- Follow through re. Lloyd’s insurance waiver by a member: Parents and teachers have a right to know that the wifi being installed in schools throughout the province (even those with wired internet access) emits microwave radiation that has the potential to do great harm. A member who has been fighting for parents to be informed, and for wifi free schools in each district so there is a choice, has gathered great information, below in letters to public health officers. The letter is being sent as well to school trustees. Please forward to your school trustees, parents and teachers. Logically this could apply to Kendall and Hydro re. Smart meters. They have knowledge of the dangers – and are ignoring.
- As you know from info in other updates, the former head of the Calif. Public Utilities Commission is under investigation for illegal acts, and 1000s of emails concerning the PG&E $$meter program have been released. Sandi Maurer in Calif. is going through them and sharing. Below are some of them. Note that a ‘bent scientist’ (one who is bia$ed for the industry), Dr. Leeka Kheifet$, was involved, helping to refute the many hundreds of independent scientific reports showing harm.
From: André Fauteux
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:26 AM
Subject: Conflicts of interests: California knew smart meters were dangerous
Evidence has now been made public of illegal actions and collusion between former California Public Utilities Commission president Michael Peevey and utility PG&E, as criminal investigations continue.
Peevey knew – since 2010 – that “smart” meters can cause physical harm.
And he believed PG&E should do something about it, albeit “quietly”. However, instead of regulating the utility to ensure public safety, he deferred his lawful duty to PG&E – the entity causing the harm.
Behind that scoop was Sandi Maurer of emfsafetynetwork.org <EMFSafe@sonic.net> who sent me this proof :
The CPUC coordinated two RF meetings for PG&E and CPUC staff. Industry consultant Dr Leeka Kheifets of UCLA attended the second meeting, and likely so did PGE’s EMF manager Michael Herz. This email does not mention the name of the epidemiologist, but the RF meeting date is here.
ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20150130ResponseToA1312012Ruling/2010/08/SB_GT&S_0041652.pdf
To confirm it was Leeka, later PGE follows up with the “epidemiologist”- with a question- here’s Leeka’s response.
ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20150130ResponseToA1312012Ruling/2010/09/SB_GT&S_0041787.pdf
Meanwhile, a day after the RF meeting on 8/24/2010 Marzia Zafar (CPUC) writes to PG&E’s EMF manager with EMF concerns about a fast track device in her car. ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20150130ResponseToA1312012Ruling/2010/08/SB_GT&S_0041716.pdf
A couple days later CPUC President Peevey sends this email: ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20150130ResponseToA1312012Ruling/2010/09/SB_GT&S_0000529.pdf
- More on the Calif. criminal investigation, read a press release sent out today. More emails!! Admission that the opt out fees were to reduce number of people opting out – and the fees there were far less than in BC!!
“I think if there is not an initial fee your estimate of 2% opt out goes out the door and you’ll have more like 20% or 50% opt out which will then make the whole project that we spent over $7 billion on a complete and total waste.”
Zafar is saying if they eliminate the initial opt out charge for analog meters, up to half of California’s electric customers may refuse smart meters, given all the publicity around safety and inaccuracy problems, and that needs to be avoided at all costs – by ensuring fees remain unaffordable. This e-mail demonstrates clearly that the opt out fee is intended not to “cover costs” but to suppress choice, prop up a failing and dangerous smart grid and penalize people for disobeying a forced, corporate and undemocratic deployment.
- More on the recall effort that I mentioned in last night’s update. Currently 12 ridings are identified as being vulnerable:
http://bccitizensrecall.com/?page_id=9 Whether your MLA is listed or not, you can volunteer to help. Please read the protocol and help if you can. Sending a strong recall message might shake some of the other MLAs out of their apathy. Right now most are elected and never feel they have to do more. Some refuse to meet with constituents; others refuse to acknowledge letters or phone calls. We are their employers, we “hire” them and we can fire them. This is one democratic right we still have. We need to use or we could lose it.
- What appears to be deceptive from the start, one $$meter brand, Elster, is calling their technology “Analog”, which has become a brand name. Talk about misleading.
http://www.teleanalysis.com/apps/elster-selects-analog-devices-for-smart-metering-13289.html
- In the UK, utilities must get specific approval from customers before collecting data that is not required for billing purposes.
“Those requirements, imposed as licensing conditions, mean energy suppliers must obtain consumers’ consent to collect and use consumption data more at a level of granularity more detailed than daily reads or to use consumption data for marketing purposes.”
- A member has noticed a significant increase in consumption numbers since receiving the “new” analog meter after the old one expired, even though the winter has been warmer and fewer appliances have been used. If others have had the same thing, would you please let me know, email director@stopsmartmetersbc.com with the percentage increase over the same period last year, with “billing increase” on the subject line.
****************************************************
Letters:
Sent: February 25, 2015 6:02 PM
To: Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca; alex.atamanenko@parl.gc.ca; ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca; jean.crowder@parl.gc.ca; nathan.cullen@parl.gc.ca; don.davies@parl.gc.ca; fin.donnelly@parl.gc.ca; john.duncan@parl.gc.ca; ed.fast@parl.gc.ca; Kerry-Lynne.Findlay@parl.gc.ca; hedy.fry@parl.gc.ca; Randall.Garrison@parl.gc.ca; nina.grewal@parl.gc.ca; richard.harris@parl.gc.ca; russ.hiebert@parl.gc.ca; peter.julian@parl.gc.ca; randy.kamp@parl.gc.ca; james.lunney@parl.gc.ca; colin.mayes@parl.gc.ca; cathy.mcleod@parl.gc.ca; james.moore@parl.gc.ca; joyce.murray@parl.gc.ca; Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca; Jasbir.Sandhu@parl.gc.ca; andrew.saxton@parl.gc.ca; Jinny.Sims@parl.gc.ca; Kennedy.Stewart@parl.gc.ca; Mark.Strahl@parl.gc.ca; mark.warawa@parl.gc.ca; john.weston@parl.gc.ca; David.Wilks@parl.gc.ca; alice.wong@parl.gc.ca; Wai.Young@parl.gc.ca; Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca; dsnoble@shaw.ca
Subject: Bill C-648, The Warning Labels for Radio Apparatus Act
To all MPs from BC:
I am writing to urge your strong and united support for Bill C-648, The Warning Labels for Radio Apparatus Act. As you know, this private member’s bill put forward by MP Terence Young proposes that all cell phones carry warning labels advising users of their potential negative health effects. In light of the fact that the World Health Organization classified radiofrequency emissions as a possible human carcinogen almost four years ago, and that the emissions are especially dangerous for children, pregnant women and fetuses, it is unconscionable that the government of Canada has not made these warnings mandatory already.
I am fully aware that the telecommunications industry is very large, very powerful, and a major contributor to political campaigns. Their argument against mandatory labelling is that they already include warnings about safer use of their products in their packaging or on their websites – where they know very well that no one will read them. This bill would merely make their warnings visible to the public that uses their product daily without informed consent to their real and growing danger. Cell phones are here to stay, and I am not advocating their ban or demonization, but in all common sense, decency and in the interest of public health, they should be required to carry prominent warnings about their dangers and about safer ways of using them. This is what Bill C-648 would do.
We are at the same place now with radiofrequency emissions as we were 50 years ago with tobacco. Then, as now, powerful interests fought the imposition of warning labels with every tool they had. This battle can also be won – if legislators like you make a stand.
Do you support Bill C-648? If so, why not?
Sincerely, XXXXXXXX
******************************
Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:16 AM
Subject: School Officials Left On The Hook For Wi-Fi Injuries?
bbc: Brendan.Carr@viha.ca, perry.kendall@gov.bc.ca, Richard.Stanwick@viha.ca, Murray.fyfe@viha.ca, Dee.Hoyano@viha.ca, Paul.Hasselback@viha.ca,
Charmaine.Enns@viha.ca, bonnie.henry@gov.bc.ca, andrea.berkes@gov.bc.ca, Pamela Finn <Pamela.finn@fnha.ca>, kristin.wright@gov.bc.ca, Marcus_Lem@hc-sc.gc.ca,
tracey.schroeder@fraserhealth.ca, Ken.Shaw@fraserhealth.ca, Robert.Halpenny@interiorhealth.ca, Lex.baas@interiorhealth.ca, Mary.Ackenhusen@vch.ca, Morad.hameed@vch.ca,
“Carsley, John [VC]” <John.carsley@vch.ca>, Jennifer.Scarr@vch.ca, sebh@sportmedbc.com, Lyndac@sportmedbc.com, widas@cw.bc.ca, Lynette.Hewitt@northernhealth.ca,
brian.mori@hc-sc.gc.ca, Jerry_wu@hc-sc.gc.ca, shannon_stone@hc-sc.gc.ca, Jan.Staples@gov.bc.ca, Matt.Herman@gov.bc.ca, Tara.Nault@gov.bc.ca, jbrubacher@shaw.ca,
evan.adams@fnha.ca, hlth.pph@gov.bc.ca
School officials could be personally liable for exposing our children to microwave radiation in our schools.
School Districts, School Boards and School Medical Health Officers should know that Lloyd’s of London has now excluded any liability coverage for injuries, “Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” (Exclusion 32) This would include the microwave radiation emitting from the Commercial Wi-Fi Transmitters and Wireless Devices in our schools.
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. See the recent A&E renewal policy, which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation.
http://parentsforasafeschool.blogspot.ca/2015/02/wording-for-insurance-policy.html
In response to a request for 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-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”
Will the individual people who approved the installation of a known 2b carcinogen in our schools be held personally liable for negligence? School Officials have refused to acknowledge the 1,000’s of peer-reviewed, non-industry funded studies by scientists and medical experts that have been presented to them.
Directors Insurance applies to people who are performing their duties “in good faith.” But are they still protected when they have been Willfully Blind to the pleas from scientists and medical experts who have warned them over and over again of the health risks to our children? Will the fact that School Officials refuse to inform parents, teachers and students about the warnings in Safety Manuals and Disclaimers that come with wireless devices also make them liable? (Exclusion 27) Are these people guilty of not doing their job by providing our children an education in a safe school environment?
Definitions
“In good faith” In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract.
Willful blindness (sometimes called ignorance of law, willful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting him or herself in a position where he or she will be unaware of facts that would render him or her liable.
This information begs the question, why would an insurance company exclude injuries from electromagnetic radiation if it were safe for children and the unborn?
Below is a another recent Endorsement Change sent out by the Maxum Indemnity Company
************************************