2015-05-16 Smart meters in rural areas will continue to be read manually

1)        From a member:

Today an interesting conversation came up with a temporary fill-in for the meter reader. They mentioned that for the grid to work, the smart meters need to communicate with each other but in rural areas like ours the grid does not work because smart meters only transmit about 300 meters. I asked if that meant Hydro would have to put up more collectors in our area (worried that even with an analog meter we would still be bombarded by collectors). They said that Hydro had found it was cheaper to pay meter readers than to put up enough collectors in all the rural areas to make the grid work. So I asked if that meant they were reading the smart meters also. The meter reader looked at their clip board and replied that at least a quarter of the meters they were reading were smart meters.  I said that didn’t seem fair that I’m paying to have our analog read and the smart meter owners don’t have to pay, they shrugged and smiled as if to say yup.

Two interesting questions immediately come to mind:

1) Why are these people who live in areas where the smeters will have to be read manually being forced to have these dangerous things on their homes?
2) Why are members with analogs being charged for the same service their smetered neighbours are getting for no additional fee? This fee is discriminatory and punitive. Complaints should be made to the Ombudsperson, Auditor General, etc.

2)        A UK article made it into the Vancouver Sun. Please comment. The Sun needs to know that there are many of us out here grateful for the article and worried about the proliferation of microwave radiation. It is rare for the media to print articles like this. We must acknowledge it.

Is Wi-Fi making your child ill?

3)        Given the concerns raised by Hydro Quebec re. having a smeter too close to propane tanks, I think concerns should be raised about proximity of smeters to other flammable materials – paint or cleaning fluids in garages, sawmill dust, etc. Please tell your friends and families to make sure that there is nothing flammable near to the smeters which can overheat.  Here is the item from last night’s update in case you missed it:

Hydro-Quebec making sure your house doesn’t blow up – CJAD 800 AM – May 15, 2015:

4)        Dr. Martin Pall is shocked by the US Navy’s actions and assurances of safety with regard to their planned RF warfare exercises to begin in September over the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. He believes that there will be significant biological effects to all life – animal and plant. We still have heard nothing from our local, provincial or federal governments about these exercises which will, inevitably, be done over parts of southern British Columbia. Parts of Vancouver Island, including Victoria, Sooke and the Gulf Islands, are within a few miles from the Peninsula.



From: Sharon Noble
Sent: May 15, 2015 11:25 PM
To: ‘Health, HLTH HLTH:EX’
Cc: ‘Darcy.MLA, Judy LASS:EX’; ‘OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX’; ‘msmyth@theprovince.com‘; ‘abderrachid.zitouni@bccdc.ca‘; ‘Horgan.MLA, John LASS:EX’; ‘Minister, HLTH HLTH:EX’
Subject: RE: Ministry of Health Response 1034111

Dr. Kendall,

I find your statement that you are open to new evidence quite bewildering. I and many others have sent you hundreds of studies over the last 3-4 years, and you have managed to ignore them all.

Your job as a public health doctor is to take action to protect the public before the “proof” is positive. Hundreds of scientists with experience and knowledge far beyond yours have raised concerns about exposure to wireless devices, yet you are steadfast in your opinion that there is no harm.  This arrogance is endangering our children.

You say you base your assessment on reviews that have been commissioned by a number of governments over a few years. What reviews are these?

You reference the recent review of Safety Code 6 by the Royal Society. Did you not read the minutes of the HESA meeting? Did you not read the report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal? Yes, it is a report by a journalist summarizing that review which, in the opinion of many experts, was biased, done by people who either had major conflicts of interest or no competence in the field of biological effects of RF radiation. Did you not see that Health Canada unilaterally decided which studies would be included, and that 150 recent ones were deliberately excluded? Health Canada was instructed to explain, report by report, these exclusions. Dr. Kendall, how can you justify basing public policy on this sham of a review?

You also reference a review you commissioned by the BC Centre for Disease Control. Sir, you were given 150 studies by many of us who lined up outside your office after you consistently refused to accept and acknowledge new evidence. After several months of our pushing you to read the reports, you sent them to the BCCDC, telling us that you would accept their recommendations. The final report from the BCCDC confirmed that there was credible evidence that exposure to wireless radiation could reduce fertility. Yet when I asked you what precautionary measures you would take, you said you did not agree with my reading of the report.

