1) In the Oct. 3 update, I recommended reading testimony by Dr. Marino, given in a Pennsylvania case where several complainants were attempting to escape having $$meters put on their homes. His testimony is filled with excellent information, especially starting at page 20 where he speaks about EHS and tests he has done which confirms this as a physical reaction to exposure to RF. On page 40, he explains why the industry approach of saying “weight of evidence” e.g. there are more studies showing no effect than independent studies showing harm, is a facetious one. Anyone can find a negative study. It’s easy. It’s harder to find a positive one. But if anything, any device, any substance is truly safe there will not be a good study showing it isn’t. I’m sharing this testimony again because there is a lot about $$meters, why they are dangerous, and why they should not be forced on anyone as “an experiment”.
Eighty one page report, for litigation involving smart meters, at the Pennsylvania Utility Commission, Aug 8, 2016.
2) A member of the smart meter resistance group in Michigan has shared an excellent letter he wrote to the Michigan PUC concerning smeters. Many good ideas here.
3) Navigant, the company that “prepares” reports for utility companies to convince public utility companies smeters are needed and are safe, has another report for sale – this one pertains to the need for “$$mart” water meters. As we’ve seen, wherever this is used, prices go up, water use does not come down. The results are similar to that with electric meters.
[Water Smeters – http://emrabc.ca/?page_id=2695]
4) The US government is putting pressure on IARC, the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Could it be that industry is concerned that science is finally having an impact on products such as cell phones and GMO? The US government gives a mere $1.2 million a year to IARC for research.
“An aide to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform told Reuters that National Institutes of Health officials have agreed to give an in-person briefing to the committee after questions were raised by lawmakers over its grants to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a semi-autonomous part of the WHO based in Lyon, France.
The briefing comes after the committee’s chairman added his voice to growing concerns among some senior U.S. lawmakers about the way IARC reviews and classifies substances.
In recent years IARC has caused controversy over whether such things as coffee, mobile phones, processed meat and the weed killer glyphosate cause cancer.”
5) A “replacement” cell phone catches fire on a plane. Lithium batteries ….
6) Dr. Martin Blank, a much respected researcher who has been warning about the dangers associated with RF radiation, speaks to a media source that will reach many new people.
“We don’t live in an ideal system. You can buy opinions. If you pay off the right people you get the results that you want. I’m not being cynical, I’m just saying it the way that it is. The people who are testifying on behalf of industry are consultants for industry, or they have contracts from industry. But they also have scientific credentials.
The defense and prosecution both manage to find credible witnesses who will testify to their positions, but in science you would think it would be more difficult. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons why scientists will feel that a case is overstated or there are exceptions. Not in this case though. It is quite clear that the radiation does damage. It is linked with a lot of diseases and problems. Those who deny it are just sticking their head in the sand, and saying it’s only a matter of raising the temperature.”
7) Mary Aiken, a psychologist, discusses the effect of “lack of face time” between mothers and young babies.
Re. Cyber Orphans:
In the media- saturated environment of the average household, and given the size, portability, and interactivity of phones and tablets, an Internet connection and a wireless device now vie with young children’s need for one-on-one interaction on trains, park benches, and even sitting at home on the couch.
From: “Rick Biggar” (name given at request of author)
To: Sean.Cromack@telus.com, Doug.Anastos@telus.com
Cc: email@example.com, “Peter Rusland” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
Sent: October 7, 2016
Subject: Re: TELUS small cell information
Dear Mr. Anastos,
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately there was scant technical information provided after my original request. Therefore I will be more specific about the information I am currently seeking.
Under Safety Code 6 regulations the testing and certification of a cell tower site is to be performed by a professional radio engineer. As Telus’s towers fall under this category it would be logical your microcell transmitter sites are included with this certification process as they are essentially performing the same function.
No transmitters in Chemainus are “online” to date so how is the certification process conducted and by which independent contractor/body?
Is each transmitter tested individually? And does the engineer use the “calculated” or “measured” approach?
If none are tested what does Industry Canada, or whichever federal regulatory body, require of Telus to confirm the RF signal is within SC6 parameters? Please confirm whether SC6 regulates thermal or non-thermal RF radiation? Or both? And could you confirm which type of RF radiation is emitted by these transmitters?
As there are “online” microcell transmitters located around the lower mainland could you provide me with a copy of a completed “signed-off” documentation of any microcell transmitter site? If none are available or needed could you explain the exact process Telus goes through, from the start of the permit process to the final “signing-off” paperwork in order to install a microcell transmitter? I believe a FOI request is not currently warranted, as I’m confident Telus can voluntarily provide me with this information, it would go a long way in advancing, how do you say, showing the “transparency” of your corporation with your customers and public at large.
SC6 regulations are daunting to say the least for a layman. Could you provide me with the exact measurement guidelines Health Canada’s SC6 requires of a microcell transmitter RF signal?
On a slightly different note, could you explain the partnership and/or billing procedure Telus has with BC Hydro. As these transmitters will be drawing power from the grid and each transmitter site has no “smart meter” to record power usage I would like to know how Telus is compensating a supposedly publicly owned company for hydro usage?
I believe your RF Engineers would be able to answer the last of my questions. What are the number of signals these units send out on an hourly basis? What are their frequencies and their maximum and minimum average levels? And finally what would the intermittence and modulation of the RF signal be, including the overall duration of exposure? The answers to these questions will provide the basis of analysis for persons I’m in contact with who are much more knowledgable in this area who will help me and interested parties to better understand a very difficult subject.
I know you’ve offered to have me speak with one of your RF Engineers however, I’m acting on behalf of a number of our retired citizens here in Chemainus who are becoming aware of the infiltration of these microcell transmitters throughout our Chemainus neighbourhoods and they have grave concerns of the known health risks associated with non-thermal ionizing radiation these transmitters produce. I’ve asked very specific questions and I will expect answers to each and every question. Please do not answer with a form letter, it accomplishes nothing and wastes both my time and yours.
I look forward to your response.
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“We have never had this kind of impending risk to society.”
~ Dr. George Carlo – Author of Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards In The Wireless Age