Sunday, March 16, 2014

WEEP News / Serious Smart Meter Concerns / A Fraudulent Contract / Demonstration in Quebec / Un-truthful Testimony / Disney Spying / Barcelona / Athol residents object / WHO? / Microbes etc

W.E.E.P. News

The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution

16 March 2014

Serious Smart Meter Concerns - Letter to the Quebec Energy Board
From: Peter Arella []
Date:  March 5th  , 2014
To: ; to the attention of Madam Louise Pelletier.
Subject: Compteurs"intelligents"-DossiersR-3854-2013&R-3863-2013
Dear Madam,
I was among the first in my borough to receive the new smart meter ( FOCUS AXR-SD).
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.
I am the owner of a duplex, the meters were installed on the exterior brickwall facing my backyard in early spring 2013. The day following the installation, my daughter, whose bedroom was located on the wall behind where the meters are installed, told that she was feeling somewhat "strange". I could not have imagined that that something strange could actually come from meters that are slated to emit at 1 meter a mere 55 microW/m2 once every two months, but I felt compelled to look into the matter. With the personal instrumentation  that I had in my possession, I tested the emissions coming from these meters and, to my great astonishment, the measurements indicated huge microwave emissions bursts of roughly 60,000 microW/m2   at one meter away from the meters, and these RF pulses were occurring more than a few times each minute. To my even greater astonishment, I found out that these RF bursts could not be stopped even if I turned off the main power switch in the house. Surely, the signal strength behind the brick wall was lower that what I had measured in front of the meters, but not enough to make it trivial; I took action and moved her bedroom to another room located away from the meters in front of the house.My surprise at the reading was so great that I questioned the validity of the measurements; perhaps, I thought, my meter was somewhat "special" or defective. I took the time to look into this matter and discovered that it was not the case; measurement from reputable engineering sources yielded similar results.
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. 
Madam, I do not consider how a gadget that was placed deceptively on my private property and that emits microwave pulses at this level, repeatedly every minute, and regardless of my action on my own property can in anyway be considered normal, typical, or trivial; this represents a departure from civic behaviour. Nothing in the brochure indicated that a pulsed microwave signal of such level, occurring at such a frequency, and over which even my power switch had no control was what was going to be installed. I have been fooled by the "smart" deception.
I am not the one who will claim that an occasional exposure of a 60,000 microW/m2 signal at 1 meter from the source of the emission  is  critical to one's health, and I will not contest that RF exposure in the far field due to this meter could possibly exceed the Canadian safety limits. However, Madam, I must bring to your attention that, sadly to say, the Canadian Safety standard (code 6)  sits at the tail-end of international standards for short-term safety exposure limits; diverse countries such as Israel, Italy, and even Russia and China have limits that are 100 times more stringent than ours, and that the Canadian Code 6 safety standard is based on the antiquated premise of the mid-1940s that non-ionizing RF radiation can produce only thermal effects on human physiology; hence, based on this assumption, it claims that it is unnecessary for Canadians to have safety guidelines for long-term exposure.
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? 
Madam, please let me point out that this innocent "little" 60,000 microW/m2 at 1 meter emission is equivalent to facing a situation where over 100 typical mobile at one meter distance are concurrently in operation during each of the very short duration of the bursts, and that we are exposed to these emissions more than once each minute, hour after hour, day after day, month after month, and year after year. And, please keep in mind that over 3.4 million of such units are planned to be installed over the Province and many of these in highly density populated areas.
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?
In my situation, which is certainly not unique in the metropolitan area, even if I were to pay close to $450 a year penalty fee for protecting my tiny home space by getting rid of my two meters, I would not be able to get rid of an equal inconvenience that represent the two smart meters from my next door neighbour that are face to face, just a few short steps away from my kitchen window, and whose pulsed emissions I am now compelled to live with for many hours of the day in my kitchen, right in front of my face anytime I prepare a meals or wash up dishes after meals. I bought special transparent foils to apply on the windows panes to attenuate the level of the emissions burst from these meters; it helps, but the microwave pulses from my neighbours meters go through the brick wall of my kitchen. So, here I am: I have done my best and yet, the problem is not solved, my home has been invaded and money can't solve it all. Smartness" is nowhere to be seen in this new environment.
I will not claim that this exposure so nefarious that I will fall ill tomorrow but, let us be clear: it is not an improvement conducive to a healthier environment in my home and my province. Even worse, when the next projected insanity of turning on the second antenna in the meter will come to be, it will be another step downward toward an even worse situation; we will all have to pay for the consequences through our pocket books and our silent physical suffering.
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?
The meters were installed, yet not a word was spoken about any short-distance precautionary recommendations. There are no directives or warning to be seen. I looked to see whether any SAR figures appear somewhere on the meter; I found none!
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 outraged at the deception and the prospect of having had my living space invaded forever;
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?
Certainly, this is not a praiseworthy way of proceeding; what honourable words worthy of a cultured society can describe this situation?  I know of none!
I told myself, perhaps there is another side to the equation; perhaps, there are huge savings in store for the utility and its clients. I thought that I could find an excellent answer that could point in this direction and make my inconvenience and health risks inside my own home an endeavour worth taking. I searched to find that strong reason, and I have discovered instead a mirage, a senseless reason.
According to Hydro's own predictions, if we, the citizens-clients and owner of Hydro put up with this inconvenience for everyday of a foreseeable future, the utility will save $25 at most each year per customer, after the initial losses for covering the installation and commissioning are fully paid.
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"?
The adoption of an AMI grid effectively compels the utility to enter into a situation that requires the maintenance and upgrades of a province wide WAN network. This is a totally new task that was not needed before. The capital cost for the deployment is not the end of the investment requirement; it is a beginning of a recurring operational expense that will increase in cost with time. Such large network requires constant maintenance and upgrades. This totally new expense for the utility does not come without financial risks. Given the nature of the product, the outlay of operational services will come from a single or very limited number of private suppliers. This places the utility in a position of dependency for years or decades to come; those who are already profiting from the deployment will be in a position of privilege to profit even more after the deployment is terminated ,while Hydro will be in a position of dependency for their services.
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?
Is the continuation of the AMI deployment reasonable?
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?
Finally, Madam, let me bring to your attention a jurisdictional point.
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?
The Energy Board and Hydro do have jurisdictional rights on electrical power delivery, these include the right of passage over private property for the delivery of electrical energy; however, Madam, the compliance of an antenna with the Canadian Safety code 6 does not authorize the Energy Board or Hydro to place the antenna on someone's private property without a proper commercial agreement with the property owner.
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 make a mistaken choice is human, and the Energy Board is made up of human beings; I count on their courage to correct the mistake. Errors must be corrected, not repeated.
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.
I ask the gentlemen at the Energy Board to kindly work for the best interest of the silent majority that has been, through deception and economic coercion, lured to bow to a situation that is not in their best interest, which does not makes sense from our health and economic perspective.
We are humans, not just consumers and taxpayers, not just cows that can be milked at will.
I urge you to stop this project.
Madam, please convey my comments to the Energy Board.
I wish the very best to you and to all my fellow citizens.
Best regards,
Peter Arella, B. A.Sc., M. Elect. Eng.
(Jean & Mary-Sue)
A Fraudulent Contract Contravenes the BC Utilities Commission Act.

