- A Mohawk community in Quebec has done the same thing Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos First Nation did 2 years ago – refused to allow $$meters on their homes.
Kanesatake says no to Hydro-Quebec smart meters by James Foster – CJAD 800 AM – April 01, 2015:
- Attached is a terrific letter that Alex Atamanenko, MP and Katrine Conroy MLA have written to Bill Bennett about the exorbitant fees being charged to those able to opt out and about the inhumane treatment people have received. This is wonderful, and hopefully will encourage the provincial NDP leaders to begin to get involved. I hope people will write to thank them for this letter, copying all the others.
My letter of thanks is below.
- Today my expired analog was replaced with another analog by a most pleasant Hydro installer. He called me yesterday to make an appointment and arrived promptly at the agreed upon time. He allowed us time to take off the protective cover, turn off our electricity, asked if I would like to take a photo of the new meter, the old meter and the inside of the meter base which he declared “pristine”. Many on Vancouver Island have reported similar experiences with the 2 men who are replacing meters here. Now the cover and signs go back on…
To: “Perry HLTH ‘Kendall:EX'” <Perry.Kendall@gov.bc.ca>
Cc: “brendan carr” <email@example.com>, “hlth minister” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Andrew’ ‘Weaver.MLA” <Andrew.Weaver.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, “John” <email@example.com>, “adrian dix mla” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “suzanne germain” <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 5:33:04 PM
Subject: Wi-Fi in hospitals & long term care facilities
Dear Dr. Kendall,
Thanks for your response to my letter last week. I understand that you are busy with many areas to address and thus a form letter is required.
The problem is it doesn’t allow for the issues to be addressed. I have embedded my responses in your form letter below. Please understand that my original letter to you resulted after I received a letter from Vancouver Island Health with the following statement: “Dr. Kendall looked at the scientific literature and found a lack of convincing evidence of any adverse health effects related to Wi-Fi. So you will understand how delighted I was to read your comments below.
Many countries around the world are banning Wi-Fi from many public places. They are also requiring telecommunication companies to adhere to safer levels well below what are allowed in North America. I would assume our higher levels correlate to lobbying and funding that the government receives from the Tele Com companies. I hope we can be proactive rather than having to react in years to come to a public health crisis that could have been prevented. Our current standards need to be updated to take into account the cumulative damage over time. Measurements for these standards can’t come from one source they must take into account the total emissions we are being subjected to 24/7. Put me in a room with one smoker and I’m probably fine. Put me in a room with 50 smokers and I’ll probably have an asthma attack. We need to look at the big picture!!!
I hope my views will fall on open ears and minds who have the health of their citizens as their first priority.
Note responses to P Kendall’s comment by XXXX are in RED
From: Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX [mailto:Perry.Kendall@gov.bc.ca]
Sent: March-26-15 3:54 PM
Cc: Minister, HLTH HLTH:EX; Weaver.MLA, Andrew LASS:EX; XT:Germain, Suzanne GCPE:IN; firstname.lastname@example.org; Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX
Subject: RE: Wi-Fi in hospitals & long term care facilities
Thank you for writing to express your concerns. I do not make decisions about having Wi-Fi installed in medical care facilities”.
You may not make the decision but the health authorities base their decisions on your offices “no proof of harm” stance.
Nor, as others have suggested do I make statements that such radiation is “safe”.
If indeed such radiation can’t be deemed safe by our Provincial Health Officer then why are Health Authorities proposing to expand the use of Wi-Fi.
As the head of public health for the province shouldn’t you be recommending the Precautionary Principle to all projects exposing the population to unnecessary electro-magnetic radiation which cannot be claimed to be safe. There are wired options that provide the technology citizens are wanting without exposing staff and patients to more radiation.
Remember when smoking was okay in hospitals? Health Canada’s guidelines couldn’t be changed until there was proof of harm. That took 30-40 years!!!
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.”
I would suggest that for Health Canada to base its policies on “this balance of evidence” is misleading. These studies do not take into account the biological effects, just thermal ones. All living cells are being effected while we wait for a shift in the “balance of evidence” that won’t occur until we look at all the evidence!
Do you remember Health Canada’s stance on tobacco, asbestos, DDT & thalidomide? We can’t afford to ignore the red flags that are turning up in the most recent international studies. Are you aware that Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 was designed to apply to federal sites only. Testing was done years ago on healthy 200 pound men and only for thermal effects. These guidelines are not meant to apply to hospitals, schools, coffee shops or homes where children, the elderly and people with compromised immune systems spend long periods of time.
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.
How recent was the evidence being used for this review? Did they take into account the biological effects?
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.
And while we wait for the “re-balancing of the evidence” how many people will be exposed to levels of electro-magnetic radiation that are detrimental to their health? We all know how many years it takes for policy changes to occur.
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).
Of course they are consistent they use the same thermal heating approach to their studies!
Newer studies Indicate that these criterion are “unsuitable for assessing cellular safety and lead to dangerously high exposure standards.”
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.
Yes, I too saw this and I am delighted. But I wonder what other revisions will need to be done well before the next review takes place.
Remember that with major insurers now rewriting their policies to exclude claims for electro-magnetic concerns.
Another red flag is waving…
(red comments by XXX)
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: April 2, 2015 9:38 PM
To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘
Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; John Horgan. Leader NDP; firstname.lastname@example.org; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘
Subject: Smart meters
Dear Mr. Atamanenko and Ms. Conroy,
Thank you very much for your excellent letter to Mr. Bennett. It is very encouraging for those of us who are fighting for our Charter Rights to receive this type of support.
As you know, the smart meter program is one that is being forced on us regardless of our concerns about health, privacy, safety, security or costs. A very large number of people have been forced to accept this device against their wishes or the recommendations of their physicians, despite fears of fires or increasing bills because the legacy fees are beyond their financial means.
BC Hydro’s “legacy fees” are by far the highest in North America. Many utility companies are allowing people to keep their analogs for no additional fee or for a modest $5 a month. Many are allowing full choice, where people with smart meters who, for whatever reason wish to have an analog back, can do so for a modest installment fee.
Mr. Bennett, under Directive 4, allowed choice only to those few who had managed to keep their analogs in spite of harassments, threats, and deception, and then only until the meter expires or needs repair.
This is not the democracy that British Columbians expect and to which we have a legal right.
We are very grateful that you have spoken out. Hopefully others will join you.