1) WARNING: Scam occurred in Nanaimo, woman lost money because of someone posing as BC Hydro threatening to turn off power. If BC Hydro were not allowed to threaten people with loss of power, even when an erroneous bill has been sent, this would not have happened.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1906319/nanaimo-rcmp-warning-public-of-bc-hydro-scam/
2) In California the Utilities Commission decided, long ago, that people can keep their analogs if they choose, but the utility companies are failing to let their customers know.
LETTERS State tech audit, bees, SMUD, Bach, initiatives – Opt for analog meters by Mark Graham – The Sacramento Bee – March 26, 2015:
– http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article16338029.html
Re “From local cops to NSA secrets, let sunshine in” (Editorials, March 15): Sunshine (information) is needed at the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Three years ago, SMUD voted to allow customers to have their smart electric meters removed and replaced with a safe, reliable and accurate analog meter. SMUD never notified its customers. Consequently, 99 percent of SMUD customers do not know they have this option for protecting their health.
3) Ontario government will be “giving” some minor assistance to those who cannot afford the huge bills Hydro One is pumping out. In BC, the Auditor General needs to look at the wasteful expenditures on projects not needed, (smart meters, Site C) and corporate handouts to liberal buddies. If this waste were ended, I bet low income families would benefit a whole lot more.
http://www.thewhig.com/2015/03/26/hydro-bill-assistance-huge
4) A report by Dr. Don Maisch on the effect of exposure to Smart meters during sleep:
http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Sofias-report-2-2.pdf
5) Doubts Surface About U.K. Smart Meter Rollout by Neil Strother – Navigant Research – March 26, 2015:
– http://www.navigantresearch.com/blog/doubts-surface-about-u-k-smart-meter-rollout
“Serious doubts have surfaced about the rollout of smart meters in the United Kingdom, with a key government committee raising the issue to a new and alarming level.
In its most recent report, the Energy and Climate Change (ECC) parliamentary committee concluded the program “runs the risk of falling far short of expectations. At worst it could prove to be a costly failure.
”… The committee’s report expresses disappointment with several unresolved issues to this point:
- meters unable to communicate in multiple occupancy and tall buildings;
- interoperability issues among different types of meters and in-home displays;
- a shortage of installation engineers;
- network rollout delays by Smart DCC;
- and delays in public engagement around the program.”
The government’s report is available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmenergy/665/665.pdf
6) In Maryland, a member of legislature argues that meters overheat, could cause fires, and result in huge billing increases:
7) An excellent newsletter that Cindy Sage wrote in 2011 with info about sources of RF and EMF, and ideas about what can be done to reduce the levels.
https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EMF-Newsletter-Cindy-Sage.pdf
************************************************
Letters:
Read from the bottom.
From: XXXXXXX
Sent: March 26, 2015 8:26 AM
To: brendan.carr@viha.ca; CEOExecutiveAssistant@viha.ca; premier@gov.bc.ca; terry.lake.mla@leg.bc.ca; judy.darcy.mla@leg.bc.ca; don.mcrae.mla@leg.bc.ca; oppositionleader@leg.bc.ca; dsnoble@shaw.ca
Subject: Imposition of Wi-Fi in hospitals by the Vancouver Island Health Authority
Dear Dr. Brennan,
I recently wrote to you expressing my grave concern that the VIHA is considering installing Wi-Fi in hospitals and other care sites. Immediately below is the generic answer I received from your public relations arm – a response word-for-word identical to those received by every other concerned person who wrote in.
This is not good enough. None of my concerns (or those of any others) have been addressed. Dr. Kendall simply refuses to acknowledge any of the recent studies (which are becoming more prolific almost by the day) that DO show harm from radiofrequency radiation such as is emitted by cell phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, baby monitors. DECT phones and other wireless devices. He hides behind Canada’s Safety Code 6 which, as I pointed out, does not even address the health effects of non-ionizing, non-thermal radiation. And you hide behind Dr. Kendall.
Dr. Kendall is not an expert in radiofrequency radiation, and does not have the knowledge or credentials to dismiss the research of those who are experts in this field. He is on the wrong side of history, where he has lots of company. Once again I point out that thalidomide, tobacco, DDT and asbestos were all once declared non-harmful by top Canadian health authorities. But to repeat the essential point made by the judge in the case I quoted in my original email (see below), “Federal law…cannot preempt scientific fact. The scientific truth, whatever it may be, lies outside of the [government’s] regulations about what is ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe.'”
Here are just a couple of very recent examples of the rapidly evolving research into the health effects of radiofrequency radiation. Please read them (and some of the many other such studies available to you), and do not just dismiss me or others like me with another thank-you-for-your-letter non-answer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25775055/?ncbi_mmode=std
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/46/5/1865
Note that this very recent study is from a researcher who, like Dr. Kendall, up until now dismissed all research showing harm.
http://www.microwavenews.com/news-center/rf-animal-cancer-promotion
You have no mandate (other than revenue) to install devices that emit a Class 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic to humans) in facilities where by definition the health of most people inside them is already compromised. A hospital is not a coffee shop, or an airport, or a restaurant. It is the place where people go when their health concerns become severe or acute.
Hard-wired internet access is safe, more secure, faster, and cheaper in the long run. Please consider all these points very, very carefully – and examine your consciences well – as you make your decision.
I would appreciate a personal response to each of the concerns I have brought up.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXX
—- Kendall’s form letter received.
From: X
To: “brendan.carr@viha.ca” <brendan.carr@viha.ca>; “CEOExecutiveAssistant@viha.ca” <CEOExecutiveAssistant@viha.ca>; “info@viha.ca” <info@viha.ca>
Cc: “premier@gov.bc.ca” <premier@gov.bc.ca>; “terry.lake.mla@leg.ba.ca” <terry.lake.mla@leg.ba.ca>; “don.mcrae.mla@leg.bc.ca” <don.mcrae.mla@leg.bc.ca>; “perry.kendall@gov.bc.ca” <perry.kendall@gov.bc.ca>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 8:41 AM
Subject: Wi-Fi in hospitals and care sites
To Dr. Carr and the Vancouver Island Health Authority:
It is with considerable alarm that I read that the VIHA is considering installing Wi-Fi “for the convenience of patients and visitors” in hospitals and other care sites.” I have no argument about the VIHA providing internet services if they are wired (which is faster, more secure and much safer), and recognize that offering premium service on a pay-for basis could generate much-needed revenue. However, to even be considering wireless internet service is to violate the principle to which you are morally and legally bound: to do no harm.
I know that Dr. Perry Kendall has consistently said that there are no known (emphasis added) health effects from radiofrequency waves such as Wi-Fi, and that he repeatedly points to Canada’s Safety Code Six as proof. There are two egregious problems with Safety Code Six: number one, it does not address non-thermal, non-ionizing radiation such as Wi-Fi at all, and number two, the panel that recently “updated” the code (not changing it at all from what it was 30 years ago, long before cell phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, etc.) has proven ties to the telecommunications industry.
Governments themselves reap tremendous amounts of revenue from selling access to the wireless spectrum. The government of Canada recently gained $2.1 billion in revenue from such sales. (Please see http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/major-breakthrough-in-cellphone.html) Is it surprising that a government agency such as Health Canada finds no “convincing” evidence of potential harm from radiofrequency radiation? However, no amount of blustering, hiding behind biased reports, and ignoring the many hundreds of independent studies that do find disturbing evidence of harm can supersede the truth. The following quote is from the judge in a far-reaching class action suit in the U.S. against virtually all makers of cell phones:
(Note from Ted: this is a very important case that has been moving slowly through the US supreme court. There are 9 people that have brain cancer and are suing many companies for compensation, up to $100 million each. If Weisberg allows various experts to testify and to “prove” that the cell phones caused the brain cancer then just hang on to your hats because the wireless world will change considerably. This may even limit wi-fi public routers and even de-rail the smart meter programs in BC and the world.)
Judge Weisberg’s ruling on expert witness admissibility
Michael Patrick Murray et al. v. Motorola, Inc. et al.
Superior Court for the District of Columbia
http://bit.ly/DC_expert_ruling
“Federal law is the supreme law of the land, but there is no constitutional provision that says federal facts are the supreme facts of the land. Federal law can preempt state law, but it cannot preempt scientific fact. The scientific truth, whatever it may be, lies outside of the FCC’s regulations about what is ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe.’ The experts have offered their opinions on the state of the scientific knowledge and general causation. They have testified about the methodology they used to reach those opinions. Their testimony on these points, at this stage of the case, is not subject to preemption.”
As the people charged with overseeing our hospitals and other care sites, you have a special duty to be pro-active and abide the precautionary principle. The fact that most people are still unaware of the health dangers of radiofrequency radiation is no excuse to pander to them. Do you remember all the industry and government denials of any harm whatsoever related to smoking? (I’m old enough to remember ads showing white-coated “doctors” smoking a certain brand of cigarette and recommending it to their “patients.”) Do you remember that spraying DDT all over, including in residential neighborhoods, was once widely touted as a health benefit, since it killed mosquitoes that spread disease? Do you remember when the government of Canada and all the provinces signed off on the “proven” safety of thalidomide?
I am especially disturbed that you seem to be saying that more people are requesting Wi-Fi service than are expressing concerns about it. This is a ludicrous argument for a Health Authority to be making. Many people still smoke. If enough people requested it, would you allow smoking in hospital rooms and other care sites? Would you sell cigarettes in the gift shops to bring in more revenue?
There is a simple solution to this: offer hard-wired internet services. To do otherwise could leave you personally vulnerable to future lawsuits, since even Lloyd’s of London refuses to insure against harm caused by radiofrequency radiation or electromagnetic fields. And you would not be able to claim that you were unaware of any possible harm: in a court of law, one cannot use the standards of any regulatory body (such as Health Canada) as an excuse for failure to do the right thing.
http://mieuxprevenir.blogspot.ca/2015/02/lloyds-of-london-excludes-coverage-for.html
XXXXXXXXX
———————————————–
Please read from bottom up.
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble [mailto:dsnoble@shaw.ca]
Sent: March 27, 2015 5:18 PM
To: ‘Island Health Info’
Subject: RE: Dr. Perry Kendall does not say that Wifi is safe.
May I suggest that you obtain input from real experts such as Dr. Malcolm Paterson, a long term cancer researcher, or Dr. Martin Blank, who for 30+ years has studied the biological effects of microwave radiation?
These people live in British Columbia, Dr. Blank lives in Victoria. They are world famous experts on the topic and I believe I could arrange for your committee to speak with them.
The scientific evidence is too important to ignore during your decision making process. If you would like more information or studies, please let me know.
Sharon Noble
————————————————————————————————-
From: Island Health Info [mailto:VIslandHealth.Info@viha.ca]
Sent: March 27, 2015 2:01 PM
To: Dennis and Sharon Noble
Subject: RE: Dr. Perry Kendall does not say that Wifi is safe.
Hello Ms. Noble:
A final decision of whether or not to implement Wi-Fi has not been made. Please be assured that before any final decision is made, consideration of the current science will be conducted along with a variety of other factors as part of our due diligence process on whether Wi-Fi implementation is appropriate and feasible.
Thank you again for sharing your views, along with the information and findings.
Island Health Communications
———————————————————————————-
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble [mailto:dsnoble@shaw.ca]
Sent: March 27, 2015 10:01 AM
To: ‘brendan.carr@viha.ca‘; ‘info@viha.ca‘; ‘CEOExecutiveAssistant@viha.ca‘
Subject: Dr. Perry Kendall does not say that Wifi is safe.
Dear Dr. Carr,
Below your form letter you will see the letter I wrote to you on March 21, in which I provided scientific evidence that I would have expected you to consider.
Instead you are depending upon assertions by Dr. Perry Kendall, who said there is a lack of evidence. First, Dr. Kendall is not qualified to pass judgment on studies regarding radiofrequency radiation’s effects and bio-engineering. As I stated below, he has neither the training nor the experience to refute the studies that have been sent to him over the last few years.
Second, when asked about his position regarding wifi, Dr. Kendall stated emphatically that he does not say that wifi is safe. If he is unable to say wifi is safe, should you be considering putting this in hospitals and other medical facilities? There are many studies done by world-renowned researchers that have been peer-reviewed, some replicated, that show serious biological effects from prolonged exposure to even small amounts of microwave radiation. This cannot be denied, even by Perry Kendall. If something is truly safe should there be any serious studies showing harm?
As a doctor, you have a duty to do no harm. Evidence, true expert evidence, is available in 100s of peer-reviewed studies that you could be doing harm by installing wifi modems near those who are already in fragile health.
Dr. Carr, I ask for your response to my comments. Please, do not send me another form letter which fails to answer any of my questions or to address any of my concerns. Your patients deserve serious consideration.
Sincerely,
Sharon Noble
Victoria, BC
*********************************************************