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.

Lies: -  
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.

 3)   One representative, Moyra Scott, said, "Radio frequency signals from smart meters are much lower than the signal from common every day devices such as radios, baby monitors, and even the spark plugs in your car, so it must be safe." . It is a mockery to compare wireless transmissions from a smart meter with a radio which merely receives.  This was a blatant lie, which was often repeated to prevent a trusting public from learning about potential dangers inherent in the device which must be allowed on every home according to the new contract.


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

 In fact, BC Hydro has chosen to install the 'Openway Centron' wireless meter manufactured by ITRON Inc. According to the company website: "each OpenWay CENTRON meter comes factory-equipped with a ZigBee® radio chip to provide a built-in communications pathway into the home for data presentation, load control and demand response."

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon Noble


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.


Basses-Laurentides Refuse


Maria Acosta porte-parole, 450-939-4549, 

Un-truthful Smart Meter Testimony in Massachusetts and the Response
Disney - Electromagnetic Spying Company Ltd
Tracking Every Move You Make—for a $5 Gift Card
Dr. Olle Johansson: Conference in Barcelona

Video of electro hypersensitivity presentation.
Athol residents object to Verizon Wireless proposed cell tower

'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?

EMF Speeds up the Growth of Microbes

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.
After being exposed to ambient electromagnetic radiation, production of biotoxins in the mold culture increased more than 600 times. Dr. Klinghardt explains this phenomenon in this short video:
California - Danger of WiFi in schools

Over the last eight months, the Petaluma City Schools District board members, superintendent and principals have ignored thousands of published studies about the negative health effects of wireless signals, have repeatedly violated California law regarding California Public Records Act information requests and have neglected their legal duties to spend public money wisely and to provide a safe learning environment.

