2016-07-18 $$meters with transmitters disabled are not safe.

1)        Many members have asked me if having the smeters with the transmitter turned off will make them safe. My answer is no for many reasons. Fires, privacy, higher bills, health concerns continue.  This meter might mean you are exposed to lower RF. (Some meters have not had the transmitters turned off. We don’t know if this was accidental or deliberate. BC Hydro hasn’t proven itself to be honest and trustworthy, so how can we trust them when they tell us the transmitter is turned off? Also the transmitters can be turned on with the flip of a switch – without our knowledge.) But even if the RF is reduced, the other problems remain. One of the important ones is dirty electricity.

“When current flows through the wiring of a building it generates a surrounding electro-magnetic field that radiates outward all around the wires at right angles to the direction of the current’s flow and reaches out into the room.

It is well known that switching power supplies can generate spikes of so-called electromagnetic interference (EMI), or high frequency transients, which then travel along the wiring in the walls, radiating outward in the wiring’s electromagnetic field.

Such spikes are known as ‘dirty electricity’ and can be conducted to a human body that is within the range of the radiating field. This function is on all smart meters used by all utilities and is on constantly, 24/7.”

http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=2180

2)        A paper published last year about the more than 100 studies that show that exposure to extremely low levels of wireless radiation can cause oxidative stress which leads to all sorts of health problems. It is technical but there are some very interesting and significant info. On page 4, it says that exposure to levels as low as .1 microwatts per square centimeter caused oxidative damage to cells. The Safety Code limit allows 100s-1000s times this, and ITRON admits that $$meters emit 100s of times this (on average). We have never been given the peak radiation levels.  The levels children are exposed to in schools are 100s of times higher than the amount shown to cause damage to DNA. Pages 5-10 list the studies showing harm. How can Perry Kendall and Health Canada continue to deny harm?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279863242_Oxidative_mechanisms_of_b iological_activity_of_low-intensity_radiofrequency_radiation

3)        From one of our long-term members who has been fighting for the right of her grandson, who has become sensitive after exposure to Wi-Fi at school, to attend school, which is his legal and ethical right. Please share. Note: Dr. Perry Kendall, our Provincial Health Authority, has told school boards and principals that Wi-Fi is not dangerous (he says he’s never said it’s safe, but he will not say it’s dangerous).

“Please post and share widely.  Parents have been robbed of their right to protect their children from the health of effects of RF exposure.

Tyler is one of many children who is suffering from the mandatory exposure to the wireless technology that has been installed in our schools. Parents are frustrated with having to deal with School Boards who are willfully turning a blind eye to the thousands of peer reviewed studies confirming the health effects from this unregulated technology that has never been tested for safety.  Here is a story that needs to be told!” (see link below)

Janis Hoffmann, Victoria BC  250-478-7976

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B12B4w0bwyQ_ZXJaZ3pNOHdOX1k/view 

(This letter has been sent to select media. Please share with parents, teachers and media in your areas.)

4)        Below is a response to a letter a member wrote and allowed me to share in last night’s update. It is from the Canadian Environment Assessment Agency which is accepting public input until July 20. Given the recent information about the effects of RF on wildlife, I hope you will consider adding your comments.  For those who wish to share the Manville document I attached to last night’s update, here is a link to it that makes it simpler.

http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Manville-7-14-2016-Radiation-Briefing-Memo-Public.pdf

5)        Employees in just about every field are being told they must use wireless devices or, failing that, are exposed to cell transmitters on top of the buildings in which they work or to Wi-Fi modems in their work areas.

What are the dangers and health risks of EMF radiation exposure at work?
– What are the symptoms of EMF radiation exposure?
– What you can do about an employer changing your job description to include this exposure?   and of course
– Who is liable for this exposure when things go wrong now or in the future?

http://en.geovital.com/forced-exposure-to-emf-radiation-at-work/

6)        In Segment #9 of the response to the BCUC draft report, BCUC finally admits it is responsible for public safety. This after years of denying it could do anything because of the Clean Energy Act and Direction 4.  Note under “Standards and Meter Compatibility” questions about certification and safety testing had been asked over and over again in many letters to both BC Hydro and the BCUC, concerns were raised, yet there has been no oversight. And BCUC consistently failed to do its job as defined in the BC Utilities Commission Act – protect the public.

I still have received no response to my complaint or my request to be told when one might be forthcoming. What is going on? When asked about the possible liability by each and every agency and all key personnel for harmful negligence, no response was forthcoming.

