Utility emailed woman about problems one day before fire

PULGA, Calif. (AP) — A day before a deadly blaze destroyed a California town, the giant utility Pacific Gas & Electric Co. got in touch with Betsy Ann Cowley, saying they needed access to her property because their power lines were causing sparks.

The cause of the fire that killed at least 42 people is still under investigation. What is known is that it started Thursday near Cowley’s property in the tiny town of Pulga, incinerated the neighboring town of Paradise and killed dozens of people.

On Monday, fire investigators declared the area surrounding power lines on Cowley’s property, in an oak-filled canyon, a crime scene. Security guards would not let PG&E inspectors pass.

Cowley said she was on vacation last Wednesday when she got a surprise email from PG&E. Details of that exchange, described to The Associated Press, combined with the utility’s track record in California wildfire history has again brought the company under scrutiny.

The email said that crews needed to come to her property to work on the high-power lines, Cowley said. PG&E told her “they were having problems with sparks,” she said. They visited her property but she said she wasn’t there Wednesday and was not aware of their findings.

Cowley was back at the property Monday and expressed gratitude at finding most of the 65 structures on it still standing, just a few hundred feet from the crime scene where investigators worked to determine what had happened to spark the massive fire.

The former landscaper bought Pulga, an abandoned and decrepit historic gold prospecting town, in 2015 and embarked on a project that transformed it into a picturesque private destination. She cleared overgrown brush, patched up buildings and added new ones. With Bay Area artists and architects, she recreated a town, complete with a stage and school house. And then, a year ago, she opened for business, renting out Pulga for corporate retreats.

As she reached the site of her own home, she raised her hand to her cheek.

“It’s gone,” she said. ‘That’s where all my stuff was, but it’s not there anymore.”

She paused and picked up a mug that somehow had survived the inferno. “It’s OK,” Cowley told herself quietly. “It’s OK.”

PG&E declined to discuss the email it sent Cowley with AP, saying it has provided an “initial electric incident report” with state regulators and will fully cooperate with any investigations.

Publicly, PG&E has said it experienced a problem on an electrical transmission line near the site of the massive fire, minutes before the blaze broke out.

In its Friday filing to the state Public Utilities Commission, it said it had detected an outage on an electrical transmission line near the site of the blaze. It said a subsequent aerial inspection detected damage to a transmission tower on the line.

The area where CalFire says the blaze started, and where PG&E says sparks were detected on Cowley’s property is roughly the same, according to an AP reporter at the site.

The utility, which has been criticized and sued in a number of other large and deadly fires across California, had announced before the blaze started that it might shut down power in nine counties, including Butte County where Pulga and Paradise are, because of extreme fire danger. But it never did.

Later Thursday, PG&E said it had decided against a power cut because weather conditions did not warrant one.

State Sen. Jerry Hill, a Redwood City Democrat and longtime critic of the utility, called the report of troubles on PG&E’s lines in the area extremely worrisome.

“If PG&E is found responsible for burning down the state again, at some point we have to say enough is enough and we have to ask should this company be allowed to do business in California?” Hill said. “These fires take a spark, and at least in the last few years fires have been caused by negligent behavior by PG&E. We need to see how we can hold them responsible, or look at alternative way of doing business.”

California utility regulators are working with CalFire staff on their own, separate investigation into whether PG&E complied with state rules and regulations in areas that were torched in the fire.

The California Public Utilities Commission will be evaluating PG&E’s maintenance of their facilities, vegetation management and emergency preparedness and response, said commission spokeswoman Terrie Prosper.

This is not the first time PG&E’s management practices have come under question in the drought-stricken state.

In 2014, regulators ordered the state’s investor-owned utilities to set priorities for inspecting and removing dead and sick trees near their power lines, warning that “climate change has facilitated and exacerbated numerous wildfires” that have damaged and threatened their facilities.

But after a wildfire killed two people, destroyed 475 homes and scorched 70,000 acres in the Sierra Nevada foothills the following year, homeowners and their attorneys questioned whether PG&E had done enough to clear dry trees flanking its power lines. In 2016, Cal Fire ultimately found PG&E was responsible for that fire, after tree maintenance by PG&E and its contractors led to a tree falling on a power line.

Investigators have determined that PG&E equipment started several of the 2017 wildfires in Northern California wine country that killed 44 people. The company says it expects to pay more than $2.5 billion.


Burke reported from San Francisco. Associated Press writer Jocelyn Gecker also contributed from San Francisco.



7 Things Every Health Practitioner Needs to Know About EMFs

7 Things Every Health Practitioner Needs to Know About EMFs

Author Nick Pineault is the creator of Electrosmog Rx, a research-based, 100% independent 5-week online course to help health practitioners and enthusiasts identify EMF sensitivity, provide solutions to reduce exposure, and add a strong base of EMF knowledge as an essential toolkit in healing recommendations, programs or protocols. More info here.

Despite the increasing reports of people who report feeling symptoms of “electro-sensitivity” from cell phones, wifi routers, Bluetooth devices and other sources of microwave radiation, mainstream medicine continues to bury its head in the sand and ignore the issue.

On the other hand, most of the top functional medicine practitioners in the world — include Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, Dr. Zach Bush, Dr. Dan Pompa, Dr. Ben Lynch and Dr. Tom O’Bryan each claim that “EMF removal is essential for proper healing”.

Who’s right?

Fact #1: Our EMF Safety Standards Are Based On Heating Effects, NOT Biological Effects

The 1996 EMF safety standards that are supposed to protect each and every of your patients/clients are based on the false premise that the only way that EMFs can hurt our biology is by causing overheating.

This myth is completely unscientific, considering the fact that publicly-available research published by the NASA in 1970,[1] the US Naval Medical Research Institute (NMRI) in 1971,[2] the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in 1976[3] and countless others show that EMFs can and do cause damage through non-thermalmechanisms.

In other words, our current safety standards are based on a false premise, and therefore do not protect anyone against the harm caused by microwave radiation.

Fact #2: Your Patients Are Exposed to EMF Levels 1,000000000000000000 (Quintillion) Times Higher Than In the 1920s

This graphic originally created by EMF engineer and activist Alasdair Philips from the advocacy group Powerwatch UK shows how much our “Electrosmog” exposure has increased in a few decades, and especially in the last 2 decades.[4]

EMF wireless graph daily exposure

The amount of new cell phone towers and wifi hotspots that have been installed just in the last 15 years is also nothing short of staggering.

Cell towers increase (EMF / wireless)

These new sources of microwave radiation are filling our planet with more and more electro-pollution, again, based on the false premise that they are completely safe.

Fact #3: A Few Days Ago, The NTP Study Has Shown That EMFs Are A Class 1 “Definite” Carcinogen — Next To Tobacco & Asbestos

Just a few days ago, the $25 US NTP study has published their conclusions after running one of the most important and costly studies around cell phones and cancer ever conceived.

Their initial goal: proving without the shadow of a doubt that cell phones are safe.

What they found: the opposite; rats and mice exposed to cellphone radiation have shown “Clear Evidence” of an increase in multiple tumor types.[5]

Ron Melnick, former staff scientist at the NTP who’s now retired, explained that:

“The NTP has now shown what no one believed was possible before the project started. The assumption has always been that RF radiation could not cause cancer. Now we know that was wrong.

If the NTP study was to be considered as part of a future re-classification of EMFs by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), EMFs would likely become a Class 1 “Definite” carcinogen next to tobacco and asbestos. It might take years before this decision is taken though, considering the huge industry pressure and controversy around the topic.

Fact #4: Your Patients Are Being Exposed to EMF Levels Worse Than Rats in the NTP Study

A lot of critics of the NTP claim that the radiation levels rats were exposed with (1.5, 3 and 6 W/kg) are way higher than what most cell phone users are being exposed to — and try to discredit the studies’ findings for this very reason.

Technically speaking, they are right. In the US, cell phones cannot be legally sold unless they have an “SAR” (specific absorption rate) of 1.6 W/kg or less.

