Cell Phone Companies and Property Rental Companies SCAM! Warning Your landlord is knowingly killing you | Starlight Rentals as an Example

Cell Phone Tower Apartments

Cell Phone Tower Hell On Apartment Roofs Springing Up Everywhere

Corrupt cell phone companies cowardly hiding their towers of hell on the roof of rental units. Corrupt property companies cashing in by selling out the health of their unit holders with no disclosure. Corrupt fascist government ignoring countless health studies and reports claiming their levels are safe, which are 6000 times less stringent than European standards.  Thousands sick, and the number is growing.  A massive nation wide scam that is affecting us all.  Clinics are set up to treat the symptoms of exposure, medical industry acknowledges the health issues, while Canadian and US governments are ignoring them.


Dear Resident of a property with cell phone towers on your roof.

You are being cheated by a nation wide scam.
Your landlord has knowingly compromised your health for profit. _________________________________________________________

For Example one company called Starlight Rentals has a cell phone complex on most of their buildings in Canada.  22,500 apartments affected nation wide.  RentStarlight.com

Specific example:

There are 13 cell phone antennas on the roof of one building for example. Studies have shown that exposure to the radio frequencies from just one cell phone tower will cause serious health problems. Radiation levels from cell phone towers drop off by about 50% each 100ft from the tower. This means that every single unit and tenant is being exposed to critical levels of microwave radiation from 13 cell phone towers. No disclosure has been given to any tenant past or present. Please read this information fully to find out how this serious issue continues to affect your health and well being.

The Cell Phone Company and Apartment Building Scam

No one wants a cell phone tower in their neighbourhood, because they pose a serious health risk to residents. In order to avoid protests and bad publicity, cell phone companies collaborate with property management companies such as Starlight Rentals and put cell phone towers on top of apartment buildings. This is done without consent from the rental unit holders. Telecom companies save time and money by quietly making deals to hide cell phone towers on rental buildings, while unknowing tenants suffer serious health consequences.

Telecom companies are paying very large sums of money to property companies for roof top cell tower space. They falsely claim that radiation levels are lowest directly below the towers. A case study at 2 Regal Street in Toronto showed that cell towers do generate radiation in all directions, and that this radiation passes through walls and into apartments. In fact, the highest levels were measured directly below the towers, inside people’s apartments and on balconies. Essentially, property companies are renting their building space out twice, forcing tenants to share their living space with dangerous cell phone radio waves. Tenants have not agreed to share their space with cell phone companies, though both parties are paying for the same space.

This is a double sale of the unit and it directly affects the people living in the units. The property management company profits twice and the human occupants suffer. Tenants have not consented to any risk and have not been made aware of the presence of the towers or the known dangers of prolonged exposure to cell phone tower radiation.

Serious Health Problems For Residents _________________________________________________________

Cell phone towers give off electromagnetic rays (EMRs) – energy waves which travel through human tissues. Since our brains control our bodies with electric impulses, the signals from the cell towers disrupt the normal transmission and reception of those impulses, and thereby disrupt the normal functioning of all systems in the body.

Long term, people living with chronic exposure to cell towers have 3x greater risk of developing cancer, especially brain or reproductive tumours. There are also higher rates of birth defects, psychosis and childhood leukemias. Shorter term exposure causes radio frequency sickness, symptoms of which we have experienced ourselves and observed in other tenants.

Radio Frequency Sickness

Radio frequency sickness is an environmentally induced functional impairment. Remove the environmental pollutant causing the impairment (in our case the cell phone towers), and the symptoms will disappear. If a person has radio frequency sickness long enough permanent damage can result, so it is imperative that exposure levels be reduced as much as possible as soon as possible. The symptoms are varied, since all systems of the body are exposed and disrupted.

Neurological: headaches, dizziness, nausea, difficulty concentrating, memory loss, irritability, depression, anxiety, insomnia, fatigue, weakness, tremors, muscle spasms, numbness, tingling, altered reflexes, muscle and joint paint, leg/foot pain, “Flu-like” symptoms, fever. More severe reactions can include seizures, paralysis, psychosis and stroke.

Cardiac: palpitations, arrhythmias, pain or pressure in the chest, low or high blood pressure, slow or fast heart rate, shortness of breath.

Respiratory: sinusitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma. Dermatological: skin rash, itching, burning, facial flushing/redness.

Ophthalmologic: pain or burning in the eyes, pressure in/behind the eyes, deteriorating vision, floaters, cataracts.

