LETTERS: RDOS moratorium on smart meters

Contributor: 
Published: 
29 May 2015

I would like to congratulate and thank the board of the RDOS on passing the resolution asking for the cessation of the smart meter program.

This district becomes the 61st municipal body in B.C. asking for caution regarding the installation of these potentially dangerous devices on homes.

The evidence provided by independent (non-industry affiliated) scientists is overwhelming and has led to more than 200 experts submitting a petition to the United Nations asking for a similar cessation of the proliferation of wireless devices www.emfscientist.org. These 200 scientists have performed more than 2,000 peer reviewed studies showing that serious harmful effects are suffered after prolonged exposure to even low levels of microwave radiation. Certain groups are especially vulnerable — the unborn, children and those with compromised immune systems.

Director Michael Brydon says that if what Director Tom Siddon presented is correct then Health Canada is corrupt or incompetent. He is right. A quick look at the recent review of Safety Code 6, Health Canada’s guideline for exposure to microwave radiation, will confirm this consensus by the scientific community www.cmaj.ca/site/earlyreleases/7may15_scientists-decry-canadas-outdated-wi-fi-safety-rules.xhtml.

The process itself was mired in controversy. The chair of the Royal Society Panel resigned after his conflicts of interests were exposed. Several other members of the panel have long-standing affiliation with the industry and other members have no expertise in the biological effects of wireless radiation.

I believe Health Canada itself selected the studies to be reviewed, cherry picking those that supported the status quo while neglecting more than 150 recent studies, many of which explain causation. The Parliamentary committee reviewing the Royal Panel’s report chided Health Canada accusing it of bias and incompetence. The report has been criticized by many, including Dr. Lennart Hardell, a world renowned researcher on the topic who described Health Canada’s guideline as “a disaster to public health” and based on a scientific analysis “unwilling or not competent to make evaluation of the current literature.”

Yes, Brydon may have inadvertently hit on the crux of the matter. Even though he has no expertise relevant to the biological effects of exposure to microwave radiation he has summarized it well. Health Canada is corrupt and incompetent. This is its history — remember asbestos, lead, tobacco and now microwave radiation. A shameful history that we must not allow to continue.

Hans Karow - Coalition to Reduce

Electropollution

Summerland

Comments

Is there any plan at the RDOS Board to ask to have the already installed meters (as on the West Bench) removed?

The original motion put forward by Tom Siddon was for RDOS Area D (Okanagan Falls, Kaleden, Skaha Lake East) only.  The motion asks that all existing meters in Area D be uninstalled at Fortis' cost (which is, of course, really just at ratepayers' cost).

The core problem with broadening this motion to the whole RDOS is that regional districts have no obvious authority to compel Fortis to do anything (hence the company's non-response to the RDOS motion).  Such things are regulated at higher levels of government than the local level.  This is likely an appropriate state of affairs because local governments do not have the resources to conduct scientific research or formulate informed scientific opinions on such matters.

Of course, we could do our own research on the Internet (as some prior commenters have suggested) but once on the Internet we are likely to find that, among other things:

  1. global warming is a hoax,
  2. vaccines are not worth the medical risk (Frontline has a recent episode examining this issue)
  3. sunscreen is more dangerous than the sun
  4. the government is using aircraft to dump aerosols into that atmosphere to slow down global warming  (Interestingly, if both (1) and (4) are true then the government is secretly combating its own hoax--that is troubling!)

 

In each case, credentialed scientists are marshaled to the cause, the scientific literature is cited, reasonable-sounding arguments are made, and the average citizen is left to draw his or own conclusions.

Hence my willingness to trust in the people we pay to sort this out for us. What realistic alternative do I have?

 

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Registered users of this site do not have to do this.