1) Finally — attempts to protect the power grid from cyber attacks, which are real and possibly devastating to our way of life.
Defending against cyber attacks is a mission with new urgency following the Internet-based disruption of Ukraine’s power grid in December 2015—a sophisticated hack planned and executed over more than six months by what is widely thought to be a well-financed team within Russia. Cybersecurity experts called that attack a wake-up call for North American utilities, which are just beginning to invest in network monitoring and other active defenses for their industrial control systems.
DARPA says it may take “many years” for U.S. utilities to mount effective defenses against what could be devastating attacks. “Beyond the severe domestic impacts, including economic and human costs, prolonged disruption of the grid would hamper military mobilization and logistics, impairing the government’s ability to project force or pursue solutions to international crises,” wrote the agency in a December 2015 release announcing its Rapid Attack Detection, Isolation, and Characterization Systems (RADICS) program
2) In case you missed “Wi-Fried” when I circulated it earlier, here it is again, along with some info to put it into perspective. The industry wants to keep us uninformed, giving us gadgets to distract us from what is really going on – the complete pollution of our environment by wireless radiation.
“Former senior White House adviser, Epidemiologist, Dr. Devra Davis, who appears in this film testified to the US Senate and has given a hair-raising reports about the back-stories behind these contradictory scientific reports: The independent scientists who reported on the ill effects of cell phones found themselves under attack by the cellphone industry, who would attempt to get them fired and to get their funding taken away or else accuse them of fraud. When that didn’t work, they hired inexperienced scientists who didn’t know anything about the subject to *look* like they were replicating the incriminating experiments – and when all of the above didn’t work, they wrote an internal memo, in which they stated, “We war-gamed the science.” To prove a point, one scientist wrote a paper on the subject, laden with obvious errors, which was published in numerous science journals and translated in over 15 countries.”
3) Experts continue to warn about the possible harm and the increased proliferation of RF in and near our homes due to 5G technology which is going to be pushed in the USA and probably here, too.
“But Joel Moskowitz, an expert on radio frequency emissions with UC Berkeley, says there’s barely any research on the health effects of 3G and 4G, much less 5G. He notes that a recent comprehensive government study showed a small but significant percentage of male rats exposed to lifelong 2G cell phone radiation developed cancerous or precancerous cells.
“I don’t think we should blindly plow ahead and unleash these new technologies on the public because we’re experimenting with the public,” he stresses. “We’d be saturating people’s environments with this new form of man-made radiation.”
Current wireless devices range between 2.4 and 5 gigahertz of exposure. The FCC says the next generation would operate between 28 and 71 gigahertz.
Moskowitz says 5G technology is more line-of-sight than current devices, so it would require millions of small transmitters just about everywhere, including on existing utility poles.”
4) In segment #6 of the Response to BCUC’s report (below the Letters) is the admission by BC Safety Authority (BCSA) that the meters are exempt from Electrical Safety regulations. Also, BCSA is not mandated to investigate meter failures. In fact, I was told by BCSA that they were instructed (by whom?) to not investigate smart meter failures. Our lives depend on someone ensuring these things are safe, but no one is.
Erroneous opinion piece in Times Colonist
From: Sharon Noble
Sent: July 15, 2016
Subject: A very misleading article
Dear Mr. Obee,
The opinion piece entitled “Site C is not theoretical” is erroneous in so many ways. I am surprised that no one did more research before allowing this to be published.
1) The entire purpose of the class action lawsuit is missed. It was not health. It was that our Charter Rights are being infringed by this mandatory smart meter program. Under the Charter Canadians are not to be forced by the government or any of its agencies to do something that a reasonable person might think to be dangerous. There are many reasons to believe smart meters are dangerous. Certainly the radiation emitted is one.
2) Mary McBride is quoted as an expert. Are you aware that she has no expertise in biological effects of microwave radiation? Are you aware that she is incorrect in her assertion that there is no evidence of harm from wireless radiation? Are you aware that she misrepresented her qualifications, allowing people to believe she was a “Dr.”, either an MD or PhD, for more than 16 years? http://emrabc.ca/?p=1017
a. There are many hundreds of peer-reviewed studies showing harm. Most recently the US National Toxicology Program released partial results from a 10 year $25 million study showing severe harm from prolonged exposure to even low levels of radiation from cell phones. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/update/2016/6/cellphones/index.html and http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699 Gliomas (brain tumors) and schwannomas (tumors of the heart) were directly related to the microwave radiation. May I ask why this important report received no coverage in the Times Colonist?
b. In May 2011 microwave radiation from any wireless device was classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a possible human carcinogen (2b). Many world famous researchers are supporting a higher classification to probable or definite carcinogen based on many significant studies since 2011 which show mechanisms. You will note that Mary McBride ignores this.
You did your readers a grave disservice with this misinformation. I so hope you will write another article that is accurate. Should you wish to contact real experts on the biological effects of wireless radiation please let me know. I can put you in touch with many.
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 12:18 PM
Subject: Editorial: site C damage is not theoretical
Re: misleading/misinformed editorial
The recent editorial: ‘Site C damage is not Theoretical‘, shows that the writer is ill informed, by quoting Mary McBride of the BC Cancer Agency.
This very same Mary McBride was exposed in a CBC news story, to fraudulently misrepresenting herself as a medical doctor for more than 10 years!!!! No medical degree!!!
Even after this news story aired, the BC Cancer Agency refused to relieve or of her position.
McBride’s talent lies in attracting corporate funding, not medicine.
The wireless major player TELUS, made it public, that they donated $1 million dollars to the BC Cancer Agency.
Accepting large sums like this, makes the BC Cancer Agency bedfellows of the wireless industry.
Did you miss this? Please inform your readers about this international story.
Press Release May, 11, 2015
International Scientists Appeal to United Nation, to Protect Humans and Wildlife from Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology
190 EMF scientist signed this international appeal.
Collectively they published over 2000 peer reviewed papers, on adverse biological effects of wireless radiation on plants, animals and humans.
As of April 17, 220 scientists from 41 nations added their support.
Journalists like you, owe it to their profession to stay informed.
Once you read the appeal, you will realize that ‘smart meters‘ are very much part of the group, classified carcinogens.
May 2016: Are you aware of the recent U.S. National National Toxicology Program and cancer? See MEDIA PAGE!
International Doctors Appeal: http://freiburger-appell-2012.info/en/home.php
Doctors Appeal, (pdf) Page 2,
“Cutback and reprogram continuously emitting devices such as cordless phones, wireless Internet access (Wi-Fi), and wireless smart meters so that they only operate and emit radio-frequency radiation on demand when being used.”
For the sake of your readers and the everyone’s health, please stay informed!
Please pass this information on to your colleagues.
RESPONSE TO “BCUC’s Staff Report on Smart Meter Fire Safety Concerns” Segment #6
KEY: Highlighted text is from Sharon Noble Non-highlighted text is the draft report as written by BCUC staff.
= = =
BC Safety Authority
BC Safety Authority is an independent, self-funded organization mandated by the Safety Authority Act to oversee the safe installation and operation of technical systems and equipment. The BC Safety Authority in accordance with the Safety Standards Act and the Electrical Safety Regulation issues required permits to qualified personnel to work on regulated electrical equipment including residential wiring and meter sockets. Electrical equipment owned or in the possession or control of a public utility used directly in the generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy including residential meters are exempt from the Electrical Safety Regulation including the permit requirement.
I suspect that the exemption for utility owned equipment from the Electrical Safety Regulation made sense when that equipment was distant from homes, or was not flammable. Analogs were difficult to burn, if not impossible. They were tested in conjunction with the meter base which was certified by CSA, and they had a long history of being safe. Given the new technology, this exemption needs to be revisited. Smart meters are digital, flammable, and, in the opinion of experts, not satisfactorily tested for fire safety. untested, being put on to our homes without any oversight.
- I ask that the Electrical Safety Regulation be reviewed and updated to take into consideration this new technology.
The BC Safety Authority is also mandated to investigate safety-related incidents7 involving installation and operation of regulated electrical equipment including residential wiring and meter sockets. The BC Safety Authority is not mandated to investigate utility owned meter incidents, though as a practical matter their mandate to investigate meter socket incidents encompasses the meter as the two components are physically attached to each other and an incident damaging one will in all likelihood damage to the other.
- This is totally inconsistent. They cannot investigate smart meters yet they are supposed to investigate meter socket incidents that may have been caused by improper fitting meters. In other jurisdictions (e.g. Texas), many fires have been caused by ITRON Openway meters not fitting the base that previously held the analog. The experts said that the blades of the meter were thinner than those of the analogs leaving a gap which caused arcing and fires. Who is investigating this as a possible cause of fires in BC? I fear no one is.
- BC Hydro often is the first on the scene when a meter fails, overheats, melts or burns. In many instances BC Hydro does not report the incident to BCSA. An example: Vancouver home Oct. 12, 2014, meter burned but the homeowner extinguished it. BC Hydro removed the meter and told the homeowner it would be inspected at their lab. No report was submitted to the Fire Commissioner because the fire department was not called. BCSA was not notified and has no report. Power Tech, BC Hydro’s lab, said they had never received a smart meter to inspect.
- Because BC Hydro is exempt from the BC Safety Standards Act, BCSA has limited authority over equipment owned by BC Hydro. If BCSA determines that the smart meters are a fire hazard they have no authority to act. Furthermore, according to BCSA it has limited authority over BC Hydro as well. Should there be a failure to report an incident as required by the Regulation, they have no authority to act. What agency is to determine that smart meters are safe or not? BCSA is a key agency with expertise to investigate electrical fires. If they are not advised and allowed to inspect the smart meter, or if they are allowed to inspect but not allowed to speak out when they see a problem with BC Hydro’s smart meters, how can BCUC say that there have been no smart meter fires?
- Is it accurate to say that because the smart meter is an unregulated product that should a smart meter cause a death that it would not be considered an “incident”, and therefore BCSA would not be able to investigate?
This statement is confusing, since the BCSA has not, to our knowledge, specifically investigated any smart meter incidents to the point where they could identify the cause of failure.
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse”
~ Edmund Burke