Kawartha Lakes radar project sparks questions over safety, environment, and transparency
The Department of National Defence held a public engagement session in Coboconk to answer questions about a transmit site being placed at Thistle Trail in Kawartha Lakes, west of County Road 41 – and most of the residents who spoke out seemed to be against the project.
The transmit site is part of the Artic Over-the-Horizon Radar program to allow NORAD to be more aware of objects approaching and entering Canadian airspace. Kawartha Lakes was chosen as one of one the locations due to its flat and dry area, limited environmental constraints, being close to electrical power sources and being located in southern Ontario.
The hope is to eventually have two radars and two transmitters across Canada, but for now a smaller receiving site will be put in the Clearview, Ontario area, with a full transmitter located in Kawartha Lakes. “It doesn’t provide the kind of information that we need for full capability, but it does provide some capability,” said a representative of the DND at the Coboconk session.
They’re almost done with environmental impact studies and have found no reason to believe that the transmitter wouldn’t be built here. While there are some species at risk, such as the western chorus frog, the DND are in the process of getting the correct permits.
Within the 163 hectares of land that was purchased, a section a kilometre long will have to be flattened to have a row of transmit antennas installed.
Many residents at the session – who numbered about 75 – were concerned about their health and safety.
However, a defence representative said the beam cannot be steered in a direction or at a power level that would put any kind of electromagnetic emissions outside of the designated safeties already in place.
DND also wanted to make it clear that they are using radiofrequency electromagnetic fields that have no known health effects as long as people don’t get too close. “We will follow the same Health Canada, safety code six that everyone is obliged to follow, and we will fence off that safety area on our site so there is no danger area that goes beyond the boundaries of our site,” the representative said.
The current timeline is to have trees be “flattened” this winter, followed by site clearing happening between 2026-2028, with equipment being installed and the radar system functioning by 2029.
“We’re going to continue communicating with the community and sharing updates as we move through the process,” with implementation expected toward the end of 2029.
Many in the audience wanted to know what the threats were that the system is being set up to protect Canada from. DND said they aren’t focused on any particular countries but instead “we’re focused on the idea of what are threats are out there. Are we concerned about missile technology? Are we concerned about different planes entering out airspace? It’s figuring out what those non-cooperative or unknown targets are and making sure we can address them.”
When asked if this site will hire local, the department said it’s not up to them. One of the next steps is to have different firms bid to be the ones to do work. From there those firms would then higher smaller firms, so it would be up to them to hire local.
For some, like Angel Godsoe who lives in the Cambray area, the session left them with more questions than answers. “I don’t think questions were sufficiently answered,” she said.
She’s calling for more transparency from DND on who they’re working with, including people’s names involved in the project. This sentiment was echoed by many, with questions being asked about who from the city is involved with the project. While no specific names were given, the DND said anyone can contact the land management committee if they had questions specifically for the city.
Others in the crowd were still on the fence about how they view the proposed transmission site. Peter Cook lives in Peterborough but came out and caught the end of the session. For him, he still has questions about the effects this will have on the environment.
Right now, though, he’s not worried about any health effects. “If you live beside a radio station with a broadcast antenna, I don’t think anybody worried about that.”
For more information, the public is encouraged to contact the DND at 1-888-995-2534 or .
Note: The Department of National Defence requested that media not use personal names of committee members.
I think we need to get used to this sort of thing in all our communities as the world wars we thought, at the turn of this century, might be a thing of the past again loom as significant threats to our sovereignty.
If federal “safety” guidelines are ridiculous, always have been and known to be so, how & why Is one to ”get used to this sort of thing”?
This radar is unlike the regular radar already known to be dangerous – check out studies on eg male reproductive function among aviators, and on cancerous young operators of certain defence systems, and so on. But such are occupational studies of relatively high intensity exposure. The claim will be made that far lower exposures have not been found to harm. That is patently false for an array of e-exposure types. For example longer term exposures to cell towers’ beams, when I last looked already 15 years ago, almost all dozen-plus papers showed the closer one is the more harms register in studies.
