[BCCDC Radiofrequency Toolkit – BC Hydro Employee Kent Hillman Lawsuit for Wrongful Dismissal re Safety – Cell Phones – Children – EMF Nonthermal Effects – Hacking of Femtocells / Microcells / Small Cells – Perry Kendall – Precautionary Principle – Safety Code 6 – Smart Meters – Telus – Wi-Fi in Schools – Wireless Devices Nonionizing Microwave Radiation – WorkSafeBC | BC]
1) We all know that anything wireless is vulnerable to hacking, being far less secure than its wired version. Telus is installing microcells/femtocells/small cells right outside our homes with the intention of providing cell phone service. Here are articles that report that these mini cell transmitters can be hacked and both sides of conversations can be heard. This would be especially concerning given that children are using cell phones. This would be a great way for a pervert to insinuate himself into the child’s life. This is a good reason to refuse allowing these to be put into our communities, in front of our homes.
(click on photos to enlarge)
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/femtocell-verizon-hack/
http://robotskirts.com/2009/12/02/att-3g-microcell-hacking/
http://www.dailytech.com/Hackers+Show+Regular+Folks+How+to+Hack+Femtocells/article31966.htm
2) BC Hydro is being sued for wrongful dismissal of an employee for reporting violations. Insiders have told me that BC Hydro is very aggressive toward its employees. Warnings were given, even before the smeters were being installed, that no one could say anything negative about this program or device, even among themselves. Violation of this order would result in termination. Several employees were fired when they refused to allow smeters on their homes because they knew they were dangerous.
“Lawsuit of the week: Former BC Hydro safety employee claims he was fired for reporting violations to WorkSafeBC”
https://www.biv.com/article/2017/5/lawsuit-week-former-bc-hydro-safety-employee-claim/
3) A report on recent evidence concludes that there is no safe level of exposure, with harmful effects being shown at extremely low levels of exposure to microwave radiation from wireless devices like smeters, cell phones and Wi-Fi. Please read to the end. The conclusion summarizes our dilemma – profit has put science on the edge of the cliff, with no proof of safety being required before new devices/products are sold.
Wireless communication technologies:
New study findings confirm risks of nonionizing radiation
https://app.box.com/s/uuy9dn7y2wlx5mvdupub7ob9y0qqrdju
“Even after the introduction of wireless communication technologies, nonthermal effects have been researched extensively in connection with cell membranes. In their review papers “Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Cells” and “Electromagnetic Effects – From Cell Biology to Medicine,” FUNK et al. provide an overview of the state of research until 2006. They show, among other things, that electric fields with an electric field strength of 1 millivolt per meter (mV/m) — which corresponds to a power density level of ca. 0.0027 μW/m2 — can cause biologically relevant changes in the charge density at the cell membrane and thus may interfere with reactions inside the cell.” Pg. 5
Safety Code 6 allows exposure up to 2,740,000 uW/m2 for frequencies of 900MHz, which is the frequency used by the smeter transmitter.
“These mechanisms of damage show clearly why no adverse effect threshold levels can be defined and currently valid thermal effects-based exposure levels do not provide any protection.” Pg. 5
Ironically, there is a quote from the BC Centre for Disease Control’s report (done because many of us stood outside Kendall’s office and handed studies to the receptionist and hounded Kendall for months to read them) about the damage RF does to sperm. This is the very report to which Kendall referred in a letter to a member saying that this report showed there was no evidence of harm…. Below in Letters is Kendall’s letter for those who might want to “remind” Kendall of this finding.
“In March 2013, the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) in Canada published a 376-page research overview “Radiofrequency Toolkit for Environmental Health Practitioners” in which oxidative stress is named as the main cause for risks regarding sperm: “Overall, oxidative stress seems one of the more plausible mechanisms of RF-induced sperm damage. It has been found fairly consistently in human and animal studies on sperm specifically and on other cells in general” (BCCDC 2013, p. 272).” Pg. 6
Dr. Kendall said that if the BCCDC found any evidence of harm he would take precautionary measures. But when this report came out, I asked Kendall what measures he would take now that even the BCCDC acknowledged evidence of harm and he told me that he “didn’t agree with my interpretation”. You see Dr. Kendall’s email address below. He is responsible for allowing smeters to be put on our homes and Wi-Fi in our schools. If he implemented the Precautionary Principle, as any good public health doctor must do when presented with evidence of harm, these would be removed!
Letters:
From: “Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX” <Perry.Kendall@gov.bc.ca>
To: X
Cc: “Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX” <Perry.Kendall@gov.bc.ca>
Sent: 2 May, 2017
Subject: RE: wifi experiment & request
Dear X
There is a wealth of studies examining the effect of emf on living organisms and their constituent parts.
Health Canada has reviewed them, as have a number of international scientifically expert bodies. I have read many of these synthesis reports myself, and indeed commissioned one to be done by the BC Centre for Disease Control and epidemiology. Their results are up on the BCCDC website.
The conclusions of them all are that at present levels of exposure, there is no evidence of harm to the populations exposed.
Best wishes
Perry Kendall
Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“The entire earth turns more and more into a huge laboratory in which we, depending on our attitude and profession, observe with eagerness or horror which global impact the mass use of chemicals, electromagnetic fields, genetically manipulated organisms will have – only we cannot clean up this laboratory quite as easily when we realize the experiment went wrong”.
(NEITZKE et al. 1994, p. 319)