Dec 29, 2007 04:30 AM
Jack Lakey
Staff Reporter

Everybody wants crystal-clear reception for their cellphones, but a growing number of people are unwilling to allow the equipment necessary for optimum service into their neighbourhood.

With large numbers of people using cellphones, Bell Canada and other providers are erecting communications towers in places where the signal isn't as strong as it should be – often residential areas.

But there are concerns about the health effects of equipment that emits low-level electromagnetic radiation.

People who live near them are afraid of the consequences, especially when some scientific research suggests long-term exposure may contribute to cancer, electrohypersensitivity and other ailments.

Bell Canada stirred up a hornet's nest of opposition recently with a plan to build a cellphone tower on property owned by the Guildwood Community Presbyterian Church in Scarborough, as did Rogers Communications with a proposal for a tower near Bathurst St. and Elgin Mills Rd. W., in Richmond Hill.

Placement of cellphone equipment is governed by Industry Canada, a federal agency, and not subject to the municipal site plan approval process required to build most other structures in cities and towns. Municipalities have no real control over where they're built, but are usually the level of government that residents turn to first to make their anger known.

At a community meeting earlier this month, Guildwood residents vented their frustration at Bell, Industry Canada and the church for not consulting with neighbours before sending letters to area residents saying a 37-metre-tall tower would be built in 2008.

Bell officials tried to reassure residents the radiation is far below Industry Canada standards, but it proved to be a tough sell.

Bell faces the opposite problem in other communities, says spokesperson Mark Langton. People complain of spotty service and want more equipment to improve it.

"The number of places opposing new sites is about the same as the number of small or remote communities that ask us and other carriers for new sites or service," said Langton.

About 80 per cent of people in Toronto have a cellphone, which means many subscribers are affected when service in some parts of the city is substandard, said Langton.

Bell needs to improve its coverage, which means more relay equipment in areas where reception is weaker, said Langton, stressing that Bell meets the regulations established by Health Canada and Industry Canada.

Ken Howard, a University of Toronto hydrogeology professor whose home is near the Guildwood tower location, is not convinced that federal standards are strict enough, saying phone carriers should err on the side of caution, especially in residential areas, until the issue is studied thoroughly.

Howard stressed that electromagnetic radiation is not his specialty, but said he knows enough from his background as an environmental scientist to be concerned about the conclusions of research done by others.

"Although guidelines exist for exposure to radio frequency radiation, they are based on short-term thermal effects and assume that energy which does not heat (human) tissue is not harmful," said Howard.

"This assumption is incorrect. Adverse biological effects have been documented well below federal exposure guidelines and there are no federal guidelines for nonthermal effects, nor are there guidelines for long-term exposure."

Howard points out that decades of scientific study were needed before exposure to asbestos, second-hand smoke or lead in gasoline and paint was found to be a health risk.

While he hasn't seen any conclusive evidence that exposure to signals from cellphone towers causes cancer, Howard said there's enough data to raise questions about its potential role as a contributing factor, which should preclude them from residential areas.