Others: digestive problems; abdominal pain; enlarged thyroid, testicular/ovarian pain; dryness of lips, tongue, mouth, eyes; great thirst; dehydration; nosebleeds; internal bleeding; altered sugar metabolism; immune abnormalities; redistribution of metals within the body; hair loss; pain in the teeth; deteriorating fillings; impaired sense of smell; ringing in the ears.

There are no treatments that can substitute for reducing or eliminating exposure to high frequencies. Removal of the towers is the only cure.

Antennas transmit High Frequencies and Electro Magnetic Rays in all directions from the antenna. This has resulted in substantial exposure to yourself and others in your home.

In addition to symptoms of Radio Frequency Sickness, you may be experiencing other effects from these towers. For example, exposure to high frequencies from cell phone towers decreases melatonin secretion. Melatonin is a hormone that is essential for a good night sleep. It also has antioxidant and cancer fighting properties. Sleeping with a cellphone or other transmitter that is not turned off is therefore not conducive to getting the best night of sleep and has the potential for further health consequences.

The Academic Union of Australia called mobile towers responsible for brain tumours. Their study found cases of brain tumour, cancer, rickets, softness of bones, lymphoma, and deficiency of white blood cells in people living within 300 meter range from cell phone towers. Cell phone towers are a brain tumour factory. High Frequency electric waves from cell phone towers destroy the DNA of human body cells. Electro Magnetic Rays destroy brain cells and blood platelets.

A single cell phone tower’s radioactivity will cause serious damage to every living thing in a range of about one square kilometre. Cell phone towers emit EMRs with a frequency of 1700MHZ and higher. With this high frequency, they penetrate radio activity through concrete walls and into the homes of those who live in the buildings. These rays pass directly through our bodies. Our immune (defensive) system is harmfully affected by EMRs, leaving us more susceptible to opportunistic infections. Electromagnetic fields from these towers attract Radon gas from atmosphere, causing blood cancer and leukaemia in children present nearby. In many developed countries these towers are now being called killer towers.

Health Canada Limits Exposure To Less than Six Minuets – Not Living In It ____________________________________________________________

Health Canada states in safety code 6 that exposure to cell phones and cell phone towers should be limited to below 6 minutes to prevent adverse human health effects.

“[…] For frequencies from 3 to 100 kHz, the predominant health effect to be avoided is the unintentional stimulation of excitable tissues. For frequencies from 100 kHz to 300 GHz, tissue heating is the predominant health effect to be avoided. Experimental studies have demonstrated that exogenous electric and magnetic field exposures can induce in situ electric fields and currents within biological tissue that can lead to nerve and muscle depolarization. Limits for maximum external electric and magnetic field strengths have been established in Safety Code 6 to avoid in situ electric field strengths greater than that of the minimum excitation threshold for excitable tissues.

Temperature increases in living tissue due to RF energy absorption follow a well-defined pattern with a time constant of approximately 6 minutes (thermal time constant), where 67% of the steady state

temperature increase occurs within 6 min…..Exposure to RF energy in excess of the limits given in this safety code, when time and spatially-averaged, may cause adverse health effects. […]”

This means that after 6 minutes of exposure the temperature of living tissue will rise. Our bodies are literally being cooked by the radiation from these towers. Health Canada has created Safety Code 6 in response to the hard evidence of temperature rise alone, limiting recommended exposure to high frequencies to under 6 minutes. We are unable to use the space as a home in increments of only 6 minutes. The presence of these towers creates an environment unfit for human or animal occupancy.

Important Information about Canadian Regulations

As noted above, standards in the United States and Canada are based strictly on tissue heating, with no account taken for other more subtle biological effects of radio frequency exposure. Thus, transmitters in the United States and Canada transmit at strengths far higher than permitted in countries where the health effects (other than tissue heating) of high frequencies are used as the basis for regulation of signal strength.

For example, Salzburg standards recommend no more 1 microwatt per meter squared. In Russia, guidelines recommend no more than 10 micro-watts per meter squared. The U.S. and Canada actually allow 1,000 micro-watts per meter squared. These statistics show a sharp contrast between Canadian and international standards. Here, companies with deep pockets are paying the federal and municipal governments to create regulations which favour corporate profits over our health. Considering that cell phones taking a call have been measured transmitting over 2,000 micro-watts per meter squared at 10 feet away, one begins to understand why these sicknesses are reaching epidemic proportions. Canadian regulations are allowing huge amounts of radio pollution, and even though the standards are incredibly high, they are still being exceeded in many places due to lack of enforcement. This is the case at our example building. We must oppose these unethical companies now.

