Lloyd’s of London excludes coverage for RF/EMR claims…..another RED FLAG, FOLKS!

Lloyd’s of London excludes coverage for RF/EMR claims

Letter to Government from Sharon Noble – Director of Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in BC (includes A&E Policy Document)

Premier Clark, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Reimer,

RE: Lloyd’s of London excludes coverage for claims caused by exposure to non-ionizing radiation.

“Based on inaccurate information provided by ITRON, Health Canada and Dr. Perry Kendall, you have been telling people that there is no health risk due to prolonged exposure to radiation from smart meters on homes and wifi in school — this despite your having received 100s of studies by independent researchers and many letters from scientists and doctors to the contrary.

“I am now forwarding information that should concern you even if the potential health problems these devices cause British Columbians doesn’t. Even though I know that the province and BC Hydro self insure their insurance coverage, I suspect you have a stop loss agreement with protection for catastrophic claims. If this stop loss agreement doesn’t already contain this waiver, soon it no doubt will exclude any claims associated with exposure to radiation from wireless devices such as cell phones, smart meters or wifi. Premier Clark, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Reimer,

“Lloyd’s of London is one of the largest insurers in the world and often leads the way in protection, taking on risks that no one else will. Attached is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s:

“‘The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”

“This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada.

“Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors’ insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors’ insurance applies when people are performing their duties “in good faith”. It is hard to argue they are acting “in good faith” after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer.

“Consider yourself notified once again that you could be held legally responsible for the decisions you have made.”

Yours truly,
Sharon Noble
Victoria, BC.

See page seven (7) #32 below for exclusion statement re electromagnetic fields:

To download exclusion statement go to:  http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168

CANADA-Parliamentary Report – Safer technology for Private Member’s Bill

Parliamentary Report – Safer technology for Private Member’s Bill

Garry Breitkreuz / Yorkton News Review
March 19, 2015 01:36 PM 

Many studies have concluded that our wireless devices are making us sick, causing cancer and genetic damage, infertility, biochemical changes, brain damage, and much more.

That’s why my colleague, Conservative MP Terence Young, recently introduced Private Member’s Bill C-648, An Act Respecting the Prevention of Potential Health Risks from Radiofrequency Elec­tro­­magnetic Radiation (Warning Labels for Radio Apparatus Act). The Bill was seconded by NDP Health Critic, Libby Davies.

The effects of electromagnetic radiation, EMR, emitted by cellphones, baby monitors, routers and smart meters and other devices, has long been vigorously debated. But if you check the manual for your cell phone – or baby monitor, or any other radiation-emitting wireless device, you’ll find a paragraph, generally in very tiny print, that reads like this:

“For body-worn operation, this phone has been tested and meets FCC RF exposure guidelines when the handset is positioned a minimum of 15mm away from the body without any metal parts in the vicinity of the phone or when used with the original body-worn accessory intended for this phone. Use of other accessories may not ensure compliance with FCC RF guidelines.”

Mr. Young, along with a growing number of Parliamentarians from all parties and many other knowledgeable and concerned citizens feel that the small print isn’t good enough. Bill C-648 calls for a clear and obvious label somewhere on the device itself or its packaging.

Over 140 studies show harmful effects of radiation at even low levels of exposure. Mr. Young wants to protect consumers by letting them know that the closer we are to a wireless device, the more we place our health at risk. (This is Mr. Young’s second consumer protection bill – his earlier bill, which became legislation only last year, required clearer warnings on pharmaceutical products.)

If Bill C-648 passes, it could mean that all wireless devices sold in Canada would be required to carry warning labels. Failure to include the labels or selling a device without a label could mean fines of up to a hundred thousand dollars per day.

Frank Clegg, former president of Microsoft Canada), now head of Canadians For Safe Technology (C4ST), based in Oakville, ON, has long sounded warning signals about the health effects of wireless devices. He supports Young’s initiative.

C4ST has published 8 safety tips for wireless usage.

