Resistance to Smart Meters continues

Resistance to Smart Meters continues

“In my Comox Valley community the exact number of holdouts is known only to the utility itself”, says Kel Kelly, a Merville resident and smart meter opponent, but he suspects the number is in the hundreds. The number on Vancouver Island and the surrounding islands is likely in the thousands.

Kelly is spearheading a campaign to bring all of those people together to identify themselves to each other and to build their legal strength in numbers.

“Right now, Hydro knows exactly who has a smart meter and who doesn’t”, he says. “That leaves the ordinary citizen in a position of not knowing just how big the movement against smart meters is. We need to change that.”

“Hydro is using all manner of intimidation to force people to accept this technology even though there is very valid concern that it is not safe”, he says. “Many people are worried that a personal health threat is being forced into their lives.”

“Then there are those of us who are simply fed up with being bullied by government and its agencies”, he says. “Hydro instituted its smart meter program with absolutely no consultation with the citizens it is supposed to be serving”, he says. “Many of us are fighting this program because it is undemocratic and likely illegal. When citizens roll over and allow governments and their agents to push their way into our private lives, those forces will come as far as we allow them.”

A great number of smart meter resisters are challenging Hydro’s legal right to trespass on their private property to change the meters. Most of those people’s meters have been left alone, though Hydro is now billing them a “legacy meter fee” of $32.50 per month.

“Most people are not paying this fee, as they believe it to be an illegal charge”, says Kelly, “but ultimately this will have to be tested in court. That’s where a united coalition of smart meter resisters comes in. None of us can win this fight alone, politically or financially. We need to get organized. ”

There will be a meeting of anyone interested in learning more about this campaign at 2727 Merville Road (near the Merville Store) on Thursday, May 29 beginning at 7 p.m. sharp. All are welcome.

For more information contact: Kel Kelly at 250 337 8348 or

Free quarterly news and science report on electromagnetic radiation and health

EMR and Health

Free quarterly news and science report on electromagnetic radiation and health


The June issue brings you the latest news and science about electromagnetic radiation, including:

  • updates on three Australian standards
  • evidence linking mobile phones with brain tumours and fertility problems
  • precautions being applied in Europe and Israel
  • stories, news and studies about electromagnetic hypersensitivity
  • and so much more.

Download the June 2014 issue here.

2014 EMR and Health - June Edition 2014 EMR and Health – June Edition (827 KB)

 You may also access our newsletter archives below

2014 EMR and Health - March Edition 2014 EMR and Health – March Edition (567 KB)

 EMR Australia has been publishing a quarterly report on electromagnetic radiation for ten years and is, from March 2014, making the report available at no charge as a community service.

If you have difficulties accessing the report by computer, contact us to enquire about a postal subscription. A small charge will apply to cover costs.  

EMR and Health keeps you up-to-date about EMR in the most convenient and time-effective manner.

– See more at:

Utilities/government Gestopo Tactics of bullying, threatening and igoring peoples pleas of sickness from smart meters


Recent comments posted on the New York opt out Petition.  We are in a battle and it is time for everyone to pay attention to the abuse and criminal activity of our elected officials, public servants and corrupt industry; intentionally exposing us to the dangerous and harmful radio wave radiation  against our will, consent and the majority of the public against their knowledge.

    Please take the time to read n sign the petition in regards to the new meters New York water authority is demanding to install. They have already contacted my residence 3 times while no one was home. Now the have sent me a letter that if I don’t answer them so they can install the new meter they will shut off my water supply and if I finally allow them to install it that they will charge me $400.00.



    • about 13 hours ago
    To many reasons to list here, but they are trying to put one in my house I am pregnant and have 7 young children 13 & under. I do not want them exposed to this!


Fort Collins CO Stands Up to Council Corruption Regarding Smart Meters

Fort Collins CO Stands Up to Council Corruption

Posted on May 16, 2014 by onthelevelblog

On April 15th, residents of Fort Collins, CO outraged by the treatment of Virginia Farver and others by City staff and law enforcement, rose up and attended the city council meeting en masse to demand the removal of smart meters in their town. We visited Fort Collins in late March as part of our whistlestop tour, went and confronted the utility manager, spoke at a TBYP screening event at the library, and got kicked out of a utility event for quietly spreading awareness to the public in attendance. Fort Collins is a nice town with good people, but unfortunately a corrupt and dangerous city government continues to impose its will on the public despite the mounting evidence of harm from their smart meter program.

Members of the public all provided key facts and information which the council struggles to digest or respond to. It must be pretty troubling to realize that as an elected official you have made ill-informed decisions that have put people’s lives and health in danger. Much easier psychologically to dig in deeper and refuse to take any of it on board. Just move on to the next administrative item and pretend those members of the public don’t exist, or are all crazy. It’s easier that way.

