Urge MNBP Council to Issue A Vote of Non-Concurrence to ISED Canada
This is in response to a letter sent in by Dyers Bay cottager, Paul Miller, regarding the questionable safety and necessity of the proposed telecom tower.
In her delegation to the MNBP Council, Dr. Magda Havas, PhD, explained that Safety Code 6 is based on outdated 2015 guidelines, considering only thermal (heating) effects from six minutes of exposure to tower radiation. Dr. Riina Bray, MD, and Medical Director at Women’s College Hospital, University of Toronto, presented data to the Council showing increased cancer rates within 500 meters of cell towers.
For residents and cottagers like Paul, who are several kilometers away on the Dyers Bay shoreline or near Gillies Lake, there is little cause for concern regarding adverse impacts from the proposed tower. However, these areas also wouldn’t benefit from improved coverage. Shared Tower’s delegation included coverage maps that clearly showed these two communities are outside the coverage range. As highlighted in John Francis’s Publisher’s Column (#8), radiofrequency signals cannot travel far distances or penetrate escarpment bedrock, leaving residents and cottagers “in the shadow of the escarpment.”
This raises an important question: Why should our community near Lindsay Rd 40—which is strongly opposed to the proposal (28 of 30 residents, as noted in the BD24-10 report) and would be adversely affected—host a tower that would only minimally benefit distant communities? If improved telecommunications services are desired in Gillies Lake and Dyers Bay, the tower should be practically located within those communities.
On May 13, 2023, MNBP Council voted for non-concurrence on the initial tower proposal at 75 Lindsay Rd 40, citing inadequate public consultation and poor site selection. Council invited Shared Tower to reapply with an alternative location, avoiding the discouraged area where community opposition is strong, and endangered species are vulnerable.
Several residents, including some under Dr. Bray’s care, have specifically relocated to the Lindsay Rd 40 area to avoid cell towers. Paul’s assertion that “electromagnetic sensitivity can be treated” misrepresents the condition, as maintaining a low-radiofrequency environment is a physician-recommended treatment. Dr. Bray warns, “If the telecommunications tower at this proposed location becomes operational, up to 30% of residents may become ill and forced to leave their homes. For some, this could be life-threatening.”
While Paul has noted visitors to his cottage are often “disappointed” with cell service, the potential eviction of full-time, disabled residents due to radiofrequency-induced injury is far more serious. Cell boosters are a cost-effective interim solution. As a community, we could collaborate to fundraise for boosters while waiting for Shared Tower to identify a more suitable location. Additionally, the anticipated rollout of fibre optics this year—a safer, faster, and more reliable alternative—would make the tower redundant and unnecessary. The question isn’t whether communities deserve reliable connectivity but how to achieve it in a way that works for everyone.
When asked about alternative sites for the second application, Shared Tower referred only to two Dyers Bay locations considered in 2015 and 2019, which were dismissed due to concerns about proximity to conservation areas and population centers. Their decision to reapply for the 75 Lindsay Rd 40 site, despite strong opposition from full-time residents and the adjacency to a conservancy, is unfathomable. Shared Tower has made no meaningful effort to explore alternative locations, disregarding requests from residents, the MNBP Council, and MP Alex Ruff.
MP Alex Ruff wrote to ISED Canada following MNBP’s non-concurrence vote, echoing residents’ and Council’s concerns. He noted the proposed site’s limited ability to improve coverage due to the Niagara Escarpment’s topography and urged that the tower be situated in a location that better serves the community and garners clearer support.
Shared Tower’s justification for this site appears to prioritize Rogers’ corporate interests over effective service for residents. Given Shared Tower’s refusal to explore alternative sites, inadequate public consultation, lack of environmental assessment, and dismissive responses to community concerns, we respectfully urge MNBP Council to issue a vote of non-concurrence to ISED Canada.
Laura Vanderaa
