2015-09-28 Reporter wants to hear about Fortis’s threats

  • IMPORTANT:

A reporter for a major paper wants to hear from those who have been threatened by Fortis.  He will be meeting with people at 8:30 AM this Thursday, October 1, at 176 Twin Lake Road, Kaleden BC.  Please be prepared to be concise in telling your story, and bring evidence if possible – recordings, letters, photographs.

 

  • A really good article in the BC Teachers Federation Newsmagazine  by Jim Waugh of www.EMFSafeHome.com

http://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=21792

 

    • Odd outages across the US are happening more often and are bewildering.”From one end of the country to the other, strange outages have been occurring from phones to power to Internet, which could be explained a variety of ways…. either our infrastructure is deteriorating at a rapid pace, or these are all “coincidental” or we are seeing a coordinated attack against America and once again our government isn’t telling us the full extent of the attacks.  Take your pick.”

http://tribelive.ning.com/forum/something-strange-is-happening-widespread-outages-across-a-variet

 

  • Fire in Port Alberni:  A comment on the Coalition website:

“A fire stated in the home we were staying in. It started in the Hydro Smart meter. The house is located at 6110 Russell Place in Port Alberni, on July 18, 2015. It was reported that the fire began where the power came into the house. The house electrical panel was not touched, The fire moved up the side of the house from the smart meter to the attic and across the attic and came down in the house. The meter from the usage report apparently peeked the night before around midnight and stopped but the power stayed on. The fire began in the early afternoon. We were fortunate to be out as were our vehicles at the time of the fire but we would likely been killed if it had started at night as it came down into the house from the attic. A very dangerous situation for the people of BC that should be rectified by and immediate recall of all Smart Meters before there are tragedies in the homes of many unsuspecting customers of BC Hydro. See the report by CHEK news Victoria for that date.”

 

  • I may have sent this before but I think it is important enough to risk repetition. This government refuses to allow any oversight even for the most expensive and controversial projects. Their corporate buddies must be very happy, and very generous.

http://tinyurl.com/nmufxrk

 

  • A major victory against the powerful cell phone industry, allowing Berkeley, CA’s “right to know” requirement that customers be given information regarding use of the devices they are buying. Read how one person CAN make a difference, as Ellie Marks has done. The article is not fully available except to subscribers, so I have printed it below in “letters”.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/diaz/article/S-F-woman-s-crusade-against-cell-phone-industry-6530453.php

***************************

Letters:

From a member to various local newspapers:

Force of Fortis

Last Friday we received a ” Final Notice” from Fortis BC to have our locked analog meter replaced  with a ” smart meter” with either the radio signal on or off , or they will disconnect our power immediately.

We wanted to keep our analog meter because of all the negative effects of the “smart meters”. ” Smart meters” are known to cause fires, wrong measuring ( too much), shorter service life than analog meters, vulnerability by hackers and being associated with negative health effects including cancer.

We always paid our bills on time. The price went up from an average of -.0803 cents/kwh in 2008 to -.1314 cents until Sept. 2015, an increase of 63,62 % and equals about 8 % per year. Who gets a wage raise like that every year??

We immigrated from Germany 22 years ago thinking we move from one democratic country to another one. In Germany customers have a choice between different power suppliers and the meter is read once a year by the owner of the residence.

Canada has changed to become a dictatorship of the corporations.

The BC utilities commission (BCUC) is supposed to independently control/regulate the activities of Fortis, BC Hydro and ICBC. How can they allow price increases like that ? They are rather a puppet than a control organization of our elected politicians and the corporations.

Utility services must be put under communities control. A locally controlled energy system would be concerned with public interest not profits and money earned in the sale of energy should be returned to the communities rather than lost to shareholders.

Fortis is using its monopoly to force us to accept everything as they please and our politicians do nothing about it.

On Oct. 19th we have a federal election and we urge every voter to ask their candidate whether he/she supports big business ( oligarchy) or will bring back the power to us the citizens ( democracy ). Our troops don’t need to fight terrorists abroad. They are right here in Canada and wear white collars and ties.

A seminar will be presented by Dr. Malcolm Paterson – a renowned industry- independent oncologist in the Summerland IOOF Hall, 9536 Main Str., this Wednesday, September 30th at 7.00 pm. This seminar will provide facts the general public is not going to be informed about either by utilities or regulative authorities.

Signed ______________

——————

S.F. woman’s crusade against cell-phone industry

John Diaz, SF Chronicle, September 25, 2015

Drew Price checks email on his cell phone while shopping at the farmers’ market on Center Street in downtown Berkeley, Calif. on Saturday, July 12, 2014. Berkeley city officials are considering an ordinance requiring cell phone companies to place stickers on phones warning of brain cancer.

No one appreciates the significance of a federal judge’s ruling in favor of Berkeley’s cell-phone warning law more than Ellie Marks. The 63-year-old San Francisco woman has been on a crusade to warn consumers of the possible health effects of radio-frequency exposure ever since her husband, Alan, was diagnosed with brain cancer after suffering a seizure in May 2008.

Marks was convinced that her realtor husband’s constant use of a cell phone nearly killed him — and that the public would benefit from a forthright warning about the danger of keeping a switched-on phone against one’s body.

She could not have taken on a more formidable adversary than CTIA – The Wireless Association. (http://www.ctia.org/)

It spared no expense to hire the best lawyers and lobbyists it could find to deter or defeat state and local proposals to require more prominent warnings than federally mandated notices buried in tiny type deep inside user manuals. San Francisco passed such a “Right to Know” ordinance, but ultimately surrendered in 2013 after a costly three-year legal fight.

Berkeley has stood firm — and redemption arrived Monday for Marks and others who have been carrying the cause.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, citing Federal Communications Commission research, upheld the city ordinance to require sellers to inform customers that keeping a device in a pocket or bra could lead to radiation exposure that exceeds federal guidelines. Chen concluded there was “a reasonable scientific basis” to believe that such emissions “at some levels can and do present health risks.” The judge, however, disallowed a warning that children could be at greater risk, noting that it remained a “matter of scientific debate.”

The rarity and implications of the victory are profound.

“Oh my gosh,” said Marks. “It is so gratifying because we’re up against a huge industry with so much money. They don’t really want to admit there’s a problem with cell phones against the head and body, and they seem to own some politicians and — I hate to say this — sometimes the media, too.

“It’s like David and Goliath. We’re thrilled.”

In this case, Goliath was represented by attorney Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general who was a legal mastermind for George W. Bush in the fight over Florida in the 2000 presidential election, and for the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.

The industry’s argument has been that such warnings violate the manufacturers’ First Amendment rights by forcing them to state something they do not believe. After the ruling, Olson issued a statement asserting that “the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence refutes Berkeley’s ill-informed and misleading mandatory warnings about cell phones.”

If the judge’s ruling holds up to anticipated appeals, Berkeley could provide a template for disclosure for elected officials across the nation who have been intimidated by the industry.

“That ruling was fabulous,” said Marks. “It was a game changer.”

Marks has seen the timidity in action in Sacramento. She was a familiar figure in the State Capitol during three years of futility in trying to get a disclosure-bill passed.

“She is an astounding individual,” said state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who carried the legislation. “She is so well meaning and with a singular agenda — and it’s only for the health and well being of others so they don’t have to go through what she went through.”

How strong was the lobbying against a state right-to-know law?

Leno’s initial bill in 2010 would have required a warning about radiation exposure at the point of sale, either online or at a retailer. It mustered just nine yes votes in an 40-member state Senate.

He came back the next year with a measure to require posting of the manufacturers’ own language (from user manuals) at point of purchase. “They didn’t like that any better,” he said. Defeated.

The third year he proposed merely that they post the warning online. “They wouldn’t have that either,” he said. Defeated yet again.

“No one is suggesting we don’t use this product,” Leno said. “I have two of them; I couldn’t live without them.”

The point that Marks, Leno and others have tried to drive home is that how a phone is used has an effect on radiation exposure — which, as Judge Chen noted, could pose a health risk.

“I feel it’s worse than tobacco,” said Marks, “We have young children using cell phones, and we have teenagers who sleep with them underneath their pillows so they don’t miss a text and carry them in their pockets, and a lot of young women who keep them in their bras.”

At the very least, Americans should have the chance to make an informed choice on whether they want to assume that elevated risk.

“This is,” said Leno, “perhaps the biggest health experiment the planet has ever seen.”

John Diaz is The San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial page editor. E-mail: jdiaz@sfchronicle.com

Don’t worry, consumers: It’s all in the fine print

While cell-phone manufacturers have vigorously resisted state and local government attempts to require warning signs about radiation exposure, their own user manuals advise caution about carrying or holding the phone close to your body while it’s transmitting — though the warnings typically are cast in opaque language and buried deep in the tiny print. Examples of such warnings have included:

Apple iPhone 6

“To reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones or other similar accessories. … Carry iPhone at least 5 mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as-tested levels.”

Motorola

“If you wear the mobile device on your body, always place the mobile device in a Motorola supplied or approved clip, holder, holster, case or body harness. If you do not use a body worn accessory supplied or approved by Motorola, keep the mobile device and its antenna at least 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) from your body when transmitting.”

Samsung

“For body-worn operation, this phone has been tested and meets FCC RF exposure guidelines when used with an accessory that contains no metal and that positions the handset a minimum of 1.5 cm from the body.”

LG

“To comply with FCC RF exposure requirements, a minimum separation distance of 0.6 inches (1.5 cm) must be maintained between the user’s body and the back of the phone.

BlackBerry

“Use hands-free operation if it is available and keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.59 inches (15 mm) from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers) when the BlackBerry device is turned on and connected to a wireless network.”

****************

Newsletter prepared by Sharon Noble