- A paper by Planetworks, which is in the business of finding new sites for cell towers. It is part of the industry, and it is raising concerns about the fact that cell transmitters are proliferating, and are basically unmonitored.
“The biggest challenge with the calculated approach is the collection of accurate data. In sites shared with other RF operators, a list is developed of all other tenants and their antenna systems, output powers and frequencies. And even with this listing of information, there always concern over accuracy as operators tend not to keep their as-built data current with their licensed data. For the many unlicensed systems prevalent at shared radio sites, data collection is exceedingly difficult as it involves contacting each unlicensed operator and asking for the information. Pg. 3
“Health Canada requires that each radio site be labelled to indicate the degree of radiation hazard and stipulates three levels of warning signs, notice, warning and danger. Each sign indicates the nature and degree of hazard associated with a given location…. In general, signs are a difficult issue due to the public’s increasing concern over the hazards of radio frequency emissions. It is important to alert the public to potential danger but not create panic.
Who is responsible to ensure sites are safe for RF emissions?
“Strictly speaking, the last RF operator to make a change to the radio site is responsible for ensuring that the site meets the requirements of SC6. This is an honour system with little or no enforcement and no central repository to file the SC6 reports. Given the fierce competition for wireless services, it is less likely now that an RF operator will inform others of antenna changes at a radio site due to potential competitive advantage those changes may make. In the case of mobility operators, most use software tools to predict the emission effects of their antenna arrays against SC6. Each operator does not account for the aggregation of their emissions with that of other operators at the site. Furthermore the predictive software tools tend not to model the uniqueness of each installation – i.e. the effects of the surface behind the antenna and antenna back lobes. The most accurate means to review the effects of emissions on a roof top with multiple RF tenants is by measurement.” Pg. 4 (but no one is measuring, this is the “honour system”.)
- The EU is struggling to determine if there should be unified standards across the EU, whether the benefits of smart meters accrue to the companies rather than to the customers, and how to control/protect data.
‘Next year, the Commission will monitor member states practices to ensure that only parties authorized by the consumer have access to data and that those authorized parties have access on fair and equal terms. The Commission is clear that data on individual consumption and billing are central to the energy transition. What is not clear is who will have control of the data in the longer term….
DSOs (the companies) are adamant that due to the sensitive nature of detailed consumption data from smart meters, they should be kept in charge of handling the data. “We very much want to be in charge of the data from smart meters,” said EDSO for Smart Grids policy officer Joana Abreu Jackson.”
- Smartphones and laptops could be worse for skin than the sun. Years ago Dr. Olle Johansson’s research liked RF radiation from FM radio antennae with melanomas.
- Another rate increase for Ontario electricity As Premier McGuinty said in 2010, this program is a boondoogle, and is one everywhere. Rates never do anything but climb while costs for the program continue to grow. It’s a bottomless pit.
- Insurance symposium and reports presented re. cybersecurity risks.
Though Sony’s own emails obtained and released by the hackers seem to support the claim that their controls were lackluster and demonstrate some warnings from their IT department and others, this specific allegation begs the question of whether a company’s choice to accept the financial and reputational risk associated with a cyber breach introduces a new theory of liability. If Sony’s decision makers were aware of the risk but chose to assume it, does that mean that the decision makers at 97% of companies that are purportedly currently being hacked, or those that choose not to insure the financial aspect of a cyber breach are breaching their Fiduciary Duty, or failing to properly oversee their business and operations? Pg.3 http://conferences.businessinsurance.com/uploads/conference_admin/What_You_Dont_Know_Will_Hurt_You.pdf
Could the same thing be said re. notification of health risks associated with RF? I have maintained for some time that directors insurance protects the directors only so long as they are acting in good faith. The time may come when directors/owners will be held personally liable because they ignored scientific evidence presented to them. We can hope ….
- Like Steve Jobs, cancer takes another victim who is a fan of wireless devices. Brain cancer.
- Many studies have shown that exposure to microwave radiation can reduce the pineal gland’s ability to produce melatonin, a natural antioxidant that enables healthy, recuperative sleep. Below is a study showing that melatonin can reduce significant health effects from exposure to RF.
According to the results of the present study, melatonin caused a significant decrease in oxidative stress intensity, reflected in the decrease in MDA levels. In addition to this, melatonin caused a reversal of the effects of MW radiation on XO activity in the testicular tissue, lowering XO-induced oxidative stress. On the other hand, melatonin showed no significant ability to reverse the effects of MW exposure on catalase levels in testicular tissue. However, melatonin caused a significant decrease in acid DNase activity, reflecting reduced amounts of apoptosis in the testicular tissue exposed to MWs. In conclusion, melatonin exerts potent protective effects in the testes of rats exposed to microwaves by decreasing oxidative stress intensity and DNA fragmentation.