Letters: 

From: X
Sent: July 18, 2016 11:51 AM
To: dobee@timescolonist.com
Subject: Site C

Mr. Obee

I am disappointed in the editorial comments  [http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-site-c-damage-is-not-theoretical-1.2302664] regarding EMF.  Not only does it quote an “expert”, Mary McBride, who historically has misrepresented her credentials [http://emrabc.ca/?p=1017], but you obviously have taken no time to research this topic when you describe the concerns about health and EMF as “tenuous” at best. Your should have researched both your “expert” and the health effects.  Your credibility has been damaged irreparably unless you are able to do a follow up report that more accurately describes the facts and the reliability of your so called expert.

It has always been a pleasure to read your editorial in the past because I assumed that you practiced good journalism standards and what I was reading was factual.  Sadly, that is no longer the case.

I am considering canceling my subscription to the TC.  Most of the national and international news in the paper I heard on the TV the day before.  The value of TC to me was it’s reporting on provincial and local issues but if there is no credibility or accuracy to the articles, it’s both misleading and a waste of time.

Please restore your credibility with a factual article on the dangers of EMF to human health, and in particular, children.  FYI some countries such as Israel and parts of France do not permit WiFi in schools because of the potential health impacts

Sincerely,
X
___________________________________________________________________________

Response from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

From: EA Review / Examen EE (CEAA) [mailto: CEAA.EAReview-ExamenEE.ACEE@ceaa-acee.gc.ca]
Sent: July-18-16 11:28 AM
To: XX Subject:
RE: Review of Environmental & Regulatory Processes

Thank you for your comments regarding the Expert Panel’s draft Terms of Reference.  Your comments are being collected under the authority of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) in order to inform the final Terms of Reference for the Expert Panel reviewing environmental assessment processes.  Comments received will be made available to the public and can be viewed here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/conservation/assessments/environmental-reviews/share-your-views/eap-draft-terms-reference.html

Your name, any credentials, and the personal opinions or views that you provide are considered public. However information such as your home address (except province/state), telephone number, email address and signature will be removed prior to disclosure. If you do not want your comment posted, please contact us at CEAA.EAReview-ExamenEE.ACEE@ceaa-acee.gc.ca <mailto: CEAA.EAReview-ExamenEE.ACEE@ceaa-acee.gc.ca>

Your contact information has been added to the distribution list that will be provided to the Expert Panel reviewing Canada’s environmental assessment processes. News releases and or emails may be sent at key points during the review regarding documents for information purposes or opportunities for participation.  If you do not want to have your name added to the distribution list, please contact us at CEAA.EAReview-ExamenEE.ACEE@ceaa-acee.gc.ca <mailto: CEAA.EAReview-ExamenEE.ACEE@ceaa-acee.gc.ca>
___________________________________________________________________________

Risky Business?

RESPONSE TO “BCUC’s Staff Report on Smart Meter Fire Safety Concerns” Segment #9 

KEY:  Highlighted text is from Sharon Noble   Non-highlighted text is the draft report as written by BCUC staff.

= = =

BCUC

Utilities  (continued)

In 2013, the Provincial Government issued Special Direction 4 (Order In Counsel No. 391) to give customers an option to opt out of the smart meter program. The directive also limits the BCUC’s mandate with respect to BC Hydro’s smart meter program stating that the Commission must not “directly or indirectly prevent [BC Hydro] from installing, operating or providing services in respect of legacy meter, smart meters and radio-off meters.” Therefore, BCUC has oversight responsibility of smart meters as it relates to public safety but does not have the authority to prevent BC Hydro from installing or operating smart meters. This limitation in BCUC’s mandate does not apply to FortisBC meters.

*        What, if any,  penalty does BCUC suffer if it fails to take responsibility for public safety in regard to the smart meter?

*        If BCUC has evidence that smart meters are not safe, that incidents have occurred that put lives and property at risk, what can BCUC do to protect the public as is its responsibility under the Utilities Commission Act?

*        Who can prevent BC Hydro from forcing people to have fire hazards on their homes if both BCUC and the government refuse to take this action?

Comment:

During correspondence over the past three years, the BCUC had rejected several written requests to examine smart meter safety issues. The BC Hydro smart meter implementation was therefore carried out without supervision or monitoring by the BCUC.         

On what date did the BCUC change its focus to include smart meter safety issues?  It seems to date from July 2015, since prior to that date, the BCUC refused to be involved in safety issues to do with the smart meter implementation program, See BCUC correspondences dated around 8th July 2013, below in the Section: Standards and Meter Compatibility.         