1. Keep cell phones away from your head (use the speaker or non-Bluetooth earbuds) and out of your pocket and/or bra.

2. Don’t sleep with an active device near you.

3. Keep cell phones and tablets away from small children.

4. Don’t put a wireless baby monitor by a child’s bed – use a wired one instead.

5. Remove the WiFi in your home. Put the router on a timer to turn off at night. Remove from high-use and sleeping areas.

6. Pregnant women should keep wireless devices away from their abdomen.

7. If possible keep your analog meter or opt out of any smart meter.

8. Remove cordless phones from your home.

Go to http://www.terenceyoung.com or http://www.C4ST.org/PMB  for more information.

– See more at: http://www.yorktonnews.com/opinion/columnists/parliamentary-report-safer-technology-for-private-member-s-bill-1.1798458#sthash.CUeTrPZF.dpuf

The Electromagnetic Assault on Our Brains and Bodies

The Electromagnetic Assault on Our Brains and Bodies

11_12_Electromagnet_PainBy James Spounias —

Just how bad is electromagnetic pollution to our health and well-being? Don’t ask authorities who have their heads in the sand or corporate interests who are aligned with the military-industrial complex.

The establishment, with few exceptions, dismisses concerns about electromagnetic pollution as paranoia from conspiracy believers. The derisive charge of “tin foil hatted” stems from those who made aluminum foil hats to shield their brains from direct electromagnetic assault. But are those people crazy? Informed Americans know where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

As far back as 1972, information appeared in the mainstream press about how the U.S. Navy was testing microwaves on sailors: “Medical reports link rays to cataracts, damage to male reproductive organs, cardiovascular changes and even psychological problems. Except for cataracts, however, the health damage is uncertain and unexplored. The Navy’s research project, using human guinea pigs, is intended to find out how dangerous microwaves really are.”

The column noted that the Soviet Union “set a limit 1,000 times smaller than the 10 milliwatts per square centimeter permitted by our own Defense Department,” hinting to even the most skeptical reader that microwave radiation posed a serious threat to health. Ironically, our government, unlike our then sworn enemy, the “evil” Soviet Union, cared little about the health of sailors and eventually the rest of us.

In 1972, microwave ovens were relatively new to the American market. A large and clunky model first appeared in 1967. There were no cellular towers, telephones and no “smart meters,” let alone the widespread use of military radar.

Fast forward to 1996, where President Bill Clinton signed the most significant overhaul of telecommunications legislation in 60 years, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for mergers of previously segregated industries via “cross-ownership.” Then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Ron Brown, the secretary of Commerce, helped ensure passage of this legislation. Consumer safety crusader Ralph Nader noted it was “one of the single biggest giveaways in U.S. corporate welfare history.”

One lesser known aspect of the legislation virtually strips local communities of the ability to limit the construction of cell phone towers, even if they pose threats to health and the environment. Local control was debated in Congress where then-Republican House member Porter Goss argued that nothing in the act should “preempt the ability of local officials to determine the placement and construction of . . . new [cellular phone] towers. Land use has always been, and . . . should continue to be, in the domain of the authorities in the areas directly affected.”Unfortunately, Goss’s argument didn’t win out. Instead, authority rested with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and challenges on the basis of danger to health in state courts were handed off to the FCC under the doctrine of federal preemption. The 1996 act put the sole question of environmental safety in the hands of the FCC, giving them the exclusive jurisdiction to set “safe” limits. The few successful legal challenges to cell phone tower construction were and are based upon devaluation of property arguments, rather than health risks.

What about the health risks? In 1995, Dr. Henry Lai and Dr. Narendra Singh at the University of Washington (UW) in Seattle demonstrated in animal studies that cell phone radiation causes DNA damage. The attack on Lai and Singh was fast. Motorola planned to “war-game” the research, according to an internal memo leaked to Microwave News.

With millions of consumers having Motorola’s cell phones buzzing their brains, how kind of this giant to thwart research that may show a negative causal connection between cell phone radiation and health. Motorola knew how to play the game—manipulate research to muddy the waters.