Sent: October-14-15 10:27 AM
Subject: BC Hydro 2015 Rate Design Application http://www.bcuc.com/ApplicationView.aspx?ApplicationId=511
Ms. Erica Hamilton
British Columbia Utilities Commission
Sixth Floor, 900 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2N3
October 14, 2015
Dear Ms. Hamilton,
Re: BC Hydro 2015 Rate Design Application http://www.bcuc.com/ApplicationView.aspx?ApplicationId=511
- Please register me as intervener in the subject application.
I am interested in any application that involves a rate changes and I will use my right to participate in this application-hearing whenever/wherever it will affect myself as a BC Hydro customer.
Besides I care about innocent rental tenants whom I provide individual metered BC Hydro power connections.
I like to examine why subject rate application is necessary and whether it is justified at all.
- Living outside of BCHydro service area (however with my rental business –including my own hydro meter- within the BCHydro service area) I have yet to come across BCHydro’s published public notice about the subject application.
Kelowna’s The Okanagan Saturday and The Okanagan Sunday, which we receive as Penticton Herald-subscriber on weekends, did not contain any notification as well.
I just happened to be informed by a friend of mine from the coastal a few days ago.
There was even not a notification about the application in any of my previous three hydro bills (often consisting of two pages, with the second page mostly blank or not containing any important data or notices).
- Even if all customers would have come across the application notice according to the Commission’s regulatory time table (Appendix A in http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2015/DOC_44711_A-2_Procedural-Order-Timetable.pdf ), it is unconscionable to allow hydro customers only 7 days between public notice and registering as intervener, asking for and being submitted the application, including reviewing the application’s 4900+ pages.
Therefore I hereby request:
a) that the Commission orders BC Hydro to have subject application notified more than just one time in
1 -newspapers also published/distributed in surrounding non-BC Hydro serviced area
2 -following monthly hydro bills
b) extension of the regulatory time table in a very reasonable fashion (suggested three – four weeks) between receipt of the application and registering as intervener
4) I also hereby request a hard copy of the application to be sent to my Summerland home address which enables me to best work through the whole 4900+ pages instead at my computer screen.
To: John Harding [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
I am a former resident of the Parksville Qualicum Beach area, I frequently ran in the Top Bridge area. It is disappointing to learn that Parksville City council is continuing their contract with Rogers for a Cell Tower there. Running near a source of Electromagnetic radiation such as the Cell Tower emits will cause headaches for me, loss of balance and other complications. Exposure to microwave radiation caused an acoustic neuroma tumour (benign brain tumour) in me. Two medical doctors have confirmed my exposure to microwave radiation caused the tumours. One doctor is an internationally recognised specialist in the field of electromagnetic radiation with books and hundreds of papers written by him on the subject, the second is another medical doctor with papers on the subject and the credit of writing a chapter for a text book for Medical Doctors on the topic.
Anyone that says microwave radiation such as that emitted by cell towers/phones and many other sources cannot cause harm has not looked at or understood the science presented in 1000’s of papers written on the topic. The radiation can and does cause biological harm and can kill, a fact that has been known for over 50 years. In 1990 the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the US.
In a document stated “Aperture antennas have been known to be a potential source of harmful radiation to humans for at least 30 years because of their ability to strongly focus RF power(1). Most operate in the VHF (>200 MHz) range where the human body is at quasi-resonance with this class of non-ionizing radiation(2) The most common aperture antennas employ a parabolic reflector.” the document is available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntiatm-90-145.pdf Section 3
The numbered footnotes in the above quote;
(1) Mumford, W.W. Some Technical Aspects of Microwave Radiation Hazards. IRE(IEEE) Proceedings Vol 49, no2 pp427-447 February 1961.
(2) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, page 274, NCRP-Report No 86, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MB 1986.”
A document from PlanetWorks (a consulting firm in North Vancouver). Notes managers/property owners etc of location where towers are located are ultimately responsible to ensure the safety of the location.
At one time a news reporter and editor was expected to know the facts before reporting – that no longer appears to be the case in Parksville.
Norm Ryder (name provided at author’s request)
Sent: October 18, 2015 8:35 PM
Subject: Editorial of October 13, 2015 — cell tower decision by Parksville City Council
I believe that one role of a City Councillor is to raise questions about issues of concern to the people they serve. Your editorial, regarding renewal of a contract with Rogers Communication, ridiculed Parksville City Councillor Leanne Salter for doing just that. Your use of the language of “rookie” and “veteran” was unfair as the connotation was that a veteran is better than a rookie. It is a fact of politics that elected officials change over time — a necessity in a democracy. Ms. Salter was brave enough to ask a very important question — is money worth the health risks of electromagnetic radiation from cell towers located too close to where people live and work? This is not such a ridiculous question, nor is the science “junk”, though you believe it to be so. There are many people who would disagree with you, including scientists and doctors. In fact “On May 11, 2015, 190 scientists from 39 Nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations, UN member states, and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting they adopt more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of risk”. http://www.EMFscientist.org Thank you to Ms. Salter!
Newsletter prepared by Sharon Noble