- The cell companies want to become part of the “$$mart” grid. This will most likely lead to sharing of data but also sharing of the infrastructure. Remember those 6 unused transmitters in the Cisco 1000 collectors outside homes. It could also turn the $meters on homes into commercial centres for the cell and wifi services they want us to take. It sounds as if this would enable Hydro and Fortis to provide coverage to those rural areas where the current system does not work. No one would escape.
“The platform is now being piloted with unnamed utility partners using smart meters from General Electric, though Verizon is working on embedding its communications cards in meters from other vendors as well in the future, he said. “In particular, we’re looking at how LTE is a game-changer,” he added. The spread of Verizon’s 4G LTE cellular network is allowing for faster and more data-rich coverage, compared to previous generations of cellular.”
“Verizon is embedding a fair amount of computing power in the communications cards it’s putting in the field, allowing them to be actively managed for data throughput, frequency of backhaul communication, and other network service issues that can arise from sharing airspace with RF mesh.”
- In 2012, a large group of us marched in front of Dr. Perry Kendall’s office in Victoria, holding signs, Dr. Martin Blank and others spoke about the failure of Dr. Kendall to read and respond to a large body of medical evidence that shows the health effects of prolonged exposure to microwave radiation. Unable to meet with Dr. Kendall, or even to reach his office, we handed a receptionist 150 studies that he had ignored. For months he refused to respond, but eventually, after a lot of pressure, he said that he would send the studies to the BC Centre for Disease Control (which reports to him), and would take their recommendations into consideration. In March, 2013, this report was released. (see link to it below) We heard through the grapevine that it had been “softened” in spots, but even so there is acknowledgement of credible evidence of health effects, especially with regard to sperm and reproduction (Chapter 10). Upon release of the report, we asked Dr. Kendall if he would take steps to warn the public. He said he did not share our opinion regarding the report. Nothing happened. Now, more than 3 years later, new evidence is available, and Health Canada has revised Safety Code 6, cutting exposure limits at some frequencies by 50% or more. A member has asked for a revised report, and one that would take into consideration new studies, statements by experts, and recommendations by the HESA committee. The request and response is below in letters. Dr. Kendall refuses to acknowledge any science that shows that there are health effects or reason for caution, encouraging wifi to be put into schools and hospitals, and $$meters on homes. It’s up to all of us once again to put pressure on Kendall and the BCCDC to, at the minimum, allow people to know the truth and to stop misleading people with his statements such as those on his website and the Cancer Society’s. I hope everyone will consider writing again and again to Kendall, Zitouni and Kosatsky, pushing and pressing for action based on real science, not Kendall’s opinion.
- Smeters are now turned on in Kelowna. Please let me know of any problems, especially re. overheating or burned meters.
- A few days ago I circulated an article that warned about the effects of an attack or accident that knocks out the power grid. Here is an audio (36 min) with more information about why the grid is vulnerable to various threats.
“It would be hard to build a grid that is more fragile than the ones we have now.”
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:23:25 -0700
From: “Zitouni, Abderrachid” <Abderrachid.Zitouni@bccdc.ca>
Cc: “Kosatsky, Tom” <Tom.Kosatsky@bccdc.ca>
Subject: RE: RFToolkit
BCCDC does not plan to redo the RF toolkit during the coming year.
However, advice and public communication on RF which we do offer will take the revised SC6 into account.
We are also awaiting release of the revised ICNRP* RF guidelines, which will inform our assessments of RF.
Dr. Abderrachid Zitouni, PhD
Provincial Radiation Specialist
Environmental Health Services
BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC)
655 West 12th Avenue
* International Commission on Non-Ionizing radiation Protection:
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 9:25 AM
To: Zitouni, Abderrachid
The RF Toolkit was written using SC6 (2009) as the bench mark level to define harm. The recently revised SC6 significantly reduces the allowable limits for a substantial range of frequencies typically experienced by many. Are there any plans to update the RF Toolkit to reflect the more stringent standards expressed in the revised SC6?
In conjunction with the revised SC6 Health Canada also released the Technical Guide for Interpretation and Compliance Assessment of Health Canada’s Radiofrequency Exposure Guidelines”, released in March of 2015, will the RF Toolkit be updated to reflect the issues noted in this document.
The parliamentary Health committee tabled their report on their investigation into SC6 in the house earlier this month. The document noted several areas where they were concerned about the adequacy of SC6.
Can we expect a revised RF toolkit soon that reflects the concerns raised by the parliamentary committee after receiving evidence from a large number of experts in the field?
In May approximately 200 scientist presented an appeal to the UN expressing serious concern about the use of the standards that Canada and some other countries use to set EMR limits.
The recent Lancet Oncology, noted a serious transgression of Conflict of Interest rules by a known consultant of the Telecom Industry that attended the 2011 IARC meeting. The majority of scientists not supported by industry at that meeting have gone on record as saying they feel radio frequency should be a group 2 A or even a group 1 carcinogen. Will the Toolkit be revised to reflect the issues that this conflict of interest raises?
Dear Mr. Wruck
I, amongst many others, would like to have a straight forward and timely answer to the following:
Given the evidence in other jurisdictions and courts that has proven the equipment used by BC Hydro is unsafe, is it your position that the Clean Energy Act and Direction 4 precludes the BCUC from taking action even if the lives and property of British Columbians are endangered by the equipment being used, and indeed, being forced on British Columbians, by BC Hydro?
When can we expect an answer? Is it necessary to ask the courts for claity on this issue?
Newsletter prepared by Sharon noble