CST News Feed

News and Developments


Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
PO Box 52061
Beacon Ave. RPO
Sidney, BC V8L 5V9

EMAIL address for letters to BCUC: commission.secretary@bcuc.com
EMAIL address for Greg Reimer, BC HYDRO:  greg.reimer@bchydro.com

Smart Meter Class Action postings, in chronological order, are HERE.
To streamline your search, anywhere on the website, for a specific topic, word or phrase, please use the white search bar located under the Action Kits below. 

May 22

Moratorium Resolution Passed in Okanagan-Similkameen (B.C.)

Call for a Moratorium on "Smart" Meter Installation in RDOS Electoral Area 'D'

"Yesterday, May 21, the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen received a presentation describing many of the problems associated with the program. Overwhelming approval was given for the moratorium, in which Fortis was asked to remove smart meters from every home in the District. By so doing, it becomes the 61st council in BC requesting cessation of the dangerous smart meter program."

Penticton Herald announcement   

As of June 17, 2013, the MORATORIUM COUNT of B.C. communities seeking a moratorium on the smart meter program.

May 21

"From using cell phones and computers to watching movies online, wireless technology has made life easier. But now, some say there is a serious downside. As CBS2's Maurice Dubois explained, there are those who claim that exposure to Wi-Fi is making people sick, and some people don't even know it. . . .

CBS Local Video Clip of Broadcast

YouTube Video

May 18

Is Wi-Fi making your child ill? (UK)

Canadian media have responded to wireless industry directives to remove this article from circulation

Places in Canada where the article has been removed. There is a concerted effort to stifle this article.

Vancouver Sun
Vancouver Province
Montreal Gazette
Edmonton Journal
Ottawa Citizen
Windsor Star

May 17

Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian Safety Panel 6 (Martin Pall)

microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action

I am attaching my recent paper published in Reviews on Environmental Health that provides a detailed critique of the 2014 Canadian Report, showing that each of the major positions taken by the Panel of Experts in support of their view that only heating effects need be considered are deeply flawed. These include the claim that there is no biophysically viable mechanism for non-thermal effects and specifically for non-thermal effects causing cancer; includes the claim for "inconsistencies" in the literature, where the only primary literature they provide (on genotoxicity) that they assert supports that claim is shown to have no inconsistencies whatsoever -- rather that literature shows that different cell types and different EMFs produce different responses, showing biological heterogeneity, not inconsistency; includes the claim that cataracts are caused by heating, a claim shown to be falsified by three studies which the Report fails to cite and also falsified by findings that elevated levels of intracellular calcium have essential roles in causing cataracts and that VGCC activation can cause cataracts; includes the fact that although they throw out huge numbers of studies because of undocumented claims of inconsistency, they fail to throw out their own view on heating effects although it is clearly inconsistent with thousands of published studies.

This is a public access paper which can, therefore, be freely forwarded and freely placed onto internet sites. The paper has several other important parts to it. It updates the evidence that microwave/lower frequency EMFs act via activation of the voltage-gated calcium channels with biological effects being produced by downstream effects of increased intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i. The most important update is that the voltage sensor of the VGCCs can be seen to be extraordinarily sensitive to weak EMFs because of its structure and position in the plasma membrane. It is probably millions of times more sensitive than perhaps any structure in the cell outside the plasma membrane. I don't consider this to be a biophysical model, there are too many uncertainties about it to be considered such a model, but it clearly shows that the claims that there cannot be a biophysically viable mechanism for biological responses to weak, non-thermal EMFs do not apply to the VGCC voltage sensor. Of course you only have to be wrong once for this claim to be wrong.

It also reviews the literature that pulsed fields are often more biologically active than are non-pulsed fields and also the literature that there are window effects where specific intensity windows produce larger biological responses than do windows that do intensities that are either lower or higher. Again, you are welcome to forward this as you wish and/or place it on the internet.

 Best wishes to you all,
 Martin Pall

One of the things that Dr. Pall does not address in the following letter is that Health Canada itself selected the panel members, many of whom, such as John Moulder, Ken Foster, Daniel Krewski, have been long time industry supporters,  Krewski was named as Chair, but was shown to have had financial conflicts of interests he did not declare, resulting in his resignation. For some reason Moulder's and Foster's conflicts of interest were not addressed. The selection process was not transparent.

Likewise, Health Canada selected the studies that were to be reviewed, and in advance of the final report refused to provide the list of studies when requested. The entire process has been highly controlled, and the results, as expected, were basically to maintain the status quo - no evidence to show harm that is not attributable to RF exposures that cause heating.

Now that there are more of us educated on the topic as well as on the industry affiliates who promote the public's ignorance, it has become harder for these conclusions to be accepted.

We expect that the FCC's process is equally flawed, and hope that it will be similarly reviewed and criticized.

