The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution5 February 2016
Judge lets Berkeley require cell phone warnings
Cell Phone Radiation Absorption into A Three Year Old
Its scary how much we don't know.
Study Uncovers How Electromagnetic Fields Amplify Pain in Amputees
New study links cell phone tower radiation to diabetes
Cellphones may damage male fertility, Israeli study finds
A new study conducted at the two institutions, and published Tuesday in the medical journal Reproductive BioMedicine Online, brings evidence to support a long-feared link between dropping fertility rates in men and the prevalent use of cellular phones.
India - Mobile Radiation ICMR study to take another five years
Ontario - Why hydro (electricity) costs so much
Masses of scientific studies have shown that microwave radiation that is emitted by the Wi-Fi routers causes significant biological effects including fertility problems, cancers, immune problems, sleeping problems and depression etc.
This may be a good ISIS terror tactic but it is not something that normal humans would do to a 'friendly' civilian population.
The adverse health effects of wireless radiation have been well known for more than sixty years and have been extensively studied.
A scientific compilation of those dangers can be read at www.bioinitiative.org
If New Yorkers wish to avoid long term health problems, they should avoid Wi-Fi exposure and oppose this crazy plan.
Meter installations a fire risk, electrician says
Analogue meters were safe, he maintains. The newer smart meters are not, particularly because of the manner in which most of them have been installed, said Dreyer, pointing to 40 fires in B.C. that he says are related to smart meters.
Commentary by Cindy Sage, Sage Associates and James J. Biergiel, EMF Electrical
Consultant July 2010
Typical gauge electrical wiring that provides electricity to buildings (60 Hz power) is not
constructed or intended to carry high frequency harmonics that are increasingly present
on normal electrical wiring. The exponential increase in use of appliances, variable
speed motors, office and computer equipment and wireless technologies has greatly
increased these harmonics in community electrical grids and the buildings they serve with
electricity. Harmonics are higher frequencies than 60 Hz that carry more energy, and ride
along on the electrical wiring in bursts. Radio frequency (RF) is an unintentional by-
product on this electrical wiring.
It may be contributing to electrical fires where there is a weak spot (older wiring,
undersized neutrals for the electrical load, poor grounding, use of aluminum conductors,
etc.). The use of smart meters will place an entirely new and significantly increased
burden on existing electrical wiring because of the very short, very high intensity wireless
emissions (radio frequency bursts) that the meters produce to signal the utility about
There have now been electrical fires reported where smart meters have been installed in
several counties in California, in Alabama, and in other countries like New Zealand.
Reports detail that the meters themselves can smoke, smolder and catch fire, they can
explode, or they can simply create over-current conditions on the electrical circuits.
Electrical wiring is not sized for the amount of energy that radio frequency and
microwave radiation have. These unintended signals that can come from new wireless
sources of many kinds are particularly a worry for the new smart meters that produce
very high intensity radio frequency energy in short bursts. Electrical fires are likely to be
a potential problem.
Electrical wiring was never intended to carry this - what amounts to an RF pollutant - on
the wiring. The higher the frequency, the greater the energy contained. It's not the
voltage, but it is the current that matters. RF harmonics on electrical systems can come
from computers, printers, FAX machines, electronic ballasts and other sources like
variable speed motors and appliances that distort the normal, smooth 60 hertz sine wave
Wireless smart meters don't intentionally use the electrical system to send their RF signal
back to the utility (to report energy usage, etc). But, when the wireless signal is produced
in the meter it boomerangs around on all the conductive components and can be
coupled onto the wiring, water and gas lines, etc. where it can be carried to other parts of
properly handle it. The location of the fire does NOT have to be in close proximity to the
main electrical panel where the smart meter is installed.
A forensic team investigating any electrical fire should now be looking for connections to
smart meters as a possible contributing factor to fires. Every electrical fire should be
investigated for the presence of smart meter installation. Were smart meters installed
anywhere in the main electrical panel for this building? For fires that are 'unexplained'
or termed electrical in nature, fire inspectors should check whether smart meters were
installed within the last year or so at the main panel serving the buildings. They should
question contractors and electricians who may have observed damage from the fire such
as damage along a neutral, melted aluminum conductor or other evidence that would
imply an over-current condition. They should also look for a scorched or burned smart
meter, or burn or smoke damage to the area around the smart meter. Problems may be
seen immediately, with a smart meter smoking or exploding. Or, it may be months
before the right conditions prevail and a neutral circuit overloads and causes a fire. The
fire may or may not be right at the smart meter.
* Any smart meter installed in a main panel might start an electrical fire in that building;
it would not be necessary for the unit itself to have a smart meter. The RF emissions
from any smart meter in the main panel might trigger an electrical fire at any location in
the building served by this main panel because harmonics can and will travel anywhere
on electrical wiring of that building.
Some questions that should be asked include:
* Were smart meters installed in the main electrical panel for this building? Problems
may be seen immediately, with a smart meter smoking or exploding. Or, it may be
months before the right conditions prevail and a neutral circuit overloads and causes a
fire. The fire may or may not be at the smart meter.
* Is there damage at the smart meter itself (burning, scorching, explosion)?
* Was there fire damage, a source, or a suspicious area around the neutral where it
connected to the main panel or at the breaker panel?
* Was the damage around a lug at a connection on the neutral conductor in the attic at
Xanadu? Was there any indication of heating or scorching or other thermal damage
around the neutral in the area of the fire?
* Was aluminum conductor present? Aluminum conductors that were installed in the
'70s are today recognized as more of a problem for heating than copper wire. Was the
aluminum, if present, showing heat damage or melting?
Even before smart meters were being installed widely in California, people who know
already postulated, and of concern, is that the rising use of equipment that put RF
harmonics onto the electrical wiring of buildings may overload that wiring. Faulty
wiring, faulty grounding or over-burdened electrical wiring may be unable to take the
 Advanced Metering Infrastructure; January 2010 Semi-Annual Assessment Report
and SmartMeterProgram Quarterly Report (Updated), Pacific Gas and Electric
Maine Smart Meter Court Decision
As many of you already know, the Maine Law Court found against us. Thanks to all of you for your tremendous support over the years in our effort. While this probably marks the end of the Maine legal battle on the health question, our resistance is far from over. Stay tuned!
Today's Supreme Court decision in our smart meter case is not unexpected but of course a great disappointment to any who care about this issue-the health and safety of all citizens and to any who still have some lingering faith in the law.
This doublespeak and flagrant disregard for the health and welfare of citizens is why justice will rarely be found within the law and ultimately why laws will collapse. That and perhaps societal greed reflected in the courts.
It's a long and convoluted road from "shall ensure safe, reasonable and adequate service", what state statutes requires, to the PUC's marginalized version accounting for "magnitude of risk, the probability of harm, availability of alternatives and mitigation techniques ", essentially a risk assessment evaluation of acceptable harm, one that by their decision the Court endorses. Explain this to the many thousands injured by smart meters and to all those who refuse to pay what amounts to extortion fees to avoid the actual or credible threat of harm from RF exposure.
The Court has miserably failed the people of Maine, instead relying on CMP supplied evidence from the FCC [FCC exposure standards admitted by even the PUC to be obsolete and irrelevant], Trilliant [vendor for the smart meter project], Exponent [a well-known product defense firm], and the Maine CDC finding from 2010 [a 2-week rush job about which the CDC admittedly knew nothing and that predated both this investigation and the WHO classification of RF as a possible human carcinogen]. The Court ignored when they needn't, independent testimony from international experts on the credible threat of harm RF exposures at smart meter levels poses and instead chose to believe the "Marlboro Man" that smoking is good for us.
Appropriately enough an excellent UNESCO presentation on the growing EHS/Bioethics problem has just been released and is attached. Unfortunately ethics remains a subject far distant from the law. We would do well to leaven our rule by the latter with a strong dose of the former. Relevant material is also below thanks to Richard Conrad.
Smart meter deployments are equivalent to experimenting on humans without their consent, and if an application for such an experiment were to be submitted to an Institutional Review Board (which is the requirement prior to experimenting on humans) it would be rejected outright. Smart meter deployment is in violation of all ten points of the Nuremberg Code, a set of ethical research principles to be fulfilled in any human experimentation, laid down at the end of World War II. (See the end of this letter for the ten points of the Nuremberg Code).
The Nuremberg Code (From the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services website http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html )
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an apriori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission on Thursday cracked open the door for opponents of the state's compulsory smart-meter deployment policy, allowing a hearing on a customer's complaint that the installation of a wireless meter outside her bedroom caused her to get sick.
In a 4-1 vote, the PUC rejected Peco Energy Co.'s petition to prevent an administrative law judge from hearing the health complaints of Susan Kreider, a registered nurse who said she suffered "deleterious health effects" after Peco installed the new meter on her Germantown home in 2013.
Kreider's complaint was different, the PUC said, because she said she could produce medical documentation showing that the electromagnetic radiation from the meter caused her to get sick. The meter violates the state's public utility code requiring utilities to provide "safe and reasonable" service, she has maintained.
