1) The UK still struggles with the costs of a smeter program which is supposed to put a smeter in every home by 2020. The projected cost per meter is £215 (Eng. pounds) or about $361 CAD. WE ARE STILL #1 at $555, and this doesn’t include the replacements due to the shorter (less than the 20 years projected in the business case) lifespan (~ 5 years) or the increased level of security that is required to prevent attack or hacking. There is a chart with all the costs as I’ve been able to find them at: http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/smart-meter-cost-comparison/
2) I have been encouraging people to ask their insurance company (not the agent or the broker) for confirmation – in writing – that, in the event damages occur as a result of having a $$meter, the claims would be paid and that premiums would not be increased. One person received the following response.
“I just heard from my insurance agent. Any damage as a result of a smart meter would result in my paying the deductible ($1,000) and losing my claims free status (15-20% discount). In the unlikely event that my insurance company would take on BC Hydro and the even more unlikely event that Hydro would cover the claim, Hydro only pays out in cash; that would not affect my loss of the claim-free status, I would have lost that forever.” Possibly” I might be able to recoup the deductible.”
I do not understand this statement, and asked the person to get clarification. Given this approach, there is no reason for BC Hydro to be concerned about the dangers they pose. Every contract has a subrogation clause which allows the insurer to go after a party that has been found to have caused the damage/accident, etc. This is to prevent the insurance company from having to pay claims and to increase premiums to someone who had no responsibility for the incident. I believe any responsible insurer would go after BC Hydro if there were sufficient evidence. But BC Hydro removes the smeters – so the evidence is gone.
Why should the victim have to suffer the loss plus the increase in premiums? If this happens, I would suggest that the victim investigate taking BC Hydro to Small Claims Court [http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/small_claims/info/guides/making_a_claim.htm] for recovery of the deductible and the premium increase. This is yet another reason to help get these fire hazards recalled. If anyone else gets information from their insurer, please send to me at:
email@example.com with “insurance” on the subject line.
3) There have been many studies since the classification of RF-EMF as a 2b carcinogen, strengthening the argument for a higher classification, from “possible” to “probable” if not “definite”. One significant study is by Hardell and the results show that cordless phones are similar to cell phones in their causing brain tumours. Dr. Hardell believes that the evidence is so strong that reclassification of microwave radiation as being carcinogenic is urgent.
An observation about the study by Dr. Lloyd Morgan:
“The Hardell study list below this email is, in my view, the MOST IMPORTANT study of all. The second generation GSM modulated (2G, GSM) cellphone’s averaged radiated power is 1,000 fold higher than the third generation UMTS modulated (3G, UMTS) cellphones. Yet per 100 hours of use the risk of brain cancer from use of a 3G, UMTS cellphone is 3.4-fold higher than use of 2G, GSM cellphone,..
…The risk of brain cancer from a G3, UMTS phone has a 4.0-fold risk while from a 2G, GSM phone has a 1.5- fold risk. How can a 1,000 fold lower average radiated power cellphone cause a major higher risk. Reference 3-5 provide a probable explanation. UMTS modulation inhibits DNA repair genes.”
“In analysis of survival of glioma cases in our previous studies [13,15,25], we found a decreased survival of cases with glioblastoma multiforme and long-term use of wireless phones [37,38]; this indicates a complex biological effect from RF-EMF exposure and strengthens a causal association between glioma and the use of wireless phones.
We have already shown a higher risk for glioma among subjects with first use of a mobile or cordless phone before the age of 20 years [8,15,29,30], which was also the result found in the present study. In particular, the near field exposure to the brain from a handset is worrying since the exposure is higher in children than adults due to the thinner bone, smaller head and higher conductivity of microwaves in the brain.
More-over, the developing brain is discussed to be more sensitive to toxins than that of the adult .In short, these findings on biological relevance are consistent with wireless phones causing glioma…
We concluded that glioma and also acoustic neuroma are caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones, and thus regarded as carcinogenic, under Group 1 according to the IARC classification, indicating that current guide-lines for exposure should be urgently revised. This pooled analysis gives further support to that conclusion regarding glioma.” Pages 11-12
4) Lithium batteries are fire hazards, and ITRON smeters have them inside. These can explode when they are exposed to moisture or become hot. Why are they being exposed ?