2016-09-13 In Ohio people concerned wih smeters can keep analogs

1)    In the UK, the “$$mart” program continues to face delays and increasing costs, with the utility companies proving themselves to be as incompetent as BC Hydro.



2)    In Illinois, people are still protesting $$meters and the companies are beginning to consider some permanent opt-out arrangement. They seem to be far more willing to at least listen to their customers than either FortisBC or BC Hydro.

Recently, a number of Chicago suburbs, including Burr Ridge, Lake Forest, and Lake Bluff, have formally requested that ComEd take action to work with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) and the Illinois General Assembly to amend its rules to allow for property owners to permanently refuse or “opt out” of its smart meter program [2].

In response to the increased public opposition to ComEd smart meters and its smart meter deferral program, ComEd completed a new filing with the ICC on August 29, 2016 [3].   This filing requests that the current sunset date for the smart meter deferral program be extended from December 31, 2019, to June 30, 2022.  The filing also commits ComEd “to investigate a possible permanent solution” for customers refusing smart meters.


3)    When, in 2013, an Ohio utility company applied to the public utility commission to allow a $$meter program, the PUC raised concerns about lack of measures to address cybersecurity concerns. The companies have come back with plans but also will consider allowing people who wish to keep their analogs.  BC Hydro and FortisBC have never addressed the cybersecurity issues and neither has there been any costs set aside in BC Hydro’s annual reports to build in any security measures.

AEP’s initial plan for this phase of what it calls gridSmart, introduced in September 2013, did not include cybersecurity efforts, though. Staff from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio have said the application lacked “sufficient consideration of cybersecurity, barely mentioning cybersecurity considerations” other than an operations center operated by the utility.

“The company needs to demonstrate how its planned gridSmart program expansion addresses cybersecurity considerations, specifically, given the evolving nature of the threats and the magnitude of the potential damage they could cause,” commission staff said in late 2013…

Some electric power customers, meanwhile, are concerned about privacy issues and the utility having what they deem to be too much access to their information. For that, AEP is allowing customers to keep their regular meters, though they’ll have to pay a monthly fee to opt-out of smart meters.”




From: Jerry Flynn
Sent: September-13-16

To: jstanhope@shaw.ca; colinhaime@shaw.ca; alecmcpherson2011@gmail.com; maureen_young@shaw.ca; bobrogers4areaE@telus.net; fjfell.at.rdn@gmail.com; bill.veenhof@shaw.ca; bill.mckay@nanaimo.ca; bill.bestwick@nanaimo.ca; jerry.hong@nanaimo.ca; jim.kipp@nanaimo.ca; wendy.pratt@nanaimo.ca; ian.thorpe@nanaimo.ca; bill.yoachim@nanaimo.ca; mayor@parksville.ca; mayor@qualicumbeach.com; Dianne Eddy <d-eddy@shaw.ca>; Nelson Eddy <n.eddy@shaw.ca>; marse@me.com; Bill Friesen <wcfree@shaw.ca>; Greta and Peter Taylor <GPTaylor@shaw.ca>;

Cc: perry.kendall@gov.bc.ca; hlth.minister@gov.bc.ca; hlth.dmoffice@gov.bc.ca; JAG.Minister@gov.bc.ca; oppositionleader@leg.bc.ca; mike.farnworth.mla@leg.bc.ca; scott.fraser.MLA@leg.bc.ca; Jane.Philpott@parl.gc.ca; Ralph.Goodale@parl.gc.ca; arichmond@cariboord.bc.ca; murry.krause@cinhs.org; wndbooth@gmail.com; asingh@kamloops.ca; sav.dhaliwal@burnaby.ca; clrjang@vancouver.ca; wbaldwin@whiterockcity.ca; stewartmayor@gmail.com; akaehn@rdffg.bc.ca; brucehayne@surrey.ca; amorse@bimbc.ca; dkozak@nelson.ca; cbell@mapleridge.ca; bfrenkel@avison.ca; celiason@salmonarm.ca; bprice@comox.ca; jimabram@xplornet.ca; pbrienesse@smithers.ca; asayers@ccrd-bc.ca; cshuman@dawsoncreek.ca; mayor@invermere.net

Subject: Cell Phone Towers and Overhead Power Lines – Suggested MINIMUM ‘Safe’ distances between them and homes, schools, playgrounds, parks, places of work, etc.

Dear RDN Directors and Deep Bay Working Group members,

Please bear this in mind with respect to any future development plans for Deep Bay (Area ‘H’). This is information which BC’s PHO, Health Canada, the WHO and ICNIRP should have told you – and all governments – many years ago!

But no health authority knowledgeable about EMFs is protecting the Canadian public due to today’s unprecedented pandemic corruption throughout the Western-world . and BC’s PHO remains ignorant of the science – after 17 years’ in office! Had RDN known this information, much of the Line Creek residential development would not have happened!

Cell Phone Towers and Overhead Power Lines – Suggested MINIMUM ‘Safe’ distances between them and homes, schools, playgrounds, parks, places of work, hospitals, etc.

Cell Towers

A German study reported that people living within 400 meters (1312 feet) of cell towers had over 3 times the normal rate for new cancers (City of Naila 2004).  In an Israeli study, the relative risk for cancer was about 4 times greater within 350 meters (1148 feet) of the cell tower (Wolf et al. 1997).

Based on findings like these, a minimum safety distance of 1/4 mile (1320 feet) might be considered prudent.

Overhead Power Lines

A 2007 survey of 67 U.K. homes living within 50 yds. of overhead high voltage lines found:

1 case of childhood leukemia;

11 cases of other types of cancer (compared to 0 when living away from power lines);

18 miscarriages (compared to 1 in the control group), plus higher rates of depression, digestive problems and insomnia.

The report also listed breast and brain cancer and Alzheimer’s!

(The Belo Horizonte 10-year study in Brazil suggests 2,000 feet might be more prudent.)

James Gerald (“Jerry”) Flynn, Captain (Retired)



Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

“You will observe with concern how long a useful truth may be known, and exist, before it is generally received and acted on.”
~  Ben Franklin