[BC Hydro FOI re Electrical Engineer Safety Inspection of Itron Smart Meters – Cece Doucette Wi-Fi Flyers – Data Privacy – Dirty Electricity – EMFs – Fourth Amendment – Jamie Williams – Karl Riley – Laura Sunstein Murphy – Norm Ryder Presentation to Municipal Council – PA Act 129 / PECO / PUC – Privacy Commissioners – Telus Microcells | Central Saanich & Vancouver, BC – Canada – Naperville, Illinois & Pennsylvania, USA] & (videos)
1) NOTICE: Telus installing microcells in South Vancouver. Please alert your neighbours and give us addresses when you see any. Send to: director@stopsmartmetersbc.com
(click on photos to enlarge)
http://emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FIBER_FEB2017.jpg
Here are locations known in South Mainland. http://emrabc.ca/?page_id=8807
Telus is sending out a letter telling people they are installing fiber optic cable – nothing about the microcells. They will bring fiber optic to your home and expect to put Wi-Fi throughout your home. I bet the black box that they will put on the outside will be associated with the microcell at some point. http://emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Telus_eNode_Letter.jpg
2) Illinois court refuses to protect data gathered by the smeters and the utility company. This decision is being appealed.
“An Illinois Court Just Didn’t Get It: We Are Entitled to Expect Privacy In Our Smart Meter Data, Which Reveals What’s Going On Inside Our Homes
But a federal district court in Illinois has held—in a lawsuit alleging that smart meters installed in Naperville, Illinois, put the privacy of the city’s citizens at risk—that Americans can’t reasonably expect any privacy in the data collected by these devices. According to the court, smart meter data is completely beyond the protection of the Fourth Amendment.”
Groups are filing an appeal to this decision, even referencing that this intrusion into privacy is an international concern, happening in every country. Why aren’t the Privacy Commissioners in BC and Canada jumping all over this?
Electronic Frontier Foundation Staff Attorney Jamie Williams said:
Smart meter data reveals intimate details about what is going on inside the home. The lower court made false assumptions about how smart meter technology works, and its decision is a threat to the privacy of the 57 million and counting American homes with this new technology.
https://smartgridawareness.org/2017/02/28/privacy-advocacy-groups-amicus-brief-on-smart-meters/
Here is the official press release announcing this appeal:
3) From a member after watching the YouTube of the presentation another member gave before the Central Saanich Council. I couldn’t agree more with the sentiments and suggest the Council and Mayor should hear these comments. It takes time and energy to prepare a presentation, especially one with so much information, and it takes a lot of nerve to present before the Council and public. Not only is this rude but it shows that the Council members have no interest in concerns raised by their constituents.
The email contact for the Council can be found at: http://www.centralsaanich.ca/hall/Mayor_and_Council.htm
Please make comments on the YouTube, too, so that others will see that Councillors are being chided about their conduct. I’ve been told that you need a Google account to make comments.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv9FibNnpPg)
” One of our members gave a presentation before his municipal council to educate them about the dangers of microcells ”
I couldn’t help but notice the crass lack of respect and involvement of two Councillors, the one on the left who apparently disengaged by the 3 1/2 minute mark, though he felt qualified to speak to the Council’s ‘lack of jurisdiction’; and the one on the right, who missed fully 5 minutes of the 10 minute presentation, as he was totally absorbed in his own wifi gadgetry. Ironically, he felt comfortable in saying that he didn’t have enough information (!)
4) Many people have concerns about dirty electricity and high electro-magnetic fields. Here is a YouTube some members highly recommend.
“Tracing Magnetic Fields EMF by Karl Riley”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAAZCMns8YM — 22 minutes
5) Cece Doucette has shared a flyer that she is posting online and with cable TV stations about her Wi-Fi series. Please do share with parents, teachers and school trustees.
Letters:
I submitted an FOI on Oct 28, 2016 and on Nov. 6, I was told I would have an answer by Jan. 6, 2017. This was later extended to Feb. 20, 2017. This is critical information that I have asked for before and never received a response. I suspect that there was no inspection which would mean that the program is illegal. We deserve to know what BC Hydro did (if anything) to ensure this device would be safe before signing the contract.
= = =
From: Sharon Noble
Sent: March 2, 2017
To: scott.macdonald@bchydro.com
Cc: ‘Complaints BCUC:EX’ <Complaints@bcuc.com>
Subject: BCH 2017-158 Extension.pdf
Dear Mr. MacDonald,
I asked my question on Oct. 28, 2016 and have been waiting ever since to learn if an electrical engineer inspected and determined the smart meter was safe prior to the contract being signed. I do not understand why it should take nearly 4 months to receive an answer.
Could you please, at the minimum, answer this question — either yes or no?
Thank you.
Regards,
Sharon Noble
= = =
From: Sharon Noble
Sent: February 24, 2017
To: scott.macdonald@bchydro.com
Subject: BCH 2017-158 Extension.pdf
Dear Mr. MacDonald,
Could you please give me the status of the response to this question: what procedures were taken by BC Hydro and its electrical engineers as part of the due diligence process prior to contracting with ITRON for the smart meters?
Thank you.
Regards,
Sharon Noble
___________________________________________________________________________
From a smeter resister in Pennsylvania. Most of what she says applies to BC Hydro and FortisBC.
“This is crucial information that should bolster Pennsylvanians’ efforts to resist smart meters – thank you to Laura Murphy:
Begin forwarded message:
“From: “laura sunstein murphy” [email deleted]
PA Act 129: Even though the PA house had added an amendment mandating smart meters early on with the bill, HB 2200, after much discussion (even Godshall saying it should not be mandated (!) that was before his son Grey was hired by PECO), by the time it got to the senate, the senate took out the mandating language, and the house bill adopted the senate version with very little change.
There was NO DISCUSSION in the house reconsideration of the bill as to mandates; the house reconsideration discussion was solely about energy conservation, deregulation of energy suppliers, and that the utilities had to conserve energy because we in PA could not afford new generation plants.
So it was the PUC rulemaking alone which misinterpreted the bill, mandating universal deployment in PA. The PUC has no authority to make its own rules, and must take its authority solely from the PA lawmaking.
So, here the PUC was overreaching in its implementing regulations, obviously being influenced by the utility companies alone, because the PUC spoke only to utility companies, and held no public hearings for residential ratepayers, which is us customers.
AND A HUGE THING, the whole Act 129 was about saving money and cutting down on electrical demand, and these AMI meters soak up 2 watts of power, which WE PAY both PECO and our electricity generation suppliers, so that is a huge waste of electricity, far greater waste of electricity and our pocketbooks.
If you do the calculations as to how much 2 watts of power amounts to in terms of kilowatt hours per month. PECO has 1.7 million customers; we can do the math….especially for the commercial customers who use so much more electricity than homeowners.
Sometimes we wonder why this whole smart meter idea hatched, and the answer is, we need to follow the money.
The meter suppliers get money for production, and for amortization because the hardware metes [meters] are fully depreciable over 15 years or less, PECO gets the money to install and maintain the meters from the customers plus the federal stimulus money, PECO sells the ZigBee home appliance usage data to third parties for marketing purposes, PECO gets total control over which appliances can run or not run in cases of peak usage, so PECO does not have to maintain much in reserve, and PECO and the electricity generation and gas and water generation suppliers get to charge us for extra electricity usage for running the so called smart meters. What a scam!!
Laura
Laura Sunstein Murphy, Ph.D., Esquire”
– http://www.puc.pa.gov/filing_resources/issues_laws_regulations/act_129_information.aspx
Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking.”
~ Voltaire