1) Environmental Health Trust has a new webpage devoted to smeters. A lot of the information is not new, but I do not recall seeing this SEC form by ITRON before which is quite interesting.
SMARTMETERS HEALTH AND SAFETY FAQS
“Even Itron, a manufacturer of Smart Meters warns shareholders that, “We may face adverse publicity, consumer or political opposition, or liability associated with our products…We may be subject to claims that there are adverse health effects from the radio frequencies utilized in connection with our products. If these claims prevail, our customers could suspend implementation or purchase substitute products, which could cause a loss of sales” Itron Inc, SEC Form 10 K 2017″
(click on photos to enlarge)
https://ehtrust.org/smartmeters-health-and-safety-faqs/
Some other statements from ITRON’s submission to the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/780571/000078057118000013/itri10k12312017.htm
I skimmed most of the form and may have missed such other relevant and significant points. Please let me know if you find others. Email me at: citizensforsafertech@shaw.ca with “SEC form” on the subject line.
- “We may face adverse publicity, consumer or political opposition, or liability associated with our products.
The safety and security of the power grid and natural gas and water supply systems, the accuracy and protection of the data collected by meters and transmitted via the smart grid, concerns about the safety and perceived health risks of using radio frequency communications, and privacy concerns of monitoring home appliance energy usage have been the focus of recent adverse publicity. Unfavorable publicity and consumer opposition may cause utilities or their regulators to delay or modify planned smart grid initiatives. Smart grid projects may be, or may be perceived as, unsuccessful.” (page 9)
- “We are subject to a variety of litigation that could adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.
From time to time, we are involved in litigation that arises from our business. In addition, these entities may bring claims against our customers, which, in some instances, could result in an indemnification of the customer. Litigation may also relate to, among other things, product failure or product liability claims, contractual disputes, employment matters, or securities litigation. Litigation can be expensive to defend and can divert the attention of management and other personnel for long periods of time, regardless of the ultimate outcome. We may be required to pay damage awards or settlements or become subject to equitable remedies that could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. While we currently maintain insurance coverage, such insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential claims.” (page 11-12)
- “We depend upon sufficient radio spectrum to be allocated by the FCC for our intended uses. As to the licensed frequencies, there is some risk that there may be insufficient available frequencies in some markets to sustain our planned operations. The unlicensed frequencies are available for a wide variety of uses and may not be entitled to protection from interference by other users who operate in accordance with FCC rules.” (page 12)
- “If we are unable to protect our information technology infrastructure and network against data corruption, cyber-based attacks or network security breaches, we could be exposed to customer liability and reputational risk.
We rely on various information technology systems to capture, process, store, and report data and interact with customers, vendors, and employees. Despite security steps we have taken to secure all information and transactions, our information technology systems, and those of our third-party providers, may be subject to cyber attacks. Any data breaches could result in misappropriation of data or disruption of operations. In addition, hardware and operating system software and applications that we procure from third parties may contain defects in design or manufacture that could interfere with the operation of the systems. Misuse of internal applications; theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or other corporate assets; and inappropriate disclosure of confidential information could stem from such incidents.
In addition, we have designed products and services that connect to and are part of the “Internet of Things.” While we attempt to provide adequate security measures to safeguard our products from cyber attacks, the potential for an attack remains. A successful attack may result in inappropriate access to information or an inability for our products to function properly.” (page 13)
2) It is my philosophy not to advertise or promote products in this newsletter. This is “for information only” so please know that I am sharing this only for information purposes. This product by Safe Living Technologies has helped one person to avoid areas of high RF and I am sharing because I believe others might find it useful.
A member bought this wearable RF meter a short time ago and wrote about her experiences with it:
https://safelivingtechnologies.com/wearable-rf-detector/
“It is more valuable than I expected, especially because of the (optional) vibration. It is constantly metering, and has picked up more information than my other meters. For example, when someone nearby receives an incoming cell call, the meter picks it up. When driving, it alerts me to more toxic areas that, in the future, I can plan to avoid. In stores, it quickly alerted me about areas to avoid. Plus, I can meter constantly, as It is much more convenient than my other meters.
For anyone considering a purchase, Safe Living Technologies is giving a 20% discount for those attending the Healing Conference on now.”
3) Another amazing decision by a New England government, this the State government of New Hampshire. Perhaps City Councils and even Provincial Health Officers will find the courage to take a stand against the telcos and Health Canada’s ineffectual Safety Code 6 once they see what other local and state governments are doing in the USA.
NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGISLATURE VOTES TO SEND CELL TOWER SETBACK BILL TO INTERIM STUDY
“The New Hampshire legislature voted to send historic legislation on cell tower radiation to interim study after hearing extensive testimony regarding the health effects of cell tower radiation. House Bill 1644 was sent to interim study on a 245-104 vote. The bill would establish a setback of 1640 feet for cellular antennas and creates an online registry for people who are injured by wireless antennas. Elected officials will now further investigate the issue….
Given the large body of scientific evidence documenting the adverse biological effects from wireless emissions and given the vast range of biological sensitivities within any population, this mandated distance will significantly reduce the risk of biological effects and thus the probability of health effects within this distance of 1,640 feet.””
New Hampshire Legislature Votes To Study Cell Tower Setback Bill
https://ehtrust.org/new-hampshire-legislature-votes-to-study-cell-tower-setback-bill/
4) Carol Dowe and the people at Qualicum Beach continue to demand that ISED force Telus to follow protocol prescribed for new cell towers. Why should Telus be an exception? And why isn’t the City Council fighting for the safety of their constituents, too?
Letters:
From: “Carol Dowe” <caroldowe@gmail.com>
To: “Michael Fu, Manager, West.Region, Spectrum ISED” <michael.fu@ised-isde.gc.ca>, “Carol Dowe” <caroldowe@gmail.com>, “Fred Dowe” <fred@dowe.ca>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 7:32:32 AM
Subject: March 21, 2022. Michael Fu: URGENT! TELUS#BC105331 ACTION REQUIRED PROOF OF 10 PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED
March 21, 2022
Mr. Michael Fu, Regional Director, Western Region
Spectrum, ISED
cell: 778-389-7906
Hello Mr. Fu,
re: Opposing 5G, 12 storeyTelus Tower, 2045 W. Island Highway, Qualicum Beach, BC
Public notice not given to 10 property owners within required radius of cell tower.
*Sitepath is a biased organization (working for Telus)
*We are talking about 10 family households out of 47…a quarter of the list, under the cell tower not receiving notice. This is significant!
*We are demanding proof that these 10 families were sent and received the required public consult package.
The families say they did not receive the packages. Site Path say they did. Who is ISED
going to believe? Unbiased taxpayers or a biased company?
Mr. Ries called me on March 18 on your behalf since you were in a training session. I would greatly appreciate a call directly from you, as you are the Decision Maker, and a reply to this concern:
According to CPC 2-0-03, Item 4.2 Industry Canada’s Default Public Consultation Process under Public Notification
“Public notification of an upcoming consultation must be clearly marked, making reference to the proposed antenna system, so that it is not misinterpreted as junk mail. This notice must be sent by mail or be hand-delivered. The face of the package must clearly reference that the recipient is within the prescribed notification radius of the proposed antenna system.”
THIS REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN MET BY SITE PATH CONSULTING working for Telus.!!!!
WE HAVE 10 Qualicum Beach PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE PRESCRIBED NOTIFICATION RADIUS THAT DID NOT RECEIVE PROPER NOTICE! IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOU ADDRESS THIS IMPROPER PROCEDURE IMMEDIATELY.
THEIR ADDRESSES ARE LISTED IN THE EMAIL BELOW.
We request receipt of proof that these letters were sent by SitePath/Telus and that they have proof of receipt by these property owners.
WE ARE WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE as this has been a continuing problem that the Government,Telus and the Town do not seem to want to acknowledge.
If you are satisfied that Telus has fulfilled all the requirements of Industry Canada’s Default Public Consultation Process and yet the Property owners strenuously object and do not accept that it is the case, what process would the Government suggest to rectify the situation? The Provincial Ombudsman has done an investigation favorable to the Property owners and unfavorable to the Town’s procedures, but of course, he only has the power of recommendation.
We look forward to your response this morning, Monday, March 21, 2022 at 10:00am or after.
Thank you.
Fred and Carol Dowe for the
10 Property Owners within the prescribed notification radius of the proposed 5G cell tower, antenna system that did not receive a notice (see letters on page 15-25 of attached google drive)
caroldowe@gmail.com
= = =
From: Fu, Michael (ISED/ISDE) <Michael.Fu@ised-isde.gc.ca>
Date: Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 8:16 AM
Subject: RE: Susan Hart, Michael Fu: URGENT! March 8, 2022, To Bernie Ries, ISED, TELUS#BC105331 ACTION REQUIRED PROOF OF 10 PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED
To: Carol Dowe <caroldowe@gmail.com>, Susan Hart, ISED, Director General, Spectrum Management Operat. <susan.hart2@canada.ca>, Fred Dowe <fred@dowe.ca>
Carol:
This is to confirm that your email is received in order.
Michael Fu M.Sc.
Regional Director – Western Region
Spectrum Management Operations Branch
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Government of Canada
Michael.Fu@ISED-ISDE.gc.ca
Cell: 778-389-7906
Directeur régional – Région de l’Ouest
Direction générale des opérations de la gestion du spectre
Innovation, Sciences et Développement économique Canada
Gouvernement du Canada
Michael.Fu@ISED-ISDE.gc.ca
Cell: 778-389-7906
= = =
From: Carol Dowe <caroldowe@gmail.com>
Sent: March 9, 2022 7:09 AM
To: Susan Hart, ISED, Director General, Spectrum Management Operat. <susan.hart2@canada.ca>; Fu, Michael (ISED/ISDE) <Michael.Fu@ised-isde.gc.ca>; Carol Dowe <caroldowe@gmail.com>; Fred Dowe <fred@dowe.ca>
Subject: Susan Hart, Michael Fu: URGENT! March 8, 2022, To Bernie Ries,ISED, TELUS#BC105331 ACTION REQUIRED PROOF OF 10 PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED
March 9, 2022
[Please confirm receipt and respond by March 18, 2022]
Susan Hart, ISED, Director General, Spectrum
Michael Fu, Manager, Western Region Spectrum
Good Morning Ms. Hart and Mr. Fu,
Mr. Ries is away from his office, and so we are writing you to respond to our Urgent letter.
We are asking you to respond by March 18, 2022.
Respectfully,
Carol and Fred Dowe for the
Concerned Citizens (500 pages of letters) and some 1,100 signatured petitions opposing the Telus 12 storey, 135 metre cell tower at 2045 W. Island Highway, Qualicum Beach in the middle of 5 Daycare, 2 elementary, vulnerable senior and elderly residences.
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meteers
Beautiful Ukraine, before the war https://www.boredpanda.com/beautiful-ukraine-pics/