1) A letter below from Victoria area where Telus is installing fiber optic on private property without having received permission, or even after having received a refusal. I am not a lawyer but this seems to me a possible case of trespass. It is pretty invasive to install something like this “in case” of future usage instead of waiting until the home owner requests it. From my experience, this is something to be avoided. As well, Telus is installing its Optik TV transmitters all over neighbourhoods, on existing poles, often mere feet from bedroom windows, emitting RF all day and night. One of our members is going to be taking readings and tracking these things. Unless the Municipal Council has a Siting Policy requiring consultation and is enforcing it, Telus is doing without consultation or notification. Proliferation runs rampant. Here are some photos:
If you find some in your area, please take a photo and send it with the address to me at:
email@example.com with “Telus transmitters” on the subject line.
2) Canadians for Safe Technology has started a major campaign targeting the concerns with children being exposed to RF from wireless devices all day every day, and parents are not being told. Please consider going to the new website dedicated to this campaign: www.MomsWhoCare.ca and sending an email to Minister of Health Jane Philpott by mid-September. Also, please send to your MLA and MP. They must get involved in protecting the next generation. And please share with other parents, grandparents and teachers.
Today, we launch the most significant campaign to date for C4ST, and for all Canadians concerned about wireless radiation. The target audience is “Moms” in Canada. The action is to have concerned Moms send an email to their local MP and to the Minister of Health Jane Philpott through our new campaign website. Although the campaign is directed to Moms primarily, all concerned Canadians, including Children, can send an email.
We need your help.
On June 18, 2015 we sent you an email that the 2015 Standing Committee on Health (HESA) presented its report “RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION AND THE HEALTH OF CANADIANS” with 12 important recommendations to the House of Commons. Due to the election being called in August 2015, the requirement for the government to respond to the report was cancelled.
Over the past few months, C4ST has had one on one meetings with well over 30 MP’s. As a result of some of those discussions, on Wednesday June 15th, 2016, MP Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester) as HESA Chair, presented the same report on Safety Code 6 to the current House of Commons requesting an official government response. We thank MP Casey, MP John Oliver (Oakville) and the other members of the current HESA committee for their decision to present this report to the 42nd Parliament.
The current government now has 120 days to respond although the Minister of Health, Jane Philpott’s office is expected to receive a copy of the report a month before that (mid September).
The government response will be a good indicator of whether it intends to act on the recommendations and evidence-based science that shows that Safety Code 6 is flawed, and does not protect Canadians. This is our opportunity to encourage the Liberal Government to take action to protect Canadian children from the dangers of wireless radiation exposure.
Our Moms Who Care campaign focuses on three main asks. C4ST is asking Minister Philpott to:
1. Provide a comprehensive response to the 2015 HESA REPORT
2. Implement all the 2015 HESA recommendations from the report “RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION AND THE HEALTH OF CANADIANS”
3. Call for an full updated review of Safety Code 6, Health Canada’s guidelines regarding wireless radiation exposure, based on the significant evidence-based science that has been made public in the last 12 months.
Please go to the website specially created for this campaign at www.MomsWhoCare.ca and send an email to your MP and Minister Philpott stating your concerns. Then please share the campaign with all your family, friends, and neighbors. We have received feedback from several MP’s that individual emails have a far greater impact to them than petitions in determining what is important to the constituents in their Riding.
We encourage you to take a few minutes and send an email to your MP and Minister of Health asking them to provide better protection for Canadians from the harmful effects of wireless radiation.
Thank you as always for your continued support and actions.
CEO – C4ST
3) 5G, which is the new technology that the USA FCC is promoting and will be across Canada, allows up to 1 million wireless connections per square kilometer!!
“Number of connections. Although a 4G network provides thousands of connections for each cell, a 4G network cannot meet the connection needs of Everything on Mobile. A 5G network provides up to a million connections per square kilometer. This will bring an exponential increase in the number of connections.”
