[Andre Fauteux – EMF Studies (Depression, Doctor De-Kun Li, Kaiser Permanente, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Risk of Miscarriage, Suicide) – Health Canada – IoT Security (Ann Cavoukian Privacy by Design Centre of Excellence, Axis, Connected Wireless Devices, Daniel Tobok Cytelligence Inc., Default Passwords, Defeway, GTA Clinic, Ontario Privacy Commissioner, Smart Appliances, Vivotek, Wi-Fi) – Itron – L.G. Letter to BC Greens, Sonia Furstenau, Andrew Weaver re BC Hydro Smart Metering Program (BCUC Review, Bullying Threats of Disconnection, Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Itron Smart Meter Fires & Explosions, Trish Regan) – Perry Kendall – Precautionary Principle – Response Letters to Michelle Mungall re Site C – RF | Chilliwack & Mission, BC – Ontario – Canada – Russia] & (videos)
1) Correction to update of 2017-12-13. I put the wrong year in the article for the ITRON’s admission of RF levels. It was in the 2016-09-27 update, NOT 2017-09-27. Sorry.
(click on photos to enlarge)
2) The relationship between EMF and depression has been reported in studies going back many years. These have been gathered by http://www.scribd.com/EMFsafety . Thanks to Andre Fauteux for sharing.
48 peer-reviewed, scientific studies and reports showing influences of EMF exposures on depression and suicide:
3) Privacy is being invaded via cameras and nodes in homes and businesses across Canada. Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner is warning that “smart” devices are threatening security.
Russian website streaming hundreds of cameras in Canada, experts warn your connected devices could be at risk
“Beware of all things connected, in terms of smart devices or Internet of Things. They have extremely weak privacy and security measures attached to them.”
4) The fight for Site C is far from over:
A letter that explains why the financial explanation for continuation of the project is faulty. https://keepingthepeace.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/20171211-response-to-mla-ely-3-rm.pdf
Please see “Letters” for letters from Mungall and Furstenau to members and responses.
5) Exposure to EMF potentially increases risk of miscarriage according to a recent study by Kaiser Permanente. Keep having to wonder when Health Canada and Perry Kendall will acknowledge the harm and invoke the Precautionary Principle.
Health risks linked to electromagnetic field exposure
“A study of real-world exposure to non-ionizing radiation from magnetic fields in pregnant women found a significantly higher rate of miscarriage, providing new evidence regarding their potential health risks.”
Another BC Hydro multi million dollar mega project that did NOT have a BCUC review is the Itron smart meter program. BC Hydro’s smart meter program saw no review and to this day has seen no oversight and since 2012, I have wanted to know why. Over 73,000 BC Hydro customers are waiting and I’m one of them. I expect your government to call for a complete and thorough smart meter BCUC review, investigation and province wide public and transparent public input sessions. There is something wrong with after 5 years, countless emails, faxes, phone calls, complaints and documents containing proof that far outweigh and overshadow BC Hydro’s lies of their safety and the most recent fire report sent to you in September. That fire report outlines the never-ending smart meter caused problems that remain ignored and unaddressed. There are many hidden and covered up Itron smart meter caused appliance failures, house fires (these meters weren’t designed for the analog meter bases) and that’s the reason why, for example, homeowner Trish Regan lost her home on Burdock Street in Mission. BC Hydro’s smart meters have a design flaw and that, combined with the botched installation of her smart meter the day before (by a grossly under qualified, non BC licensed and non BC certified electrical engineer, meter installer working for Corix), is why Trish lost her home, her belongings and her cars but her meter base and Trish were blamed… ?
– meter explosions like this one Craig at the Valley Voice newspaper told me about before he was fired for reporting stories just like this one:
Just like you I am more determined then ever to fight for what I believe in and for what I don’t believe in. I’ve never believed in some basic utility company violating my Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms and my Democratic rights by bringing a radio frequency device to my private property and forcing a smart meter onto my home and down my family’s throats under a direct threat of service disconnection for refusing one ( by Patrick Wruck at the BCUC told me over the phone “ It’s simple L. If you don’t want the meter, you don’t get to have the service. ”).
I’m L.G., I’m not going away when it comes to BC Hydro’s smart meters, I never sleep.
= = =
December 13, 2017, 1:02 PM -0800 from Dan Hines – BC Greens <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
Since the NDP government announced its decision to continue with Site C, our offices have been flooded with thousands of emails and phone calls from people like you who feel betrayed by this decision.
Andrew, Adam and I are angry, frustrated, and saddened. We did everything we could to give the government the evidence they needed to stop Site C. It is a discouraging moment for us, but we will be watching closely the unfolding reaction and response to this decision.
But we are also feeling something else –
We are feeling more determined than ever to fight for what we believe in.
The government’s bad decision on Site C has strengthened our resolve to provide bold leadership and brave, principled, evidence-based policies for British Columbians.
Will you join us? Tell us what is important to you as we head into the new year.
British Columbia needs bold leadership – bold leadership that we can provide together.
You can tell us what you want Andrew, Adam and me to stand up for here: http://www.bcgreens.ca/stay_strong
Then share the page with your friends on Facebook or Twitter.
We want to hear from you.
MLA, Cowichan Valley
Deputy Leader, BC Green Party
The form letter from Energy Min. Mungall that many of us received, followed by some responses.
From: Minister, EMPR EMPR:EX <EMPR.Minister@gov.bc.ca>
Sent: December 14, 2017 11:39 AM
Subject: Site C Decision
Thank you for taking the time to share your views with me about the future of the Site C dam. I appreciate the active participation from British Columbians on this issue and want to assure you that I listened and heard your concerns.
As you are most likely aware, we have made the difficult decision to proceed with Site C. The project should never have been started, but we cannot change the previous government’s mistakes. To do anything but move forward would require British Columbians to take on $4 billion in debt that would have to result in massive cuts to the services people count on us to deliver. After witnessing the legacy of BC Liberal cuts, I can’t allow that to happen again.
I understand that this may not have been the outcome you hoped for, and want to assure you that as this project continues, we will honour and respect the commitment demonstrated by those who oppose Site C and share in their determination to move British Columbia to a better future.
Our Government will address many of the concerns we heard from British Columbians throughout the province with a number of conditions and initiatives including:
- A new Project Assurance Board that will provide independent oversight to future contract procurement and management, project deliverables, environmental integrity, and quality assurance – all within the mandate of delivering the project on time and budget. Based on current projections, BC Hydro has revised the budget to $10.7 billion.
- Establishing new Community Benefits Programs mandated with ensuring that project benefits assist local communities, and increasing the number of apprentices and First Nations workers hired onto the project.
- Ensuring a Peace River Legacy Fund implements solutions to longer‑term environmental, social and economic issues.
- A new BC Food Security Fund – based on Site C revenues – dedicated to supporting farming and enhancing agricultural innovation and productivity across British Columbia.
- Activating the $20 million agricultural compensation fund to offset lost sales and stimulate long‑term productivity enhancements in Peace Valley agriculture.
We recognize the significant impacts on Treaty 8 First Nations and that’s why Honourable Scott Fraser, Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, and I met directly with Treaty 8 Leaders in their territory. Our Government and BC Hydro will work in partnership with Treaty 8 First Nations on measures to address their concerns, including a re‑design of the Highway 29 re‑alignment to reduce impact on potential burial sites and sacred places, and the establishment of a Treaty 8 project advisory committee. Further, we will ask BC Hydro to consider the development of a new procurement stream for smaller scale renewable electricity projects where First Nations are proponents or partners.
Our Government remains fully committed to meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous peoples – to working in partnership with all First Nations, and to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Once again, I want to thank you for your valuable perspective on this issue. I am committed to continuing a dialogue with all British Columbians as the project proceeds.
Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
From: Sharon Noble
Sent: December 14, 2017 1:47 PM
To: ‘Minister, EMPR EMPR:EX’ <EMPR.Minister@gov.bc.ca>
Cc: Premier John Horgan <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org; sonia.furstenau.MLA@leg.bc.ca
Subject: RE: Site C Decision
Thank you for responding but, Minister Mungall, the response is inadequate as is Premier Horgan’s explanation.
The NDP criticized the Liberal government for ignoring the independent panel’s recommendations not to move on Site C, and promised that an independent review would be the driving force if the NDP took over the reins of government. The independent review again showed that this was not a project that would benefit British Columbians in the long run. Why was this ignored?
Let me identify the concerns that I have:
1) As a long time reviewer of BC Hydro, its actions and its failure to fulfill its commitments I do not believe the project will be completed in an honest and responsible manner.
2) We already have the $4 billion debt, but this could be amortized over several decades, just as other debts have been. I have yet to see a full and open explanation for your statement that “to take on $4 billion in debt that would have to result in massive cuts to the services people count on us to deliver.” Are you saying unless we pour as much as $10 billion in good money after the $4 billion bad, services will have to be cut? I am not an economist, but this makes no sense to me.
3) It appears that the primary factor for the decision to continue Site C was the jobs provided to the local communities. There are many projects that should and need to be done, such as improving roads, earthquake proofing schools, even, a project involving BC Hydro, to put power lines underground to prevent vulnerability due to weather. Create jobs that will benefit people in the area and BC. Site C will not do that.
4) Money cannot replace a valley that has been home to First Nations people for hundreds of years. Please explain how money will provide an environmental solution to destruction of this land?
5) Money cannot replace one of the most fertile and productive agricultural areas in the province. How will money provide food in years to come? I am sure the farmers would prefer to have their land permanently than have a handout that when spent is gone. Will the NDP subsidize the farmers forever? How will the food that would have been produced be replaced? Will the NDP subsidize costs for importing foods that could have been grown in BC?
Is the NDP not aware that BC Hydro’s projections of required electricity have been off dramatically for the last 30 years? Projections by independent experts show that energy from Site C is not needed now and will not be needed in 25 years when it’s finished.
As for costs, the sunk costs are gone. Spending more money on an unnecessary project merely to provide jobs to people in a specific area is unwise and hard to justify. If the NDP is concerned about subsidizing jobs, do it wisely on jobs that are long lasting on projects that will benefit all of us.
It’s not too late to re-think this decision and I hope that you, Premier Horgan and the rest of the NDP will do so. If this goes forward, Site C will be blamed on the NDP for decades to come.
Sent: December 14, 2017 12:43 PM
To: Minister, EMPR EMPR:EX <EMPR.Minister@gov.bc.ca>; Office of the Premier <email@example.com>
Cc: Sharon Noble; BC Greens <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Site C Decision
Dear Minister Mungall and Premier Horgan:
Thank you for your email, Minister Mungall.
However, I disagree with you about a “massive debt.” This is misleading. As I told you in my previous email, the debt of $4 billion works out to a small amount on a per British Columbian basis. If the project were stopped immediately, the cost would be much less, and would probably be regarded as insignificant relative to other costs.
Yes, it was foolish for the previous government to undertake such a project, but it is more foolish to finish it off at an even greater expense to the future of British Columbia, and to mislead British Columbians. To threaten British Columbians with a “need” to cancel other projects, if Site C was cancelled, is unacceptable bullying.
My wonder is what really caused this government that has been honourable until now, to make such a bad decision. Was it pressure from BC Hydro? Unions?
Thank you, in advance, for your reply.
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“The entire earth turns more and more into a huge laboratory in which we, depending on our attitude and profession, observe with eagerness or horror which global impact the mass use of chemicals, electromagnetic fields, genetically manipulated organisms will have – only we cannot clean up this laboratory quite as easily when we realize the experiment went wrong”
(NEITZKE et al. 1994, p. 319).