You say that you base your assessment on reviews commissioned by a number of governments over a few years.  All of the recent reviews I’ve read have expressed serious concerns about the proliferation of microwave radiation, even at levels hundreds of times lower than allowed by Safety Code 6. I ask you, Dr. Kendall, upon what reviews are you basing your opinion?

Are you aware that this week approximately 200 experts in electromagnetic fields from 39 countries sent a petition to the United Nations asking for precautionary measures to be implemented, especially with regards to children and pregnant women?
I question your authority to overrule, to ignore the warnings from scientists who have done more than 2000 peer reviewed studies on the subject.  I ask you, Dr. Kendall, what more would it take for you to become concerned?

As for the Canadian Medical Association Journal article, it is a report, not an editorial. It reports the facts that occurred at the HESA subcommittee hearing. Since you have always used Safety Code 6 as your justification for your stance, you should be very concerned that evidence is building that incompetence or, possibly, conflicts of interest have led to it being one of the worst guidelines in the world – not science, not honest disagreement among researchers – bias.

Dr. Kendall, you have a right to your opinion, but when you ignore the facts you are putting the health of the people of British Columbia at risk. Your opinion does not count. Facts do and I encourage you to review them with an open mind.

Sharon Noble


From: Health, HLTH HLTH:EX [mailto:HLTH.Health@gov.bc.ca]
Sent: May 15, 2015 2:11 PM
To: Sharon Noble
Cc: Darcy.MLA, Judy LASS:EX; OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX; ‘msmyth@theprovince.com‘; ‘abderrachid.zitouni@bccdc.ca‘; Horgan.MLA, John LASS:EX; Minister, HLTH HLTH:EX
Subject: Ministry of Health Response 1034111

Dennis and Sharon Noble

Dear Ms. Noble:

Thank you for your correspondence of May 3rd and May 7th 2015 respectively. (these were included in my updates on those dates)

I base my assessments on the risks that radiofrequency (RF) exposures might pose to the health of British Columbians on the evidence reviews that have been commissioned by a number of governments over the past few years and that are publicly available. The latest review was commissioned by Health Canada and undertaken by an expert committee formed under the auspices of the Royal Society of Canada.  I also commissioned a review by the Canadian Collaborating Centre on Environment and Health, and the latter is available on the BCCDC website.

While all these reviews call for further study, and point out that there are biological effects of RF demonstrable in living tissues, with the possible exception of an association between long term exposure to older cellphones and cerebral tumour formation, all reviews are consistent in stating that the evidence supporting a link between exposures and adverse health effects remains unproven.

I am well aware of your concerns, I am open to new evidence should it become available. Should new information show evidence of harms, I assure you that I would revise my opinion.

With respect to the article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), this is clearly reportage of the hearings recently held in Ottawa and the opinions of a number of speakers and researchers, and not a Canadian Medical Association (CMA) policy statement or an evidentiary review. You may wish to confirm this with the CMAJ editorial board.


P.R.W. Kendall
Provincial Health Officer

pc:       Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia
Honourable Terry Lake, Minister of Health
Judy Darcy, MLA, New Westminster and Opposition Health Critic
John Horgan, MLA Juan de Fuca and Leader NDP
Abderrachid Zitouni, Radiation Specialist, BC Centre for Disease Control
Mike Smyth, Columnist, The Province


From: X
Sent: May 16, 2015
To: HLTH.Health@gov.bc.ca <mailto:HLTH.Health@gov.bc.ca>
Subject: Outdated Wi-Fi Safety Rules.

Dear Dr. Kendall,

Health Canada is not doing its job of protecting Canadians.  The Canadian Medical Association has stated that Health Canada is biased, has conflicts of interest and ignores strong scientific evidence which confirms that wireless devices do indeed cause suffering.

When are you at last going to face the facts and act on them?  Especially in a time of enormous political upheavals!  It is long overdue that you show responsibility in this matter.

(See article from Canadian Medical Journal: May 7th 2015)


(editor’s added links)



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