1) Here is evidence that information is being hidden using the Privacy Act in California when questions are asked about Smart Meter fires — just as they are using here. Can you imagine their being able to use the privacy act to refuse to provide the number of smart meter fires that have occurred! This from someone looking at the 1000s of emails obtained when the head of the utilities commission as part of his being investigated:
Here’s a data response on smart meter fires from PG&E to the CPUC Energy Division. I found it while researching the emails between PG&E and the CPUC. It is mostly redacted, and PG&E still claims it has not found a smart meter that has caused a fire. However the questions and redactions indicate fires are a serious problem and they know it. PG&E says they are now using temperature sensors on smart meters and have changed out many electrical panels. Waiting until a meter overheats and or arcs and sends a signal to PG&E may be too late. This is unacceptable. The public deserves to know more about the risk.
I have obtained many fire reports where the cause of the fire is given as the “electrical distribution equipment”. According to Len Garis, the paid expert for Hydro, this terms means “meter” in most cases. When I submit an FOI to BC Hydro asking for the equipment that failed for Mr. X’s home, at a specific address on a given date, BC Hydro is using the Privacy Act to refuse to respond – saying it would provide personal information. What personal information – I’ve already provided all the information. The Privacy Commissioner says any complaint about Hydro’s misuse of the Privacy Act will be investigated, eventually, in a few months or so.
2) For your information, the issue of EHS is reaching the general public through a TV series, “Better Call Saul.” Several episodes will be on Shaw Cable AMC Monday night from 6:00 on In greater Victoria AMC is channel 47 and 261 for High Def.
3) Over the last few years the Huffington Post has provided quite a bit of information about the dangers of cell phones, etc. Interesting to look back over the articles, and I hope it will be more interesting as time goes by to see how much has been achieved.
4) In Dec. over 100,000 appliances sent out more than 750,000 spam emails!!
Smart appliances include light bulbs!!??
Follow up to Kendall’s canned response.
Date: Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Exposing patients to radiation
To: “Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX” <Perry.Kendall@gov.bc.ca>
Cc: “Lake.MLA, Terry LASS:EX” <Terry.Lake.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>, “Minister, HLTH HLTH:EX” <HLTH.Minister@gov.bc.ca>
Thank you for the specific response,
If you recall, the “Royal Society report” was troubled by some dissenting views namely by two of the peer reviewers, Dr Martin Blank and Dr Anthony Miller.
It was pointed out that the effect of heating by RF was the main topic of the study, relying on SAR for the assessment of risk. This obviously shewed the whole study, as the Panel did not look for cellular or DNA changes, without a temperature rise, then of course they would not find them. IEEE and ICNIRP use the same “thermal heating” approach, so no surprise that the Report panel followed along.
Not only that but the panel insists repeatedly on using RMS values for measuring and evaluating pulsing RF signals, ignoring the extremely high short pulses of very high frequencies that some papers claim affect cells, the blood-brain barrier and DNA. Thresholds for EMF activation of the natural protective cellular mechanisms are much lower than those set on the basis of the current thermal standard.
Dr. Blank’s April 2014 comment: “The panel has continued to rely on the unproven assumption that the rate of energy absorbed, as determined by temperature increase, is a proper measure of risk to health. The absorbed energy criterion is obviously wrong, unsuitable for assessing cellular safety and leads to dangerously high exposure standards.”
And “The above criticisms indicate that the panel has failed to update the EMF safety standards using the latest and most relevant scientific infor mation. In fact, they have overlooked the biological data about protective cellular reactions to EMF that are critical for determining safe exposure limits.”
Dr. Miller: “This is a report to the Royal Society of Canada, not a report of the Royal Society.”
And: “The Panel admits that the current version of SC6 reflects the scientific literature published up to August 2009. This means that it does not reflect Monograph 102 (IARC 2013). Although the charge to the Panel repeatedly mentions “established adverse health effects” question 5 is: “Should additional precautionary measures be introduced into the human exposure limits in Safety Code 6 (2013)? If so, what is recommended and why? We therefore are entitled to expect full consideration of all potential adverse health effects, and not just those th at the panel judges to be “established”. However, it would seem that the Panel did not conduct a full, independent review, but rather relied on prior reviews”.
Which is what you, Dr Kendall are doing
So to be effective, medical people and scientists must address the reasons for the growing alarm among citizens that Industry is running amok with wireless applications, all supposedly in accordance with SC6, for example, not only in medical facilities, but in schools, on airplanes, in automobiles, in City owned parks, leaving nowhere for a child or adult to avoid this pernicious technology that has not been proven safe.
Medical Officers and so-called experts must broaden the focus from SAR to include research using biological measures that can yield important information on the health effects and mechanisms of this powerful technology.
We do not know what the incubation period is for cellular and DNA disruptions by pulsed high and varying frequency RF. Some scientists’ studies show less than seven years, as opposed to twenty years for the link between tobacco and cancer. Our bodies are not biologically prepared for an onslaught of pulsed multi-frequency RF operating 24/7/365.
The immediate answer is obvious, hard-wire these devices in Public buildings resulting in NO Wi-Fi, increased performance, increased security from hackers and less concern for childrens’ and patients’ exposure to penetrating, pulsing RF.
The Panel does state on page 114 “A broader dialogue with Canadians that included the risk s and benefits of RF technologies….” Dr Kendall, did you ask your patients and the parents of children to participate in a dialogue with yourself and the other proponents of the technology?
Anyone with the responsibility for Health Care must apply the Precautionary Principle so as not to endanger the health and lives of people (children, patients who cannot defend themselves).
We are entitled to expect full consideration of all potential adverse health effects, and not just those that the Panel judges to be “established”.
It is the purpose of government safety codes to provide such protection, and in failing to acknowledge this and propose strengthening the provisions of Safety code 6 (2013) under conditions of uncontrolled exposure, the Panel has failed in their obligations to the public..
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX <Perry.Kendall@gov.bc.ca> wrote his form letter.
P. R. W. Kendall
OBC, MBBS, MSc, FRCPC
Provincial Health Officer
Ministry of Health
Physical Address: 4th Floor, 1515 Blanshard Street
Ma iling Address: PO Box 9648, STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9P4
Phone: 250 952-1330 Fax: 250 952-1362
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 9:49 AM
To: Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX; Lake.MLA, Terry LASS:EX; firstname.lastname@example.org; Minister, HLTH HLTH:EX
Subject: Exposing patients to radiation
Please confirm which data you have reviewed to support your decision for having cell towers, antennas and Wi-Fi installed in medical care facilities.
I would like to see the list of which peer-reviewed non-industry funded papers you have “looked at”.
Can you please also confirm which independent scientific Professionals did you consult with and obtain from them proper technical opinions prior to making these decisions?
Island Health quote:” Dr. Kendall looked at the scientific literature and found a lack of convincing evidence of any adverse health effects related to Wi-Fi. Since this time, Dr. Kendall and his colleagues across the country continue to regularly review information and new science as it becomes available, and they have established ongoing review mechanisms to ensure that new knowledge is assessed quickly. The consensus of public health practitioners, given the current scientific evidence, is that there is not a threat to the health of the public.” Unquote.
Can you also provide me with your background and qualifications on pulsed MHz radiation and its effects on DNA, cell growth and the promotion of tumors?
Please confirm that you do advocate the Precautionary Principle that requires proponents of these types of technology to prove that they are safe for children and for patients.
There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers which raise issues and recommend extreme caution when it affects children and others who cannot protect themselves.
Looking forward to an intelligent response, not a form letter,
From: edgar murdoch [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: March 26, 2015 10:03 AM
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Terry.Lake.MLA@leg.bc.ca; email@example.com
Subject: Wi-Fi & The Vulnerable
Office of the Provincial Health Officer
4th Floor, 1515 Blanshard Street
Victoria BC V8W 3C8
Dr. Perry Kendall,
You have done it again. You have succeeded in amazing me, and I am sure thousands upon thousands of other caring persons, with your depth of knowledge and understanding of the lack of evidence that all wireless technology is lethal and toxic and a real threat to the health and welfare of millions of ordinary folk around the world. And your perseverance is legendary as well, since you are willing to ignore the mountains of irrefutable evidence to the contrary produced by peer-driven, independent science and medical researchers. Hang in there, Bud! Don’t let logic and truth get in the way of your outstanding contribution to the people of British Columbia through your obviously exhaustive diligence in coming to your fanciful conclusions.
The only question I have is, outside of your ability to quote chapter and verse of Health Canada’s shamefully out-dated Safety Code 6, which by the way is so weak as to be the laughing stock of the scientific, medical and even the political universe, you have offered not a shred of evidence to substantiate your claims. We, the public, ought to be given some idea as to the source of your ridiculous emanations. No so-called “official” word that originates from either the provincial or federal government, or is seen or heard from mainstream media sources can be believed anymore, a sad admission indeed. If you are unable to come up with something to provide the proletariat with an “aha” moment then you, Sir, are a certified adherent of the “laughing stock” to which I previously referred.
I should think that the WHO, the World Health Organization, trumps even your beloved Health Canada. However, even the WHO has declared all wireless technology as a Class 2B carcinogen, giving it a possible cause of certain cancers. The independent scientific community is adamant that the category for EMF/EMR ought to be elevated to a 1A or definite carcinogenic to humans.
Dr. Kendall, is your connection to the wireless industry so intimate and lucrative that you are willing to sacrifice the health of the citizens of this province, especially the weak and vulnerable, to your gods Profit & Greed? Remember that when the results of this ill-advised and destructive experiment are finally in you along with all the other guilty promoters of the protocol will have to suffer the consequences.
With little or no respect,
“I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots.” — Albert Einstein
Sent from my wired, wifi-disabled laptop