2014-07-03 A landlord demands say re. meter

1) An excellent letter re. tenants is below from a very concerned and responsible landlord.

2) Cybercrime is increasing at an alarming rate and the costs are going to cost us a lot of money and jobs!!


3) Escape  from what is becoming  omnipresent microwaves is being built in Vancouver. –  A Faraday Café!! A place where people who are sensitive can enjoy a cuppa, if only for a short time.


4) The results of a survey done by National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy re. real estate values of homes near cell towers is below. I cannot give the website because it has a “donate” button, so I’ve copied and pasted it below the letters. The consensus is that having a cell tower nearby reduces the home’s value and makes it harder to sell. The corporations make huge profits and the government gets billions in licensing fees while we end up losing value in one, if not THE, major investment.

5) Time Magazine has a cover story this week on the Smart Home — of course with more and more wireless gimmicks

6) People in large groups in the USA are being encouraged to write about their concerns, and how the $$meter is or will affect your health, privacy, safety, security, etc. Let’s make this international, and see if we can get them to do a follow up on this.   Please consider writing a letter to the Editor here:



Sent: July 2, 2014
To: Charles.reid@bchydro.com; Smart Meters; info.utilities@corix.com; john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca; Popham.MLA, Lana; premier@gov.bc.ca; hlth.minister@gov.bc.ca; perry.kendall@gov.bc.ca; elizabeth.may@greenparty.ca; Jane Sterk

Subject: Electricity Meter at XXXX

Via Electronic Mail and Canada Post to:
BC Hydro, Smart Meter Specialist Department
6911 Southpoint Drive, Burnaby BC, V3N 4X8
Date: July 1, 2014

Attention: Charles Reid, CEO BC Hydro, charles.reid@bchydo.com

and B.C. Hydro, Corix Utilities, and agents and/or assignees thereof: smartmeters@bchydro.com and info.utilities@corix.com

Dear Sirs / Mesdames:

After several years of battling Hydro over their right to keep their homes free of the EMF radiation produced by Hydro’s “smart” meters, my tenants have managed, with my complete support, to keep their analog electricity meters. (One of them, however, recently had his requests for confirmation of meter expiration and for an appointment regarding a “meter exchange” completely ignored.)

One of my tenants is now planning a move, and my niece is moving into the apartment. I am outraged that, according to BC Hydro, I, the property owner, and she, the tenant have no say in the matter of what type of hydro meter will be installed on the property. This policy is discriminatory and invasive, and completely ignores the civil rights of both property owners and tenants. I therefore demand that, if the analog meter in question has “expired” and requires replacement, it be replaced by another ANALOG meter ONLY.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has called for a moratorium on the installation of “smart” meters. Recently this most reputable group of North American environmental medicine physicians gave its highest honour to a Washington State University scientist named Martin Pall. Dr. Pall is a world-renowned expert on the subject of EMF radiation and human health who has this to say about “smart” meters:

“[Pulsing digital] ‘Smart meters’ should be abolished because they use short high-intensity pulses of microwave radiation.  We know from the nanosecond pulse studies [that these pulses] can be very damaging and act via VGCC activation, with activation continuing long after the pulse has ceased (7). It has been known for over 30 years that short microwave pulses can cause massive cellular damage (57). Until we have some biological measures of “smart meter” effects, it is foolhardy in my view to continue using them.”

In light of this, I demand that Hydro not force on me and my niece a hydro meter that an eminent group of doctors has stated is dangerous. My six-year-old great nephew will be living on the property. My other tenants’ children have bedrooms directly across from the meter in question.

Under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms citizens have the right to security of the person. The government (or a government agency, e.g. BC Hydro) cannot force individuals to do anything or accept any government policy/program that they believe will endanger their physical or psychological health. My tenants are a party to the civil rights suit against BC Hydro, and I demand that their rights be respected on this basis until/unless the court decides otherwise. I will be copying this letter to our MLA and to as many other elected representatives and media outlets as possible. I refuse to tolerate the violation of my tenants’ rights simply because one of them has decided to move.

I require a response from BC Hydro on this matter no later than July 15. Please let me know when a Hydro/Corix representative will be attending the property to change the meters so that I or my representative can supervise the exchange. If Hydro/Corix representatives attempt to exchange the meter at ______, without the consent of me and my tenants (ignoring the prominently posted No Trespassing signs as they did in the exchange at ______), I will file a trespassing complaint with the Saanich Police (in addition to contacting government officials and media). BC Hydro’s bullying and disregard for the property and civil rights of both tenants and landlords is deplorable, and must not be tolerated in a democratic society.

Subject: A problem I’m experiencing

Date: July 2, 2014

To: greg.reimer@bchydro.com” <greg.reimer@bchydro.com>, charles.reid@bchydro.com

Cc: BC Utilities Commission <commission.secretary@bcuc.com>, “Douglas Routley.MLA” <Douglas.Routley.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, “john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca” <john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca>
Mr. Greg Reimer, VP Transmission & Distribution
Mr. Charles Reid, CEO
BC Hydro
PO Box 9530 Stn. Terminal

Vancouver BC, V6B 4G8



I wish to report a problem that has developed between BC Hydro and myself.

On June 10th I wrote agreeing my two analog meters need to be replaced, but asking (for the second time) that I be given assurances I will receive only analog meters as replacements and that I will be given at least 24 hours notice in advance of the installation so I can provide access and turn off the power.  I have attached my letter for your convenience. (not included )

Please know I didn’t make these requests for assurances lightly.  Aside from my need to be home to provide access, as I stated in my letter I believe that exchanging meters without the power being turned off is an unsafe practice, as is installing combustible electronic meters on my meter bases, which are designed, tested, and CSA approved for use with incombustible meters.

The problem I am reporting arises in the June 16th letter I received from ‘Arun’ (what’s happened to the use of last names?) saying basically that BC Hydro cannot accommodate my requests.  For your convenience I have attached the first page of this letter as well. (not included)

In case it’s not obvious, the problem I’m reporting is that of a customer making two (in his opinion) reasonable and significant requests to do with access and safety, and ‘Arun’ on behalf of BC Hydro replying saying, basically, that BC Hydro is going to ignore the customer’s requests and go ahead with the unsafe practices anyway.  I’m sure you’ll both agree that’s no way to for a public utility to do business, and hope you’ll take steps to make sure responses like this don’t happen in the future.

In the meantime, I ask you to make sure I get the assurances I have asked for in advance of my meters being replaced.  If such assurances cannot be given (and I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t be) I will consider as an alternative written assurance that my safety concerns are unfounded and that BC Hydro will accept full responsibility for any installation or combustible-meter related damages that occur on my property.


(Signed copy in mail)

EMF Real Estate Survey Results: “Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?”

03.07.2014 by emily Category

The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy’s survey “Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?” initiated June 2, 2014, has now been completed by 1,000 respondents as of June 28, 2014. The survey, which circulated online through email and social networking sites, in both the U.S. and abroad, sought to determine if nearby cell towers and antennas, or wireless antennas placed on top of or on the side of a building, would impact a home buyer’s or renter’s interest in a real estate property.

The overwhelming majority of respondents (94%) reported that cell towers and antennas in a neighborhood or on a building would impact interest in a property and the price they would be willing to pay for it. And 79% said under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antenna.

  • 94% said a nearby cell tower or group of antennas would negatively impact interest in a property or the price they would be willing to pay for it.
  • 94% said a cell tower or group of antennas on top of, or attached to, an apartment building would negatively impact interest in the apartment building or the price they would be willing to pay for it.
  • 95% said they would opt to buy or rent a property that had zero antennas on the building over a comparable property that had several antennas on the building.
  • 79% said under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas.
  • 88% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property with a cell tower or group of antennas on top of, or attached to, the apartment building.
  • 89% said they were generally concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in their residential neighborhood.

The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (NISLAPP) was curious if respondents had previous experience with physical or cognitive effects of wireless radiation, or if their concern about neighborhood antennas was unrelated to personal experience with the radiation. Of the 1,000 respondents, 57% had previously experienced cognitive effects from radiation emitted by a cell phone, wireless router, portable phone, utility smart meter, or neighborhood antenna or cell tower, and 43% had not experienced cognitive effects. 63% of respondents had previously experienced physical effects from these devices or neighborhood towers and antennas and 37% had not experienced physical effects.

The majority of respondents provided contact information indicating they would like to receive the results of this survey or news related to the possible connection between neighborhood cell towers and antennas and real estate decisions.

Comments from real estate brokers who completed the NISLAPP survey:

“I am a real estate broker in NYC. I sold a townhouse that had a cell tower attached. Many potential buyers chose to avoid purchasing the property because of it. There was a long lease.”

“I own several properties in Santa Fe, NM and believe me, I have taken care not to buy near cell towers. Most of these are rental properties and I think I would have a harder time renting those units… were a cell tower or antenna nearby. Though I have not noticed any negative health effects myself, I know many people are affected. And in addition, these antennas and towers are often extremely ugly–despite the attempt in our town of hiding them as chimneys or fake trees.”

“We are home owners and real estate investors in Marin County and have been for the last 25 years. We own homes and apartment building here in Marin. We would not think of investing in real estate that would harm our tenants. All our properties are free of smart meters. Thank you for all of your work.”

“I’m a realtor. I’ve never had a single complaint about cell phone antennae. Electric poles, on the other hand, are a huge problem for buyers.”

Concern was expressed in the comments section by respondents about potential property valuation declines near antennas and cell towers. While the NISLAPP survey did not evaluate property price declines, a study on this subject by Sandy Bond, PhD of the New Zealand Property Institute, and Past President of the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PRRES), The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods, was published in The Appraisal Journal of the Appraisal Institute in 2006. The Appraisal Institute is the largest global professional organization for appraisers with 91 chapters. The study indicated that homebuyers would pay from 10%–19% less to over 20% less for a property if it were in close proximity to a cell phone base station. The ‘opinion’ survey results were then confirmed by a market sales analysis. The results of the sales analysis showed prices of properties were reduced by around 21% after a cell phone base station was built in the neighborhood.”

The Appraisal Journal study added,


“Even buyers who believe that there are no adverse health effects from cell phone base stations, knowing that other potential buyers might think the reverse, will probably seek a price discount for a property located near a cell phone base station.”
James S. Turner, Esq., Chairman of the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy and Partner, Swankin & Turner in Washington, D.C., says,

“The recent NISLAPP survey suggests there is now a high level of awareness about potential risks from cell towers and antennas. In addition, the survey indicates respondents believe they have personally experienced cognitive (57%) or physical (63%) effects from radiofrequency radiation from towers, antennas or other radiating devices, such as cell phones, routers, smart meters and other consumer electronics. Almost 90% are concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas generally. A study of real estate sales prices would be beneficial at this time in the Unites States to determine what discounts homebuyers are currently placing on properties near cell towers and antennas.”
Betsy Lehrfeld, Esq., an attorney and Executive Director of NISLAPP, says,

“The proliferation of this irradiating infrastructure throughout our country would never have occurred in the first place had Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 not prohibited state and local governments from regulating the placement of wireless facilities on health or environmental grounds. The federal preemption leaves us in a situation today where Americans are clearly concerned about risks from antennas and towers, some face cognitive and physical health consequences, yet they and their families increasingly have no choice but to endure these exposures, while watching their real property valuations decline.”
The National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy (NISLAPP) in Washington, D.C. was founded in 1978 to bridge the gap between scientific uncertainties and the need for laws protecting public health and safety. Its overriding objective is to bring practitioners of science and law together to develop intelligent policy that best serves all interested parties in a given controversy. Its focus is on the points at which these two disciplines converge.

NISLAPP contact:
James S. Turner, Esq.
(202) 462-8800 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 462-8800 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting / jim@swankin-turner.com

Emily Roberson

Sharon Noble

Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

“The law should be a shield for the weak and powerless, not a club for the powerful.”*

Governor Roy Barnes (b. 1948),


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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