4) Scientists have been warning that microwave radiation can do physical harm to children, as well as affecting their social and learning skills. A psychiatrist is concerned about their intellectual and emotional development. The increase in autism, ADD, hyperactivity, etc. is alarming and could be caused by both exposure to RF and unrelenting use of wireless gadgets from a very early age.
“Handheld and mobile devices account for most of the more recent growth. These devices compound toxicity due to the fact that they are held closer to the eyes and body, are used more frequently throughout the day, and tend to be used during activities that previously facilitated conversation (such as riding in the car and eating out). From 2005 to 2009, cell phone ownership among children nearly doubled; about one-third of ten-year-olds now have their own mobile phone. Two thirds of American teens now own cell phones, and 70 percent own an iPad, tablet, or similar device with Internet capability. According to a 2010 Nielsen report, U.S. teens text over four thousand times a month, or about 130 times a day.
“Many youngsters exhibit ill-defined but disruptive symptoms that baffle clinicians, teachers, and parents alike – meltdowns, falling grades, or loss of friendships – leading to premature or wrong diagnoses in a misguided attempt to name the problem and take action. In a word, these children are dysregulated – that is, they have trouble modulating their emotional responses and arousal levels when stressed.”
5) In Segment #15 below, BCUC acknowledges that BC Hydro’s statistics are incomplete. BC Hydro says that it has had only 19 incidents during installation. I have a report obtained through an FOI with 157 incidents and that report did not contain several incidents I found through other sources. BCUC itself says that BC Safety Authority has reported on incidents that are not included in BC Hydro’s report. What more evidence does the BCUC need to require oversight into this dangerous program?
Sent: July 23, 2016
Subject: “Site C . . .” analogy re class action decision
Dear Mr. Obee,
The opinion piece entitled “Site C is not theoretical” [http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-site-c-damage-is-not-theoretical-1.2302664] was way off the mark as far as the Class Action Lawsuit is concerned. Using an incomplete and inaccurate analogy did everyone a shameful disservice, and missed the point of the class action entirely. The Times Colonist needs to do its homework, and if the analogy is to be used, it needs to be better researched.
A piece about the Judge’s decision warrants its own space, with accurate information about its purpose and outcomes.
First and foremost, the purpose of the class action lawsuit did not have health as its premise. The point was that our Charter Rights are being infringed by this mandatory smart meter program. Under the Charter, Canadians are not to be forced by the government or any of its agencies to do something that a reasonable person might think to be dangerous. There are many reasons to believe smart meters are dangerous. The radiation emitted is only one.
Mary McBride was a very poor choice to quote as your expert, as she has no credentials whatsoever to qualify her as an expert in biological effects of microwave radiation. McBride’s talents lie in attracting corporate funding, not medicine.
The wireless major player, TELUS, made it public that they donated $1 million dollars to the BC Cancer Agency. Accepting large sums like this makes the BC Cancer Agency bedfellows of the wireless industry.
Did you miss this? Please inform your readers about this international story.
If you want to report about health and the role that smart meters play in that department, there are many hundreds of peer-reviewed studies showing harm.
Most recently the US National Toxicology Program released partial results from a 10 year $25 million study showing severe harm from prolonged exposure to even low levels of radiation from cell phones. Gliomas (brain tumors) and schwannomas (tumors of the heart) were directly related to microwave radiation.
The following interview has good information on this: http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/Wall-Street-Journal-on-NTP-Cell-Phone-Cancer-Research-Study,24,4464
Why did this important report receive no coverage in the Times Colonist?
In May 2011 microwave radiation from any wireless device was classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a possible human carcinogen (2b). Many world famous researchers are supporting a higher classification to probable or definite carcinogen based on many significant studies since 2011 which show mechanisms. You will note that Mary McBride ignores this.
The Site C analogy aside, another accurate and balanced article is needed to give credence to the issue of Charter Rights infringement. That would go a long way to correcting the glaring omissions present in your opinion piece. There are many real experts that your paper could contact to increase awareness about this issue. I could point you in the right direction.