"To ignore claims relating to the safety of smart meters would be an abdication of our duties and responsibilities under . . . the code," the PUC said in its order Thursday
The Suicidal Feelings, Self-Injury, and Mobile Phone Use After Lights Out in Adolescents
Environmental Refugees: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) Sufferers
The State of Maine Public Utility Commission recently received what it thinks is the ultimate verdict in the issue of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the PUC that utility companies' smart meters are safe and not harmful to human health and safety.
Perhaps the judge who rendered that decision ought to reconsider what's going on regarding EHS, especially at the United Nations and their conference where EHS issues were discussed.
A group of House Democrats is pushing for President Barack Obama to significantly increase funding for Wi-Fi and cell phone service throughout America's national parks.
Gwyneth Paltrow warns of the dangers of cell phone use and WiFi radiation
Gwyneth Paltrow uses her weekly blog to share her insights and tips for a better life. In a recent post the 43-year-old Hollywood star has shared some invaluable advice with her readers on the dangers of cell phone radiation.
Writing on her blog, Goop, the mother-of-two has written an article entitled: 'Are Cell Phones and WiFi Signals Toxic?'. She says it's almost impossible to remember a time without smartphones.
On January 18, the lawyer Marie-Josée Talbot (email@example.com - http://about.me/cabinet.talbot) informed several people of the following:
"As the Commission on Human Rights has successfully intervened in one of my records regarding EHS, I asked them how the Electro can assert their rights in Quebec and if we do it as a group or individually . I got an answer that EHS is classified as a disability within the meaning of the Charter and that any person may make an individual complaint if it considers that saw discrimination and that it is excluded from some places seen its EHS. People can make a complaint, for example, to be entitled to have access to transport or public places such commercial establishments, hotels, restaurants, theaters, cinemas, parks, campgrounds and RV parks, and 'obtaining the goods and services that are available there. In short, anyone who believes she saw the exclusion following its EHS can call: (514) 873-5146 or 1 (800) 361-6477. "
She then cited two relevant provisions of the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE PERSON ...
RIGHT TO EQUAL RECOGNITION AND EXERCISE OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
1982, c. 61, a. 2.
10. Everyone has the right to the recognition and exercise in full equality, rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, color, sex, pregnancy, orientation sex, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.
Ground of discrimination.
Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.
public places accessible to all.
15. No one may, through discrimination, prevent others from having access to transportation or to public places such commercial establishments, hotels, restaurants, theaters, cinemas, parks, campgrounds and RV parks, and to get the goods and services that are available there.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Then, the president of the Coalition of Activists for inclusion in Quebec (RAPLIQ), Ms. Linda Gauthier, who was contacted about this, replied, in part: "We work specifically with the Human Rights Commission. When a person with disabilities is for us, it prepares the complaint and assisting with the Commission, what other organizations are not: they are only of collective defense, that is, say bring the grievances of all of their members to governments. While we are made of individual defense also. "
This possibility has raised the interest of many electro - especially those with a medical diagnosis of EHS, which however is not mandatory, it seems, when filing a complaint, but dot be provided then. However, RAPLIQ only with a small team to deal with the many requests for assistance of any kind that the body receives, and the difficulty to draw the attention of the Commission on Human Rights merits, under the Charter of discrimination against electro people because of their disability, a study was initiated in the RAPLIQ to discuss how assistance could be provided to people electro willing to officially recognize their situation, a challenge relative size view of the novelty of this problem.
This January 31, Steven Laperrière (firstname.lastname@example.org), activist of the first hour in the folder meters 'smart' and member of the Board of RAPLIQ, sent an email in which he wrote:
"You will find in the attached document that RAPLIQ can do to help. The general procedure is indicated. Know that all of us RAPLIQ, as well as me personally are happy to assist you. It will be a tough fight to lead, but together, we will conduct it with determination and enthusiasm. "
Here are the contents of the document which is now archived HERE.
I am proud to announce that RAPLIQ embarks on the adventure with you.
Now, if you have a complaint to the Commision for Human Rights and the rights of youth and mandated us, we are ready to welcome your complaints.
The process to contact us:
Preferably, the first contact by email to the following address: email@example.com with your phone number and best time to reach you.
I know some people can not use electro computer, then you can tell them to contact me at 514-836-6376 in the afternoon only. The process will be the same, complaints will be processed in the order emails / calls. Complaints will not be processed faster, that is the order of receipt of applications that counts.
We expect a number of complaints, then we will send a receipt quickly and I will contact you within a reasonable time.