There’s lots on flora and fauna as well. Here are a few samples only re trees if people refuse to take their health seriously and into their own hands more. The concern is not re the type of radar proposed, but no matter, the “safety” code does not purport to impossibly study all frequencies much less the significance of embedded informational and other patterns, but nonetheless extrapolates/interpolates all to be safe – “no known” harm. One can’t know unless one looks, and looking away as they effectively do is ruinous. So if they are contradicted below (if they would not admit it on several grounds) they themselves stand to be contradicted – extrapolating/interpolating throughout. Trees::
“being close to the base station significantly reduced the number of flowers and cones in P. brutia individuals, and that the values obtained in individuals at a distance of 800 m from the base station were 11 times more than the number of flowers and 7 times more than the number of cones compared to the individuals at a distance of 100 m. In the seeds subject to the study, there is a three-times difference in terms of the germination percentage among the individuals located at the furthest and closest distance to the base station”
The effects of base station as an electromagnetic radiation source on flower and cone yield and germination percentage in Pinus brutia Ten
…………………………………………………………………………..
“Statistical analysis demonstrated that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone masts is harmful for trees. These results are consistent with the fact that damage afflicted on trees by mobile phone towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree over time.”
Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations med./bio.
……………………………………..
“All seeds from the area with low exposure germinated (100 %), while 85 % of the unexposed seeds germinated. However, only 55 % and 27 % of the seeds obtained from areas with high exposure (areas 3 and 4, respectively) germinated. In the needles from the young pines, grown from seeds which were collected from low and high exposed areas (area 2, 3 and 4), an increased amount of plastoglobules (globular formation made of lipids; a marker of stress response) was found compared to those not exposed. Additionally, near golgi apparatus, large osmiophilic globules (a characteristic chloroplast component) were found in the needles obtained from exposed seeds in comparison to needles belonging to unexposed seeds. The authors suppose that pulsed radiofrequency electromagnetic fields could lead to an unspecific stress response, such as accelerated resin production and promoted senescence of pine trees and hence influence the radial growth.”
Response of Pinus sylvestris L. needles to electromagnetic fields. Cytological and ultrastructural aspects med./bio.
……………………………………..
“The radial growth of pine trees has diminished in all plots that received electromagnetic radiation. This decrease in growth began after 1970, which coincided with the start of operation of the Skrunda RLS, and was subsequently observed throughout the period of study.”
Does the Skrunda Radio Location Station diminish the radial growth of pine trees? med./bio.
………………………………………………
When we lived in Toronto, cell antennae were mounted late 2009 atop a bldg est 250m away. (One reason we quit for Kawartha Lakes – in urban areas the angling down of such antennae at that height had it that that distance was where it particularly quickly impacted.) In spring the effect on plant life became quite evident. A white mulberry tree in May was half-defoliated, one side unblocked from the brunt of the beam; pear leaves became misshapen where beam was strongest as measured; a fir with only one branch peeking into the beam from the rest of it shielded by the brick house, browned out dead, and more. When more profoundly in the beam, the effect was quickly devastating; longer lesser exposure – as for us all! – is more insidious, as the ruin comes gradually..
Around here in north CKL when “smart” meters were put in around 16 yr ago, then unconnected to their yet to be put in network when it all settled down (still very harmful in various ways incl spurious frequencies from constant AC-DC switching mode “dirty electricity”), default was to constantly broadcast, and we noticed on so many properties in trees/shrubs closest to the emitters (incl here, a thimbleberry) deadened branches. Almost no one considers the why, branch is lopped off and that’s that – long term let alone short term effect gets no consideration.
Already in 1977 in a masterwork of journalism not seen in mainstream any longer by a longshot, P Brodeur in his Zapping of America mentioned eg birth deformities among hilltop dwellers in SE US in the beam of radar. A Frey did early research on microwave hearing, a version of tinnitus, which is not mere annoyance, moreover is now epidemic, he worked on radar exposure. The “hearing” thing is an index of other harm.
So what most have gotten “used to” is being taken advantage of in their trustworthiness and falling for unreserved acceptance of e-polluting conveniences &c. So why not let the radar add to the mix…..
Both the earth and all of us are mortal. Evolution will proceed, with or without our best efforts to stop it. It appears this location was chosen in large part because the CKL has relatively low environmental protections law. The other side of the coin is that such protection is likely much cleaner than a hot war. 😁
“Protection” from OTHR is dubious. See other comments here, re creation of local target, immediate obsolescence, etc. A hypersonic missile aimed your way might be detectable a mere seconds in advance of impact. How useful is spending billions for that purpose, in current context? Drone swarms may be detectable en masse but for such detection purposes presumably leading to closer complementary detection then interception by non-existent systems…Get the picture? Granted there are other purposes, eg as in Australia maritime monitoring for ocean conditions, traffic and so on. And granted there is – you basically use the word but in an unclear sense – “evolution” to defence systems.What should be central to any citizen consideration of such issues is indeed the already years-long drum-thumping toward a “hot war”, with supposed hegemonic competitors – Canada is being set up for acceptance of such belligerence.
Why did DND rule out e.g. Cape Rich area – a peninsula jutting into Georgian Bay, around the same latitude as the Thistle site, and about the same distance from the Camp Borden area receiving site? It is already in DND use for a very long time. Transmit north & NE, there may be next to no people in the way, unlike Thistle. They “did their best” and excluded it – why?
Furthermore, the diagrams of how OTHR works serve as obfuscation, making it seem as if an aimed-upward beam has no relation to the ground it can be aimed almost & closely parallel to. LOCAL SCATTER IS INEVITABLE AND LIKELY CONSTANT – with deleterious long/medium term effect. More truthful diagrams would include that anyone near enough – and yes even far outside the 1km exclusion zone – would have this even “precision”-aimed radiation raining on them, so low to ground is the aim to enable reaching such distance intended, the far north.
The “no known harm” mantra is also disingenuous. If “Health” Canada chooses not to look at studies suggestive of harm it would criticize for this or that lacuna in quality, it hardly has the same quality reservations about contrary research – industry etc affiliated no less, who hardly can be expected to be disinterested and moreover among which fraudulent behaviour has been written about for many years – thus their “weight of evidence” approach basically can amount to actual weight of paper, in studies they deign to accept by default vs those excluded purposefully. Your health lies in the balance.
Adding up all the arguments and points made in comments on this page alone – and there are a lot more! –
should result in at least people local to the site not acquiescing, at minimum working to push this wrongful project away.
There were space crafts visible over the last few years in the Kawartha lakes.
These were definitely unknown flying space objects. Other life forms are real & they do visit. Why would anyone think they are the only life form to exist
They are probably curious to know why humans are destroying there planet. Killing each other and killing all precious creatures. I baffled by this myself and feel as if I am from another planet in another dimension.
Thank you for the research. We would find similar in pollinator populations. I think of all the rare birds here too.
Why are people only hearing about this days after the meeting or why a meeting after a decision and deal were already put in place? Who on council is the contact with the DND, mayor and who else? I think this question should be investigated and answered.
Local council will surely follow mayor’s lead and beg off. Ditto provincially. It is hard also to see how an opposition federal MP (of the area) would oppose anything related to military spending like this, unless, for all the above, there is enough of a local outcry. But what risks being thrown back at you, is that almost everyone acquiesces in e-pollution now, in their homes, in their hands, to their heads, outdoor ambience and so on. That should be a focus, the unreliability of any reference to “Health” Canada as DND must refer – even tho’ they are effectively exempt (see quote in comments re code 6), but will claim adhesion in normal circumstances. But I’d focus on possible obsolescence, creation of local target among people, plenty of room to put elsewhere (at meeting “we’ve done our best” in search was contended but must be challenged thoroughly) utter non-consultation except after-the-fact and so on, various grounds to retroactively challenge this. Let’s get to it, before much work is done and the claim will possibly be to not be able to stop.
If the facility need be S of 46th parallel, there is a huge amount of uninhabited Crown land between the site chosen below the 45th and up there, N of Parry Sd even – what consideration drove it south? “Southern Ont.” it had to be for proper projection – why on earth in our midst? Was it to save some billions? To match it ,per cost concern, with near Camp Borden reception site? If ease of ground-levelling is a major issue, Canada is a major mining country, equipment as needed, as well for electric grid connexion, should not be hard to employ even for difficult terrain.
Were the facility to remain where proposed, one panelist said beam orientation was N to NE. How accurate is this? What is the exact span of the beam arc? – critical to know for area residents. If it sweeps a 90 degree arc, N to NE is obviously inaccurate.
The power output will likely be tremendous, closing in maybe on a megawatt. One person quoted in this article says, ““If you live beside a radio station with a broadcast antenna, I don’t think anybody worried about that.”” This fellow has a lot to learn!
How is reference to federal safety codes relevant when explicit is that:
“The Department of National Defence shall conform to the requirements of this safety code, except in such cases where it considers such compliance to have a detrimental effect on its activities in support of training and operations of the Canadian Forces. ”
– fed govt doc, “Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz”- “Safety” Code 6
In any case, the “Safety” code 6 and similar regimes have long been proven irrelevant for public and enviro health. Long before the covi-caper & fiasco, nay, hoax & outrage, from March 2020, I put scare quotes to “Health” Canada. Now and then Parliamentary hearings have been had on the dangers of e-pollution, sessions I was connected with in 2010 had HC defend itself with experts every one of whom were industry-connected, independents and their work are effectively ignored, for spurious reasons if any are given.
