[BC Hydro and FortisBC Fires / Safety Compliance Reports – Cell Towers Noise / Frey Effect / Microwave Hearing – Due Diligence Complaint to BCUC and Information & Privacy Commission re BC Hydro Itron Smart Meter Safety Testing by Sharon Noble – EHS – EMR – Health – Irradiated – Letters to Perry Kendall – Norm Ryder – Rick Hartlein, NEETRAC – Scott Macdonald – Sir Austin Bradford Hill – Studies and Resources – Wireless | Abbotsford, BC]
1) A member in Abbotsford said that there have been many complaints made to the city about a noise in areas close to cell towers that is described as “industrial” . The city has implemented a new noise bylaw but this won’t help those who are hearing “microwave pulses”. Our air and environment is being polluted by EMR. If we could see or smell it, this would never be considered acceptable.
(click on photos to enlarge)
Health Phys. 2007 Jun;92(6):621-8.
Hearing of microwave pulses by humans and animals: effects, mechanism, and thresholds.
The hearing of microwave pulses is a unique exception to the airborne or bone-conducted sound energy normally encountered in human auditory perception. The hearing apparatus commonly responds to airborne or bone-conducted acoustic or sound pressure waves in the audible frequency range. But the hearing of microwave pulses involves electromagnetic waves whose frequency ranges from hundreds of MHz to tens of GHz. Since electromagnetic waves (e.g., light) are seen but not heard, the report of auditory perception of microwave pulses was at once astonishing and intriguing. Moreover, it stood in sharp contrast to the responses associated with continuous-wave microwave radiation. Experimental and theoretical studies have shown that the microwave auditory phenomenon does not arise from an interaction of microwave pulses directly with the auditory nerves or neurons along the auditory neurophysiological pathways of the central nervous system. Instead, the microwave pulse, upon absorption by soft tissues in the head, launches a thermoelastic wave of acoustic pressure that travels by bone conduction to the inner ear. There, it activates the cochlear receptors via the same process involved for normal hearing. Aside from tissue heating, microwave auditory effect is the most widely accepted biological effect of microwave radiation with a known mechanism of interaction: the thermoelastic theory. The phenomenon, mechanism, power requirement, pressure amplitude, and auditory thresholds of microwave hearing are discussed in this paper. A specific emphasis is placed on human exposures to wireless communication fields and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) coils.
[http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=594 & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect]
2) See below in Letters the latest attempt by BC Hydro to refuse to provide information regarding the safety testing of the ITRON smeter. Once again they have misled me, refused to provide the information for which I’ve been waiting for 6 months, and then tell me something that is blatantly untrue – using a bogus excuse that they obviously believed I wouldn’t discover. I believe these meters are dangerous and that BC Hydro has failed to do its due diligence either before contracting with ITRON or after putting these things on our homes. I hope you will support me in my complaint to the Information and Privacy Commission, the BCUC and BC Hydro. We deserve to know what testing, if any, has been done on these things.
3) Last year, as a result of my complaint about the lack of tracking by any agency of the fires and failures of smeters, BC Hydro and FortisBC were ordered to track “heating events” and report on them every 6 months. It is impossible to know if BC Hydro in fact is reporting every incident but at least they are tracking some. BC Hydro had admitted to BCUC that they did not track “after installation incidents”, yet they told BCUC they were sure there hadn’t been any failures or fires. Here is the first 6 month report with 22 incidents, and 3 others where smeters were turned over for inspection (which would be a first). Notice how all the problems are blamed on the base, even abnormal loads, and where the smeter was “ejected” from the base. Why did the arcing occur? Why did the meter base burn? I believe if someone were to inspect these meters and bases, they would find that there were at least 22 cases of meter failures or likely meter failures between July and Dec. 2016. Now, if only an Inspector would actually inspect the smeter…..
Please read from the bottom up.
From: Sharon Noble
Sent: May 3, 2017 1:54 PM
Cc: Information and Privacy Commission <email@example.com>; ‘Commission Secretary BCUC:EX’ <Commission.Secretary@bcuc.com>
Subject: Test report — ITRON remote disconnect switch.
