[CMP Central Maine Power Company Inquiry re Power Outages Recovery (Alternatives to Smart Meters, Barry Hobbins, Batteries, Bill Estimates, Costs, Gary Sturgis, Generators, John Carroll, MPUC, Phone Call Reports, Sara Burns, Seth Berry, Solar Panels, Windstorm, Wireless Smart Grid Mesh System Failure) – EMFs Studies (BC Hydro, BCUC, Doctor De-Kun Li, Kaiser Permanente, FortisBC, Magda Havas PowerPoint re Canadian Exposure Guidelines, Miscarriages) – Health Canada Safety Code 6 – Kathy Read Letter to John Horgan, Michelle Mungall, Sharon Noble re Site C (BCUC, Costs, Environment, Marc Eliesen) – Public Feedback Requested re ICNIRP 1998 EMF Guidelines (5G, IoT, Non-thermal Effects, Skin, Telecoms) – WHO | Naramata & Tsawwassen & Vancouver Island, BC – Canada – EU – Portland, Maine, USA]
1) ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) is an industry / military-affiliated agency that has set the standards for RF exposure which influences the WHO, which leads to countries’ guidelines, e.g. Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. ICNIRP has promised to review the current science and consider updating its guideline which has remained unchanged since 1998. Now it appears the decision will be to maintain the status quo, regardless that there has been so much scientific evidence of harm since 1998. No real surprise to the experts who see ICNIRP as controlled by the telecoms and engineers.
(click on photos to enlarge)
ICNIRP ‘Jumps the Gun’: The Early Christmas Gift for Telecoms
“The decisions about the continuous protectiveness of the old 1998 guidelines have been already made. ICNIRP considers that the introduction of additional new exposures caused by the 5G (millimeter-waves) and Internet-of-Things (IoT) are of no significant importance. As engineers say: “these new exposures will be harmless to health because of their low energy”. No thermal effects whatsoever. Non-thermal effects do not exist by ICNIRP “scientific standards”.
ICNIRP already now considers that:
- the future exposures will not change much,
- the precautionary protections of 1998 guidelines are sufficient to protect against all health effects,
- the only health effects caused by exposures that are recognized by ICNIRP are thermal.
Non-thermal effects, on the contrary to the scientific evidence, do not exist in ICNIRP’s vocabulary.”
2) In last night’s update there was an article from Microwave News regarding 7 studies showing an association between electromagnetic fields and miscarriages. I said that I had been unable to find any Canadian guidelines for exposure to EMF. 2.5mG was found to increase risk by nearly 300%.
“Those exposed to fields of more than 2.5 mG (0.25 μT) for at least 14 minutes (1% of 24 hours) of the day they wore the meter were 2.72 times more likely to miscarry than those exposed to less than 2.5 mG (the control group). This is a statistically significant finding. The increased risk of miscarriage associated with the higher magnetic fields was independent of the source of the fields, Li said. He explained that while he did not have information on the exact sources (e.g. power lines, appliances, etc.), most of the exposures were from the following locations: home, home in bed, work and in transit.”
A member sent me the following link which has Dr. Magda Havas’s PowerPoint. Slide 12 shows that Canada’s maximum exposure level is 1000 mG, which is also ICNIRP’s.
http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2007/DOC_15618_C1-38_Karow-Evid-32_Dr-Havas-EMF.pdf
He also sent me this from BC Hydro hearing in 2007 – the infamous Tsawwassen – Vancouver Island power line fiasco. This from section 5.2.1. Just as the Commission ignored evidence from 6 independent researchers who provided evidence that microwave radiation from smeters was dangerous, the Commission ignored evidence of harm that EMF is harmful. As always, the corporations don’t have to prove their products are safe. It’s up to us to prove they are harmful. Either we have no Canadian limit or we have one that has been shown over and over to be ridiculously and dangerously high.
5.2.1 Current EMF Exposure Guidelines
In Canada, there are no national standards limiting residential or occupational exposure to extremely low frequency fields based on health effects. Health Canada monitors the scientific research on EMF and human health and has concluded that “…the scientific evidence is not strong enough to conclude that typical exposures cause health problems” (Exhibit B1-37, p. 27). ICNIRP is the organization responsible for developing safety guidance for non-ionizing radiation for the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization and the European Union. ICNIRP monitors the literature related to EMF and publishes independent reviews on the potential adverse health effects, most recently in 2003 (Exhibit B1-37, p. 21). ICNIRP recommends a residential exposure limit of 833 mG and an occupational exposure limit of 4200 mG, but has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the development of standards to address concerns about possible health effects from long-term exposure (Exhibit B1-37, p. 27).
The Commission has addressed the issue of health concerns from EMF exposure in several previous decisions (Exhibits A2-1 through A2-7) and concluded that the scientific evidence regarding EMF effects is inconclusive and does not support the theory that power line EMF is a health hazard. In view of the lingering uncertainty and until science is able to provide more definitive evidence, the Commission has previously concluded that a strategy of prudent avoidance and low cost attenuation where possible is appropriate (Exhibit A2-6, p. 4), and has expressed an intention to keep itself apprised of EMF research (Exhibits A2-3, p.5; A2-4, p. 17).
3) A major October storm in Maine took down the “smart” grid, failing completely. It took about a week for most of the smeters to be up and running again. An investigation has been called for.
Fall storm took out power company’s $200 million smart meter network
““Well this was a colossal system failure,” state Rep. Seth Berry, a Bowdoinham Democrat who co-chairs the Legislature’s Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology, said. “It was a total and, until now, unrevealed failure of a system that CMP used to increase profits to its foreign shareholders and to lay off lineworkers and meter readers. Importantly, it was costly to ratepayers because just like we paid for AMI in the first place with interest, Maine residents and businesses are on the hook for the vast majority of the cleanup costs, with interest.””
Letters:
From: Kathy Read (name given with permission).
Sent: December 18, 2017
To: Sharon Noble; premier@gov.bc.ca; EMPR.Minister@gov.bc.ca; Ag Har Observ <news@ahobserver.com>
Subject: Please reconsider your decision
As a voter I am very disappointed in your decision regarding the Site C project. What I want to know is how you can possibly think that the cost of shutting down this project of a cost of $4 Billion is worse than spending over $10 Billion or more to complete the project. This project is only in year 2 of a 9 year time line and they are already $2 Billion over budget.
You must realize that the geotechnical problems such as the tension cracks already in place could be disastrous if the dam is built. What if one of the cracks breaks through and then the whole area could be wiped out by massive flooding and loss of both human and animal lives. Have you even considered that? Also can you imagine what the cost of that clean up and restitution to the residents of the area would be.
“Marc Eliesen, the former President and CEO of BC Hydro, says Premier John Horgan’s rationale for proceeding with the Site C dam is “utter nonsense” and “not in accordance with the facts.””
Marc Eliesen says that the remarks you made “to cancel would add billions to the province’s debt — putting at risk our ability to deliver housing, child care, schools and hospitals for families across B.C.” are not true.
“The $4-billion cost of cancellation — based on the $2.1 billion already spent and $1.8 billion in site remediation costs — doesn’t have a significant impact on the government’s operating budget and would not affect budgets for things like social services, said Eliesen.”
You also know that the BCUC stated that whether or not the project goes ahead the costs would be about the same unless the build goes over budget and we know that always happens. From reading the report from the BCUC I myself gather that they are really saying DON’T DO THIS.
You are only going to get the good people of this province angry because the majority do not want this project to be done period.
My advice to you is bluntly Get your head out of the sand, tell the Unions to back off and think of the people first. We voted you in to work for the people and you are not on this. Sounds more like your predecessor.
Kathy Read
Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”
~ Albert Einstein