Canada’s federal guidelines are indeed in line with those recommended by the ICNIRP. This is what the EU advisory body, Council of Europe, had to say about ICNIRP, in the reserved language of such a body, already many years ago:
“it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions […] by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields”.
WHO has also topically been beholden to ICNIRP. Further, the distinction commonly made by those who contend no problem with encroachingly ubiquitous e-pollution as in CKL, once in parts a relative haven (also done in via prior mayor’s advocacy for EORN, now subsidized antennae are all over), the distinction made by one panelist between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation is used to obscure. Downstream deleterious effects of artificial e-exposures from both classes can amount to the same.
DND cannot be expected to defer to anything other HC (moreover deferring to no one possibly, see quote above). But the current mayor erred majorly when he said the municipality had no say in the matter. Were it to take seriously its role over public health jurisdiction, and with it the province so the latter does not overrule, CKL could revert at least in places to a zone of relatively low e-pollution, as used to be. All Cdn provinces & territories voluntarily accede to federal Code 6 (via FTPRPC), all are surely too sheepish/lazy to pursue the matter as required. One exception was Toronto decades ago, which did dissent, still unprotectively but affirming the possibility of dissent, applying its slightly more stringent standard to its own emitters. Likewise a lower court in QC addressed even one municipality’s actions in the face of mere apprehension of health threat as valid (overturned by SCC, as on appeal there was failure to make serious argument re health).
You see this file is massive. Innumerable studies point to harms from manmade e-usages. How can one trust a federal agency and any org depending on them? This indeed was the tenor of some meeting questioners. It is daunting but necessary, even urgent, to consider it all seriously. There is a veritable huge library of literature, professional research, medical reports, personal stories of suffering and so on to consult, no layperson need feel incapable of finding out more. This radar installation, as one questioner appropriately remarked at the public meeting scantly reported on here, would discourage from living anywhere in the path of its beam. It is correct to be apprehensive about local scatter over a longer term; for some of the myriads of severe sufferers who know what’s doing it to them in general “e-smog”, no short term is short enough.
I realize that the DND project is a significant concern to local residents. On the other hand, a very short distance to the west, a major industrial solar energy proposal has been put forward that threatens the Carden Alvar, a globally significant natural area.
The City of Kawartha Lakes held a Meeting of the Whole today, Tues. Sept. 9, 2025. There was a deputation from Innergex about their ill-considered proposal for an industrial solar project at the imperilled Carden Alvar. There was also an excellent deputation from botanist/naturalist extraordinaire Dale Leadbeater about serious deficiencies in the Innergex plan. (You can see it on Youtube Committee of the Whole – September 9, 2025). Written submissions included 41 outstanding letters from naturalists, concerned citizens, and local residents – people who want to know why one of the most biologically-sensitive habitats in southern Ontario has been selected for this destructive project.
If you want council to know that you oppose this proposal, it is very important to sign the petition NOW (before midnight on Thursday Sept. 11). Online Petitions | Jump In Kawartha Lakes That is the deadline for signing. The petition will then be submitted to council at the next regular council meeting on Tues. Sept. 23 at 1:00 pm.
We are urging people to write letters in opposition to the Innergex proposal. In order for your letter to be added to the agenda, you must send it by Friday Sept. 19 at 12:00 noon. Send emails to:
Please see the City of Kawartha Lakes website for additional information about submitting a letter to council. Petitions and Correspondence to City Council – City of Kawartha Lakes. It would also be helpful to write letters to the mayor, deputy mayor and individual councillors. Any media contacts would be most welcome.
We are hoping to see a great turnout of Carden defenders at the regular council meeting on Tuesday Sept. 23 at 1:00 pm.
Thanks for your support in saving Carden Alvar.
Steve LaForest
We know the area well. When we moved up full time years ago, we met with some birdwatching enthusiasts there and pointed out the abiding and cumulative danger from the Shrike Rd cell tower in the midst. For what must be considered the greatest overarching enviro threat of our time, very few of naturalist/enviromental interest have been moved to learn more let alone act. One good starting pt might be the late A Firstenberg’s 2016 book – in your library system! (and I think Haliburton’s) – Invisible Rainbow , very readable, and now i hear having attained >100K copies incl in translation worldwide.
Protect the Carden Alvar
Petition Request: We the undersigned, petition the Council of the City of Kawartha Lakes to reject the Innergex Renewable Energy 150-300MW solar project proposed for installation on the globally unique and irreplaceable ecosystem of the Carden Alvar in the City of Kawartha Lakes.
Petition Background: The Carden Alvar is one of the largest and most significant alvars in the world. It is home to at least 35 species at risk and is designated as an important Bird Area and a Key Biodiversity Area. The Carden Alvar is an irreplaceable ecosystem. Solar panels here would destroy fragile soils, fragment habitat and permanently harm species that rely on it. Alvars function like islands. Even small disturbances can have a disproportionate impact on wildlife and plant communities. It isn’t just local — it is a globally significant. By protecting it, we safeguard a rare ecosystem, dozens of species at risk, and Ontario’s unique natural heritage.
Petition Organizer: J. Powell of Kirkfield, ON
To access the petition, please visit the following site: Online Petitions | Jump In Kawartha Lakes
Why do we need this ? Do we not have sufficient radar now ? I believe this is yet another government boondoggle, (‘boondoggle’ — work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value ) , that is nothing more than an excuse to spend spend spend more tax payers money on nonsense.
I do not want to defend the need, but to be fair, and apart from considerations such as US pressures and wanting to buy non-US (pretty sure they have lots o’ OTHR of their own), have a look at a recent issue of for example Cdn Geographic mag, which has a spread of the very many and diverse military sites way up north, I’d guess un-ideally coordinated. JORN in Oz, read their info online, tracks e.g maritime comings and goings. OTH is touted as complement to reg. line-o’-sight radar.
You would perhaps oppose what should be done if OTH is “needed”, ie at likely greater expense, send it closer to 46th parallel and way AWAY from at least people!! Also at issue are geopolitical matters and the perennial drum-up of potential hot war vs eg Russia not by proxy (as eg Ukr, which btw would make your point of some evil planning involved re $ to spend, as Ukr was sent all manner of old stock, so replenishment ‘d be the order of the day, if you get the taxpayer expense drift, to support certain industries at cynically enormous human cost…), but as mentioned by one questioner at the public meeting, like maybe another huge expense in the 50s re St Lawrence Seaway, not to mention Trent Canal re how both were originally intended and publicly sold but were quickly obsolete – JORN-like defence system complement may be of little use in any future “hot” conflict. Billions for nothing then. Not to mention a huge point also mentioned by one questioner there – in recent hot wars radar installations are PRIMARY targets, so now we are to have one in our midst…
Still, Arctic goings-on internationally make sense to be better kept track of, Canada has relatively lazed about on this. I.e. not nec. military-related, as commercial, transport and extractive practices are likely to greatly increase in near future.
So…issue at bottom remains where on earth to put this – answer: NOT WHERE PROPOSED. DND and govt must reconsider and swallow the extra expense and relocate before more $ are sunk. Let them claim what they claim about “safety” and give other reasons, but let ‘em get it outa here. (This is not NIMBYism either.)
Well just look at what there are doing to us now. We are trying to raise our innocent little baby granddaughters here in Kirkfield what right do they have to pick areas where ppl live in communities there is so much land where no homes and family don’t have to worry if they put there dangerously radar stuff. If they think they are safe prove it don’t come charging it build this horrible stuff and find out latet it’s killing us that’s who have to stay are all dying not fair to our lil ppl you all should be ashamed of who you are destroy all the lil ppl and the sick plz this is real , help is needed to protect us our grandkids no one seems to care plz help let us make our noise to fight them off
As an attendee at one of the information sessions it was very clear that some had come , not to get information or listen to answers to questions but to intimidate and aggressively pose their questions The best questions were from those who live close or had business related concerns. We live in a democratic country which historically has understood that to protect and care for one another we must sometimes weigh trade offs. It is evident that we must be looking at the big picture in 2025. The world is at a turning point and we as a country are more vulnerable.
We must stand up, get a backbone and pull together. Spend less time on and in these social media conspiracy holes and talk to one another. ( not just those we met online)
It is worth stating that most of us want a strong, caring country. I am confident that DND is pursuing initiatives which will contribute to our protection. I also believe that by far the majority of the people we elect want to do the best thing for our country. We may not all agree on the strategy but if we want to live in a democracy, we question, attempt to affect change as we see necessary and make sacrifice as needed for the good of the whole. I have been observing too much ME and not enough WE.
Lynda, you and I, i.e. WE, are in active danger from harm potential as described on this page of comments in a public service vein. Those who “live close”, yes, one would think are more vulnerable, regarding this proposed installation of radar in our midst – OURS, yes, we are near enough to it to cry out, even gratuitously on behalf of those who know not how to confront this for whatever reasons.
But, to add to how murky the matter is re public and enviro health, such that ZERO assurances can be had from such organizations as HC & DND which depends on HC; take for example that distance from emitters is not necessarily safer, there are myriad unstudied parameters which HC would lay no claim to having studied, resting content for those they effectively serve – not US as I think you wish properly to have it, even as the claim would be made, maybe you’d say as much, that indirectly it is for our own good to curry favour with industry/military/abettors – in saying “no known harmful effects”. Any rational observer of even a small segment of the mass of research CONTRA HC’s position would conclude there is something very wrong. Especially in the wake of covidiana yet, to grant ready acceptance of HC pronouncements…and as noted here the military are even kind of exempt anyway. Have a look as well at purported privacy policy for submitters to DND: yeah, it’s private, but well, you know, it may not be, probably is, but there might be some reason to you know…this kind of equivocation is also unacceptable. The obfuscation re health effects more so.
What was the basis of rejection of other locations? Save money? Why, spending more could pad up the billions in defence spending making it easier to hit the target 5% of GDP… (Would you not imagine there might anyway be stupendous wastage in such spending?…) Let them have their possibly quickly militarily obsolescent radar by deployment time (albeit useful for some purposes), if they will not be deterred, but not in at least people’s midst. One questioner asked panellists if they’d live in front of the transmitters, two said ‘yes’. What are they going to say as military people already dedicated to even risking their lives if commanded to be put in such a situation? As for meeting participation, it was regrettable so much question time was spent on irrelevancies, only some asking more important questions, some of which I have rehearsed in these comments.
You owe it to OUR common sense of citizenship to reconsider and not simply rely on what we are spoonfed by DND and HC
Having a cottage on Head Lake, I am very worried about all impacts, including the value of our properties declining. The site will be 4KM away. Appalled…
Appalling indeed, on several counts.
Est. 4 km pretty much south, yes. To the west side of the property DND got, I think was said. I think the reference to a 1 km length zone in front of transmitters has to do both with nearer field reflection and to distance enough so maximum power output beyond the perimeter fence does not exceed the federal “safety” public exposure limits. Elaborate technical basis HC has for its Code 6, in line with the intl. “no harms” gang associated with ICNIRP et al. For instead a biological basis for judgement regarding safety, or to use one public health rubric, “prudent avoidance”, consult for example the compendium of research at the Bionitiative Report, for one among many useful examples of high competence scientific dissidence shut out of mainstream application. Or have a look at recommended exposure limits from the Baubiologie (Building Biology) people, who I think have based their limits on what has been found to have disturbing effect on more hyper-reactive subjects studied, sensibly recommending for all considering long/medium-term, limits orders of magnitude lower than our federal dept recommends..
Rush Lake people are closer still. If the antennae towers are >100ft tall, but the angle shooting for the distant horizon is basically parallel to ground, with varying atmospheric conditions to boot, local scatter of untold deleterious effect is sure to fall locally on us. Not to mention folks on higher ground, say, up the ridge from SE edge of Head Lake. I have taken a handheld microwave monitor into a ravine area a similar km distance to what you say, from a very tall weather radar installation not aimed so downward (as would cell antennae be somewhat angled for coverage) , and readings surely from it were constantly present at the far lower elevation. A physicist I asked assured there would be local scatter, unlike per diagrammatic depictions provided by presenters. HC would discount it. We must not.
One presenter at the meeting must have erred in her saying the aim from this array is N and NE, but also was sweeping 90 degrees. The directions must have been vaguely mentioned. Clarity not nonchalance on this would help at least locals figure whether they fall within a zone of apprehension.
ICNIRP mentioned in some comments here I think was based on its predecessor ICIRP for “ionizing” radiation exposures (eg re x-rays, uranium mining, and so on; the 2nd ‘I’ in the acronym; the ‘N’ is for Non[Ionizing] in the other).I think ICIRP developed a cumulative lifetime exposure limit recommendations. This though is pointedly not the way of ICNIRP-types. But despite difficulty to measure outside of special situations, versus e.g. occupational or medical situations more controllable/observable, there are epidemiological proxies to study longterm exposures to manmade “non-ionizing” radiation. Not to mention reasonably suspicious correspondences in time to the appearance or proliferation of ailments. These have much less bearing on technically-minded “six sigma” science-seekers who thus restrict their analyses, utterly nonsensically and dangerously re public health. The hyper-reactive ones – most suffer without attributing it to these exposures, uninformed medical people subsuming the suffering under various nomenclature that obscures, but slowly increasingly there are aware practitioners – will either have had extreme exposures that put them over the top, as it were, or much more commonly long term exposures to from anything like transmission lines in sufficient proximity (even again much farther than regulators allow) to domestic radiative devices like microwave ovens (‘radar ranges” early on, remember the branding?!) and on and on. But longer term lesser exposures, any biology might be harmed. There are so many studies on all this cut out of influence on our regulator..
We’ve been associated with property and surroundings in the area for some 65 years. In the late 00s it took a turn for the worse, when now ubiquitous wireless equipment spread, from utility meters to “wifi”. This was atop the from 90s proliferation of what almost everyone takes for granted now in e.g. mass cell telephony. Last year a tower went up between Rush and Head Lakes, further degrading the e-ambience. Now the final blow in the radar. There will be no way to know the extent of local scatter until it is operational. (We await a reply specifically on this from the Oz DND who control their JORN, “Commonwealth of Australia” being the vendor to our DND, after repeated too general replies, but I’m not hopeful about sufficient clarification, ). I have seen various graphics for public consumption that deliberately give the false impression of harmlessness, of no impacts where unintended.
[in the 2nd & redundant unintentional repeat post just below (Sept 16), the word ‘perpendicular’ of course should be changed to ‘parallel’; or ignore altogether the post as redundant]
Appalling indeed, on several counts.
Est. 4 km pretty much south, yes. To the west side of the property DND got, I think was said. I think the reference to a 1 km length zone in front of transmitters has to do both with nearer field reflection and to distance enough so maximum power output beyond the perimeter fence does not exceed the federal “safety” public exposure limits. Elaborate technical basis HC has for its Code 6, in line with the intl. “no harms” gang associated with ICNIRP et al. For instead a biological basis for judgement regarding safety, or to use one public health rubric, “prudent avoidance”, consult for example the compendium of research at the Bionitiative Report, for one among many useful examples of high competence scientific dissidence shut out of mainstream application. Or have a look at recommended exposure limits from the Baubiologie (Building Biology) people, who I think have based their limits on what has been found to have disturbing effect on more hyper-reactive subjects studied.
Rush Lake people are closer still. If the antennae towers are >100ft tall, but the angle shooting for the distant horizon is basically perpendicular to ground, with varying atmospheric conditions to boot, local scatter of untold deleterious effect is sure to fall locally on us. Not to mention folks on higher ground, say, up the ridge from SE edge of Head Lake. I have taken a handheld microwave monitor into a ravine area a similar km distance to what you say, from a very tall weather radar installation not aimed so downward (as would cell antennae be somewhat angled for coverage) , and readings surely from it were constantly present at the far lower elevation. A physicist I asked assured there would be local scatter, unlike per diagrammatic depictions provided by presenters. HC would discount it. We must not.
One presenter at the meeting must have erred in her saying the aim from this array is N and NE, but also was sweeping 90 degrees. The directions must have been vaguely mentioned. Clarity not nonchalance on this would help at least locals figure whether they fall within a zone of apprehension.
ICNIRP mentioned in some comments here I think was based on its predecessor ICIRP for “ionizing” radiation exposures (eg re x-rays, uranium mining, and so on; the 2nd ‘I’ in the acronym; the ‘N’ is for Non[Ionizing] in the other).I think ICIRP developed a cumulative lifetime exposure limit recommendations. This though is pointedly not the way of ICNIRP-types. But despite difficulty to measure outside of special situations, versus e.g. occupational or medical situations more controllable/observable, there are epidemiological proxies to study longterm exposures to manmade “non-ionizing” radiation. Not to mention reasonably suspicious correspondences in time to the appearance or proliferation of ailments. These have much less bearing on technically-minded “six sigma” science-seekers who thus restrict their analyses, utterly nonsensically and dangerously re public health. The hyper-reactive ones – most suffer without attributing it to these exposures, uninformed medical people subsuming the suffering under various nomenclature that obscures, but slowly increasingly there are aware practitioners – will either have had extreme exposures that put them over the top, as it were, or much more commonly long term exposures to from anything like proximitous transmission lines to domestic radiative devices like microwave ovens (‘radar ranges” early on, remember the branding?!) and on and on.
We’ve been associated with property and surroundings in the area for some 65 years. In the late 00s it took a turn for the worse, when now ubiquitous wireless equipment spread, from utility meters to “wifi”. This was atop the from 90s proliferation of what almost everyone takes for granted now in e.g. mass cell telephony. Last year a tower went up between Rush and Head Lakes, further degrading the e-ambience. Now the final blow in the radar. There will be no way to know of the extent of local scatter until it is operational. (We await a reply specifically on this after repeated too general replies, but I’m not hopeful about sufficient clarification, from the Oz DND who control their JORN, “Commonwealth of Australia” being the vendor to our DND). I have seen various graphics for public consumption that deliberately give the false impression of harmlessness, of no impacts where unintended.
Recap & summary from DV’s comments here:
[moderator failed to post my note re error in September 16, 2025 at 9:01 pm unintended redundant post, post to be ignored, but if not ‘perpendicular’ must be replaced by ‘parallel’]
Sample of some recommended useful and important reading: Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, by A Firstenberg (in libraries, available also softcover, well-written good read); Bioinitiative Report (online, demonstrating plentiful research basically unconsidered by authorities); much else in both veins.
Possible obsolescence for effective defence purposes.
Creation of local wartime target in civilian midst, radar installation primary targets.
Not frivolous “NIMBY” – a serious health and enviro matter
“No known health effects” – displays ignorance of already long-established vast literature, scientific and other.
Health Canada (“HC”, as relied on by DND) unreliable, esp. in the shadow of what transpired from March 2020, mainly industry-connexion of witnesses defending HC before Parliamentary committees.
DND explicitly exempted as DND sees fit from Health Canada code 6 anyway.
Impossible for DND/HC to pronounce on safety since no data available on near-ground scatter outside of exclusion zone perimeter, plus never specifically studied for effects, plus Australian system likely not deployed where people live so no comparison possible.
Medium and long term health/enviro effects unjustly discounted.
No justification provided for rejection of entire area, esp. eg Cape Rich, from south of latitude 46 degrees North to Thistle site which is already well below even 45 degrees.
Cost savings suspected a primary reason for site choice, whereas in context of megaproject plus Canadian availability of equipment and expertise in land prep for site, eventual health/enviro and other local costs could dwarf extra cost to siting elsewhere.
Principal intl. org. re e-safety guidelines iCNIRP long called out for cozy relationship with industry.
Compare e.g. safety limits of Building Biology (Baubiologie).
Higher ground farther away may be subject to greater effects than closer lower down.
Difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation can be effectively moot for some health effects.
Diagrams showing precision aimed radar beams with no spillage/scatter except where aimed is disingenuous, scatter is unavoidable.
People hyper-reactive to such e-exposures are likely barred from the area under the beams, and longer term exposures is liable to induce such hyper-reactivity in others – everyone is sensitive to e-pollution, the question is whether personal symptoms are recognized as owing to such exposures.
Many medical professionals do already recognize this and prescribe avoidance/limitation on that basis.
Collective opposition should commence in earnest now.
I am also deeply concerned. This is in the area of many many summer residences and many year round residences as well.
There is so much vacant sparsely populated areas further up north that would not impact so many full time and seasonal home owners.
At minimum to start, from MP Schmale’s office should be requested elaboration of reasons why DND out of such a vast area chose us to irradiate. (Of course, not to be put that way…) Why not Cape Rich aimed over open water? Why not even as far as N of Parry Sound? Was it the alvar flatness, thus ease of adaptation of land? Is there no way to flatten other land available for the vast DND budget? And so on. Schmale’s office did get back promptly to me on one question a long while back They tarry on subsequent queries. I have also been in touch with the vendor’s DND for tech details you are unlikely to get from our DND (not that I expect from theirs other than already provided generalities, we’ll see – one should not primarily be out to curtail the sale, but to push it away, not in NIMBY but public health vein).
Repetitious “no known” hazard mantra – attempts to subsume ignorance within the range of reasonableness before an undiscerning public. But for those tuned in, after so many decades of a rather contrary estimation of such e-pollution, it is not possible to “not know” – their stance it utterly unreasonable.
Confirmation from the latest topical journalism, as if it was needed, websearch on ‘microwavenews’, the premier evenhanded (as can be given the bias and fraud from the likes of WHO/ICNIRP-related) reportage for decades on e-matters, 1st current story, “WHO Gets an ‘F’ on RF” “ICBE-EMF: Health Reviews Suffer from Faulty Analysis & ICNIRP Bias” – I alluded to these two being effective indirect abettors of radar in our midst and much poisoning else with their ludicrous assurances of safety taken up by our very own HC and in turn DND (latter exempt to boot, and exempt from serious public consultation seems). Get a taste of what goes on in the dominating academic field supporting the opposite of public and enviro health.