Other Western countries have been awakened against the evil of cell phone towers. More than 70 schools in Spain protested against towers installed near school buildings. The National Institute of Health (NIH) confirms that installed mobile towers on school roofs cause serious damage to the health of students and staff. NIH states that mobile towers are responsible for memory loss, sudden loss of audible ability, difficulty in understanding and difficulty in vision in children living nearby. Parents in England also protested against the installation of towers on school buildings. In UK, people avoid living in the buildings that have cell phone towers.

Regulations and Policies in Toronto

The City of Toronto Prudent Avoidance Policy for new telecommunications towers recommends

that exposure to RFs for the general public be kept 100 times below Health Canada’s guidelines (Safety Code 6) because of the uncertainty in the available research.


Click to access rf_backgrounder.pdf

Health Canada Safety Code 6 recommends limiting exposure to high RFs to under 6 minutes, yet

also allows a huge amount of high RF in Canada. http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/radiation/radiofrequency.htm
Industry Canada regulates and approves the location of cell phone towers and antennas http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08792.html
All of these existing regulations have been breeched at our example building.

The Starlight Rental Company: A Policy of Concealment and Lies

It is standard policy of this property management company not to disclose the fact there are harmful towers on the roof to existing tenants or to new prospective tenants. One Starlight Rentals sales agent stated “We don’t advertise or inform anyone about these towers.” This is negligent and malicious. Real estate law calls for full disclosure about properties. A hazard such as a cell phone tower should be fully disclosed by the agent, when in fact they do not disclose by policy. Starlight Rentals is knowingly putting people in units with risk and not disclosing this risk. It is a strategy being carried out across Canada. That makes them liable for damages and the pain and suffering of each of its 22,500 rental unit holders in multiple buildings who are afflicted with a myriad of health problems caused by cell phone towers.

What To Do About It ___________________________________________________


Resident Statement Of Claim

1. Knowingly exposing us to a life threatening hazard without consent. 2. Double selling the physical space without consent.

Therefore Tenant Requires From Property Company

1. Immediate shut down of all cell phone antennas and equipment.
2. Removal of all cell phone antennas and equipment.
3. Compensation for damage to health and return of all rent paid. We will not pay to be physically assaulted and double sold without consent.

page5image15896 page5image16056 page5image16216

Non Disclosure | We Did Not Agree To this Exposure

People are becoming sick who do not seem to be at risk. Unbeknownst to them, they are being exposed to high levels of radio frequencies through exposure to cell phone towers on the roof of their apartments. Without an oscilloscope or a meter it is impossible for the average person to detect this hazard. There are no photos including the antennas on the Starlight Rentals website. No disclosure was given to any resident, as is the policy of the company. This is a strategy of concealment and lies. It is criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

Landlords Responsibility To Immediately Remove These Towers

With this information brought to light, it is the responsibility of the property management company to immediately shut down power to the telecom equipment. Due to their criminal negligence Starlight Rentals is liable for health claims attributed to the antennas. They must immediately shut down and remove these, as they are presently continuing to contribute to the health problems of residents. Starlight rentals is also in breech of all contracts for infringement upon the tenants right to “quiet enjoyment” as set out in the tenants agreement, by way of double sale of the physical space inside the units. They are therefor liable for the return of all monies paid in rent by the complainants.


Did you know that you can represent yourself in court, for free? We don’t need money or lawyers to demand restitution for the wrongs which have been committed against us. Here is how to do it:

How To File A Law Suit ____________________________________________________________

A lawsuit is often the most effective way to get redress for the wrong you have suffered. The following section will outline the civil litigation process in Ontario.

In order to file a lawsuit, you must first file a Statement of Claim. This document outlines exactly what wrong you have suffered, and what you are asking the court to do to make it right. Even at this early stage of the proceedings, critical decisions about timing and location have to be made. For example, if you wait too long to bring an action the court may tell you that your action is ‘statute-barred’, and prevent you from filing your lawsuit. This is because the courts don’t want to be tied up listening to arguments about things that happened many years ago. Generally, if you are going to seek a legal solution, it is a good idea to bring your lawsuit as soon as you have discovered that someone has wronged you.

Your opponent will then file a statement of defence in response to your statement of claim. The statement of defence tells the court why the defendant disagrees with you and why they think they should not be liable. If a statement of defence is filed, the trial is on.


Before you can go to court both sides have to know exactly what they are arguing about. That is what the Discovery process is for. In Discovery, both sides have to produce all the documents they have that pertain to the alleged wrong, and share them with the other side. Depending on the complexity of the action, the process of documentary discovery can be very long and drawn out.

During discovery, you will also have seven hours to question the defendant on any matter relating to the action. The flip side is that your opponent’s lawyer also gets seven hours to question you on your version of the facts, your statement of claim, and your documents. This can be a gruelling process, but by the time it is done both parties will have a good idea of exactly where the points of disagreement are. Doing all this work during Discovery can help make the trial shorter. By narrowing down the issues during Discovery, at the trial you will only have to argue about the most important points of disagreement.

Pre-Trial Conference

The next step before actually getting to trial is to have a pre-trial conference. This conference is held in front of a judge (but not the same judge who will be hearing the trial). Both parties must attend the pre-trial conference. The conference sets the tone of the trial to come. The judge and the disputants discuss the possibility of a settlement, where the issues in dispute can be narrowed, and how long the trial is expected to last. Once this conference is done, and assuming no settlement can be reached, the matter will then proceed to trial.


It should be noted that the Rules of Civil Procedure allow both parties to bring motions either before or during a trial. Motions primarily have to do with procedural matters. However, each motion can take up a lot of time, because they often require the preparation and filing of a whole new raft of documents.

In some cases, a hearing on a motion can be almost like a ‘trial within a trial’. For example, the defendant may move a Motion for Summary Judgement if they are convinced that you do not have a case. However, in order to prove that you have no legal basis for your claim, the defendant has to essentially argue the entire issue in front of the judge – thus creating the ‘trial within a trial’. After the long road to finally get to trial, motions can continue to slow the process.


Assuming that both parties are still disputing the matter at this stage, the action will get to trial. The trial may be before a judge, or before a jury. In fact, the trial will probably be a lot like what you have seen in the movies: opening statements will be made; witnesses will be examined and cross-examined; both sides will present closing statements. At the end of the trial (which can last many weeks) the judge or jury will make a decision.

The courts in Ontario are some of the best in the world. If your cause is just you can expect that the court will, more likely than not, rule in your favour.

Post-Judgement Execution

Once the judge has ruled in your favour, you can finally put this legal matter behind you, right? Well, unfortunately that is not always the case. Your opponent may choose to appeal the decision. If that happens, then you cannot collect on your judgement until the Court of Appeal has disposed of the appeal.

But even this does not end the matter. Even though you have a judgement in your favour, your opponent may refuse to pay up. There are numerous legal avenues available for enforcing a judgement in your favour. In the case where an unsuccessful defendant refuses to pay up, the assistance of an experienced lawyer may then be necessary to assist you in obtaining your claim.

To Recap

You may be reluctant to begin the litigation process. It is a daunting task, true. But it is possible. In Ontario there is fair and due process for everyone. Every day people like us are vindicated by the courts system. We have right on our side, and the truth is simple. We do not need expensive spin-doctor attorneys to be our champions. It is time for us to be strong, step up and be our own champions. If you are considering entering into a lawsuit, know that it is a process with clearly stated requirements. You will be working within a defined system, leaving you responsible only for showing up and sharing the truth, accompanied by the appropriate forms. There are numerous resources online to guide you through this process.

Additional Information ___________________________________________________

Trailblazing Cell Tower Removal: 2 Regal Street, Toronto, ON

In December 2009 an array of cell phone antennas was placed on an apartment building at 2 Regal Rd. in downtown Toronto, much to the surprise of the residents who first became aware of this construction as the cranes moved in.

Within two months, those who lived on the top floor of this apartment building began to feel ill. Nausea, dizziness, buzzing in the ears, headaches, head pressure, difficulty sleeping, brain fog, skin rash, burning sensation in the skin, and a metallic taste in the mouth were just some of the symptoms. One woman and her daughter became so sick, they could no longer stay in their apartment and moved in with friends. The antennas were close enough to be touched by a broom from the top floor balcony.

This is a well documented case which was studied independently and revealed some facts: first that towers generate radiation in all directions, and second that radiation levels are high inside the apartment units below them. This is what is going on at our specific example, and our towers have been here over 6 years. These people took their landlord to court and got the antenna removed, through a long process of litigation. This is great news for us, because they have done some of the legwork already. Their case shows legal precedent and scientific evidence.

In The News

The news has been full of speculation regarding why the rates of these ailments have increased over the last several years. Since there is evidence linking exposure to high frequencies to each of these ailments, it seems likely that the growth in these technologies over time relates to the increase of the ailments listed above. Until recently only a few people were aware of the source of the exposure. Unfortunately, much of the news available to us is in fact paid for by the companies whose towers we oppose. That means often news about this subject can be biased, misleading or just plain false. That means we must use our brains and seek out good quality, truthful information.

Where can you go for more documentation/resources?

There are many useful resources online. This short list will get you started.

No, Your Patient is NOT Crazy

Information for doctors on radio frequency sickness, diagnosis, mechanisms, and treatment. Hopefully, this will help you get the support from your doctor as you work to clean up your environment and regain your health. http://www.electricalpollution.com/documents/YourPatientIsNotCrazy.pdf


Excerpts of a letter written by Lloyd Morgan, BA in Electronic Engineering from University of

California – Berkeley, and a member of Central Brain Tumour Registry of the United States. His letter contains a nice explanation of the problem, complete with scientific references and anecdotal evidence. It is easy to understand.
(Part 1) http://www.electricalpollution.com/Lloyd_Morganexcerpts.html

(Part 2) http://www.electricalpollution.com/Lloyd_Morganexcerpts2.html

The BioInitiative Report
An independent peer-reviewed study of RF and biological effects. Very useful. http://www.bioinitiative.org/

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/radiation/radiofrequency2.htm

Cell Phone Use and Human Health http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/factsheet_cellphone.pdf

Health Effects of Wireless Telephone Transmission Towers (December 1999) Summary report

Click to access rf_boh_final.pdf

Technical report

http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/rf_boh_technical.pdf Supplementary report http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/rf_bon_update.pdf

Prudent Avoidance Policy on Siting Telecommunication Towers and Antennas (November 2007) Background Report

Click to access rf_backgrounder.pdf

Board of Health report

http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/boh_report.pdf Technical report http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/technical_report.pdf

International Conference on Cell Towers (September 2000) http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/cell_tower_conference.pdf

Thank you for your time and attention.
Wishing all the best for you and your family.
Good luck, and may health and happiness be yours.


Wireless Radiation Illnesses Treated at Toronto Hospital

Submitted by  on July 13, 2012 – 10:37 am4 Comments

By Lee Rickwood

Waiting lists for health care services may be a stubborn fact of life in Canada, but for cell phone use?

To see a doctor at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, in particular to get into a clinic where patients are being diagnosed with environmental sensitivities — including electro-magnetic hypersensitivity (EMS) — can take as long as nine months!

graphic logo warning for electromagnetic radiation

Health issues related to electromagnetic radiation are being treated at a major Toronto hospital.

EMS is the umbrella term used for medical issues related to cell phone use, wireless radiation and other related concepts.

The hospital’s Environmental Health Clinic is also holding educational workshops on the subject of wireless radiation exposure for doctors. It’s partly in the hopes of easing the patient backlog, but it’s also to develop more awareness among treating agents and better care programs for those suffering from exposure to wireless radiation.

Those patients can complain of disrupted sleep, headaches, nausea, dizziness, heart palpitations, memory problems, and skin rashes.

The hospital has released a controversial if not progressive statement identifying these symptoms, and labelling them Electro-magnetic Hyper-sensitivity, or “EMS”.

Dr. Riina Bray, the medical director of the hospital’s Environmental Health Clinic, sees the world more dominated by wireless devices and connectivity, and a growing network of micro, radio and extremely low frequency waves through the air. EMS awareness advocates call it ‘electro-smog.’

Smart phones, cell phone towers, wireless Internet routers, smart meters, cordless phones and power lines of all sorts have all been recognized as possible contributors to an environmental health condition called electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EMS) caused by significant exposure from radio waves.

pictures of doctors at wireless radiation workshop

Dr Ray Copes and Dr Riina Bray participated in an awareness workshop about wireless radiation at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto.

“We need to create more awareness about this condition,” said Dr Bray. “Health-care practitioners need to better understand EMS so they can help their patients prevent and manage their symptoms.  The public needs to know how to protect themselves from the broad range of health impacts electromagnetic fields have on their minds and bodies.”

Last year the World Health Organization placed microwave radiation from wireless Internet and cell phones on an official ‘cancer watch-list’ – although other common substances like coffee also make the list.

Protests against cell phone tower construction or installationare held in many communities in Canada; several schools have removed or are seeking to remove Wi-Fi systems from their facilities, and the Ontario Catholic school teacher’s union has called for a moratorium on further Wi-Fi installations in classrooms.

The first step for patients having symptoms described as related to EMS is to see their family physician. From there, a referral to a specialist is often made, like those working at the Environmental Health Clinic. Dr. Bray and her staff understand sensitivities like EMS and they’re working hard to define and delineate its mechanisms and impact, even as researchers around the world continue to study the effects of exposure to such radiation and how they might impact the human body.

So, too, the clinic staff is working to educate the medical establishment and general public, while managing their patients and growing caseload.

The Hospital recently hosted a workshop on the subject, and it invited physicians, experts and patients to share and discuss ideas related to EMS.

Among the experts invited was Dr. Magda Havas, Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies, at Trent University in Peterborough, ON.  Dr. Havas presented evidence of human physiological responses to electromagnetic exposure.  She also mentioned the guidelines recently released by the Austrian Medical Association on how to diagnose and treat electro smog-related illnesses.

Also at the seminar, Dr. Ray Copes, environmental and occupational health chief for Public Health Ontario, who noted the difficulty of assessing the research on EMS, and the lack of a single, universally accepted definition of the condition.

While electromagnetic radiation is emitted from a variety of sources, among the questions in dispute are whether there is or can be a “safe” level of exposure to non-ionizing radiation; evidence to date suggests some danger, but not conclusively.

cell phone tower picture

Installation of cell phone towers is being resisted in Canadian communities and court cases.

For some in attendance at the session, the suggestions are much more tangible: participants shared personal stories of ill health and adverse medical reaction, approaches to health care, community collaboration and government action.

(For the record, Health Canada says electromagnetic radiation presents “no known health risks”. Interestingly, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq recently announced a $1.8 million research project looking into the health effects of wind turbines and wind towers. Officials say the study is a result of “many” complaints from Canadians exposed to low-frequency noise from large-scale wind turbines.)

“Women’s College Hospital is leading the way by hosting workshops like this,” said Dr. Bray. “Working together is the first step to creating a mutual understanding of electromagnetic hypersensitivity and being able to care for and treat patients in the best way possible.”

The Environmental Health Clinic is a unique multidisciplinary clinic, and the only one of its kind in Ontario. It was established in 1996 by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to be a provincial resource in promoting environmental health, and to improve health care for people with environment-linked conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivities.

The Environmental Health Clinic is the clinical part of a joint clinical and research program of Women’s College Hospital and the University of Toronto.

story submitted by Lee Rickwood


Jumping Off the Wireless Bandwagon

Canadians perilously overexposed to electromagnetic radiation

March 1, 2011

After three days of hearings on the health impacts of Wi-Fi and wireless technologies, Canada’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health released a remarkably timid report — An Examination of the Potential Health Impacts of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation – last December. Judging from the fact that there were three “supplementary reports” (from the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Conservative Party) accompanying the document, disagreement among Committee members must have been rampant.

As well, for reasons that have not been publicly explained, there were major changes in the Committee membership (see sidebar) over the course of the hearings, which took place for two days in April 2010 and one day in October.

Perhaps as a result, the Committee’s report primarily recommends more long-term study, at the same time the wireless industry in Canada is expanding exponentially, especially with the installation of smart meters in every home across Ontario, and soon B.C.

Safety Code 6

The Committee heard from some of the top international experts in the field, many of whom roundly criticized Health Canada’s inadequate protection of Canadians from the dangers of non-ionizing microwave radiation.

Dr. Olle Johansson, testifying by teleconference from Sweden, told the Committee that Canada’s Safety Code 6 is “completely out of date and obsolete” in terms of protecting people from “prolonged low-intensity exposures” to microwave radiation from cellphones, cell towers and masts, Wi-Fi, and smart meters.

The safety level in Safety Code 6 is some 6,000 times less stringent than the safety level advocated in The BioInitiative Report, which was released in 2007 by the University of Albany and includes about 2,000 expert international research studies (such as those done by Dr. Johansson) on electromagnetic radiation (EMR), electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and brain tumours, leukemia, and other illnesses.

The co-editor of The BioInitiative Report recently told Harper’s (May 2010), “If EMFs function both as a carcinogen and a neurotoxin, then it’s not just brain tumours and brain cancers” that could result; “it’s also testicular cancer, breast cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and a range of cognitive and behavioural problems.”

Dr. Martin Blank, Columbia University researcher in bioelectromagnetics, told the Parliamentary Committee, “The European Union voted to review their own [safety] standards on the basis of The BioInitiative Report.”

But Brenda Pieterson of Health Canada countered by claiming that “The BioInitiative Report was biased. We do not support the findings,” she told the Committee. In spring 2010, Health Canada issued this statement: “Health Canada has no scientific reason to consider the use of wireless communications devices, such as cellphones, BlackBerrys, wireless laptop computers and their supporting infrastructure, dangerous to the health of the Canadian public.”

“I have heard over and over again that the levels of [EMR] exposure are low,” Dr. Johansson told the Committee. “In the room you’re sitting in right now, just from the third generation [3G] mobile telephony… you are sitting in levels that are approximately one million billion times above natural background [radiation]. There you have your question mark: are we really built for a microwave life at such extreme levels?”

4G mobile telephony is set to be released in Canada within months.

“Microwave Life”

Perhaps the most moving testimony at the hearings came from Rodney Palmer, spokesman for the Simcoe Safe School Committee.  In Ontario’s Simcoe County, children in at least 14 schools have become ill since the schools installed Wi-Fi, beginning in 2006.  Palmer described their symptoms – speeding heart rate, fatigue, headaches – and said that two children have “had cardiac arrests” and are on heart medication. “Now every school in Simcoe County has its own defibrillator, as though teenage heart attacks are normal.”

Canadian schools take health issues seriously, having taken steps for asbestos removal and making schools smoke-free and nut-free. Trent University professor Dr. Magda Havas, an environmental biologist and expert in microwave radiation issues who also appeared before the Parliamentary Committee, argues that schools should also be “radiation-free” because “as many as 260,000 students (5%) across Canada may be adversely affected” by this radiation.

The short-term effects (called “electrosensitivity”) from EMR pollution include headaches, fatigue, dizziness, insomnia, skin rashes, heart arrhythmia, depression, nausea, memory loss, inability to concentrate, and suppressed immune function. As the UK’s Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy wrote in 2008, “In many ways, the effects of electromagnetic exposure may resemble those of premature aging.”

Dr. Havas has predicted that, by 2017, some “50%” of the Canadian population will have developed electrosensitivity, “which is escalating.”

Dr. Goldsworthy told the Parliamentary Committee that microwave radiation disrupts bird migration and “probably causes colony collapse disorder in bees.” Recent research from Europe has shown that bees exposed to EMR from cell towers made 21% less honeycomb and more than one-third of bees, taken a half-mile from the hive, couldn’t navigate back home.

In 2007, UK researchers identified seven “cancer clusters” and other serious illnesses among people living near cellphone transmission masts – those ubiquitous antennae that are being installed atop store roofs. (In Toronto alone, there are 7,500 cell masts.) One UK study found 31 cancers on a single street close to a cell mast in Warwickshire. Similar findings have come from France, Spain, and Germany.

In 2007, Europe’s top environmental watchdog, the European Environmental Agency, called for immediate action to reduce exposure to radiation from Wi-Fi, cellphones, and their transmission towers and masts. Scientists from 10 countries have recommended that radiation levels from cell towers and masts should be 9,000 times lower than the safety guideline currently allowed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

After years of struggle against Telus’s proposed cell phone tower, in July 2010 the community of New Denver, B.C. was able to at least gain a commitment from the company to keep its radiation at the level recommended by The BioInitiative Report.

Four years ago, Vancouver’s Common Ground Magazine (Dec. 2006) noted: “The industry’s need to cover up the hazards of wireless technology has been fuelled not only by fear of lost profits, but also by fear of bankruptcy. Insurance companies gradually withdrew all coverage for claims relating to health problems from cellphones following the first studies showing they were dangerous. Today [2006], there are seven pending class action suits against the mobile phone industry… It took just one such lawsuit each to bring down the silicone breast implant and asbestos industries.”

The European Difference

In an article for GQ Gentlemen’s Quarterly (Feb. 2010), Christopher Ketcham noted that the concern about wireless technology is “being taken seriously” in Europe. “In April 2008, the national library of France, citing possible ‘genotoxic effects,’ announced it would shut down its Wi-Fi system, and the staff of the storied Library of Sainte-Genevieve in Paris followed up with a petition demanding the disconnection of Wi-Fi antennas and their replacement by wired connections.

Several European governments are already moving to prohibit Wi-Fi in government buildings and on campuses, and the Austrian Medical Association is lobbying for a ban of all Wi-Fi systems in schools, citing the danger to children’s thinner skulls and developing nervous systems.”

Switzerland is now providing free fibre optic connections to schools through the Swiss government’s telecommunication provider, Swisscom. The Swiss guidelines for microwave radiation exposure to the public are 100 times more stringent than Canada’s.

Ketcham reports that, in Spain, Ireland and Israel, sabotage and attacks on cellphone towers have become “a regular occurrence,” and he memorably states: “The only honest way to think of our cellphones is that they are tiny, low-power microwave ovens, without walls, that we hold against the sides of our heads.”

More than 22 million Canadians have cellphones, in what is now a $17 billion industry in Canada.

The Globe & Mail’s Martin Mittelstaedt (Sept. 24, 2010) reported: “Several studies, including an exhaustive review this year by the World Health Organization’s cancer-research agency, find that people who have used cellphones for half an hour a day for more than a decade have about twice the risk of glioma, a rare kind of brain tumour, on the side of their head where they hold the phone.”

