I have received a lot of emails about the “legacy digital meter” that was installed on Salt Spring, with people asking if I meant “analog” or really a smeter with the transmitter turned off. This is indeed a “legacy digital” meter and is not a smart meter. The model number is C1S (you can see it on http://emrabc.ca/?page_id=3090).
For a short period (a few years) prior to the time smeters were installed, BC Hydro was replacing expired analogs with these digitals. They do not have a transmitter. Because they were in place before the smeters and were replaced by smeters, they are considered “legacy” meters. They are not as safe as analogs – they create a lot more dirty electricity because they have a switching-mode power supply [http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=2180], but they are better than smeters. They don’t have some of the features that make the smeters fire hazards, and BC Hydro cannot turn the transmitter on and off as they might be able to do with the smeter with the transmitter turned off.
1) An important letter from a member is below. It regards the insurance companies’ policies which apply when there is a fire caused by a smart meter. These policies have been given by several insurers (usually through the brokers) to various policyholders.
The major point of the letter below is that the Consumer Protection Department says it cannot investigate the smart meters’ safety or get involved in any way because the meter is owned by BC Hydro and, therefore, is not a consumer product. (I think this rule needs to be challenged.) But Consumers Protection can investigate the insurance companies’ involvement and their policies regarding smart meter fires. Please consider writing to the Consumer Protection Dept., too. We have to use every resource to try to be treated fairly – right now, no agency is helping to protect our rights.
2) The government of Poland is working on an Act to protect its citizens from radiation from cell towers. It is hoped the Act will be in place by the end of this year.
3) Charges of conflicts of interest, proof that evidence of harm has been covered up, occurs in this report and the author identifies a similar situation in the Panel reviewing evidence for the WHO report due in 2017.
Decisions about involuntary, continuous and widespread RF exposures in schools, hospitals, workplaces and public and private spaces in the UK and around the world have been made based upon inaccurate conclusions of the AGNIR report. Published in 2012, it continues to be used to justify RF exposures and dismiss concerns about possible adverse effects on health, well-being or development.
The denial of the existence of adverse effects of RF fields below ICNIRP guidelines in the AGNIR report conclusions is not supported by the scientific evidence. Studies have, as described as examples in this review, reported damage to male reproductive health, proteins and cellular membranes, increased oxidative stress, cell death and genotoxicity, altered electrical brain activity and cognition, increased behavioural problems in children and risks of some cancers…
Schools, hospitals, employers, organisations and individuals have legal responsibilities to safeguard the health, safety, well-being and development of children, employees and members of the public. But they are unable to fulfil their legal responsibilities when they have been provided with inaccurate information and the evidence of possible harm has been covered up.” Pg. 499
Abstract: The Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 report forms the basis of official advice on the safety of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields in the United Kingdom and has been relied upon by health protection agencies around the world. This review describes incorrect and misleading statements from within the report, omissions and conflict of interest, which make it unsuitable for health risk assessment. The executive summary and overall conclusions did not accurately reflect the scientific evidence available. Independence is needed from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the group that set the exposure guidelines being assessed. This conflict of interest critically needs to be addressed for the forthcoming World Health Organisation (WHO) Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on Radiofrequency Fields. Decision makers, organisations and individuals require accurate information about the safety of RF electromagnetic signals if they are to be able to fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities and protect those for whom they have legal responsibility.
4) One of our members has made this lovely and informative YouTube “with an environmental/kids’ health perspective on the EMF issue”. Please share.
5) With awareness growing due to more scientific evidence that RF is dangerous, Krakow, Poland is leading the way in addressing concerns about the proliferation of microwave radiation. It is taking measures to educate people in addition to giving them the tools to know what is going on, such as buying RF meters for the public to use and teaching them how to use them.
“KRAKOW – The International Forum on Protection from Electromagnetic Environmental Pollution subtitled “Right to Information for Citizens” learned Monday in the 16th Century Krakow Hall of Sessions that responsible government, professional scientific advice and citizen participation can address the runaway explosion of electromagnetic radiation that is causing disease and death to as many as 200 million worldwide.”
Subject: Insurance – when smart meters burn
Re: BC Hydro Smart Meter fires
Our insurance agent wrote back to our inquiry, regarding the potential of fires, caused by BC Hydro’s unwanted (no consent) smart meter. I am forwarding our letter, as well as theirs.
Our letter to the insurance agent:
Would we have to pay the deductible and would our premiums increase, in case of a BC Hydro ‘smart’ meter fire?
To set the record straight: As home owners, we have not given BC Hydro permission, nor given any implied consent, to have a BC Hydro/Itron smart meter device attached to our home.
Our request through letters and numerous phone calls, to have their smart meter replaced with a safe analog meter, was willfully ignored by BC Hydro, thereby violating or rights as property owners, as well as our constitutional rights.
Thousands of homeowners in BC have voiced their concerns regarding the safety of BC Hydro’s smart meters. Since smart meter fires gained more attention recently, we would appreciate clarification from the insurance company.
Reply from our insurance agent:
Any claim that is made on your policy the deductible would need to be paid. The insurance company should they did proceed with subrogation against BC Hydro for the damages they may opt to include your policy Deductible as part of it.
For any insured claim under your Homeowners policy, the deductible would have to be paid as the contract of the policy is between you and the insurance company. This would also be the case if a tree fell on your home from the neighbor’s property, your insurance policy would respond to the resulting damage to your home and your deductible would apply as well.
Our reply to the insurance agent:
If we understand this correctly: We have to pay the deductible? Yes?
Would our insurance rate increase as well?
Reply from the insurance agent:
Correct on the deductible. For any claim made , yes your policy would increase by 20% on the base premium, which would be for 3 years.
There is an option to add on a claims free protector for $ 30 per year which allows 1 claim without any change to your claims free discount.
This is unbelievable! Even though, we repeatedly disallowed the unwanted smart meter on our home, and were ignored by BC Hydro, we the consumers have to pay, in the event of a BC Hydro smart Meter fire, even when BC Hydro is at fault, or proven negligent in their duties!
A BC Hydro smart meter fire is not an act of God, nor a natural occurrence! A smart meter fire is solely the fault of BC Hydro! The smart meter is 100% the property of BC Hydro. When the device fails and causes damage to homes and occupants, fault lies 100% with BC Hydro, not the home owners! The base of the meter was only designed for analog meters, and not designed to accommodate a smart meter, according to electrical engineer reports.
Even though we do not own the smart meter, even though we have written and called BC Hydro to remove the potentially dangerous device from our home, we were ignored again and again, by this arrogant and irresponsible crown corporation.
We have to suffer the trauma, that a smart fire can cause?
We have to suffer the loss of property & financial hardship, that a smart meter fire brings?
We have to suffer the potential of severe physical injury, that a smart meter fire can cause?
We have to live with the probability that we might even lose our lives, in the event of a smart meter fire?
Now we are told that we have to pay the deductible, when BC Hydro’s smart meter sets our home ablaze, even though they are at fault?
To top it off, we have to pay a considerable increase in our home insurance premium for years to come?
Has Consumer Protection, as well as BCUC, failed to consider the consequences for the consumer, from the insurance angle?
Homeowners ultimately suffer the losses by increased fire risks, as well as increased insurance cost by paying the deductibles, as well as an increase in insurance rates. What kind of corrupt society have we become?
Unbelievable as it is, in previous correspondence with Consumer Protection BC, I was informed that your organization cannot interfere in BC Hydro’s affairs. However, insurance matters cannot be ignored by you, as all insurance companies are privately owned. There are thousands of home owners who, like us, are looking for clarification of this matter. This indeed has become Consumer Protection BC’s affair.
Your immediate attention to this surreal situation matter is appreciated.