Dear Mr. MacDonald,
In your response to my request for information regarding tests done by BC Hydro prior to signing the contract with ITRON, in your due diligence process, you said that you could not send me a copy of the NEETRA report with the test results of the ITRON remote disconnect switch. Rather you said I could purchase it. (see the highlighted link below for the letter to which I refer)
After leaving several phone messages and sending emails, I received the following which advises that I cannot purchase this report. This is a critical piece of the information I am requesting since, in many jurisdictions, the ITRON remote disconnect switch has been found to have been the cause of fires. Also electrical engineers have warned that this device is flawed in design and should not be part of the meter.
You assert that you are unable to share this information because of the prohibition to disclose information that would “ reveal commercial or financial information of or about a third party that is supplied, implicitly or explicitly, in confidence and could, if disclosed, reasonably be expected to harm significantly the competitive position, or interfere significantly with the negotiating position….”
This justification for refusing to provide me with this information rings hollow. According to their website: “NEETRAC members include electric utilities and manufacturers providing power delivery related goods and services to utilities.” Since any NEETRA member could obtain this report, a competitor could obtain the report merely by becoming a member, if they aren’t already. Obviously this is information you do not wish me to have. That is the only possible [reason] for this type of obfuscation.
Mr. MacDonald, once again I am asking for a copy of the test results to which I believe I have a right as a concerned customer of BC Hydro’s who is facing mandated installation on my home of a device which I believe to be a fire hazard.
This complaint is in addition to the one submitted to the Privacy Commissioner about the incorrect information being included in your response. I am still awaiting a copy of the SbD report with names and qualifications of those conducting the study.
= = =
From: Hartlein, Richard A [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: May 3, 2017 11:38 AM
To: Sharon Noble
Cc: Connelly, Christopher S <email@example.com>; Hill, Raymond C <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: FW: Test report — ITRON remote disconnect switch.
Work conducted for NEETRAC members belongs to them and is therefore not available outside the NEETRAC membership.
Director, Georgia Tech NEETRAC
5351 Kennedy Road
Forest Park, GA 30297
= = =
From: Sharon Noble
Sent: April 24, 2017
Subject: FOI BC Hydro 201.20.2017-158
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please find below (in reverse order) the various communications between BC Hydro and me in response to my initial request of Oct. 28, 2016 which I repeat for clarity’s sake:
As you know far better than I, electricity is dangerous, and electrical appliances and equipment must be assured to be safe. To that end, BC Hydro would do proper due diligence before contracting with any company for either electrical equipment or service. Because BC Hydro is exempted from having its equipment certified by CSA, it is logical that this “due diligence” would include having a professional electrical engineer test equipment in advance of finalizing the contract to ensure that the equipment would perform as promised and do so safely. I believe that all utility companies have professional engineers who are responsible for ensuring that this testing occurs.
Could you please tell me 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?
The response I finally received at the end of March (after 5 months) is attached. (see below as links) Mr. Macdonald said the following was provided:
1) A copy of the formal SbD (Safety by Design) report with the names and qualifications of those conducting this study.
2) The safety related requirements included in the RFP tender documents and the test reports that were provided, in response, by ITRON.
3) The third party (NEETRAC) report on ITRON’s remote disconnect switch is available via NEETRAC.
As you will see, neither #1 nor #2 is provided. There was no SbD. Neither were names and qualifications of those doing the study provided.
There were no RFP tender documents, safety related requirements, or test reports from ITRON.
So far I have been unable to obtain the report on the remote disconnect switch done by NEETRAC
What is provided appears to be a summary of trouble reports kept by BC Hydro. In fact I personally am familiar with many of the situations they describe, having been contacted by some of the victims of the failures of these meters. Upon review you may ponder, as do I, why an incident involving a dog might be considered relevant.
Why was this sent to me? It provides no insight into the safety of the meters or the measures taken to ensure that the product being purchased was both safe and suitable. And it certainly does not provide the information which I requested.
What I asked for and what I have not received after 5 months is the report on any testing that was done prior to finalizing the contract with ITRON to ensure that these meters are safe, and prove that they are NOT fire hazards as has been reported by independent experts and agencies.
I ask for your assistance in answering my initial 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?
Sent: May 4, 2017
Subject: Lots of evidence of harm from wireless radiation
Dear Dr. Kendall,
The wireless industry has, much like the tobacco industry, spent millions of dollars on studies concerning the health effects caused by their products. Roughly one third of their studies indicate the damaging biological effects of microwave exposure at non-thermal levels. About 70% of non-industry funded research shows the same damage to living cells. None of the existing “safety standards” in North America even consider biological effects, only heating effects. Ignorance of existing peer-reviewed science does not justify your stating in an email “The conclusions of them all are that at present levels of exposure, there is no evidence of harm to the populations exposed.”
Quite the opposite is the case as evidenced by those currently negatively affected by wireless radiation exposures.
Please take the time the time to read such links as: https://wirelessaction.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/irradiated.pdf Maybe you will learn a few new facts in the process.
Hiding one’s head in the sand and mindlessly regurgitating the “no evidence of harm” mantra from those making billions of dollars selling wireless devices is just one more reason to vote the corrupt smiling liars out of office at the earliest opportunity.
Please read from the bottom up.
Sent: May 4, 2017 2:40 PM
To: Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX <Perry.Kendall@gov.bc.ca>; Henry, Bonnie HLTH:EX <Bonnie.Henry@gov.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Microwave radiation
Fundamental to good science is the scientist must be free of conflict of interest – receiving $100,000 from industry is not free of conflict of interest. The findings of the scientists reporting reasons for concern have been confirmed multiple times in other independent studies. And yes while I can agree one epidemiological study will probably have flaws many using different methodology arriving at the same conclusion one has to consider the weight of evidence supports reasons for concern. Your position is no different than the tobacco industry still claiming that smoking does not cause harm. None of us has seen a healthy person light a cigarette and fall dead of lung cancer before they finish the cigarette and I am sure the tobacco companies are still finding scientists to report smoking does not cause cancer – does not make them correct, the weight of quality evidence is significantly on the side of smoking causes harm.
In the mid 60’s the US Surgeon General showed moxie and announced his famous statement. A year or so ago you were planning to retire then withdrew your notice, I assume even if not announced your retirement is imminent. Why not go out on a high note and publicly recognise that low levels of radiation have the potential for harm.
= = =
Subject: RE: Microwave radiation
Date: 4 May 2017 18:38:56
From: Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX <Perry.Kendall@gov.bc.ca>
To: ‘Norm’ , Henry, Bonnie HLTH:EX <Bonnie.Henry@gov.bc.ca>
CC: Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX <Perry.Kendall@gov.bc.ca>
Dear Mr Ryder- we obviously fundamentally disagree on what constitutes independent review, good science and evidentiary weighting.
I shall keep on reviewing evidence and reviews as they are presented and while you may not believe this, I assure you that I will keep an open mind.
R. W. Kendall
OBC, MBBS, MHSc, FRCPC
Provincial Health Officer
Ministry of Health
Physical Address: 4th Floor, 1515 Blanshard Street Mailing Address: PO Box 9648, STN PROV GOVT Victoria BC V8W 9P4
Phone: 250 952-1330 Fax: 250 952-1570
= = =
Sent: May 4, 2017 10:57 AM
To: Perry.Kendall@gov.bc.ca; email@example.com
Subject: Microwave radiation
For immediate release and distribution
I note in a recent response to a person concerned about microwave radiation you state “The conclusions of them all are that at present levels of exposure, there is no evidence of harm to the populations exposed.” That is blatantly false to the point it should be called a willful lie on your part. Yes. I concede if you cherry pick papers especially those from scientists with known conflict of interest positions you can pretend your words are correct, but as we both know there are thousands of papers from independent researchers free of conflict of interest that has found evidence of harm at levels far less than SC6. I know you have these papers as I and many others have sent copies of many of them to you.
Many of the papers are based on epidemiological studies. I appreciate the study of epidemiology may be foreign to you. I suggest you look at the words of Sir Austin Bradford Hill FRS <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_of_the_Royal_Society> and his “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?” <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1898525/>. /Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine/. If you find his thoughts too complex for you I suggest you discuss the issue with your deputy whom I understand is an epidemiologist.
It is very evident to anyone that has studied the topic that you are not being truthful when you say there is no evidence of harm. Have you taken a moment to contemplate the damage you are doing to your reputation and your office when you make such a blatantly incorrect statement, can the public trust your words reflect the current science and understanding on any subject such as vaccines or the flu shot.
Norm Ryder (name given with permission)
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”
~ A. Einstein