The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution16 March 2014
I have electrical engineering training and I am well-versed in this field.
When I read the brochure from Hydro-Quebec stating that these meters emitted a mere 55 microW/m2 at 1 meter distance, I interpreted the information to mean that the smart meter would emit once every two months a short 55 microW/m2 signal that would relay my electrical consumption to Hydro-Québec. I was wrong in that assumption; the brochure had intentionally misled me.
Short high-intensity microwave emissions capable of piercing through brick walls were the reality hidden by the "smart" deception in the presentation of the meter in the brochure that I had received.
Is it comfortable for the ordinary citizen to blindly put his faith on a Canadian Safety code standard that has safeguard limits so fragrantly trailing those of others nations and that claims that there is no need for long term exposure guidelines when this is precisely the situation that we are facing in our daily lives? Could we possibly believe that we, as Canadians, can sustain safety standards that are so blatantly permissive, so flagrantly out of line with those of the afore-mentioned countries?
Is this good for the health of all of us?
This kind of exposure is not large enough to "roast" human tissue, but does it merit to be trivialized as done in the brochure?
The brochure that Hydro sent me pretends that it is all very trivial, but not all it is said, only half truths are presented. Comparing, as Hydro does in the brochure, a smart meter working with a duty cycle of less than 0.1% side by side with a cellphone made to operate with a duty cycle of 100%, and not mentioning a word on duty cycle on the graphical representation of the comparison, shows a clear intent to deceive.
There is a clear intent in selling, not in informing, not in showing the whole truth so that people can have a clear idea. Half-truths are not the truth; these are a deceptive projection of reality.
Why not tell the whole truth?
Why is the worsening of my environment good for me and my fellow citizens?
What medical studies say that exposure to pulsed microwave radiation is healthy?
Is this the new "smart" way of delivering electrical power? Is this a "smart" grid?
Is this the healthy smart society of tomorrow in the making?
There is plenty of room to ponder, isn't it?
I looked at the documentation that was presented by the utility at the Energy Board hearing, and found no reference to this figure at all; have SAR measurements been taken by Industry Canada on the unit?
What are they? I saw none from any of the document presented to the Energy Board. The matter was not even discussed at the hearings; it was flashed out, not a whisper was spoken; why?
When I asked this specific question to visiting engineer from Hydro in my borough, he told me that SAR measurements were not taken because these were too expensive to conduct. Madam, I find this answer rather feeble as a reason, it is not plausible. Have SAR measurements been taken?
What precautionary distance should people keep from the meter based on SAR measurements and, if these were not taken because it was deemed that people will not approach the meter, then why have people not been notified of the default recommended safe distance?
Not a single word on this simple matter was ever mentioned or whispered; instead, I have noted a concerted attempt at trivializing even the simplest of the precautionary measures.
This is regrettable; this is not an honourable behaviour!
I am equally outraged at the fact that the good faith of the vast majority of my fellow citizens is being taking advantage by this deception.
And, Madam, isn't it strange to see that the deception is compounded with the prospect of economic coercion through monthly penalties for those who dare and can afford not to bow to the wishes of the few who intend to ram this project through? Whose interests are being served?
There are undoubtedly private interests that benefit from this project, should we remain silent and allow the ramming through of this project with coercion and deception of the ordinary Quebecer for the benefits of private interests?
Yes, you read it right: a mere $25 a year on my total bill of over $1500 in my particular case.
And, this " may be $25 per year economy" comes after the utility does away with 500 to 800 jobs here in Québec. Moreover, this trivial saving will last only for a few years because the meters have a much shorter life span than others on the market; thus, the capital cost associated with their replacement will have to occur earlier rather than later, and during this time, the capital acquisition cost will create a upward pressure on the utility operational cost that will be passed on to us (citizens-clients and owner of Hydro)!
Not to mention the blind disposal of the capital assets that represent a good portion of the meters that are systematically being trashed whether or not these have reached the end of their life cycle, so as to speed up the deployment of this Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI).
Madam, this is a not desirable "ami"; it is a thief of money and health, not an "ami"!
The "advantage" is a mirage, a tiny island of green in a senseless desert; the advantage is nothing more than a figment of the imagination brought about by a marketing word:" smart".
I took the time to read the documentation presented to the Energy Board at the time of hearing for the approval of the first phase of the project; may I bring to your attention that many factors that throw doubts on the economic viability of the project have been either omitted or minimized in order to sell the project idea. We, citizens-clients-owners of Hydro-Québec will be paying the cost of a wrong decision that represents this deployment.
For your information, Madam, Brazil, in January 2013, has come to the conclusion that the AMI does not bring the economic advantage it preaches to be able to deliver and has stopped the planned mandatory deployment. Furthermore, despite political pressure to say otherwise, the largest power Utility in Massachusetts has in January 2014 also come to a similar conclusion. The AMI infrastructure does not pay, does not bring economic benefits and, needless to say, it does not bring about a healthier environment. It is not a worthy investment. It does not save electricity, it compounds with problems the physical health and economic wellbeing of the Province; nonetheless, yes, I will agree that it gets rid of jobs in Quebec to create them elsewhere. Is this an advantage?
There are many reasons to ponder about this point, but this too seems to have been flashed out from the cost-benefit analysis of the project and from the social discourse; it disrupts the aura of the mirage.
So, not only I, as a Quebecer, have to finance the sale of electricity elsewhere outside the province by selling electricity at a lower cost that what I am paying here, I will now have to endure to see my publically owned utility coerce us into accepting a project that sheds jobs here, worsen my living environment, is clearly intended to raise my electrical bill as soon as the time-of-use function is activated; and, all of this at a time when we have an oversupply of electrical power which is bound to last for many years. Does it sound logical to accept this situation in silence? Does it sound "smart"?
As a shareholder of Hydro, I am unhappy to see my utility place itself in a position of dependency from a single or very restricted group of suppliers for the upkeep and maintenance of the network, and for its dependency on privately held wireless services for carrying on the data collection from the grid to the centre. This situation of dependency guarantees profits to these private providers of the service, for the upgrade of the control center facilities and network hardware, but does not augur well for cost saving on the part of my utility. We, as consumers and shareholders, will have to foot the bill of this arrangement for the next two decades; we will have to foot the bill for having placed the utility in a situation of captivity. Private interest that are benefitting from the deployment have reasons to rejoice from this situation but, that is not so for us, the shareholders and clients of the utility. Is this smart?
It is NOT at all so from a citizens-client-owner of Hydro-Québec point of view; but it is a GREAT prospect for those private interests that have managed to push this project through in the first place.
Whose interest should prevail, the public interests or the private financial interest of the few?
The approval of telecommunication units is strictly under federal jurisdiction and the placement of a telecommunication unit is done in Canada in full respect of private property rights.
Licensed carriers in Canada respect private property rights and have to enter into commercial mutually beneficial agreements with property owners before antenna/transmitters are operated on private property. Hydro-Québec rights, as a non-licensed user, has even less privileges than licensed carriers.
In fact, it has no more rights than a common citizen; it has bullied its way into a public band, but it is has no more right than you and I to use it. Our utility data will travel on a public band that anyone can legally use; does it sound like a safe arrangement?
In essence, the Energy Board does not have jurisdictional powers over approval or placement of antennas. This point seems to have been omitted from the discussion over the approval of phase 1 of this AMI deployment. It would be wise to take it into account the jurisdictional limits of the Energy Board. It would be wise to take into account the property rights of home and business owners.
The Energy Board competency and limits in this domain have strikingly been omitted from earlier discussions or debates. This ought not to have been the case.
I urge the Energy Board and Hydro to govern their actions by taking into account the limits of their jurisdictional powers.
To persist, to insist in an error that causes such inconveniences, that certainly will not bring health benefits, but only problems in the longer run, and whose financial advantages ,if any, are uncertain and are at best $25 year per customer, is simply unreasonable. Taking financial and economic risks to explore a mirage is not a smart undertaking.
We are humans, not just consumers and taxpayers, not just cows that can be milked at will.
I urge you to stop this project.
I wish the very best to you and to all my fellow citizens.
Are BC smart meters illegal?
Dear Secretary Hamilton and Commissioners,
Please know that I am fully aware that you are limited by both the Clean Energy Act and Directive 4. I am not asking you to consider any aspect of that program.
What I am asking you to consider are matters that are within your jurisdiction under the BC Utilities Commission Act, ("The Act") and which are not overridden by the CEA or Directive 4.
According to Section 23, one such matter is the "proper carrying out of this Act or of a contract.. involving public property or rights." Under this section you have the jurisdiction and the responsibility to ensure that all utilities, including BC Hydro, enter into and fulfill contracts which involve public property or rights in an honest, truthful, and forthright manner.
The residents of British Columbia are being fraudulently induced to accept a smart meter in exchange for electricity. I charge that BC Hydro has entered into that contract by misrepresenting facts, by failing to provide full and complete information to the public about the meters, and by treating its customers in manners which contravene the intent of The Act.
I assert that the Commission has the responsibility and the authority, under Section 73 of The Act, to demand a cessation of BC Hydro's duplicitous actions and to allow any and all who were forced into this fraudulent contract the right to reconsider participation in it.
There are multiple examples of BC Hydro's representatives deceiving the public and providing false/incorrect information, and of BC Hydro's customers being treated with disdain, being threatened and bullied, all carried out in order to promote the new contract. I will provide you with a few. Please know that in each case I have documentation to support my charges.
At various public meetings in 2011-2012, representatives of BC Hydro were asked why wireless smart meters which emit microwave radiation were selected. The responses were:
1) ITRON does not make a wired meter. Despite there being evidence on ITRON's website and advertising material to the contrary, BC Hydro's representatives, namely Mr. Ted Olynyk, Ms. Cindy Verschoor, and Project Director Gary Murphy repeated this at several meetings.
2) Eventually the public was told that the wired meters were available only for commercial purposes, not for residences, and that they cost $35,000 each.
3) Finally we were told that Hydro bought wireless meters because ITRON did not tell them that wired meters were available.
BC Hydro deliberately refused to provide the public with information about available options to advance the acceptance of the new contract, making it seem there were no choice.
-In various letters and brochures, in response to questions regarding safety and the possibility of fires, BC Hydro has said:
1) "Smart meters aren't under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Standards Association, which mainly governs retail consumer products. BC Hydro smart meters have passed rigorous safety testing and are certified by Measurements Canada." This statement clearly implies that Measurement Canada's certification applies to safety, similar to UL/CSA certification. Instead Measurements Canada tests only for billing accuracy. The public was allowed to believe the meters had been certified as being safe in order to promote acceptance of the meters.
2) "Smart meters are active for less than one minute per day." "Smart meters only broadcast several times a day." "There are only 4-6 signals per day." These statements are untrue. Smart meters in mesh grid, by design must communicate with each other and the utility virtually constantly through broadcast signals. BC Hydro made these false statements to convince people to accept this new contract despite legitimate concerns about the safety of microwave signals.
The public has expressed concerns about collection of private data by these new meters, and BC Hydro consistently has denied the smart meter's ability to gather, store, and transmit personal data in order to enforce the conditions of the new contract:
1) "Smart meters cannot detect how someone uses electricity or which appliances are being used they only measure how much energy a home used or generated in total. This is the same electricity consumption data we always have collected, just more frequently up to three or four times per day rather than once every two months." Greg Reimer, BC Hydro
Even a quick glance at the Zigbee corporate website reveals that these radio chips are specifically designed and intended to communicate directly with a wide range of home appliances for the purpose of two-way wireless monitoring and control. Consequently, it would appear that BC Hydro is knowingly installing a device on every home and business in the province that has the capability to invade the security and privacy of the residents and occupants without their
Disdainful Treatment of the public:
1) BC Hydro's workers have damaged property and threatened customers in their attempts to install meters. One instance occurred in August, 2013 at the residence of Jurgen Goering in Nanaimo.
2) Customers have been bullied into accepting meters, saying that power would be cut off immediately if the meter was not accepted.
3) Homes have been entered into without permission, even by breaking doors. There are letters and a video confirming multiple occurrences available.
In each of the above examples, BC Hydro disregarded the rights and property of the public in order to implement the new contract. A contract, especially a unilateral one which is written by the party in authority and with the fiduciary responsibility, is fraudulent when based on lies, deception and misrepresentation.
The government has tied BCUC's hands with regard to the smart meter program, saying it does not have jurisdiction in its implementation. But the BCUC cannot be told to allow laws to be broken and fraudulent contracts to be forced upon the public. The BC Utilities Commission Act is clear when it says the BCUC has the duty under the The Act to protect the public and to ensure that BC Hydro provide "a service to the public that the commission considers is in all respects adequate, safe, efficient, just and reasonable".
I therefore respectfully ask the BCUC to invoke Section 73 of The Act, demand a cessation of BC Hydro's duplicitous actions and allow any and all who were forced into this fraudulent contract the right to reconsider participation in it.
Smart Meters Demonstration in Quebec
Quebec's smart meter program is being decided in April 2014. The Energy Board is looking at two issues:
· The Opt-Out option unfairness and fees. FYI: not everyone can chose to opt-out not only for economic reasons but also those who have dual-energy meters or higher than 200 A meters and people in multiple dwellings. Without forgetting that opting out does not mean you will not be irradiated by your neighbors' meters. We want to be able to keep our analog meters, those who have RF meters or smeters to be able to have, ideally an analogue meter, at worst a non communicating meter and abolishment of all fees.
· Phase I is almost finished, not quite, and HQ is asking to start phases 2 and 3. We want to stop those phases, including phase 1. The Energy Board wants to know all cases of abuse from the part of HQ and its representatives, including CapGemini, since many customers have complained of forced installation. We are writing letters (e-mails) on these abuses, including health issues that appeared or worsened since the deployment in our neighborhood.
Not as many people as we expected are writing, they are terrified of retaliations from the part of HQ and of course are also sooooo tired that have no energy to fight. The strategy of Refusons les compteurs, the group that unites all Refuse groups in the province, is to have a film festival in March to make more people aware of the danger of not only the meters but wireless technology so that they continue opting out or, like myself, constructing a protective box so that the meter cannot be removed.
In April, the hearings are taking place from the 9th to the 11th, probably an extension on the 14th and 15th. We have another problem: provincial elections will take place on April 7th, the media are covering only that subject. On the 9th we have a good chance of being heard because the hearings start, the media will be present and it is a public hearing so we can be present (cannot participate, we can observe). We will have a press conference at the Energy Board's headquarters, where the hearings are taking place, at 9:00.
The 12th at 12:00 (noon) we will start a 3 km march from the Energy Board headquarters, to HQ's to the newly elected Prime Minister office. We are visualising 100,000 protestors, so start thinking, saying and seeing this number so that we have as many people as possible.
We would love to have many spokespersons of other provinces and states to be present. The public and media seem to have the impressions that we are the only ones protesting. If for instance Sharon (no pressure Sharon) from British Columbia is present it will be great. I mention Sharon because I keep in touch with her, the invitation is for everyone that can come to our cold weather province. The good news is that we are Latin warm hearted people. Those who cannot make it, just start visualizing 100,000 protestors on the 12th at 12:00.
For sure to have present Frank Clegg or Josh Del Sol would be awesome, but one can only pray. If we all pray, the weather might even be in our side and the 3 km walk will be a stroll in the park. We never know, in 2012 we were 250,000 protesting tuition increases and we were on T-shirts, same April. But this winter has been quite something, so we are prepared for the worst visualizing the best.
Those who can come, please give me a shout.
CE QUE LE PEUPLE DU QUÉBEC A FAIT, SEUL LE PEUPLE DU QUÉBEC PEUT LE DÉFAIRE.
Maria Acosta porte-parole, 450-939-4549, firstname.lastname@example.org
Video of electro hypersensitivity presentation.
'Dinah Ray Smith said Verizon approached them about putting a cell phone tower on their property and that she researched the impact and ruled out any potential health risks before agreeing'. -
She either lied, or she did a very poor job of researching the dangers of cell phone towers.
Who's Paying Attention to the WHO?
Dietrich Klinghardt, MD, PhD, is known for his successful treatment of neurological illness and chronic pain with Integrative Medicine. In this video, he explains how electromagnetic fields (EMF) interfere with your biology, and how EMF contributes to the creation of autism.
This is the geolocalisation maps that have been designed for French EHS (extremely usefull) :
I am part of the Paris and Tours groups (I commute) and we organize meeting every month..
There is also a newsletter by French region with adds for sharing houses etc
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 11:47 AM
Subject: Wi-fi sensitivity
Dear Mr. Riedlinger,
First, sorry for my tardy reply.
Thank you for your email outlining your concerns regarding WestJet's plans
to introduce wi-fi on board its aircraft. I understand you have issues
with our plans to introduce this service and I would like to highlight a
few elements to address these concerns.
The safety and well-being of our people and our guests is of the utmost
concern for WestJet and stands as the principle value upon which we
operate our airline.
Health Canada is the government agency responsible for the health and
well-being of Canadians and has addressed concerns that have been raised
in the past regarding exposure to wi-fi signals.
From the Health Canada website:
A number of media reports have suggested that Wi-Fi could be associated
with a variety of health concerns. Yet, there is no convincing scientific
evidence that exposure to low-level radio frequency (RF) energy from Wi-Fi
causes adverse health effects in humans.
RF energy levels from Wi-Fi equipment in all areas accessible to the
general public are required to meet Health Canada's exposure guidelines.
The limits specified in the guidelines are based on an ongoing review of
thousands of published scientific studies on the health impacts of RF
energy. Based on scientific evidence, Health Canada has determined that
exposure to low-level RF energy, such as that from Wi-Fi equipment, is not
dangerous to the public.
From Health Canada's website regarding the safety of wi-fi equipment, the
federal agency continues:
As long as RF energy levels remain below Health Canada's RF safety
guidelines, current scientific evidence supports the assertion that RF
energy emissions from Wi-Fi devices are not harmful. Health Canada's
conclusions are consistent with the findings of other international bodies
and regulators, including the World Health Organization, the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the U.K. Health Protection
RF energy exposure from Wi-Fi equipment in all areas accessible to the
general public are required to meet Health Canada's safety guidelines. The
limits specified in the guidelines are far below the threshold for adverse
health effects and are based on an ongoing review of thousands of
published scientific studies on the health impacts of RF energy. The
public exposure limits apply to everyone, including children, and allow
for continuous, 24/7 exposure.
I respect your opinion regarding wi-fi and in particular the use of it
onboard our aircraft but based on the information and body of evidence
available we will proceed with the implementation of wi-fi onboard our
EVP, Sales, Marketing & Guest Experience
403 837 0471 (cell)
EVP, Sales, Marketing & Guest Experience