1) Below is the BCUC’s response to my letter complaining about the disconnections that have occurred. Please keep the letters going in about this issue. It is vital that BC Hydro not be allowed to continue to treat us like this.
2) Another OMG!! Now a new smeter technology that would use lower (much more biologically active=DANGEROUS) frequencies. Right now smeters use 900-926 MHz, which is bad enough, but lower, close to the range used by FM transmitters, would be horrible.
“LAPIS Semiconductor’s new sub-GHz wireless LSI, which delivers high performance communication with low power consumption, is expected to see wide adoption in smart meters and wireless networks around the world. The ML7345 covers a wide range of sub-GHz frequencies (160MHz to 960MHz), providing universal compatibility. Improving high-frequency amplifiers makes it possible to achieve class-leading wireless performance and environmental stability (more than 3x the transmission power temperature resistance), simplifying wireless network configuration (i.e. of smart meters) while improving reliability (e.g. reducing the number of relays).”
3) Long before wireless devices were in use by the general public, a 1966 report by the US Aerospace Technology Division summarizes scientific studies that confirm biological effects and symptoms from RF exposure to very low levels of non-ionizing radiation, the same type emitted by wireless devices like smeters, cell phones, microcells, etc. And see how the industry, from the get go, was allowed exposures 10 times higher than was known to cause these effects.
It should be pointed out that the possibility of the existence of the non-thermal effect of electromagnetic waves is generally accepted today, and because substantial experimental documentation exists, it can be considered proven… Also, actual changes in the shape of the chromosomes have been encountered. These changes are directly connected with the development of the individual and the changes in the properties of the descendants…
It was established that for heating of the body a maximum output density of 10 mW/cm 2 can be endured, and therefore this was accepted as the maximum permissible intensity. Some called this amount the “tolerance value,” and as the maximum permissible intensity 1 mW/cm 2 was proposed. This was accepted by the General Electric Co. and was also used at the Bell Telephone Laboratories. However, a biological effect can be expected at 0.1 mW/cm2 , which is the third value used in the USA. (pg. 8)
4) In the USA, industry is putting pressure on politicians to cease supporting IARC (the International Agency for Research on Cancer) even though the US only contributes $1.7 million, smaller than any rounding error in the US budget. Below is a letter from Ellie Marks, head of the California Brain Tumor Association, to Rep Cummings, Head of the House Oversight Committee. We desperately need this agency which has a history of identifying and warning the public about substances that could cause cancer.
5) A fire in Michigan that the owner states started at the meter. In Michigan, they have ITRON Openway meters just like ours.
“The gentleman claimed that sparks coming from his newly installed electric meter caused the blaze.”
6) Video of the home in Mission where the power was cut. The meter is right in the kitchen and the owner would be exposed not only to very high RF levels if she had the transmitter on, but to fire from the smeter.
|Subject:||Treating BC Hydro Customers with Disdain and Condemnation|
|Date:||27 Oct 2016|
|To:||Commission Secretary BCUC:EX <email@example.com>|
|Cc:||Patrick.Wruck@bcuc.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, SKhan@bcpiac.com|
Dear Ms. Ross and Mr. Wruck;
Once again I am receiving calls and emails from BC Hydro customers who are choking back the tears in frustration because of the harassment and threats from the hired BC Hydro thugs. Strangers are coming to their door or in their yards, confronting these customers, stating if they don’t accept a Digital Meter, they will have their power turned off. These customers know this Digital Meter is a Smart Meter and they are being told another lie to force them to accept this installation. This threat will now come with a hefty $700 re connection charge and with absolutely no prior notice, leaving these people frightened for their well being in their own homes.
The BCUC is close to approving a number of changes to the Tariff Act allowing BC Hydro to bully and punish customers who are not willing to surrender their health and safety to the lies fed to them from their hired thugs who have been paid to harass, cancer survivors, people with medical devices, vulnerable seniors, the working poor and the disabled.
BC Hydro claims these changes are “a business practice,” but what kind of business can afford to treat their customers with disdain and condemnation? Has BC Hydro forgotten that they are a Crown Corporation meant to provide essential service to the citizens of BC who as shareholders have a right to expect “good business practices?” “Good business practices” allow customers a choice to feel healthy and safe in their own home without fear of retaliation and punishment.
BCUC should reconsider the true intentions of the changes in the Tariff Act and ensure that the customer is protected from harassment and threats from the “unreasonable business practices” which have been requested for approval.
October 27, 2016
Regarding your letter of February 9th, 2016 and our email reply February 17th, 2016. Whereas the Electrical Tariff now will state that a radio-off meter neither sends nor receives wireless signals, we will accept one if there is no possibility of having another analog.
Our preference is still for an analog meter particularly as we have paid for one for many months and have always been a good customer paying our bills ahead of the date due. We are a member of Power Smart and have been reimbursed twice for reducing our hydro consumption.
We respectfully ask Hydro to:
First, send us a written statement by a professional electrical engineer that the radio-off meter is safe. Such a letter is surely part of due diligence on Hydro’s part and not an unreasonable request on our part. We feel we have a right to protect ourselves and our property.
Second, give us a day’s notice of the exchange so that we can make sure sensitive equipment is unplugged.
Canned response I received as did “XX” below.
From: Complaints BCUC:EX [mailto:Complaints@bcuc.com]
Sent: October 28, 2016
To: Sharon Noble
Subject: RE: disconnections without notice
Thank you for contacting the British Columbia Utilities Commission.
We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence. We have been notified of the issues stated in your email and are currently investigating these alleged incidents and following up with BC Hydro.
Once we have completed our investigation, we will provide you with our response to your concerns.
Sent: October 27, 2016
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: bullying customers
It has been brought to my attention that BC Hydro employees without credentials have been sent to bully customers into taking radio-off smart meters on the spot under threat of disconnection with a $700 re-connect fee applicable. Such treatment is intolerable and that part of the tariff that sets fees has not yet been passed. In addition, I am told that there has been no credentials offered to customers to prove that these hired guns are qualified to remove and install meters of any kind.
In the face of a growing body of evidence regarding health and other safety hazards/issues attached to these meters, I should think such behavior would and should be challenged by any and all of you and by every Hydro customer confronted with such an abusive position. Are you not all collecting salaries paid by taxpayers? Are you not all in the public service? Then I suggest you begin serving the public instead of bullying constituents and begin looking after their interests instead of the interests of foreign companies and a technology industry gone mad.
XX…. a taxpayer and citizen.
Dear Representative Cummings,
I am writing on behalf of many colleagues to express strong support of the National Institute of Health (NIH) continuing their funding of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Not only does IARC have an impeccable reputation but they are considered cautious in their determinations. IARC is also free from conflicts of interest and far more trustworthy than industry funded science in determining cancer causing agents.
My colleagues and I are aware that Rep. Jason Chaffetz and some “senior U.S. lawmakers” have launched a closed door attack through the Interior Subcommittee into why taxpayers are contributing to funding IARC through the NIH. It has been reported that these lawmakers are discontent with the expertise of IARC and will be meeting privately with Dr. Francis Collins of the NIH for answers as to IARC’s expertise when making their determinations. In our calls to the House Oversight Committee offices we have been unable to ascertain if this meeting with Dr. Collins has taken place already or when it is scheduled to take place. We are unhappy with the secrecy of this issue.
Per this study released last year these legislators are wasting everyone’s time. It is critical you review this study entitled “IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans” which was carried out by 100 scientific experts in 2015.
Here is the link to that peer reviewed published study confirming the validity and importance of IARC classifications:
After the experts’ thorough analysis they concluded that “The IARC Monograph have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health.” They also concluded that recent criticisms were unconvincing and that the procedures employed by IARC provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Please read the remainder of the Discussion in the link provided above.
It should also be noted that in 40 years 970 highly selective group of agents have been considered by IARC. 12% have been classified as carcinogenic to humans, 7% have been classified as probably carcinogenic, 29% have been classified as possibly carcinogenic and 52% as not classifiable regarding their carcinogenity and <1% as probably not carcinogenic to humans. This distribution does not support a conclusion that IARC’s process is heavily biased toward classifying agents as carcinogenic.
It is obvious that industries (such as telecom and Monsanto) who gain financially from substances which IARC classifies as possible, probable or definite carcinogens are manipulating this maneuver by Rep. Chaffetz and his fellow Republicans on the Committee. Apparently this current “investigation” began when glyphosate was found to be a probable carcinogen by IARC and this prompted Robert Aderholt, Chairman of the U.S. Congressional Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture to write to NIH’s Collins questioning the funding of IARC. Does Rep. Aderholt have the health concerns of the public at heart or is he more concerned with the effects of the glyphosate finding on industries that support him and other legislators?
When one researches funding to these legislators it is quite telling of the reality behind this investigation. It is time for our legislators to be more concerned about the health and welfare of the public than about their campaign contributions and the bottom line of industries that fund them.
Reportedly Rep. Chaffetz is concerned that taxpayers are wasting money on IARC. United States taxpayer money (approximately $1.7 annually) toward the funding of IARC would be a drop in the bucket compared to cancer costs if our government pulls IARC funding thus sending the wrong message to Americans by undermining IARC classifications. Cancers would undoubtedly increase and the cost of those treatments and loss to society would be devastating.
I would appreciate hearing back from you as to your stance on this serious issue. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me. Thank you.