0
Wifi motion the mayor's Waterloo?
30 September 2010
Mayor Carrier announced a week earlier that he intended to make a motion about discontinuing municipal wi-fi services in the town of Collingwood, starting with the Library. That caught everyone off-guard because not only had it never been raised as a municipal issue this term, but he never discussed it with either town staff or his colleagues prior to making his notice.
Carrier already set a bad precedent when he made the motion to withdraw the approvals from the Admiral Collingwood project in the first few months of his reign. Perhaps he finally realized how bad the optics of such autocratic actions look, so instead he convinced Councillor Labelle to move, and Councillor McNabb to second it instead.*
The motion read:
"WHEREAS the Royal Society of Canada has declared that biological changes can occur from microwaves used by WiFi devices;
AND WHEREAS Health Canada's research shows that children are more vulnerable to potential harm from microwaves than adults;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Town of Collingwood will immediately switch to hard-wired internet (sic) connections in its public Library, in order to ensure that no potential health risk is incurred by children using the facility
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Collingwood will move toward using hardwired internet connections on all of its properties in order to protect employees and the public from unnecessary potential health risk;
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Collingwood circulate this motion to our neighbouring communities, school boards and provincial and federal representatives for their review and consideration."
However, our outgoing mayor did not consult with IT or Library staff about the extra costs to you, the taxpayers, if this went ahead. I suspect it could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to hardwire buildings like the town hall and remove wireless from facilities. Perhaps he wanted to show us his style of fiscal management he plans to promote if he gets the nomination as PC Candidate... do as I tell you and damn the costs!
Nor, apparently, did he read our own sustainability plan - which he voted in favour of - since it clearly states our goal is to explore expanding wireless services, not reducing them:
Everyone I spoke to has wondered what his motives were in raising a contentious issue at this late date in the term, on the verge of an election, and without warning. Was there anything for him to gain from it? Perhaps trying to raise a health-related issue to have some platform plank to stand on when facing off against Dr. Leitch in the PC nomination meeting?
Even his ardent supporters on council were surprised when the notice was made. Why, some asked, wasn't this raised months ago when the issue was being debated at the school board? Why put councillors and candidates on the spot over an issue none of us has debated or probably not even considered at length? Why indeed? What was the mayor trying to establish with this battle?
The Library only learned about the motion when it was raised as a question to candidates, several days after the notice of motion was read, at the second of the Chamber's two all-candidates' meetings. The mayor didn't forward his motion to anyone at the Library after he made it.
Last term, then-Councillor Carrier voted consistently against the Library - against its budgets, and against both the expansion and against the new building. He made some disparaging remarks back then about the Library, its financial management and its user counts. When Library support rose as an election issue last campaign, he turned face and embraced the facility and its services. But not so much, obviously, that he thought enough of it to actually call the Library CEO and discuss a motion that affected the Library with her.
It's curious, too, that while demanding wi-fi be shut off in the Library, he makes no mention of turning off the town's wi-fi transmitters in the municipal offices on the third floor of the same building.
Perhaps the most telling thing is that he never actually asked anyone if the town had any authority over Library services. It doesn't. The Library is an independent body constituted under Ontario's Public Libraries Act which clearly states (Section 3.3) that "A public library shall be under the management and control of a board."
This was confirmed when our CAO responded to a staff request for a legal opinion on the mayor's motion. The town's legal firm wrote that, "A municipality does not, in my view, have a direct authority to regulate how a public library operates as this would appear to be clearly within the jurisdiction of the library board pursuant to subsection 3(3)."
This opinion was shared with the mayor before his motion came up, so he had ample opportunity to change it to a request, not a demand. And that might have garnered a lot more support at the table. But he didn't.
During the debate at the table the mayor griped that no one had approached him about requesting a legal opinion before the lawyers were called, but that's merely shifting blame. Had he spoken to anyone on the Library board or staff (or to one of the two council reps on the board) in the intervening week, he would have been told about the jurisdiction of the board over library services and no legal opinion would have been necessary. The fault lies with the mayor for failing to communicate, not for staff for their due diligence.
