Please see attached a copy of a letter dated April 28, 2008 which was sent by registered mail to Mr. Guy Raymond by counsel to PACT.
Yours sincerely,
PACT (Precautionary Approach to Cell Towers) of Richmond
Hill
DAVID M. ROVAN B.co~~.,LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
797 Wilson Avenue,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1E4
Tel.: (416)531-5723 Fax: (416)748-8574
April 28,2008
Guy Raymond
Vice President, Operations Bell Mobility Inc. .
5099 Creek Bank Road
Mississauga Ontario
L4W 5N2
Dear Mr. Raymond:
Re: Bell Cell Tower, Bathurst St. & Ebin Mills Road W.. Richmond Hill
Please be advised that I am counsel to PACT (PrecautionaryApproach to Cell Towers) of Richmond Hill. By now, you have probably heard that hundreds of residents in the community came out to a mass demonstration on April 17~to express their views that Bell ignored the wishes of this community by constructing a Cell Tower in their midst. You have erected this tower despite being notified by members of PACT that you proceeded on the basis of an illegitimate and defective approval by Richmond Hill Council. You proceeded despite the repeated requests by residents that you consult with them pursuant to the consultation guidelines of Industry Canada. You proceeded despite the entreaty of the Mayor of Richmond Hill that you stay construction pending a resolution of this matter in accordance with Industry Canada's present guidelines,which became effective a few months before you erected this tower. In our view, your approval came about by means of a misunderstandingby Richmond Hill Council in regard to their rights to object under Industry Canada's policies which were in effect at the time. There is a possibility that Richmond Hill Council may have been misled. Accordingly it is our view that you are proceeding on the basis of an approvalthat has no legal basis. As a result, we are putting you on notice that the residents of this community will be documenting the status of their health by means of a survey-in effect, taking a "snapshot" today of their medical condition so as to ascertain, in the future, whether your tower will have negatively impacted the overall health of this community. I remind you that a number of published studies have already noticed various symptoms suffered by residents living in proximity to cell towers. As far as we are aware, no community in such situations has yet compiled a comparativerecord of health in order to establish causation. We are putting you on notice that we intend to do so, in order to establish a reliable documented record if it should turn out that residents have suffered harm by means of your tower
Since in our view, you did not proceed in accordance with a legally valid approval- and as you have been repeatedly notified by residents as to the basis for that opinion- your company will not be immune to claims for damages by members of this community should it become apparent to them that your tower has impacted their health.
This community remains ready, willing, and able to assert its rights under the law. Nevertheless we remain hopeful that you will ultimately act in the interest of the public and your shareholders, and thereby avert continued actions that might have disastrous consequences for all concerned, whether finacial, medical, or legal.
Yours very truly,
DAVID M. ROVAN
DMR:gh
cc: Michael Sabia, Chief Executive Officer, Bell Canada (michael.sabia@bell.ca)
Wade Oosterman, President Bell Mobility (wade.oosterman@bell.ca)
PACT of Richmond Hill (pactofrichmondhill@googlegroups.com)
Kevin Crull, President Bell REsidential Services (kevin.crull@bell.ca)
Piero Greco, Bell Mobility Real Estate Services, Mississauga, Ontario (piero.greco@bell.ca)
Kerry Arbour, Vice President Systems and Delivery, Bell Canada (kerry.arbour@bell.ca)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incubator electromagnetic fields alter newborns' heart rates
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/bmj-ief043008.php
The electromagnetic fields produced by incubators alter newborns' heart rates, reveals a small study published ahead of print in the Fetal and Neonatal Edition of Archives of Disease in Childhood.
It is not clear what the long term effects might be, but this could have implications for babies born prematurely, who may spend several weeks or months in incubators, say the authors.
The research team assessed the variability in the heart rate of 43 newborn babies, none of whom was critically ill or premature.
The heart rates of 27 of these babies were assessed over three periods of five minutes each, during which the incubator motor was left running, then switched off, then left running again.
To see if noise might be a factor, because incubators are noisy, 16 newborns were exposed to "background noise," by placing a tape beside the baby's head, while the incubator motor was switched off.
The tape recording, which reproduced the sound of the incubator fan, was played for five minutes, paused for five minutes, and then played again for five minutes.
There were no differences in heart rate variability in the tape recorded babies. But there were significant differences in the heart rate variability of babies in the incubators.
The heart rate variability fell significantly during the periods when the incubator was switched on.
Decreased heart rate variability is a strong predictor of a poor prognosis in adult patients with heart disease and the general population, the evidence shows.
Heart rate variability is made up of low and high frequency components, and the ratio between the two is higher in premature babies than it is in adults.
The authors suggest that this may be influenced by the powerful electromagnetic fields created by incubators.
They conclude that modifications to the design of incubators could help, but they add that as yet it is unclear what long term consequences there may be of exposure to electromagnetic fields at such a tender age.
"International recommendations and laws set levels to safeguard the health of workers exposed to electromagnetic fields: newborns should be worthy of similar protection," they say.
Contact: Rachael Davies
rdavies@bma.org.uk
44-020-738-36529
BMJ-British Medical Journal
( A continuation of this story would follow the baby home where it may be further stressed by home electrical wiring, electrical appliances, cell phones, cordless phones, wireless devices, WiFi, baby monitors and any antennas that broadcast into the home. It is no wonder that there are so many strange illnesses which affect our young. Martin)