- Fortis customers are organizing to fight this mandatory pollution of homes and environment. A new facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/saynotofortisbcsmarmeters/?_rdr
- Grand Forks and Nelson are two communities that have special arrangements with Fortis, and have been installing their own meters. If you recall, there are several types of meters that are non-analog. Photos and more complete descriptions are available at http://emrabc.ca/?page_id=3090
- Digital which is electric, we believe not certified to be in the analog’s base, adds dirty electricity to home wiring. They do not have an RF transmitter but can be modified quite easily to become a smeter. I haven’t done much investigation of digitals so I don’t know if they have lithium batteries or not, but they have some of the same design problems as smeters. The newest model is the ITRON C1S although there are others, e.g. Schlumberger, which was bought by ITRON.
- AMR meters which are not called “$$mart” because they, although they have an RF Transmitter, it communicates only one way, to the meter reader’s computer when he drives by. The model used in BC is the ITRON C1SR. They have many of the same design flaws as the smeter, and many emit signals every few seconds, even though the meter reader comes every month or two. These are used in Grand Forks, Nelson and perhaps in other places. As you can see from this document, signals are emitted every 2-30 seconds of every day and night.
- AMI meters are the full-fledged smeter that Fortis and Hydro are installing, that communicates with the other smeters around it and sends as well as received signals from Fortis via collectors that are multi-transmitters installed on poles outside homes, along streets. These collectors communicate with cell towers. These all say ITRON Centron II OpenWay, on the face.
- Very interesting info from a member. Fortis uses wired $$meters in Alberta. Why wireless here? Because Hydro does?
- The attached is a letter Jerry Flynn sent via Registered Mail today, June 15th, to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. Please consider sending letters with your concerns to the College. We must make our voices heard to make our homes and schools safer. “All government agencies should be alarmed and very concerned to learn that Dr. Perry Kendall, our Provincial Health Officer, is NOT now – and never has – protected us from the ubiquitous and ever-increasing “low-level, pulsed, non-thermal radio / microwave frequency radiation” which all of today’s wireless radio devices emit.”
- At the very bottom of the letter section is a response from someone working for Dr. Perry Kendall. A member had written to Dr. Kendall expressing concerns about the increasing level of RF in our environment. Dr. Lambert, who is another public health doctor with no training in or obvious knowledge about RF says some very misleading and just plain incorrect things, such as comparing the RF from a wifi modem to that from an AM or FM radio. There is no RF from a radio, it doesn’t have a transmitter. Now comparing with a baby monitor is relevant because it does transmit and the RF level is very high. Both wifi modems and baby monitors should be eliminated from homes. This man is as irresponsible as Kendall. Below is one member’s letter in which he/she makes an effort to “educate” him.
- The first letter outlines specific and special problems that people with physical disabilities face
Sent: June 14, 2015 11:04 AM
To: ‘Alex Atamanenko’
Subject: can you help please
I know you are supposed to be officially retired now, but wonder if you could please help me. You may recall I am blind and physically disabled. My rural home is on 22 acres of meadow and trees, with private well. Fortis is not allowing residents to keep old meters.
There is an extreme fire risk with these new meters, particularly in my case as I live in a large 110 year old log barn, with wood stove, several wooden outbuildings, and no running or standing water.
I have tried to contact Area D rep Roly Russell repeatedly, and he has not responded. I have heard from other customers that Fortis has imposed a 3 strikes you are out policy: one can refuse 3 times, and then Fortis will cut off power without notice. If power is cut off, I will have no water either.
The health, safety and privacy risks of smart meters, including those with no alleged EMF emissions present unacceptable levels of risk. Many old meters require a certification by a qualified licensed electrical engineer that it is safe to install a smart meter. It is my understanding that no licensed electrical engineer will certify in writing these meters are safe.
South Okanagan city council voted to pass a resolution halting installation of meters pending further developments. Our Area D rep will not even return residents’ calls and emails. Mr. Russell can believe what he likes, but he does not have the authority to make blanket decisions like this on behalf of all residents.
Needless to say, increased cost of insurance, electricity and huge potential legal liability are also of great concern. If, for example, a water meter causes afire, melts or explodes, and the Regional District knew of the dangers and chose to willfully ignore them, is the District subject to law suits? Does that mean that we, the taxpayers, will have to foot the bill? Sooner or later, obviously so.
On a personal note, if there is a fire in my remote home, there is a very high probability that I will be severely maimed or killed. If I cannot even see the fire or the problem, and cannot even get to the end of my driveway , I cannot escape a conflagration.
I have sent in my written refusal, and confirmed this with a Fortis rep named Jennifer on June 11, 2015. I have put up no trespassing signs and a copy of the refusal letter by the meter. I have also indicated I insist upon adequate prior notice, and upon being present when Fortis arrives, so I can have sighted witnesses with me.
Thanks for anything you can do, Alex.
Dear Dr. Lambert,
I have been involved in educating myself about the proliferation of wireless radio frequencies for the last few years. I am concerned that we are creating a future public health crisis and letters to the politicians seem to be following on deaf ears. I turn to you as a person with an ethical responsibility to protect the public in the hopes you will read the excerpts below taken from an article written by Malcolm Paterson PhD. The full article and his PowerPoint presentation are available below the excerpts. Dr. Paterson is a molecular oncologist who has researched how human cells sense and respond to environmental ionizing radiation. If these excerpts concern you, as they do me, I hope your staff could do some further research so as to educate those in power about the cumulative effects of this technology and the need for stricter guidelines as found in many countries in Europe. Canada’s Safety Code 6 does not deal with the biological effects of this radiation and therefore does nothing to protect the public.
Thanks for taking the time to become acquainted with this issue and to hopefully work towards preventing an even worse health crisis than tobacco. At least with tobacco people had a choice whether to smoke or not – with wireless radiation we are all exposed whether we are sensitive or not. There are no “wireless free zones” yet.
– the massive rollout of smart meters, along with the proliferation of cell towers and WIMAX services, has produced unprecedented levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation in urban areas, currently at 3000 times background (1980) levels and rising rapidly.
– biomedical scientists regard smart meter grid technology as risky and would vigorously challenge any utility’s claim that RF radiation from smart meters is far less harmful than that from cellphones and other wireless devices.
– The meter emits rapid, short and high-intensity bursts of microwave radiation, sporadically transmitting 350 or more such ‘spikes’ per day over distances up to 3.5 km.
– The pulsating, amplitude-modulating nature of the signal is foreign to all life forms and has been found to cause serious biological effects including DNA damage, depressed melatonin levels, altered heart rate, opiate-dopamine neurotransmitter disruptions and leakage of the protective blood-brain barrier.
– RF radiation, regardless of the wireless source, has been implicated in an alarming array of adverse health effects.
– These include: Alzheimer’s disorder, memory and attention deficits, male infertility, immune dysfunction, impaired learning in children and compromised general well-being.
– Notably, a 3-to-5 fold increased risk for fatal brain tumours has been strongly linked to long-term, next-to-ear use of cellphones (e.g., 20 min/day for a decade or more), prompting the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2011 to classify all RF-emitting wireless devices as Group 2B (“possibly cancer-causing”) agents.
– Two weeks ago more than 200 distinguished scientists and cancer specialists from 39 nations petitioned the United Nations member states “to adopt more protective exposure guidelines for wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of risk.”
– These experts also urged the IARC to reclassify RF-emitting wireless devices as Group 2A (“probably cancer-causing”) agents. Their expressed urgency for the reclassification stems primarily from the recent startling revelation that RF radiation can not only cause cancer but can also promote the growth of latent cancers.
– international experts, recently appearing before Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health, decried Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 guidelines for protection against wireless devices as “out-dated, incomplete and invalid”, warning that the microwave levels permitted in Canadian classrooms, residences and workplaces constitute a “disaster to public health”.
– by considering only acute thermal (tissue heating) effects while systematically discounting the potential risks of cumulative, long-term, biologically based effects, is placing all Canadians, especially vulnerable children, at unjustified risk.
– many non-thermal effects are seen at intensity levels well below those required to produce the thermal effects.
– – –
Malcolm Paterson PhD (molecular oncologist) of Okanagan Falls is internationally acclaimed for his innovative research into how human cells sense and respond to environmental (ionizing radiation) stress and the breakdown of the underlying mechanisms as the frequent initiating and rate-limiting event in cancer development. In his career spanning 40 years in five countries on three continents, Dr. Paterson authored 168 scientific articles; spoke at 120 scientific meetings; and delivered 200 lectures at various medical centres and universities in 18 counties.
From: Population and Public Health HLTH:EX [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: June 11, 2015 9:21 AM
Subject: Ministry of Health Response –
Thank you for your email of May 13, 2015, in which you expressed concern about the use of electronic devices that emit radiofrequency (RF) emissions in schools. As Executive Director of the Ministry of Health’s Health Protection Branch, I am pleased to respond.
To ensure that public RF exposures fall within acceptable guidelines, Industry Canada, the federal regulator responsible for the approval of RF equipment, has chosen the human exposure limits established by Health Canada as their regulatory exposure standard (Safety Code 6). Information regarding this standard and the health effects of wireless technology in general, can be obtained from the Health Canada website: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/radio_guide-lignes_direct/index-eng.php.
I understand that although RF fields vary depending on the technology used, radio frequency exposure from Wi-Fi devices is very low. In fact, the components of a Wi-Fi Internet router will emit radio signals similar to commonplace appliances, such as AM or FM radios and baby monitors. The Ministry of Health works closely with Health Canada and the BC Centre for Disease Control to ensure that it has access to the most up to date scientific information. Based on the current information and studies available, the typical levels of RF energy that you find coming from Wi-Fi devices are orders of magnitude lower than the limits for public exposure. As long as exposure is below these established limits, there is no convincing scientific evidence that this equipment is dangerous to schoolchildren or to the public in general.
Thank you again for writing. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
Tim Lambert, PhD
Health Protection Branch
Ministry of Health