Skip to content

Letters to the Editor: July 24, 2013

Inadequate Inadequate sums up the proposal to increase coal handling on Texada Island by 20-fold [Coal-handling plans inadequate,” July 17]. Inadequate notification to affected people—it’s only due to the Peak that I became aware of this plan.

Inadequate

Inadequate sums up the proposal to increase coal handling on Texada Island by 20-fold [Coal-handling plans inadequate,” July 17]. Inadequate notification to affected people—it’s only due to the Peak that I became aware of this plan.

Inadequate time for public input on a large scale project that could affect our health and environment. Inadequate measures to control runoff—the plan is only “designed to contain runoff generated by the one in five years, 24-hour rainfall event.” Is it okay for coal runoff to enter the sea during larger storms? Inadequate dust control plans, despite this being a huge issue at other coal terminals.

The provincial government has a duty to ensure sufficient notification and time for public review, and to properly assess risks to the health of our communities and environment. It’s up to the people to remind them of their duty.

Andrew Fall

Lasqueti Island


Wanted: stupid safe meters

If the proposed change to policy comes to pass, will we actually be able to keep (or have returned) the safe, mechanical, analog meters, or will analog-lovers be forced to accept a smart meter (SM) with its transmitter deactivated [“Homeowners continue to struggle against meter,” July 17]? If the latter, how will we know that the transmitters won’t be reactivated at a later date by new legislation, or a BC Hydro decision? If the latter, is the decision for a new meter, versus a perfectly functional analog meter, only to enhance corporate profits of SM manufacturers, installers and BC Hydro?

While BC Hydro and SM manufacturers claim that SM radiation is below national limits of Canadian Safety Code 6, many scientists and public health doctors believe that this standard is irrelevant and obsolete (see http://electromagnetichealth.org/quotes-from-experts/ ). Dr. David Carpenter explains: “The fields associated with electricity are commonly called ‘extremely low frequency’ fields (ELF), while those used in communication and microwave ovens are called ‘radio frequency’ (RF) fields. Studies of people have shown that both ELF and RF exposures result in an increased risk of cancer and that this occurs at intensities that are too low to cause tissue heating. Unfortunately, all of our exposure standards are based on the false assumption that there are no hazardous effects at intensities that do not cause tissue heating. Based on the existing science, many public health experts believe it is possible we will face an epidemic of cancers in the future resulting from uncontrolled use of cell phones and increased population exposure to WiFi and other wireless devices.”

One hundred and sixty scientific studies were hand-delivered to Dr. Perry Kendall, provincial health officer, describing biological damage caused by EMF radiation at levels below the national standard.

Lastly, phone or mail contacts from BC Hydro and Corix “to answer questions” were not as benign as they portray. Ask anyone who experienced them.

Let’s make changes in this law that actually protect the health of humans and the environment, as well as the security of the electrical grid. The analog meters worked just fine, and safely. Bring them back to solve all of the many problems associated with the so-called “smart” grid.

Wendy Pelton

Maywood Road


Rethink coal idea

This plan should be reviewed by Powell River Regional District [“Coal-handling plans inadequate,” July 17]. This is a major expansion in the processing and handling of dangerous coal and it comes all the way from Wyoming, in the United States.

In one way or another it will effect all of us. The air we breathe, water we drink, the marine environment we boat, swim, eat, fish and dive in.

After reading Lafarge’s Texada Quarrying Ltd. application, these guys, Donald Gordon and Kevin Washbrook, are right. It fails to protect human health. Once again, we need the jobs, but at what cost?

This is a “right”-to-know issue. For anyone wishing to read about the dangers of coal dust, just Google “dangers of coal dust.”

Until a full review and community meeting explaining all of the impacts is held, this application should not be approved.

James Mack

Texada Island