."
Savoia says his area does not suffer from a lack of connectivity.
He accuses Telus of trying to cram in as many towers as possible
in late 2007 before the new Industry Canada standards took effect
in January. He also criticizes Telus for masking their notice
to residents as junk mail.
"Now people are politically sensitized to the issue,"
said Savoia.
Telus has been in talks with Hamilton's councillor for Ward 7,
Scott Duvall, to help find a suitable location for the tower.
However, there is little, if anything, Duvall can do. The municipality
has no jurisdiction in the matter and final approval for new sites
remains the authority of Industry Canada.
Industry Canada's website clearly identifies residents' service
provider preferences, real estate concerns, and the need for Safety
Code 6 reformations as inadequate grounds to reject a tower proposal.
As for residents in London's Hyde Park neighbourhood, news of
a Bell tower in the works is getting a lukewarm response.
Lori Maddigan of Weybourne Crescent, living under a kilometre
away from the proposed site, said improved Bell connectivity would
not benefit her.
"I have not yet looked into the health effects," she
said adding that she would consider doing so if she received official
notice from Bell. Bell is not required to send Maddigan and her
neighbours notice since they live just a few metres beyond the
boundaries outlined by Industry Canada.
Lindsey Elwood, also of Weybourne Crescent, believes his home
is far enough away not to be negatively affected.
Hyde Park residents had until April 1 to submit written complaints
to Bell. Bell is required to acknowledge public concerns within
14 days of receiving a complaint, followed by an additional 60
days to reasonably address the issues. Residents then have another
21 days to reply or ask Industry Canada to interfere.
 |
| Google Maps |
| A virtual map shows dozens of cellphone
towers dotted around London. |