Seattle Magazine reported “After initially accepting industry funding for continued research from the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program (created to manage $25 million in research funds), Lai and Singh wrote an open letter to Microwave News questioning restrictions placed on their research by the funders. After that, the head of WTR sent a memo asking then-UW president Richard McCormick to fire Lai and Singh. McCormick refused, but the dustup sent a clear message to Lai and his colleagues.”

“This shocked me,” Lai said. “The letter trying to discredit me, the ‘war games’ memo. As a scientist doing research, I was not expecting to be involved in a political situation. It opened my eyes on how games are played in the world of business.”

Electromagnetic pollution—radiation from non-ionizing gamma rays—has the same effect as nuclear ionizing radiation, albeit in a slow-burn fashion. Leading German radiation expert Dr. Heyo Eckel, an official of the German Medical Association, stated: “The injuries that result from radioactive radiation are identical with the effects of electromagnetic radiation. The damages are so similar that they are hard to differentiate.”


CANADA-SALMON ARM OBSERVER: Two meters, big hassle

Two meters, big hassle

Geoffrey Wellspring-Wood is questioning BC Hydro’s policy on legacy fees for analog meters. - Photo contributed

Geoffrey Wellspring-Wood is questioning BC Hydro’s policy on legacy fees for analog meters.

— image credit: Photo contributed

Barbara and Geoffrey Wellspring-Wood have discovered it’s getting too expensive to do what they believe is necessary to protect their health.

A retired couple who rent a rural acreage in Tappen, the Wellspring-Woods refused one of BC Hydro’s smart meters. For that decision, they have been paying the monthly $32.40 Legacy Meter charge since Dec. 2, 2013 – a fee they have accepted.

“We really don’t feel comfortable with wireless technology. We don’t have cell phones and anything wireless in our homes and we didn’t want to plug in a so-called ‘smart meter’  into our house,” says Geoffrey.

Then, on Oct. 24, 2014, they received a retroactive $369.47 bill for a second meter on the property.

Geoffrey put the second meter on the barn about 10 years ago, where they keep goats and chickens to reduce their expenses. A glitch in BC Hydro’s accounting system apparently failed to notice the second meter so the couple wasn’t aware they were going to be charged a double legacy fee.

While the Wellspring-Woods are fine paying for the electricity the meter uses, they are not pleased about having to pay a legacy fee for a second meter when they are one residential customer.

“I personally think that is a bit much, it’s a bit unfair…,” states Geoffrey. “I’m a customer in the singular and we happen to have two meters, that’s all. I accept I have to pay for a legacy meter on the house. Just the way it is, it’s a very high payment.”

He said half of the retroactive legacy fee was deleted after they approached their MLA and also because BC Hydro can’t retroactively bill beyond six months.

Geoffrey points out that each billing period of two months is now costing the senior citizens $129.60 plus GST, just in Legacy fees – an onerous amount for them.

BC Hydro, however, maintains the two fees are fair.

An email response to the Observer from the Crown corporation states:

“The fees to retain a non-standard meter (i.e. old meter) cover more than just reading the meter. They also help recover the additional costs of maintaining resources, equipment and systems that are needed to serve these customers with non-communicating meters.

“The fees are fair and ensure that the 99 per cent of customers who have accepted a smart meter aren’t subsidizing those costs. The fees were approved by the BC Utilities Commission in April 2014 and are now part of the bill for customers who chose to have non-standard meters.

“In regards to Mr. Wellspring’s situation, the customer asked to change his second account (the barn) from commercial to residential in September 2013. At that time, the customer should have received a Meter Choices enrolment form but regrettably one was never sent and the fee to keep this old meter came into effect Dec. 2, 2013…

“We feel this is a fair resolution for the customer and all BC Hydro ratepayers. Again, there is a cost to BC Hydro to have some customers not have a smart meter and recovering these fees ensures the vast majority of customers don’t pay for those costs.”

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story’s topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.