BCUC’s own statement: 21 October 2013, Quote:” As previously stated, Section 7 of the Clean Energy Act exempts BC Hydro’s Smart Metering Program from Commission regulation under certain sections of the Utilities Commission Act – the Act that establishes the Commission’s authority. Subsection 7(3) further states, “The commission must not exercise a power under the Utilities Commission Act in a way that would directly or indirectly prevent the authority from doing anything referred to in subsection (1).” In other words, the Commission cannot take any action that would prevent BC Hydro from implementing the smart metering program.  As a result, the Commission has not been involved in the planning or implementation of the program.” Unquote.

And, October 31, 2013: BCUC Letter: Quote: “In reviewing BC Hydro’s Application (Approval of Charges for Smart Meter Program), the Commission’s hearing is limited in scope to the recovery of costs of providing services to customers in relation to their choice of meters. Direction No.4, section 4 establishes limits on the Commission’s powers to review the Application.”Unquote. 

Standards and Meter Compatibility

Concerns have been raised that existing meter bases were not designed for modern electric “smart” meters.   The question of compatibility is applicable to manufacturers of both meter sockets and electric meters regardless of the type of meter. For example, existing meters that no longer meet accuracy testing are typically replaced by newer digital or smart meters as the existing vintage may no longer be supported by the manufacturer or procured by the utility. Standards are developed and maintained for this purpose so that for example the receptacle for your home wall outlet will be compatible with the devices you purchase to plug into the outlet now and many years from now until an entirely new standard is created. In the case of electrical meters, there are a number of standards used in North America specific to meter sockets and meters. Some standards cover the performance and accuracy of meters and others cover the physical aspects.

Standard making bodies involved in meter socket and meter standards in North America include the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Other testing and certification bodies represent insurers such as Underwriters Laboratory (UL) or Factory Mutual (FM) may have both US and Canadian standard versions (UL and ULC).

Comment:

Why are these Meter Standards listed as “Applicable Standards” when the BCUC state in this Report (Page 3, under the BC Safety Authority and Page 3, under Utilities)  that BC Hydro is exempt from Electrical Safety Regulation. According to this report, we have no way of verifying if the meters actually are Certified to the CSA CAN3-C17, and according to BCUC there is not a requirement for that under the BC Safety Regulations. BC Hydro have repeatedly stated that their equipment does not need to be certified to CSA Standards.

Comment:

BC Hydro letter dated 31 January, 2014,  Quote:                
“I am writing in response to the above-noted request for records under the Act. BC Hydro has reviewed its files and has found no records responsive to your request. Electricity meters are BC Hydro-owned devices and are not subject to the certifications mentioned in your request and, consequently, BC Hydro has no certification documentation of the type you requested.” Unquote.                

Extracts below are from the Letter to BCUC dated 27 February 2014 requesting that Safety be part of the BCUC mandate:                
QUOTE: ABSENCE OF METER TESTING AND CERTIFICATION – Safety, BC Hydro Quote: “I am writing in response to the above-noted request for records under the Act. BC Hydro has reviewed its files and has found no records responsive to your request. Electricity meters are BC Hydro-owned devices and are not subject to the certifications mentioned in your request and, consequently, BC Hydro has no certification documentation of the type you requested.” Unquote.

NON-CERTIFIED METERS ARE BEING INSTALLED INTO CSA CERTIFIED METER BASES – Safety.  The combination of the meter and its existing base is not certified by CSA for disconnecting or connecting power, so the change-out needs to be carried out with the power switched off at the BC Hydro source (power pole, transformer fuse High Voltage disconnect etc). Whether BC Hydro has always used this “yank-out” method over the years during change-outs raises concerns about miss-use, wear & tear, contributing to failures. Note that there is not a single independent central system in place to report meter problems, so that when contacted, the Insurers, Municipalities, IBEW, Fire Marshals and Safety Authorities advised that they do not have the information to prepare them for the extent of this serious issue.                

ABSENCE OF OVERSIGHT ON BC HYDRO – Safety. In the absence of oversight on BC Hydro by any BC Authority or Ministry under the Hydro and Power Authority Act, the B.C. Electrical Safety Regulations 100/2004, British Columbia Safety Authority (BCSA), British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC), B.C. Chief Medical Officer, Lieutenant Governor, and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, we have to assume that each organization and its key personnel can be held liable for lack of due diligence and any harm that is occurring to consumers, whether due to safety issues, inaccurate and fraudulent billing, health issues, and the unjust and unreasonable cost of the entire system.

The writer has previously written to BCUC more than once to point out that the Safety for consumers should never be removed from any review by BCUC.                

These issues have been brought to the attention of BC Hydro, the British Columbia Utilities Commission and a number of other BC Authorities over the past two years, however it appears that none of these issues has been dealt with in a professional manner, nor have they been resolved nor documented in an effective and satisfactory way.                

End of letter to BCUC

Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

Brain Tumours