1) To support the 5G grid, more cell towers are being built, often in residential areas. According to this lawyer, cell tower fires occur often. In addition, of significance, is the reduction in property value which will increase as more people become aware of the dangers from RF and fires.
(click on photo to enlarge)
Attorney Represents New Yorkers At Planning Board Meeting to Install Cell Towers Near Their Homes
“Nearly 40 residents in Mahopac, NY don’t want cell towers installed near their homes and they have hired a law firm to represent them. Homeland Towers insists on installing 2 of them there anyway…
Campanelli argued three basic points: the aesthetic impact of the towers; the potential negative effect on property values; and the need of the towers.
Campanelli brought up a new issue, contending that with cell towers comes the risk of fire.”
Re. reduced property values:
2) Below is a letter to and from BCUC regarding the installation of smeters even though they have never been certified to be safe by a professional Electrical Engineer. BCUC continues to deny any responsibility or possibility of oversight because it was disallowed by the Clean Energy Act. BCUC is responsible for ensuring that BC Hydro provides safe and reliable electricity to the residents of BC but in order to push through very questionable programs, e.g. Site C and smeters, the Liberals removed BCUC’s oversight responsibility. Basically leaving BC Hydro to do what it wanted, with no controls or oversight.
But a few months ago, the NDP government did reinstate the BCUC’s oversight responsibility. Now BCUC cannot say there is nothing they can do to ensure that the smeters are not fire hazards — but they are. Section 4 of Direction No. 4 to the BCUC (Direction No. 4), behind which BCUC hides in the email below, no longer applies. Please write to your MLA, to Premier Horgan, and to the Ombudsperson asking for BCUC to do its job, which is to ensure our electricity is provided in a safe, efficient and fair manner.
3) Since recent information about the need for converters, to enable use of fiber optic cables and this conversion is said to result in EMI that affects many people, I’ve been trying to get more information. Until just a few days ago, I had never heard of or considered the need to convert light data signals to electric signals, which is odd since so many of us have encouraged use of FOC because it doesn’t emit RF while being faster, more efficient and more secure. Here is one article that describes the situation. Mention is made of a “card”, and efforts are being made to find out more about this to see if it is, in fact, a converter.
Copper-to-Fiber Conversion Is Simple, Inexpensive
“Security is important to the government and military, and fiber provides it, because it is very hard to jam or tap. Information sent over fiber is generally secure without encryption. Since it requires no repeaters, it is much more reliable than copper. It emits no detectable signals, so it does not give any indication of its existence or location. All of these important security issues lead practically every military or government agency to use fiber….
Whether using fiber is a technical necessity or a proven cost saver, you must convert the network equipment to fiber optics.”
From: Bob McKechnie (name given with permission)
Subject: Complaint against BC Hydro
Date: September 16, 2019 at 2:28:55 PM PDT
To: “Commission Secretary BCUC:EX” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: “Douglas Routley.MLA” <douglas.routley.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, “Sonia Furstenau. Mla” <Sonia.Furstenau.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, EMPR.MINISTER@gov.bc.ca, Andrew Weaver – BC Greens <email@example.com>, “GabNoSms@npogroups.com” <GabNoSms@npogroups.org>, Sounder <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mr/Ms Commission Secretary:
If you check your files you’ll find I have expressed concerns to the Commission on several occasions about BC Hydro’s wanting to install combustible (‘smart’) meters on my electrical infrastructure which is designed, tested, and CSA certified for use with incombustible (analog) meters only.
As I recall, the Commission’s response was it couldn’t help me because the Liberal’s Clean Energy Act eliminated its oversight of BC Hydro’s smart meter program in matters such as fire safety.
I was naturally shocked to learn that – especially with a tried and true technology being replaced in such haste with a brand new and by and large untested technology – and so started directing my concerns to various BCH personnel, politicians, and the provincial Ombudsman. Sadly no one took, or was able to take, any interest.
Needless to say, when the Meters Choice Program came along (a process in which I was a registered intervenor), I opted to keep my two analog meters and, with considerable annoyance, pay the $64.80 /month fee. With the BCUC having endorsed the Meters Choice Program, and as well hearing the Liberal Energy Minister at the time promise BCH customers that anyone who paid the fee could keep his/her analog meter, I took some comfort in the belief that this would be the end of the matter.
Unfortunately, and much to my surprise, early this summer I started getting notices from BCH saying it was time for me to give up my analog meters . . . to choose between radio-on and radio-off smart meters. Naturally I wrote back, eventually saying I would accept meters known to catch fire on my property only if I received assurances from a BCH professional engineer that it was safe for me to do so.
Not having heard from any BCH engineer, and having paid two irksome $65 refusal fees, I once again thought that would be the end of it.
But no. The ‘It’s time to choose between radio-on or radio-off meters’ notices kept coming from BCH . . . culminating in a ‘Final Disconnection Notice’ dated Aug 19/2019 (copy attached) threatening disconnection if I didn’t accept either a radio-on or radio-off smart meter by 5 pm on Sept 2, 2019.
I would appreciate your letting me know fairly soon (my deadline has been extended to Sept 30th) whether or not the Commission endorses BC Hydro’s over-riding both the BCUC-endorsed Meters Choice Program and the former Energy Minister’s promise . . . and if it does, what happened that allows the Commission to do so.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Complaints BCUC:EX” <Complaints@bcuc.com>
Subject: RE: FW: Complaint against BC Hydro
Date: September 18, 2019 at 8:38:08 AM PDT
To: McKechnie, Bob
Dear Mr. McKechnie,
Thank you for your email to the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) regarding smart meters.
As you may are aware and as set out by the provincial government in section 4 of Direction No. 4 to the BCUC (Direction No. 4), the BCUC was prohibited from directly or indirectly preventing BC Hydro from installing, operating or providing services in respect of legacy meters, smart meters, and radio-off meters. Furthermore, section 7 of the Clean Energy Act exempts BC Hydro’s Smart Metering Program from BCUC’s regulation under certain sections of the Utilities Commission Act. For more information, the Clean Energy Act is available online at https://www.leg.bc.ca/39th2nd/1st_read/gov17-1.htm
As your disconnection notice is related to the installation of smart meters, the BCUC is unable to intervene in this matter. We encourage you to please continue to work with BC Hydro directly.
With respect to your comments regarding the Meter Choices Program, BCUC staff note that as outlined in the BC Hydro’s letter to you (dated July 15, 2019), BC Hydro no longer has a stock of legacy meters. This is in accordance with Section 4.2.3 (6) of BC Hydro’s Electric Tariff which states that replacement legacy meters will be dependent on BC Hydro’s inventory.
With respect to your question regarding the former Energy Minister’s promise, the Minister’s office would be best to respond, as this is within their purview.
We trust this information is helpful and thank you for contacting the BCUC.
Analyst, Compliance and MRS
British Columbia Utilities Commission
P: 604.660.4700 BC Toll Free: 1.800.663.1385 F: 604.660.2700
From a fellow 5G resister in Washington, writing to a City Councillor:
On Aug 27, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Beverly Nelson wrote: (name given with permission)
Re: Warning and notice about the risks of 5G technology
Dear Mr. Lilliquist,
No issue is more important to public health than the rapid expansion of 5G technology. You are my elected representative. This legal notice of liability is designed to be used as evidence in court if needed and intends to enlighten you and to protect you from attracting civil and criminal liability in relation to your actions and/or omissions surrounding the deployment of 5G technology within your constituency. 4G/LTE small cells form an integral part of the 5G deployment. This 5G technology will cause me to be exposed to wireless non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation against my consent and in my home.
Contamination of my home with 5G may cause damage to my home if it becomes a health risk to me and thus render my home uninhabitable. Irradiating me with wireless non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation against my consent would be an application of force against my person and which causes fear of bodily injury and could be classed as a civil trespass and/or a criminal assault.
Any level of exposure of man-made non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation can be diagnosed by my medical practitioner as an adverse health effect pursuant to the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases ICD-10, code W90 thus rendering any safety limit as set by the government safety standards obsolete as to protecting my health. As needed, I may see my doctor for advice on the 5G issue.
If 5G technology is deployed within your constituency, I expect that you as my elected representative will exercise due diligence to certify that all parties deploying 5G technologies have sufficient insurance cover to compensate for damage or harm caused by the emission of wireless non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Please note that this could be a problem, since underwriters such as Lloyds of London do not insure for such harm and damage.
I urge you, as my elected official, to act in the public interest by addressing the potential cumulative harms of densification (the crowding of small cells into a limited area to enable 5G) and insisting that public safety regulatory authorities need to prove that such densification of 5G technology is safe and that any deployment of 5G, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and/or the Internet of Things (IoT), is regulated appropriately to ensure that the national security and the safety and privacy of the public and myself is not compromised.
You need to protect the public from other harmful wireless technologies such as Wi-Fi in schools, “smart” meters on dwellings, and the like, and to replace those technologies with safe and efficient wired technologies, such as Ethernet and/or fiber optics, as the end-nodes of internet delivery systems to dwellings, schools and commercial buildings. Forward-thinking cities are already doing this.
I implore you, as my elected official, to act in the public interest by protecting the public and myself from being persecuted by the passing of laws that restrict the Courts, law enforcement agencies, municipal councils and local governments from taking action to protect the public from harm to health and damage, caused by 5G and other wireless technologies.
I am genuinely concerned for your welfare, the general public and mine, and this is a situation of the utmost urgency. I have studied the relevant facts and am thus aware of the danger. As a result I am in fear and I take the risk of harm and damage to me very seriously.
To help bring you up to speed on this extremely important topic, please go to the5Gsummit.com, and listen for free to what 40 highly regarded experts inclusive of scientists, medical practitioners and lawyers from around the world have to say on the 5G subject. Experts who are not censored by the telecommunications industry, nor their captured governments, nor the captured media. Further, to assist with your education, please look at the Bio-initiative Report 2012 (updated 2017) – A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) bioinitiative.org and Physicians for Safe Technology – 5G Mobile Communications mdsafetech.org [https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/].
I implore you as my civic leader, and as my elected representative to get educated on this important topic, and show me by your decisions, actions and omissions that you are taking precautionary steps to address the risk of harm to me and all the people within your constituency.
As an elected official you are deemed accountable if you do not take appropriate action to attempt to abate, or prevent such harm, to me or the public. Therefore you attract liability in either the civil or criminal jurisdiction.
Your people are rising up and I implore you to take leadership and be a champion for the health and safety of all of us. If you do, many voters, legislators and I will wholeheartedly support and campaign for you.
[Settled by Ray Broomhall, Barrister-at-Law"]
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice — it is conformity. Rollo May