Bell Mobilty wishes to offer better cell phone service to the residents of North Hatley. The company has intentions to install a cell phone tower in the village. It is not yet certain where the tower will be placed but options include Bell’s Sherbrooke Street lot and the new water treatment facility.  I have observed towers in other communities on school rooftops, high buildings, parkland and fire stations.

In my brief phone conversation with him, Mr. Décary (Village of North Hatley General Manager) mentioned the fact that Bell is a growing but friendly company. They approached the village with their intentions despite current federal law giving telecommunications companies the right to place their infrastructures without notification. He mentioned how unsightly it would be to have a large tower on the Sherbrooke Street lot. He assured me that the tower would use the latest technology and be as small as possible.

I am led to understand that in the minds of the town administrators there are two issues regarding the placement of a cell tower in North Hatley. One is the benefit of improved cell phone reception for all citizens of the village; the other is putting the tower in a place that would make the most aesthetic sense to avoid devaluing adjacent properties. Unstated but implicit is a third issue regarding monetary income if the tower went up on property belonging to the town of North Hatley.

I am writing this because there is a fourth point to consider: the health risks of radiation. These towers are not as benign as industry and government would have us believe. The levels of radiation considered safe by Health Canada are many times higher than those shown to be risky by international groups of doctors and scientists who have been studying the effects of artificial radiation on human biological processes. I’m not referring to a few questionable studies. I’m talking about hundreds of top rate studies.

Electromagnetic radiation includes RFR, short for radiofrequency radiation. RFR technologies include cell phone towers, mobile phones, digital cordless (DECT) phones, WIFI, Radio and TV, Tetra (systems used by emergency infrastructures), radar, and microwave ovens.

It is interesting to note that some governments are acting on the research findings and have passed legislation to reduce the use of RFR technologies. Sweden’s health care system offers coverage for people suffering from ailments caused by RFR.

I encourage all citizens to inform themselves. Here are some pertinent links.

Bioinitiative is an international group of scientists and doctors.

http://www.bioinitiative.org

A recent video where international researchers speak out.

http://videos.next-up.org/EhsTvNews/EHS_MCS_Appel_de_Paris_Conference_de_Presse/

Canada’s foremost spokesperson is Magda Havas who works from Trent university in Ontario.

http://www.magdahavas.com

Vous pouvez trouver des articles sur le sujet sur le site web de La Maison Du 21iem Siècle.

https://maisonsaine.ca

Sites with regularily updated info:

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk

http://www.emraware.com/newsletter_august_september_2015.html

A list showing WIFI bans in Canada and abroad.

http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/01/wi-fi-is-removed-from-schools-and.html

The French Government bans WIFI in preschools

http://www.naturalnews.com/043695_electrosensitivity_wifi_French_government.html#

One woman’s story and community victory over a cell tower.

http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/eileen_my_story.pdf

To know locations of cell phone towers:

http://thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=594

Bell tower surprises Ontario property owner. http://www.frontenacnews.ca/north-frontenac-news/item/228-opposition-surfaces-to-ompah-cell-phone-towerup next door.

For those who like the feel of a book:

The Electronic silent spring by Kate Singer

The Powerwatch Handbook by Alistair Philips

Karen Ida Liedl, North Hatley

The opinions expressed on this website are those of their authors. Space on the website is provided as a service to the community and FANHCA, its administrators and host cannot be held responsible for any of the opinions expressed thereon.

Council is made up of seven individuals and each individual runs for Council and votes on resolutions independently.  We are not a party with a common platform position on all of the different issues but rather seven individuals with opinions and positions that sometimes differ.  This is why we sometimes have to call for the vote in order to pass decisions.

In the municipal world there is a saying:  Council speaks by resolution.  This means that it is only when a council comes together, discusses an issue and then votes on a specific resolution (ie. an action), that the council has « spoken » .

The public often feels left out of the process mainly because they are not present at the closed door meetings when Council discusses the issues at hand.  This is a complaint that is common throughout municipalities.  As members of Council we are neither entitled to disclose what has been discussed at these meetings nor what another member of Council has said at these meetings.  HOWEVER, we are most definitely entitled to give the public our own opinion and our position on the issues and it is up to each member of Council to decide whether or not he or she wishes to disclose their opinion or position at any given time.  In some cases, a member of Council may have a definite position to disclose and at other times, he or she has simply not yet made up their mind so they would rather not disclose their position.  We are human beings, after all.

This is why Council cannot give « one position » on the petition.  You may get seven different positions on the petition, depending on how many members on Council choose to disclose their opinion (if they have one .. they may be undecided).  Or you may get a certain number who choose to give their opinion and others who prefer to wait … or you may get two councillors who agree on some things but not on others … you get the picture ?

I hope this helps to clear things up a bit.

You need to also keep in mind that public input in the process is often as simple as going to speak to a member of Council or addressing the entire council all at once (so you don’t have to go running around to speak to each one separately).  The latter method was used in the presentation of the petition.  I personally went through and read ALL of the comments that were on that petition and I am sure that other members of Council did as well.  I am most definitely taking seriously what North Hatley residents are telling me and weighing this against other things that have to be considered.  I am NOT unaffected by what people have to say.

Remember, however, that other people are also free to do the same and some prefer not to do it in public.  Members of Council have to therefore consider many different public opinions, in addition to their own views on the matter and a heck of a lot of information.

The opinions expressed on this website are those of their authors. Space on the website is provided as a service to the community and FANHCA, its administrators and host cannot be held responsible for any of the opinions expressed thereon.

Le Conseil est constitué de sept particuliers et chacun pose sa candidature pour être élu comme conseiller, il vote sur les résolutions indépendamment. Nous ne sommes pas un groupe avec une plateforme particulière sur les différents enjeux, mais sept individus avec des opinions et des positions qui peuvent être différentes l’une de l’autre. Cela explique pourquoi nous devons parfois tenir un vote afin d’adopter des décisions.

Dans le monde du municipal, il y a une expression : le Conseil parle par voie de résolutions.  Cela veut dire que ce n’est que quand le Conseil se réunit, discute d’un problème et vote une résolution spécifique (c.-à-d. une action), que le Conseil a « parlé ».

Souvent le public se sent mis à l’écart du processus, surtout parce qu’il n’est pas présent durant les réunions derrière une porte close, quand le Conseil discute des questions de l’heure.  C’est une plainte qui est souvent entendue à travers les municipalités. En tant que membres du Conseil, il ne nous est pas permis de divulguer ce qui a été discuté lors de ces réunions ni ce qu’aurait dit un autre membre du Conseil aux réunions.  PAR CONTRE, nous sommes définitivement en droit de donner notre propre opinion et notre position à l’égard des questions et c’est à chaque membre du Conseil de décider à tout moment s’il ou elle veut divulguer son opinion ou sa position. Dans certains cas, un membre du Conseil a une position particulière à divulguer et à d’autres moments, il ou elle n’a simplement pas encore pris position ou ne préfère ne pas divulguer sa position. Nous sommes des êtres humains après tout.

C’est pour cette raison que le Conseil ne peut pas donner « une position » sur la pétition. Vous pourriez avoir sept différentes positions sur la pétition, en fonction de combien de membres sur le Conseil choisissent de divulguer leur position (s’ils en ont une…ils pourraient être indécis). Ou, vous pourriez avoir un certain nombre qui choisissent de donner leur opinion et d’autres qui préfèrent attendre…ou vous pourriez avoir deux conseillers qui s’entendent sur certaines choses, mais pas d’autres… vous comprenez le portrait?

J’espère que ceci aide à clarifier un peu la situation.

Vous devez aussi garder à l’esprit que la participation du public dans le processus est souvent aussi simple que de parler avec un membre du Conseil ou de s’adresser à tout le conseil à la fois (afin de ne pas devoir courir après chacun individuellement). Cette dernière méthode a été utilisée pour la présentation de la pétition. Personnellement, je suis passée à travers et j’ai lu TOUS les commentaires contenus dans la pétition et je suis certaine que d’autres membres du Conseil l’ont fait aussi. Je prends définitivement au sérieux ce que les résidents de North Hatley me disent et je soupèse les autres choses dont on doit tenir compte. Je ne suis PAS pas affecté par ce que les personnes ont à dire.

Rappelez-vous, par contre, que d’autres personnes sont aussi libres de faire la même chose et que certaines préfèrent ne pas le faire en public. Les membres du Conseil doivent donc considérer beaucoup de différentes opinions du public, en plus de leurs propres opinions sur le sujet et un tas  d’autres informations.

Les opinions exprimées sur ce site Web reflètent celles de leurs auteurs. L’espace est offert à titre de service à la communauté et FANHCA, ses administrateurs et son hébergeur ne peuvent en aucun cas être tenus responsables des opinions qui y sont émises.