2016-08-07 Deadline extended for comments re. BC Hydro rates

1)    In Australia, a father is irate because there are 50 commercial grade Wi-Fi modems per floor in the children’s hospital. Each modem has 6 antennae, which means 300 antennae, strong transmitters using 2.4 and 5.0 Ghz. There are 12 hospital floors with patients, children, with 3,600 Wi-Fi transmitters running all day every day exposing the most vulnerable, who are already suffering from compromised health, to strong Wi-Fi signals.

These are the same modems used in schools in BC. Do you know how many Wi-Fi modems are in your child’s school or in the local hospital or library?

(language warning, angry father uses some strong language.)

2)    For those with environmental sensitivities, including but not limited to chemical sensitivities and EHS, there is a group which provides information and support—Environmental Health Association of BC.


3)    A few weeks ago, I sent notice about rates for those heating with electricity with no access to gas. The BCUC is accepting comments. I was told that because announcements were not put in all newspapers as required, the deadline for comments has been extended to September 2, 2016.

Letter to Editor by Ian Robertson, Pender Island:

The form for the Letter of Comment can be found at:
or you can print the form that is attached [see below].



British Columbia Utilities Commission
Sixth Floor, 900 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC Canada V6Z 2N3

Phone: (604) 660-4700
BC Toll Free: 1-800-663-1385
Fax: (604) 660-1102

Letter of Comment

In accordance with the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, to submit a letter of comment concerning an application currently before the Commission, please provide a completed form to commission.secretary@bcuc.com. If email is unavailable, please mail the form to the address above. By doing so, you acknowledge that all letters of comment are published with the author’s name as part of the public evidentiary record, both in print copy and on the Commission’s website. All personal contact information provided on this page is removed before posting to the website. Forms must be received by the Commission by the last filing date included in the proceeding’s regulatory timetable before final arguments.

Proceeding name: ____________________________________________________

Are you currently registered as an intervener or interested party?
[ Yes / No ]

Name (first and last): _________________________________________________

City: _________________________________ Province: ______________________

Email: ________________________________ Phone: _________________________

The BC Utilities Commission is authorized to collect and publish a person or organization’s personal information when they participate in a matter before the Commission under sections 26(c) and 33.1(r)(ii) and (iii) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA). Subject to FOIPPA, all documents filed in respect to an application will be placed on the public record.


Page 2

Letter of Comment
British Columbia Utilities Commission

Name (first and last): _________________________ Date: ________________

Comment: Please specify the reasons for your interest in the proceeding, your views concerning the proceeding, any relevant information that supports or explains your views, the conclusion you support and any recommendations. The Commission may disallow comments that do not comply with the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

[Please write your comments in this box]



















The BC Utilities Commission is authorized to collect and publish a person or organization’s personal information when they participate in a matter before the Commission under sections 26(c) and 33.1(r)(ii) and (iii) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA). Subject to FOIPPA, all documents filed in respect to an application will be placed on the public record.


4)    Here is an article that helps explain the fundamentals of wireless technology.


[note on Infrared:
“Most TV sets and consumer electronic devices use an IR remote control….IR devices must have a clear line-of-sight path for a connection….
new RF remote controls are gradually replacing the IR remotes in some consumer equipment.  Some designs include both IR and RF.“]


From: X
Sent: August 6, 2016
To: All provincial health officers
Subject: Re: No Convincing Evidence?

Dear Medical Health Officer:

I am writing in regard to my concerns over the long-term health impacts of ‘wireless’ radiation, which is increasing exponentially in our society, apparently without any adequate safeguards, and I am requesting a response from you stating your personal position (not the official PHO opinion) on this matter.

In 2010 I had a large acoustic neuroma brain tumor removed at VGH. I’ve spent the six years since then researching the area of wireless health effects. I was amazed at what I found. In fact, for the first year, I simply refused to believe it. I refused to believe that, if the volume and quality of information that I was encountering was true, that the public would not be informed of the dangers. The implications of that was truly something that as a ‘good Canadian’ I did not want to accept but, in time, and it does take substantial time to determine what information can be trusted, it becomes clear what is happening.

It appears that ‘wireless’ is not a safe technology. There is no proof of safety, and a great deal of evidence of harm. I believe that no reasonable person, who scrutinizes the science with an open mind, and who learns to screen out the ‘tobacco science’ which is rampant, can come to any other conclusion. It is simply not possible.

It appears that I’m not alone in this opinion. I’m pasting in the text below of a recent letter from Dr. Anthony Miller of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears to me that Dr. Miller is substantially better qualified to comment on this than anyone in the Provincial Health Office. The PHO has stated repeatedly that there is ‘no convincing evidence’ of harm from low level radiation below that of Safety Code 6. This opinion distinctly conflicts with that of Dr. Miller, and hundreds of other scientists who have spent their lives studying the science.

Please tell me, as I lack a medical degree… is Dr. Miller wrong? Am I just not understanding this complex area of science?

And are the 190 international scientists who recently signed a petition to the United Nations requesting heightened wireless safeguards be implemented on an urgent basis also misguided, and the PHO right, that there is ‘no convincing evidence’? If this is so, please advise how this can be, and what the gap may be in the ‘evidence’ being considered by the PHO and these other scientists.

Is the PHO really looking at the same evidence that these other scientists are? And if so, why does the current Provincial Health Officer refuse to appear in public and answer questions regarding this matter, after being asked twice in 2015 by registered mail to do so? If the technology is safe, why not answer the questions, inform people like me that don’t understand, and put the matter to rest?