Ironically, only a couple of weeks earlier, the issue of a lapse in communication between the BIA's former council rep (Councillor Jeffrey) and her colleagues created such a big brouhaha among council and staff that she was removed from that role and replaced by the mayor himself. So you'd think he would realize the value of communication over such a contentious issue after that dust-up. Apparently not.
The mayor took the stance that, since the building was municipal property, everything within in was under the town's control (and through the town, I suppose he meant his). It isn't. **
Donna Mansfield, Chair of the Library Board, speaking at the council meeting (when she introduced school board trustee, Caroline Smith, to speak on the school board's experience with the issue), expressed the Library board's anger and disappointment over the mayor's failure to communicate, saying,
The anger still seethed, Tuesday night, when the topic came up at the regular Library board meeting.
The simple fact is that no municipality can tell a public library what services to provide or cut. Any effort to do so is a confrontational challenge to the board and the staff.
In the end, no other member of council - even the mover and seconder - would support the motion. Aside from the matter of the sovereignty of the Library, there were many other issues raised, including cost, implications for services, and the wider range of safety from similar devices. After all, as many reports note, wi-fi transmitters emit less than one-percent of the RF radiation that cell phones emit. If the town accepts the argument that RF radiation is a threat, and decides to enact a ban on wi-fi for safety or health reasons, it would clearly be hypocritical of us to allow the use of far more dangerous cell phones or cordless phones in its facilities.***
Further, we have cell phone and wireless transmission towers on our terminal building and water tower that generate much greater RF signals than any wi-fi device. They would have to be shut down too - at a loss of at least $100,000 in annual revenue (which you, the taxpayers, would have to make up). Not to mention the loss of cell phone and wireless coverage in town as a result - and its potential impact on business. What about police and fire services, which depend on radio transmissions hundreds, even thousands of times stronger than wi-fi?
What about the hospital where wi-fi is ubiquitous in patient areas? What about the council chamber itself with its two wi-fi transmitters, a wireless audio system for hearing-impaired people, and several departmental wi-fi transmitters within close range? Library board members with smart phones at Tuesday's meeting could pick up at least six wireless networks in range of the library building, all of which would be broadcasting throughout the building even if the Library's transmitters were turned off. How can we escape them unless we demand they all be shutdown in every place of business and every home?
Council deferred the motion in order to get more information from staff about the larger implications of this proposed change - what, for example, would it mean to our reputation when trying to attract high-tech firms to relocate here? I also asked that staff suggest scientists (not just commentators) from both sides of the issue who could make presentations to council about the technical and health components, so council and the public could better understand the science and the issues.
Frankly none of us at the table are qualified to assess the documents and the research. You need a degree in the relevant science to really understand them - biology, medicine, engineering for example. I'm merely a retired journalist - what scientific expertise do I have? We had a week to try and learn more about a very technical subject, to read copious literature (much of it outside our expertise), to try to assess the pro and con arguments, and to try to get input from staff and boards - it simply wasn't enough time for an issue of this scope.
Last weekend I read more than 300 pages of reports - including the 155-page 1999 Royal Society of Canada report the mayor sent to all of us as evidence of his motion's claims of health and safety threats from wi-fi. I read the 2003 and 2009 updates to that report, as well, and documents from the World Health Organization, from the UK's Health Protection Agency, Health Canada and Ontario's Health Protection Agency, as well as many others. While most reports suggest there is no problem from low-level background radiation like wi-fi, most sources I've read also agree more research is needed, especially with children.****
Should we demand more research and more investigation? Absolutely. Should we pressure our higher levels of government to delve deeper into the issue? Of course. I think all of council would have wholeheartedly supported a motion requesting provincial and federal governments conduct more research into wi-fi use in schools and investigate at greater length to growing number of complaints from children about their symptoms. But the mayor did not make that motion.
Should we be concerned right now? Maybe. As a former journalist, I can only hope the qualified experts who conduct the research and make their conclusions are right about its safety. The current scientific data suggests something between safety and ambiguity. Nothing I read says that wi-fi is categorically unsafe, but from all that material I read last weekend, I think there's still a gap in the research. Concerns over children's health cannot be treated lightly.
Had the mayor communicated in a manner more fitting his role, and had he couched his motion as a request, not a demand, he probably would have had a lot more support from council. But I suspect several at the table realized (albeit rather late) that their past support of our mayor is not an asset in this election. They may have chosen to tack in another direction when this was presented to try to separate themselves from their former association.
If this fight was the mayor's Waterloo, he shared the same inglorious defeat on the field, but without even the support of his Old Guard as the Little General had as his term came to a close.
~~~~~
* He also set a precedent when he made a presentation to council on behalf of a local developer, when staff refused to make it, but that's another matter.
** Since the building is clearly identified and was dedicated at the official opening as a Library, and has signs that say it is a public library, the town's control over assets stops at the municipal offices (third floor) area of the building. The budget clearly states equipment was purchased for and assigned to a new library and library use. Any attempt to remove or shut down hardware without board approval would result in a cessation or disruption of library services, which is in violation of the Public Libraries Act.
By extension, the mayor's argument would mean that the books, the shelves, the chairs, the chess sets and the AV equipment - anything the town paid for - are also all town property, so therefore the town can determine how to use or not use them. That amounts to censorship and political control, which the Act was designed to prevent.
Can the town tell the library what books it can have in its collection, or pull any book from the shelves? Can the town remove or shut down any other equipment within the library, such as AV equipment or the public computers? Could town staff take remove desks from offices for their own use? Can the town book a library gallery for its own use without consulting library staff? Can the town decide that chess is a subversive game and prohibit playing it in the library? No: these are clearly Library property and the library is an independent agency. Once areas or assets are under the library's control, it is understood that the town accedes control over them to the Library board and staff.
This isn't Iran or North Korea: libraries have independence and legal protection from such political interference.
*** Many cordless phones use 2.4GHz, the same frequency as wi-fi transmitters. Newer ones may use 5.6 and 6 GHz; higher frequencies.
**** The rather lengthy 1999 report from the Royal Society that the mayor attached to his notice of motion says in its public summary:
This conclusion is reiterated in its 2003 and 2009 updates. Again, they all agree more research in many areas is needed, and many on council agreed with that statement.
Carrier already set a bad precedent when he made the motion to withdraw the approvals from the Admiral Collingwood project in the first few months of his reign. Perhaps he finally realized how bad the optics of such autocratic actions look, so instead he convinced Councillor Labelle to move, and Councillor McNabb to second it instead.*
The motion read:
"WHEREAS the Royal Society of Canada has declared that biological changes can occur from microwaves used by WiFi devices;
AND WHEREAS Health Canada's research shows that children are more vulnerable to potential harm from microwaves than adults;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Town of Collingwood will immediately switch to hard-wired internet (sic) connections in its public Library, in order to ensure that no potential health risk is incurred by children using the facility
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Collingwood will move toward using hardwired internet connections on all of its properties in order to protect employees and the public from unnecessary potential health risk;
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Collingwood circulate this motion to our neighbouring communities, school boards and provincial and federal representatives for their review and consideration."
However, our outgoing mayor did not consult with IT or Library staff about the extra costs to you, the taxpayers, if this went ahead. I suspect it could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to hardwire buildings like the town hall and remove wireless from facilities. Perhaps he wanted to show us his style of fiscal management he plans to promote if he gets the nomination as PC Candidate... do as I tell you and damn the costs!
Nor, apparently, did he read our own sustainability plan - which he voted in favour of - since it clearly states our goal is to explore expanding wireless services, not reducing them:
Everyone I spoke to has wondered what his motives were in raising a contentious issue at this late date in the term, on the verge of an election, and without warning. Was there anything for him to gain from it? Perhaps trying to raise a health-related issue to have some platform plank to stand on when facing off against Dr. Leitch in the PC nomination meeting?
Even his ardent supporters on council were surprised when the notice was made. Why, some asked, wasn't this raised months ago when the issue was being debated at the school board? Why put councillors and candidates on the spot over an issue none of us has debated or probably not even considered at length? Why indeed? What was the mayor trying to establish with this battle?
The Library only learned about the motion when it was raised as a question to candidates, several days after the notice of motion was read, at the second of the Chamber's two all-candidates' meetings. The mayor didn't forward his motion to anyone at the Library after he made it.
Last term, then-Councillor Carrier voted consistently against the Library - against its budgets, and against both the expansion and against the new building. He made some disparaging remarks back then about the Library, its financial management and its user counts. When Library support rose as an election issue last campaign, he turned face and embraced the facility and its services. But not so much, obviously, that he thought enough of it to actually call the Library CEO and discuss a motion that affected the Library with her.
It's curious, too, that while demanding wi-fi be shut off in the Library, he makes no mention of turning off the town's wi-fi transmitters in the municipal offices on the third floor of the same building.
Perhaps the most telling thing is that he never actually asked anyone if the town had any authority over Library services. It doesn't. The Library is an independent body constituted under Ontario's Public Libraries Act which clearly states (Section 3.3) that "A public library shall be under the management and control of a board."
This was confirmed when our CAO responded to a staff request for a legal opinion on the mayor's motion. The town's legal firm wrote that, "A municipality does not, in my view, have a direct authority to regulate how a public library operates as this would appear to be clearly within the jurisdiction of the library board pursuant to subsection 3(3)."
This opinion was shared with the mayor before his motion came up, so he had ample opportunity to change it to a request, not a demand. And that might have garnered a lot more support at the table. But he didn't.
During the debate at the table the mayor griped that no one had approached him about requesting a legal opinion before the lawyers were called, but that's merely shifting blame. Had he spoken to anyone on the Library board or staff (or to one of the two council reps on the board) in the intervening week, he would have been told about the jurisdiction of the board over library services and no legal opinion would have been necessary. The fault lies with the mayor for failing to communicate, not for staff for their due diligence.
Ironically, only a couple of weeks earlier, the issue of a lapse in communication between the BIA's former council rep (Councillor Jeffrey) and her colleagues created such a big brouhaha among council and staff that she was removed from that role and replaced by the mayor himself. So you'd think he would realize the value of communication over such a contentious issue after that dust-up. Apparently not.
The mayor took the stance that, since the building was municipal property, everything within in was under the town's control (and through the town, I suppose he meant his). It isn't. **
Donna Mansfield, Chair of the Library Board, speaking at the council meeting (when she introduced school board trustee, Caroline Smith, to speak on the school board's experience with the issue), expressed the Library board's anger and disappointment over the mayor's failure to communicate, saying,
Quote
To say the library board was surprised, even shocked, to learn of this notice of motion last Wednesday, on the day of the all candidates' meeting, is a gross understatement. As chair of the Collingwood public library board, I was and am very curious as to the immediacy of making a decision of such magnitude in so short a span of time, profoundly affecting local public library service, without having even consulted on the topic with the library board of directors.
The anger still seethed, Tuesday night, when the topic came up at the regular Library board meeting.
The simple fact is that no municipality can tell a public library what services to provide or cut. Any effort to do so is a confrontational challenge to the board and the staff.
In the end, no other member of council - even the mover and seconder - would support the motion. Aside from the matter of the sovereignty of the Library, there were many other issues raised, including cost, implications for services, and the wider range of safety from similar devices. After all, as many reports note, wi-fi transmitters emit less than one-percent of the RF radiation that cell phones emit. If the town accepts the argument that RF radiation is a threat, and decides to enact a ban on wi-fi for safety or health reasons, it would clearly be hypocritical of us to allow the use of far more dangerous cell phones or cordless phones in its facilities.***
Further, we have cell phone and wireless transmission towers on our terminal building and water tower that generate much greater RF signals than any wi-fi device. They would have to be shut down too - at a loss of at least $100,000 in annual revenue (which you, the taxpayers, would have to make up). Not to mention the loss of cell phone and wireless coverage in town as a result - and its potential impact on business. What about police and fire services, which depend on radio transmissions hundreds, even thousands of times stronger than wi-fi?
What about the hospital where wi-fi is ubiquitous in patient areas? What about the council chamber itself with its two wi-fi transmitters, a wireless audio system for hearing-impaired people, and several departmental wi-fi transmitters within close range? Library board members with smart phones at Tuesday's meeting could pick up at least six wireless networks in range of the library building, all of which would be broadcasting throughout the building even if the Library's transmitters were turned off. How can we escape them unless we demand they all be shutdown in every place of business and every home?
Council deferred the motion in order to get more information from staff about the larger implications of this proposed change - what, for example, would it mean to our reputation when trying to attract high-tech firms to relocate here? I also asked that staff suggest scientists (not just commentators) from both sides of the issue who could make presentations to council about the technical and health components, so council and the public could better understand the science and the issues.
Frankly none of us at the table are qualified to assess the documents and the research. You need a degree in the relevant science to really understand them - biology, medicine, engineering for example. I'm merely a retired journalist - what scientific expertise do I have? We had a week to try and learn more about a very technical subject, to read copious literature (much of it outside our expertise), to try to assess the pro and con arguments, and to try to get input from staff and boards - it simply wasn't enough time for an issue of this scope.
Last weekend I read more than 300 pages of reports - including the 155-page 1999 Royal Society of Canada report the mayor sent to all of us as evidence of his motion's claims of health and safety threats from wi-fi. I read the 2003 and 2009 updates to that report, as well, and documents from the World Health Organization, from the UK's Health Protection Agency, Health Canada and Ontario's Health Protection Agency, as well as many others. While most reports suggest there is no problem from low-level background radiation like wi-fi, most sources I've read also agree more research is needed, especially with children.****
Should we demand more research and more investigation? Absolutely. Should we pressure our higher levels of government to delve deeper into the issue? Of course. I think all of council would have wholeheartedly supported a motion requesting provincial and federal governments conduct more research into wi-fi use in schools and investigate at greater length to growing number of complaints from children about their symptoms. But the mayor did not make that motion.
Should we be concerned right now? Maybe. As a former journalist, I can only hope the qualified experts who conduct the research and make their conclusions are right about its safety. The current scientific data suggests something between safety and ambiguity. Nothing I read says that wi-fi is categorically unsafe, but from all that material I read last weekend, I think there's still a gap in the research. Concerns over children's health cannot be treated lightly.
Had the mayor communicated in a manner more fitting his role, and had he couched his motion as a request, not a demand, he probably would have had a lot more support from council. But I suspect several at the table realized (albeit rather late) that their past support of our mayor is not an asset in this election. They may have chosen to tack in another direction when this was presented to try to separate themselves from their former association.
If this fight was the mayor's Waterloo, he shared the same inglorious defeat on the field, but without even the support of his Old Guard as the Little General had as his term came to a close.
~~~~~
* He also set a precedent when he made a presentation to council on behalf of a local developer, when staff refused to make it, but that's another matter.
** Since the building is clearly identified and was dedicated at the official opening as a Library, and has signs that say it is a public library, the town's control over assets stops at the municipal offices (third floor) area of the building. The budget clearly states equipment was purchased for and assigned to a new library and library use. Any attempt to remove or shut down hardware without board approval would result in a cessation or disruption of library services, which is in violation of the Public Libraries Act.
By extension, the mayor's argument would mean that the books, the shelves, the chairs, the chess sets and the AV equipment - anything the town paid for - are also all town property, so therefore the town can determine how to use or not use them. That amounts to censorship and political control, which the Act was designed to prevent.
Can the town tell the library what books it can have in its collection, or pull any book from the shelves? Can the town remove or shut down any other equipment within the library, such as AV equipment or the public computers? Could town staff take remove desks from offices for their own use? Can the town book a library gallery for its own use without consulting library staff? Can the town decide that chess is a subversive game and prohibit playing it in the library? No: these are clearly Library property and the library is an independent agency. Once areas or assets are under the library's control, it is understood that the town accedes control over them to the Library board and staff.
This isn't Iran or North Korea: libraries have independence and legal protection from such political interference.
*** Many cordless phones use 2.4GHz, the same frequency as wi-fi transmitters. Newer ones may use 5.6 and 6 GHz; higher frequencies.
**** The rather lengthy 1999 report from the Royal Society that the mayor attached to his notice of motion says in its public summary:
Quote
Scientific studies performed to date suggest that exposure to low intensity non-thermal RF fields do not impair the health of humans or animals. However, the existing scientific evidence is incomplete, and inadequate to rule out the possibility that these non-thermal biological effects could lead to adverse health effects. Moreover, without an understanding of how low energy RF fields cause these biological effects, it is difficult to establish safety limits for non-thermal exposures.
It appears that exposure of the public to RF fields emitted from wireless telecommunication base station transmitters is of sufficiently low intensity that biological or adverse health effects are not anticipated. It is possible that users of wireless telecommunication devices, including cell phones, may experience exposures of sufficient intensity to cause biological effects, although these biological effects are not known to be associated with adverse health effects.
Some people have expressed concern about whether RF exposures from wireless communications devices may result in increased cancer risks. The currently available studies are not uniformly consistent in their conclusions. The level of evidence, and the limitations of the studies to date, do not support a conclusion that exposure to RF fields of the type and intensity produced by wireless telecommunication devices contributes to the development of tumours.
Although some investigations have suggested that RF fields may damage DNA, most studies conducted to date in this area have been negative. More research should be done in this area to clarify the ability of RF fields to cause DNA damage.
Clinical studies have examined the potential effect of RF fields on brain function and neurological health in humans. These studies, which have looked at epileptic seizures, sleep disorders and "RFR syndrome," have also failed to show consistent adverse health effects. RF field exposures may shorten the time to sleep onset in humans, although this biological effect is not considered an adverse health effect.
To date, human health studies have examined the relationship between exposure to radiofrequency fields and different types of cancer, reproductive problems, congenital anomalies, epilepsy, headache, and suicide. Overall, these studies do not provide conclusive evidence of adverse health effects from RF exposure. However, given the limitations of the currently published studies in this area, particularly the difficulty in determining the precise nature of the exposure to RF fields that people have actually received, more research is required on RF field exposure and human health.
Some people are concerned that a set of symptoms, which has been called "RFR syndrome" or "microwave radiation sickness," may be attributable to long-term low-intensity exposure to RF fields. In reviewing the literature, the panel did not find clear scientific evidence to support the existence of such a syndrome. However, there is evidence that some people may be able to sense when they are exposed to RF fields.
It appears that exposure of the public to RF fields emitted from wireless telecommunication base station transmitters is of sufficiently low intensity that biological or adverse health effects are not anticipated. It is possible that users of wireless telecommunication devices, including cell phones, may experience exposures of sufficient intensity to cause biological effects, although these biological effects are not known to be associated with adverse health effects.
Some people have expressed concern about whether RF exposures from wireless communications devices may result in increased cancer risks. The currently available studies are not uniformly consistent in their conclusions. The level of evidence, and the limitations of the studies to date, do not support a conclusion that exposure to RF fields of the type and intensity produced by wireless telecommunication devices contributes to the development of tumours.
Although some investigations have suggested that RF fields may damage DNA, most studies conducted to date in this area have been negative. More research should be done in this area to clarify the ability of RF fields to cause DNA damage.
Clinical studies have examined the potential effect of RF fields on brain function and neurological health in humans. These studies, which have looked at epileptic seizures, sleep disorders and "RFR syndrome," have also failed to show consistent adverse health effects. RF field exposures may shorten the time to sleep onset in humans, although this biological effect is not considered an adverse health effect.
To date, human health studies have examined the relationship between exposure to radiofrequency fields and different types of cancer, reproductive problems, congenital anomalies, epilepsy, headache, and suicide. Overall, these studies do not provide conclusive evidence of adverse health effects from RF exposure. However, given the limitations of the currently published studies in this area, particularly the difficulty in determining the precise nature of the exposure to RF fields that people have actually received, more research is required on RF field exposure and human health.
Some people are concerned that a set of symptoms, which has been called "RFR syndrome" or "microwave radiation sickness," may be attributable to long-term low-intensity exposure to RF fields. In reviewing the literature, the panel did not find clear scientific evidence to support the existence of such a syndrome. However, there is evidence that some people may be able to sense when they are exposed to RF fields.
This conclusion is reiterated in its 2003 and 2009 updates. Again, they all agree more research in many areas is needed, and many on council agreed with that statement.
We met with this same approach re Toronto long-term care facilities. Having at one facility elderly family affected negatively by new wifi for nurses there (eg 90-yr-old breaking out in decreasingly (!) rare autoimmune skin condition, full abatement at wifi switch-off), the administration tried to deal with this as an isolated problem. We refused, and the result was city-wide shut-down pending review, now for almost a year, and finally part of the provocation of a Ministry request that the OAHPP report on the matter. The recently released report is most inadequate. We do not know how it will affect wifi here yet.
So several points should be made. There should be no confusion of public policymaking with science, neither in language used nor approach. Specialized language is anathema for the generalized purpose that a responsible politician must be engaged in. So when a researcher is reticent about level of certainty, that in no way should constrain sane public policy, in this case to ban institutional wifi under the authority's purview. Responsiveness to how people say they feel must carry great weight, even beyond the "scientific" "weight of evidence" nonsense spouted by the corrupted "Health" Canada, whose standards all provinces voluntarily accept, in effective abdication of their constitutional responsibility for health. That OAHPP issued a report is an apparently interesting step towards provincial reclaiming control. But I am rather inclined to think that as it stands, such "arm's length" agencies are set up as much to make it easier & less messy for certain interests to influence things political.
There have been international acts of civil disobedience against cell base stations. In that context, and that of a paralyzed hierarchical authority where all that perpetrators need to do is seize critical points in the hierarchical ladder, so your school board defers to the province which defers via FPTRPC to HC which defers to WHO which defers to ICNIRP; in that context, a brave if irregular move by an elected rep. like your mayor can be what it takes to dislodge the recalcitrant. It does not appear from this report that the Mayor thought things out very well, and I have no acqaintance with your local politics really; but I cannot be unhappy, prima facie, that some attention was politically drawn to the cause this way by the mayor's actions. Note that in Stratford, Ontario one important person in the pan-Canadian & international effort to reverse the wireless mania travesty, Martin Weatherall, (from whose daliy topical news digest I learned of this blog), is seeking the mayoralty, principally on an anti-wireless agenda for the sake of local public health.
The other main point I wanted to bring up then regards the real way this should be municipally approached, via Boards of Health, which themselves now are emasculated parts of a sorry hierarchy as well. Any rational observer of sufficient material (read even, eg, the highly respected Devra Davis's just released milder account of the tracesty of co-optation of microwave research & policy, Disconnect, the basis for the CBC The National report two Sundays ago, with Mesley, q.v. as well) should come away with a sense of how badly things have gotten out of hand, how urgent the need for redress best at this point dared municipally via the existing draconian powers allowed local health authorities.
There is tons more to say, as you can imagine, but maybe that will suffice to stir you to some thought and hopefully required action, which, why not, let begin by banning wifi from public facilities starting with your library. It & far, far more will have to happen eventually, why not start now.