British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal Case #9854: Citizens for

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal Case #9854: Citizens for Safe Technology Society obo Una St. Clair and Others vs. B.C. Hydro Bad Science Watch Intervenor Application, Response and Decision January, 25, 2014 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 BadScienceWatch
Bad Science Watch is an independent Canadian consumer protection organization dedicated to promoting good science in public policy. The following was prepared by volunteers and represents what we believe to be an honest, fair, and science‐based evaluation. We are an independent body that is funded by private donations and we do not represent any corporate interests. We can be contacted as follows: Bad Science Watch 180 Danforth Ave. P.O. Box 35024 Toronto, ON, M4K 3P5 www.badsciencewatch.ca [email protected] 888.742.3299 voice 888.813.3569 fax Page 2 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Preamble
The following represents the collection of documents concerning the application by Bad Science Watch to intervene in British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) case no. 9854 Citizens for Safe Technology Society obo Una St. Clair and others vs. B.C. Hydro. The class represented by Una St. Clair was alleging that Smart Meter technology that relies on cellular technology has harmful effects on people who claim to suffer from “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” (EHS). We have disputed the existence of this fact in the past (see our report on IEI‐EMF, from January 27 2013), and we applied to have Dr. Rob Tarzwell to represent the scientific consensus on this issue to the BCHRT. We wish to be very clear on the following point: there may be other political, economic, ideological, or technical issues why Smart Meters may or may not be adopted by B.C. Hydro and we do not have any official position on these issues. However, we want to make sure that when the public, business, and the government are making decisions about what technology or positions to adopt, they are using the best evidence possible. We feel the specious arguments surrounding EHS do not belong in this debate as they do not currently reflect the consensus of science on this issue. Even more, the arguments represent a significant harm to the public by misleading those people suffering from these debilitating symptoms from finding real relief from their condition. What follow are our application to the tribunal, the opposition response from the Citizens for Safe Technology, our response to their opposition, and the final decision of the tribunal. We offer these documents out of a commitment to openness and transparency in our dealings. Page 3 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 BadScienceWatchIntervenorApplication
Page 4 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 5 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 6 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 ResponsefromCitizensforSafeTechnology
Page 7 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 8 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 9 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 10 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 11 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 12 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 ResponsetoCFSTbyBadScienceWatch
Page 13 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 14 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 15 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 16 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 17 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 TheFinalDecisionfromBCHRTonIntervenorStatus
Page 18 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 19 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 20 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 21 of 22 Project Communication BCHRT Intervenor Application 2014 Page 22 of 22