Hang up on cell tower plan, petition urges
A Marsh Lake resident is deeply concerned about the potential construction of a cell tower near her property.
A Marsh Lake resident is deeply concerned about the potential construction of a cell tower near her property.
Shirly Ambrose recently spoke with the Star about her issues with the project.
The Judas Creek subdivision resident said the tower is being built near Strawberry Hill, about five properties away from her.
The tower is being built by Bell Canada, through Medallion Wireless out of Kelowna, B.C. Ambrose’s issue stems from health concerns over radioactivity coming from the proposed tower.
She said there is a petition with more than 100 signatures circulating in the neighbourhood.
She first learned about the proposed tower on May 29. Her husband told her about the petition.
She tracked it down and signed it. The news of the proposed tower came out of the blue to her.
“We feel it (the tower) has been forced on us,” Ambrose said.
There was correspondence between Bell and residents, she said, but it only covered the five adjacent properties to the proposed tower site. She feels like she is being told the other property owners simply don’t matter.
Some research has shown these towers are potentially dangerous to plants, animals and people, she pointed out.
Due to this potential danger, she feels this potential tower should not be allowed.
Doing research online about cell towers, she has learned that some towers, built in urban areas, were being put on the tops of buildings.
Ambrose looked over many websites, such as:
• www.radiationhealthrisks.com;
• www.safespaceprotection.com; and
• www.it-takes-time.com.
She feels the information on these sites is reasonable, but does not seem to be enough to convince decision-makers to not build the tower.
She explained that the federal government has admitted that more research is needed. In 2015, the parliamentary health committee raised these concerns and urged action.
As for the proposed Strawberry Hill tower, she feels it is not necessary. She points out that there is already cell reception in the area, and the Internet is available.
That said, neither Ambrose nor her husband own a cellphone. There are some spots with no service, but as far as she knows, people seem happy with the connectivity.
She feels if more people were aware of the health concern, everyone would stop using cellphones and go back to landlines.
Ambrose feels there are more appropriate locations for the proposed tower that are further away from residences and reduce health risks.
Ambrose would like to see more research and promotion on this topic.
She said she has not contacted Bell, the territory nor the feds about this development, feeling it would not accomplish anything.
She did point out the Community Services Minister John Streicker seems willing to set up a meeting.
“I want to be the voice, I want to get the word out,” Ambrose said.
The Star reached out to Bell for comment.
Bell spokesperson Caroline Audet confirmed that the company is looking at improving the service in the Marsh Lake area but that work is in the preliminary stage.
She said there is nothing to announce at this point.
“Our engineers are currently looking at future network enhancements in the Marsh Lake area,” Audet said.
“All planning is very preliminary, and we have no announcements right now.”
Comments (25)
Up 2 Down 1
Shirly Ambrose on Sep 25, 2020 at 2:36 pm
We backed them off people and no one was more surprised than me; probably because they are planning a G5 tower on us instead of 3 or 4. I understand that their reputation has grown so bad that they have had to pull back on occasion to balance their act and play their Public Relations card. Onward now to the next New World Order assault we find ourselves in right now. As people are starving more in every country and suicide and domestic violence rates skyrocketing here in 2020...it almost makes a G4 tower look harmless. It is like comparing mercury overload to being caught within a radioactive explosion. It can be dangerous and deluding to compare things.
Up 5 Down 1
Shirly Ambrose on Aug 17, 2019 at 11:01 am
Judas Creek Cellular Tower Update
Hi Marsh Lake folks,
I wanted to provide an update on the cell tower proposal:
· I spoke with a rep from Bell recently and he said that the proposal for a cell tower on Strawberry Hill in Judas Creek should be ready in the next weeks / month
· He confirmed that they would host a public meeting in the community to discuss the proposal
· I emphasized that it would be important to have someone like Dr. Brendan Hanley, our Chief Medical Officer of Health, available to inform us about cell towers and health
· I have now been informed that for cell towers outside of Municipal boundaries the Minister responsible for providing the final authorization is the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources, Minister Pillai. The technical term for this is "concurrence". I have spoken with Minister Pillai and he will wait to hear from me regarding the community perspective on the issue.
· I also enquired with Bell about how this came about. A couple of years ago Tagish had some issues with cell coverage and I worked to connect residents with Bell Canada to adjust the antenna. After that, Bell sent a rep to attend one of our Local Advisory Council forums. The Marsh Lake LAC expressed that they had heard some concerns regarding local cell coverage, and this led to Bell proposing a new tower to improve service.
