- Malcolm Paterson, retired cancer researcher, gave a public presentation on Saturday in Kaleden. This article summarizes this well-attended event. He has agreed to give similar presentations in Kelowna and Salmon Arm sometime in March. As soon as have details I will provide them. You can read more at https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/the-electromagentic-age-a-sleeping-giant-by-dr-mac-paterson/
- Amazingly the Liberal health critic, Dr. Hedy Fry of Vancouver Centre, has not signed on to support bill C-648. Why not? We need to push these people. Please, anyone in MP Fry’s constituency, ask how a doctor can ignore such an important issue. Email Fry@parl.gc.ca
- A member reported that on Monday night on “NCIS” a professor was warning that electromagnetic pulses could bring down the power grid. This is how the majority of the public will learn about our concerns, and oddly they will believe a TV show before they’ll believe us. The momentum is building!!
- An interesting letter to a Colorado newspaper by a former rocket scientist who became sensitive to EMR.
- Privacy invasion on steroids:
“Trove CEO Isaias Sudit says the company’s specialty is in pulling together hundreds of sources of data on utility customers, including property records, department of motor vehicle records, government information, and consumer and demographic information.
It then merges all that data with the data coming from utility smart meters and puts it to use to solve specific utility business challenges.”
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: abuse of power
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 13:27:19 -0800
Ms. C. Clarke
Premier, Prov. of BC
Opp. Leader, Province of BC
News 1130 Radio.
Attached is an article on smart meters and the abuse that has accompanied this program. (the article is the one in the 2015-02-21 update) We are not paying you to heap abuse upon us but to represent our interests fairly and equitably. You have not done this in regard to this program.
We do not want any more rationales or excuses. We want this program abandoned, we want our legacy fees returned in full, we want BCUC restored and independent of government and industry, and we want a public apology for the abusive way you have handled this entire situation.
A voter and taxpayer,
Sent: February 22, 2015 10:01 AM
Subject: Bill C-648, an Act respecting the prevention of potential warning health risk of EMF and requesting warning labels on cell phones, baby monitors, etc.
Dear Mr. Rankin
You are my elected representative and this issue is important to me.
Your health critic, Libby Davis, is supporting the bill.
Have you signed on to support this bill?
If not, why not?
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: February 22, 2015 8:54 PM
Subject: Bill C-648 needs your support
Dear Mr. Mulcair,
I am sure you are aware of the bill that Mr. Young presented to Parliament last month which asks for a label to be put on all cell phones with the warning that is in the manual that accompanies the phone. Here is a video of the press conference, http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/video?playlistId=1.2195081.
I am asking you to join with your caucus members, Libby Davies and Djaouida Sellah, who are supporting this initiative. I have asked my MP, Mr. Randall Garrison, twice but have received no response, no reason for ignoring this precedent-setting bill.
For the last 10 years I have been devoting my life to educating people about the scientific evidence that confirms that prolonged exposure to wireless radiation can cause biological effects, many of which are irreversible. Children are especially vulnerable.
Because industry is so powerful, contributes so much money to the government coffers, the public has been keep uninformed about the dangers their gadgets pose. Few read the manual than come with them and fewer read any scientific reports. Well-meaning parents give children cell phones as toys, even to babies to entertain themselves. They deserve to know that their children may suffer greatly as a consequence.
Mr. Mulcair, for the sake of the Canadians you represent, I ask you to speak in support of this important bill and to encourage the other NDP MPs to do the same. It’s time the public was allowed to know the truth about the toys they are using and giving to their families. We need to see at least as many NDP MPs signing on as Conservatives. http://c4st.org/PMB
Victoria, British Columbia
An email from a member about what he plans to do regarding Lloyd’s of London exclusion:
My Company “xxxx Inc” owns a Commercial Building in the City of Salmon Arm, BC. In April of 2013, BC Hydro or their agents, ignored my “No Trespassing to Corix and/or BC Hydro to replace my analog meters with Smart Meters”, and did replace the Smart Meters. Upstairs, I have a tenant who is residential and pays for the electricity and is currently being subject to the electromagnetic radiation transmitted 24/7 by this bank of 5 Smart Meters.
Yesterday, I received many emails in which Lloyd’s of London is excluding coverage for any claims caused by exposure to non-ionizing radiation. Since my Mortgagor insists that I carry coverage in my business, and I will soon be unable to get any coverage in this aspect, I will hold those responsible, namely BC Hydro, the Government of BC, Premier Christy Clark of BC, Bill Bennett, Minister of Energy and Mines, BCUC, City of Salmon Arm, and any others who support the installation of Itron or any other brand of Smart Meters.
I will also be giving a copy of this email to all of my tenants who have some form of occupants insurance on their individual units. If I have any tenants breaking their lease as a result of this notification, my Company will be taking legal action against those responsible for the loss of revenue, including BC Hydro,
Premier Clark, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Reimer,
RE: Lloyd’s of London excludes coverage for claims caused by exposure to non-ionizing radiation.
Based on inaccurate information provided by ITRON, Health Canada and Dr. Perry Kendall, you have been telling people that there is no health risk due to prolonged exposure to radiation from smart meters on homes and wifi in school — this despite your having received 100s of studies by independent researchers and many letters from scientists and doctors to the contrary.
I am now forwarding information that should concern you even if the potential health problems these devices cause British Columbians doesn’t. Even though I know that the province and BC Hydro self insure their insurance coverage, I suspect you have a stop loss agreement with protection for catastrophic claims. If this stop loss agreement doesn’t already contain this waiver, soon it no doubt will exclude any claims associated with exposure to radiation from wireless devices such as cell phones, smart meters or wifi.
Lloyd’s of London is one of the largest insurers in the world and often leads the way in protection, taking on risks that no one else will. Attached is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s:
“The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”
This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada.
Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors’ insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors’ insurance applies when people are performing their duties “in good faith”. It is hard to argue they are acting “in good faith” after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer.
Consider yourself notified once again that you could be held legally responsible for the decisions you have made.