2019-02-16 Health Canada providing dangerously wrong info to public

1) The cybersecurity concerns and the many outages experienced by Hydro as well as the increasing rates are causing many people to consider solar systems. One novel approach is to use the power of bulk buying. On Galiano, a group of people have formed a co-op to bring the costs down and other places are seriously considering doing the same..

OPINION: Going solar, co-op style

“A number of Squamish solar installations have gone in since and now, costs are approaching $2.50 per watt which puts the price tag for a 5kW system at $12,500 with an estimated payback period of 12 years — assuming the 10-year average BC Hydro rate increase of 5 per cent per year…

In a nutshell, a co-op is a group of community members that work together on a project and the Salish Sea Renewable Energy Co-op on the Gulf Islands decided that organizing a solar bulk buying program was worth the effort

Mommsen and four other volunteers gave talks on Galiano, Mayne, Pender, Saturna and Saltspring Islands. Their next bulk buy in 2018 was much larger, easily surpassing the threshold of 700 solar panels to fill a shipping container. Using a list of 80 interested home and business owners, Mommsen and the co-op have so far orchestrated the installation of more than 800 solar panels in approximately 40 new installations, producing more than 250 kilowatts of power.

Today, the co-op has 54 members and every system is grid-tied through the BC Hydro-Net Metering Program allowing participants of feed excess solar power into the grid. This negates the need for an expensive battery backup system. The feedback has been very positive, Mommsen says. The co-op continues to receive inquiries and has planned another solar panel bulk buy for 2019.” 

https://www.squamishchief.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-going-solar-co-op-style-1.23633214

http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/more/how-to-go-off-the-grid/

2) We all know that Health Canada is ignoring independent science and that many experts from around the world have advised that Safety Code 6 is obsolete. Even Dr. James McNamee, head of the radiation research arm, has acknowledged (reluctantly during a hearing in Quebec) that SC 6 applies to thermal levels only and does not apply wireless devices such as cell phones.  Our provincial experts, e.g. the provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry and her associates, repeat, like a mantra, that they depend on the experts at Health Canada as well as the “experts” (there are none) at the provincial level. Please see Letters below for a recent example.

Health Canada is guilty of providing dangerous, irresponsible misleading information to the Canadian public. Here is a sample from its webpage.

Fact Sheet – What is Safety Code 6? 

Myth:  Safety Code 6 limits only provide protection based on limited exposure for healthy adults. The guideline does not account for vulnerable populations such as children or people with electro hypersensitivity disorder.

Fact: Even a small child, following continuous exposure from multiple sources of RF energy, would not experience adverse health effects provided that the exposure limits set in Safety Code 6 are respected.

The Safety Code 6 limits for human exposure to RF energy are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including children, on a continuous (24 hours a day/seven days a week) basis. 

This means that if someone, including a small child, were to be exposed to RF energy from multiple sources for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, within the Safety Code 6 limits, there would be no adverse health effects.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/reports-publications/radiation/fact-sheet-what-safety-code-6.html

3) The NDP is saying that it is important that the independent oversight of BC Hydro and its projects be handed back to the BCUC, unless the Commission interferes with the government’s plans. What say we test the NDP’s conviction re. the smeter program. Will it allow an independent review by the BCUC which would include long-term cost/benefit analyses, cybersecurity, and safety among other things?

Please write to Mungall and Horgan, plus your MLA and encourage them to stand by this promise of oversight.

http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/z/bc-contact-e-mail-lists/

Les Leyne: Hands on, then hands off, over and over

“So there will be a big push to restore full oversight of B.C. Hydro to the independent B.C. Utilities Commission. The Liberals exempted an absurd number of energy initiatives from BCUC authority over the years. The list includes all the deferral accounts used to push costs into the future, the Site C dam, the reliance on independent power producers, all its long-range-planning assumptions and key factors in its overall budget.

Those issues and more will be handed back to the independent commission, which is going to have to be bulked up considerably to handle all that new work…

Plus: “Government anticipates that, on occasion, it will be required to provide direction to the BCUC to guide decision-making in proceedings that have implications for government policy.””

https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/les-leyne-hands-on-then-hands-off-over-and-over-1.23636464  

Letters:

https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/opinion/letter-power-grab-by-bc-hydro-it-outright-theft-1.23635171

______________________________________________________________________

From: Finlay Macpherson (name given with permission)
Date: Feb 15, 2019 at 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Ministry of Health Response – 1127897
To: Population and Public Health HLTH:EX <hlth.pph@gov.bc.ca>, Bonnie Henry, PHO <bonnie.henry@gov.bc.ca>, <tamara.mitchell@gov.bc.ca>

Dear Dr. Lambert,

Thank you for your reply, but like all others saying there is no cause for concern as “same science based limits are consistent with other countries”, it is important to realize that such limits ONLY CONSIDER HEATING EFFECTS.

Isn’t it about time that harmful BIOLOGICAL effects, well documented since the 1940’s, are also considered?  I’ll tell you why — all consumer wireless devices would never have been approved for public use in the first place, and the billions if not trillions of dollars made by industry promoting such devices would have never happened.

Is there nobody in our government who can understand the increased future costs of health care resulting from continuing to ignore the most recent research showing DNA damage occurring at exposure levels far below any present limits based on thermal effects?  Are you aware of the “secret” known by the wireless industry and only communicated to their shareholders?  Read any of their annual reports and in the fine print you will discover they all fear the implication of expensive liability from damaging health effects from use of their equipment.  Both they and their insurers know this “secret”, yet for some reason (probably industry lobbying and large monetary donations) the majority of public health officials are satisfied by totally disregarding what qualified scientific research shows regarding biological effects.

For you to state “This means that all studies, regardless of either a positive or negative health effect, are reviewed and evaluated on their own merit.” is an outright lie!!  All studies should mean ALL.  Many of the studies available at that time were not included in Health Canada’s latest review of Safety Code 6.

I still await the results of the 10 minute cellphone test I requested Dr. Henry to perform.  Knowing the cell damage such a blood test will show, it now seems unlikely that any of you are really committed to protecting public health and will continue to just ignore the wireless safety concerns held by many of us, and will just keep repeating the same old baloney about HC Safety Code 6 protecting health.  Very sad.  The big push for 5G will result in everyone being bombarded non-stop by even more electrosmog.

Dr. Lambert, I appreciated your reply even though it told me nothing new.  Might I suggest that instead of relying on “the scientific expertise of provincial and federal bodies to provide recommendations and develop standards”, that your government use some qualified UBC researchers and study the biological effects yourself from wireless radiation exposure.  Just believing what others tell you does not mean it is true.  Protection from thermal effects is a rather sad excuse to ignore biologically damaging effects.

The implication from the most recent studies on negative effects to sperm and ova from pulsed microwave exposure is that humanity will be unable to continue reproduction in the foreseeable future.  Perhaps that has been the plan all along, only time will tell.  Now is the time to take action before it is too late.  The writing is on the wall for all to see if they only looked.

I trust you will take the time to acquaint yourself with the most recent scientific research which has shown “clear evidence of DNA damage and cancer causation” from wireless exposure.

Thank you for your time,

Finlay MacPherson

*************

On 2019-02-15 4:11 p.m., Population and Public Health HLTH:EX wrote:

Cliff # 1127897

Finlay MacPherson

Dear Finlay MacPherson:

This letter is in response to the email you sent to Tamara Mitchell on January 16, 2019. Thank you for taking the time to email the Ministry of Health regarding your concerns surrounding EMF.

The Ministry relies on the scientific expertise of provincial and federal bodies to provide recommendations and develop standards. Research by these agencies is continuous and a weight of evidence approach is applied when reviewing studies. This means that all studies, regardless of either a positive or negative health effect, are reviewed and evaluated on their own merit. The quality of the studies and quantity of studies having a particular outcome are also taken into consideration.

Canada’s limits are consistent with other countries such as the European Union, the United States, Australia and Japan that also use the same science based standards.

Additionally, all installed broadcast and telecommunication antennas and transmitters are subject to Industry Canada requirements regarding techniques to evaluate radio frequency exposure compliance.

Thank you again for providing me with the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Sincerely, 

Tim Lambert, PhD

Executive Director

Health Protection Branch

Ministry of Health

******************

From: Finlay MacPherson
Sent: January 16, 2019
To: Mitchell, Tamara HLTH:EX
Subject: Do you really care about health?

Dear Tamara,

As did the BC Liberals, members of the current NDP/Green coalition do not appear to take seriously the threat to the health of all living beings posed by the use of wireless devices in the world today.  To continue to ignore the reproducible research conclusions of scientists most knowledgeable of the dangers and health effects of wireless technology is inexcusible, (sic) no matter how much the misinformed continue believing Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 keeps them “safe”.

I invite you and your colleagues to also perform the “10 minute cellphone test” as described in the third paragraph of my email to Dr. Bonnie Henry (below).  Perhaps if all politicians did this, some real legislative action would be taken to remove WiFi in schools and “smart” meters from the electrical grid.  Without such action the burden of decreasing health of citizenry exposed to wireless radiation will become more evident, and the politicians responsible for ignoring the many warnings (from the best scientists studying wireless dangers) will perhaps finally realize how wrong they were in not taking the valid health concerns of EHS affected  and other citizens more seriously.

Sincerely,

Finlay MacPherson

 

 

Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters 

The opinion of ten thousand men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.    ~ Marcus Aurelius

www.stopsmartmetersbc.com