1) While our government is hiding the truth about $$meter fires, denying they have occurred, lying to the public, look at what Medicine Hat is doing. This should have been done in BC with the first reports of appliances burning, of electronics being destroyed with power surges, and before major fires occurred. We have not found any test results that show the meters have been tested and shown to meet BC safety standards re. heat, flame, or water, either.
“Meters must meet certain general standards when they are first marketed for use but that does not include evaluating maximum limits for things like heat, flame and water, say city officials.”
2) The $meter business is hitting hard times in the US now that the federal govt. stimulus money has dried up. Elsewhere in the world, govts have delayed programs. Re. the new focus of ITRON, does that mean BC $meters are out of date?
Note: “Silver Spring hasn’t been the only smart meter vendor suffering. Itron (ITRI), its biggest North American competitor, laid off about 9 percent of its workforce in September, and announced in February that it was abandoning poorly performing legacy business lines to focus on next-generation technology, such as its embedded sensing and its partnership with Cisco.”
This letter was written before the email from Weaver was circulated last night.
I looked up your policy on Electromagnetic radiation and EMF’s.
The only thing I could find is this:
https://www.greenparty.ca/media-release/2011-07-27/bc-greens-say-smart-meter-health-concerns-demand-actionutation in dealing with current issues.
which was done in July 2011. It is now Sept 2014. As they say, what have you done lately?
Health Canada (which is not in your jurisdiction) has a terrible reputation for being up to date. You only have to look at their experience with tobacco, lead, thalidomide, asbestos, DDT, PCB’s, and the list goes on. Safety Code 6 does not even look at pulsing radiation – only thermal effects of radiation.
BCUC, a regulatory body of the BC Government, put in place to regulate energy issues had its power taken away by the Clean Energy Act. The main people in BCUC are on both BCUC payroll and the BC Government’s payroll. The Customer Service Specialist was not even on the BCUC payroll in 2013 but was on the BC Governments payroll. On September 25, 2013, the Commission received Order in Council No. 391, Direction No. 4 from the BC Government regarding BC Hydro’s options for customers to opt out of the Smart Meter Program. The Order in Council is available at: http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/SpecialDirections/2013/OIC-391-SD4-BCHSMI-Options.pdf.
This Direction requires that the Commission review BC Hydro’s proposed charges associated with opting out of its Smart Meter program. Accordingly, on October 7, 2013, our office received an application from BC Hydro. Following this, the Commission approved the proposed charges on an interim and refundable basis and established a regulatory timetable to provide for a full review of the application and fees. Information related to this proceeding is available on our website at: http://www.bcuc.com/ApplicationView.aspx?ApplicationId=417.
BC Hydro’s application is being reviewed through a public proceeding with a limited scope. If you would like to comment on the application, you may submit a letter of comment to firstname.lastname@example.org. Letters of comment must contain the commentor’s name, contact information and a statement of their position on the application. Letters of comment form part of the public record for the proceeding and are posted on the Commission’s website. Prior to posting your submission to the website, your contact information will be removed unless requested otherwise. A copy will be provided to the Commission Panel and all participants will be notified of your submission.
What about a conflict of interest by BCUC? I thought we lived in a Democratic Society, obviously we don’t when the BC Government can create laws and break laws with no repercussions. I cannot break a law without going to jail.
There are many articles on the ill health effects of EMF’s and the bad idea of Smart Meters to this day. All one has to do is go on the internet. The Bioinitiative report goes back to 2007 with information going back to the 1930’s. It was reviewed again in 2012 (http://www.bioinitiative.org/) and has been updated as late as April 2014. In all that time, Industry Canada and Health Canada have not spent one dime on scientific based research to prove any of them wrong. That is in the time frame when Industry Canada sold the rights to the 700 MHz frequency (which is part of the problem) for $5.27 billion in February 2014 (http://www.itworldcanada.com/article/breaking-news-ottawa-nets-5-27-billion-in-spectrum-auction/89574). In 2008 Industry Canada received another 4.3 billion from another auction. In all those years, the closest we are in finding out the truth was when Health Canada scientist, James McNamee, admitted that the Safety Code 6 guideline for microwave radiation (which includes radiation from most of the devices we are concerned about like mobile phones, cell phone antennas, Wi-Fi, wireless toys and baby monitors, smart meters etc.) is based ONLY on preventing a heating effect! (see http://www.magdahavas.com/health-canada-admits-safety-code-6-guideline-for-microwave-radiation-is-based-only-on-thermal-effects/). Other items from the article that are to be considered in the truth are :
The first is that Health Canada is cherry picking the studies they include for the Safety Code 6 decisions. They include ONLY studies that support their own conclusions. This is NOT how science is conducted. Couldn’t Health Canada through Industry Canada find $10 million to disprove the Bioinitiative Report’s alligations.
So Health Canada and Industry Canada have had 7 years after the Bioinitiative Report first came out to refute all the scientific evidence presented from 1930 onwards and they have not done so.
What is the BC Green Party’s viewpoint on all of this? What is the Federal Green Party’s viewpoint on all of this? What, if any, is the timeframe of any decision making? —
Mike Testart (name given with author’s permission)