Let me know if you have any further questions. I will post this message to social media. Please feel free to share.
Best,
John (Streicker)
ONE RESPONSE:
John,
Thanks for the update on the cell tower situation.
I believe I am speaking on behalf of a dozen or so of the people who are most affected by this proposal although we have yet to convene a meeting.
You are probably aware that our group in the last three months has had an opportunity to solicit the opinions of almost every household in the Judas Creek Subdivision. Our polling indicates the following.
1 No one is seriously opposed to the company providing improved cell phone service to the residents of the area. This topic hardly merits any further discussion.
2 The impact of cell phone towers on human health is a contentious issue. There are widely diverse opinions and they are deeply entrenched. We have respect for the position of the Chief Medical Officer of Health but his appearance at a community meeting will change no ones' perspective and will lead to a heated and lengthy discussion. Our position is neutral - we would prefer to take a risk adverse approach and not be subjected to possible ill effects.
3 There is virtually no support and intense opposition to the construction of a cell phone tower at 58, Strawberry Hill Road. This is seen to be a benefit only to the company which can circumvent the normal assessment process and to the owner of the property who stands to make appreciable financial gains.
The location of the tower is the only topic we would like discussed at the upcoming community meeting. To ensure this happens we would like to see this meeting controlled by an independent chairperson.
We are unhappy that the Yukon Government’s position will be established by someone other than our own M.L.A. We hope that the decision will
be made based on the opinions of local residents.
At the appropriate time we are prepared to share the results of our polling with the company, the government and the media.
Sincerely,
Selwyn.
Up 4 Down 1
midnightson on Aug 13, 2019 at 9:08 pm
https://www.ewg.org/research/cellphone-radiation
Up 7 Down 2
Aurora on Aug 8, 2019 at 10:14 am
I would like to remind people that this is a Judas Creek issue and does not in fact involve anyone else, especially towns people. Nearby subdivisions may be effected by altered cell reception depending on whether it is a G4 or G5 tower but they are not at the risk that the Judas Creek property owners are and so no one should have the say that we do on this matter. I would also remind some, that over half of Judas Creek voters signed against the dastard tower two months ago. I doubt the telecommunications company will care, but the fact remains as such. Our votes should be the only thing that matters. This is our life and where we live.
Up 7 Down 1
Midnight Son on Aug 4, 2019 at 7:50 pm
I am wanting to comment on the tower with a few observations.
Folks for the most part first must realize that values are considerably different between city and rural folks so much so that often seeing eye to eye on issues is darn near impossible.
So my observations are from a rural perspective and actually any influence peddling from the city perspectives is actually ignored considering this is a rural issue in a rural setting affecting rural folks.
Do the rural folks really need this tower to enhance the current service ?
Some yes, likely a small majority get by with the existing service as demonstrated with the many signing the petition and some really don't have a cell phone for reasons of no need or of health considerations. As pointed out there is also WiFi Calling where service is not perfect.
Are towers ugly in a nice rural area ? Yes they are.
Are they dangerous in this situation among the residents of Strawberry Hill and surrounding area ? Well there is lots of reasonable research that folks can read would indicate they are.
Does a cell tower have to be put in a location right among a group of long time owners essentially in their backyards ? Absolutely not. This location is actually letting Bell circumvent a corporate responsibility that any other corporate entity would have to engage in, involving the normal consultations and environmental reviews. By putting the tower on private land allows Bell to dodge their proper and moral responsibility.
Is there other locations away from homes in the area to satisfy the required upgrade to reflect the safety and visual issues? Likely many possibilities and that is what consultation is all about.
Would and does the private property in question have a retail value for its actual intended use of residential or cottage.? Yes.
Who is dropping the ball here ? Or the question is, who is going to step up to the plate ? Are all the politicians fishing for the summer?
How about the government review board YESAB consider a review regardless of the current moves on private property. After all, every government department demands our buildings meet codes and safety without infringing on others, yet we allow this tower to proceed ? Such double standards when grand corporations are involved and the government so often rolls over on its back.
This issue is potentially very dangerous so let's deal with this issue PROPERLY with the rural residents that are in this community.
Up 8 Down 0
James on Aug 4, 2019 at 12:17 pm
Good point Geoff and an obvious one also...the solution is so simple...place this monstrosity at a reasonable distance on a higher hill which there are many on the east side of the highway and everyone could be happy with no risk involved...end of story.
Up 8 Down 1
Shirly Ambrose on Aug 2, 2019 at 2:09 pm
Second Opinion: You actually prove a point that I have made all along with that tongue twisting three page file....that the safety of EMF and Cell Radiation is still in question and admitted even by some NWO authorities, the World Health Organization and our suffering Government. Your file supports me more than you know. They all round about (are forced to) admit that more research could be done and if they admit that, imagine how much they are really holding back from us? If you know anything about the way the Establishment operates. So when anything with potential risk is in question still, it should not be pronounced as safe to the public. I think you missed that point but thank you for reiterating.
"In fact, the Federal Communications Commission, the US government’s regulating agency, has made sure health concerns aren’t addressed when cell tower applications are considered. According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.” (Localities are only permitted to reject a cell tower if the tower is deemed unsightly, which is one reason for the disguises.) The wireless industry has relied on this legal favoritism, banking on consumer trust in government oversight. After all, wouldn’t we know if cell towers (or cell phones) are unsafe? The World Health Organization officially classifies electromagnetic radiation a possible 2B carcinogen. (The same category as lead, DDT, and styrene.) "At present, the evidence of a possible link between RF energy exposure and cancer risk is far from conclusive and more research is needed to clarify this possible link. Health Canada is in agreement with both the World Health Organization and IARC that additional research in this area is warranted." -Government of Canada. "Due to flawed modeling of total head absorption and inaccurate analyses...." the Canadian Parliamentary Health Committee urges that wireless radiation tests be updated and the public be educated about the risks. Also they admit that microwave radiation is now a "serious public health issue" -June 2015 Most of the existing RF energy technology and research on it, is actually classified by the Military and not for public consumption (according to a report by Wendy Mesley of CBC). Of course. So let us not be fooled in this matter. My opinion is that there is great danger in these Electromagnetic Frequencies and Radioactive waves based on mountains of independent research. Sure be my guest and ignore my sheer opinion (no problem) because FACT from both sides admits it is still in question and could be further researched. Catch the vital details there.
Up 8 Down 1
Candlelight on Aug 1, 2019 at 8:48 pm
I find it interesting but not at all surprising just how incredibly SHALLOW the comments are from cell tower advocates. These lovers of gadgets are not serious about anything but their toys, like spoiled teenagers. And how many also drive down the highway with their cell glued to their head endangering others? Far too many of them. Advocates do not sincerely think about probable dangers and they do not sincerely research the probable dangers. They are not critical thinkers as a whole...they just like to criticize a critical thinker instead which makes them think they are wise in their void argument. They are not wise.
Up 6 Down 0
Geoffc on Aug 1, 2019 at 5:23 pm
A ground-level site is not going to have the coverage range that it could have if it was placed on a hillside overlooking Marsh Lake. It would please nearly everybody because it would improve service and it would be a safe distance from homes if there is a hazard from its electromagnetic field. Yukon is mountain country - aren't there any mountains overlooking Marsh Lake? Last I saw, there were, unless there've been some major tectonic events...
Up 2 Down 6
Second Opinion on Aug 1, 2019 at 3:42 pm
Ms. Ambrose, ouch.
Any hypothesis comes with an obligation to provide evidence to support its truth. Inability to prove the idea false does not mean wholesale acceptance as true. In more direct terms - I cannot prove that these "Safe Space" EMF protection products DO NOT WORK (the null hypothesis); because there is no evidence of "not working". Accepting that they ARE EFFECTIVE (the hypothesis) as a result would mean believing their effectiveness without any support for a hypothesis - a critical Scientific Method error.
Manitoba Hydro published a succinct memo, specifically on the Safe Space stuff and its relationship to EMF. See: https://www.hydro.mb.ca/projects/mb_mn_transmission/pdfs/safespace_emf_memo.pdf
As I said, snake oil. It's my opinion.
Up 9 Down 6
Shirly Ambrose on Aug 1, 2019 at 12:19 am
Also, a cell tower on or near any of our property, does not in fact put the value up but rather lowers the value and even health insurance is negatively affected by living near one of these towers. They have not said what this tower they plan to slam on us is....whether a G3 or G4 or new G5...but any of them are pretty equal concerns (though a difference in dispersion) with dangers of radiation. The new G5 radiation reaches people stronger up closer while the earlier G3 and 4 reach people not as strong but for much greater distances. That said, they all reach tremendously and hit everyone in degrees when set in the middle of private property. They need to be miles away from anyone. So far we have not been 'informed' what kind this proposed tower is. None of them are safe.
" 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1 to 6 gigahertz frequency. According to Kevin Mottus from the California Brain Tumor Association, 5G will use between 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency. Within the RF Radiation portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the higher the frequency the more dangerous it is to living organisms. With RF Radiation, how close the source is to our physical bodies, is more important than the power level (or wattage) of the radiation. RF Radiation dissipates with distance. In other words, a low powered exposure right next to someone, is more dangerous than a more powerful exposure a long ways away. Also the longer the exposure time is, the more dangerous it is."
Up 8 Down 5
Shirly Ambrose on Jul 31, 2019 at 11:28 pm
For anyone dissatisfied with Judas Creek cell phone reception, as I have mentioned before in my other material, you can get perfect access through WiFi Calling as was pointed out by another Marsh Laker and here is the link to learn about the easy process....https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT203032 NO need for any suffering cell tower even for those who are in love with their mobile phones. Furthermore, you could have perfect reception with a G4 tower set at a safer distance and NOT in ANY of our back yards. I would only hope that the health of a community is more important than perfect cell phone reception. Then again, the fact remains, that you could have perfect reception and everyone be at a safe distance from the tower, if only the communications company would finally go about things decently and involve the whole community and not try to sneak the tower in through some back door, when health and safety are indeed in question according even to the World Health Organization.
Up 10 Down 5
Shirly Ambrose on Jul 31, 2019 at 11:24 pm
Hey Second Opinion: All the links we posted are good and even great ones and if you do not like them that is very unfortunate. The page we posted is not about products and the site itself offers a wealth of information and any products are aside form the point. However some of their products can indeed be tested and have been proven. "Independent laboratory testing shows that SafeSpace technology not only can stop the damage, but it can actually improve DNA recovery." "This section will clarify the types of testing methodologies we utilize and link you to the research papers from independent researchers and laboratories." https://www.safespaceprotection.com/technology/testing-our-products/research-papers/ I guess you never read that far on the site. Products aside from the main point at hand, the site has endless valuable information regarding EMFs and Radiation for those interested in learning more. You claim I have not provided a good link but you only offer your snake oil opinion on that and no research of your own explaining why the links we provided are so wrong. You said in your opinion, that I did not do my research but then you turned around and hypocritically did not do yours. Obviously you did not do yours and never primarily read that website. Your point is invalid so long as you cannot offer proof why the sites are misleading sites. In your attempt to shame me and the reporter, you shame yourself for using an age old tactic of distraction from the main point at hand. I get that you do not want the facts (you can't handle the truth) but trying to make false or unsubstantiated claims yourself is as bad as it gets. At least my opinion is 'primarily substantiated but yours is not substantiated at all. And you are not capable of critical thinking while you suck in popular lies about the safety of towers. Critical thinkers can step out of the mainstream mindset and that is what I do. You should.
Up 10 Down 7
Don Thorp on Jul 31, 2019 at 6:58 pm
If your cell service is good the health impacts should be ignored, right.
If someone complains trash them and alienate them so the are silenced.
Seems that is way people think in Larsh Make.
Up 14 Down 8
Bill on Jul 31, 2019 at 1:40 pm
I leased a portion of my land to bell for a cell tower 12 years ago and have had no problems, and you can't beat the reception.
Up 13 Down 9
Second Opinion on Jul 31, 2019 at 11:21 am
Does critical thinking no longer exist? Ms. Ambrose's "sources" are selling snake oil. Mr. Fortin (the author and journalist) just didn't have the heart to challenge the sources or their credibility.
The public interest does not lie with Safe Space (or other scam) products, nor the "research" that (does not) substantiates their products' effectiveness. Let not Ms. Ambrose's opinions be presented as facts about the whole community and technology. Purchasing snake oil / products would be that much easier with improved service and reliability from on-line market places.
Up 9 Down 14
Shirly Ambrose on Jul 31, 2019 at 10:05 am
The Star had no choice but to abbreviate the information I initially gave them and they did a good job. Still some details that should be mentioned. What I sent them was ten miles long with many links. I study politically incorrect issues continually and cell towers and EMFs are some of them and I uncover a lot of unpopular information when I do. It seems like most true studies these days are politically and socially incorrect and pseudo-science dominates.
Now I wanted to get the word out but never cared to be 'the' voice on this issue and was aiming to only be supportive of the others who started the Petition against the tower going in. I encouraged others to head to the newspaper over it for a couple weeks but several of them were being stalled by Bell and told to 'wait' on matters until they received word from the heavy weights. So they did that and I believe are still waiting. No one had to wait at all because we had proof and were witnesses of the planning and the expressed intent. Bell had designs on paying Kenyon for the use of his land and had already finished surveying the property. I am sure the longer Bell can keep us sedated the better it is for them to plough ahead without any interferences; the very reason they go after private land and pay grand sums of money for, so they can circumvent proper public involvement. It is common for the telecommunications companies to do just that all over the country and continent. There is apparently, only ONE legal guideline that they have to abide by and it has nothing to do with health at all but the visual eyesore factor.
Interesting, when the towers themselves have warnings right on them to stay at a distance and the maintenance men can suffer injuries while working on them. Those guys are also only allowed to go up and work on the towers for a short length of time and then be replaced with another guy due to the radiation levels spewing everywhere I have also read. YET the governments iron out sweet agreements with these telecommunications companies, that so long as they try to decorate their towers to looks like fake palm trees or lighthouses, if the community wants it, then they are good to go and health issues are not even considered in the positioning of these towers, despite the risks that countless private studies have revealed in four decades. Despite the World Health Organization.
So that is why I came to the Star. And I am very concerned with the proposed tower basically being in my back yard. Next I will have to spend thousands on protective meshing for the back and side of my house. Even so, no protection while in my yard. So much to look forward to. And all when it does not have to go in nearby at all...perfect reception could happen in at least two other ways; further distancing or WiFi Calling would solve matters for everyone.
Up 14 Down 13
Steven on Jul 30, 2019 at 7:48 am
Is it a 5G, or a 4G tower, because that makes a huge difference in the conspiracy theories. It sounds more like she's just a NIMBY that's mad that her "greenspace" is being disturbed.
Up 21 Down 8
Jim Klondike on Jul 30, 2019 at 12:22 am
Seems that most people desperately pretend to know the facts and foolishly ridicule the truth without sincere research because they're usually too lazy or they cannot handle the truth. They cannot think for themselves, they just repeat the lies they're told. There is endless independent research out there and long before the internet, that proves beyond the shadow of any doubt that cell tower radiation, any measurable radiation, military weaponry or otherwise (it is all weaponry in reality), not only is a probable health risk but an obvious health threat.
We need to be responsible in our own research and stop being so brainwashed that we cannot tie our own shoelaces anymore. Say NO to any cell towers anywhere near private property or businesses. Not too long ago, only twenty years ago, we pretty much all lived without suffering cell phones and we lived quite well without them.
Up 20 Down 5
Groucho d'North on Jul 29, 2019 at 3:47 pm
This is NOT a 5G issue. Just basic NWTel/Bell mobile service. It is marketed as LTE (Long-Term Evolution) meaning it is a 3rd generation (3G) network with pockets of performance enhancements in populated areas (4G). Same high price, same low service standards.
5G is way over the horizon for us in the north unless Ice Wireless and Huawei can make a deal and get the approvals from the CRTC. I'm all for some real competition to force NWTel to sharpen their pencils and offer some pricing comparable to other users in Canada. Until then they will continue to milk their captive marketplace for all they can get away with.
Up 15 Down 11
Seth Wright on Jul 28, 2019 at 7:07 pm
A chicken in every pot,
A beer in every fridge,
A joint in every home, and
A cell-tower in every community...
Up 11 Down 21
M1Garand on Jul 28, 2019 at 4:54 pm
If anyone would like to view a good resource on the health effects of 5G: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq4A5m3Az-I
Up 14 Down 23
M1Garand on Jul 28, 2019 at 2:45 pm
If anyone has ever researched into the health issues of 5G, they would be screeming to stop the construction of a 5G tower near them. Evidence is overwhelming and clearly documented on the internet. Please people, do a little study before dismissing this.
Up 47 Down 14
Larsh Make on Jul 27, 2019 at 12:59 pm
The cell service in Marsh lake is spotty at best. The article shows that she wants more research and community outreach, then makes blanket statements that people are happy with the current service, without her performing any type of outreach, nor being a cell user.
A new cell tower will service this community well. As a resident of this area, she does not speak for the community’s needs.
Up 42 Down 17
jack on Jul 27, 2019 at 3:26 am
She should be thankful, having the tower so close will mean strong signal for wireless internet access. It may even increase her property's value.