May 11

Martin Blank, PhD of Columbia University representing 190 international scientists in an Appeal to the UN, UN Member States and the WHO on the risks of electromagnetic fields emitted by telecommunications and utility technologies. Cautioning strongly, Dr. Blank says, "The time to deal with the harmful biological and health effects is long overdue. To protect our children, ourselves and our ecosystem, we must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines." Video produced by ElectromagneticHealth.org on behalf of international scientists and the Appeal Committee.


International Appeal

Scientists call for Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure  

We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include-but are not limited to-radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF)."  

The Appeal continues, pointing out there is: "Scientific basis for our common concerns: Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life."

and there are "inadequate non-ionizing EMF international guidelines," and:

"Collectively we also request that:
1. children and pregnant women be protected;
2. guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened;
3. manufacturers be encouraged to develop safer technology;
4. utilities responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution, and monitoring of electricity maintain adequate power quality and ensure proper electrical wiring to minimize harmful ground current;
5. the public be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy and taught harm reduction strategies;
6. medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity;
7. governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that is independent of industry and mandate industry cooperation with researchers;
8. media disclose experts' financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding health and safety aspects of EMF-emitting technologies; and
9. white-zones (radiation-free areas) be established."

Media-only contacts are at: http://emfscientist.org/index.php/2015-05-03-11-38-59

May 9

Is Wi-Fi making your child ill?

Dr. Erica Mallory-Blythe in The Telegraph - Florence Jenkins

"As France bans Wi-Fi in nursery and primary schools, a British expert who has given up using wireless gadgets says we should do the same. . . .


In February the French government banned Wi-Fi in nursery schools and restricted use in primary schools. The German government has recommended that the use of Wi-Fi in the workplace or home should be avoided where possible. LA has reduced student exposure to Wi-Fi radiation to 10,000 times below US government standard.

In 2000, a report commissioned by the Government concluded that no school should fall within 100 metres of a mobile phone mast; in 2007 a BBC Panorama programme found that the readings next to a classroom laptop showed radiation at double the level only 100 metres from a mobile phone mast.

A five-year-old absorbs up to 60 per cent more radiation than an adult due largely to their thinner skulls and the high water content of a young body. In Western countries brain tumours have overtaken leukaemia as the most common cause of cancer in children. A 2008 study found a fivefold increase in the risk of glioma (a form of brain cancer now recognised by the World Health Organisation as being linked to mobile phone usage) for those starting mobile phone use under 20 years of age, indicating that the age group at first use is highly significant.

Schools and parents can find out more through ssita.org.uk

May 1

Meeting of the Standing Committee on Health April 23 2015

Oral Statement of Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc at the House of Commons of Canada

Oral Statement of Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc for the meeting of the Standing Committee on Health of the House of Commons of Canada on April 23, 2015
My name is Dariusz Leszczynski and I am currently Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Helsinki in Finland. I do research in area of biological and health effects of cell phone-emitted radiation since 1997. I will briefly present now, what I said in a slightly more detailed form in my submitted document.

May 1

Meeting of the Standing Committee on Health April 23 2015

Oral Statement of Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc at the House of Commons of Canada

Oral Statement of Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc for the meeting of the Standing Committee on Health of the House of Commons of Canada on April 23, 2015
My name is Dariusz Leszczynski and I am currently Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Helsinki in Finland. I do research in area of biological and health effects of cell phone-emitted radiation since 1997. I will briefly present now, what I said in a slightly more detailed form in my submitted document.

Apr 10

Local politics -- schools, zoning, council elections -- hit us where we live. So why don't more of us actually get involved? Is it apathy? Dave Meslin says no. He identifies 7 barriers that keep us from taking part in our communities, even when we truly care. 

A 7 minute talk worth watching. As you do, think about how these "obstacles and barriers" apply to the smart meter problem, cell towers and the proliferation of other wireless infrastructure in our communities.  The government is making it impossible to get information, is refusing to allow input, is lying and misrepresenting, is allowing no choice. If we, as a growing number of concerned citizens, all continue to work together as we have now for many years, we can knock down the obstacles and garner support and active participation. Together, we need to figure out how to do this in effective ways, regardless of governmental bureaucracy, BC Hydro and an uncooperative media.

Loading content ...
Show More Content

One time donation: Click the donate button below and follow the instructions on the screen.

Monthly donation: If you wish to contribute every month, please select the amount from the Donation Options list below and click Subscribe. Your contribution will be sent for you every month for the amount you selected.

Donation Options

Citizens for Safe Technology (CST) is funded and supported solely by those who wish to help us. Thank-you for learning, sharing and helping if you can.

Meetings and events on the issue of wireless technologies in homes and communities throughout North America.

Click the button above to sign our online petition to return to hardwired computers in schools.

Click the button above to sign our online petition against Smart Meters in British Columbia.

Smart Meter Petition (Hard Copy)

Download and print this petition form -- Refuse Smart Meter Installation.

Send completed petitions 15 signatures per page to:
Una St. Clair


e-mail: una@citizensforsafetechnology.org