2022-07-08 Rogers’ outage — “use landlines for 911”

1) Across Canada Rogers cell and internet (this would mean fiber-linked home phones) has been down for many hours today , and may still be out. Police and emergency services are telling people to use landlines or another carrier’s cell service for 911 service. Of course, they mean copper-based landlines. This is a prime example of what can and will happen, and more people will be effected once all of the copper landlines are cut, leaving the only options cell phones and voice-over-the-internet (aka fibre-linked) phones.

Please, write to CRTC and emergency services expressing your concern and demand that copper lines be maintained. Full contact information is in the July 5 update which can be found here: https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/2022-07-05-90-of-cell-phones-tested-in-canada-exceed-safety-code-6/

My guess is this will get attention now that businesses were affected. Fiber is the answer in so many ways but the phone service must be fixed first.

Rogers users report mass outage impacting phones, internet, Interac

“A serious network outage at Rogers has impacted cellular and internet services across the country since early Friday morning, bringing major sectors from banking to government services to a halt….

While Rogers has yet to provide details on why this outage is occurring, the Communications Security Establishment confirmed to Global News that their Centre for Cyber Security “has been in contact with Rogers” and “offered assistance, in the event they should need it.””

Rogers says wireless services restored for ‘vast majority’ as mass outage drags on


(click on photos to enlarge)


Try calling from a landline, B.C. 911 provider says to customers impacted by Rogers outage

“A Rogers outage may mean callers can’t get through to 911, according to British Columbia’s biggest emergency call centre….

If your call fails, try again from a landline or cellphone with another provider.“”


2) For those of you who were interested in Rogers Channel Ridge tower Zoom meeting yesterday but were unable to attend, a member has kindly shared notes she took. They are below in Letters.

3) The residents of Pittsfield have gone through what many others are experiencing, a failure of the government agencies with the responsibility for protecting them which are, instead, protecting industry. Like FCC, Health Canada does not allow health to be an argument against a cell tower. Also like FCC, the guidelines and the reasoning behind them are based on ICNIRP (a non-regulated, self-appointed industry-/military-affiliated club) and thermal effects only. Also, both agencies do not monitor towers or transmitters after being placed, allowing the companies to self-monitor levels of emissions only from their devices, disregarding cumulative levels to which we are exposed. This article is the history of what has happened at Pittsfield and, like people in Qualicum Beach for example, they are not giving up.

The cost of connectivity?
Cell tower dispute puts Pittsfield at center of a national debate

“Scarato, of Environmental Health Trust, decried what she called a failure of government regulation.

“The scandal is not what is illegal, but what is legal,” she said.

In 2019, the FCC opted not to update its 1996 regulations for allowable exposures of radio-frequency radiation from wireless technologies, including cell towers, in light of new scientific evidence. But Environmental Health Trust led a coalition of groups that challenged the FCC’s inaction in court. The petitioners submitted more than 11,000 pages of evidence documenting biological effects and illness from wireless radiation exposure below the FCC’s safety threshold.

Last summer, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the advocates and sent the FCC back to the drawing board to either justify its current safety standard or produce a new one. The appeals court ruled that the FCC’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” because it failed to respond to evidence that showed exposure to radiation at levels below the commission’s current safety limits may cause negative health effects other than cancer. The court also found the FCC to be “arbitrary and capricious in its complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.”

Scarato called the FCC safety standard “irrelevant and outdated,” pointing out that it was created at a time when cell phones were rare and use of the Internet was just beginning.”


4) There have been very few studies on the biological effects related to milliwave frequency exposure. Here is one that concludes there is possible non-thermal damage to DNA.

Millimeter waves alter DNA secondary structures and modulate the transcriptome in human fibroblasts

Abstract. As millimetre wave (MMW) frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum are increasingly adopted in modern technologies such as mobile communications and networking, characterising the biological effects is critical in determining safe exposure levels. We study the exposure of primary human dermal fibroblasts to MMWs, finding MMWs trigger genomic and transcriptomic alterations. In particular, repeated 60 GHz, 2.6 mW cm-2, 46.8 J cm-2 d-1 MMW doses induce a unique physiological response after 2 and 4 days exposure. We show that high dose MMWs induce simultaneous non-thermal alterations to the transcriptome and DNA structural dynamics, including formation of G-quadruplex and i-motif secondary structures, but not DNA damage.”


Here is the full report in case you care to read:

In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that high dose MMWs can induce characteristic transcriptomic and genomic modifications in primary human fibroblasts that are not associated with a typical cellular thermal response. We show that MMW-induced changes at the transcriptome level are distinct from a traditional cytokine-induced transition, and that they may be associated with alterations in DNA structural dynamics. These changes represent unique interactions of MMWs with biological material and illustrate the importance of both power density and dose when determining safety margins for longer periods.”




Here’s my thoughts on yesterday’s Zoom meeting: (Rogers’ Channel Ridge Tower)

  • It was mostly a presentation by the Rogers consultants but people were allowed to post comments/questions through the chat feature of Zoom and then were invited to speak at the end. Some of the questions were answered verbally (not super complete answers, typical corporate replies, I’d say). There were numerous questions about health and environmental affects – the unsurprising response was that the Rogers is complying with SC6 so there’s no problem – direct all health concerns to Health Canada.
  • I did post a few questions regarding measurements/ongoing monitoring/making this info public which did not get responded to. I also posted Chad Marlatt’s Apr 2021 email comment to me below re “this tower will not be used for 5G” but he confirmed on the Zoom that it definitely will be used for 5G. I asked why the change and Sam Sugita said there is broadband 5G and millimeter 5G which are different so no small cells on lamp posts (that’s my take on it). Michael Krenz said it was a natural “progression of technology”. I take this to mean that Rogers can do anything technology-wise in the future once the tower is up, they do not have to commit to what they are proposing now/have proposed in the past. The funniest line was from Sam: “Rogers is not a bully.”
  • Other questions were posted in the chat re First Nations consultation (not done), insurance (Rogers says they have no insurance for EMF liability), cumulative effects of increased EMR (talk to Health Canada), environmental/watershed concerns (an environmental impact study will be done after the project is approved?), concerns over the application/public consultation process (sounds like many breaches made)
  • Several people from the Salt Spring concerned citizens group spoke with objections to the way the application and public engagement process has been carried as well as all the other concerns mentioned above. They seemed very well informed and passionate about fighting this tower. They requested future in-person meetings since this Zoom was apparently the only engagement opportunity they have had over the last 2 years (i.e. written submission allowed but no talking opportunity) but the Rogers folk would not commit to this.
  • I thought the consultants looked at bit rattled, or maybe they were just irritated, not sure. Unfortunately, they say this is a done deal, that the tower is approved and is proceeding. How this was a public engagement session, if it’s already decided, I do not know.
  • The organizers recorded the Zoom. Copies probably could be requested.


Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

Corporate motto: “Profit at any price, even our health.”   Sharon Noble


Smart Meters, Cell Towers, Smart Phones, 5G and all things that radiate RF Radiation