Gray Matters: Too Much Screen Time Damages the Brain
The risk that screen time is creating subtle damage even in children with "regular" exposure, considering that the average child clocks in more than seven hours a day.
Is it the screen time, or is it the wireless that is causing the harm?
How to Harm Pupils and a 470 year old school
Fill it with a powerful wireless carcinogen. 
Does the school have any concern for the known health effects?
Keep Fit and Eat Sensibly
Letter in response to a WEEP News article of 1 March 2014
I wish to comment on the article "The Elephant in the Room".  It is stated that obesity and physical inactivity have not been classified (by IARC) as human carcinogens.  But the author seems unaware of the  IARC Handbooks on Cancer Prevention, Vol 6, Weight control and physical activity. Lyon, IARC Press, 2002. I was member of the secretariat for the meeting of the working group.  In the evaluation (p249) it is stated:  There is sufficient evidence in humans for a cancer-preventive effect of avoidance of weight gain; and again There is sufficient evidence in humans for a cancer-preventive effect of physical activity. 

As you probably know, I have in recent months argued for the precautionary principle with regard to radiofrequency fields (RFF).,55,3622  In part this is based upon a period I spent as a visiting senior scientist in IARC in 2011, during which I reviewed all the epidemiological studies then available on RFF.    But we must keep a sense of proportion.  Obesity and lack of phyisical activity are far more important causes of cancer and other adverse health effects than ever RFF are likely to be.

Anthony Miller

EHS Information from France

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…


WestJet - We'll protect people from peanuts but we will subject all passengers and crew to a strong possible carcinogen for hours on each flight.
From: "Bob Cummings" <>
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 


 Bob Cummings
 EVP, Sales, Marketing & Guest Experience
 403 837 0471 (cell)
In Reply
Bob Cummings
EVP, Sales, Marketing & Guest Experience
WestJet Airlines
15 March 2014

Dear Mr Cummins
I am responding to your message to Robert Riedlinger dated Mar 2 2014, in which you stated: there is no convincing scientific evidence that exposure to low-level radio frequency (RF) energy from Wi-Fi causes adverse health effects in humans.
Your statement is completely wrong and may cause great danger to your passengers, and it is very important that you find the correct information. 
This is a link to a video that was taken by Global TV showing how a Wi Fi router seriously affects my heart - .  Besides changing my heart rate, wireless exposure causes me and many other people tachycardia and arrhythmias.  These conditions can be life threatening, specially when trapped inside the metal body of a passenger aircraft.  Wi Fi on your aircraft is likely to cause heart attacks, serious blood pressure problems and a host of other illnesses to some passengers.  On aircraft that are already using this dangerous technology, you should alert all aircrew to immediately turn off the Wi Fi system when any passenger reports a sudden sickness or heart problems when exposed to microwave radiation and flying on your aircraft.  This is an important fact that may help to save lives.
In case you need further information about wireless radiation being a serious cardiac risk factor, please see this video of Dr. Stephen Sinatra, heart surgeon and author - talking about 'Wireless Microwave Radiation: The New Cardiac Risk Factor'.
I do not understand why you would be happy about filling the interior of your aircraft with a strong source of a possible carcinogen - .  This seems to make your statement - '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' - utter nonsense.  The World Health Organization classes wireless radiation as 'a possible carcinogen' but several scientific studies indicate that it is a very harmful carcinogen.  Why would you risk passenger and crew safety, when this is commonly known?
Much of the scientific literature on the adverse health effects of microwave radiation applies to levels of exposure which are much below Canada's Safety Code Six.  That scientific information is available to you from many sources but I can highly recommend The Bioinitiative Report, .  If you chose to ignore this information you will be placing your customers in great danger and your company in danger of large financial settlements to those who may be harmed by Wi Fi.
I would also think that your employees may be able to make the case that an aircraft filled with a possible carcinogen, that damages DNA, that changes blood composition, that causes neurological harm etc. can be described as a dangerous workplace for workplace compensation and legal purposes.
In this one document you can see what the US military knew about the dangers of wireless radiation thirty eight years ago - , so please do not try to say that Wi Fi and wireless radiation is safe.
Instead of Wi Fi, I highly recommend that you show this important EMF documentary on your longer flights - , it would educate your passengers about some of the unknown dangers they face.
If you need further evidence about the dangers of Wi Fi and wireless radiation, I would be pleased to assist you.
Martin Weatherall
Co Director WEEP

Raising awareness levels through campaigns forms the first line of defence in the battle against cancer
Electromagnetic wave radiation EMR, group 2B carcinogen,  in its list of carcinogens. One observes that the IT hub, Bangalore, now tops the list of breast cancer incidence in India, ahead of Mumbai and Delhi.
Light entertainment - non EMF
Test drive

To sign up for WEEP News:  (provide name and e-mail address)

W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop: Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution