1) Just in from Quebec, Hydro Quebec admits to 500 overheated/burned smart meters.
Some areas have Landis & Gyr, which were mentioned in the Texas testimony. In the video they show Elster meters. From what I’ve been able to learn, smeters share design flaws. When will BC Hydro admit the problems here – how many more lives and homes must be put at risk?? This is in French. As soon as I have an English translation I will provide.
2) In New York, people are receiving vastly overstated bills, similar to Ontario. “Smart meter” glitch.
3) In Illinois, the Smart Meter Awareness group, 2 members of which were arrested for trying to stop and record a smart meter installation, is suing the city:
“The group’s attorney, Doug Ibendahl, said members simply wanted the opportunity to keep their original analog meter without additional fees being levied on the request. Naperville city officials had the opportunity to do the right thing, allowing residents a choice, and thereby keeping it out of court, and they didn’t have the wisdom to do it. Hence court action against the City.”
4) Both BC Hydro and Fortis BC have responded to my email asking if the smart meters are being kept away from flammable propane tanks. The letter I got is below. There has been no change in the code regarding distance to take into consideration the flammability and the sparking of the smart meters. Even with the analog, the meters were required to be 3 meters away from a propane relief device. I will send this to people who are familiar with the propane and “natural gas relief device” to see if they have any concerns. No response about other flammable materials.
5) Our friends in Toronto can use our support in their fight to limit the proliferation of free wifi. Council will be voting on this on July 7. Spread the word.
We are being asked to provide comments by Sunday night, 9:00 pm our time (midnight in Toronto) at http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2015.MM8.22
Click on the “submit comment” button on the top of the screen. Please express your concerns about the increasing proliferation of RF in parks, playgrounds, near schools, etc
“Correction to below. The motion is actually being brought directly to Toronto City Council on Tuesday July 7th, who will have the option of rejecting it, sending it to the Economic Development Committee, or passing it themselves.
Toronto Councillor Josh Matlow is at it again with his renewed proposal for WiFi coverage across Toronto parks and public places. You are receiving this notice as you participated by submitting your concerns in 2013 when Councillor Matlow’s proposal was rightfully rejected by the Government Management Committee. Re-cap of round 1 can be found HERE. It appears this time around Councillor Matlow is taking a different route bringing his motion directly to the Economic Development Committee, avoiding delegations and quietly attempting to have the motion passed. The motion was posted on the City of Toronto’s website on Thursday July 2nd, and will be voted on Tuesday July 7th.
We are asking you to please resubmit your original submission and/or additional documents and concerns to be recorded in the public record on this renewed motion. Our only chance at this point of derailing Councillor Matlow’s motion is to flood the clerks with submissions, showing the Government Management Committee there are serious public concerns regarding this proposal.
Your submission must be received by the clerk by Sunday July 5th at midnight.
Thank you for your attention and commitment to blocking this ongoing proposal.
Dear Ms. Noble,
BC Hydro acknowledges your June 4, 2015 email regarding the location of energy supplies at residential premises.
BC Hydro is aware that the Canadian Electrical Code now refers to the Natural Gas and Propane Installation Code for the clearance distances required between electrical equipment and gas relief devices rather than stating it directly as in previous versions.
The Natural Gas and Propane Installation Code requires that: propane relief devices be installed a minimum of 3 meters from electrical equipment, including a customer’s meter socket; and a natural gas pressure relief device 1 meter from electrical equipment.
Although the Canadian Electrical Code has been updated, the requirements in the Natural Gas and Propane Installation Code have been in place for many years, and are steps in regular permitting processes that homeowners are required to adhere to when building or renovating a home. These clearances have not been adjusted due to the introduction of the remote disconnect device in the meter as you suggest.
As you know BC Hydro installs electric meters, which are the end point of the electricity grid, into the customer’s meter socket which is part of their household electrical equipment. If a customer is concerned about the proximity of their natural gas or propane relief value to the meter socket on their home, they can contact BC Hydro at 1 800 224 9376.
A long email stream to and from Perry Kendall, our provincial med. Officer who believes microwave radiation is fine in schools, homes and hospitals. Please read from the bottom up.
Sent: July 1, 2015 11:18 PM
To: ‘BC Chief Medical Officer P.Kendall’
Cc: ‘Zitouni, Abderrachid’; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; Andrew.email@example.com; ‘Mike Degoey’; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Clarifying your stance on RF Radiation & Updating the RF Toolkit on the BCCDC’s website
Dear Doctor Kendall,
You are quoted in the papers stating that electromagnetic radiation is safe and yet I have an e-mail from you stating, “Nor, as others have suggested do I make statements that such radiation is “safe”. (Please see our e-mail chain below.)
I wish you would ask the papers and Health Authorities to get their facts straight when quoting you! This misrepresentation is putting people at risk.
At the recent Canadian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health presentations were made by international experts about the health impact of non-ionizing radiation (cell phones, Wi-Fi, cordless phones etc). One Canadian expert, Dr. Anthony B. Miller, Professor Emeritus at U. of Toronto’s School of Public Health, has had his presentation published in the Green Gazette. His bio is a the end of the article.
Just recently 100 doctors signed a document warning that fetuses and babies are especially vulnerable to RF. Please see the report below:
With studies like this coming in regularly I think we need to update the RF Toolkit on the BCCDC’s website and I think you need to ask the papers to publish a retraction clarifying your position on such radiation as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention to this very important public health matter.
E-Mail Chain from March 2015:
Sent: March-30-15 5:33 PM
To: ‘Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX’
Cc: ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘Weaver.MLA, Andrew’; ‘John’; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘
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. J
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!!!
Thanks again. I hope my views will fall on open ears and minds who have the health of their citizens as their first priority.
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; email@example.com; Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX
Subject: RE: Wi-Fi in hospitals & long term care facilities
(note – comments by X to Kendall are in RED)
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…
P. R. W. Kendall
OBC, MBBS, MSc, FRCPC
Provincial Health Officer
Ministry of Health
Physical Address: 4th Floor, 1515 Blanshard Street
Mailing Address: PO Box 9648, STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9P4
Phone: 250 952-1330 Fax: 250 952-1362
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:50 PM
To: Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX
Cc: Minister, HLTH HLTH:EX; Weaver.MLA, Andrew LASS:EX; XT:Germain, Suzanne GCPE:IN; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Wi-Fi in hospitals & long term care facilities
Dear Dr. Kendall,
I am writing to ask what evidence you are citing to inform provincial Health Authorities that electro-magnetic radiation, as emitted by Wi-Fi, is safe to be used in hospitals and long term care settings. From the studies I have seen in the past two years evidence seems to be pointing to the need to take precautions. Please see this report published in February 2015 from the International Journal of Oncology calling for a reclassification of RF radiation to a probable human carcinogen (2a). Here is the abstract:
This is indicative of all the most recent independent studies showing adverse effects to living cells. Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, which you refer to constantly, does not even take into account biological issues. It was drafted years ago to set guidelines for thermal tissue heating. It is also a guideline developed for federal sites only where employees are not being radiated 24/7.
If indeed, there is no cause for concern, why are insurance companies redrafting their policies to eliminate coverage for claims against RF radiation?
It really is time for you and your colleagues in public health to relook at this issue like other international communities are doing.
Thanks for your time.
Newsletter by Sharon
Power of the People is stronger than the People in Power