The comments provided by Mr. James and Mr. Garis are consistent with those made in response to my charges over the last 4 years. They evade and mislead. None of the critical issues that I raised in this comprehensive fire report are addressed:
1) The expert information given by independent professional engineers regarding design flaws is ignored.
2) One source and one source only is used by Mr. Garis, and that source is incomplete and erroneous in many regards.
3) Mr. Garis failed to corroborate the information in the only source he used, failing to review the raw data which was readily available to him.
4) Regulations and laws are being violated:
i) Meters are being removed from homes prior to the inspection. BC Hydro states otherwise and ignores the evidence provided by BCSA, the media and by witnesses.
ii) Fire reports are not being completed in all situations where property is damaged.
iii) Many electrical fires are not being inspected by the BC Safety Authority or the inspectors at the 9 jurisdictions.
iv) Insurance reports are not available to victims or the general public.
5) Loopholes in regulations exist which allow dangerous devices and practices to put lives and property at risk.
6) There is no tracking of fires, no coordination among/between agencies, and no central authority with responsibility for oversight.
7) The public is being given false, incorrect information.
According to evidence that I obtained directly and provided in my fire report, Mr. James has been misled with regard to procedures that BC Hydro follows. It is imperative that he read the complete report, review the evidence, and consider that BC Hydro has allowed him to provide erroneous and irrelevant comments.
Mr. Wruck, I am still waiting for a response from the BCUC regarding the charges I made regarding the Commission’s failure to protect the customers of BC Hydro, which is required under the BC Utilities Commission Act. I look forward to receiving it at your earliest convenience.
= = =
The comments from BC Hydro and Len Garis are the only ones I’ve received to date. Nothing at all from Premier Horgan, Energy Minister Mungall, Transportation Minister Trevena, or any of the MLAs to whom I sent the report. It truly seems that no one wants to acknowledge that there is a problem. I realize that everyone is busy but I don’t think that is the reason no one is responding. I think they fear they will have to do something that they do not want to do. They must be in support of this expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary program now that they have the power to do something — even if the smeters might burn a few homes down and put lives at risk.
I hope you will ask them. You might ask why the ITRON meters can’t be recalled and replaced with the wired meters like Idaho has, if they won’t support getting safe, dependable, long-lived analogs which would mean putting meter readers back to work.
SALT SPRING, September 28 – At the UBCM this morning, the province’s local governments voted to support a resolution on giving them a say when microcells are placed within 100 meters of homes, schools and hospitals in their communities.
Despite a substantial body of evidenceshowing wireless technology is harmful to humans and the environment, Innovation Canada allows microcells to be placed on lampposts and utility poles by our homes without our consent or often knowledge.
Aesthetics, property value, liability, industry control-for-profit over the public right of way, cyber-security, public safety, health, and well-being – there are many reasons why local governments are concerned about microcells.
The Resolution That Was Passed:
MOTION of Grand Forks City Council:
WHEREAS public consultation on the placement of cell towers is mandated; and
WHEREAS new technology is moving away from these large towers to microtransmitters which do not require local government or public consultation;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the AKBLG request the UBCM petition relevant provincial and federal governments to mandate consultation with the land use authorities and the public regarding microcell transmitter siting within 100 meters of residences, schools and hospitals.
What’s a Microcell?
Microcells are small cellular transmitters that broadcast wireless radiation 24 -7. Anywhere from 3 to 10 of them are being placed on one residential street. Wireless radiation is linked to an increased risk of cancer, as well reproductive and neurologicalproblems – like disturbed sleep. It is conservatively defined as a2b carcinogen, which means it is in the same category as DDT.
Out of Sight, Out of Mind?
Industry is coming up with some sneaky ways of designing – or is that hiding – small cell transmitters. But that doesn’t mean their effects will not be felt.
Connectivity does not have to be primarily EMF-based and does not have to continue to escalate the amount of this scientifically deemed hazardous substance to which we are all exposed.
Direct fiber optic connections, G-Fast technology which connects fiber optic cables to existing copper wires, strategically placed low-EMF emitting public transmitters like those piloted in Paris, France – why are telecoms choosing to put the well-being of all of us, including wildlife and plants at risk, when safe options are available?