The Scream

NUCLEAR FAILURE WITHIN BORDERS
Darlington NOT compliant with Building Code Rule 4.1.3.6. Vibration

‘…The Darlington Power Plant and others are not designed to accommodate highly penetrating Radio Frequency (RF) Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) that will electromagnetically induce the building. It will cause high speed vibrations billions of times per measurable second 86,400 times per day and the peer reviewed science is called electricity….’
~ Professor Curtis Bennett
Re: My submission - Public Hearing Ref. 2015-H-04.

by Adjunct Professor Curtis Bennett

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:46 am Pacific Time

http://www.thermoguy.com/
Re: My submission - Public Hearing Ref. 2015-H-04.

Response to:
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission On Granting Ontario Power Generation
13 Year License For Darlington Nuclear Power Plant

Re: My submission – Public Hearing Ref. 2015-H-04.
From: Curtis Bennett
Date: Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:46 AM Pacific Time
Re: My submission - