[Doctor Beatrice Alexandra Golomb Letter of Opposition to California SB 649 Microcells / Small Cells Microwave Antennas Public Right-of-way Siting Legislation – EMR – John Horgan – Marc Eliesen Report to BCUC re BC Hydro Site C – Michelle Mungall – Sherry Ridout Letter to Fred Haynes, Colin Plant, Deborah Schulte, Elizabeth May re CEPA Standing Committee EMR Recommendations #61 & #62 – What is 5G Newsletter – Write to Your Local Council re Public Health Laws | BC – California, USA]
Correction to last night’s update. The only recommendation that actually deals with EMR in the Environmental Protection Act is #62. But if you’ve written mentioning both – not to worry. You will have made your point.
1) Amazing letter from a Doctor at a Medical School protesting the implementation of the California Bill allowing microcells and 5G technology. This should be sent to every doctor, legislator, provincial health authority, Premier Horgan, Energy Minister Mungall, etc, etc. [https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/z/bc-contact-e-mail-lists/]
(click on photos to enlarge)
Letter of Opposition to California SB 649 by Beatrice Alexandra Golomb, MD, PhD – University of California – August 18, 2017:
2) Non smeter. Re. Site C as a reckless and irresponsible project by the former government.
Reject Site C as a Fiscal Nightmare for Taxpayers, Says Former BC Hydro Head
The B.C. government has only one responsible course of action to take on the controversial Site C dam, and that is to cancel the project, remediate the site and pursue cheaper and more flexible energy sources to meet long-term demand, according the former head of BC Hydro.
In a highly critical report submitted to the British Columbia Utilities Commission’s inquiry into BC Hydro’s Site C project, Marc Eliesen, former president and CEO of the Crown corporation, lambasted the former BC Liberal government for weakening regulatory oversight and failing to provide full financial disclosure on the economics of mega-dams.
Eliesen, who also chaired Manitoba Hydro and served as CEO of Ontario Hydro, does not mince words in the report.
3) August newsletter from a friend and fellow concerned citizen in the USA who is dedicating her efforts to informing people about 5G. This is an excellent site and I would encourage you to consider signing up for her newsletter to make sure you don’t miss anything. You can subscribe at: www.whatis5G.info
“The monthly Wrap-Up from the website, What is 5g (www.whatis5g.info) features links to current articles, documents, youtube videos etc. related to the “downsides” of 5g and the Internet of Things. Topics covered include – health, environment, cybersecurity, privacy, energy consumption, effects on our brains and humanity, e-waste, conflict minerals, harsh working conditions for e-factory workers, toxic materials in products, jobs replaced by artificial intelligence and robots, ethical dilemmas from the IoT, lowered property values and more. Also included are articles on safe, reliable, fast, and cyber secure fiber optics, a far better option for the vast majority of our information and telecommunications technology. In addition, a significant section of the updates are devoted to government actions on small cell deployment, actions communities are taking, and resources.”
4) Below is a letter written to a Council by one of our members, attempting to gain their support to use precautionary actions re EMR because of the recommendation for changes to the Environmental Protection Act. I hope you all will consider sending a similar letter to your Council and Mayor.
Local governments, (the Council and Mayor) are responsible for ensuring that our health is not jeopardized. It is given by the BC Provincial Public Health laws because it is believed that local government will know better the concerns that need to be addressed. It is the Local governments’ job to alert the Provincial government when something is endangering our health or lives. It’s more than time for them to get involved re. EMR emitted by smeters, microcells, etc. that are not under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. Let’s do it.
From: Sherry Ridout — name given with permission
Sent: August 21, 2017 12:21 PM
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Colin.Plant@Saanich.ca
Subject: Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development Recommendation re. EMF
Dear Mayor & Council,
I just learned that the federal Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development hasrecommended major changes to the Environmental Protection Act.
The report is available at http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ENVI/report-8/page-276 .
I realize you are inundated with issues so I’ve embedded below the two that are pertinent to Electromagnetic Radiation:
The Committee recommends that Environment and Climate Change Canada revisit the virtual elimination regime and implement a more effective regime.
- Electromagnetic Radiation
The Committee received submissions from stakeholders regarding the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, which may enhance the toxicity of chemicals. Professor Magda Havas of Trent University submitted that the various forms of electromagnetic frequencies adversely affect both plants and animals. Further, she submitted that “adverse biological effects occur well below existing guidelines provided by Health Canada (Safety Code 6).
Margaret Friesen provided evidence that electromagnetic fields can be an environmental pollutant that should be regulated under CEPA.
The Committee recommends that Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada conduct studies on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on biota, review the adequacy of the current guidelines provided in Safety Code 6 and report their findings back to the Committee.
I support these recommendations and hope that they will eventually affect the revision of the federal Safety regulations. [see letter below]
As you know it may be years before these new standards are in place. I hope you will continue to do whatever you can to protect the citizens of Saanich until the federal government regulations make your job easier when issues regarding electromagnetic radiation arise i.e. cell towers.
Thanks again for all you do on our behalf!
= = =
From: Sherry Ridout — name given with permission
Sent: August 21, 2017 11:57 AM
Cc: Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca; Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca
Subject: Review of the Environmental Protection Act
Dear Ms. Schulte,
Thank you for chairing the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Asone who has been concerned about the environmental and health effects of electromagnetic frequencies for a number of years I was delighted to seeRecommendation61- 4 and Recommendation 62. I couldn’t agree more that this issue needs to be addressed and quickly!
Many countries are far ahead of us with RF standards well below what Health Canada allows through Safety Code 6. This is the same body that saw no harm in tobacco, DDT, asbestos, lead, thalidomide etc. It is their process requiring “proof of harm” that needs to be addressed. We need to put the onus on the producer or supplier, of a product, to prove it is safe not wait years to finally have evidence of proof of harm. Obviously with this system, when the harmful effects are cumulative,the damage is already done before government safety standards are implemented.
Internationally, many scientists & professionals are working to educate the public on the science of non-ionizing radiation. They are working towards establishing ethical and professional RF Standards. Did you know that the British insurance giant Lloyd’s, along with other insurance companies, no longer cover damage to health due to direct or indirect exposure to electromagnetic radiation? What do they know that we need to be aware of? Your committee’s recommendations will go a long way to resolving this issue…Thanks again!
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
The absence of evidence of hazard is not proof of safety”
~ says Dr. Devra Davis