1) There is an article within the first article about the state of willful ignorance in the UK government regarding non-ionizing radiation, which is similar to that of the US and Canada. Within that article are links to many excellent letters, reports, and recordings which, IMHO, are worth your time.
What does ‘safe’ really mean? Are public health officials abusing the word once again?
“There are other instances where things are declared safe – really meaning “safe enough” – where the full picture does not indicate that they are completely harmless. 5G is a particularly risky topic to cover…”
Ministers remain in ignorant bliss with regard to 5G health risks
https://www.hartgroup.org/define-safe/
2) Follow-up to letters from Marcus to and from BCUC re. smeters: One member suggested I remind people that the smeters program was part of the Conservatives’ Clean Energy Act, 2010.
A little history:
In 2008, BC Hydro applied for approval of the smeter project but BCUC rejected the application on 2 bases:
1. Benefits did not justify the costs;
2. Technology was too new to be proven to be safe and effective.
Wanting to proceed, the Conservatives enacted the Clean Energy Act of 2010 which resulted in 2 major programs, the smeter program and Site C and, worst of all, said that these, by law, would not be subject to oversight by BCUC. In essence, there was no independent body ensuring that these programs were needed, safe, cost-effective, etc. BCUC had no say and neither did the citizens of BC.
The NDP (under John Horgan) was the official opposition and did argue against the smeter program. In fact, Mr. Horgan helped us gain support from the BC Union of Municipalities in asking for a moratorium until the smeters were found to be safe (healthwise, re. radiation, as well as safe from starting or exacerbating fires). Unfortunately, once the NDP became the majority party, the programs (both Site C and smeters) were supported and continued to be implemented. The Clean Energy Act remains in force to this day.
(click on photos to enlarge)
Letters:
From: Marcus Schluschen (name given with permission) Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 4:33 PM
To: Complaints, BCUC <Complaints@bcuc.com>
Subject: Re: Where is BCUC’s impartiality?
Hello Mr. Day, and BCUC,
It is extremely disturbing when a government agency, such as BCUC, relinquishes its authority to the very industry they are supposed to govern and regulate.
When former managers from the power industry are holding key positions at BCUC there will never be impartiality!
When BCUC Commissioners are unduly influenced by professional US industry lobbyists, such as William Bailey and his gaggle of underlings (unlicensed in Canada), employed by EXPONENT, USA, a corporation with a track record of defending dirty industries, such as big tobacco and asbestos, while highly regarded Canadian academics’ and experts’ warnings are dismissed, there is no impartiality!
My question to you:
Why was Bailey’s absurd spin accepted by the commissioners, that people emit more radiation than Wi-Fi, after receiving a first class video proof, by Dr. Magda Havas, that Bailey’s spin was completely unscientific and utterly false?
In Dr. Havas’s video, Wi-Fi set the radiation frequency meter readings into orbit, but when people were measured, even combined, to illustrate Bailey’s misleading statement, not the slightest trace of radiation registered on the RF meter.
Such grotesque and deliberate falsification of science should have resulted in an immediate dismissal of EXPONENT’s Bailey and cohorts!
Safety Code 6 was cooked up by engineers, the military and industry, but not by EMF experts in biology or cellular medicine, which is a sure recipe for disaster, which will plague generations with poor health and reduced life expectancy in years to come.
As for BCUC’s naive faith in Canada’s outdated “Safety Code 6”, I challenge BCUC to contrast the small band of Health Canada’s radiation department, where not a single staff member holds a medical nor bio sciences degree, with the academics of the Bioinitiative Report which has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full members of BEMS. (see below)
May I remind BCUC that Health Canada’s radiation department does NOT work with real people, unlike the physicians of the Bioinitative Report who work daily in hospitals, with real human beings, not S.A.M the artificial, plastic, anthropomorphic man who is supposed to represent a living human being.
How can anyone assume that Exponent’s William Bailey, and his band of junior engineers and industry/government influencers, has any knowledge of living, breathing, organisms?
Since when have psychiatrists and engineers become the world’s experts on cellular health?
This is the second time around that BCUC’s commissioners fell for Bailey’s deliberate misinformation, “People Emit More Radiation than Wi-Fi”, while at the same time failing to heed the warnings of medical doctors who studied this subject extensively and witnessed the adverse biological consequences of such naiveté.
How is this possible?
Why did the managers of BCUC fail to inform the commissioners that Bailey’s absurd claim is complete nonsense? Am I to understand that BCUC’s top staff and decision makers do not know how to use radiofrequency radiation (RF) meters? Surely, your government funded corporation must be able to afford at least one RF meter?
As a certified EMF radiation consultant I can show you in person, using a high-end, German made RF meter, that people do NOT emit more RF radiation than Wi-Fi. Will BCUC blindly accept this willful deception by Bailey the next time around as well?
We are not S.A.M., nor is life a mathematical engineering equation!
&
– https://citizensforsafertech.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Who-is-SAM.png
BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields https://bioinitiative.org/
Cindy Sage, MA, Owner
Sage Associates
Santa Barbara, CA USA
Full Member. Bioelectromagnetics Society
David O. Carpenter, MD
Director, Institute for Health and the Environment
University at Albany
Rensselaer, New York USA
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS https://bioinitiative.org/participants/
[Marcus listed all 28. For sake of brevity, I will not.]
Anyone who is not hopelessly enamored with wireless technology will take the time to read the excellent information provided by the Bioinitiative Report and view the disturbing Colour Charts showing biological harm at levels far below Canada’s ridiculous Safety Code 6.
https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/BioInitiativeReport-RF-Color-Charts.pdf
Has anyone at BCUC questioned why the Bioinitiative Report was immediately attacked by industry, the very same corporations which BCUC and ISED are supposedly to oversee and govern?
On a personal note; why was my submission to BCUC not posted on the site, despite several inquiries by not only myself but also by others? Was my information of court rulings against prominent wireless industry shills inconvenient for BCUC?
Since I, as well as many others, invested a lot of time into this, I would appreciate an honest reply, but please spare me a copy and paste response that all is well, as I deal with people who suffer severely from the unbridled wireless explosion right here in BC.
People from BCUC, we are drowning in a soup of man-made radiation!
Regards,
Marcus Schluschen
*******
From: Complaints, BCUC
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 9:50 AM
To: Marcus Schluschen
Subject: RE: Where is BCUC’s impartiality?
Dear Mr. Schluschen,
Thank you for your email to the BCUC, we appreciate you sharing your perspective. However, the questions you posed relate to an application that the BCUC has already adjudicated upon and therefore the proceeding has completed, and the evidentiary record is closed. The BCUC conducted an open and transparent public process to review FEI’s application to determine whether its AMI project was in the public interest. The decision rendered in this proceeding sets out the BCUC’s findings, determinations, and rationale. No further interpretation of the final decision made by a panel of BCUC commissioners can be given by staff.
As stated previously, during the proceeding, the BCUC reviewed participant submissions on several topics including human health impacts. Health and safety was an important consideration for the BCUC in its review of FortisBC’s AMI project. After reviewing the evidence submitted by all parties during the proceeding, the BCUC was satisfied that the AMI technology met the required Health Canada safety standards for wireless technology.
In this proceeding, the BCUC evaluated whether radiofrequency emissions from this project poses a threat to the health of FEI’s customers. The BCUC found that Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 is applicable to the technology FEI proposes to use for the AMI Project, and that the project meets Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 standards. Given that the AMI technology meets Safety Code 6 standards, the BCUC determined that Safety Standard 6 is sufficiently conservative to address any risk to human health arising from exposure to radiofrequency.
Thank you again for your email to the BCUC.
Kind regards,
Dyne Day
Senior Customer Service Specialist
Sharon Noble, Director, Citizens for Safer Tech
“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.” J. Robert Oppenheimer
Sent from my wired laptop with no wireless components. Practice Safe Tech.