1) I sent this around before but one of our members has set out a challenge. Certainly we can beat Quebec!! BC signatures, at the time of this update, total 331 and Quebec has 533. This could be a very important petition, a chance to show that there is real concern among us. If you’ve signed,. please share with family and friends. If you haven’t signed, why not? It takes a minute, that’s all.
2) Another US Congressman joins Sen. Blumenthal in questioning the adequacy of the current EMR guidelines and the health effects of 5G technology, saying more members of the public are concerned by the increase in EMR associated with microcells. Where are our politicians?
Another Congressperson Seeks Answers From The FCC And FDA On 5G Radio-Frequency Health Impacts
“On April 15, Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-OR), House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman, wrote a letter to FCC Chairman Pai and acting FDA Commissioner Sharpless inquiring about the status of the government’s research into the potential health effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation and its relation to the FCC’s guidelines for safe human RF exposure levels, in light of the Commission push to rollout 5G technology and over 800,000 new antenna installations in the United States.”
3) Independence, Missouri’s council has voted against a smeter program several times over the last few years, but now they are flirting with accepting a plan that allows free opt out and the ability to keep an analog meter. This sounds good but people need to keep fighting because even if they opt out, they will be exposed to radiation from neighbours’ smeters and they live close enough to homes that have fire hazards on their walls to be threatened as well.
Once again, it is shown that BC Hydro has lied to us when it said that analogs won’t work with the grid, that analogs are no longer available, and said that it costs $64.80 to read an analog. Was BC Hydro just that inefficient and that unaware — or did they fail to tell us the truth: THEY AND THE GOVERNMENT BELIEVE WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
Smart Meter Controversy Prompts Outcry, Opt-Out Policy
“Plans to award a $29 million smart meter contract in Independence, Mo., were met with considerable criticism from the public. But a proposed policy could give citizens the ability to avoid the technology altogether.”
https://www.govtech.com/policy/Smart-Meter-Controversy-Prompts-Outcry-Opt-Out-Policy.html
4) A member suggested that I provide a link to Dr. Powell’s letter that was last night‘s update. It is a powerful document to share with politicians or those who are “pseudo” scientists who think they know it all because they took a physics course years ago.
Letters:
In response to Guerreo’s letter to Janis Hoffmann which was in an update a few days ago. [Letters – https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/2019-04-24-organizing-to-protest-crest-transmitter-on-ssi/]
From: X
To: “Hlth HSD” <Hlth.HSD@gov.bc.ca>
Cc: “premier” <premier@gov.bc.ca>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 8:11:33 PM
Subject: re “Ministry of Health response” to Janis Hofffman
Mr. Guerrero:
A quote from you, Mr. Guerrero, in response to one of many letters of concern:
“In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as ‘Class 2b – Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans’. This indicates that the evidence is far from conclusive and more research is needed to clarify the possible link to cancer. Furthermore, all sources of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in all areas accessible to the general public in Canada (including public schools) are required to meet the exposure limits in Safety Code 6. Current scientific evidence supports the assertion that, as long as radiofrequency electromagnetic field levels remain below the exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6, there is no danger to the public.”
“Current scientific evidence”, my foot! What rock are you living under?! And “Safety Code 6”, a misnomer if ever there was one, is wildly out of date. In addition, Safety Code 6 does not apply to non-ionizing radiation. James McNamee, head of the division at Health Canada admitted this in a hearing in Quebec. There is no protective guidelines for wireless radiation. The 2011 classification from IARC (8 years out of date) as “possibly Carcinogenic to humans” would indicate to most caring parents, if seen on a food label, not to feed it to their kids; yet wifi is being fed to school children 5 days a week!
If you really were interested in the science you would know that recent studies, such as the 10 year, multimillion dollar National Toxicology Program (U.S. National Institute of Health) https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/peerreview20180328_508.pdf and the Ramazzini Institute (world-renowned Italian research institute) https://ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/ both determined that exposure to wireless radiation is carcinogenic. The Ramazzini study found that exposure at mere fractions of that allowed by Safety Code 6 results in serious, often irreversible, harm. When you say “current scientific research” you are excluding independent, credible and alarming research that shows our children are in danger in schools.
With all due respect, I dare you to read these reports and tell me that you believe what you said above, that there is no current evidence to support the assertion that microwave radiation is a danger to the public.
I await your reply and hope it’s not a form letter. Please update your research!
In heartfelt sincerity,
X
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived Nicolo Machiavelli