After talking to a (e) the complainant (s) and understand the discriminatory motive of the complaint, what corrective measures should be, the amount of moral damages (if applicable), we will be heard on the terms and receiving payment, then we will take charge of the complaint.
Writing, sent to the Commission, monitoring, mediation (if applicable) etc, etc ....
As I explained in a previous email, the management of a complaint generates costs. To support a complaint, the cost will be $ 200.00.
Each complaint will be assessed individually, both the appearance of the facts that rights trampled and remedial measures and punitive damages.
Throughout the process, I will each complainant (an) abreast of developments in his case over the events.
Ladies and gentlemen, please accept my most cordial greetings.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Finally, here's what I just put online to http://www.cqlpe.ca about it - give yourself the trouble to explore the links provided because they contain much useful information.
Environmental and reasonable accommodations hypersensitivity
(The EHS and people with diagnosed EHS can file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission of the Quebec recognizes environmental sensitivities as a disability entitling to accommodation, which is a legal requirement. It may well help advance recognition of this condition by various public and private bodies see their accommodation Guide IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT.. RAPLIQ (Coalition of activists for inclusion in Quebec) decided to provide support to people wishing electro to make such representations to the human rights Commission. as explained HERE, the organization "aims to eliminating the discrimination against people with disabilities and barriers currently limiting exercising their rights and freedoms. "the procedure is explained HERE. If you want to determine if you became an electro-or if you are in the process of becoming so, consult the description of the symptoms of EHS prepared 2014 Professor Dominique Belpomme, a world authority on the subject. More details HERE.)
Here. Hoping that all this will be helpful to many people with disabilities because of their EHS triggered, in many cases, by electropollution generated by the meters 'smart' Hydro-Québec.
Cqlpe.ca webmaster and co-founder of the CQLPE
Last week, the Maine Supreme Court sided with the corrupt Maine Public Utilities Commission's finding that smart meters are "safe enough." Meanwhile on the other side of the country in Berkeley, CA, U.S. District Court Judge Chen ruled against the CTIA (cell phone industry association) and ordered Berkeley's health warnings on cell phones upheld.
We have a question, looking at these two rulings together:
How can one court decide that the evidence for RF harm, and existing language in cell phone manuals, justify warnings at the point of sale, but devices that emit the exact same type of radiation mounted on your home (perhaps across the wall from where your baby is sleeping) not only do not require warnings, but are allowed to be forced on your home, with extortion fees charged to avoid the risk?
Some have leveled charges of back room deals, and corruption spreading into the court system. Whatever the case, Maine's ruling needs to be taken with a grain of salt. As lead plaintiff Ed Friedman states in the press release put out by the Maine Coalition to Stop Smart Meters, over 1000 peer-reviewed studies indicating harm were rejected by the PUC because the pile of evidence was becoming too large. Maine Coalition to Stop Smart Meters Press Release states:
"While the decision acknowledges over one hundred peer-reviewed scientific studies were reviewed by the Commission, what the Court doesn't admit is over 1,000 peer-reviewed study citations and verbatim abstracts of supporting studies submitted into evidence by anti-smart meter activists were rejected by the PUC because 'somehow we need to whittle down the amount of evidence.' The Court has miserably failed the people of Maine, instead relying on CMP supplied evidence from the FCC [FCC exposure standards admitted by even the PUC to be obsolete and irrelevant],Trilliant [vendor for the smart meter project], Exponent [a well-known product defense firm], and the Maine CDC finding from 2010 [a 2-week rush job about which the CDC admittedly knew nothing and that predated both this investigation and the WHO classification of RF as a possible human carcinogen]."
"The Court ignored when they needn't have, independent testimony from international experts on the credible threat of harm RF exposures at smart meter levels pose and instead chose to believe the "Marlboro Man" that smoking is good for us. The Law Court has despite ample evidence we were not legally required to submit [with the burden of proof on CMP] rejected Maine's judicial maxim-the health of the people is the supreme law."
Berkeley's advisory mandated at cell phone retailers, goes into effect March 22nd and states:
"To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely."
For questions on the Maine court case and ruling: edfomb[at]comcast[dot]net
For questions on the Berkeley ordinance: cabta[at]ellenkmarks[dot]com
2016 4th Edition Stop Smart Meters! Brochures Now Availablehttp://stopsmartmeters.org/2016/02/02/2016-4th-edition-stop-smart-meters-brochures-now-available/
Antenna concealments HetNet Happenings
To sign up or unsubscribe from WEEP News: firstname.lastname@example.org (provide name and e-mail address)
W.E.E.P. The Canadian initiative to stop: Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution