Opponents want city council to hang up on new cellphone towers in Peterborough
By BRENDAN WEDLEY/Examiner Municipal Writer
A group of residents broadcasted opposition to a planned cellphone tower on Parkhill Rd. E. at a city council meeting Monday night.
The residents spoke of concerns about cellphone towers such as potential health risks, aesthetics and declining property values for nearby homeowners.
Council has endorsed sending a letter to Industry Canada – the approval agency for cellphone towers – that doesn't support or oppose the proposed tower at 485 Parkhill Rd. E.
Electromagnetic fields disrupt nature on a massive scale, causing birds, bats and bees to lose their bearings, fail to reproduce and die, Charlene Creelman said.
"When we are told there is no evidence that electromagnetic fields cause any biological effects, that they are not harmful to our health, we are being lied to," she said. "We are changing the electromagnet signature of the Earth. Wireless technology and radio frequency microwave radiation is an energetic form of air pollution. We are destroying nature by electrosmog."
Creelman asked council to institute a moratorium on the installation of cellphone towers in the city. She argued evidence will show that electromagnetic fields from cellphone towers cause biological effects.
Council didn't make a decision on the item Monday night. It recessed the meeting until 6 p.m. Tuesday after delegations went until about 11:10 p.m. Monday.
At a planning committee meeting two weeks ago, council agreed to tell Industry Canada that SBA Canada, which is the company that has applied to build the tower, has met the city's public consultation requirements and that there is a significant level of concern in the public about the proposal.
The city has taken a role in protecting the health of its residents through the creation of a smoking bylaw that bans smoking in certain public spaces and restricting the use of pesticides, Champlain Dr. resident Malini Menon said.
"There are very serious questions regarding the health impacts of this technology," she said. "The health impacts on its citizens are equally important as the economic or convenience benefits to cell providers and their clients."
SBA Canada follows the policies set by Industry Canada and Health Canada when it builds wireless telecommunication towers, said Anthony Biglieri, a principal with the Biglieri Group, a planning consultant for SBA.
The tower would be 142 metres away from the nearest residential dwelling, Biglieri said. There wouldn't be a light at the top of the tower.
Wind Mobile, an upstart discount cellphone provider looking to expand into Peterborough, would be the wireless telecommunications provider on the tower, but the tower would be designed to accommodate as many as four service providers, Biglieri said.
SBA is looking at four potential cellphone tower locations in Peterborough with maybe two or three more towers at some point, he said.
The city appears to be functioning well with current cellphone coverage, Menon said.
"Why not wait until a true need for extra service arises?" she asked "Corporate greed, economic competition and perceived need should not be the basis upon which we throw all caution to the wind and approve endless cell towers at the risk of our health."
Colin Welsh, who lives across the road from the proposed new cellphone tower location on Parkhill Rd. E., told council a nearby property owner was told his property value would decrease if a cellphone tower was built next to his property.
Welsh added residents are concerned about potential health risks and aesthetics.
"We need to keep them (cellphone towers) away from residential areas," he said.
Welsh said that requests made to Industry Canada and Peterborough MP Dean Del Mastro's office were referred to the city.
Several residents said the towers will be used to support Wind Mobile equipment and that Wind Mobile has plans for 11 towers in the city.
The city doesn't need new wireless telecommunications companies, city resident Lori Pettersone said.
"I am not concerned about getting a cheaper rate — I'm concerned about the impact of additional non-ionizing radiation on our health," she said. "We should not suffer ill health effects while wireless communication companies profit. The money they earn is at our expense."
No comments:
Post a Comment