When one in confronted by a brittle, unresponsive council in denial while people are clearly hurting, and their rights being violated, what do you do? “We’re not forcing anything on you” says one of the council members who admits that RF from smart meters does cause changes in cells. With a smirk, he says, they are not forcing anything on anyone- you can choose to live without water service and electrical service- and presumably that is your only choice if you are not happy with your cells being changed or your private activities monitored.

It’s “choices” like these that led to the (first) American Revolution.

Tom Wheeler, Chairman of FCC, Cronie, Industry man, What is he up to? More collusion and corruption!

Is Broadband Internet A Public Utility?

The most interesting revision that the FCC Chairman offers is an examination of whether or not net neutrality is the jurisdiction of the FCC at all.

With the FCC nearing a vote about proposed net neutrality regulations, Chairman Tom Wheeler issued a series of revisions to the proposal this week. The most interesting revision that Wheeler offers is an examination of whether or not net neutrality is the jurisdiction of the FCC at all. He invited public comments as to whether broadband Internet service could actually be a public utility, similar to gas, water, sewage treatment, and electricity. If broadband Internet is reclassified as a public utility, Internet service providers would be subject to stricter and more developed regulation, far beyond the scope of what the FCC can manage.

While a reclassification has not yet been made, the proposal does open the door to a discussion about the future of the Internet and what role it plays in our lives.

What’s the argument?

There are two fundamental schools of thought when it comes to regulation: those who believe broadband should become a public utility, and those who believe broadband providers should be regulated via antitrust and consumer-protection laws. Neither approach is without flaws, but it is really too late to say which is the better approach: Broadband is arguably already a public utility, even if it may not be considered as such by the law.

More from The Wire: Deep Sea Robot Explodes, Making James Cameron Sad

Why should it be a public utility?

On the side of the “public utility” argument are those who believe that broadband influences life and industry as we know it to such a degree that it needs to be regulated carefully and strictly by a government entity. They believe this is the most direct way to ensure net neutrality, as under the supervision of the FCC, paid prioritization cannot be properly regulated.

But aren’t all public utilities really monopolies?

The greatest issue with deeming broadband Internet a public utility is the inherent monopolization in this space; both natural monopoly and regulated private monopoly. While some may distinguish between the two, they are truly the same in many ways — and there lies the problem of deeming Internet a public utility.

As Forbes’ Tim Worstall artfully describes: “In the U.S. a utility is usually made up of two things, power generation and power distribution. It is true that, to a very large extent…power distribution is a natural monopoly.” A natural monopoly can be created when one service is far above and beyond the others in efficiency and size, or far more reasonable in cost. However, regulated private monopolies become natural monopolies because of the power distribution channels. There is not enough to be gained, both monetarily and in the sense of power, to have two competing distribution channels. In the end, the companies congeal, forming monopolies.

So is broadband already a monopoly?

These distribution channels are already limited in the broadband space. There are only a handful of key players nationwide: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and a few other regional companies. Broadband providers have found a way around the monopolization issue, by dividing the country up into regions and cities that one company controls, rather than trying to compete for the nation as a whole. In most areas, when it comes to providers, you really have one choice. Sometimes a second may be available, but it is vastly less popular than the first. Others are free to enter the market, but rarely do. This way, the company can argue they are not a monopoly because they have “competition,” but only one continues to dominate the marketplace. Standard Oil did something similar.

“Competition” also has not evolved for about fifteen years. As Tim Wu, Columbia Law School professor, notes, “For 15 years, consumers have been waiting for serious competition to arrive, yet there is now less competition than ever. It’s time to face facts: Broadband is a utility and ought to be treated as such by the Federal Communications Commission.”

More from The Wire: The U.N. Is Discussing Killer Robots Today

What’s more, during those past fifteen years, the existing companies have had the opportunity to build relationships which mutually benefit one another. These major providers already dominate the space and mostly work together to secure that; seeing one another as members in a flexible monopoly rather than as competitors. Susan Crawford, a tech policy expert and professor at Cardozo Law School, made this point by noting that Verizon sells Comcast’s cable service and Comcast sells Verizon’s wireless service. “Fierce competitors don’t offer to sell each other’s products.” In this sense, broadband has become a natural monopoly over time.

There is also the case of pricing. The cost of broadband to providers is about $5 per month. It is sold, on average, for $50 a month. Inflated pricing is one of the most common features of a monopoly, both natural and privately regulated.

So if broadband is monopoly, why isn’t it a public utility?

Wu, who coined the term “net neutrality,” makes the simpler argument that broadband is a public utility simply because it is already used as such: “It is hard to live or do business without the Internet, and the degree to which we take it for granted suggests broadband is an essential part of the U.S. infrastructure.” If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it’s a public utility.

Ultimately, the key point in determining if broadband is an existing public utility is the providers’ use of their power. As Wu points out, “Broadband operators today own the effective bridges to the American home, and they have shown an inclination to use that power.” Broadband providers have already bullied, so to speak, Netflix into paying a premium to ensure high quality streaming.

But it’s not legally recognized as a public utility, yet

The formal reclassification has not occurred, and perhaps broadband will never be legally recognized as a public utility. Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, a tech policy think tank, believes this official recognition should never occur as it would quash innovation. Broadband providers naturally agree with his take. They have opposed becoming a legally recognized public utility because they believe it will cause “innovation and investment to collapse.”

Szoka argues that public utility regulation, which as we said is very strict and highly enforced, operates under the assumption that “competition is impossible — and keeps it that way.” Utility regulation keeps legacy powers in place and prevents new challengers from arising.

More from The Wire: New Greenwald Book Claims the NSA Tampered with U.S.-Made Internet Routers

However, even without that regulation, competition in broadband has been relatively impossible to come by. A new company has not emerged on the market in years, and  consolidation, like the recent Comcast purchase of Time Warner, continues. Even FiOS, the main alternative to broadband cable, only has an 8 percent market share.

So what do we do now?

As it stands, broadband providers have been having their cake and eating it too: they receive the gains of a market monopoly; the ability to innovate that comes without strict regulations; and freedom to operate without heavy oversight. Considering how turbulent the debate over modest FCC proposals have been, and the lawsuits the providers would certainly wield over reclassification, it seems Wheeler’s encouragement of discourse around the public utility option is a strategic move rather than a call to action. Some believe Wheeler is wielding reclassification as the ultimate threat to broadband providers to behave and refrain from breaking the paid prioritization regulations he has set forth for the FCC to review.

Even if the FCC pushes for a reclassification of broadband as public utility, the providers have the right to a legal fight. While they battle in court (a fight that would take years to resolve) status quo will remain, allowing the sort-of monopoly to continue to exist and profit while the legality is debated. It would become one of the most important “what should we call me” battles in recent history, but in practice, that battle is already over.






Susan Foster

In May 2011 the World Health Organization’s cancer committee, IARC, voted to classify the RF – EMF Spectrum as a 2B or “possible human carcinogen.”  Worldwide attention was once again focused on the possible cancer causing effects of RF (microwave) radiation, yet in the three years since the 2B classification, two divergent paths have been taken with respect to the science focusing on cell phones and brain tumors.

On one hand, the Hardell Group from Sweden led by oncologist Dr. Lennart Hardell published five more studies in 2013 – for the first time looking at over 20 years of data. As a result of these findings Dr. Hardell has called for an urgent upgrading of the classification of RF – EMF from 2B to Group 1 – a known human carcinogen.  If IARC were to accept Dr. Hardell’s recommendation, RF – EMF  would then be placed in the same carcinogenic category as tobacco and asbestos.

On the other hand, there appears to be a back-room effort to ignore, denounce and bury Dr. Hardell’s newest science by two highly recognized groups, the World Health Organization and SCENIHR, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. 

Susan Foster, on behalf of the UK’s Radiation Research Trust, has discovered that one man appears to be responsible for the attempted suppression of what is arguably the best epidemiological research in the world on cell phone usage and its correlation to gliomas and acoustic neuromas. This science could threaten a multi-trillion dollar industry; thus the stakes could not be higher – for corporate profits, yet more importantly, for the health of people all over the world.

In her letter of May 8, 2014 to the European Commission’s John Ryan, Acting Director of the European Commission’s Health and Consumers division, Susan Foster accuses SCENIHR of scientific misconduct.  She further asks for a thorough review of the process whereby science was selected for SCENIHR’s Preliminary Report.  SCENIHR had been given the charge of reviewing the present RF – EMF safety limits affecting over 500,000,000 European citizens.

 “This is not ‘independence’ on SCENIHR’s part,” states Susan Foster. “This is scientific misconduct. SCENIHR is claiming to be something it is not, and hundreds of millions of lives are at stake as well as the ability to impact standards worldwide, albeit indirectly.”

Susan Foster joins Eileen O’Connor, Director of the UK’s Radiation Research Trust, Cindy Sage, co-author of The BioInitiative Reports, Swedish investigative journalist and Chairman of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation Mona Nilsson, as well as Blake Levitt and Henry Lai in demanding a new unbiased evaluation of health risks from RF – EMF by SCENIHR.

The EM Radiation Research Trust is an educational organisation funded by donations. An independent Charity Registered No. 1106304 © The EM Radiation Research Trust 2003-2004

Russians find electromagnetic radiation increasingly worrisome

Russians find electromagnetic radiation increasingly worrisome

Lyudmila Alexandrova

MOSCOW, March 11. /ITAR-TASS/. A resident of the Moscow Region, Nikolai Lesnikov, has won a lawsuit he had filed a while ago demanding the removal of the cell phone tower that
had been put up just 20 meters away from his home. Ever more Russians these days come to understand the risks the electromagnetic pollution of the environment is fraught with. However, no national program for studying and preventing this danger exists yet.

