WILL YOU RISE TO THE CHALLENGE?
150 x $500 = $75,000
You can help end the fight to keep five 150-foot AM radio towers off the Tsawwassen Peninsula.
Our last option to stop this travesty is at the upcoming Whatcom County hearing, beginning October 27.
To launch our best case, we need to fund experts for reports and their hearing appearances, continue doing research and paying our legal team to see this thing through. The estimate for this is over $80,000. We are still collecting donations and just had two successful fund-raising events, but now time is running out.
Here’s the challenge: we are looking for 150 businesses, organizations, families and individuals to donate $500 each. This will complete the funding for the final push.
Consider how much the quality of life you enjoy is worth. Or how much money you may lose in your business or in the value of your home if the towers go up. It is difficult to quantify, but we think it will be a great deal more than $500.
As of today, we have 15 challenge checks in hand, with promises for more. Join your friends, neighbors and fellow businesses in meeting the challenge. Give us the final push we need to the end.
Thank you for your support.
The Cross-Border Coalition to Stop the Radio Towers
For donations, click DONATIONS or send checks to:
PRTA/FTT, 239 55th Street, Delta, BC V4M 3J4
PRTA/FTT, P.O. Box 158, Point Roberts, WA 98281
Declaration: Doctors call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure
letter signed by renowned scientists and physicians urging Health Canada to stop denying that evidence exists that shows harm.
Canada's Safety Code 6 Guideline is fundamentally flawed.
Health Canada's Safety Code 6 is based on an obsolete account and analysis of RFR research and has disregarded or minimized certain recent studies, such as cancer, DNA damage, protein synthesis, stress response, and detrimental biological and health effects in humans that occur at RFR intensities below the existing Code 6 Guideline. . . .
Our urgent call for public health protection.
The public's health and the health of the environment are threatened by ever-evolving RF emitting technologies, without due consideration for what the potential cumulative impacts on biological systems are likely to be in the future.
We urgently call upon Health Canada . . .
i) to intervene in what we view as an emerging public health crisis;
ii) to establish guidelines based on the best available scientific data including studies on cancer and DNA damage, stress response, cognitive and neurological disorders, impaired reproduction, developmental effects, learning and behavioural problems among children and youth, and the broad range of symptoms classified as EHS; and
iii) To advise Canadians to limit their exposure and especially the exposure of children. . . .
Declaration: Scientists call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure
[Note: This includes–but is not limited to–radiofrequency radiation-emitting devices, such as cell phones and
cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters and baby monitors.]
We are scientists engaged in the study of electromagnetic fields (EMF) radiofrequency radiation (RFR) health and safety. We have serious concerns regarding Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline.
Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline is fundamentally flawed.
Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 is based on an obsolete account and analysis of RFR research and has disregarded or minimized certain recent studies, such as cancer, DNA damage, protein synthesis, stress response, and detrimental biological and health effects in humans that occur at RFR intensities below the
existing Code 6 Guideline.
The World Health Organization classified electromagnetic fields at both extremely low frequency (2001) and radiofrequency (2011) ranges as a “Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans” and included reviews and
studies reporting low-intensity biological effects.
Letter to Honourable Kerry-Lynne Findlay, P.C., M.P.
May 21, 2014
The Honourable Kerry-Lynne Findlay, P.C., M.P.
Minister of National Revenue
House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Re: Radio Tower Meeting of May 20, 2014
Thank you again for your time and efforts in bringing this issue to the attention of Mr. Stevens, Deputy Ambassador and Mr. Cook, Consular officer in Seattle and arranging them to meet with us yesterday.
We greatly appreciate everything you and your office are doing to help us.
As discussed, we have a few questions that we would like clarified in light of the news from IC that the FCC reports they were aware of Tsawwassen's population in BBC's application process for a construction permit and that approval will not be reconsidered.
When reading the following it is important to note that in the Objection to the Petition BBC admits that Tsawwassen was not mentioned in their application to relocate to Point Roberts as the Canadian population was "not relevant." The public records as well reflect their non-disclosure of Tsawwassen.
1. FCC Waiving of 25 millivolt/meter Contour Population Calculation
FCC’s ¶73.24 (g) specifies that an applicant must show that:
“the population within the 1 V/m contour does not exceed 1.0 percent of the population within the 25 mV/m contour…. provided, however, that where the number of persons within the 1 V/m is 300 or less the provisions of this paragraph are not applicable.” That “however” above stipulates that the minimum population within the 25 mV/m contour must be more than 30,400 of which 1% allows a population of 304 or more to be within the blanketing interference contour of 1 V/m. This criterion of more than 30,100 is not satisfied by the combined US and Canadian population or the US population alone within the 25 mV/m contour. If the FCC was aware of Tsawwassen and its dense population why did the FCC waive the 25 millivolt/meter contour calculation when exceeding the threshold of 300 within the 1 volt/Meter contour? Exceeding the 300 person threshold in the 1 Volt/meter contour requires further calculation of how many persons are in the 25 millivolt/meter contour. The consideration of only the Point Roberts population of 304 was close enough to 300 to allow the waiver of the calculation of how many are in the 25 millivolt/meter contour.
BBC's application did not extend the 1 volt/Meter contour to include Canada. If it were including Canada (Tsawwassen) in their 1 volt/Meter contour calculations it would mean that the ratio of the populations within the larger 25 millivolt/meter and the 1Volt/meter blanketing interference contours violates both Industry Canada and FCC standards by more than an order of magnitude (i.e., more than 10 times as to what is allowed.) We believe it is at minimum 30 times.
2. INTERFERENCE: Blanketing or Channel?
We request to be provided with more context to the message IC received from the FCC concerning the use of the word "interference." We strongly suspect that when FCC and IC used the word "interference" with respect to "knowing about the interference in Tsawwassen" at the time they granted the building permit, they did not distinguish whether one was talking about cross border
adjacent channel interference (which will not disrupt Tsawwassen radios listening to KRPI or stations close to 1550 kHz) or cross border blanketing interference which will occur in Tsawwassen and prevent anyone from hearing anything else but KRPI across the radio dial, disrupting ADSL internet connections and cause blanketing interference with hearing aids, TV's, computer speakers, baby monitors and cordless phones to name a few.
3. FCC Knowledge of Tsawwassen and IC If what the FCC says is true, that they were aware of the Tsawwassen's population during the application
process, why was Industry Canada not informed of this potential cross-border blanketing interference in Tsawwassen and/or if they were informed why did Industry Canada not object to the original BBC application?
If the FCC knew of the Tsawwssen population but did not alert IC why isn't IC questioning and demanding an explanation from the FCC and ultimately objecting to the application? Again, none of the BBC documents that the FCC used to approve the application mentions Tsawwassen or its population.
In light of all the above it leaves us to wonder if the FCC is confusing Ladner with Tsawwassen? The facts support our belief that the FCC was not aware of Tsawwassen and its dense population at the time they granted BBC's application. We look forward to your reply. Thank you.
On Behalf of the No Radio Towers CoalitionTsawwassen Chapter
cc: Mr. Denis Stevens, Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Canada
Mr. Kevin Cook, Senior Political, Economic & Academic Officer,
Consulate General of Canada
Mayor Lois Jackson
Vicki Huntington, MLA
Suzanne Bosman, Whatcom County PDS
Steve Graham, Ph.D., P.Eng Tsawwassen Coalition
Jim Ronback, P.Eng Tsawwassen Coalition
Jennifer Urquhart, President No Radio Towers Coalition Pt. Roberts Chapter
August 15, 2014
In the above-referenced CRTC Decision, CRTC denies Sher-E-Punjab Radio Broadcasting, Inc.’s application for proposed use of AM 600 kHz, in large part out of concern about the propriety of that Richmond, BC based broadcaster’s use of BBC Broadcasting’s transmission facilities in Ferndale, WA—
essentially acting as an unlicensed Canadian broadcaster. Its programming and signal, carried by KRPI, is overwhelmingly aimed at its Lower Mainland British Columbia audience, as is all of Sher-E-Punjab’s advertising. In not awarding the 600 kHz frequency to any applicant, CRTC indicated its intention “to examine the issue of broadcasting services transmitted from locations outside Canada and which appear to serve Canadian markets.” They were talking about the relationship between and practices of Sher-EPunjab and BBC Broadcasting. Here is the text from the CRTC Decision (at paragraph 31):
Sher-E-Punjab Radio Broadcasting Inc. (Sher-E-Punjab) is one of the applicants that proposed to use 600 kHz. The Commission notes that some interveners opposed Sher-E-Punjab’s application, arguing that Sher-E-Punjab broadcasts from the U.S. into Canada without a licence. At the hearing, Sher-EPunjab proposed to abide by a condition that would require it to cease providing its programming for broadcast over transmission facilities located in the U.S. once the Department of Industry has issued a broadcasting certificate to Sher-E-Punjab for the use of 600 kHz. The Commission’s decision to deny
Sher-E-Punjab’s proposal for the use of the AM frequency 600 kHz as set out in the preceding paragraph will also provide the Commission with time to examine the issue of broadcasting services transmitted from locations outside Canada and which appear to serve Canadian markets.
Subsequent to this Decision, CRTC issued Broadcast Notice of Consultation CRTC 2014-426, dated August 13, 2014, which can be viewed (or downloaded as PDF) at
Date: June 18, 2014
To: The Cross-Border Coalition Against the Radio Towers
From: Ulf K Ottho
RE: Legal Opinion
You have asked me for my view as to the legal enforceability of a representation made by letter dated September 30, 2013 by KRPI's lawyers addressed to Whatcom County Planning and Development Services that:
“By this letter, KRPI wishes to express that it is committed to working at its own expense to resolve any and all complaints of interference that are brought to its attention, provided that the complainant allows adequate access for KRPI's engineers.”
“KRPI is committed to providing and maintaining interference complaint resolution services to members of the Point Roberts and Tsawwassen communities upon commencement of operation of its new transmitter in Point Roberts and continuing for the life of the transmitter site”.
I am giving my view from the perspective of being a retired lawyer having retirement status with the Law Society of British Columbia, following 35 years of practicing law in the Delta Community. My practice included, along with other areas of litigation, commercial contract litigation that involved interpreting contracts, as well as administrative law involving tribunals created by federal and provincial statutes, which involved the interpretation of statutes governing these tribunals.
A basic rule of contract law is that there must be “privity of contract”, meaning two or more parties must be party to the contract, for the contract to be enforceable by one of the parties in the event of breach. The above representations do not create privity of contract between any member of the community and BBC or KRPI.
Another basic rule of contract law is that there must be a mutual intention to create contractual relations. The subject letter is in the context of providing supplementary information to Whatcom County on KRPI's application to build a radio transmitter site, and refers to U.S. and Canadian regulations as governing resolutions of complaints. Clearly there is no mutual intent to create contractual relations between Whatcom County and KRPI.
Further, the language in the letter does not specifically bind KRPI to resolving the blanketing interference to the satisfaction of members of the community. Maintaining “complaint resolution services” and being “committed to working at its own expense to resolve any and all complaints of interference” are too vague to be enforceable in the case of breach of these representations and fall short of guaranteeing that blanket interference, or any other form of interference, shall be resolved.
Because the proposed transmitter site is not located in Canada, Industry Canada and the CRTC are without jurisdiction to enforce against any breaches resulting from KRPI's activities incurring in the USA, and I am at a loss as to why KRPI's lawyers even mentioned Industry Canada.
Although I never was a US Lawyer, I make the following observations about the U.S regulatory scheme:
Independent of Whatcom County's criteria for consideration on KRPI's application for a building permit, the only source of relief in the event of radio interference are U.S federal statutes, being the 1927 Radio Act, as overhauled by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which statute, by its preamble, ”intended to regulate all forms of interstate and foreign radio transmissions and to maintain the control of the United States over all channels of interstate and foreign radio transmissions.” Under paragraph D of the preamble, the Secretary of Commerce has power to suspend the license of any operator for a period not exceeding two years upon proof that the licensee has violated any provision of any Act or treaty binding upon the United States. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was established in 1934 by the Communications Act.
Section 14 of the Radio Act states that “Any station license shall be revocable by the Commission (FCC) for false statements in the application...which would warrant the licensing authority refusing to grant a license on the original application...”
Pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, informal objections must provide properly supported allegations of fact that, if true, would establish a substantial and material question of fact that grant of the application would be, prima facie, inconsistent with Section309(k) of the Act.
Mechanisms contained in the regulations governing procedure relative to the foregoing are that a Petition to deny must be filed within 30 days of the day that the FCC issues a Public Notice listing the application as “accepted for filing”. The Cross Border Coalition appears to have done so within these time constraints.
However regulation 47 CFR 73.3587 Procedure for Filing Informal Objections provides:
“Before FCC action on any application for an instrument of authorization, any person may file informal objections to the grant. Such objections may be submitted in letter form (without extra copies) and shall be signed. The limitation on pleadings and time for filing pleadings provided for in § 1.45 of the rules shall not be applicable to any objections duly filed under this section.”
The “FCC action” on the application for an instrument of authorization, namely, adjudication on the Petition filed by the Coalition, has not yet occurred: Therefore there is still time for “a person” to file an informal notice of objection.
Regarding blanketing interference, 47 CFR SS 73.88, 7318 states:
“The licensee of each broadcast station is required to satisfy all reasonable complaints of blanketing interference within the 1 V/m contour.”
For more detailed instructions concerning operational responsibilities of licensees and permittees under this section, see § 73.318 (b), (c) and (d).”
Industry Canada regulation C-10.4 on Resolving Issues provides similar responsibilities.
In my view, “any person” as used in 47 CFR 73.3587 has no restriction, and would include a person residing in Canada, a Mayor of a Corporation (Lois Jackson) or a Cabinet Minister (James Moore of Industry Canada, or Minister or Foreign Affairs John Baird).
One Final Comment: There is no doubt that that the threat of blanketing interference is real, and can interfere with cell phones, computer monitors and hook-ups to the Internet, radio transmissions, hearing aids, pagers, etc to the extent that businesses relying on the Internet, cell phones, etc, are affected. There is a documented and continuous 15 year history in Ferndale, Washington of complaints by residents, which complaints are supported by elected representatives. The president of BBC broadcasting acknowledged a blanketing interference problem in a sworn affidavit filed in the FCC proceedings in February, 2014.
Ulf K Ottho
Ulf Ohtto is a Delta resident and retired lawyer having retirement status with the Law Society of British Columbia, following 35 years of practicing law in the Delta Community. He is a member of the Tsawwassen Coalition to stop the Radio Towers. He presented his legal opinion to the Delta Council on June 23rd 2014.
Dear Honourable Kerry-Lynn Findlay and Honourable James Moore,
Recent articles and letters from the US department of the Interior below provide insight into the potential deleterious impact of the proposed 50,000 watt KRPI radio towers at the US border on avian mortality along the Pacific Migratory Flyway through Tsawwassen and Point Roberts.
The people of Tsawwassen need your support to Stop This Border Blaster.
Jim Ronback, P.Eng. (retired)
Avian mortality at communication towers in the United States and Canada: which species, how many, and where? Biological Conservation 158: 410-419.
Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D.G. Bert, L.M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S.A. Gauthreaux, Jr., M.L. Avery, R.C. Crawford, A.M. Manville, II, E.R. Travis, and D. Drake. 2013.
Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC regarding Adverse Impact of Cell Tower Radiation on Wildlife. The Department of Interior charges that the FCC standards for cell phone radiation are outmoded and no longer applicable as they do not adequately protect wildlife.
SUMMARY: The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) publishes this notice to request public comments on its proposed procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These proposed NEPA implementing procedures are necessary to assist FirstNet in establishing an NEPA compliance program and applying the appropriate level of NEPA review for activities undertaken by FirstNet in the design, construction and operation of the nationwide interoperable public safety
broadband network (PSBN). DATES: Comments on the proposed procedures must be received by February 7, 2014.
Tell the FCC to reject the Pirate "Border Blaster" in Washington State
Arthur Reber submitted the IO to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
and to the attorney of the company
that owns the radio station.
Click on the green button to view
New matching funds donation challenge!
$3,000 offered by a new generous donor!
The $2,000 November matching funds donation was a huge success. You collectively donated $2,000 and the secret donor matched for a total of $4,000 raised in November.
A new generous neighbor has offered to match up to $3,000.
We urgently need these funds to hire attorneys and
expert scientific witnesses for the permit hearing
next month in Bellingham.
Please click on the Donate button to the right.
Or mail your check to
PRTA / FTT
PO Box 158
Point Roberts, WA 98281
Informal Objection of the Cross-Border Coalition
to be submitted to our
Washington DC attorneys and eventually to the
Federal Communication Commission
click here to read
Letter from our group's leadership
November 4, 2013
Planning and Development Services
Re: Correspondence from Ms. Linda White Atkins of Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP
We know you’re still working on the report for CUP2013-00004-KRPI Transmitter Site but we (the members of the Cross-Border Coalition) feel that we need to respond to the letter from Ms. Atkins of Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, the firm representing BBC Broadcasting, Inc.
The letter is remarkable on several fronts. First, it acknowledges what no other document submitted by BBC Broadcasting has: the existence of the city of Tsawwassen, British Columbia, Canada and its approximately 24,000 residents (estimate based on growth since the 21,000 plus recorded in the 2006 census).
Second, it makes abundantly clear that by not previously mentioning this population center, BBC did not act in good faith in its initial application to the FCC nor to Whatcom County’s PDS. By extension, this omission allowed them to remain under the radar when it came to the FCC seeking clearance with Industry Canada (IC). So long as Tsawwassen and its high-population density parameters were suppressed, there was no reason for IC to object – and object they would have as is outlined below.
Third, the letter also acknowledges what we have known all along: there will be significant blanketing interference that will affect the thousands of residents and businesses across the border and not just the 300 or so identified in the original applications.
Fourth, the issue of enforcement is not broached. Ms. Atkins’ letter is a promissory note but one with no legal mechanism to back it up. The company can promise all it wants in order to secure the permit but once the towers are up they are under no legal obligation to carry through. This point is important. The FCC only requires that mitigation be carried out according to their guidelines in the US. There are no official mechanisms in place for cross-border complaints.
Fifth, independent of Ms. Atkins’ word that BBC Broadcasting will work to mitigate all complaints from Tsawwassen (and to do so even after the 1-year period has expired), it is virtually certain that they will not be able to. The reason is obvious – and it is precisely the reason why both the FCC and Industry Canada impose constraints on the proportion of a region’s population that lies within the 1 V/m contour (in the US) and the 250 mV/m contour (in Canada).
Because the towers are planned to be sited at a location that the neither the FCC nor Industry Canada would permit if all the facts were known, the proportion of the population of Tsawwassen that will be impacted by the interference is so large that even partial mitigation will be virtually impossible.
According to the letter from Ms. Atkins, KRPI has on call a single engineer who apparently lives in or near Ferndale. This person, one David Harris, presumably has a visa to work in Canada and has the ability to travel to Tsawwassen on a regular basis – and we say “regular” because the number of individual homes and business that lie within the 250 mV/m contour of the nighttime 50kW signal is the entire city of Tsawwassen and some of the surrounds. Hence, the population that would potentially suffer blanketing interference is approximately 24,000 individuals. To get a feeling for what’s involved here, let’s do a little counting.
Let’s assume that there are only some 15,000 individual homes, apartments, condos and business offices involved. Let’s also give them the benefit of the doubt and estimate that only about 15% of them will experience blanketing interference (this is based on the proportion of residents in Ferndale who filed complaints relative to the population there). This gives a minimum of 2,250 cases that will need mitigation. If Mr. Harris, who will be travelling up from Ferndale, is able to fix three instances a day it will take him at least 3 years to complete the job – assuming he has no other duties to perform for the company and that he can actually do three a day. It’s worth keeping mind that in Ferndale many complaints turned out to require more than one attempt and many ended up unmitigated.
In short, the promise to mitigate the anticipated blanketing interference that will hit Tsawwassenites is an empty one. There is no way they will be able to do this – and this estimate is on the “soft” side. There are reasons for expecting a significantly higher proportion of complaints in Tsawwassen than there were in Ferndale. The towers there are in a field some distance from population centers. The planned Point Roberts array will be within 950 feet of the border – across which is the most densely populated area of Tsawwassen. And, as noted in an earlier comment we submitted, within the community of radio aficionados AM stations that broadcast at 50 kW at night are called “blowtorches.” Wide-spread blanketing interference is the reason.
There was one other comment in Ms. Atkins letter that is almost embarrassingly self-serving. She notes that the company includes two documents (one a handbook) on how to mitigate blanketing interference. This handbook is simply the one the FCC uses as standard operating procedure. It is, in case you or anyone in your office hasn’t looked at it, virtually impossible to follow or use by anyone who doesn’t have a background in science and is comfortable with electrical work. Very few individuals without such experience will be able to carry out the complex and intricate procedures involved in shielding and filtering the unwanted signals. We can’t help wondering why Ms. Atkins mentioned these documents when the purpose of the letter was to ensure all concerned that BBC Broadcasting would mitigate all complaints and continue to do so even after the mandatory 1-year period.
We can sum up this analysis simply.
•If the population of Tsawwassen had been included in the original application to the FCC to relocate the tower array to Point Roberts, they would not have approved it.
•If the towers were to be sited a mere 950 feet to the north across the border, IC would never approve the project.
•As soon as the actual population density parameters are put into the equation (independent of the border) the project is immediately seen as wholly inappropriate and in violation of standard principles of the operation of AM radio stations in both the United States and Canada.
The Cross-Border Coalition:
Point Roberts -Arthur Reber, Mark Robbins, Jennifer Urquhart, Suzanne Rosser, Steve Wolff, Renee Coe
Tsawwassen - Nancy Beaton, Steve Graham, James Ronback
Reasons why the towers should not be built
The proposed radio tower site is not consistent with the Point Roberts Character Plan and is only 330 meters (1,080 feet) from the border.
On both sides of the border property values around towers can drop 20%.
Five 150' towers blasting 50,000 watts during the day and 50,000 watts proposed at night would present a visual blight and a hazard to migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. Aircraft warning lights mounted on top the towers could be seen by residents on both sides of the border.
There are over a thousand US neighbors and several thousands of Canadians within a radius of 9,140' (2.786 km) - the radiation beam of the antennas directed towards Canadian listeners in Surrey, BC.
BBC Broadcasting Inc, has owned the KPRI AM broadcasting towers in Ferndale, WA, for 15 years. BBC Broadcasting Inc. is a registered American corporation. But the KRPI studio, 99% of the corporate officers & employees, the target audience, advertisers, and revenue are all in Canada.
The FCC denied KRPI's request to raise their nighttime wattages from 10,000 to 50,000 watts. KRPI is now trying to relocate to Point Roberts.
Why have a radio tower in Washington State? Cheaper land and less onerous regulations than in Canada.
Mark Robbins of Point Roberts stated:
"Americans on our peninsula were given scant public notice: KRPI Radio and its owner BBC Broadcasting Inc ran the minimal one-inch ad in the Bellingham Herald, which isn't sold in Point Roberts."
"The FCC's notification to the good people of Point Roberts was published much earlier in the Federal Register, which of course no normal person follows. It's a source for insiders."
"South Deltans, who will be severely affected if this move is made, were given no notice at all, so we have many questions and several concerns."
A multitude of potential health risks like insomnia, headaches, and hypertension have been reported worldwide. Cancer clusters have been reported around long-operating European AM radio stations. Some people's health will be more affected than others.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2011 declared that Electromagentic Energy shall be classified as Class 2B Carcinogen akin to the now infamous Benzene chemical. IARC is a subgroup of the World Health Organization.
A cell phone is a 1/2 watt device you use 30 minutes per day. The proposed AM Transmitter is designed to be a 50,000 watt system that everyone is exposed to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Click to read an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology Radio-Frequency Radiation Exposure from AM Radio Transmitters and Childhood Leukemia and Brain Cancer "
In Ferndale blanketing interference caused problems with radios, televisions, DSL connections, landline reception, Ham radio transmission, First Responder hand-held equipment, personal safety / medical devices, and public address systems. Some people experienced shocks and burns when working with metal.
KRPI engineers "overlooked" 21,000 Tsawwassen residents - probably so they could give short shrift to Point Roberts' 1,300 American residents in a falsely-described "low density, rural, economically depressed" area.
The Point Roberts Conservation Society is behind the Stop the Radio Towers email list. PRCS is assisting in the NoTower.com website project.
The Point Roberts Conservation Society is a nonprofit foundation, registered in 1993. We are committed to providing education on responsible land use, indigenous history, protection and sustenance of our unique environment of forest, wetlands, and coastline.
We welcome new members: firstname.lastname@example.org
What you can do
Please email, write, or phone the people / agencies listed below.
See the Topics subpage for points you can make in your communications. Please write or phone today!
Join the Stop the Radio Towers email list for latest news by sending an email request to Suzanne Rosser:
Congresswoman Suzan Delbene
Contact form at
Phone (202) 225-6311
Senator Maria Cantwell
Contact form at
Phone (425) 303-0114
Senator Patty Murray
Contact form at
Phone (425) 259-6515
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Q.C.
MP Delta-Richmond East
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Vickie Huntington, MLA, Delta South
4805 Delta Street, Delta, BC
Lois E Jackson, Mayor of Delta
Write to the US Consul General via
Write to the Honourable James Moore, Minister Industry Canada email@example.com
Sign the online petition at 2care.com
Click HERE to go to the
Donate funds to help cover out-of-pocket expenses related to educating the public, payments to experts and attorneys if needed, and travel costs related to in-person testifying. Just click on the Donate button below or on the Donate subpage to learn how you can help.
Thanks for your support!