Could you please reply and state what your position is on this matter. I understand that I’m likely not within your jurisdictional area, however this is a serious matter and I believe you have a responsibility to respond to the public in general. Please do not state what the position of the Provincial Health Office is…. the public is well aware of that position. That position is essentially this: ‘ignore everything you read, and leave it to us. We’re the experts. There is ‘no convincing evidence’ and if anything changes, we’ll let you know’.

With all due respect, that’s not good enough. The hospices are full of people dying of cancer, and the medical industry has no answers. The WHO predicts a 70% increase in cancers, and you probably have a new cell tower near you.

Medical health authorities failed to protect the public from thalidomide, asbestos, tobacco, agent orange, DDT, and a host of other dangerous products. In fact, they have a rather pathetic history in this regard, although the corporations selling these products received very adequate protection for up to 5 decades. It appears this is happening again with the wireless industry.

If I’m wrong, please tell me why. I represent hundreds, or thousands of others with the same questions. As I approach ‘authorities’ on this matter, they are almost all universally silent. The MLA’s don’t respond. The MP’s don’t know. The PHO won’t answer questions. Health Canada sends the same propaganda materials and refuses to answer questions. What are they afraid of?

Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your response.


= = =


Dr. Anthony B. Miller
3800 Yonge Street, Suite 406,
Toronto, ON, M4N 3P7
Telephone 416 487 5825
Emails: ab.miller@utoronto.ca; ab.miller@sympatico.ca

July 19, 2016

To whom it may concern.

Re: Adverse Effects of Radiofrequency fields

I am writing to express my concern over the increasing exposure of the population to Radiofrequency Fields (e.g. from wi-fi, as required for cell phones and iPads, and emitted by cell towers) and the lack of concern expressed by many councils, governments and School Boards in Canada and the United States on this issue. In particular, justification for the “safety” of radiofrequency fields is placed upon the use of outdated safety standards, based upon tissue heating, such as Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, whereas it has now been well demonstrated that adverse biological effects occur at far lower levels of radiofrequency fields that do not induce tissue heating, including a recent animal study performed by the National Toxicology Program in the United States which found an increased incidence of brain cancers and other cancers in rats exposed to prolonged Radiofrequency fields.

I am a physician and epidemiologist specializing in cancer etiology, prevention, and screening, expert in epidemiology, and particularly causes of human cancer. I have performed research on ionizing radiation and cancer, electromagnetic fields and cancer, and have served on many committees assessing the carcinogenicity of various exposures, including working groups of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), widely regarded as providing unbiased assessment on the carcinogenicity of chemicals and other exposure to humans.

In 2011, an IARC working group designated radiofrequency fields as a class 2B carcinogen, a possible human carcinogen. Since that review a number of additional studies have been reported. One of the most important was a large case-control study in France, which found a doubling of risk of glioma, the most malignant form of brain cancer, after two years of exposure to cell phones. After five years exposure the risk was five-fold. They also found that in those who lived in urban environments the risk was even higher. In my view, and that of colleagues who have written papers with me on this issue, these studies provide evidence that radiofrequency fields are not just a possible human carcinogen but a probable human carcinogen, i.e. IARC category 2A. It would be impossible to ignore such an assessment in regulatory approaches.

It is important to recognize that there are no safe levels of exposure to human carcinogens. Risk increases with increasing intensity of exposure, and for many carcinogens, such as tobacco smoke, even more with increasing duration of exposure.

Thus the only way to avoid the carcinogenic risk is to avoid exposure altogether. This is why we ban known carcinogens from the environment and why much effort is taken to get people, particularly young people, not to smoke. Indeed we now recognize that exposure to carcinogens in childhood can increase the risk of cancer in adulthood many years later. Further, people vary in their genetic makeup, and certain genes can make some people more susceptible than others to the effect of carcinogens. It is the young and those who are susceptible that safety codes should be designed to protect.

As an epidemiologist who has done a great deal of work on breast cancer, I have been concerned by a series of case reports from California and elsewhere of women who developed unusual breast cancers in the exact position where they kept cell phones in their bras. These are unusual cancers. They are multifocal, mirroring where the cell phone was kept. Thus in these relatively young women the radiofrequency radiation from the cell phone has caused breast cancer.

Not only brain and breast cancers but parotid gland tumors, tumors of the salivary gland, have been associated with prolonged exposure to cell phones. In Israel recently a study identified increasing risk of salivary gland tumors with increasing exposure to radiofrequency fields.

Given the long natural history of cancer and the fact that human populations have not been exposed for a sufficient length of time to reveal the full adverse effects of radiofrequency fields, it is extremely important to adopt a precautionary approach to the exposure of humans to such fields. An individual, if appropriately informed, can reduce her or his exposure to radiofrequency fields from devices that use wi-fi, but in the case of cell towers, smart meters and wi-fi in schools, the exposure they receive is outside their control. Then, with the people who manufacture these devices and those who promote wi-fi failing to issue adequate health warnings, we are reaching a situation where schools, work places and homes are being saturated with radiofrequency fields.

Thus to avoid a potential epidemic of cancer caused by radiofrequency fields from wi-fi and other devices, we should introduce means to reduce exposure as much as reasonably achievable, use hard wire connections to the internet and strengthen the codes that are meant to protect the public.

Yours sincerely


Anthony B. Miller, MD, FRCP(C), FRCP, FACE
Professor Emeritus
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada




Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.      
~ Thomas Mann