[4G – 5G – Appliances – BCCLA – BC Privacy Commissioner – BCUC – BioInitiative Report – Cell Phones – Church Cell Tower Meeting re Saanich Development Variance Permit DVP00r79 – Clean Energy Act – Colin Plant – Costs – CTIA – Doctor Martin Blank DNA Studies – EHS – EMR – FCC – Federation of Canadian Municipalities – Fires – Fred Haynes – Health – Industry Canada – Jarret Matanowitsch – Jerry Day – Katharina Gustavs – Lawyer Atty Christopher Turner Comments re Onzo Data Collection & Analysis – Male Infertility – Olle Johansson – RF – Sharon Noble Letter to Peter Wieringa re Itron Documents versus BC Hydro Smart Metering Program Information – Sherry Ridout Letters re Antenna Siting Policy – Smart Grid Security – Surveillance – Telus Microcells – UBCM – Wireless – Write to John Horgan & Michelle Mungall re Smart Meters | Cadboro Bay & Metchosin & Saanich, BC – Canada – USA] & (video)
1) Please see below in Letters info regarding a cell tower on a church being considered at the Aug. 14 meeting. Sorry for the short notice, but I hope anyone with concerns will call the Council members or Mayor and/or attend the meeting. Also in Letters is my letter to Peter Wieringa, Executive Director of Electricity.
2) The smeter industry has admitted that “personalized data” is being gathered by the smeters and “monetized” for the benefit of the utility companies. Please consider writing to Premier Horgan, Energy Minister Mungall, et al about this issue [https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/z/bc-contact-e-mail-lists/]. Our personal privacy and security are at risk.
(click on photos to enlarge)
A direct quote from that video – that has since been removed – was:
“We use this characterized profile to give the utility… the ability to monetize their customer data by providing a direct link to appropriate third-party organizations based on the customer’s identified character.”
From an update I sent out on March 21/17:
An industry ad that admits/brags about the personal data that is gathered via smeters. This is what many have been warning about but which the industry denies when confronted. The BCCLA has said it cannot ensure our privacy until we have proof that our data has been used, and who obtained it. I have written many times to the Privacy Commissioner and for some reason this dept believes that Hydro is honest and ethical and would never use our data improperly!!
“About Onzo” This YouTube has been removed but Jerry Day has included info about Onzo in his YouTube. The specificity of the data that can be gathered and the theft of it by Onzo and other companies is shocking. Our government has the duty to protect us from this invasive device.
The Role of Utility Meters in Mass Surveillance – very interesting YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zIDW7H6XqA (10:28 minutes)
Onzo operates internationally and here is what it does. This isn’t the only company that does this data analysis, but this is what utilities will do with the data they gather. Data is very valuable.
ONZO provides a SaaS medium through which utilities can engage their customers, with capability to select and target message content to individuals, while providing useful information to the home owner about their energy use. Customers receive information that educates and informs them about their existing use and notifies them of changes to provide: Control, Comfort & Convenience.
Through analysis of the energy used within the home, ONZO products identify the patterns, trends and appliance usage that describes the behaviours and lifestyle of the residents, which can be used to inform the selection of marketing and other relevant content.
A response from a lawyer re. Onzo and the use of personal data.
“Smart meter data needs privacy protection”
3) Male fertility problem got space in the Toronto Star today, with a reference, albeit last and least, to cell phone use – the very last line.
From: Sherry Ridout
Sent: August 13, 2017
Cc: ‘Colin Plant’ <email@example.com>; ‘Fred Haynes’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Agenda Item for 2017-08-14 – Development Variance Permit DVP00r79
Dear Mayor and Council,
I apologize for the last minute correspondence regarding this matter. I only found out yesterday, 2017-08-12, that this variance was coming forward to you for approval. I do not live in the area nor do I have any issue with the aesthetics to a higher church steeple. I do however have concerns for the health ramifications that are not apparent on the surface. I also have empathy for the church which is in all probability just trying to make more income from the rental of their property.
I hope, if they were made aware of the health impact of the cell tower on their neighbours, they may reconsider this request and that you, as Saanich council, will at least put it on hold until these health issues can be factored into the equation. This is so much more than a request for a height variance!
In 2013 I received a reply from Jarret Matanowitsch regarding the updating of Saanich’s Antenna Administrative Policy. I had seen a Protocol template for municipalities on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities website. Here is part of the e-mail reply I received:
With regard to updating Saanich’s Antenna Administrative Policy, it is certainly a priority of ours to update this document and bring it in line with improved guidelines. A project such as this would be a significant undertaking, so unfortunately I am not able to give you a time line as to when our policy will be updated.
However, the joint protocol on the siting process of wireless antenna systems is a tool box for municipalities and telecommunication companies when siting and designing cell phone antennas and structures. Even though Saanich’s administrative policy for antennas has yet to be updated, planning staff can still refer to the protocol when discussing the placement and design of antenna structures with telecommunication companies. We will certainly use this available tool when discussing potential cell phone antennas.
In 2015 I hired a ‘Building Biology Environmental Consultant’ to make a presentation to the Healthy Saanich Advisory Committee regarding the issue of cell antenna siting after mini cell towers were installed in Cadboro Bay. (The telecommunication company went this route after Cadboro Bay United Church decided not to go ahead with renting out their property for a larger antenna.) The telecommunication companies do not need municipal approval to install these on telephone poles right outside resident’s homes. (Attached [below] please find my letter to you from 2017-01-11 regarding this matter.) I have attached the building biologist’s communication to Colin Plant & the Healthy Advisory Committee where she lists actions that can be taken by Saanich to protect their citizens.
I hope this is enough information to at least bring a halt to this request for a height variance. Thanks for your time and attention to this matter.
= = =
From: Sherry Ridout
Sent: January 11, 2017
To: ClerkSec <ClerkSec@saanich.ca>
Dear Mayor & Councillors,
Last June I hired a building biologist to make a presentation to the Healthy Saanich Advisory Committee regarding the mini cell towers being installed in Cadboro Bay. This was supposedly a pilot project but I understand these mini cell towers are now being installed across the province. (I am pasting the report & recommendations below for your convenience.) I wonder did your staff ever get a report from Telus regarding the RF exposure levels of these transmitters? (See #3 in the recommendations). These mini cell transmitters circumvent the need for higher cell towers; the ones your Antenna Siting Policy was drafted to ensure for safe placement protocols.
The UBCM fought hard to ensure that municipalities had some control of such infrastructure in their communities and about 3 years ago, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities fought the CTIA to close the loophole that said meters put on towers under 15 meters didn’t have to go through the normal approval and notification process. In hindsight, it seems this was a waste of time. Telecommunication companies have outwitted the process by installing the transmitters on existing structures and Industry Canada’s policies say that no municipal approval or notification is required if the transmitter is put on any existing structure, e.g. hydro pole, tower, apartment building, etc. These microcells are being put on BC Hydro poles often just a few feet from bedroom windows.
Being as the 15 meter & higher towers are no longer necessary to transmit existing and upcoming 5G transmissions the municipalities have lost any control whatsoever for the vast majority of new transmitters which will increase in number dramatically with 5G.
With that in mind I respectfully suggest that Saanich municipality bring the issue of microcells before the UBCM this year. Ask that they raise this issue with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and put pressure on Industry Canada and the CTIA to change the policy so that municipalities and residents must be notified and consulted with regard to the safe siting and transmission levels of these cell devices. Please see some of the recommendation below that could be included in the presentation to Industry Canada and the CITA.
Citizens deserve to have control over the siting of transmitters right outside their homes – and the municipalities have been charged with the responsibility of ensuring our health and safety. Control over our Electro Magnetic environment is an issue for the 21st century that needs to be intelligently addressed.
Thank you for considering my request to take this issue to the UBCM and beyond.
From: Sharon Noble
Sent: August 13, 2017
Cc: Premier John Horgan <email@example.com>; Michelle Mungall <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: ITRON disagrees with BC Hydro
Dear Mr. Wieringa,
A few days ago someone sent me your response to an email regarding the smart meter program. This person believes that she is being penalized, charged the highest opt out fees in North America, because she suffers from electro-hypersensitivity. Exposure to microwave radiation emitted by wireless devices such as smart meters can cause serious, unrelenting, and life-changing health problems. Experts, such as Dr. Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, estimated that at least 3-5% of all British Columbians are seriously affected by these emissions, even to the point of being unable to work. Perhaps as many as 20% more suffer to a lesser degree. Many world renowned scientists believe we all are affected; that, as electrical beings, our bodies suffer from being exposed to unnatural, man-made radiation like that emitted by smart meters.
I realize this topic is new to you where I, and many others, have been investigating smart meters and microwave radiation for years. Ever since 2010, when the Liberals passed the Clean Energy Act, I have sent Mr. Horgan, Mr. Dix and MLAs dozens of articles from scientists, researchers and even industry affiliates about the many problems associated with smart meters:
– health issues caused by radiation;
– privacy issues arising from the collection of personal data which the industry admits to gathering and potentially selling/sharing;
– fires caused by design flaws which have been identified by electrical engineers;
– lack of due diligence by BC Hydro during and after signing the contract;
– costs. These meters have life expectancies far shorter than the 20 years used in the business case presented to BCUC.
– vulnerability which cyber-experts warn could and most likely will lead to accidents and cyberattacks on the grid, the smart meters being the weak link in the new “smart” grid.
In this email I will address only your response which appears to have been based on information which has been circulated by BC Hydro but which, in fact, differs significantly from that provided by ITRON itself.
1) You say: “Strength: BC Hydro’s smart meters communicate using a very low power signal – less than 2 microwatts/cm2 when standing 20 centimetres from the meter – which is 50 percent less than the strictest standards in the world.”
I presume when you refer to power signal you mean power density because that is the measurement to which the “standards” you reference apply. Please see an attached document (https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Itron-ACS-Report-Number-11-0093.W06.pdf) submitted by ITRON to the US Federal Communication Commission which shows the power density levels of its smart meter. As you see, they differ dramatically from the levels you have given.
“Summation of Power Densities – Simultaneous Transmissions
This device contains multiple transmitters which can operate simultaneously and therefore the maximum RF exposure is determined by the summation of power densities. The 900 MHz LAN and 2.4GHz Zigbee radio can operate simultaneously there it is appropriate to include both of those power density values in the summation of power densities.The maximum power density is calculated by a summation of power densities for each simultaneous transmission combination as follows:
900MHz LAN: 0.227 (mW/cm^2) = 227 microwatts per centimeter squared. SC 6 limits allow 274. The ITRON meter emits levels equal to 83% allowable limits
2.4GHz Zigbee: 0.031 (mW/cm^2) = 31 microwatts per centimeter squared. SC 6 limits allow 535.
TOTAL: 0.258 (mW/cm^2) = 258 microwatts per centimeter squared.” This is 94% of SC 6 limits that apply to the 900 MHz frequency.
In the information on BC Hydro’s website at https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/accounts-billing/customer-care/smart-metering/itron-open-way-rf-white-paper.pdf page 4, for the meters tested, the power densities supposedly ranged from .0005 mW/cm2 (.5 microwatts per centimeter squared) to a maximum of .00114 mW/cm2 (1.14 microwatts per centimeter squared) for a total of 1.64 microwatts/cm2 compared to 258 microwatts/cm2 admitted in the FCC document. I believe it is incumbent upon you, Mr. Wieringa, and your associates to investigate this discrepancy and to ensure that the correct information is provided/available to the public.
But even if the far lower power densities reported by BC Hydro were correct, many studies show serious effects at levels far below them — at less than .01 microwatt per square centimeter. http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/BioInitiativeReport-RF-Color-Charts.pdf . People like the person who wrote to you have reason to be concerned about their health and to refuse a smart meter which, by ITRON’s own admission, exposes us to radiation levels many hundreds of times higher than those shown to cause serious and irreversible harm.
2) You say: “Duration: Smart meters transmit an average total of a minute a day.”
BC Hydro at various times has given widely ranging duration figures, from 14 min. a day to only a couple of seconds. ITRON itself has given information that varies greatly from anything that BC Hydro has told the public, or, I daresay, any of the politicians who are to be held responsible for this program.
Two recent ITRON spec sheets for BC Hydro meters include widely varying data re. number of data signals a day plus the number of signals needed to ensure the stability of the mesh grid. The signals are .5 milliseconds long. This is very concerning and far different than any information that has been given to the public or that you have given in your response.
One sheet appears to be for a newer 4G meter that will be used in specific instances, e.g. where the mesh grid doesn’t work well. 25,000 will be installed. The sheet says the total transmission time on average is 2.65 seconds a day. Doesn’t sound like much but when each signal is only .5 milliseconds long, that means there are 5300 signals a day, or 220.8 each hour or 3.68 each minute of the day, or one every 16 seconds. It is difficult to say that this isn’t equivalent to constant emissions, and scientists have shown that this short, strong pulse is the type that does the greatest harm to our cells.
“Daily Data Reads: A read from a single phase residential cellular meter typically accounts for about 5kB or 40,960 bits per day in data transmission. Considering the worst case throughput for a connection to meter (highest daily usage), a 5kB read requires 71 time slots of transmission at 0.5 msec each. This results in 35.5 msec of actual transmission time necessary to transfer the read. BC Hydro currently plans for up to 3 reads per day (a typical maximum) which results in ~106 msec of transmission time per day for the daily reads.
The measured transmit time for each of the three data reads was 38 msec. This is consistent with what was expected considering that there is overhead data in each read.
Actual measured network maintenance transmit time excluding the three intentional daily data reads totaled nearly 2.5 seconds per day. The 2.5 seconds of transmit time is split up throughout the 24 hours of a day. Some hours may only see a single network status check of 5-12 msec, while other hours see as much as 200 msec of transmit activity.
From a duty cycle viewpoint, the OpenWay CENTRON Cellular 4G LTE typically transmits about 2.65 seconds out of 86,400 seconds in a day. This calculates to a transmit duty cycle of about 0.003%.”
But even worse are the majority of meters, the 1.8 million already on homes. The other ITRON sheet says that the average transmission time is 2.99 MINUTES a day!! That is 180 seconds. If each signal is .5 milliseconds long that means there are 360,000 signals a day or 4 a second. Some unlucky homeowners, depending where on the mesh grid they are, have meters that emit signals for 115 min. a day!!! Unbelievable. Notice how they try to make this sound so benign (to calculate: 115 min. times 60 = 6900 seconds times 1000 = 6,900,000 milliseconds. If each signal is .5 msec long, divide 6,900,000 by .5 = 13, 800,000 signals a day, divided by 86,400 seconds in a day = 160 signals a second.)
The analysis of this representative meter population operating in the field at BC Hydro showed that the average duty cycle for the meters was 2.99 minutes. That figure translates into a duty cycle of 0.21 percent. This also means that, on average, OpenWay meters are not transmitting or emitting RF signals for 99.79 percent of a typical 24-hour period. That means that the vast majority of the meters are not transmitting for 23 hours and 56 minutes in a typical day…
As previously mentioned, the mesh network topology relies on meters in certain areas of the network to act as pathways for data from other meters during the journey back to the router and the utility. For this reason, duty cycles will vary to some degree among meters depending on their position in the network and how many other meters’ data they may be transmitting back to the network router.”
3) You say: “Distance: Smart meters are located outside of the home. At a distance of 3 feet, the power signal is 0.07 microwatts/cm2 which is one ten‑thousandth of the federal health and safety standard governing exposure to radio frequency and electromagnetic fields.”
As shown above in information from ITRON directly, the power density of the meters is far greater than stated in your material.
But another aspect that must be considered is that these meters send out pulsed modulated signals that have peaks that are far higher than the “average” reported. If the average is 258 microwatts per square centimeter, the peak will be far higher since the meter is communicating “only” a few minutes a day. The rest – the vast majority – of the time it is silent and these silent periods are added with the peak levels to reach the average. Those of us who have been studying wireless radiation, comparing independent research with industry reports, have learned that “average” is a term that deliberately misleads and should always be considered suspect.
Scientists warn that it is the peak, the strong signal, that does most of the physical damage to our cells, putting great stress on them. Mr. Wieringa, there are 1000s of studies showing how RF radiation causes severe physiological reactions and I would be more than happy to share many of them with you, should you be interested. Here are excerpts from a couple you might consider reviewing:
“Our studies with cells have shown that power frequency (60Hz) fields induce stress genes and stress response proteins in cells. The stress response is a protective mechanism induced by harmful environmental stimuli and is characterized by the synthesis of specific proteins that assist the renaturation and transport of damaged proteins. Our studies suggest that EMR initiates the stress response by interacting with electrons within DNA. We have identified a 900 base pair segment associated with the response to EMR, that when removed, eliminates the response, and when transfected into a reporter construct, causes the construct to become EMR responsive. We have also investigated EMR interactions at the molecular level through effects on three reactions, electron transfer in cytochrome oxidase, ATP hydrolysis by the Na,K-ATPase, and the Belousov-Zhabotinski (BZ) reaction (the catalyzed oxidation of malonic acid). All three reactions show:
• EMR accelerates the reaction rate, i.e., electron transfer rate
• EMR competes with the chemical force driving the reaction, so the effect of EMR varies inversely with the reaction rate
• Interaction thresholds are low, comparable to levels found in EMR-cancer epidemiology studies
• Effects vary with frequency, and there appear to be different optima for the reactions studied: ATPase (60Hz), cytochrome oxidase (800Hz), BZ (250Hz)
These properties, in addition to stimulation of DNA in the cellular stress response, are consistent with EMR effects on many biological systems through interaction with electrons moving during redox reactions and also within DNA. The ubiquity of EMR reactions with DNA and the low observed reaction thresholds indicate the need for greater caution and control over the spread of EMR in the environment.”
“Oxidative stress may affect many cellular and physiological processes including gene expression, cell growth and cell death.”
900 MHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative stress on heart, lung, testis and liver tissue. (note that 900 MHz is the frequency used by one of the smart meter transmitters)
I would ask that you, Minister Mungall, and Premier Horgan reconsider the smart meter program which was instituted by the Liberals without consultation or review by any knowledgeable agency. There are many problems with smart meters, and health is one of the major ones. People are being irradiated in their homes without choice if they want to have electricity and are being forced to pay huge amounts for the freedom to protect their health and that of their families. It’s time for a complete and unbiased review and I would ask that the new NDP government commit to this undertaking.
= = =
From: MEM EAED Correspondence MEM:EX
Subject: Response to your email regarding BC Hydro’s Smart Meter Program, Ref: 101337
Premier John Horgan has forwarded a copy of your July 22, 2017 email to me for response regarding BC Hydro’s Smart Meter Program.
Although radio frequency fields vary depending on the technology used, the radio frequency exposure from wireless electricity meters is very low. The components of a smart meter will emit radio frequency signals much lower than many commonplace household appliances. When considering risks associated with radio frequency, there are three things to consider: strength, duration and distance.
Strength: BC Hydro’s smart meters communicate using a very low power signal – less than 2 microwatts/cm2 when standing 20 centimetres from the meter – which is 50 percent less than the strictest standards in the world.
Duration: Smart meters transmit an average total of a minute a day.
Distance: Smart meters are located outside of the home. At a distance of 3 feet, the power signal is 0.07 microwatts/cm2 which is one ten‑thousandth of the federal health and safety standard governing exposure to radio frequency and electromagnetic fields.
Customers who chose to keep their old meter have to pay cost‑recovery fees. These fees cover the cost of the additional infrastructure needed so that the smart grid can operate around the non‑communicating meters as well as the cost of maintaining the old system. In April 2014, these fees were reviewed and approved by the British Columbia Utilities Commission. A copy of this decision can be found at http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2014/DOC_41266_04-25-2014_BCH%20Meter%20Choices_Decision_G-59-14.pdf.
Thank you for writing.
Executive Director, Electricity
Electricity and Alternative Energy Division
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
The cost of wireless convenience: EHS, infertility, cancer.
Sent from my wired computer, with all wireless functions disabled.