2014-09-27 Poll results: 85% believe $meters pose health risk and 11% don’t trust Hydro

  • The major lawsuit against cell phone companies in the US is resonating in the UK. Note that this article did not allow comments – it was closed to comments virtually immediately.





  • Non-$meter. cordless phones. The cordless phones available are DECT phones which emit very high levels of RF all day every day, even when not in use. These devices, like DECT (cordless) baby monitors, are among the highest emitters in most homes, and researchers warn against using them. In Europe technology is way ahead of us on this, and a phone has been developed that emits RF only when in use. A person could use this phone to walk to a landline, and the cordless phone would stop emitting as soon as it’s no longer being used. But it is not allowed in the US and Canada. Why? The member who sent this to me suggested it might be because it can interfere with US military communications. I don’t know if this is true, but if it’s true, why disallow in Canada? My guess is that allowing use of this would imply that RF from DECT phones is dangerous, and industry does not want that message out there.  May I suggest that everyone write to their MP and ask that question. We deserve to be able to use safer technology.





  • Internet Trolls:  Every time there is an article about problems with wireless devices, including $$meters, there are obviously industry hackers who immediately respond. There are programs that can alert people to certain topics ASAP, and there are people who are paid by industry to respond right away, often taking up all the space for comments. I’m sure we’ve all seen the same names and comments over and over again. This gives some info. about how it’s done, and how often it’s being done.





  • The poll is long closed, but the results are very interesting – 85% believe $meters pose a health risk and 11% don’t trust Hydro. That should send a message to Bennett!!





  • Things are getting interesting re. federally regulated activities. First re, Chateauguay and now banks, the Supreme Court is saying that in some cases the provincial laws may not have to yield to federal ones. What we need are some provincial laws covering RF exposures, which certainly are allowed per SC 6.  Potential for regulating things like labels on cell phones, perhaps, and siting of cell towers.



The SCC has made it clear that in some circumstances provincial consumer protection legislation may apply to federally regulated industries, including the financial services industry. While the decision provides some much needed guidance, the tests for interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy laid down by the Court are by no means easy to apply to specific cases, and while the Court’s interpretation of those doctrines is fairly narrow, uncertainty over when and to what extent they apply may mean that the bright line between federal and provincial jurisdiction over the activities of banks and other federally regulated enterprises has blurred considerably. As a result, federally regulated enterprises may now need to undertake the difficult task of figuring out whether complying with federal law is enough where there are provincial laws that cover roughly the same ground.”



  • A handy summary comparing $meters with analogs, from a San Diego group.






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