Jeff Bateman
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Portfolio
  • Volunteerism
  • Blog
  • Contact

Calling All Monopines

1/27/2019

7 Comments

 
Picture
Tomorrow night, Freedom Mobile is back seeking a Sooke council "concurrence" for a 45-metre cell phone tower (aka "wireless mobile base station") disguised within the branches of a pine tree on a parcel of private, rural-residential land just east and north of the corner of Glinz Lake Road and Sooke Rd. I'm writing this blog item as preparation and so I'll have a reference for future recurrences of this matter as mobile networks follow population growth and expand in viral fashion. 

If approved by Ottawa, this would be the approx. 48th cell phone transmission link in the region's cellular network. Any installation of gear below 15 meters is not subject to public process, so we don't hear often about the growing complexity of the mobile network locally ... and nationwide.  

And when citizens do learn about it, they tend to be concerned (as was the case in June, 2012 when Alcatel-Lucent Canada, now merged into Nokia Networks, attempted to plant a 40-meter wireless communications mono tower directly behind the Lazy Gecko in the town centre . I have a supplementary council agenda here dated June 25, 2012 packed with letters of complaint and a petition signed by 613 locals. No, it didn't go ahead, in part on the grounds of Sooke's commitment to town-centre beautification. At about that same time, incidentally, Telus secured a building permit from the CRD for a much less obtrusive 49-meter tower in Otter Point's Sooke Business Park that extended cell phone and wireless coverage west to Kemp Lake Road.)

In the case of tomorrow's agenda, this will be the second attempt by Freedom, Shaw Communication's mobile service provider, to patch up the local network along the rocky portion of Sooke Road in the vicinity of 17 Mile House. They're doing so for their own competitive edge but, as I understand it, Rogers and Telus customers would benefit as well given that Ottawa insists that all service providers play ball together and can tap into each other's infrastructure.

No question this stretch of #14 is known for its service interruptions. Carolyn and I tested our Virgin Mobile phones yesterday afternoon, and we experienced drop-outs near Connie Road. The connection was cut for a matter of seconds and quickly re-established a few hundred meters down the road. Otherwise reception was fine from Sooke to Langford. (Others will have had different, quite likely much more frustrating experiences than us given that we don't commute and are infrequent cell phone users.) 

In July 2017, council honoured the wishes of part of the Glinz Lake neighbourhood by voting 4 vs 3 to send a "non-concurrence" recommendation to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED, formerly Industry Canada) regarding the Freedom Mobile application.

ISED staff has the final say in all decisions yet they are also mandated to listen closely to citizen input and local government recommendations. When no community approval is forthcoming, the applicant is encouraged to try, try again, and so Freedom is back for an encore bid. (The company was inspired, in part, by another 4 vs 3 vote, this time for concurrence, re: a Sept. 17, 2017 application for a tower in the Otter Point Rd and Laronde area, where only a few residents raised objections. Last September, Freedom also won council thumb's up for a tower on the Butler Bros. industrial lands behind EMCS; that same night council also approved a Rogers tower at Otter Point & Wadams Way to boost town-centre coverage).  
 
The Glinz Lake 'no' vote two summers ago respected area neighbours who voiced concerns. This same posse is back with a new 25-signature petition representing, it states, "every property surrounding the proposed tower site except for two properties (from) which the occupants are on holidays." Writes one resident: "In short, (the tower) is not wanted here ... I find it very hard to believe that this is the only suitable location for your communication facility." (Edit: As Neil Poirier notes below, not everyone in this area is opposed to the tower.) 

As in examples from numerous communities in Canada, the fears are at least threefold:

i) Health concerns about electromagnetic radiation
ii) 
The tower's impact on real-estate values.
iii) The aesthetics of a steel monolith (aka eyesore)  


The regulators do take seriously the public's concerns about the latter two points ~ house equity and landscape aesthetics. Hence Freedom is returning with the proposal for a "monopine" tower, one disguised as I said at the outset to look like a pine tree so as to blend into the surrounding forest. (This in contrast to the narrow smoke stack Telus tower that rises above the drive-thru lane in the Village Foods plaza ~ a utilitarian model in an era when disguising cell towers has become an industrial artform ... as per the examples here, which will either be cool or kitchy depending on your perspective).

Real-estate values? This US article states that potential buyers are more wary of homes near towers and that list prices will suffer. Ottawa's Report on the National Antenna Policy Review (modified Aug. 2012) discussed real-estate impacts. <clip> "In 2001, the assessed values of sixteen residential properties located in Colwood, British Columbia were reduced by BC Assessment by an average of 7.2% (approx. $9,500 each) due to the aesthetic impacts of a broadcasting antenna tower installation that had been recently upgraded." 

Health Canada does not regard radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) as a threat to human health. Like the American Cancer Foundation, it figures that the "risk perception" by the public is far worse than the dangers.  Other nations adhere more closely than Canada does to the "precautionary principle," which dictates that we humans need to go slow with new technologies given potentially unpredictable, long-term outcomes. 

Links 
Government of Canada
~ Facts About Cell Phone Towers 
~ Licensing procedures ~ Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems 
~ Guide to Assist Land-Use Authorities in Developing Antenna System Siting Protocols 

Health Issues
~ Canadian Cancer Society: "Current evidence doesn't show any short-term or long-term health effects from the signals produced by cellphone towers. Ongoing research is still looking at the relationship between cancer and radio frequency exposure from all sources."  

~ WorkSafe BC 101 on non-ionizing radiation 
~ World Health Organization 
~ Safety of Cell Phones & Cell Phone Towers (Health Canada) 
~ Generation Zapped (screened at Sooke's Awareness Film Night two Decembers ago).
~ Physicians for Safe Technology 
~ C4ST (Canadians For Safe Technology)
~ PDF file of case studies from Electromagnetic Health.org 
~ CBC Marketplace episode (March 2017( ~ "The Secret Inside Your Phone: Cellphone Safety" (detailing health risks to those who use hand-held phones) + related consumer survey 

~ Best Cell Phone Coverage in British Columbia (Nov. 2018) 
<clip> "Populated areas of Vancouver Island have good coverage by Bell, Telus and Rogers. Signal is strong from the Greater Victoria Region travelling along the Trans-Canada to Nanaimo, and continuing north through to Campbell River. Coverage goes inland towards Port Alberni, but aside from that the interior coverage on the island is largely absent by Bell and Telus. Rogers has inconsistent spots of service, but service does exist. On the west coast of the island, signal drops about 30 km west of Victoria along Highway 14, but there's coverage for a stretch along the ports around Tofino and Ucluelet. To the north, Rogers has a slightly larger coverage area around Port Hardy and Port McNeill. Bell and Telus both have better coverage on the mainland side of the straight, especially in Port Neville where Rogers has no service." 







7 Comments
Neil Poirier
1/27/2019 08:24:18 pm

Hi Jeff. Not all nieghbours are against this project. I was home when the petitioners came around. I was not on holidays and did not sign. The gentleman suggested I should educate myself, I suggested likewise. There is no danger from these tower since they produce non-ionizing radiation. Also if I understand correctly they are not raising a tower but hiding it in an existing fir tree. Please do not imply the entire community is against this.

Reply
Jeff
1/27/2019 08:36:15 pm

Thanks Neil, good to know, I've been working from the agenda package. Question: How is your cell phone reception at home?

Reply
Neil Poirier
1/28/2019 10:26:33 am

Good Jeff, I'm with Telus and the only problem area I find is the first bit of the 4 lanes, everywhere else is good.

Marilyn Erickson
2/18/2020 02:46:40 pm

Non-ionizing radiation sources include power lines, microwaves, radio waves, infrared radiation, visible light and lasers. Although considered less dangerous than ionizing radiation, overexposure to non-ionizing radiation can and does cause health issues. With a cell tower blasting out 5G waves 24/7 along with other providers adding their own 5G dishes to it, safety, according to outdated Health Canada Guidelines, is not guaranteed.To date there have been no safety studies done on 5G, indeed many countries are declaring moratoriums on it until it is proven safe. A study on a rat does not translate!

Reply
Carina
4/21/2019 05:30:03 am

Hi, very nice website, cheers!
-----------------------------------------
Need cheap hosting for just $10/year? Or VPS, where plans starts with $6/Mo?

Check here: url16.com/fbwueyblw

Reply
Stephen Saunders
2/18/2020 12:56:55 pm

Actually this is the third attempt at pushing this cell tower through, January 2019 was the second attempt and was rejected with a unaimous vote by the present council. The accepted depreciation rates for properties vary from 7.5% for urban plots to 22% for rural lands. Sorry Mr. Poirier you were just out of our 300M area and if we extended our catchement atea to 500M you would still be the only person agreeing with it. All 25 land owners and tenants within the 300M circle of the proposed tower have signed the petition against the proposed tower. as for the long term allowed RF radiation Canada allows 10,000,000 uW/M2 where the world recommended dosage is 1000uW/M2

Reply
Marilyn Erickson
2/18/2020 02:13:28 pm

Thank you Mr Bateman for your concern about this cell tower installation. I am one of the 25 who signed the petition and quite frankly if this tower goes ahead behind us, we will be forced to move. I lost a family member to cancer attributed by neighbours to radiation from two nearby towers on her rural street...a street that saw six other homes with family affected by cancer. For us, it's a risk we will not take, backed up by enough scholarly studies that should give pause to any Council member tasked with assuring the health and safety of its' residents. Just ask Dave Saunders, former Mayor of Colwood, when the 6th cell tower was proposed behind homes on Triangle Mountain about the opposition council faced. They supported the residents because once one cell tower is approved, it’s easy for others to piggy back on it, indeed the company is free to sell 5G space on it, which they will of course, and with 5G boxes going in on poles along #14, there is no escape; it will be 24/7. You can see what happened in Langford already with up to six new dishes installed recently on towers. Once this tower is approved it is totally out of our hands.

Our wireless coverage in the area is great. Glinz Lake Rd is 3km from Connie Rd! With the new 4 lane highway going through to Glinz Lake Rd there will be other locations and opportunities at that end to place a tower. Here, every property surrounding the proposed location, aside from one tenant, emphatically rejects it. Who sir do you serve?

As retirees, we take our health quite seriously and are advocates for healthy communities. THERE HAVE BEEN NO SAFETY STUDIES DONE ON 5G. We are about to be bombarded by radiation from earth and from space and other countries have already declared moratoriums on 5G until safety concerns are met. As a matter of fact it isn't hard to find scholarly studies showing negative effects from 3 and 4G... and there are thousands of anecdotal reports from schools, communities and neighbourhoods as close as Colwood and Cadboro Bay that point out the risks to humans, birds, wildlife, amphibians and even insects, from the harmful effects of EMF radiation. We enjoy 38 species of birds on our deck; our heavily threatened pollinators are just beginning to return after years of absence. We have a covenant across Glinz Lake Rd that protects the forest. We have acres of forest used by youth above us at Camp Thunderbird. We and our neighbours live here because of the safety, tranquility and beauty of the forest around us. You can’t disguise a cell tower in a tree and you can not protect us from what you do not know.

As a civic leader you have a voice that Industry Canada listens to. Many municipalities, medical associations, and scientists have already expressed health concerns re tower placement and many have developed Protocols of Prudent Avoidance for new installations. I urge you to please reject this tower.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    May 2022
    February 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    November 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    May 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    April 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly