Scroll down to view all posts, or view only articles in a selected language: English or French.

Cellphone Radiation Warning Sign Sparks First Amendment Battle

Link to Newsweek article By On 11/3/16 at 8:00 AM  : http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/cellphone-warnings-first-amendment-berkeley-516357.html

Berkeley, California has become ground zero over health debates on the safety of exposure to radio frequencies in cellphones.

In the back of the Apple Store in Berkeley, California, at the end of the bar where those “geniuses” repair iPhones and MacBooks, is a placard with this warning: “If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation.”Read the safety instructions in the manual, it tells consumers. Or else.

The Apple Store posted the notice to comply with a Berkeley city ordinance—the first in the nation—requiring retailers to alert consumers to the federal guidelines for safe cellphone use. The warning drew little attention when I visited that Apple Store in October. But such notices drew the attention—and the ire—of CTIA, a trade association representing some of the nation’s largest cellphone manufacturers and carriers, including Apple, Samsung, Verizon and AT&T. CTIA went to court, arguing that Berkeley’s notice infringes on cellphone retailers’ First Amendment rights. The ordinance, it said, forced retailers to “distribute its one-sided, innuendo-laden, highly misleading and scientifically unsupported opinion on a matter of public controversy.” Berkeley maintains in court documents that the notice is “nothing but an arrow that points to the very manuals written by manufacturers.”

The so-called right-to-know ordinance has sparked an epic dispute between two of the nation’s foremost, and formidable, legal titans.

CTIA hired Theodore Olson, a former solicitor general who argued the case that put George W. Bush in the White House and is considered one of the nation’s most effective U.S. Supreme Court advocates. Berkeley is represented by Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor and cyberlaw expert who last year ran for president as a Democrat to push for an overhaul of campaign finance. The two are now jousting over the Berkeley ordinance in federal court.

Lessig, who helped craft the Berkeley ordinance in a way that he hoped would withstand a cellphone industry lawsuit, is not charging the city for his services. He volunteered because he believes corporations discourage governments from imposing regulations by filing First Amendment lawsuits that are prohibitively expensive to defend, he tells Newsweek. “I’m a constitutional scholar, and I am very concerned,” he says.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco allowed the Berkeley cellphone warning law to take effect in January. In a hearing last year, Chen read from an iPhone manual cautioning that the device could exceed federal radiation-exposure guidelines if carried closer than five-eighths of an inch from the body. “The mandated disclosure truthfully states that federal guidelines may be exceeded where spacing is not observed, just as the FDA accurately warns that ‘tobacco smoke can harm your children,’” Chen wrote.

The wireless association appealed Chen’s decision to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. In September, Olson and Lessig debated the matter before a three-judge panel. The judges are expected to issue a written ruling in the next few months.

In determining whether Berkeley’s required notice violates the First Amendment, the court must decide if the statements it makes are true, false or misleading. “These statements are absolutely true,” Lessig told the judges.

“The question is one of tone or interpretation,” said Judge William Fletcher, one of the federal appeals court judges hearing the case. “I read that language and say, ‘Uh-oh, I’m in trouble if I put it in my pocket,’ when in fact I might not be in trouble at all.”

Whether it’s dangerous for Fletcher to carry a cellphone in his pocket is a scientific question. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set radio frequency radiation limits in 1996, long before Steve Jobs introduced the first iPhone and children began tucking them under their pillows at bedtime. Since then, scientists have vigorously debated the safety of cellphones. Both Olson and Lessig have insisted they would not engage in that debate. But both have done so.

Here’s Olson: “What the FCC says with respect to cellphones used in the United States is that they are safe,” he told the appellate court. “Safe,” he repeated. “Berkeley’s message communicates: Watch out. If you don’t use them in a certain way, they won’t be safe.”

Fletcher disagreed: “As you know, the science at this point is somewhat indeterminate.”

Lessig argued that the FCC has never made a blanket statement that cellphones are safe in all circumstances, only when used as tested. “We are relying on a regulation of the FCC,” he told the court. “We don’t want to get into an argument about the science.”

A simple disclosure of facts would not violate the First Amendment, but Olson argued that the Berkeley warning is not just a disclosure, because it misleads consumers. Again, Fletcher and Olson clashed.

“The message is if you don’t be careful, you might exceed these guidelines,” Judge Morgan Christen said. Fletcher agreed; Olson didn’t. “If you do exceed the guidelines, the cellphone is still safe,” Olson replied.

In a telephone survey, Berkeley found that 70 percent of registered voters were not familiar with FCC-mandated safety tests—which assumed people would carry phones at a short distance from their bodies. The survey convinced the City Council to require the warning notices.

Lessig pointed the judges to the FCC’s announcement three years ago that it would reassess cellphone radiation safety standards. It has collected about 900 comments on the issue but taken no other action. “The FCC would not be asking for comments about whether there was a health hazard if it had concluded that there was no possible way that a cellphone held against the body could constitute any health hazard,” Lessig said.

The government has assumed that cellphone radio frequencies pose a potential danger only when held closely enough to human tissue to heat it. The only perceived problem was that a phone user might get burned. Recently, though, a $25 million U.S. government National Toxicology Program study found that male rats exposed to radio-frequency radiation like that emitted by cellphones developed low incidences of two types of tumors—malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas of the heart.

In 2011, World Health Organization cancer experts labeled cellphones “possibly carcinogenic.” Many U.S. scientists dismissed the label as overreach, but the new rat study renewed some public health experts’ concerns that cellphone radiation could promote tumor growth.

Christen asked Olson whether cellphone-makers could agree to a compromise: allow the warnings to stand, but “add a sentence at the top that says the FCC has never found that cellphone usage is unsafe.”

Olson stuck closely to the free-speech argument. “It forces a debate on a subject our client wishes not to get into,” he replied, adding that cellphone companies should not be forced to make such a statement because having to do so places “a significant burden on speech.”

All parties agree on one thing: Whether Berkeley has a right to mandate warnings about cellphone safety turns on a question of free speech, not science. Many others outside the courtroom would likely disagree.

Newsweek article here : http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/cellphone-warnings-first-amendment-berkeley-516357.html

August 10, 2016 – 10 août 2016

Since Monday we have had people in Bolton Pass 24 hours per day protesting the erection of a dangerous cell tower.

On Monday, Bell showed up with a large flatbed with steel girders. We kept walking in front of the driveway to the site. Bell called the Provincial Police, who told us we were doing nothing illegal. We continued to walk, and Bell eventually left.

On Tuesday, Bell showed up with 3 trucks this time, two trucks with steel girders, and one truck IMG_2815full of microwave transmitters. The head of Real Estate for Québec was there, as well as the project manager for this tower. They threatened to call the police, which they did. Three police cruisers came by this time,. Once again they did not stop us because it was a peaceful protest. Four of our group were served papers from lBell lawyers threatening to get an injunction against us if we did not let the trucks pass. We stood our ground, and the trucks, the Bell people and the police left.

On Wednesday, all is quiet so far.


Mise à jour – 29 mai, 2016

Ça fait depuis le 19 novembre 2015 qu’on ne vous a pas écrit.  Veuillez nous pardonner pour ce long silence… mais but il s’est passé tant de choses que nous n’avons simplement pas eu le temps d’écrire.

L’objectif de ce courriel est de vous mettre à jour (le plus brièvement possible), de vous communiquer que la bataille continue, et de vous donner une idée des stratégies que nous prévoyons afin d’arrêter la prolifération des tours de téléphonie cellulaire dans notre belle campagne.

Nous espérons pouvoir compter sur vous une fois de plus au moment opportun.

(Veuillez me pardonner pour mon français pitoyable.)

D’abord, la mise à jour :


2 nov. 2015:       Le Conseil municipal de Bolton-Est adopte une résolution pour donner le permis de construction à Bell pour terminer la construction de la tour dans la Bolton Pass sans obtenir le changement de zonage requis (les fondations ont déjà été installées en 2014).

23 nov. 2015:     68 résidents (soit 7,5% de la population) tiennent une manifestation pacifique devant le l’Hôtel de ville de Bolton-Est pendant que le Conseil est en réunion spéciale avec leur avocat pour discuter quoi faire (étant donné qu’ils avaient enfreint leurs propres lois en émettant un permis sans faire le changement de zonage).  Ces citoyens âgés de 2 à 75 ans ont bravé une température de moins 13 degrés Celsius pendant deux heures pour montrer leur appui aux 5 familles vivant à moins de 300 mètres de la tour proposée, et pour encourager le Conseil à s’opposer fermement à sa construction.

Pour mettre ce résultat en perspective, si 7,5% de la population de Montréal assistait à une manifestation, ça voudrait dire 255,597 personnes.  Un excellent taux de participation, n’est-ce pas?
L’événement a aussi attiré une excellente couverture médiatique.

26 nov. 2015:     Le Conseil municipal de Bolton-Est révoque le permis de construction de la tour, et adopte une résolution de tenir un référendum concernant le changement de zonage tel que demandé par les citoyens qui ont signé le registre.

28 nov. 2016:     RÉFÉRENDUM concernant le changement de zonage qui permettrait la construction de la tour dans la Bolton Pass.  Malgré les efforts du Conseil de convaincre les citoyens de voter pour le changement de zonage (par une annonce pleine page dans le bulletin municipal et une lettre envoyée aux personnes éligibles à voter), tous, sauf un, ont voté NON (nous croyons que celui qui a voté “oui” fut le fils du propriétaire qui loue son terrain à Bell).  Une preuve de plus qu’il n’existe aucun support pour cette tour à Bolton-Est.

À ce jour:           La Municipalité ne peut pas émettre un permis de construction maintenant.  Donc, soit que Bell ignore,  fait fi de nos lois locales et procède sans permis, ou bien Bell s’en va…  Nous suivons la situation de près.  Jusque là, tout est tranquille.


déc 2015- jan 2016:           Un groupe de citoyens à Austin s’opposant à une tour proposée par Vidéotron nous demande de l’aide.  Nous avons partagé nos documents, nos pétitions, et notre expérience, et nous avons fait une conférence publique pour informer leurs concitoyens.  Ils ont l’appui de leur Conseil qui depuis a rejeté les propositions de Vidéotron.  Ce groupe est maintenant nos grands alliés, en particulier, Guy Bellemare, anciennement directeur scientifique de Génome Québec, un scientifique spécialisé en génétique des populations humaines (maintenant à la retraite), qui est très inquiet au sujet des impacts des micro-ondes sur la santé – surtout sur notre capacité de produire la mélatonine, une des hormones les plus vitales, et sur la barrière hématoencéphalique (des études démontrent que les micro-ondes peuvent rendre notre barrière hématoencéphalique perméable, permettant ainsi des ‘toxines’ de pénétrer dans le cerveau – pas une bonne chose!)

jan-fév 2016:      Un groupe de citoyens à Ayer’s Cliff s’opposant à une tour proposée par Vidéotron nous demande de l’aide.  Encore une fois, nous avons partagé nos documents et notre expérience, et nous avons fait une conférence publique devant une centaine de citoyens (incluant un témoignage de Guy Bellemare d’Austin).  Au début, le Conseil municipal voulait la tour… ils n’ont même pas assisté à la conférence.  Maintenant après les efforts des citoyens, ce même conseil a rejeté les propositions de Vidéotron.  Vidéotron est revenu 7 fois proposant d’autres sites, qui ont tous été rejeté par le Conseil.  Nous avons entendu que des représentants du Ministère fédéral anciennement appelé Industrie Canada leur ont rendu visite.  Nous ne savons pas encore quel sera le résultat de cette visite.

avril 2016:          Un groupe de citoyens à St-Etienne-de-Bolton lutte activement contre l’installation d’une tour chez eux et nous ont demandé de l’aide.  Vidéotron veut ériger une tour de 40 m (11 étages) dans une zone verte (la 3e tour pour ce petit hameau de 573 résidents). Selon les journaux, la Municipalité a l’intention de voter pour un changement de zonage ce mardi 7 juin.  Nous espérons pouvoir les aider aussi.


6 février 2016:    16 des 17 maires de la MRC de Memphrémagog (l’exception étant le maire de Potton, Louis Veillon) ont signé une lettre qui a été envoyé à notre député fédéral Denis Paradis, demandant un moratoire sur la construction de tours requesting a moratorium on towers jusqu’à ce que le gouvernement dépose un énoncé de politique concernant les services de télécommunications.  Les enjeux qui les préoccupent sont plus autour des questions de juridiction municipale, la concurrence peut-elle vraiment justifier la multiplication des réseaux sans qu’il n’y ait une planification globale?, la téléphonie cellulaire est-elle considérée un service essentiel? (selon la CRTC, non), etc.

19 février 2016: Les maires Joan Eby (Bolton-Est) et Lisette Maillé (Austin) rencontrent Denis Paradis concernant la demande des maires.

17 mai 2016:      M. Paradis demande un moratoire de 6 mois sur l’installation des tours à Brome-Missisquoi pendant que le gouvernement clarifie sa position.

Et maintenant ?


La meilleure façon d’arrêter une tour est :

  • Obtenir l’accord de tous vos voisins de ne pas louer leur terrain aux compagnies de télécommunication;
  • Obtenir l’appui de votre conseil municipal.
    Les municipalités ONT du pouvoir : plusieurs tours ont été arrêtées par des municipalités qui ont pris position avec leurs citoyens. Sur 200 demandes initiées par des compagnies de télécom pour renverser la décision d’une municipalité, seulement  5 ont été approuvées par le gouvernement fédéral.

N’ayez pas peur d’en parler

Il faut continuer à informer nos voisins et nos conseillers des impacts potentiels sur la santé, les paysages, la faune, et la valeur de nos propriétés…

Plus nous nous tenons sur cette question, plus nous serons forts… et moins il y aura de chances qu’une compagnie de télécom réussisse à convaincre un de nos voisins à lui louer son terrain.

Montrez des films

Un excellent moyen d’aider nos voisins à mieux comprendre les risques et les enjeux est de montrer des films.  Nous avons acheté 6 excellents documentaires (certains en anglais, d’autres en français).  Si vous souhaitez emprunter un film pour le montrer à vos voisins (par exemple autour d’un repas-partage), veuillez nous envoyer un courriel à [email protected].  Il nous fera plaisir de vous le prêter.


  • Une coalition de citoyens de plusieurs municipalités vont demander une rencontre avec M. Paradis pour demander son aide.  Des citoyens partout dans les Cantons-de-l’Est et en Montérégie sont en train d’approcher leurs députés pour demander un moratoire sur les tours de télécommunications jusqu’à ce que le Code de sécurité 6 soit remplacé par un code de sécurité qui protégera les Canadiens, tel que recommandé par le Comité permanent de la santé de la Chambre des Communes (HESA) en juin dernier.

Ce Comité dont le mandat est de surveiller Santé Canada, a unanimement adopté leur rapport final concernant le code de sécurité 6 de Santé Canada (Les lignes directrices obsolètes qui sont supposées nous protéger contre les micro-ondes mais qui ne nous protègent pas selon les experts).

Les dix députés membres de ce Comité, plusieurs d’entre eux des médecins, ont écouté les témoignages de tous les points de vue incluant les principaux experts du domaine (scientifiques et médecins de partout dans le monde), Santé Canada, et l’Association canadienne des télécommunications sans fil.  Suites à des audiences sur deux mois, ils ont formulé 12 recommandations concernant la radiation électromagnétique et la santé, et les ont présenté à la Chambre des Communes le 17 juin 2015.

Le rapport dit que :
« La grande majorité des témoins et des particuliers qui ont envoyé un mémoire ont recommandé qu’on révise à la baisse les limites d’exposition aux RF contenues dans le Code de sécurité 6. »

Il dit aussi que :
« Le Comité convient que les risques potentiels de l’exposition aux champs de RF représentent pour la santé publique un enjeu sérieux qui doit être porté à l’attention des Canadiens, afin que ceux-ci, bien informés, puissent utiliser les appareils sans fil de manière responsable et prendre à ce sujet des décisions qui protégeront leur santé et celle de la famille.. »

La raison pour laquelle nous sommes si contre ces tours de télécom est qu’ils émettent de la radiation 24 heures sur 24, tous les jours.  Les résidents (et la faune) ne peuvent pas les éteindre.

Matthew Dubé, le député de Beloeil-Chambly, invite M. Paradis et les autres députés à unir leurs forces pour nous représenter au Parlement.

Une fois notre lettre finalisée (très bientôt), nous vous l’enverrons.  Une façon de nous aider est de faire signer la lettre par le plus d’organismes, d’entreprises, et d’individus dans le comté fédéral de Brome-Missisquoi que possible.

Il faut montrer à M. Paradis que ses électeurs veulent réellement qu’il agisse dans ce dossier.

Et si vous vivez dans une autre circonscription, demandez à votre député de se joindre aux autres.

On a laissé faire l’industrie des télécommunications pendant trop longtemps.

Si notre gouvernement n’agit pas rapidement pour les réglementer et leur imposer des limites, les Cantons de l’Est seront bientôt recouverts de tours.

Si vous ne nous croyez pas, cliquez sur ce lien pour voir l’annonce la plus récente de Bell qui démontre leur façon de voir les choses.

Merci pour votre participation, votre encouragement, et vos efforts dans cette lutte.

Update – May 29, 2016

We have been seriously out of touch with you since our last email on November 19, 2015. Please accept our apologies… but so much has been happening that we just didn’t have the time to write.

The purpose of this email is to update you (as briefly as possible), to let you know that the battle is still ongoing, and to give you an idea of the strategies we are planning to ramp up the fight to stop the proliferation of cell towers in our beautiful countryside.

We do hope to be able to count on you once again to lend your voice when the time comes.

First, the update:


Nov. 2, 2015:     East Bolton Town Council adopts resolution to give construction permit to Bell for the Bolton Pass tower without going through the necessary zoning change (the foundations of which were already built in 2014).

Nov. 23, 2015:   68 residents (7.5% of the population) hold a peaceful demonstration in front of East Bolton Town Hall while Council was in a Special Meeting with their lawyer to discuss what to do (since they had broken their own laws by issuing a permit without a zoning change).  These citizens, from age 2 to 75, braved  minus 13 degree Celsius weather for 2 hours to show their support for the 5 families living less than 300 m from the tower site, and to encourage the Council to take a firm stand against the unwanted cell tower.
The gathering garnered excellent media coverage.  To put it in perspective, if 7.5% of Montreal’s population showed up at a demonstration, that would mean 255,597 people.  An excellent turnout, we thought!

Nov. 26, 2015:   East Bolton Town Council revokes construction permit for the Bolton Pass tower, and adopts resolution to hold a referendum for the zoning change as requested by the citizens who signed the registry.

Feb 28, 2016:    REFERENDUM re zoning change to allow the tower in Bolton Pass.  Despite efforts by the Council to convince voters to vote for the zoning change (through a full page ad in the municipal bulletin and a letter mailed to eligible voters), all who voted, voted NO – except for one (it is presumed that the yes vote was from the son of the property owner leasing his land to Bell).  Proof once again that there is no support for this tower in East Bolton.

As of today:       The Municipality cannot issue a construction permit now.  So either Bell ignores and flaunts our local laws and goes ahead, or goes away…  We are watching the situation.  So far all is quiet.


Dec 2015 – Jan 2016:   A group of citizens in Austin opposing a tower proposed by Vidéotron asked for our help.  We shared all of our documents, petitions, and experience, and gave a presentation at their Town Hall.  They have the complete support of their Council who has since rejected Vidéotron’s advances.  The citizens are now great allies of ours, in particular, Guy Bellemare, the former scientific director of Genome Quebec (now retired), who is very concerned about the health impacts of microwaves particularly on our ability to produce the important hormone melatonin, and on our blood brain barrier (studies show that microwaves cause our blood brain barrier which protects our brain from toxins, to become permeable – not a good thing!)

Jan-Feb 2016:    A group of citizens in Ayer’s Cliff opposing a tower proposed by Vidéotron asked for our help.  Again we shared all of our documents, petitions, and experience, and gave a presentation to a group of 100 citizens (with Guy Bellemare from Austin taking the stage with us).  When we started, they had a Town Council that was completely pro-tower… who did not bother to attend our presentation.  Now this same council has rejected Vidéotron’s advances.  Vidéotron came back 7 more times with other proposed locations, all of which were rejected by Council.  We have heard that the Feds (formerly Industry Canada) have paid them a visit.  We do not yet know the outcome of this visit.

April 2016:     A group of citizens in St-Etienne-de-Bolton are actively fighting a cell tower and have asked for our help.  Vidéotron is trying to put up a 40 m tower in a green zone (It would be the third cell tower in this small town of 573 residents). The town is planning to vote for a zoning change on Tuesday, June 7.  We hope to be able to help that group also.


Feb 6, 2016:      16 out of the 17 mayors in the MRC of Memphremagog (exception being Louis Veillon, mayor of Potton) put their names to a letter which was sent to our Member of Parliament, Denis Paradis, requesting a moratorium on towers until the federal government states its policy regarding telecommunication services.  Their issues are more around municipal jurisdictions, what is the overall plan, is cell service considered an essential service (according to the CRTC, it is not), etc.

Feb 19, 2016:    Mayors Joan Eby (East Bolton) and Lisette Maillé (Austin) meet with Denis Paradis regarding the mayors’ request.

May 17, 2016:    Paradis calls for a 6-month moratorium on towers in Brome-Missisquoi while the government clarifies its policy.

Now What?


The best way to stop a tower is:

  • Get all neighbours to agree not to lease their land to the telcoms;
  • Get the support of your local council.
    Municipalities DO have a say: many towers have been stopped by municipalities taking a stand together with their citizens. Out of the last 200 requests by a telcom company to override a municipality’s wishes, only 5 have been granted by the feds.

Don’t be afraid to talk about it

We need to keep informing our neighbours and our councillors about the impacts on our health, our landscapes, our wildlife, our property values …

The more we stand together on this issue, the stronger we become… and the less chances there are of a telecommunications company convincing one of our neighbours to lease his land.

Show Movies

One great way to help our neighbours to understand the impacts is to show movies.

We have bought 6 very good documentaries (some in English, some in French).  If you would like to borrow a movie and show it to your neighbours (around a pot-luck supper, maybe?), email us at [email protected].  We will be happy to lend it to you.


  • A coalition of citizens from several municipalities will be requesting a meeting with Mr. Paradis, to ask for his help.  Citizens all over the Townships and Montérégie are approaching their MPs to call for a moratorium on cell towers until Safety Code 6 is replaced with a safety code that protects Canadians, as recommended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA) last June.

The HESA Committee, whose job is to oversee Health Canada, unanimously adopted the final report into their study of Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 (the obsolete guidelines that are supposed to protect us from microwaves but don’t).

The ten MP member panel, many of whom are physicians, heard from all sides of the issue including leading scientists and doctors from around the world, Health Canada, and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association.  After hearings spread over two months, they came up with 12 recommendations regarding electromagnetic radiation and health and presented them at the House of Commons on June 17.

The report says that:
the vast majority of witnesses and briefs recommended lowering the RF exposure limits in Safety Code 6”.

It also said that:
The Committee agrees that  the potential risks of exposure to RF fields are a serious public health issue that needs to be brought to the attention of Canadians so that they have the knowledge to use wireless devices responsibly and are able to make decisions about the use of wireless devices in a manner that protects their health and the health of their families.

Why we are so against cell towers is that they emit radiation 24 hours a day, every day.  Residents (and wildlife) cannot turn them off.

Matthew Dubé, the MP for Beloeil-Chambly, wants to join forces with Mr. Paradis and other MPs to speak out on our behalf in Parliament.

Once our letter is finalized (very soon), we will send it to you.  One way you can help is by getting as many organizations, businesses, and individuals in Brome-County Riding to sign this letter.  This will show Mr. Paradis that his constituents really want him to go to bat for us.

If you live in a different riding, get your MP to join the others.

The telecommunications industry has been allowed free rein for too long.

If our government doesn’t act soon to legislate them, the Eastern Townships will be covered in towers.

If you don’t believe this, click on this link to see the latest Bell ad which clearly shows how they think.

Thank you for your participation, your encouragement, and your efforts in this fight.

Référendum de Bolton-Est

À la question :« Approuvez-vous le règlement no 2015-302, intitulé, Règlement amendant le règlement de zonage no 2014-278 de la Municipalité de Bolton-Est », dont l’objet est de modifier les dispositions relatives aux restrictions à l’égard des infrastructures d’énergie et de télécommunication.18 électeurs ont exercé leur droit de vote.

Aucun bulletins n’a été rejeté, laissant un nombre de bulletins valides de 18, parmi ceux-ci, dix-sept (17) votes étaient négatifs, alors que un(1) seul était positif.

La majorité des votes va à la faveur d’une réponse négative, le tout selon le document déposé devant le Conseil et intitulé « État et dépôt des résultats définitifs du scrutin »;

Le règlement no 2015-302 n’est donc pas approuvé par les personnes habiles à voter, conformément à l’article 176 de la Loi sur les élections et référendums dans les municipalités »;

Le directeur


Brain tumours now the most frequent form of cancer in U.S. adolescents


Brain tumours now the most frequent form of cancer in U.S. adolescents: Ground-breaking American study

Are worst fears about mobile phones being realized?

MARCH 7, 2016

The following content is offered for reprint, with attribution to Prevent Cancer Now and link to original webpage.

Sobering statistics

Brain tumours are now the leading cancer in American adolescents, and incidence is rising in young adults according to thelargest, most comprehensive analysis of these age groups to date.

Canada is undoubtedly similar. “The astounding increases reported in this study, especially in young people, mirror what I am seeing in my clinic,” responded Dr. Jacob Easaw, from the Tom Baker Cancer Centre in Calgary. “Canada is in the process of establishing a comparable brain tumour registry, so these analyses will not be available here for 15 or 20 years. I am increasingly convinced that mobile phones are a major cause, and urgent action is needed.”

Time for a cancer prevention strategy for young Canadians!

2015 Parliamentary Health Committee hearing into Canada’s exposure standards for radiofrequency radiation made extensive recommendations, including more scientific research and better review, precautionary advice to minimize exposures, and use of safer technologies. “Cancer prevention should include pragmatic actions on contributors to cancer. A brain tumour registry is an important facet of a proposed broader Canadian Environmental Health Information Infrastructure project – a collaborative effort of scientists and physician researchers to enable earlier detection of harmful effects, by meshing environmental and health information,” said Ottawa hematologist and researcher, Dr. Richard van der Jagt.

Safer Tech Tips

Use wired options whenever possible at home, work and school. Radiation intensity decreases further from the source, so if you must use a wireless device, use speakerphone or a headset. Device instructions say to keep devices away from the body, or put on “airplane” mode to stop emissions that otherwise continue while the device is on, even when not actively being used. Pediatricians recommend limiting children’s screen time; they should use only wireless-disabled devices. If you must use wi-fi, put the wireless network source (e.g., router, modem) on a timer so it is off when not in use. For more information and tips, Prevent Cancer Now’s radiofrequency radiation page is here.

For more information, please contact:

Meg Sears, PhD
Chair and Science Advisor, Prevent Cancer Now
(613) 297-6042
[email protected]

Richard van der Jagt, MD, FRCP(C)
Ottawa Hospital (General Campus)
Div. Hematology
University of Ottawa
(613) 737-8804


Increasing certainty re. brain tumours and wireless devices

In 2011, radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from wireless communications devices was declared a “possible carcinogen” by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Subsequent studies of phone use by people with brain tumours compared with healthy people (case-control studies) strengthened evidence of more cancers with greater exposure, measured as years of use, cumulative hours, more calls, or starting earlier in life. If repeated today, IARC may well conclude “probable” or “known” carcinogen.

Scientists were alarmed, but increasing rates of rare cancers may not be immediately obvious, especially if tumour registries are not scrupulously maintained. For example, Swedish in-patient records indicated a 23% increase in brain tumours from 2008 to 2013, although under-reporting meant that no increase was seen in the Swedish Cancer Registry.

Now, however, with more cellular phone subscriptions than people in the US, this high quality American registry indicates clearly increasing brain tumours.

Testicular and breast cancer

While brain tumours predominate among adolescents, testicular cancer is diagnosed more frequently in young adult males. In Canadian males 15-29 years, testicular cancer increased 2.7% per year between 1996 and 2005. Phones carried in pockets may contribute, as sperm are damaged by radiofrequency radiation exposure from phones in pockets and laptops. Young women habitually carrying phones in bras are developing characteristic breast cancers.

Overall cancers in the young

Cancer is increasing overall in Canadian adolescents and young adults (15-29 years) according to the Public Health Agency of Canada. From 1996 to 2005 cancer incidence rates increased:

  • 0.8% per year in males; testicular cancer increased 2.7% per year
  • 1.4% per year in females; thyroid cancer increased 6.5% per year

US Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data indicates that cancers in 0-19 year olds increased 20%, between the averaging periods 1975-1984 and 2004-2012. Another analysis indicates a 35% increase in young people between 1975 and 2010, with adolescent and young adult cancers increasing the most rapidly, apart from rates in adults over 65 years of age (cancer increases with age).

Canada offers only recent child cancer incidence data, but longer term data is available south of the border.

With a smaller population (hence greater random data scatter) and a shorter time-frame, the Public Health Agency of Canada reports no change in incidence among those 0-14 years old or adolescents 15-19 years, between 1992 and 2007. The overlap between Canadian and US Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, however, suggests that Canada may be on the same long-term trend of increasing incidence among our youngest.

Some Key Scientific References:

  1. Ostrom, Quinn T., Haley Gittleman, Peter M. de Blank, Jonathan L. Finlay, James G. Gurney, Roberta McKean-Cowdin, Duncan S. Stearns, et al. “American Brain Tumor Association Adolescent and Young Adult Primary Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2008-2012.” Neuro-Oncology 18, no. suppl 1 (January 1, 2016): i1–50. doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov297.
  2. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Volume 102 (2013). Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Available at:http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/index.php Accessed March 5, 2016.
  3. Coureau, Gaëlle, Ghislaine Bouvier, Pierre Lebailly, Pascale Fabbro-Peray, Anne Gruber, Karen Leffondre, Jean-Sebastien Guillamo, et al. “Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumours in the CERENAT Case-Control Study.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine, May 9, 2014, oemed – 2013–101754. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101754.
  4. Hardell, Lennart, and Michael Carlberg. “Re: Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumours in the CERENAT Case–control Study.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine 72, no. 1 (January 1, 2015): 79–79. doi:10.1136/oemed-2014-102448.
  5. Coureau, Gaëlle, Karen Leffondre, Anne Gruber, Ghislaine Bouvier, and Isabelle Baldi. “Author’s Response: Re ‘Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumours in the CERENAT Case–control Study.’” Occupational and Environmental Medicine 72, no. 1 (January 1, 2015): 79–80. doi:10.1136/oemed-2014-102649.
  6. Hardell, Lennart, and Michael Carlberg. “Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and the Risk for Glioma – Analysis of Pooled Case-Control Studies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009.” Pathophysiology 22, no. 1 (January 3, 2015): 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001.
  7. Hardell, Lennart. “Pooled Analysis of Case-Control Studies on Acoustic Neuroma Diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones.” International Journal of Oncology, July 22, 2013. doi:10.3892/ijo.2013.2025.
  8. Adams, Jessica A., Tamara S. Galloway, Debapriya Mondal, Sandro C. Esteves, and Fiona Mathews. “Effect of Mobile Telephones on Sperm Quality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Environment International 70 (September 2014): 106–12. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015.
  9. Avendaño, Conrado, Ariela Mata, César A Sanchez Sarmiento, and Gustavo F Doncel. “Use of Laptop Computers Connected to Internet through Wi-Fi Decreases Human Sperm Motility and Increases Sperm DNA Fragmentation.” Fertility and Sterility 97, no. 1 (January 2012): 39–45.e2. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.10.012.
  10. West, John G., Nimmi S. Kapoor, Shu-Yuan Liao, June W. Chen, Lisa Bailey, and Robert A. Nagourney. “Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones.” Case Reports in Medicine 2013 (September 18, 2013): e354682. doi:10.1155/2013/354682.


Edna Pettipas needs help suing Bell Aliant

The Nova Scotia Lawsuit: Pettipas’ vs. Bell Aliant


Edna & Marshall Pettipas, of Afton, Nova Scotia, in 2011 launched a lawsuit against telecom giant Bell Aliant for loss and harm suffered due to radiation from a cell phone tower. This trial was originally set for April 20-May 1st, 2015. But, Bell Aliant filed a motion to have the trial postponed. As well, there was concern that a 2 week trial was not ample time to allot for all the Experts to testify. Since this time the Pettipas’ have also changed Lawyers. The Pettipas’ have retained a Lawyer (on contingency) in Halifax at a very reputable Law Firm. New court dates have not been assigned yet, due to the fact that Bell Aliant has stated they are seeking further Experts. Based on their Experts, the Pettipas’ Lawyer will determine if they should seek even further Experts. Once the number of Experts are verified, the amount of days in court can be determined and thus new court dates set.
Edna and her husband would like to thank all those who have generously donated to this cause. The money raised thus far has gone to securing experts, paying for their reports, etc. They already passed a major legal hurdle when the judge refused to throw the case out on a defense request for dismissal. Many similar cases have not survived this crucial test. Because the Pettipas’ have the best personal injury case against this industry that we have ever seen, the Cellular Phone Task Force undertook to raise funds for them.
This is classic David v. Goliath and the Pettipas family needs your help. To ensure their case moves forward the Pettipas’ must have confirmation and confidence through pledges that they will have the majority of funds needed to pay to bring highly qualified experts to trial by June 3oth, 2016. At this time, rather than ask for more donations now, the Pettipas’ are asking for pledges. They will call in their pledges only if they receive enough promised donations to see them through the trial. Donations will be funneled through our non-profit at that time for U.S. citizens who need tax deductions. Whether you can pledge $5.00 or $5,000, your generosity will be greatly appreciated. The Pettipas’ success could have precedent setting implications that will help every citizen of Canada, and in time, this case will have implications for other countries, as well. The greater public interest will be served as a result of the case heard around the world.
Edna and Marshall are up against a telecom giant with limitless resources. Some of the experts signing on have offered to reduce their fees, but still the costs are extraordinary.

Pledges can be sent via email: [email protected] Or postal mail to: Edna Pettipas, 484 Old Antigonish Road, Antigonish, NS B0H 1A0.
No one should save for a lifetime to finally build their dream home, move in on Christmas Eve, and have to move out, in the very early hours on Christmas Day. These are selfless people who are fighting a fight for all of us so that we and our children can live in a world where the Goliaths should not be allowed to lie about safety and rob us of our health and our dreams.

Austin refuse une tour cellulaire de Vidéotron / Austin refuses a cell tower from Vidéotron

Videotron veut implanter une tour de télécommunication à Austin. La mairesse, le Conseil municipal et la plupart des citoyens s’opposent fermement à cette menace à leur santé et à leur environnement.

Tant de municipalités contre ces tours dangereuses! Pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral ne change-t-il pas sa directive sur les limites d’exposition acceptable aux émissions de micro-ondes, qui a trente ans, pour protéger la santé de ses citoyens? Son propre Comité permanent de la santé a demandé à Santé Canada de réviser ses normes de sécurité.

Plus d’information ici http://www.collectif-shuttleworth.org/

Videotron wants to build a cell tower in Austin, and the mayor, the town council and most of the citizens are strongly opposed to this threat to their health and to their environment.

So many municipalities fighting these dangerous towers. Why isn’t the Federal government changing their 30 year old laws so that today’s citizens can be protected? Their own Standing Committee on Health asked Health Canada to revise their safety standards.

More info on the Austin situation at http://www.collectif-shuttleworth.org/