P.S. The CBC had more balanced coverage of the outcome of the lawsuit:
P.P.S. This is another view worth considering:
UPDATE and comments about Judge Adair’s decision not to certify the class action (July 21, 2016):
Sent: July 25, 2016
To: Sharon Noble
Subject: Telus fibre optic cables
Thought you might like to know a sequel to our experience with Telus in our Lands End Road area. I noticed Telus wiring crew in our area again and said I thought he had finished renewing the cabling. He said all the main lines were done but now they would be running lines to all the houses so as to be ready in case they want to be wired up in the future. I said the person he was running the line to was away in the USA but didn’t want the cable to his home. He said the house was on his immediate list to do (!?). He had knocked at the home first (as they are told to do) but they go ahead if no one answers. However, he did admit that some owners had been nasty and told him to get off their property (in those cases he does!). I said we had told the girl that called we didn’t want a Telus connection and his reply was that that didn’t mean much as often the girls would mark “Yes” despite what the customer had said!
We hope to be around when they come to our house!
= = =
Sent: July 4, 2016
Subject: Re: Update 2016-07-03 Is Telus’s fiber optic cable something more?
………….. It was a young girl from Telus who called. I think she was just marking addresses on her I-Pad to confirm who has agreed to having it installed, but one of my neighbours said she was pretty pushy. We didn’t agree and I am so glad we got your e-mails with your experiences first! A neighbour had said yes, having NO idea about these problems. She is hypersensitive and tells me that it brought on Thyroid problems for her years ago which cleared up when she removed the source of the problem.
Kindest, XX from an all wired home.
RESPONSE TO “BCUC’s Staff Report on Smart Meter Fire Safety Concerns” Segment #15
KEY: Highlighted text is from Sharon Noble Non-highlighted text is the draft report as written by BCUC staff.
= = =
Table 5 below shows the number of incidents that caused equipment damage or fire as reported by the utility during meter installation in response to a Commission request.
Table 5: Incidents causing equipment damage or fire during Installation
|Incidents for 1,930,000
|rate per million installs
|Incidents for 124,409
|rate per million installs
- BC Hydro reports only 19 incidents. In one report obtained via an FOI request, for the period Sept. 11, 2011- Sept 8, 2014, BC Hydro listed 157 incidents that resulted in damage to the meter, to appliances, to the buildings during the meter exchange or shortly thereafter. This report is not complete. I have found incidents that fall into this category but which were not included in this internal document maintained by BC Hydro. BC Hydro is not tracking incidents during installation. None of its statistics can be considered credible.
- It is obvious that there needs to be a thorough investigation of this issue by an independent group. Why is there no oversight into this program which puts lives and property at risk?
Interpretation of the incident rates needs to be done carefully giving consideration to the completeness of the data or lack thereof. Still it is noteworthy that FortisBC reports no incidents at time of install which indicates that its testing and conservative meter base replacement practice is having a positive effect on reducing installation incidents.
Comment: OR that its reporting system for field operatives is incomplete. See this Report’s comment on BC Hydro in next paragraph. Of note, FortisBC used the same installation contractor as BC Hydro.
Comment: Here it might be instructive to describe the IBEW agreement to allow non-electricians to carry out meter change-outs, and using an incentive plan for the installers. Were the same incentives in place for the contractors hired by both of the Utilities? How confident is the BCUC that all incidents involving meter change-out were reported? See the next paragraph.
There is evidence that BC Hydro’s reporting of the incidents that occurred during installation is not comprehensive. In 2012, the BC Safety Authority previously provided the Commission with its smart meter related incidents reports. The file contains 9 reports, 5 of which relate to incidents that occurred during meter installation. Of these 5 incident reports, 2 have no corresponding event reported by BC Hydro. BC Hydro described the cause of the 19 installation incidents it reported as meter socket or installation error related which is further supported by photographic evidence and the available BC Safety Authority reports. The failures of meter socket components appears as portions of the meter socket breaking away and making contact with the grounded enclosure causing arcing, heating and fire.
Comment: See the notes added above in the section: BC Safety Authority referring to the sparse reports and unresolved incident descriptions from the BCSA.
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“In a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence, one word of truth sounds like a pistol shot.”
~ Czeslaw Milosz