Newsletter 2016-05-18 Special report on fires

COVERING LETTER FOR “RESPONSES TO BCUC FIRE REPORT DRAFT”:

As you all know, last June and July I submitted an official complaint to BCUC charging that it was BCUC’s responsibility under the BC Utilities Commission Act to protect the public from unsafe practices. BCUC was failing to do its job by ignoring the information that I had provided showing that the smart meters that BC Hydro is installing have failed, melted and burned.  BCUC has consistently said it was prevented by The Clean Energy Act and Direction 4 from interfering in any aspect of the program. I argued this did not apply to safety, and that the BC Utilities Commission Act took precedent over the actions taken by this government to preclude BCUC’s involvement.

After several months, I was told that staff report regarding my allegations and evidence would be ready by the end of 2015. In the middle of February, 2016, I was told the draft report was ready and BCUC asked if I would like to read it and make comments. Of course I said yes. They gave me 2 weeks to do so, with comments submitted on March 3.

In mid-April when I asked when the report would be published, I was told the staff was working on revisions, and I should be given a date within 2 weeks. At the end of April, I was told no date could be given. A week later I asked again because the public deserves to know what was in the draft — which I believe to be damning. Again I was told no date could be given. Last week I advised the BCUC that unless they disapproved of my releasing my comments without its report, I would do so today.  They did not respond.  I have taken that absence of disapproval as acquiescence.

I have gathered comments for your information with paraphrases of statements from the draft. The draft contained confirmation that no one — not the Provincial Fire Commissioner, not the BC Safety Authority, not BC Hydro — is tracking smart meter incidents. It seems that I have more information about what is happening than any of these agencies who are mandated to know, do know. And what is worse, no one seems to be concerned.

I have provided the full details of my comments in the attachment:

Responses to BCUC Fire Report Draft by Sharon Noble:

http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/BCUC-fire-report-responses-1.pdf

which is long and detailed. Each of my charges and statements can be fully substantiated with documentation.  Below is a summary with which I concluded my response to the draft.

This should provide more than enough evidence to support our demand that these meters be declared defective and removed from our homes. Our lives and property are being put at risk.

Summary:

I would like to present you with a scenario to make abundantly clear the problems that now exist with the smart meter investigative process. The premise upon which this scenario is built is a hypothetical, so no admissions are required of you.  It is, after all, just a hypothetical.

1 – A home catches fire.  The inciting cause of the fire is the smart meter.

2 – That’s the hypothetical.  What follows is not hypothetical.  It’s reality.

3 – While the fire is being fought, BC Hydro removes the smart meter.

4 – BC Hydro immediately sends the meter to ITRON without doing any investigation.

5 – When the fire department’s inspector inspects the scene all the evidence points to the area of the meter as being where the fire started, but with the smart meter gone, he is forced to say that the ignition source is “undetermined”.

6 – The BC Safety Authority is not called so this agency with the electrical experts have no opportunity to view the fire scene.

7 – The fire report is not completed for 15 months and therefore is not put on the system in time for the fire to be included in the annual report, but even if it had been, there is no accounting for fires with “undetermined” igniters.

8 – The result is that no one knows the smart meter caused the fire and BC Hydro is able to say it is not aware of any situation where a smart meter was determined responsible for causing a fire.

9 –  BC Hydro commissions and pays Mr. Len Garis to write a report about smart meter safety. Mr. Garis uses only the incomplete, inaccurate Fire Commissioner’s annual report, concluding that there have been no smart meter fires.

It is obvious that no one agency is in charge of this program with regard to safety and oversight. All of the attention has been given to getting smart meters on homes at all costs without regard to the health, safety or desires of BC Hydro customers.

I would ask that BCUC fulfill its role of protecting the public according to the BC Utilities Commission Act by doing the following, at the minimum:

  • Require that an immediate and complete investigation by independent qualified forensic experts of the safety of ITRON smart meters currently on homes in BC be undertaken;
  • Establish one agency that has the responsibility for coordination of the various reporting agencies to ensure regulations are followed and that tracking/reporting of all fires is done as per those regulations;
  • Establish meaningful penalties (e.g. firing) for those who disregard or allow others to disregard regulations, e.g. removing smart meters from fire scenes before official inspection has been done, or neglecting to inform the BCSA of an electrical incident before the scene has been corrupted;
  • Amend the BC Electrical Safety Regulation which currently exempts utilities from any and all safety regulations, ensuring that any utility equipment that is put on private residences and businesses is certified by a qualified agency (CSA) or a professional electrical engineer licensed in BC.