Lesnikov took the mobile phone operator MTS to court late last year. He argued that the company had abused his constitutional right to a favorable environment. In his complaint, he asked the court to oblige the defendants to remove the tower, located just 20 meters away from his country home. The MTS’s proxy in court insisted that the radiation from all base stations fitted in with the established rules and the level of radiation was lower than that from a microwave, a neon light or from radio and television transmitters.

The court’s verdict was in the plaintiff’s favor. The MTS is obliged to dismantle the tower within four months following the moment the decision takes effect. The federal service for supervision in the sphere of communications and information technologies (Roskomnadzor) said the other day it had exposed over 1,500 cases in which cell phone operators had violated the requirements for the parameters of radio-electronic devices. The inspection was launched in view of the quick growth in the number of radio-electronic equipment across the nation accompanying the boom in new communication and broadcasting technologies.

Read full article at:

Novia Scotia Resident Sues Telecom Giant Over Cell Tower Radiation Exposures

Novia Scotia Resident Sues Telecom Giant Over Cell Tower Radiation Exposures

I received this email through on my feed about Edna Pettipas today.  Her’s is such a worthy cause I felt compelled to act. I encourage you to support her in any way you can. Please share this message widely:

“Edna Pettipas, of Afton, Nova Scotia, is suing telecom giant Bell Aliant for loss and harm suffered due to radiation from a cell phone tower situated near to her house.

cell tower radiation caseA Nova Scotia court has set trial dates for April 2015. While so very many people have suffered similarly, the details of her particular case make it the best opportunity thus far in Canada to get on the legal record that the current regime governing public exposures to this radiation is not protective. Already one favourable judgement has been obtained, despite the delaying tactics of Bell Aliant, paving the way for this trial. (See here.)


Edna Pettipas cell tower caseHer success could have important favourable repercussions in the public interest. It is an opportunity that should be grasped. The other side with their incomparable financial resources is likely to bring witnesses, from medical and physics perspectives, who will try to negate that harm and loss could befall Edna due to cell tower radiation. To meet this
challenge, more witnesses are needed for Edna’s side, in the public interest.

Edna’s lawyer has shown bravery in taking the case on contingency, i.e. he does not get paid unless he wins. That means, however, that fundraising is necessary to enable bringing international experts to testify at the trial. These witnesses’ names need to be submitted to the court in a few months time, well in advance of the trial. So there is pressure to meet a deadline.

This is an appeal for donations to enable such witnesses to attend. All donations will be used strictly towards bringing witnesses for Edna’s case. Please donate now directly to Edna’s legal fund via or this link

Several thousands of dollars are needed. Please donate generously in support of the Pettipas family court case, which might greatly serve the general cause of public and environmental protection from this pervasive and endangering pollution, “electro-smog”.”

You can also send a cheque or money order via post to: Edna & Marshall Pettipas, 484 Old Antigonish Road, Antigonish, Nova Scotia  B0H 1A0. Or make a donation via e-transfer, my email address is:

  • Paul Vonharnish said,

    Lloyd: Thanks for posting this. I’ll be sending this link to several EM organizations who are also pursuing the EM issue through legal channels. The companies building out these EM emitting infrastructures are guilty of mass genocide. The financers and corporate staff need to be brought to court and imprisoned for attempted manslaughter. All those who purchase EM emitting devices like cell phones or smart devices, are by definition, aiding abetting these criminal factions in our societies.
    It is time to take the gloves off and call a spade a spade. If you own a cell phone, you are a criminal.

  • Matslinger said,

    I’m extremely disappointed that my attempts to enlighten
    people to the constant dangers of “ULF” cell tower transmissions,have been thrown out with the “tinfoil hat trash” By Lloyd.

    Simple math proves that much much more than microwave transmissions are going on here.
    Has anyone actually looked at the size of the transformers driving these towers? 200 to 300 KW is not
    uncommon…so do then math: If a cell tower is conducting 10,000 calls at once, and a cell phone functions with 1/2 watt, and the tower transmits at twice that (1 watt)
    where did the rest of the power go? If you ever looked
    at the power needed to run a sub woofer, you know that
    ULF or VLF suck up power like sponge.
    I don’t visit this site often, because of’s partial lack
    of scientific oversight.

    HAARP is what I’m talking about!

    Absolutely amazing how many sheeple remain 100% ignorant about this ! even Snowden revealed it!

    Nikola Tesla :”EM can be used to heal or to Kill”
    Our government is using EM to control.

    I expect a reply from Lloyd on this one !

    there is rock solid proof of what I say.

    None are more ignorant than those who refuse to believe
    what they don’t understand”.

– See more at: