Public's Pet Peeves

Your input is important. Please forward any of your questions, comments or concerns to me at kimrichter@canada.com

I will respond personally to any emails I receive as well as posting some of them here in the 'Public's Pet Peeves' page.

 Emails...

From: Larry Blackhall (Aldergrove)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 22:01:46 -0700 
Subject: EMF 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Kim

Congratulations on your web site - 
comprehensive and user-friendly - very well designed

Briefly
I really have been busy for the past few months put I picked up on an article in the Aldergrove Star regarding council debating either cel phone towers or high power transmission lines - I'm not sure which but the point is this - 

You expressed a degree of uncertainty regarding the towers and possible effects on the health of the general public and one of the other councillors seemed to be a little short of patience for the subject as - in her opinion - this subject has been beaten to death and there is NO APPARENT HARM to people.

I don't believe you debated or otherwise followed up on the subject and I am unaware of any final deliberations - however -

I wish to assure you - beyond any doubt - that electro-magnetic field (EMF) radiation IS dangerous. There is far more to it than just the thermal effect - which heaven knows can be devastating - there is also the effect of non-ionizing radiation (gamma radiation) on anything molecular - which is simply everything !

We have seen through the lies and scandal of the tobacco industry and it now is exposed. Now it's the cel-phone industry.

Can you advise me as to what scientific resources are available to Langley Township for conclusive determination, supported by scientific research, of future policy standards regarding installation of towers and grids ?

Please and Thankyou                                                                                                                          

Kim Richter wrote: 

Terry: Do we have any answers to these questions? Thanks. Kim R. ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Subject: EMF 


From: "Terry Lyster" <tlyster@tol.bc.ca> 
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 13:14:15 -0700 
Subject: Re: Fwd: EMF 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The questions arise from anecdote and healthy distrust of authority. The answers lie with an understanding of the scientific method and its inherent uncertainties and an understanding of risk. The questions and answers do not merge well. The best resources we have is the study from the Federal Government which was the result of detailed analysis and was conducted and signed by respected professionals. There is no empirical evidence that proximity to a cell phone transmission tower has a causitive negative effect on human health. Bill Ulrich has a copy. The problem is that no scientist of any merit can ever say have "I understand everything" because there are limits to measurement and always greater detail which can be investigated. To my satisfaction (remember I am one of those distrusted authorities) I have determined that any observations such as, "I lived next to a cell phone transmission tower and I have a disease therfore the tower caused the disease" do not result an a reasonable inference. For example: statistics have been published which show that populations living in proximity to a Hydro Transmission Line have a slightly higher instance of childhood leukemia than not living in proximity. Subsequent studies have determined that living in proximity to Hydro Transmission Lines increases the likelyhood that you also live near an Arterial Road. Exposure to Arterial Roads increases potential exposure to Benzene, which is present in automotive exhaust. Benzene is a known cause of chilhood leukemia. When subsequent studies took Benzene exposure into account, any inference that Hydro Transmission Lines might have a causitive effect were negated. With exposure to Arterial Roads filterde out of the data, proximity to a Hydro Lime was as likely to result in lower than average numbers of cases as higher than average. Statistics at the margin is a chancy business at best. With a relatively rare phenomenum like childhood leukemia drawing conclusions from little spikes on the graphs which are down in the areas usually described as "noise" may not result in valid conclusions. 

The elements of risk are also interesting. We are dealing with degrees of risk, even if the most pessimistic statistics are correct, which are orders of magnitude below many other sources of risk. I'm not trying to trivialize the concerns, but rather point out that we have to priorize our worries. During an intense debate on proximity to transmission lines, I hired a technician to measure the EMF from a Hydro Line at the boundary of a nearby proposed school yard. The technician then measured the EMF from a colour television set in the living room of one of the concerned parents. Guess which resulted in the greater exposure. 

Here is the problem. A citizen hears many things which concern them from sources which have no duty of responsibility. They then ask "can you guarantee that no harm will come to my child?" If the best evidence says that the possibility of harm cannot be measured but that the measurement is .00000% uncertain, then someone with a duty of responsibility must answer "No, I cannot guarantee that." The citizen then says "Aha!" 

All we can do with respect to ionizing radiation is offer the assurance of the Federal Government. It stikes me as odd that they would mandate all the safety measures they do and engage in a conspiracy to allow "unsafe" celltowers. But that is also a probability assumption on my part. 

We are happy to make the reports available. However, I want to offer some anecdotal evidence of my own. I've been involved with amateur radio since I was a pup. Most of the hams I have known are old geezers. If radio radiation (given conventional precautions) were truly deadly then they wouldn't be old geezers. There are some radar frequencies which are only fit for microwave ovens but I wouldn't sweat the rest. 

From: Nels Osterby (Brookswood) 
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:37:54 -0700 
To: kimrichter@canada.com 
Subject: Tree's 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Kim,

Since I have some tree's that I'm not to fond of,
do you have any idea when Langley's tree bylaw might go into effect???
Would like some notice if possible.

Thanks
Nels

P.S. Stockwell or Dean ??? If Dean wins is Randy White going to give up his seat???
Things might get interesting politically in Langley!  Again.

Dear L. Daan Hengeveld:                                                                                 

Thanks for your email, your comments and the concern 
you raised. I wasn't aware that they are looking into doing something 
but if they are, that's great. Keep me posted. 

Sincerely yours,