Given the lack of oversight and due diligence by any of the agencies, it must be considered that other fire hazards might exist that are not being reported or addressed. The problems are systemic and likely not specific to the smart meter program. If it were not for members of the public who devoted much time and effort to investigating and documenting the problems, it is likely that they never would have come to attention. This failure must be investigated by an independent body with the authority to enforce recommended changes.

 The smart meter program is unique in that devices that have been known to have caused problems elsewhere, e.g. in California, and for years before the program began in BC, are mandated to be on every home and business. Lives and property are being put at risk by the very government and agencies who are sworn to protect them. It should not be left to the members of the public to fight the government and BC Hydro to protect themselves and their homes.

Click here to see BCUC responses to “Fire report”

 

Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong”
~ Voltaire

RCMP summoned to investigate WiFi threat

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, famed worldwide as “rescuers” and titans of justice, has been summoned by Capt. Jerry Flynn (ret.) to rescue Canada from radiation pollution.

RCMP, also known as “the Force” and the “Mounties,” is a federal national police force that works on a contract basis with three territories, eight provinces, 190 municipalities, 184 aboriginal communities and three international airports.

Flynn this week called on the Public Health Agency of Canada to direct RCMP “to conduct a criminal investigation into Canada’s radio frequency and extremely low frequency scientific community beginning with Health Canada’s radiation protection bureau.”

Read More here – http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/6883/2016-05-11/royal-canadian-police-summoned-wi-fi-threat.html

WiFi Saturation in small home – A precautionary tale.

I have a GigaHertz HF59B RF-analyzer meter which allows me to measure RFR (radio frequency radiation) from many sources like cell towers,  cell phones,  cordless DECT phones and wireless routers.  The meter shows the readings on a screen in µW/m² in 3 ranges from 0.01 to 20,000.  And there is a speaker that allows me to listen to the various radiation so I can tell if it is a cell tower,  cordless phone or a wifi router.  I consider this meter indispensable in my RFRadiation Detective work.

One day when I was assisting at a local seniors centre some seniors with computer problems, I showed the effect of the local wireless wifi router on my HF59B meter.  The meter’s sound was turned up and this made my students pay close attention.  After some discussion about the use of wifi routers and the potential health effects, one student invited me to look what was going on in his home.

So, I went for tea and cookies and did some RFR measuring and what I found was very interesting and disturbing.

Telus had installed a wireless router to handle several Optik TVs in the house.  This setup worked well except that the wireless function was not necessary.  The router was set on top of the piano close to the dining table and the computer desk, all within 6 feet.  The RFR from this router measured at 1 ft peaked at 20,000 µW/m² which is very very high. So the people eating at the table or working at the computer desk would have high RFR exposure.

Nearby, Shaw had installed a wireless router to handle the single wireless laptop computer in the house.  This router was set on the floor next to the computer desk and close to the dining table.  The RFR from this router measured at 1 ft peaked at about 5,000 µW/m² which is quite high.

In summary, this small house was saturated with RFR from the 2 high powered routers.  Also, the small house had aluminum siding which would have kept most of the RFR bouncing around inside the house increasing the exposure many times.  I think that the siding may not have been grounded.

I believe that RFR at any level has an impact on the health of the people involved.  This fact is supported by 1000’s of reports but dismissed by governments and telecommunication companies because of major financial pressures.  High levels of RFR create more health problems.  Upon questioning the couple that lived in the house, they said that they were tired a lot of the time and had head aches often.  The wife said that she liked getting out of the house, maybe because she felt uncomfortable when in the house.

We discussed the findings and they instructed me to turn off the wifi on both routers and to hook up the laptop to the Shaw router using a cat5 cable which I did.

Now there is no wifi RFR in the house and the levels were down to less than 5 µW/m² with the occasional spike from outside of the house to 10 µW/m².  I surveyed the home and the RFR was very low in all rooms.

I hope to interview the couple later to determine if they find any difference in life in a RFR free home.

Findings

1 – Telus had a router with high level wifi for no purpose.  The optik TV setup did not need the wifi function.
2 – Neither Telus or Shaw informed  the customer of possible health effects of high levels of wifi RFR.
3 – Average people know nothing about the possible health effects of wifi.

Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms – Petaluma

I had thought that the Apple iPad was only wireless but that is apparently not so.

You can use the iPad connected by the router by a wire (CAT5 cable is technical term) and you can turn the wireless function off in both the router and the iPad.

Wow, now I can authorize the use of wired iPads by my grand kids.  And I can now use an iPad with them.

See this facebook group for details.

Responsible iPad Use in Classrooms – Petaluma
https://www.facebook.com/groups/966677386741719/

Haifa Israel – Wi-Fi removed from Schools for Health Reasons

From: Dafna Tachover
Sent: April 20, 2016 6:45 AM
Subject: Good News from Israel – City Removed Wi-Fi from Schools for Health Reasons

Hi All

It has been an exciting week in Israel on the fighting the wireless front, with 2 main developments that are likely related:

1)   TV Documentary about Electro-Sensitivity and wireless – “HOW WE ARE KILLING OURSELVES –  WIRELESS RADIATION”

2)  The City of Haifa ordered to disconnect Wi-Fi in all schools and planing to install wired Internet instead

———————-

 

  1. TV Documentary – “HOW WE ARE KILLING OURSELVES –  WIRELESS RADIATION”

It started with a 30 minutes TV documentary about the epidemic of Electro-Sensitivity that was aired last Tuesday at 9pm on prime time TV and which got the highest rating of the day.

The name chosen for the documentary: “HOW WE ARE KILLING OURSELVES –  WIRELESS RADIATION”  leaves no doubt about the message of the movie. Press here for the movie (it is in Hebrew but some interviews are in English)

The tv channel run constant very effective and alarming promo to the movie that created a lot of buzz and to my opinion was even better than the movie itself:-) You can see the promo on my Facebook page.

The director planned to do 10 minutes on ES as part of a film about the diseases of the 21st century, but eventually, after working with us intensely on it, they understood the extent of the problem and the lie and how important it is to give an uncompromising warning to the public and decided to do a 30 minutes documentary mainly on ES and the Wi-Fi in schools.

The host was a leading TV media person and his tone was uncompromising – no maybes, precautionary etc, the tone was – there is an epidemic out there. Wireless harms and it is time for us to wake up as it is late already. He started by saying that at least 800,000 people in Israel, i.e. 10% of the population already suffer from different levels of ES and twice aired parts of my interview in which I was saying that the rates are already higher and will continue to increase.

The two government “experts” who lied to the Israeli Supreme Court admitted on the show that the thermal safety standard is irrelevant (opposite to what they told the Supreme Court). I intend to take action now that we have them on camera admitting the opposite to what they told the Supreme Court and left no doubt that they committed perjury.

Most importantly, the movie created a lot of buzz, undoubted ES and sent a very alarming message and was another strong warning that radiation harms are not potential but existing, an in a scale of epidemic. There was no “other side”. It is ridiculous to me how anyone who does a program/article on this topic insists on bringing the “other side” – why? Journalism is about exposing the truth. If the truth is clear as it is in the wireless issue, once a journalist understand what the truth is he does not and should not let the “other side” to continue and propagate its lie!

Many participated from Israel (Amir Borenstein, Yael Levin and her daughter Noa gave testimony about what it is like to be electro-sensitive, a few parents who fight the Wi-Fi in schools, I was interviewed as an expert and activist, on the medical side we had Prof. Richter and Dr. Yael Stein, and the technical side was  presented by engineer Liran Raz who did a fantastic work)and from the US : Jennifer Wood whose testimony is very powerful and Prof. David Carpenter. They also mentioned the tragic story of Jenny Fry, the 15 Y/O from England who committed suicide because of the Wi-Fi in school.

2) City of Haifa announced it ordered to DISCONNECT Wi-Fi from schools

This is truly a Breakthrough  – The City of Haifa in Israel announced that it is removing Wi-Fi from schools. This was announced by the mayor, Yona Yahav, who said that When there is a doubt, when it comes to our children, there is no doubt”. He ordered to have all the Wi-Fi disconnected immediately and to start and put wired Internet instead! I guess the definite tone of the tv documentary that aired this week and the buzz it created helped the city to make the final decision. I believe that now that one city decided to stop WI-Fi the trend will continue and will reverse the pro wi-fi trend. Hope other cities will join. Haifa is the 3rd largest city in Israel.

All of this is really exciting. It seems that the hard work we put in the past few years – the supreme court case, the work on and with the media and the uncompromising message I made sure to send are finally paying off. Please everyone out there – the message should be strong. Electro-Sensitivity is an epidemic it is NOT a 3% of “sensitive population” we are now in the double digits in terms of ES – it is an epidemic and the public must be told and warned. Wi-Fi in schools is a disaster and as a person who spends every day 2-4 hours on the phone with people and children who got sick and many contemplate committing suicide I urge you all to be uncompromising. The truth, and all of it must be told.

Continued good luck to us all and thanks to anyone out there who stands up to evil and stupidity.

Dafna Tachover
Attorney (NY, Israel), MBA
US Number: (845) 251 1217
Israeli Number: 03-763 9673
nbsp;
BLOG – EHS Fight Back

Sent from my WIRED internet connection

EMR Action Day – 2016 APR 23

l047655n

Disconnect for Saturday 23rd April 2016

Worldwide EMR Action Day aligns with Earth Day to protect the biological integrity of the natural world and all its inhabitants against unnatural Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR).  With this endeavour, people from around the planet join together to reduce harm from EMR and create a healthier life for all.

www.EMRActionDay.org

www.facebook.com/groups/emractionday

What is the Safe Distance from a Rooftop Cell Tower

Norm R, who lives in Victoria BC, has suffered brain cancer from workplace exposure to RFR (radio frequency radiation = microwave radiation) from a roof top antenna.

Norm has has applied to WorkSafeBC for for disability benefits due to him as an injured worker but his application has not been accepted.

It seems that main issue is that WorkSafeBC considers that the RFR from the roof top Cell Tower antenna was radiating at levels below what Health Canada and Industry Canada consider to be harmful.  Norm has researched the physics of RFR in the zones quite close to the antenna and has found that there may be areas with levels of RFR much much higher than limits established by Health Canada’s Safety Code 6  (SC6).

So, because WorkSafeBC relies on an incomplete understanding of the effects of radiation from cell tower antenna, Norm has been denied benefits normally due to injured workers.

Norm is now trying to bring this injustice to the attention of the members of the BC legislature in Victoria by staging a hunger strike.

 

Randy&Pina

 

SafeDis

 

CellWarning

Do mobile phones cause brain cancer?

Do mobile phones cause brain cancer?

This has been an ongoing debate for decades, but whenever someone asks this question, it’s usually met with scepticism and the debate is shunned. I used to react the same way. But once I started digging into the evidence, it became clear to me that the answer was much more complex than I had imagined.

There are over 6 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide, many of them smart phones, with Wi-Fi functionality. Since the widespread use of mobile phones, overall brain cancer rates have not increased and this is often used as proof that mobile phones are safe. But this is short sighted, mainly because brain cancer can take decades to develop and being also rare, it’s unlikely to show up easily in data from the general population. In fact, US statistics do show an increase in brain tumours in younger people.

Nowadays, it’s not just mobile phones that have a growing number of scientists concerned. There are also Wi-Fi enabled devices like laptops, tablets, even watches and other wireless gadgets, like baby monitors and game consoles. We place them close to our bodies or we give them to children to play with, not realising that these devices also emit the same type of radiation as mobile phones. On top of that, there are Wi-Fi networks, which blanket our homes, our schools and our cities with an artificial electrosmog.
Intensive mobile phone users at higher risk of brain cancers, says study

We now exist in a sea of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, never before seen in human history. The levels of artificial electromagnetic radiation have reportedly reached a quintillion (1018) times higher than the natural background levels.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF electromagnetic fields as a “possible human carcinogen”. Much of the evidence was based on studies showing an association between the development of glioma (a malignant brain tumour) and the longest use of wireless phones.

US cancer epidemiologist, Dr Devra Davis says, “We’ve gone from the equivalent of the horse and buggy to the jet in about 10 years.”

Dr Davis is highly credentialed. She was a senior scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, and a presidential appointee of the Clinton Administration and a member of the team awarded a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007. She has been campaigning for the safer use of Wi-Fi technology, especially in children.

Case in point. The Rudd Government’s (Australia)  “education revolution” has led to the roll out of Wi-Fi in public schools across the country. Yet there’s never been a single study looking at people’s long-term health risks of Wi-Fi exposure.

“Millions of children are being exposed to something that has never been fully tested,” says Dr Davis. “We’re treating our children like lab rats in an experiment with no controls.”

More and more parents are concerned about their children’s cumulative exposure to Wi-Fi, especially because children’s brains absorb twice as much radiation than adults.

“It’s almost a case of involuntary consent. Parents are sending their children to school to sit in a ‘possible’ human carcinogen,” one parent told me.

We have a federal agency responsible for protecting us against the harmful effects of radiation – the Australian Radiation Protection Nuclear and Safety Authority (ARPANSA). They rarely grant TV interviews, but on this occasion, they agreed to take part in my program.

“There is no established evidence that RF radiation from tablets and phones and Wi-Fi causes health effects,” says Dr Ken Karipidis, a spokesperson for ARPANSA.

It’s also the same position held by reputable authorities like the UK Royal College of Physicians, the Cancer Council of Australia as well as the industry body, Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA).

To my mind, “no evidence of established health risk,” is not the same as saying it’s safe. Sadly, guaranteeing safety is something not even our safety authority is willing to do.

A petition to the WHO and UN has been signed by over 200 scientists in a bid to draw attention to what they perceive as a looming public health crisis. They say current safety standards aren’t protective enough. Some countries like Switzerland, Russia and China have 100 times more stringent standards than Australia.

Former CEO of Microsoft Canada, Mr Frank Clegg says we’ve been misled about the evidence. He has rare insight into the machinations of the technology industry.

“My industry is on a campaign to bury the science and to confuse the message on the harmful effects of wireless devices,” says Mr Clegg. “I’ve seen the tremendous benefits that technology can provide. My concern is nobody can say that it’s safe.”

Mr Clegg sets the scene, reminiscent of Big Tobacco in the 90s when the CEOs of major tobacco companies went in front of US congress and swore under oath that tobacco was not addictive.

The robust position of the Australia’s safety agency reminded me of the scene in the film Thank You For Not Smoking where the smooth talking character of Nick Naylor tells Telco executives: “Gentlemen, practise these words in front of the mirror. ‘Although we are constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence that links cell phone usage to brain cancer.’”

Dr Davis says she has seen this before where industry is able to influence or delay the scientific evidence. Early in her career, she worked to ban smoking on planes. Her team showed that after an 8-hour flight, the smoking and non-smoking sections of the plane had the same amount of fine particulate pollution.

“We did that research in about 3 months. But it took 4 years to get a report out. The reason it took 4 years had nothing to do with the science at all. It was [the politics] and I’ve seen that repeated here,” says Dr Davis.

No-one is saying we shouldn’t use these devices. They have revolutionised our day-to-day life and we’ve become to depend on them. I’ve explored ways to use this technology more safely.

Dr Davis says we need to take a precautionary approach with Wi-Fi technology.

“What are we debating here?” says Dr Davis. “Do you really want to see proof that we’ve got millions of people with cancer, like we did with tobacco and asbestos? Is there any question we should have acted sooner?”

I still have these devices but I’ve changed the way I use them based on the evidence that I’ve uncovered. I’d rather take precautions in the absence of all the evidence rather than sticking my head in the sand.

Maryanne Demasi presents Wi-Fried? a Catalyst special that airs Tuesday 16 February at 8pm on ABC1.

Item posted on FaceBook by Robert Riedlinger

Article originally posted on

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/the-debate-about-mobile-phones-brain-cancer-and-artificial-electrosmog-its-complicated

Contact author @Maryanne Demasi

Monday 15 February 2016 23.00 GMT
Last modified on Monday 15 February 2016 23.17 GMT

Criticism of ICNIRP & WHO EMF Project & the IEEE

Critic of ICNIRP (International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection)
& WHO International EMF Project & the IEEE

Neil Cherry (2000): Criticism of the health assessment in the ICNIRP guidelines for radiofrequency and microwave radiation (100 kHz – 300 GHz)

Dariusz Leszczynski (2012) “In experts we trust” or … should we?

and many more major criticisms of ICNIRP,  WHO, and IEEE.

See this site http://www.chronicexposure.org/limitsICNIRP.html