2016-10-11 Is Hydro really testing meters when customers believe they are running fast?

1)    A member found this website with experiences of people who are sensitive, and what they’ve learned that helps them to cope in this horribly hostile environment.



2)    Parents confront cell towers on schools and hopefully they will apply their concern to the Wi-Fi in school rooms, too.


3)    In every place where smeters have been installed, people complain about large increases in consumption. Not everyone sees a big increase but many do. Could it be caused by specific factors in the home or around the home that create interference?  Measurements Canada has been asked by many, but seldom responds. BCUC has refused to get involved, saying it is precluded from doing so by the Clean Energy Act.  But Measurements Canada has admitted that interference is possible cause.  This was found by a member.  Just so you know, one of the changes BC Hydro is pushing through the Tariff is an increase in fees for “testing” meters for accuracy, up to $180.  They know that the meters will be fine, but they are increasing the fees.




Cheri-Lyn Grace: So had an interesting conversation with Measurement Canada today. They currently do not have any kind of test to check for “dirty” electricity, (or as they called it harmonic frequencies) in relation to how/if the consumption a meter is recording can be affected by it. HOWEVER, they advised me that they are in the process of developing just such a test, but that it will take years to be completed and implemented. Sooooo, bottom line is that currently there is no way to prove or disprove that a meter is recording inaccurately because of dirty electricity, but I find it EXTREMELY interesting that Measurement Canada feels that a test for that very thing is necessary…. Should such a test in the future prove that smart meters CAN in fact be inaccurate because of dirty electricity I see a MAJOR class action lawsuit on the horizon. They ALSO confirmed for me that testing a meter in a controlled environment (aka – their lab) most definitely does not take into account any factors in the home or neighbourhood that *could* potentially be causing a meter to read inaccurate usage. I asked if there was any way to have the test conducted right at the property, but they said no. They were quite careful in saying that they were not aware of any “known” factors that could do this, but that anything was possible. They did confirm for me that Measurement Canada has done/does do EMF tests before approving any metering device, and that the smart meters used by BC Hydro are NOT influenced or affected by EMF’S when recording/reporting actual consumption.

4)    Groups are organizing in North Carolina to fight smeters. I hope you will add some comments to support their efforts.


5)    A mother shares how her “dysfunctional” daughter has found a new life after an RF/EMF-free environment has been achieved. A fascinating read.




philpottjane_lib   health-canada

From: “Rick Biggar”    (name given at author’s request)
To: Hon.Jane.Philpott@Canada.ca
Sent: October 9, 2016
Subject: Health Canada’s need to update Safety Code 6

Dear Honorable Philpott:

As it was not straightforward to email this content to Health Canada I have sent this to you directly.  It is important you are made aware of my concerns as well, as I am not alone in this country who is beginning to have grave concern over the proliferation of RF field radiation in public places.  I would appreciate your comments as well and please forward this letter to the appropriate department for their timely response.

As technological changes in the wireless industry today are advancing at an unprecedented rate and installations of low-intensity, non thermal RF radiation emitting devices (microcell transmitters) in public areas are becoming commonplace, there is a dire need for Health Canada to begin reviewing the hundreds of recent worldwide scientific studies finding the serious health effects of low-intensity, non-thermal RF radiation. These changes are rapidly occurring in the public landscape yet Safety Code 6 states:

“Despite the advent of numerous additional research studies on RF fields and health, the only established adverse health effects associated with RF field exposures in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz relate to the occurrence of tissue heating and nerve stimulation (NS) from short-term (acute) exposures. At present, there is no scientific basis for the occurrence of acute, chronic and/or cumulative adverse health risks from RF field exposure at levels below the limits outlined in Safety Code 6.”

My question is; On what date specifically, was this paragraph from your regulations last updated? This is a very serious question. I would like to determine when this specific paragraph was reviewed and updated.

As Health Canada’s exposure limits specified in Safety Code 6 are established based upon a thorough evaluation of the scientific literature related to the thermal and non-thermal health effects of RF fields, I would like to request detailed answers to the following questions to gain a better understanding of how your scientists arrive at and establish Health Canada’s guidelines. Furthermore, “the exposure limits specified in Safety Code 6 have been established based upon a thorough evaluation of the scientific literature related to the thermal and non-thermal health effects of RF fields.”

1. Your guidelines state, “The safety limits in this code apply to all individuals working at, or visiting, federally regulated sites.” I was unable to find the safe limits of RF exposure as applied to any non-government personnel (eg. the general public) in any public place. Could you please provide the section and guideline where this could be found?

2. As there are health effects from thermal and non-thermal RF fields, what are Health Canada’s exposure guidelines for both types of fields where it applies to the public at large in a public area?

Health Canada scientists consider peer based scientific studies on an ongoing basis and employ a weight-of-evidence approach when evaluating the possible health risks of exposure to RF fields. The weight of evidence (as applied in science rather than a court of law) is a highly robust assessment and clearly indicates that RF radiation is harmful at levels below international guidelines. Thousands of scientific papers have been published documenting exposure to RF/MW radiation causes adverse health issues at levels well below those deemed to be “safe” by many countries around the world .

3. Specifically, on what dates during the past 2 years were changes made to the non-thermal RF field exposure guidelines at Health Canada and what were the specifics on any increase/decrease RF exposure limits?

4. Name the countries and scientific studies used by Health Canada’s scientists in determining any non-thermal RF exposure guideline changes for the public at large during the previous 2 years?

5. How and when are the “ongoing review” parameters of published scientific studies on the health impacts of RF energy and its interaction with the human body established at Health Canada?

6. As this code is periodically revised and exposure limits modified, if deemed necessary, who makes the final decision in affecting such changes and more specifically, what criteria is it based upon?

7. Safety Code 6 is based upon the lowest exposure level at which any scientifically established adverse health effects occur. The basic restrictions in Safety Code 6 are similar to those adopted by most other nations, since all science-based, standard-setting bodies use the same scientific data. Last year France’s government established it’s own governing body to determine their own safe limits to RF field exposure as confidence had been lost with the WHO and ICNIRP EMF guidelines. They immediately banned all Wi-Fi in grade schools across the country. The “Pre-Cautionary” principle was applied in this case. Can you explain to me how does Health Canada’s scientists determine which countries and/or scientific bodies to follow and which to ignore? And more specifically, which countries and/or scientific bodies you’ve actually used to implement Canada’s Safety Code 6 RF exposure guidelines?

8. And lastly Health Canada states: “ It must be stressed that Safety Code 6 is based upon established adverse health effects and should be distinguished from some municipal and/or national guidelines that are based on socio-political considerations.” As a layman I believe an explanation from the bureaucrat who wrote this is warranted. Do you not agree?

From your own website it states, “In a field where technology is advancing rapidly and where unexpected and unique exposure scenarios may occur, this code cannot cover all possible situations. Consequently, the specifications in this code may require interpretation under special circumstances. This interpretation should be done in consultation with scientific staff at the Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada.” I believe a detailed explanation from this branch of Health Canada is warranted as it applies to the situation facing citizens of Chemainus, B.C. as outlined below.

Yes we’ve reached a point in history where the advancement of wireless technology is coming to the world stage at a breakneck pace. Unfortunately the public is completely unaware and uninformed of what is transpiring around them in their neighborhoods.

Telus completed their fiber-optic hardwiring earlier this year and has been installing the infrastructure necessary to bring their microcell transmitters “online” here in Chemainus, B.C. next. These units are supposed to be “powered-up” in the next 2-3 months if not sooner. No notification to our townspeople by any means was carried out, only if the sub-contractor was asked.

The “blitzkrieg” approach of getting these units up on the hydro poles is sickening especially when the public has no idea what these units are for, what they emit or about the very real health risks they’re facing, as this technology is too new to them. With the advent of 5G wireless technology, coupled with fiber-optic lines being recently brought on-line in the U.S. it’s only a matter of time before Telus will roll-out their 5G network and with it a Wi-Fi hotspot blanketing our little retirement town of Chemainus.

According to Industry Canada procedures, where there is a municipal antenna siting consultation policy in place, a notification and consultation process with people living close to transmitters should be carried out. Telus’s secretive behavior in installing these microcell transmitters have caught both our citizens and the entire Municipal Council off-guard, the latter being completely unaware of what was transpiring right under their nose on municipal/public property. But more importantly Telus chose not to inform our Municipality of their intentions. This must change. How does Industry Canada plan to address this problem, which will become widespread across the Canadian landscape very soon?

A number of concerned citizens are awaiting your response, including council members of our Municipality, friends and acquaintances on social media and a number of media outlets.

As Industry Canada and Health Canada have a mutual relationship and a fiduciary duty to protect Canadians I am expecting, in a timely manner, answers to each and every question I’ve raised here. And please don’t insult me by replying with a form letter, it only wastes your time and reveals your lack of transparency.

I look forward to your response.

Rick Biggar



Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

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