1) FortisBC is being as heartless and reckless as BC Hydro, cutting power as retaliation for people refusing to allow FortisBC to put a fire hazard on their home. Please comment while the comments are open – people need to know what the many problems are.
2) Saskatchewan government recalled the smeters after only 8 failures, only a couple of which resulted in fires. It will be installing smeters after taking a long time to review the problems with current smeters and set out a strong set of specifications for new ones. I believe what should be a major consideration, if the provinces are absolutely immovable about having smeters, is to look at the fiber optic cables now being installed by Telus. Wired smeters have been in use for years (despite what BC Hydro says). They use the powerlines which does create high levels of dirty electricity.
When I asked John Horgan about using fiber optic cable 6 years ago, he correctly advised that this would be too expensive to consider. But now the cable is available in many communities and will be in all according to Telus. Has anyone investigated having wired smeters connected via the fiber optic cable that is being put on the side of every home by Telus? This would eliminate EMR emissions, reduce hacking and increase security concerns, and would eliminate the need for more cellular collectors and transmitters in our neighbourhoods. I have not investigated the fire issue, but service would be faster and more efficient than Wi-Fi – this is one of the major benefits of fiber optic cable.
I suggest we push for a recall of the current dangerous smeters, demand our money back from ITRON which knew these things caused fires long before BC Hydro and FortisBC signed contracts, and investigate the use of wired smeters.
“The government said it had reached a deal with Sensus to cover the $47-million dollar cost of the recall.”
3) BC Hydro’s winter disconnection policy. I wonder if FortisBC has a similar one.
4) Home in Michigan has power cut to prevent a fire. Then they hold her responsible for the costs of repairing the base. Where is the evidence that the smeter didn’t cause the problems? It was taken and no one saw it.
Subject: Letter to the Editor re: BC Hydro
We want to thank journalist Sean McIntyre for his article about BC Hydro’s heartless, unconscionable and deceptive treatment of the Weigel family by disconnecting their electricity. Many of us have opposed being forced to accept “smart” meters and have received disrespectful treatment and continual lies by BC Hydro. Those of us who still have analog meters are paying an extra $32 each month for this “privilege” that BC Hydro assured us we would be able to continue to have. Recently it seems that they are treating many Salt Spring Islanders (and others within the province) with contempt and bullying, forcing them to take “unacceptable” so-called “turned-off” meters while refusing to supply them with analog or “digital” meters. (Many have already accepted “smart” meters who could not afford the extra fees.) Sharon Noble, who was quoted in the article, is a tireless advocate against the electro-magnetic radiation generated by so-called “smart” meters. There are numerous health and safety issues. Check out the Coalition to Stop Smart Meters website for important information.
Our analog meter expires in 2018 and we are fearful that we could have our power cut off, regardless of paying the fees, if we refuse a “smart” (or even a “radio off” one). We urge others in our communities to take notice and inform yourselves of this blatant disregard for our health, safety and rights.
Wendy Judith Cutler & Corrie Hope Furst (names given with permission)
Salt Spring Island
Sent: December 12, 2016
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: NTP Study Protocols Questioned in Misunderstanding by Provincial Health Office
Dear Medical Health Officer:
Re: U.S. N.I.H. National Toxicology Program – “Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD Rats (Whole Body Exposure) (May 27, 2016).
This is an MHO update email regarding a misleading document (link below) posted on the Provincial Health Office website questioning the validity of the important NTP study referenced above. The preliminary results of the NTP study were released because the authors wished to warn the public and health professionals of the potential for harm. The response from our Provincial Health Office was to, without taking the time to understand the protocols, question the study’s relevance and in effect dismiss its importance. The public of British Columbia, and you and your family, deserve better.
This Provincial Health Office document has now garnered some international attention, making those in charge of health in British Columbia (that would be you I believe) look decidedly like amateurs. Or worse.
Since it is my understanding that as a Medical Health Officer you are under the direction of the Provincial Health Office, I believe it is in your interests to be aware of how they are interpreting (or failing to interpret, more accurately) recent scientific studies on your behalf, as I strongly suspect you are obligated to follow the official pronouncements of ‘no convincing evidence’ of harm, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The article below was/is published on the Provincial Health Office website:
Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation: A Review of the National Toxicology Program’s Partial Findings In May 2016, the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) reported …
The author of the above unsigned article (whose name it appears must remain secret) apparently neither understood the protocols of the NTP study, or, more distressingly, made no attempt to understand them. The article was published with a less than sound grasp of the fundamentals and without an attempt to contact the NTP for clarification. Ronald Melnick (who designed the study protocols) explained the misinterpretations below:
Want to find out more information about environmental health risks, or about EHT’s current efforts and projects? Fill out the form below and we will contact you as …
This leads us to the inevitable question as to who is interpreting these studies on our behalf, what are their qualifications, and why are they publishing anonymous, inaccurate, and misleading information? This is only one study. What about the thousands of previous studies showing potential harm from ‘wireless’ radiation that have been delivered to the Provincial Health Office and disappeared into a silence as deep as the vacuum of space, with the Provincial Health Officer refusing to appear in public and answer questions? We don’t have an ideological bias in the Provincial Health Office supporting the wireless industry over the health of citizens, do we?
But wait, it seems there are all kinds of other organizations who appear to have a compulsive desire to prove the NTP study ‘wrong’:
On May 31, the New York Times ran a piece in what it calls “The Upshot” on the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) cell phone animal study. The column is a …
In May, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) announced that male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed higher rates of cancer. Soon, the NTP will …
News FLASH – Telecoms are erecting microcell antenna’s on your block as fast as they can. No testing has been done. No questions are answered. Citizens may be calling to ask you about this. I expect we’ll soon see another form letter from the Provincial Health Office saying (NOT that it’s ‘safe’, of course) but that there is ‘no convincing evidence of harm’. As long as you don’t look where the evidence is, you are in no danger of finding it. Just like there is still ‘no convincing evidence’ that tobacco smoke causes lung cancer. Never proven.
Is there a clandestine force working behind the scenes in the United States, censoring truth about the “5G” rollout? Watch this — then decide. SOLUTIONS: 1) …
The people of British Columbia deserve full and fair analysis of scientific information that affects their health, not medical industry ‘spins’ put on it in order to advance political agendas. In the end, the truth is always known.
Thank you for your time and attention.