tmilogo900

We want to hear from you! 
Email Letters to the Editor to:   editor@themeafordindependent.ca
All letters must include the author's full name, address and telephone number for verification purposes.
Only your name and the city/town where you live will be published.

Opinions expressed in letters to the editor are those of the letter authors and not of The Meaford Independent.

Dear Editor,

My name is Arthur Lake and I live too close to a Bell cell tower at Southcott Pines in Grand Bend. My experience is not encouraging.

A cell tower is a huge investment that completely overwhelms the ability of local residents to resist as an isolated community effort. The amount of money yielded from this investment is considerable and shared enough to persuade those in the community unaware of the health risks to forego normal precautions. People will disregard dangers to young children and newly forming life in order to share in the clear benefits that accrue with a cell tower in one's community. So the problem is intractable. 

There are clear benefits which are immediate and obvious and these are set against the potential losses that are abstract and complex at the very least. The risks are set back in time and are discounted heavily compared with immediate benefits. No less real, the damage over time to individuals from cell towers does exist and has been measured statistically.

As a trained statistician and econometrician reading at McGill, Western, University of London, and Cambridge University, I am convinced that the existing statistics behind the studies already done should be sufficient to cause people who can understand such mathematics to realize that something extraordinary that we do not understand from the physical and medical sciences is going on in the neighbourhood of cell towers. Similar math applies to homes with WIFI left on 24/7. 

So what are we to do. People on their own will almost unanimously vote to have cell towers much too close to their homes and places of activity. That is an undeniable fact and nothing you or I can do will change people's minds.

The consequences, however, are very different. Cellular tower radiation impacts the bodies of living creatures to slow down processes of regeneration and in many cases to actually stop necessary cell transformations and regeneration of microbial populations living within the human and plant organisms. In Colorado, we find that trees to not produce the same vegetative volume or rebirth. So over time we see a broad spectrum effect on life of animal, microbial and plant forms. Why?

My best explanation is that is results from the overwhelming amount of information passed in bursts from cell towers and WIFI along channels of communication used in life processes at the cell and molecular levels. We certainly do not understand these processes.

But, there is a simple statistical test. Build a cell tower alongside a high rise building and the cell tower too close. Count the incidence of disease around the arc of the cell tower antennas relative to areas below and above that are away from the radiation. What you will find is clear observable evidence over time that something extremely dangerous to health is going on and is a contributor to the disease creation in those near or closer to the radiation. How close is safe? That depends on how long you are willing to wait. Such studies that have been done are universally frightening in their implications, given the strength of the communications industry, the rewards processes in play, the insider government influence, those 'bribed' to speak on the industry's behalf, the mental discounting of long-term costs to those vulnerable to a broad spectrum of diseases, the lack of government money for basic medical research, and the unwillingness of the press to prioritize and seriously investigate the issues and risks to health and living organisms from cell tower radiation, the minimization of the voices of those advocating measures to mitigate real health risks, the targeting of vulnerable groups in the marketing of cellular devices (infants, teenagers, elderly, uneducated, those scientifically illiterate, the gullible addicted users).

In a similar vein, we know that many people started smoking in their teens, but are now decidedly dead from cancer in their mid-fifties. So wait thirty years and most people will finally be convinced. It won't be you and me. It will be the children of our grandchildren.

Is that the sort of risks we wish to give to our loved ones?

Cell towers are far more dangerous than cigarettes because they act on a broad spectrum of living processes. This means they contribute to multiple health problems simultaneously in ways you or science won't understand for another century.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur Lake, Grand Bend


+ 0
+ 0