Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
The following is an open letter to council:
The past is littered with examples of products and technologies that have been brought to market and later found to be harmful to humans, animals and the environment. Early evidence of harmful effects was ignored as our regulatory agencies cast aside the “precautionary principle” and replaced it with the “business friendly” principle.
The current flagpole cell tower proposal is a perfect example. We know that there are health risks with this technology. If we follow the “precautionary principle” we do not require certainty that harm will be caused, only that there is enough evidence of risk that a prudent person will err on the side of caution. Clearly the prudent decision is to refuse the flagpole option and tell Rogers to wait for the newer, safer technology, as per Councilor Stevens’ recent directive.
Surely the prudent decision in this matter should not be sold for $12,000. And the idea that we should approve the flagpole proposal with Rogers promising to ‘work in good faith’ to install small cell technologies in the future seems to put Meaford in a very weak position . Why do we assume that Rogers will work in good faith? Last, the idea that Council should approve the lease before the public consultations seems to put the cart before the horse.
There are many people in Meaford who do not want cell towers in urban Meaford due to the evidence of health risks. I urge our council to utilize the precautionary principle and reject this lease agreement.
Respectfully,
Mike Belec, Meaford
