1) The Energy Minister of Ontario claims to be searching for ways to reduce rates, such as eliminating time-of-use billing.
“The energy minister also questioned time-of-use pricing for electricity, which charges much higher rates during peak daylight hours, a practice that critics say unfairly hurts seniors and others who stay home during the day.
People should have the flexibility to sign up for electricity plans that better suit their needs just like they can shop around for different telephone and Internet service plans, added Thibeault.”
In Ontario, more than 60,000 families had their power cut because they couldn’t afford to pay for food and electricity. The Opposition is calling for a moratorium. People are suffering and the rates have continued to rise despite the smeter program which promised to keep rates low.
http://saultonline.com/2016/11/ndp-calls-for-moratorium-on-hydro-disconnections/
2) Dr. Mercola has been an outspoken educator about the dangers of cell phones, and he continues. Good gifts for Christmas for those who cannot wean themselves entirely from these things.
3) The West Coast Action Alliance continues to alert the public about the electronic wargames the US Navy will be starting soon. Southern Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, and probably the southern Mainland of BC will be victimized by these military exercises. The Growler EIS statement is at this site:
http://whidbeyeis.com/CurrentEISDocuments.aspx
“The US Navy recently released its Growler Environmental Impact Statement (EIS,) detailing huge increases in jet noise, including a 600% increase in low-level training operations at Outlying Field Coupeville, exposure of nearly 3,500 more children to noise at health-damaging levels, and interruptions in some classrooms at rates of 45 times per hour. This sounds surreal, but it’s true, and the Navy made no actual noise measurements in communities, just computer modeling that averages jet noise with periods of quiet. Naval operations will cause huge increases in jet noise over communities throughout the region, and in wilderness areas of Olympic National Park, obliterating its famous quiet. Air pollution will dramatically increase, too, as will the risk of jet crashes. The only thing that is guaranteed to go down is property values…
Canadians are feeling the jet noise pain, too. The Navy refused to hold a meeting in Canada, despite requests; instead, they say Canadians must come to the US if their concerns are to be heard. The only other scheduled Navy public meetings are December 6 in Oak Harbor, WA, December 7 on Lopez Island, December 8 in Anacortes, and December 9 in Coupeville. Details are here . In another post we will provide help with public comments.”
http://westcoastactionalliance.org/
This is the only article about the growler jets that I’ve seen in local (Victoria) newspapers, and it really only discusses the noise [https://washingtonenvironmentalprotectioncoalition.org/watch-videos] – nothing about the EMR that the planes will be shooting at each other and toward targets as they fly above our homes.
Please write, send the above information to the author rwatts@timescolonist.com and to the Oak Bay Council obcouncil@oakbay.ca and copy your MLA and MP PLEASE. [https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/contact/]
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/oak-bay-to-u-s-navy-keep-growlers-away-1.3185591
Letters:
To the Toronto City Council
From: X
To: “exc” <exc@toronto.ca>
Sent: November 30, 2016
Subject: My comments for 2016.EX20.42 on December 1, 2016 Executive Committee
To the City Clerk:
Please add my comments to the agenda for the December 1, 2016 Executive Committee meeting on item 2016.EX20.42, Reviewing the Procedure for Approving Rooftop Telecommunications Towers on Toronto Community Housing Buildings.
I understand that my comments and the personal information in this email will form part of the public record and that my name will be listed as a correspondent on agendas and minutes of City Council or its committees. Also, I understand that agendas and minutes are posted online and my name may be indexed by search engines like Google.
Comments:
The adverse health effects from exposure to low-level electromagnetic radiation is well documented. Council would be well advised to read B. Blake Levitt and Henry Lai’s “Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays” published in NRC Research Press, Nov 5, 2010 to gain some unbiased knowledge of this subject.
I’ve included here in my comments excerpts from this paper:
“No money has ever been appropriated by the wireless industry in the U.S., or by any U.S. government agency, to study the potential health effects on people living near the infrastructure. The most recent research has all come from outside of the U.S. According to the CTIA – The Wireless Association”
“All of the standards currently in place are based on RFRs ability to heat tissue, called thermal effects. A longstanding criticism, going back to the 1950s (Levitt 1995), is that such acute heating effects do not take potentially more subtle non-thermal effects into consideration. And based on the number of citizens who have tried to stop cell towers from being installed in their neighborhoods, laypeople in many countries do not find adherence to exisitng standards valid in addressing health concerns. Therefore, infrastructure siting does not have the confidence of the public (Levitt 1998).”
It makes little sense to keep denying health symptoms that are being reported in good faith. Though the prevalence of such exposures is relatively new to a widespread population, we, nevertheless, have a 50 year observation period to draw from. The primary questions now involve specific exposure parameters, not the reality of the complaints or attempts to attribute such complaints to psychosomatic causes, malingering, or beliefs in paranormal phenomenon. That line of argument is insulting to regulators, citizens, and their physicians. Serious mitigation efforts are overdue.
There is early Russian and U.S. documentation of long-term, very low-level exposures causing microwave sickness as contained in The Johns Hopkins Foreign Service Health Status Study done in 1978 (Lilienfield et al. 1978; United States Senate 1979). This study contains both clinical information, and clear exposure parameters. Called the Lilienfield study, it was conducted between 1953 and 1976 to determine what, if any, effects there had been to personnel in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow after it was discovered that the Soviet government had been systematically irradiating the U.S. government compound there.
The symptoms reported were not due to any known tissue heating properties. The power densities were not only very low but the propagation characteristics were remarkably similar to what we have today with cell phone base stations. Lilienfield recorded exposures for continuous-wave, broad-band, modulated RFR in the frequency ranges between 0.6 and 9.5 GHz. The exposures were long-term and low-level at 6 to 8 h per day, 5 days per week, with the average length of exposure time per individual between 2 to 4 years. Modulation information contained phase, amplitude, and pulse variations with modulated signals being transmitted for 48 h or less at a time. Radiofrequency power density was be- tween 2 and 28 mW/cm2 — levels comparable to recent studies cited in this paper.
The symptoms that Lilienfield found included four that fit the Soviet description for dermographism — eczema, psoriasis, allergic, and inflammatory reactions. Also found were neurological problems with diseases of peripheral nerves and ganglia in males; reproductive problems in females during pregnancy, childbearing, and the period immediately after delivery (puerperium); tumor increases (malignant in females, benign in males); hematological alterations; and effects on mood and well-being including irritability, depression, loss of appetite, concentration, and eye problems.
Such reports of adverse effects on well-being are occurring worldwide near cell infrastructure and this does not appear to be related to emotional perceptions of risk. Similar symptoms have also been recorded at varying distances from broadcast towers. It is clear that something else is going on in populations exposed to low-level RFR that computer-generated RFR propagation models and obsolete exposure standards, which only protect against acute exposures, do not encompass or understand.
Council has the mandate and power to stand firm in this matter and not allow the telecommunication infrastructure being placed where it has been proposed. I trust all of you will do the right thing.