2016-10-02 BCHydro’s financial report proves incompetence

1)    Katie Singer’s newsletter, encouraging people to get Municipal Councils onside about microcells before they proliferate into the community. I am working with Katie about smart meter fires on a document that should be ready for sharing widely very soon.

“ I’ve heard from communities around the country that their attorneys are being pressured to write ordinances that will allow corporations to deploy “small cells” and DAS. City attorneys who aim to create protective ordinances need legal advice. For starters, I recommend B. Blake Levitt’s book, Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? or Environmental Hazard? Proceedings of the Cell Towers Forum, State of the Science, State of the Law, iUniverse ed., 2007.

Municipal leaders also seek to educate their constituents (and themselves) about the myriad of issues at stake:

* Electronics’ exponentially increasing energy demands create greenhouse gasses and climate change.

* Cybersecurity breaches have become commonplace.

* Telecom rules and regulations continue to take away local authority over telecom infrastructure.

* Common devices can interfere with medical implants and cause them to malfunction or shut off.

* The media “spins” studies like NTP’s (which show that cell phone radiation causes brain and heart tumors and causes DNA damage) and tell the public not to worry about continuing to use mobile devices.”


2)    Here is a webinar on net metering (using solar panels, maintaining connection with BC Hydro for feeding in surplus energy and using BC Hydro for backup.



3)    A short take on financial reports provided by BC Hydro on Sept. 30 by Norman Farrell.  Proof of terrible mismanagement, wasteful spending by a corporation that this government has allowed to run amok without any oversight for the most major projects.  This is our money, health and environment that they are ruining.


Reluctant accountability. Scant hours before the legal reporting deadline, BC Hydro finally issued the 2015-16 report required by the Financial Information Act. Late on Friday September 30 – the end of quarter two – the agency also issued its first quarter report. Together, these documents demonstrate appalling mismanagement. It’s what happens when unqualified political hacks take charge of complicated corporations worth tens of billions.”


4)    A great song and BC Hydro could be substituted for Hydro One – absolutely.





From: Dennis Noble
Sent: October 2, 2016
To: tim.singer@canada.ca
Cc: Bill.Casey@parl.gc.ca; Len.Webber@parl.gc.ca; Don.Davies@parl.gc.ca; Ramaz.Ayoub@parl.gc.ca; Colin.Carrie@parl.gc.ca; Doug.Eyolfson@parl.gc.ca; Rachel.Harder@parl.gc.ca; Darshan.Kang@parl.gc.ca; John.Oliver@parl.gc.ca; Sonia.Sidhu@parl.gc.ca; Justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca; Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca; Jane.Philpott@parl.gc.ca; Colin.Carrie@parl.gc.ca; Don.Davies@parl.gc.ca; Luc.Theriault@parl.gc.ca; David.Anderson@parl.gc.ca; Rheal.Fortin@parl.gc.ca; Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca; Harjit.Sajjan@parl.gc.ca; James.Bezan@parl.gc.ca; Randall.Garrison@parl.gc.ca; Michel.Boudrias@parl.gc.ca; Ralph.Goodale@parl.gc.ca; Erin.OToole@parl.gc.ca; David.Christopherson@parl.gc.ca; elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca; hedy.fry@parl.gc.ca

Subject: Re: Wireless Radiation

Dear Mr. Singer:

There is a mystery afloat.  Is this fellow, Phil Bourke, really as foolish as his words imply?  Or is he just woefully, shamefully unaware?

In any case, he does you a disservice, sir.  He writes, as he clearly states, on your behalf.  And, as such, his words, unfortunately, become yours.

Perhaps you might counsel him to lessen the possibility that he embarrass you like this in the future.

You might begin by explaining to Mr. Bourke that Safety Code 6 is the recommended maximum level of radiation for ionizing radiation.  In other words, radiation above this maximum level cooks flesh.  Cooks, Mr. Singer.  Whereas non-ionizing radiation, the level that we are concerned about, does not heat at all.  So assurances from Mr. Bourke that Safety Code 6 protects us from non-ionizing radiation makes it glaringly obvious that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.  And that means, forgive me for saying so, but, since his words are now yours, that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

I know, it can be discomfiting to find yourself in a situation wherein you find yourself having to take ownership for something another has authored.  But such is the way of the world for those willing to allow the foolish, or the woefully, shamefully unaware (take your pick) to speak in their name.

There are so many points that your Mr. Bourke makes on your behalf that are embarrassingly deficient and it would take far more energy than I am willing to expend to correct.  But I will offer some insight on just a couple because there is, of course, a proscribed limit that certain psyches can absorb and process when confronted with facts of an awkward nature.

