- Non smart meter, but about Monsanto. A lobbyist’s bluff is called by a journalist in the 1 minute youtube. I bet Perry Kendall, Bill Bennett or Greg Reimer would react the same way if we insisted they have a smart meter inches from their heads while they sleep.
- Money is being spent in India to study the effects of exposure to RF. India recently reduced its allowed exposure limits to equal those in Russia and China, which are mere fractions of the limits in both Canada and the US. And no money is being spent in No. America on RF research. Too much influence from the corporations.
3) Presentation in Penticton. Elected officials have been invited. Please, ask your MLA and MP to attend if you live in the area;
Dr. Malcolm Paterson, PhD, a world-renowned cancer researcher now living in the Okanagan, will present on the health-related science of wireless devices. Learn the science-based facts and what you can do to protect your health.
Saturday, April 11th , 2015 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM St. Saviour’s Anglican Church, 150 Orchard Avenue, Penticton
- A good observation from a member regarding extortion fees for those with more than one meter. Note the $27.90 is the amount provided by Hydro for the car, gas, travel times, etc. involved with reading a meter (all of which we know are greatly exaggerated).
In the March 21 newsletter you mentioned a couple who were now being billed two legacy meter fees. From the Meter Choices Program approved by the BCUC was $27.90 which was for the costs- which had a breakdown of specific vehicle cost, gas and such, and for a technician attending a premises with an analogue legacy meter.
This is not supposed to be charged for Estimates, but with finding the exact section of the MCP one can see that if an individual has two or more meters on their immediate property BC Hydro is not incurring the travel, vehicle and personnel costs twice, but they are charging such customers twice, or more, when they have already arrived at the property and taken the manual meter reads once on that single trip.
This wreaks of extortion. Only one $27.90 charge should be levied and it should be subtracted from each additional legacy meter on the immediate property, and only levied to the first legacy meter read on that property.
These people should pursue this with the BCUC, as the BCUC did tell BC Hydro they had until around June sometime last year to come up with a fair solution to situations where the $27.90 travel and premises attending costs were not incurred. And clearly, one visit to a property with more than one legacy meter does not incur BC Hydro ($27.90 times the number of Legacy meters on the property.)
Get them to take it up with the BCUC, their MLA, and their local media.
5) In the UK many are seriously concerned about the plans for Smart meters, using the Ontario Auditor General’s report to confirm them.
- Someone in Israel has noticed a similar blackout in the media about Smart Meters. I received this email:
Media blackout is also in Israel. The same media that exposed the information of Snowden, is reluctant to publish any privacy problems created by the smart meters. There are frequent reports on fires on one website (an alternative media website), it’s felt that there is recently a sharp increase in the number of fires in many places, reported from time to time in the mainstream media but they go over it quickly without investigation. Sometimes fires are mentioned in one line only on a mainstream news website. A TV channel that was about to make a program on smart meters cancelled it. Very disturbing situation.
- A good response by the Huffington Post to the New York Times succumbing to the pressure of the cellphone industry re the recent article that voiced some concerns.
A good letter: http://www.comoxvalleyrecord.com/opinion/297557521.html Concern is growing.
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015
Subject: Smart Meter lack of oversight
Dear Auditor General,
I have written before with my concerns re. the B.C. Hydro Smart Meter program. I thought you might find the following 2014 rejection of an application for a Smart meter program in Massachusetts interesting.
After much consideration and due diligence (not done by B.C. Hydro due to this governments intervention with the Green Energy Act which effectively removed the B.C. Utilities Commission role) the Northeast Utilities company rejected the use of smart meters in relation to the modernization of the electric distribution grid in Massachusetts. Even if you skim and read the highlighted sections, you will note the many problems identified and reasons why smart meters are not necessary to achieve goals of energy savings, and why money could be better spent on infrastructure upgrades.
We the citizens of B.C. have been badly served by our elected officials and I hope you will bring this matter to light and then demand changes to the policies that have been mandated. Thanks for your time.
1) A member’s initial letter to Dr. Kendall (cc’d to the appropriate others)
Dr. Perry Kendall
Provincial Health Officer
Office of the Provincial Health Officer
4th Floor, 1515 Blanshard Street
Victoria BC V8W 3C8
Dear Dr. Kendall;
In October of 2014, I was diagnosed with cancer. And after the initial shock one experiences with such a diagnosis, there is a period of reflection. One such question that all individuals pose who have been diagnosed with cancer surrounds the cause and effect relationship. In other words, one tries to figure out the source of their cancer to avoid ever having to subject themselves to such dangers in the future. It is an exercise that only makes sense if one wishes to prolong an already fulfilling life.
However, it is increasingly disturbing to realize that the government, and its officials, appear to continue to endorse the very industries that produce carcinogenic causes, whether chemically or otherwise.
With growing evidence that Wi-Fi is a known carcinogen, why then does the government not legislate protective measures to ensure the safety of the public?
We currently live in a society flooded with all types of radiation, much of which comes from the very industries that promotes devices that parents and children use on a daily basis; however, I do not see any type of restrictive legislation or acknowledgement that such devices, whether cell towers, cell phones or other devices, are dangerous to our health.
Why is this?
As Mark Gibbs, contributing writer to Network World asks, “Is Wi-Fi Killing Us…Slowly?”
In his article, Gibbs points out that,
“MWR exposure limits have remained unchanged for 19 years. All manufacturers of smartphones have warnings which describe the minimum distance at which phone must be kept away from users in order to not exceed the present legal limits for exposure to MWR. The exposure limit for laptop computers and tablets is set when devices are tested 20 cm away from the body. Belgium, France, India and other technologically sophisticated governments are passing laws and/or issuing warnings about children’s use of wireless devices.”
So why then is their such support of the telecom industry, and other similar industries that produce such radiation, by our government?
Where are our warnings and measures to protect the public?
Why are you implying that W-Fi is safe?
There are numerous sources that attest to Health Canada’s claim that “WiFi does not pose a public health risk.”
And the government is quick to roll out the literature that supports the continued use of Wi-Fi; however, regardless of how many pages of literature condone the safe use of Wi-Fi – the increases in cancers within society, particularly tumors and the like, continue to grow.
As BC’s Public Health Officer, ultimately in the employ of your constituents, there are a few questions that I am asking you to address – clearly. And without the “generic response” that fails to address the particulars of my questions.
- What current evidence do you have to support the continued and long term use of Wi-Fi?
- Will you unquestionably state publically that Wi-Fi is safe?
- If you will not state that Wi-Fi is safe for our children and future generations – then why not?
Unfortunately for me, and fortunately for the manufacturers of carcinogenic substances, it is very difficult to pinpoint where my cancer originated – and this very loophole is one that, in my opinion, allows untold numbers of businesses to profit at the expense of good, hard-working individuals and the children and future health of our world that we should be trying to protect over the interests of industry and economics.
As Gibbs notes at the end of his article,
“Laws and warnings are all very well but it’s pretty much certain that all restrictions on products that use microwave technology will err on the safe side; that is, the side that’s safe for industry, not the side of what’s safe for society. Will we look back (sadly) in fifty or a hundred years and marvel at how Wi-Fi and cellphones were responsible for the biggest health crisis in human history?”
A Concerned Citizen
A Cancer Survivor – for now
2) Dr. Kendall’s response
Dear Mr ____________,
Thank you for writing to express your concerns.
As a cancer survivor myself and as a public health practitioner I take cancer prevention very seriously.
I do not however make the statement that RF radiation from Wi-Fi is “safe”.
Rather I state, as do many other scientific bodies, including most recently, the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel, (the Panel) that “the balance of evidence at this time does not indicate negative health effects from exposure to RF energy below the limits recommended in Safety Code 6.” This report is readily available on both the Royal Society and Health Canada websites.
The panel reviewed the evidence for a wide variety of negative health impacts from exposure to RF energy, including cancer, cognitive and neurologic effects, male and female reproductive effects, developmental effects, cardiac function and heart rate variability, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and adverse health effects in susceptible regions of the eye.
I am aware that on the basis of some studies that find an association between long term cellphone usage and ipsilateral intracranial tumours, the IARC has classified RF as a Class 2(b) possible human carcinogen. However whether the association is causal and if so by what mechanism and whether this has any relevance to broader Wi-Fi exposures, as the Panel notes is far from clear.
The Panel did note that there are many additional studies ongoing and that it is possible that the findings of future studies may alter the balance of the evidence.
The overall conclusions are consistent with those arrived at by other review panels including the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and the National Collaborating Centre for Environment and Health (NCCEH).
I note also that Health Canada, on the basis of recommendations made by the Panel, as a result of recent dosimetry studies, is revising some frequency range exposure recommendations to ensure larger safety margins for all Canadians including newborn infants and children.
3) The member’s response to Dr. Kendall’s response
Thank you for your response.
And I wish you all the best both as a cancer survivor that, like many of us, is all too familiar with the trials and tribulations that such a disease brings to family, friends and colleagues – and I wish you all the best as a politician who will undoubtably be keeping abreast of the ongoing developments surrounding carcinogenic materials and the pathways by which such disease affects society at large.
Please note that in my letter I do not claim that you have made the statement that RF radiation from Wi-Fi is safe; however, I do question the implication that such radiation is condoned by the mere lack of regulations to curtail its growing proliferation into our daily lives, a proliferation that can only be curtailed by strong advocates in government that recognize that clear and concise limitations to exposure is just one step toward a healthier environment for all people.
However, your agreement with the statement that “the balance of evidence at this time does not indicate negative health effects from exposure to RF energy below the limits recommended in Safety Code 6” is hardly comforting given the growing rates of cancer and the number of people affected by such a disease, including, as I have now come to understand, yourself.
When it comes to gambling on the livelihoods of others, the phrase “at this time does not indicate negative health effects” in relation to the balance of evidence examined by “the Panel”, is an oft-used one that can apply to many, many substances in the past that we are now finding to be of great concern (consider the use of asbestos not so long ago). In short, it is a red flag.
In addition, the phrase within the studies quoted, “any relevance to broader W-Fi exposures, as the Panel notes, is far from clear” – is again another carefully worded conclusion that, on a sematic level, would appear to protect the interests of the few; however, I do appreciate the concession that “it is possible that the findings of future studies may alter the balance of the evidence” and I also appreciate that Health Canada “is revising some frequency range exposure recommendations” in light of the growing evidence that illuminates the dangers surrounding RF and other forms of radiation that promote tumor growth and other cancers.
And yes – I have read the reports noted in your response.
Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, for real change to take place a certain conviction, connection and empathy to the very people affected by the existence and continuance of such harmful conditions within society must be present – and there is a growing number of people that do not see their personal health taking precedence over the needs of, say, certain industries that cause more harm – than good.
It is this type of empathy that is present from the outset of my response wherein I hope that you, your family, friends and colleagues are not frequented by cancers that come as a result of the lack of regulations needed to protect our loved ones from this troubling disease.
And in such hopeful regard for you and yours, you can rest assured that such wishes are sincere.
Kind regards and thank you for your response,