The problem? This SAR is measured at a distance of 5 to 15 millimeters from the dummy head used in test facilities.

The bigger problem? When tested ON the body (no separation), French advocacy group Alert Phonegate[6]revealed that 90% of all cell phones miserably fail the safety testing, and that certain phones go over 20 W/kg, which is over 9 times the FCC safety limits.[7]

SAR phonegate: cell phone EMF radiation

Fact #5: 35% of Your Patients Suffer From EMF-Related Symptoms, But All Are Affected

According to the most conservative estimates of independent EMF researchers, at least 35% of the population suffers from “mild to moderate” symptoms of electro sensitivity, including fatigue, sleep disturbance, headaches, difficulty concentrating, depression, memory loss, hearing disruptions, skin problems and cardiovascular issues.[8]

This corroborates the clinical observations of the top functional medicine practitioners like Dr. Dan Pompa, who recently shared with me that “50% of all his clients are very sensitive to EMFs”.[9]

It’s important that on a cellular, all of us are affected by EMFs — even if we might not feel any symptoms from this exposure.

The work of Dr. Martin Pall[10] from the Washington State University has shown that EMFs trigger calcium release inside the cells, leading to a slew of downstream biological effects including opening of the blood-brain barrier, oxidative stress, single and double DNA strand breaks, and many more.

Fact #6: EMF Science is Polluted By A Strong Industry Bias

Pretty unsurprisingly, the trillions-of-dollars-strong Telecom industry is using the exact same playbook that has been used in the past by Big Tobacco — polluting the current available science with “no effect” studies in order to manufacture doubt.

In a 2007 review, researchers revealed that studies funded by the Telecoms might be up to 10 times more likely to find no biological effect, which represents a bias 2.5 times worse than Big Pharma…[11]

The industry seems to be unable to control the endless flow of studies which have come out in the last 2 decades alone though — and which do show biological effects.

The nonprofit group “Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association” (ORSAA) looked at 2399 peer-reviewed papers published since the year 2000. Of those, 61% of those showed biological effects, while 26% did not.[12]

ORSAA has also confirmed that study databases on radiofrequency EMFs “are seeded with industry sponsored ‘no effect’ studies raising the question of reliability and trustworthiness of a large section of papers.”

Fact #7: Things Are Going To Get Worse [Before They Get Better], And You Need To Learn More About EMFs Now, Not Later.

The advent of the 5G networks will demand the installation of millions of additional “small cell” antennas in the US alone — installed every 3 to 12 home is residential areas, and on every traffic light pole in downtown areas.

This technology is being rolled out, once again, based on the false premise that non-heating biological effects do not exist, a myth that has been dispelled for more than half a century, if not more.

As a practitioner it has become critical for you to learn how to add EMFs to your practice, which includes:

  • Add EMFs to your patient intakes
  • Identify the worst sources of EMF exposure
  • Assess EMF sensitivity and identify suspected EMF-related symptoms
  • Understand the strong synergies between EMFs and heavy metals, mold, chemicals and infections such as Lyme
  • Reduce or remove sources of EMFs, consider referring the patient to a Building Biologist or Geovital consultant for an EMF home survey
  • Support patient’s recovery with the right “EMF-buffering” supplements, foods and lifestyle interventions

Investigative Health Journalist and GreenMedInfo collaborator Nick Pineault has teamed up with some of the best minds in healing including Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, building biologists, independent scientists and many other collaborators to create “Electrosmog Rx”, the world’s 1st EMF course for health practitioners.

It is heavily discounted until November 14th at the following link: http://electrosmogrx.com/tbyp

Electrosmog Rx EMF course - Nick Pineault (cell phones, wireless)


[1] https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/influence_of_microwave_radiation_on_the_organism_of_man_and_animals.pdf

[2] https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/__naval_research_1971_on_rf.pdf

[3] https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/__us_dia_1976_biological_effects_of_electromagnetic_radiation.pdf

[8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24192494

[9] Personal communication, November 4th 2018.

[10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/

[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/

[12] https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/bio-effect_findings_full_version.pdf