1) Lots more about the stupid appliances. This YouTube, which includes the one I sent last night, shows more insidious ways appliances will be used and open to hackers. Start at 3:40 to see another reason “they” want access to our homes. Pretty soon there will be no reason to leave the home. Hermits will love this.
A member sent in links to specs for a Samsung stupid fridge which may or may not be for this model. The RF levels are extremely high for this one appliance. Imagine a kitchen full of appliances all communicating at these levels. Stoves, dishwashers, microwaves, ovens, toasters…. And the kids playing (and getting zapped) on the floor while mom cooks dinner. In the YouTube, the fridge is said to have “Wi-Fi” in it, which would probably use a frequency in the range of 2.4 GHz, the same as the modems irradiating kids in schools. And this probably would be in addition to the ZigBee chip in the device communicating with the smeter.
(P.S. It looks like the FCC ID RF label is inside attached to some circuit board i.e., I guess that wouldn’t be visible outside the fridge?)
The main page is:
https://fccid.io/A3LSWL-B70F (scroll down to Exhibits)
2) Halifax planning for $$meters for water. The meters will be Neptune, the same used in many places in BC – to which many people have reactions.
Internationally, some have raised questions about privacy and safety aspects of smart metering because it uses pulsed radio-frequency radiation technology.
Campbell said no alarms have been raised in Halifax to date.
3) More security and cybersecurity concerns raised in the UK. There are some great graphics about hacking – could make some great flyers and posters.
“Most recently, in March 2016, we got another perfect example from the UK when the intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had to intervene in the rollout of 53 million smart meters across the country because power companies were proposing to use a single decryption key for communications…
One of the main issues with security in smart metering applications is that there are many people involved. Security is literally messed up by “too many cooks”. In case of UK’s smart metering system it is problematic that the system designed by the utilities and metering industries became more and more complex during the development process up to a point where it is no longer fit for purpose. Compromises between many different power suppliers and pressure to reduce costs result in shortcomings regarding protection against hacker attacks. As soon as the GCHQ got involved it had to stop the project.”
May 13, 2016
Daren Sanders – Director BC One Call
P.Eng., CPA, CMA – Senior Manager, Customer Service Operations BC Hydro
333 Dunsmuir St, 4th floor, Vancouver, BC, V6B 5R3
Having received your April 25, 2016 reply to our registered letter of March 17, 2016 we see it is once again necessary to reiterate our position.
First we wish to assure you that your choice to address what you conveniently refer to our “three key areas…”, and ignore our rightful position that should BC Hydro by any means install an electric meter (radio on or off) on our house any such action will only be tolerated upon receipt of a letter signed by a BC Hydro professional engineer stating that installing an electronic meter is a safe practice and that, should any fire damage occur as a result, BC Hydro [BCH] will assume full responsibility.
Make no mistake, we are serious about our concerns and position regarding BCH’s non analog meters. This is why we are part of the class action suit against your company. Our charter rights, which supersede both BCH and provincial government authorities, guarantee us the right to safety and privacy in our own home. Perhaps the clearest indicator validating our concerns is BC Hydro’s considerable efforts to stall our class action suit from entering the courts coupled with BC Hydro’s clear efforts to destroy all analog meters before we have our day in court.
To address what you have identified as our three key areas we will first address both 1.( Safety of BC Hydro’s smart meters) and 2. (Are smart meters compatible with existing meter bases?) since the two topics overlap.
The CSA exemption you refer to was based upon information provided long before smart meters were ever dreamt of being used in current meter bases. There are countless testimonies regarding the safety risks of both the smart meters themselves and their compatibility with meter bases. Rather than debate the trustworthiness of such testimonies we will refer you to legal statements from the February 2015 brief of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Cases 16-CA-103387 16-CA-112404. Jonathan Elifson, Counsel for the General Counsel National Labor Relations Board Region 16 819 Taylor Street, Room 8A24 Fort Worth, TX 76102. We refer to the following four exerts with our added highlighting for quick reference;
D. Before Testifying, Reed Consults with Fellow Union Officials and Assistant Fire Marshall Michael Simmons
*Prior to his Texas Senate hearing testimony, Reed called Greg Lucero, Business Manager of IBEW Local 66 in Houston. (Tr. 162, LL. 21-25; 163, LL. 1-2). Reed asked Lucero if Local 66’s represented employees were having trouble with smart meters. (Tr. 84, LL. 22-24; 164, LL. 6
*1-5). Lucero said yes. (Tr. 85, L. 8). When Reed asked Lucero if he had any proof of the types of problems employees were experiencing, Lucero told him to call Edward (Rick) Childers, Assistant Business Manger of Local 66 (Tr. 84 passim; 164, LL. 1-5). Although Lucero directed Reed to speak to Childers, Lucero himself knew of problems reported to him from his stewards, such as “the meter burning up in the jaws.” (Tr. 86, LL. 14).
16). Lucero also learned that the jaws were not “fitting as tight, I don’t think as they should.” (Tr. 86, LL. 5-8). This “causes a loose connection, a loose connection that ultimately causes heat; heat ultimately causes fire; it’ll burn those jaws up.” (Tr. 86, LL. 14-16).
*….When Childers checked with CenterPoint workers in the meters shop, he learned that there was a significant increase in burned smart meters being turned in to the shop. (Tr. 166, LL. 3-6; 264, LL. 19-25). Childers explained that part of the problem was a loose connection between the meter and the meter base because the smart meters had thinner “blades” than the previous analog meters. (JD slip op. at 12, LL 36-38; Tr. 265, LL. 3-6). Childers told Reed that the loose connection caused heat, which, in turn, caused an electrical arc, which resulted in “two pallets of burned up meters” in CenterPoint’s meter shop……More generally, Childers reported meter technicians had reported problems with meters’ communication with the remote site control and many issues with meters melting or burning up. (JD Slip Op. at 12, LL. 33-36)……… Childers explained that analog meters did not have the same problem of burning as smart meters. (Tr. 277, LL. 12-17).
*…..Reed also spoke to Michael Simmons, Assistant Fire Marshall for Dallas County and an expert witness in fire protection and arson, regarding problems with smart meters, on or about October 8, 2014, prior to Reed’s Texas State Senate testimony. (JD slip op. at 13, L. 17; Tr. 166 169 passim). Simmons told Reed that his office had investigated fires in Lancaster that were the result of smart meters and that Simmons was trying to see if there was a pattern of whether smart meters’ installation in old or new houses caused fires. (JD slip op. at 13, LL. 17-19; Tr. 301, LL. 1-5).
In addition to this testimony we would also refer you to this February 15, 2016 press release from MET laboratories; “In the past, design flaws in smart meter units have been known to cause serious fire hazards and spotty performance. This has caused a lot of concern for utilities and manufacturers of smart meters….”
We trust you are aware of MET Laboratories, MET Laboratories is a leading independent 3rd party electrical testing & certification lab providing true single-source testing in three world-class laboratories. MET Laboratories offers a unique array of testing services and accreditations, and partners with leading laboratories to offer comprehensive global compliance solutions. For over 50 years, MET has provided leading-edge customers with unparalleled facilities and technical know-how, and real-time online tracking of each project’s progress.
Although these are two of countless papers and documents on the subject, these two documents alone (particularly the legal document) are sufficient to give us grounds to be concerned regarding the safety of smart meters, radio on or off.
If it comes down to trusting these and similar documents or trusting the word of BC Hydro we must point out that BC Hydro has demonstrated their word cannot be taken. Beside the current complaint by the NDP and BCUC’s subsequent investigation, such statements as BCH’s statement that Smart meters only transmit for minutes per day (implying a benign presence) have been grossly misleading as proven in the legal statements by PG&E before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California in their PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S OCTOBER 18, 2011 RULING DIRECTING IT TO FILE CLARIFYING RADIO FREQUENCY INFORMATION, wherein they state in response to the question “How many times in total (average and maximum) is a smart meter scheduled to transmit during a 24-hour period?” This forced them to reveal, not just the Meter Read Data, as BCH apparently chose to, but all the transmissions including Meter Read Data, Network Management, Time Synch and Mesh Network Message Management transmissions. Their legally stated totals were between 9,600 and 190,000 transmissions per 24 hour period. Since these transmissions are milliseconds in duration the accumulated time per day may be brief but in fact 9600 and 190,000 transmissions per day translate to between every 9 seconds and every ½ second, 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Contrary to the impression BCH gave, the public transmissions are relatively constant all day every day. Science has proven that pulsed transmissions, such as this, are far, far more dangerous than any momentarily sustained transmission of short length such as BCH tried to tell the public.
As for assurances regarding Canada’s Safety Code 6, Health Canada’s limits are among the worst in the world. HESA committees have found Health Canada lacking in performing its due diligence. In 2014, 53 scientists from 18 countries openly condemned Health Canada’s radiation “Guidelines” (Safety Code 6) and called on Health Canada to: “intervene to help prevent an emerging health crisis”. Also in 2014, 55 Canadian doctors condemned SC-6 and called on Health Canada to: “protect Canadians from RF exposure.” There are currently requests before federal government officials for a criminal investigation of Health Canada.
We find no assurance in government departments subject to external financial and political pressures but prefer to guide ourselves by the precautionary principle and third party credited scientific reports, as is our right.
Your “key area” 3 is again a sorry example of BCH’s self serving presentation of the truth. Of course, as you say,
BCH may “…no longer have any legacy meters in stock.” BCH purposely destroyed over a million perfectly functional analog meters ensuring that you would not be able to replace those in the Meter Choices Program. Proving this is fact I refer you to the official report of the debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard) of Monday April 11, 2016. The Minister, Hon. B. Bennett, states for the public record “There are, to answer the member’s specific question, 1.93 million smart meters installed across the province, 12,761 customers have legacy meters, and 661 customers have radio-off meters. Those numbers are as of February 4, 2016.”
This clearly demonstrates that BCH removed 1.93 million analog meters in order to replace them with 1.93 million smart meters. This would have provided 151 replacement analog meters for every legacy meter customer in the province. An unnecessary abundance yes, but BCH made no attempt to retain even a hundredth of this surplus to fulfill the minister, Hon. B. Bennett’s, July 18, 2013 commitment that BC Hydro customers would have a choice. Considering the legacy fees imposed upon us, we would gladly have paid a few cents more to cover the cost of storage and we certainly would have accepted a back-up analog to store ourselves and pay to have it re-certified when needed.
Add to that the fact that analog meters, like all other electrical equipment BCH needs, are still available from numerous suppliers such as these three: Hialeah Meter Company in Florida. Phone: 800-654-0821, Vision Metering in South Carolina. Phone: 803-628-0035, TD Surplus Phone: 315-635-3017 or 800-456-4907. There is no excuse for BCH to claim they cannot replace legacy meters. It is patently obvious this is through BCH’s either lack of foresight and/or unwillingness to consider the legitimate health and legal concerns of their customers.
We, like many BCH customers, would gladly pay to have our legacy meters re-certified in order to keep them yet BCH refuses to accept this cooperative offer from its customers, instead choosing a policy of confrontation and draconian disregard for its customers’ health and charter rights.
Mr. Sanders, you continue to refer to our analog meter as expired when in fact the truth is it does not expire until December 31, 2016, more than half a year from now. Hiding behind Measurement Canada’s legal requirements and threatening to remove our meter while it is still certified is more a testimony to BCH’s inability to competently manage its resources. Either by not staggering re-certification of current meters properly, not foreseeing the need for sufficient staff come December or not rotating some of the 1.93 million analog meters (BCH purposely destroyed) into the field to avoid the legal bind you now claim justifies your proposed action.
Speaking with Measurement Canada, we are assured that they do not care what kind of meter we have so long as it measures properly, which the analogs have done for decades and continue to do in other countries. If this legal requirement is a sincere concern for BCH then, again, we offer to pay for the re-certification of our analog and save you from your $5,000 fine.
Our Charter rights guarantee us the right to be free of threats or perceived threats to our safety and privacy in our own homes. We will not allow either BCH, with or without the assistance of the provincial government, to trespass upon our rights. As we observed already, BCH’s efforts to prevent our class action suit from going before the courts is the clearest indication that BCH acknowledges we are correct in our assertions and would win our case.
We reiterate that we will not accept a smart meter, radio on or off, or anything but an analog meter as is our legal right. This is not rhetoric, I would no more allow anyone to threaten the safety or privacy of myself or my loved ones anymore than you would allow someone to threaten the safety or privacy of yourself or your loved ones. It is rather common sense if you choose to exercise it.
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters“Your silence gives consent”