Subject:    Another EMF BULLY attack on existing residents for Unknown
Developers by Ontario Hydro : electromagnetic fields :radiation

also to  Newsgroup: bionet.emf-bio

also see

http://www.stop-emf.ca/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MOE : Canada Ontario Ministry of the Environment Doesn't like
replying via email so we can't SHARE Scientific data etc. here...
Wonder why NOT eh ??? !!!

We hope we've captured the entire letter here as we've seen NO Action
Since etc. Please feel free to see the www Site referenced above 4
more info
===============================================================================
July 12, 2004

Delivered
The Honourable Leona Dombrowsky
Minister of the Environment
135 St. Clair Avenue West
12th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5

Dear Minister:

Re : Hydro One Electrical Supply Proposal (Parkway belt Transmission
Corridor,
      north to northern York Region)

We act for STOP (Stop Transmission Lines Over People), a residents'
group with over 1200 members, which has organized in response to Hydro
One's plans to expand its 230 kV double circuit transmission system in
York Region.  

We are writing on behalf of STOP to request that you make an order
pursuant to
s. 16 of the Environmental Assessment Act (Ontario) (the "Act") that
Hydro One comply with Part II of the Act with respect to this proposed
undertaking.

There are two reasons that warrant the order we are seeking.

First, the planning process for this system expansion has failed to
take into account the potential of conservation and demand measures to
reduce, or perhaps eliminate the need for the system expansion Hydro
One is planning. Second, it is essential that there be an independent
review of the potential health effects associated with the
construction of a double circuit 230 kV transmission line through
residential neighbourhoods and a populated urban area.As you may know,
Hydro One is currently undertaking a Class Environmental Assessment
("Class EA") concerning this project, but that process is entirely
ill-suited to addressing the concerns we note and describe further
below. Therefore waiting for the Class EA process to conclude will
simply postpone the inevitable – a request that a full
Environmental
Assessment be undertaken with respect to this project.
In simple terms, while Hydro One is seeking approval for this
undertaking under a Class EA process for "minor transmission
facilities", the reality is that this project involves a multi-million
dollar construction project that would establish a large-scale
transmission system through residential neighbourhoods. Not only are
the health and environmental effects of the project unacceptable, but
the need for this expansion has not even been established.

The Lack of Proper System Planning

Hydro One's plans to expand its transmission system in the York Region
are based on its most recent 10-year study, Transmission Solutions, a
Ten Year Transmission Plan for the Province of Ontario, 2004-2013, and
on a York Region Supply Study: Adequacy  of Transmission Facilities
and Transmission Supply Plan 2003-2013. Both plans are based on
unsustainable load growth projections which fail to properly account
for conservation and demand management.  Moreover, the potential
contribution of local and/or renewable options for meeting the
Region's energy service needs is entirely overlooked.

It is on the basis of this flawed system planning that Hydro One is
constructing the Parkway Transmission Station (TS) and one of two
possible transmission lines to the north: a Vaughan alternative
(Claireville TS to Armitage TS) and a Markham alternative (Parkway TS
to Armitage TS).

As you know, the development of the Class EA for "minor" transmission
projects was developed at a time when electricity system planning was
the responsibility of Ontario Hydro and was carried out in accordance
with the requirements of the Act.  That system planning was
comprehensive and examined both alternatives to, and alternative
methods of meeting the energy service needs of the people and
businesses of Ontario.
It is within this context that the Class EA process made good sense,
because there was no need for Ontario to repeat its system planning
process for each relatively small addition it might wish to make to
the system.

A central theme of system planning was the potential for conservation,
demand
management and renewable energy sources to alleviate the need to
expand
conventional supply and power distribution systems.  Ontario Hydro's
plans were often controversial and its commitment to conservation
somewhat suspect; nevertheless, planning was comprehensive,
environmentally conscious, and transparent.
The dismantling of Ontario Hydro has created a number of serious
problems, several of which your government is endeavouring to address.

The most significant is the absence of any institution charged with
the responsibility of system planning, let alone an obligation to do
so in accordance with environmental values and in a transparent manner
that invites public participation. Secondly, the critical task of
assessing and providing for the implementation of demand and
conservation measures also fell through the cracks of the Conservative
government's free market model for the electricity sector.  The other
casualty of that government's agenda was any possibility of planning
for Ontario's future needs in a manner that comported with principles
of sustainable development.

This is the context within which Hydro One developed its plan to
expand its transmission system in York Region.
Thus, Hydro One decided to embark on the present project without
addressing the most fundamental question that must be answered before
investments in supply expansion are warranted, namely: to what extent
can energy conservation, new renewable energy sources and demand
management obviate or eliminate the need for supply expansion, and how
can these measures be implemented?

Not only was the potential contribution of demand and conservation
measures
ignored during the planning process, but the load growth projections
upon which the need for the facilities are based are clearly
unsustainable
(4.0% annually to 2008 and 3.14% to 2013), and are actually four times
higher than estimated demand growth for the province as pegged by the
Independent Electricity Market Operator ("IMO") (0.9% from 2005-2014).
In light of present plans to eliminate coal fired generation and the
uncertain performance of current nuclear generation stations, it is
unconscionable to invest scarce resources in expanding the supply
system while the enormous potential of conservation and demand
management remains largely ignored.

The Need for Hydro One Plans to Reflect a Conservation Culture

We are aware that your government has recently taken important steps
to
address these  deficiencies and gaps in the electricity system
planning process.
For one thing, we understand that the Minister of Energy has recently
written to many, if not all, local distribution companies (LDCs) tying
rate increases to substantial new investments in conservation and
demand management initiatives.  The Minister of Energy has made it
quite clear that the LDCs are expected to do much more to encourage
the efficient use of electricity in Ontario and to reduce customers'
overall energy demand and/or demand for purchased energy.

These letters refer to the promotion of a "conservation culture" in
Ontario, as called for by the Electricity Conservation and Supply Task
Force in its Final Report to the Minister dated January 2004.

This direction to the LDCs is a reflection of a larger initiative
recommended in a March 1, 2004 report prepared by the OEB for the
Minister of Energy entitled "Demand-Side Management and Demand
Response in the Ontario Electricity Sector."  In brief, the report
presents the OEB's recommendations for the delivery of demand-side
management and demand response activities within the electricity
sector, including the role of LDCs.

Most importantly, this government has tabled Bill 100, which is
intended to address many of the problems created by the previous
government's decision to dismantle Ontario Hydro and to de-regulate
the electricity market in Ontario.  As you know, an important and
central theme of the Bill stresses the need to promote alternatives to
traditional supply expansion options, including renewable energy
sources, demand management and electricity conservation.

Bill 100 also proposes a new Ontario Planning Authority (OPA), which
would have a strong conservation mandate and play a key role in
developing a coherent and
integrated long term plan for Ontario's electricity sector that would
be reflective of a "conservation culture".  To this end, a
Conservation Bureau is to be established to provide leadership in the
planning and the co-ordination of electricity conservation measures.
In addition to developing integrated plans for electricity generation,
demand management and conservation, the OPA will also play a key role
to ensure that there is adequate transmission capacity to meet
Ontario's needs in the future.

We believe these initiatives will go a long way to addressing the gaps
and deficiencies that currently undermine the validity of Hydro One's
plans to expand the transmission system in the York Region, and that
it would be irresponsible to proceed any further with the present
project until such planning is complete.

Therefore, in these circumstances there are only two appropriate
courses:

1) either Hydro One places its plans on hold until the substantial
deficiencies of its planning process are remedied by the Ontario
Planning Authority; or

2) Hydro One is required to comply with full requirements of the EA
process which would, if carried out properly, fill present gaps in the
planning process for the York Region in a manner consistent with the
conservation culture your government has taken important steps to
establish.

EMF Radiation and Other Environmental and Health Effects

As you know, the potential health effects of Electro Magnetic Field
(EMF) radiation remain an important concern for communities
confronting the risks and uncertainties of such exposure. This is very
much the case in the York Region, because significant portions of the
transmission lines which Hydro One is planning to build would travel
through well-settled residential environments and in close proximity
to at least one school.  Moreover the rights-of-way involved are much
narrower than those appropriate to such settings.

On June 16, 2004, Hydro One organized an EMF Workshop and invited a
select
number of stakeholders to participate. It also invited certain
consultants to present information about EMF radiation.  STOP arranged
for Dr. Magda Havas to attend to share the findings of her extensive
research concerning the health effects of EMF radiation.  Dr. Havas is
currently a professor in the Department of Environmental and Resource
Studies at Trent University and one of Canada's foremost authorities
on the question of EMF and health.

The following is a synopsis of her findings:

We now have more than 20 years of scientific research from around the
world
showing adverse health effects associated with exposure to
electromagnetic fields from our use of electricity. Both children and
adults are affected although children appear to be more sensitive.
The epidemiological studies from Wertheimer and Leeper (1979) to the
most recent meta-analysis dealing with childhood leukemia and
residential exposure to electromagnetic fields are presented.  There
is a consistent 2- to 4-fold increased risk of children developing
leukemia when they are exposed to magnetic fields exceeding 2 to 4 mG
in their homes.  The bedroom seems to be the most critical environment
and children under the age of 6 are particularly vulnerable.
Evidence of a dose/response relationship, commonly used in chemical
toxicology, is evident. Studies of occupational exposure to
electromagnetic fields report an increased incidence of adult
leukemia, brain tumors, and breast cancer at levels at or above 2 mG,
and an increased risk of miscarriages above 16 mG.  These studies in
combination with laboratory studies lend credence to the concept that
extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields are harmful to human
health at levels to which we are currently exposed in the home, at
school, and in the workplace.  Federally we need better standards to
protect public health. Health Canada says that public exposure to
1000mG over a 24 hour period is safe. The current guidelines in Canada
are inadequate.
The Swedish National Energy Administration, Department of Electrical
Safety
recommends that magnetic fields in schools, daycare centres and
playgrounds should not exceed 2-3mG. Other countries are considering
guidelines in the range of 2 to 10 mG.  Buffer zones around high
voltage power lines are needed to minimize human exposure. Magnetic
field at  the edge of the right-of-way should not exceed  2 mG during
peak power consumption.

Dr. Havas also described a recent California ruling requiring that a
230 kV transmission line be buried in order to decrease the potential
for adverse health effects from EMF radiation. We are also aware that
an international conference on EMF radiation convened by the World
Health Organization Conference recently wrapped up in Turkey. Both the
World Health Organization and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences in the U.S. have classified EMFs as a "possible
carcinogen" and advocate a policy of "prudent avoidance".  There can
be absolutely no doubt that the question of EMF and health is one that
needs to be taken very seriously.

This is borne out by the approach of utilities and regulators in other
jurisdictions. For instance, in Edmonton, Alberta a recent municipal
decision paid credence to parents' concerns about EMF exposure in
their childrens' school.

The Catholic School Board intended to construct a new school some 108
metres away from a 230 kV powerline.  The community presented their
case to the city's Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB).
On November 8th, 2002, the SDAB denied the School Board the required
development permit, finding as fact that electromagnetic fields are
associated with higher levels of childhood leukemia, and that the
proposed development would not provide a safe environment for the
children who would be expected to attend the school.

In the case of Hydro One's present plans for Markam, there is a school
located in much closer proximity to the line than was considered
unsafe in this Edmonton's case.

In a 2002 Australian decision entitled Energex Ltd. v. Logan City
Council & Ors
provides a clear enunciation of the precautionary principle as it
relates to EMFs.
Energex had proposed to downgrade the voltage carried to a
transmission station, with the practical result of new overhead lines
being constructed in the streets of Logan.  The court considered
whether the transmission of the electricity would be a health hazard,
particularly to children.  The court then adopted the policy of
"prudent avoidance", defining it as "a range of actions which it is
sensible to take, having regard to the current state of scientific
uncertainty and involves doing what can be done without inconvenience
and at moderate expense to avert the possible risk to health from
exposure to new high voltage transmission facilities."  Having found a
causal connection between EMF and childhood leukemia, the court held
that Energex's proposed changes must be constructed underground.

In fact there is growing recognition in many jurisdictions that
schools simply should not be situated within proximity of high-voltage
power lines.  Both Sweden and regional governments in Italy have
prudent avoidance policies that place limits on schools' exposure to
EMFs.  In the United States, Connecticut recently passed a regulation
requiring power companies to fulfill certain conditions when situating
power lines near schools, the most onerous of which is locating the
power lines underground: see An Act Concerning Electric Transmission
Line Siting Criteria, State of Connecticut Public Act No. 04-426.
Similarly, the California Department of Education, in conjunction with
the State Department of Health, has set limits on the proximity of
schools to high-voltage power lines: see School Site Selection and
Approval Guide, California Department of Education.

It is of real concern, therefore, that EMF readings taken by Dr. Havas
along a 230 kV line in the area suggest that levels of radiation along
the edge of the right-of-way of the proposed line would significantly
exceed those considered "safe" for human exposure.
There are few barriers to keep children away from areas of much higher
radiation
towards the centre of the existing corridor, and no notices to warn
residents of the possible health risks associated with exposure to EMF
radiation. In fact, some families have extended children's play
equipment onto the Hydro One easement.

As noted, Hydro One did accommodate STOP's request to have Dr. Havas
attend the information session to present her views.  However, the
conduct of the meeting was such as to marginalize her role in favour
of "experts" working for Hydro One, even where they had less expertise
than Dr. Havas.  It was very apparent to our clients that Hydro One
was dismissive of the very real and science-based concerns that Dr.
Havas and others have documented.

A planning process that provides for no independent and objective
assessment of the questions surrounding EMF radiation is entirely
unacceptable to our clients, and they are determined to take whatever
steps are needed to protect their community and their children.  As
you will recall, less than ten years ago medical opinion was divided
on whether second-hand smoke was harmful.
Hydro One's proposed transmission lines will be with us for a great
deal longer than that.

We believe that the only reasonable course is for Hydro One to abandon
plans to
establish high-voltage transmission lines in areas that put the health
and well-being of children at risk.  However, should it persist with
present plans, it is absolutely essential that there be a thoroughly
independent and objective assessment of the potential and adverse
effects of this project on health and the environment.

This task is one that the Environmental Review Tribunal is well suited
to.
A public hearing before the Tribunal would also provide a forum for
assessing the validity of the rationale for Hydro One's plans to
expand transmission in the York Region, including its approach to
demand management, conservation, and local supply alternatives.  Your
intervention is required for such a hearing to occur.

Conclusion
For these reasons, we request that you make an order pursuant to
section 16 of the Act requiring Hydro One to carry out a full
environmental assessment of its plans for the York Region in
accordance with Part II of the Act.

Finally, our clients would like the opportunity to meet with you to
share their
concerns more fully. Given Hydro One's current timetable, and
notwithstanding the summer holidays, we are hoping that you might be
able to find an hour in what we are sure is a very busy schedule
during the next two months.

Please feel free to contact me at my office in Ottawa at (613)
233-4897 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Steven Shrybman
SS:lr
opeiu 343
c.c.The Honourable Mr. Dwight Duncan
Minister of Energy

Ms. Lois Corbett

Steven Shrybman
E-mail: shrybman@gattlaw.com
Direct Line: 613-233-4897Our File No. 04-1138
www.sgmlaw.com