Dr. Devra Davis told Mittelstaedt, “For such a risk to show up in cellphone users within 10 years, given what we know about brain tumours, which is that they can have a latency of 40 years, is deeply, deeply disturbing.” Dr. Davis is the author of the new bookDisconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done To Hide It, and How To Protect Your Family (Dutton, 2010), which was reviewed in the November 2010 issue of The CCPA Monitor.

According to Dr. Magda Havas’s research, health officials in various countries have issued warnings for children to limit their use of cellphones: UK (2000), Germany (2007), France (2008), Russia (2008), India (2008), Toronto Public Health (2008), Pittsburgh Cancer Institute (2008), Japan (2008), Finland (2008), South Korea (2009), and the U.S. Federal Communication Commission (2009). In 2010, France passed legislation prohibiting the advertising of cellphones to children under 14, and prohibiting children under 14 from using cellphones in schools.

A Swedish study published in Pathophysiology (June 2009) found that the introduction of cellphone technology nationwide in 1997 coincided with the beginning of an accelerating deterioration of several health indicators, including an increase in prostate cancer rates, brain tumours, and Alzheimer’s. As Dr. Goldsworthy states, “When you use a cellphone, its signal will be transmitted to all parts of your body; nowhere is safe.”

Smart Meters

Thanks to a 2004 Order-in-Council, signed by Ontario’s then-Minister of Energy Dwight Duncan, the provincial government has been installing millions of smart meters “to promote energy conservation, energy efficiency, and load management.” B.C. is planning to do the same thing.

An appendix in Ontario’s 2004 “Implementation Plan” shows the dozens of private companies who were involved in the planning for smart meters, including giants like Enbridge, EPCOR Utilities, and IBM.

Smart meters use wireless signals to transmit usage information every 15 minutes back to the utility, replacing the meter-reader human being who would come to the property to read the analog dial. Smart meters have a transmission range of about two miles. The amount of continuous pulsed radiation from thousands of smart meters in a single neighbourhood is raising red flags among critics of EMR pollution.

While the Globe & Mail (Feb. 2, 2011) has reported a consumer “backlash” over smart meters because of “privacy” issues, the backlash is also radiation-related. A Jan. 7, 2011 study released in California by Sage Environmental Consultants estimates that the amount of microwave radiation from a home-installed smart meter is comparable to living within 200-600 feet of a major cellphone tower.

Twenty-two local governments in California are demanding a moratorium on smart meters, which Pacific Gas & Electric is installing at a cost of $2.2 billion to ratepayers. The program does not allow individuals to opt out, even in cases of severe health impacts, such as people whose medical implants can be affected by wireless devices.

Warning that short-term effects from smart meters include headaches, sleep disruption, tremors, cognitive impairment, tinnitus, increased cancer risk, and heart arrhythmia, Sage Environmental Consultants’ study states that “the explosion of wireless technologies is producing radiofrequency radiation exposures over massive populations before questions are answered by federal studies” about the carcinogenicity or toxicity of the radiation levels.

Other Parliamentary Reports

Aside from recommendations for more long-term study, Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health did recommend that “Health Canada ensure that it has a process in place to receive and respond to reports of adverse reactions to electromagnetic radiation emitting devices.” This was the only point that the Conservative Party’s supplementary report disagreed with, stating that, “to date, there has been no credible science linking exposure [from such devices] to adverse health effects.  To establish a process for reporting adverse health effects would not assist us in making that link.”

The Bloc Quebecois recommended that Industry Canada (which determines cell tower and mast placement) “respect municipal or provincial regulations” when awarding permits to companies for towers and masts. This would give more power to local governments to legislate restrictions on placement and (potentially) on radiation levels.

The NDP’s “complementary report” made several recommendations, including that “concerned parents who fear their children are being exposed in classrooms to a dangerous technology… must have public options available to them;” that “it would be negligent not to investigate the role that wireless technology may have” in bee colony collapse; and that it would “be appropriate to let Canadians know that the safety of this technology is not guaranteed, but only theoretical at this point, particularly in the case of children.”

(Joyce Nelson is a freelance writer/researcher and the author of five books. She has also written about electromagnetic radiation for the Jan. 2011 Watershed Sentinel.)

Cell Tower Appartments

page10image11744 page10image11904 page10image12064 page10image12224 page10image12384 page10image12544 page10image12704 page10image12864 page10image13024 page10image13184 page10image13344 page10image13504 page10image13664

About this entry