For one:  Your Mr. Bourke’s discounting the BioInitiative Report because it did not include a balanced array of scientific reports.  Of course it was not intended to do so.  He (and, therefore, you) should have known that. The Report was designed to counter the accusation that there were no peer reviewed, scientific studies showing that non-ionizing radiation was dangerous to all living things.

And so it listed 2000 of  them.  Independently funded, of course.  Because, as you know, industry funded studies have a bias.  That is their purpose.  Indeed, if they did not have a bias what would be the point of the wireless industry producing so many of them?  Or any at all?

For another, this grotesquely rich industry produces far more of these conflicted studies than can be produced by independent and, thereby, unbiased sources, so that your poor Mr. Bourke will assume that, since there are more studies showing no harm than there are studies showing harm, this weight-of-evidence ploy is proof positive that there is really nothing to worry about.  But he fails to understand that a wireless device merely communicates information and, as such, should not cause any harm at all.  By using the weight-of-evidence ploy, then, your Mr. Bourke is admitting there is harm when using these devices and asserting that such harm is acceptable.  Not to belabour the issue, Mr. Singer, but you are now asserting that such harm is acceptable.

My, that does sound callous, doesn’t it – that harm is acceptable?

Now, please understand, Mr. Singer, I’m not faulting the industry for its unsavoury practises – the salting of the mines, so to speak, with wireless safety disinformation.  After all, the first duty of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders.  Nor am I faulting Industry Canada because its mandate is to facilitate the corporation’s making that money no matter how contemptable the means.

We’re both men of the world, Mr. Singer, and realize that inflicting harm in the pursuit of money is quite often the price of doing business.  And it matters not at all to some of the more ethically challenged if it’s the “little people” paying the price and not the corporation.  Which is what the salting of the mines stratagem is all about, isn’t it?

Now, while we can acknowledge that this practise exists in the business community, I don’t think that either of us wish to be seen as condoning it.  I mean, we both have standards, do we not?  And I’m sure that you would agree that inflicting harm in the pursuit of money is certainly beyond the pale.

You do share that opinion with me, do you not, Mr. Singer?

But you see, this is my concern, sir.  Your directing this low information person to be your voice makes you seem to be a party to these words. Not to just agree with them, but to be their author.  You cannot expect, then, to utter, through the oblivious Mr. Bourke, opinions that some of the discerning public might consider sociopathic and, in the tumult that follows, to remain providentially above the fray.

And you’ll get no comfort with the claim of plausible deniability.  It is so overused a means of avoiding responsibility these days that it has become in the eyes of the public, like Samuel Johnson’s take on patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel.

If you can’t educate the poor fellow into the true dangers of EMR and convince him to revise his regrettable advocacy, then you must take the initiative, Mr. Singer, and reject, disavow,  repudiate.  Not the words, sir, but the wordsmith, the unmindful and heedless Mr. Bourke.  Your reputation is in the balance.  I am reminded of Shakespeare’s Cassio, who, when falling victim to the malevolent Iago’s machinations ruining his reputation, lamented  “I have lost the immortal part of myself and what remains is bestial.”  A bit overblown, perhaps, but it does make the point that concern for reputation is no small matter.

And who has done more to play the unwitting Iago to your Cassio than the ubiquitous Mr. Bourke.  Thankfully, you have in him what is, in effect, a mask.  And what is the point of having a mask if you don’t hide behind it?  And when done, to flush it away?

Dennis Noble

= = =

From: Bourke, Phil (HC/SC) [mailto:phil.bourke@canada.ca] On Behalf Of Singer, Tim (HC/SC)
Sent: September 27, 2016
To: Sharon Noble
Cc: Singer, Tim (HC/SC) <tim.singer@canada.ca>

Subject: Re: Wireless Radiation

Dear Ms. Noble:

I am writing in response to your e-mail of May 12, 2016, concerning radiofrequency (RF) energy exposure, which was forwarded to me on May 22, 2016, by the Office of the Prime Minister. I regret the delay in responding.

Health Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians. The Department’s mandate regarding human exposure to RF electromagnetic energy from wireless devices is to carry out research into possible health effects, monitor the scientific literature related to such effects on an ongoing basis, and develop exposure guidelines such as the Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz – Safety Code 6. Wireless communications equipment, including Wi-Fi devices, is regulated by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISEDC). To ensure that public exposures fall within acceptable guidelines, ISEDC has developed regulatory standards that require the manufacturers of such devices to comply with the human exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6.

