2020-12-09 Smeters used in USA to spy

1) Today, even before the second transmitter (the ZigBee chip) – which is able to gather data from anything “smart” in your home – is activated in smeters, a lot of data is available. As we had argued in 2010, hackers can tell a lot from the usage pattern: when you get up, go to work, return, eat, go to bed. And in the US, authorities have used this data. Once the ZigBee chip is activated and contributes to the 5G grid, our privacy will be even more endangered.


“Farfetched as it seems, smart meters can give away an enormous amount of information about customers, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) wants it. Federal immigration authorities are taking advantage of a loophole in California’s privacy law to spy on consumers through their electric meters in contravention of our state’s policy of non-cooperation with ICE, which was recently affirmed by the US Supreme Court”


Several years ago, the League of United Latin American Citizens warned that smeters could and would be used to gather data, to which the government has no right, in order to discriminate against Hispanic Americans. There is no reason to believe that Canadian utilities will not be used in a similar matter for nefarious reasons.


“… WHEREAS, municipal governments and utilities across the country have not warned the public and their customers of inherent health, safety, and privacy problems with ‘smart’ grid technology and the wireless radiation pulsing meters, …”

https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Resolution-for-a-Moratorium-on-the-Installation-of-Smart-Meters-and-No-Cost-Opt-Out-by-the-League-of-United-Latin-American-Citizens-July-11-2015.pdf   or


2) The US government’s General Accounting Office raises concerns about 5G (privacy, security, etc.) but despite the report by the US National Sciences Academy which acknowledges non-ionizing health effects, the NTP report, the Ramazzini Report and thousands of others, the GAO says there is no evidence of harm from microwave frequencies. Therefore, this report suggests there probably won’t be health problems associated with milliwave (5G) technology. This report will be the one the industry will use and, I would guess, Health Canada will cite on its webpage.

(click on photo to enlarge)



Highlights from GAO report:

Capabilities and Challenges for an Evolving Network

“To reach the full potential of 5G, new technologies will need to be developed. International bodies that have been involved in defining 5G network specifications will need to develop additional 5G specifications and companies will need to develop, test, and deploy these technologies. GAO identified the following challenges that can hinder the performance or usage of 5G technologies in the U.S.”

– Spectrum demand will likely continue to exceed supply.

– 5G networks will introduce new mode of cyberattack and will expand points of potential attacks.

– 5G networks will exacerbate existing privacy concerns.

– Deployment of 5G technology may intensify existing public concern that radio frequency energy exposure affects health.


“GAO identified key challenges could hinder 5G technology; Spectrum availability and efficiency, cybersecurity, privacy and concern over possible health effects. Although the GAO Report does note the lack of research on the long term health effects of 5G and cites the Environmental Health Trust et al. versus FCC legal appeal (footnote 94 on page 41) the report mischaracterizes the body of scientific evidence and ignores the scientific appeals of hundreds of experts in the field calling to halt the rollout.”


3) Below is a stream of emails to and from members of the group fighting another cell tower in Qualicum Beach and ISED. This demonstration of persistence is to be applauded, and sets an example that we should all follow as new cell towers will be planned in every part of BC and Canada to support the 5G grid.


From: Marcus Schluschen (name given with permission)
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 4:19 PM
To: Krenz, Michael (IC)
Subject: Re: Update on 147 foot cell tower, 2045 W. Island Hwy. Qualicum Beach

Hello Mr. Krenz,

Myself, and many others, would like to learn from ISED why Mrs. Dowe’s questions, regarding the reprehensible actions of Qualicum Beach Council and the unscrupulous TELUS lobbyist, remain unanswered.

Why are government “telecom overseers” washing their hands of these highly valid questions Mrs. Dowe rightfully presented to you? She is asking for your help and support!

Does ISED condone such unscrupulous behavior, which ultimately only benefits the telecom industry?

No municipal council is remotely qualified, due to their lack of expertise, to side with the telecom industry, neither is the TELUS’s lobbyist, who provides councils with outdated, scientifically obsolete literature. Let me repeat that: scientifically obsolete! Even though I spoke to this lobbyist, face to face, and provided him with links, on a card, to the latest 10 year studies, he chose not share this important information with the public. He learned from big tobacco how to deceive the public!

None of these people are remotely aware that in Canada, including the US, decisions affecting health are made by people without biology, nor medical degrees, such as engineers, statisticians, physiologists and even lawyers, who work for Health Canada, WHO, ICNIRP, and FCC, E.G.: Emily VanDeventer – WHO, Rodney Croft – IARC, Ajit Pai – FCC.

This lack of education in cellular biology at Health Canada was raised at the 2015 three-day HESA hearing in Ottawa, where Health Canada representatives failed to provide satisfactory explanations regarding this shocking revelation to the Parliamentary Health Committee.

Dr. Riina Bray, Medical Director at the Woman’s College Hospital, Toronto, informed the HESA Committee members:
“Holter monitors have been helpful in proving that cardiac symptoms can be induced or provoked with increasing levels of exposure, such as being close to cellphone towers or Wi-Fi hubs.

As a physician who has specialized in the area of environmental health for over 20 years, I am mortified at the lack of accountability regarding radio and microwave radiation use in the everyday lives of Canadians both young and old. I am appalled by the poor, impractical, and unrealistic research done in this area and the lack of proper, relevant investigations that need to be done and have not.”

The elephant in the room remains, health!
Health is something that no one, not industry nor government/ISED, has a right to diminish in any way.
As an EMF Consultant, I am appalled by the reckless behavior by unqualified councils, government officials, chief medical officers and Health Canada.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA) in Ottawa made 12 recommendations to government in 2015, after 3 days of medical/science hearings, of which RECOMMENDATION 9 states:

“That the Government of Canada develop an awareness campaign relating to the safe use of wireless technologies, such as cell phones and Wi-Fi, in key environments such as the school and home to ensure that Canadian families and children are reducing risks related to radiofrequency exposure.”

This warning came before the very recent, twice peer reviewed, US Government funded, 10 year, National Toxicology Study!
This warning also came before the peer reviewed, 10 year, Ramazzini Study on cell tower radiation exposure!

In 2011, all wireless radiation was classified as a “Possible Human Carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO). Today, the same EMF scientists who sat on the IARC/WHO panel, are demanding a 1A cancer classification, due to the overwhelming scientific evidence of harm to man, animals, insects and plants from the latest research, as it meets the Hill Criteria of Causation on every level!

May I remind ISED, this is the same infamous classification of Asbestos, which our government blindly subsidized not long ago.

Does ISED truly believe that health must take a backseat to private vested interests of the wireless industry?
IARC/WHO is to convene again in the next two years. What will ISED’s explanation be, when the cell tower radiation is changed to a 1A, cancer-causing agent, as many eminent EMF scientists expect?
Sorry” will not be good enough, as ISED received plenty of warnings. What will you say to your children?

Mr. Krenz, please so kind and provide not only Mrs. Dowe, but also us, the residents who will be inundated with biologically active, microwave cell tower radiation, inside our homes, without consent, with straight answers, that everyone has the right to receive. In case you are unwilling, or to be fair, unable, to provide us with satisfactory answers, please be so kind and supply us with cell tower radiation studies, specifically on children and the elderly, as both are represented in Qualicum Beach in larger numbers.

As an EMF consultant, I meet many people who are suffering adverse health effects from chronic RF radiation exposure, inside their homes.
Most people, just like you, Mr. Krenz, loved their wireless devices until they noticed a rapid decline in health. The vast majority of my clients are highly educated professionals, such as teachers, doctors, professors and even electrical engineers, who adopted wireless technology early on. This even includes highly fit individuals, such as marathon runners and long distance swimmers.

Since I communicate with international EMF scientists, including former members of the IARC/WHO panel, it comes as no surprise that thousands of studies in cellular research reveal that chronic radiation exposure, far below Canada’s scientifically outdated “Code 6” guideline, cause serious impairment of the homeostatic response, leading to: disease, premature aging and death.

Please be so kind and spare Mrs. Dowe, and the rest of us, the indignity of a form letter.

Kind regards,
Marcus Schluschen
EMF Consultant

P.S. I will be happy to provide you with relevant links to the latest research, in case Health Canada failed to provide this important information to you.


From: Krenz, Michael (IC)
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 10:54 AM
To: Marcus Schluschen, Carol Dowe (name given with permission)
Subject: RE: Update on 147 foot cell tower, 2045 W. Island Hwy. Qualicum Beach

Good Afternoon, Carol Dowe

ISED Canada has reviewed, considered and provided feedback to you on the petition, the location with respect to day cares and schools, existing support tower infrastructure and obligations by Telus to consider existing sites, the intended coverage area and how this site augments their client demands and wireless telecommunications competition. It is my understanding that Bernie Ries has spent some time with you explaining the current licensing procedures and the roles of the stakeholders including the proponent, the LUA and ISED Canada.

Are there any new concerns here that we were not previously advised of and have responded to? Is there any new information here that we were not previously aware of that you would like us to review?

Please give me a call to discuss further or let me know when you are available and I will call you.


604 506-6740


From: Carol Dowe
Sent: December 4, 2020 12:05 PM
To: Krenz, Michael (IC) <michael.krenz@canada.ca>; Marcus Schluschen
Subject: Fwd: Update on 147 foot cell tower, 2045 W. Island Hwy. Qualicum Beach

Mr. Michael Kreenz: Dec. 4, 2020

Thank you for your response to our letter. As I have boldened the part of your letter “all reasonable and relevant concerns”, I would ask that the over 1100 signatured petitions and some 500 letters in this community represent the great concern for this small town of 9,000, Qualicum Beach, that this cell tower would be located in the middle of 4 Day care, 2 elementary schools and affect many vulnerable senior elderly citizens. Does this represent “all reasonable and relevant concerns”? Have you received these heartfelt letters and petitions, if not, we will be surely happy to forward them to you.  Please let us know.

I believe I have stated that Qualicum Beach already has 3 cell towers, and that Rogers does provide service to Eaglecrest right now. We have just learned of another 5G tower erected above the Lutheran church, just across from Wembley Mall, located on the Island Highway at Parksville….again very close to the Rogers tower, and close to this proposed tower at 2045 W. Island Hwy.Qualicum Beach.!!!

We are being inundated!!!

We are waiting for a response from the BC Ombudsperson investing the improper public consultation process of the Town of Qualicum Beach, as the Council did not allow us to have Dr. Faulkner present to this community. The Council said “they had heard enough!”!! We made 4 separate requests! And yet, when Dr. Faulkner presented to the neighbouring Regional District of Nanaimo Board meeting, immediately upon hearing his presentation, the Coombs cell tower was turned down!!!

Is this something you should be aware of and respond please?

Please do not issue any licence for this cell tower to Telus. Have you heard from them yet? Have they made application to you? We have a vital concern in this issue, as you very well know. We look forward to your early response.

Kind regards,

Carol and Fred Dowe for the

Concerned Citizens Opposing the 147 foot cell tower at 2045 W. Island Highway, Qualicum Beach

———- Forwarded message ———

From: Krenz, Michael (IC) <michael.krenz@canada.ca>
Date: Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: Update on 147 foot cell tower, 2045 W. Island Hwy. Qualicum Beach
To: Carol Dowe

Good morning Carol Dowe

Thank you for your email.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) recognizes the need to have a collaborative and consultative policy with respect to antenna-supporting structures that encourages the public and Land-Use Authorities (LUAs) to submit their comments regarding the location of towers in their communities. In this regard, ISED Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, was established to set out the procedures to be followed by all radiocommunication operators, including providers of cell phone services, broadcasters and public utilities. These procedures, amongst other things, includes general requirements that aim to ensure that environmental impacts are considered; and the requirement for the proponent of an antenna system to respond to all reasonable and relevant concerns received during the public consultation process.

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me. Please contact me at 604-506-6740 if you would like to discuss further.

Michael Krenz

Director, Coastal Offices, STS-Western Region
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada / Government of Canada
michael.krenz@canada.ca / Tel: 604-506-6740 / TTY: 1-866-694-8389

Directeur, bureaux côtiers, SST-Region de l’Ouest
Innovation, Sciences et Développement économique Canada / Gouvernement du Canada
michael.krenz@canada.ca / Tél. : 604-586-2521 / ATS : 1-866-694-8389


Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

“Knowledge is of no value unless you put it into practice.”  Anton Chekhov



Smart Meters, Cell Towers, Smart Phones, 5G and all things that radiate RF Radiation