Letter: Duncan should reject cell tower proposal

This is a very problematic proposal for several reasons

Duncan should reject cell tower proposal

Re: Proposed Rogers cell phone tower in east City of Duncan

I am writing to express my concern regarding the long term health effects of building a 33-metre (108 ft) high cell phone tower in the Marchmont Road area of the City of Duncan.

As a 40 year resident of Duncan and a concerned family and hospital physician (now retired), I would like to give a voice to the many people who will be adversely affected by this proposal.

This is a very problematic proposal for several reasons. Microwave radiation is a well documented class 2B carcinogen in studies performed on rodents.

For the electromagnetically sensitive, symptoms include nausea, headache, palpitations, tinnitus and dizziness. Fire departments will not allow cell phone towers to be built above their facilities because of the health risks to their firefighters.

The proposed location of this cell phone tower in the Duncan city’s public works yard on 1091 Marchmont Rd. near McAdam Park is set in a densely populated area well within one kilometre of Quamichan Heights, the Quamichan First Nations Reserve, the densely populated areas around McAdam Park, Duncan Christian School and Boys Road trailer park.

The public consultation process is deeply flawed. All letters for or against this proposal will be vetted (those living further than 100 m from the site will not be included) by Mr Brian Gregg, the Roger’s communication consultant who will present, as he deems suitable, to the City of Duncan. As the Citizen newspaper reports, the City of Duncan will not be involved in any public consultation until his presentation.

This is reminiscent of the fox being in charge of the chicken coop. Opponents to Rogers’ plan will never know if their letters will be submitted to City Council or amended in some way. I highly recommend that concerned citizens who send a letter to Mr Gregg, also send it to Duncan City mayor and council (see their website for email addresses).

Lastly, those who don’t care about the side effects to local residents will vehemently pronounce that this proposal meets all Federal Government Safety Code 6 ICNIRP (International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines. Unfortunately Safety Code 6 is very controversial and the ICNIRP has repeatedly come under criticism for its decisions. The Canadian Medical Association, in 2015 called for a review of the whole telecommunications industry in this regard.

I urge concerned members of the public (not just those within 99 m of the proposed cell phone tower) to write a letter to Mr. Gregg (and Duncan mayor and council) rejecting this proposal as has North Cowichan, Hornby Island, Thetis Island and Coombs in the recent past.

Dr. Stephen Faulkner