2016-06-27 Newsweek addresses EHS

1)    A few days ago I shared a letter from the National Parent Teachers Association in the USA refusing to allow a table by a parent wanting to share information about wireless devices used in schools.  It seems that the Director of the National PTA made this decision without having the agreement with PTA members and counter to prior policies to ensure the safety of children and teachers. Interesting to find out why the Director reacted in this manner…

“The June 20, 2016 Position Statement is in contradiction to prior National PTA resolutions.

The National PTA’s 2007 Resolution on Internet and Wireless Communication” resolves to “promote responsible and ethical use of the Internet and wireless and other electronic resources” and “to inform and educate students, parents, educators, and communities on the dangers associated with the Internet and wireless” and states:

“That National PTA and its constituent organizations will work to advocate for appropriate laws, policies, and regulations to ensure the safety of children and youth when using the Internet and wireless and other electronic communications.”  

http://safetechforschoolsmaryland.blogspot.com/2016/06/national-pta-executive-director-removes.html

2)    New study indicates that texting can cause abnormal brain waves.

This finding could have significant implications for brain-computer interfacing, gaming, and, perhaps most importantly, driving, Dr. Tatum noted: “There is now a biological reason why people shouldn’t text and drive – texting can change brain waves,” he said. While “there is still a lot more research needed, we have begun to unravel the responses generated by the brain when it interfaces with computerized devices.”

https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/text-messaging-with-smartphones-triggers-a-new-type-of-brain-rhythm

3)    An article in The Tyee re. Adrian Dix and Site C, showing the history of Site C. Too bad he didn’t link to the $$meter program and Clean Energy Act which the liberals used to get around BCUC. This one act shows the contempt the government has for democracy and the public in BC.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/06/27/Site-C-No-Benefits/?utm_source=weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=270616

4)    Newsweek article speaks of EHS with some continuing to refuse it exists, despite the number of people suffering increasing. Avoidance of wireless devices seems to be the only way to help.

That’s why there are no good data on how many people could be affected by EHS. Though provocation studies continue, EHS censuses stopped in the mid-2000s, before wi-fi became ubiquitous. One estimate presented at a European Economic and Social Committee public hearing in 2014 (not peer-reviewed) suggests that around 5 percent of all Europeans are susceptible. More rigorous (but significantly older) surveys cite similar figures: 3.2 percent of Californians , 9 percent of Germans and 5 percent of the Swiss population complained of symptoms believed to be caused by EHS.

Those numbers might be why the illness is recognized by government officials in some countries. Last year, a judge in Toulouse, France, awarded a woman a disability grant of about $900 a month after she claimed she was allergic to Wi-Fi and therefore could not work. In 2013, an Australian scientist won a workers’ compensation appeal for EHS. The Swedish government classifies EHS as a functional impairment, granting compensation for its effects while not making any official judgment on the cause of EHS symptoms. In Austria, there are formal guidelines on how to diagnose and treat illnesses caused by electromagnetic sensitivity.”

http://www.newsweek.com/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-wifi-allergies-474404?rx=us

5)    Dr. Joel Moskowitz refuted statements made by Dr. Junck in the Wall Street Journal questioning the validity and significance of the National Toxicology Program’s report re. cell phones and cancer.  Dr. M was not given all the assertions Dr. Junck would make and is now making post-publication comments and provides many studies supporting the NTP’s warning that evidence is sufficient to warrant the precautionary approach re. RF. The list he provides is well worth keeping for future reference.

http://www.saferemr.com/2016/05/should-cellphones-have-warning-labels_23.html

Letters:

From: X
Sent: June 26, 2016
To: talk@cfax1070.com
Cc: bellmediapr@bellmedia.ca
Subject: Attention CFAX Management

To the Management of CFAX:

I was very sorry – and concerned – to hear that Ian Jessop has been sacked.  He may have been “controversial”, but that’s what “free speech” is about.

I hope you will reconsider your decision.  I think the recent events in the world have indicated that the voiceless – those with “controversial opinions” – will not remain voiceless for long, and your action casts you in the shadow of those who don’t support “free speech”.  This does not seem to be in the public interest, and it’s my understanding that you are supposed to be in the business of serving the public.

Again, I hope you will reconsider this apparently very unwise decision.

Sincerely,
X

_________________________________________________________________________

Dear Ms Macdonald and Mr. Sanders:

I had been informed of BC Hydro’s intentions to replace my analog meter with a smart meter.  Although I have been told it will be a ‘signal off’ meter, I have concerns about the safety of the smart meters.  My meter base isn’t CSA certified for combustible electronic meters.  As this base is owned by me and therefore is wholly my responsibility, I can only accept this combustible electronic meter upon receipt of a letter signed by a BC Hydro professional engineer saying that doing so is a safe practice and that, should any fire damage occur as a result, BC Hydro will assume full responsibility.  I live in a remote area unserviced by fire trucks and understandably can take no risks of fire hazards such as the smart meters have proven to be.

Assurances made without the foregoing statement (“. . .. safe practice” etc.) are not acceptable in my circumstance. Our meter is exposed to the elements; there is a risk of moisture affecting a smart meter’s lithium battery.

I have been a responsible BC Hydro customer for fifty years; when the smart meter program was established, I never opted in, and according to the promise of Rich Coleman, (“Individual home owners who had not yet had a smart meter installed on their home, would not have to have one …You will not be ‘forced’ into having one or be in fear of it being installed when you are not home”) I chose to keep my analog meter though it hugely increased my hydro bill. To now be told that I must accept a smart meter (and still pay an ‘extortion fee’ for the installation of a signal-off meter) is deceitful and contrary to the promise of the BC government. My present meter has 6 months left, according to Measurements Canada, plenty of time for BC Hydro to locate an analog meter from another jurisdiction, should it irresponsibly have left itself without analog meter replacements for those it promised would not be ‘forced’ to accept a smart meter.

It took us 25 years to return to our home town, but after thorough research into smart meters and all the negative factors therewith, we decided to move north to a more remote location–with no cell towers, no wifi connections and no close neighbours.  As any smart meter will still have to be read manually, there is no benefit to BC Hydro to install a smart meter.  There is every reason for us to demand our right to an analog meter, as promised by Rich Coleman. I have two friends who have developed EHS.

Furthermore, I was told that “as a courtesy” I would be notified the day before my unwanted exchange. I was not notified and am now out of country. I have just received my bill by e-mail and see that I have unjustly been charged an installation failure fee. I had locked my analog meter so that I would not have a live meter exchange; we just had a very expensive replacement of an electrical appliance and I didn’t want to risk its damage, in the event that BC Hydro ignored my protests and requests. However, I was reluctantly prepared to accede to an exchange under my supervision subject to the above; BC Hydro has not complied with its assurance to me that it would ask the installer to notify me in advance. This lack of goodwill and breaking of its given word does nothing to repair the lack of trust that BC Hydro has generated in this whole smart meter program.

I am paying the unjustified added ‘penalty’ under protest. It is just one more example of the extortion fees BC Hydro is charging those who refuse to opt in. My disgust for this undemocratic procedure is no protection against a monopoly that uses its weight and power to get its way. I cannot understand, when you have been collecting the extortion fees these past years, and since our location nullifies the use of a smart meter, why you continue to badger me and heighten my resentment against your company.  This latest evidence of breaking your word and billing me the extra $65 unjustly is an abuse of power.  If there is any honesty left in this company, it would give proof that the installer was asked to notify me. I have a landline, an answering machine, and an e-mail. I was awaiting a call. I was deceived into being ready with my keys. This latest $65 overcharge is unwarranted and deceitful.

I remain
an extremely annoyed and dissatisfied customer, at the mercy of a conscience-less company.

XX

 

 

Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

“Those who have the privilege to know have the duty to act.”      
~ A. Einstein