Health Canada’s assertions questioned in cell tower story

Argument made for going the precautionary route with respect to cell phone coverage

Re: Residents worried about effect of cellphone antennas (News, June 22)

Health Canada’s assurance that, “the consensus of the scientific community is that RF energy from cellphone towers is too low to cause adverse health effects in humans” does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

These kinds of statements will come back to haunt them.

First, there is no scientific consensus. Second, there is a growing body of evidence that the radiation from cell tower antennas is harmful – within 500 metres the increase of adverse effects is significant (Balmori, 2010).

Also in 2010 neurosurgeon Vini Khurana reported in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health that eight out of 10 published epidemiological studies showed increased adverse neurobehavioural symptoms or cancer in populations living within 500 metres of cell tower antennas.

Yes, this technology is everywhere, radiation emissions are within current government standards, and there are huge economic benefits – for now.

However, I suggest Kaye Melliship and other officials consider the long-term health costs and read the Seletun Scientific Statement and the 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) report classifying this radiation as “possibly carcinogenic” and that they prepare themselves to answer these vital questions:

– What levels of microwave radiation are these residents being exposed to? Presumably there is also WiFi in the building and Smart Meters nearby.

– Is anyone monitoring these people for adverse effects?

– Are you willing to give your personal assurance that there is no cause for concern?

– Have you taken into consideration the future costs of health-related litigation?

In Europe many areas are adopting the precautionary principle and going for safe options – fibre optics and wired Internet access.

Kerry Crofton

Oak Bay