[A Framework for the Application of Precaution in Science-based Decision Making about Risk & the Precautionary Principle – BC Hydro Smart Meter Testing – Brianne Maxwell – Cancer – CEPA Review Briefs by Doctor Magda Havas & Margaret Friesen – Civil Rights – Covert Sonic Device Attacks on American / Canadian Embassy Diplomats – EHS Symptoms – EMR Weapons – Environment Canada – FBI – Fires – First Energy Power Cut Threat to Clarise Rey – – Geneva Convention – Health Canada – Hearing Loss – Heather Nauert, State Department – High Bills – Itron IP Mesh Network – James Bartleman – John Caulfield – IARC – Mandatory Smart Meters – Michael Smuts – Remote Disconnect Switch Design Flaw – Rex Tillerson – RF – Ryan Vaughn, Figures Models – Safety – Surveillance – Virgil James, City Power – William LeoGrande – Wingspread Conference – Wireless | BC – Canada – Havana, Cuba – Moscow, Russia – Johannesburg, South Africa – Miami, Florida & Susquehanna Valley, Pennsylvania, USA] & (videos)
1) With regard to the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) that resulted in many recommendations for improvement, here are some submissions.
(click on photos to enlarge)
Dr. Magda Havas:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/421/ENVI/Brief/BR8708953/br-external/HavasMagda-e.pdf
Marg Friesen:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/421/ENVI/Brief/BR8708951/br-external/FriesenMargaret-e.pdf
In 1998, Canada and other countries had representatives who agreed that the Precautionary Principle should be followed. The PP written at the Wingspread Conference is simple and clear:
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
In 1999, the Canadian government decided to re-interpret the PP, making it corporate-friendly. The PP used by Environment Canada and Health Canada consider the economic impact – using “risk assessment”. It seems like a type of cost-benefit analysis, where the benefits (a healthy life and environment) must justify the costs. It reads:
2.4 Precaution in science-based decision making
“The Federal Government has developed a document entitled “A Framework for the Application of Precaution in Science-based Decision Making about Risk” [Privy Council Office (PCO), 2003]. This paper addresses the application of precaution in its various forms – “precaution”, “the Precautionary Principle” or “the precautionary approach” – all of which have three basic components: the need for a decision; a risk of serious or irreversible harm; and a lack of full scientific certainty.
As stated in the document, the application of precaution primarily affects the development of options and the decision phases within science-based risk management, is clearly linked to scientific analysis, and cannot be applied without an appropriate assessment of scientific factors and consequent risks. A key role of developing ecological and human health risk assessments is to provide the necessary evaluation of science and potential risks to support the use of precaution in the ultimate decision making process, at which point factors such as social and ethical values and political and economic considerations will also be taken into account.
The “precautionary principle” is entrenched in CEPA 1999. In the preamble, CEPA 1999 recognizes that the “Government of Canada is committed to implementing the precautionary principle. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” In addition, section 76.1 of CEPA 1999 specifically directs the Ministers to apply a weight-of-evidence approach and the precautionary principle when conducting and interpreting the results of assessments of existing substances.”
This is why it is vital that the EPA be revised and strengthened to make the Precautionary Principle truly precautionary.
2) In Pennsylvania, people with health concerns, like cancer, are being forced to take smeters or else face loss of power, the very same disrespect for civil rights as is happening in BC.
http://www.wgal.com/article/woman-worried-about-health-effects-of-new-smart-meters/12052828
3) What sounds like a smeter fire in South Africa. I would like to know if this meter had a remote disconnect switch. I have been trying for many months (even years) to get BC Hydro to tell me the results of any test of this portion of the smeter that was done by an independent Engineer or an official agency, but they refuse. I’ve been told that the test is confidential and cannot be shared with the public. I’m betting that if the tests proved that this switch is safe, that the results would be shared. Electrical Engineers have told me that they believe this is one of the major design flaws and its poor design makes it a fire hazard.
http://www.heraldlive.co.za/news/2017/08/24/jhb-home-catches-fire-electricity-reconnected/
(video 00:54) http://content.jwplatform.com/previews/sBXkjTkM-oCqBX9WR
4) Diplomats and their families seem to have been targeted by someone in Havana with something causing symptoms similar to EHS. This would not be the first time EMR weapons/devices have been used to zap Americans abroad. The American Embassy in Moscow was the target several decades ago, resulting in many coming down with various forms of cancer.
“U.S. officials confirmed to ABC News today that more than 10 officials had been affected by “incidents” appearing to target U.S. staff and government officials in Cuba.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert called the situation “unprecedented” in a briefing today.
“We have not seen this type of activity take place before,” Nauert said. “Those incidents have caused a variety of physical symptoms … We are working and have been working to provide our staff and U.S. government employees with the best medical attention that we can provide to them.””
Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“A government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more.”
~ Albert Camus