The Safety Code 6 limits established by Health Canada and recommended for general public exposure to RF energy are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including infants and children, on a continuous basis. Based on a thorough review of all available scientific data, the health of Canadians is protected from RF energy when the human exposure limits recommended by Safety Code 6 are respected. This conclusion is similar to that arrived at by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, and the World Health Organization (WHO). Safety Code 6 has always established and maintained a human exposure limit that is far below the threshold for potential adverse health effects.

Health Canada updated Safety Code 6 in 2015 to take into account recent scientific data from studies carried out worldwide. When developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, our scientists considered all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employed a weight-of-evidence approach when evaluating possible health risks from exposure to RF energy. This approach takes into account both the quantity and quality of studies on a particular endpoint. Poorly conducted studies receive relatively little weight, while properly conducted studies receive more weight. The Department’s updated Safety Code 6 places Canada’s limits among the most stringent science-based limits in the world.

Please be assured that advice provided by Health Canada is up-to-date, protective of health, and informed by sources including reviews of the scientific literature, international research, guidelines, and international standards.

With regard to electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), a number of people have described an array of health symptoms that they attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). While the symptoms attributed to EHS conditions are real, the weight of evidence to date has failed to demonstrate that these health effects are associated with EMF exposure. More information about EHS is available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/electri-magnet/electromagnet-eng.php  .

Health Canada scientists are familiar with the BioInitiative Report, which is considered to be an advocacy document that does not contain any new scientific data, and regrettably presents an unbalanced review of the scientific literature as it excludes numerous studies that are not supportive of the Report’s conclusions. A detailed review of the document shows a number of weaknesses, including internal inconsistencies amongst the various chapters. The report recommends precautionary limits for human exposure to EMFs that are much lower than the internationally recognized exposure standards based on established effects, yet presents no clear rationale to support these exposure limits. Based on these and other shortcomings, Health Canada has concluded that the Report does not provide any grounds for revising our current views on EMF health risk assessment.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk for glioma, a type of brain cancer, associated with long‑term, heavy cell phone use. However, the vast majority of research to date does not support a link between RF energy exposure and cancers in humans.

Health Canada is in agreement with the WHO that additional research in this area is warranted, and in 2011 encouraged parents to limit their children’s use of cell phones, as children are often at increased risk from a variety of environmental agents. In addition, Health Canada advises all cell phone users on practical ways of reducing exposure to RF energy from these devices. This advice pertains only to cell phone use, and not to RF energy exposure from Wi-Fi devices, since the intensity and distribution of the RF energy absorbed within the body from these devices are very different.

On June 15, 2016, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health issued a report entitled Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians. Our officials are currently preparing a response to the report. While many of the recommendations reflect practices currently undertaken by Health Canada, other recommendations were directed at organizations other than the Department. Health Canada has shared the report with these organizations.

Again, thank you for writing.

Tim Singer
Director General
Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate
Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch
Health Canada
Email : tim.singer@canada.ca

= = =

From: Sharon Noble
Sent: May 11, 2016
To: Bill.Casey@parl.gc.ca; Len.Webber@parl.gc.ca; Don.Davies@parl.gc.ca; Ramaz.Ayoub@parl.gc.ca; Colin.Carrie@parl.gc.ca; Doug.Eyolfson@parl.gc.ca; Rachel.Harder@parl.gc.ca; Darshan.Kang@parl.gc.ca; John.Oliver@parl.gc.ca; Sonia.Sidhu@parl.gc.ca; Justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca; Jane.Philpott@parl.gc.ca; Colin.Carrie@parl.gc.ca; Don.Davies@parl.gc.ca; Luc.Theriault@parl.gc.ca; David.Anderson@parl.gc.ca; Rheal.Fortin@parl.gc.ca; Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca; Harjit.Sajjan@parl.gc.ca; James.Bezan@parl.gc.ca; Randall.Garrison@parl.gc.ca; Michel.Boudrias@parl.gc.ca; Ralph.Goodale@parl.gc.ca; Erin.OToole@parl.gc.ca; David.Christopherson@parl.gc.ca; elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca; hedy.fry@parl.gc.ca;

Subject: Health Canada is misleading the public, misrepresenting facts re. wireless radiation

Dear Prime Minister Trudeau, and HESA Committee Members,

I am writing in support of Mr. Jerry Flynn’s charge that Health Canada is misusing its authority by misleading the public about the scientific evidence which shows that there is strong evidence that prolonged exposure to even small amounts of microwave radiation can cause harm, especially to children.

I charge that Health Canada provides erroneous, inaccurate and outdated information to the public, and following are just two examples from its current websites.

1)    “As long as RF energy levels remain below Health Canada’s RF safety guidelines, current scientific evidence supports the assertion that RF energy emissions from Wi-Fi devices are not harmful. Health Canada’s conclusions are consistent with the findings of other international bodies and regulators, including the  World Health Organization, the  International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the U.K. Health Protection Agency.

RF energy exposure from Wi-Fi equipment in all areas accessible to the general public are required to meet Health Canada’s safety guidelines. The limits specified in the guidelines are far below the threshold for adverse health effects and are based on an ongoing review of thousands of published scientific studies on the health impacts of RF energy. The public exposure limits apply to everyone, including children, and allow for continuous, 24/7 exposure.”

2)    ““What does Health Canada say about the potential health risks from Wi-Fi?
Based on scientific evidence, Health Canada has determined that low-level exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy from Wi-Fi equipment is not dangerous to the public. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of other international bodies and regulators.

Should parents be concerned about Wi-Fi in schools?
RF energy levels from Wi-Fi equipment in all areas accessible to the general public, including school settings, are required to meet Health Canada’s exposure guidelines. The limits specified in the guidelines are based on an ongoing review of thousands of published scientific studies on the health impacts of RF energy. Levels of RF energy emitted from Wi-Fi equipment are typically well below these exposure limits. As long as exposure is below these established limits, there is no convincing scientific evidence that emissions from this equipment are dangerous to schoolchildren or to Canadians in general.

Below this letter is a list of 60 links that contain information that refutes Health Canada’s assertion that Wi-Fi is safe. These contain many  peer reviewed studies by world-renowned scientists, showing that the proliferation of microwave radiation must be curtailed for the sake of the health of future generations.

Parents are being misled, but, worse, provincial health authorities are, too. Provincial medical officers merely follow Health Canada’s lead and, consequently, being unaware and uneducated on the topic, are allowing wired internet access to be replaced with wireless industrial-strength modems that are exposing children and teachers to high levels of radiation all day every school day. No information is provided to parents about this health hazard, and when children become ill, parents and doctors are left trying to find the cause. When parents discover that their children are exhibiting symptoms consistent with radiation illness first diagnosed 80 years ago, the schools refuse to eliminate Wi-Fi and tell the parents that it can’t be the Wi-Fi because Health Canada says it’s safe.

How can Health Canada defend its statement that its position is consistent will other international bodies, including the World Health Organization when it knows that in May, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiation from all wireless devices in the same category as lead and DDT. This classification means IT IS NOT SAFE. I cannot paint my home with paint that has lead or spray my yard with DDT, but my grandchildren are being subjected to wireless radiation without their parents’ being informed or giving their approval. This appears to be blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

Health Canada has ignored the HESA recommendations since 2010, and unless drastic measures are taken they will continue to ignore them. I and many thousands of Canadians are outraged by this lack of due diligence on behalf of Health Canada and ask that they be held accountable for their willful blindness.

Sharon Noble

Lennart Hardell – in Letter to WHO regarding brain tumour risk associated with exposure to radiofrequency fields

Wi-Fi in Schools: Testing for Microwave Radiation Dangers in the Classroom

World Health Organization Confirms that Wi-Fi and Cell Phone Radiation are Class B Carcinogens
“IARC’s evaluation of the cancer hazards from exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields covers all sources of RF-radiation.” …includes Wi-Fi , as confirmed by WHO.

Dr Andrew Goldsworthy on WI-FI in Schools
Study: Long-term, low-level microwave exposure may inhibit learning and memory

Effect the Cell Towers Have Had on My Son – From a California Mother in the USA

Letter to the Health Committee in Ottawa Asking to Ban Wi-Fi from Canadian Schools

Why Die for Wi-Fi? My Child Did – Will Yours?

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity – an increasing challenge to the medical profession
In population-based surveys, the prevalence of EHS has ranged from 1.5% in Sweden to 13.3% in Taiwan. CONCLUSION: It seems necessary to give an International Classification of Diseases to EHS to get it accepted as EMF-related health problems. The increasing exposure to RF-EMF in schools is of great concern and needs better attention. Longer-term health effects are unknown. Parents, teachers, and school boards have the responsibility to protect children from unnecessary exposure.

Schools Worldwide Removing the WiFi/Taking Action




Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived
~ Nicolo Machiavelli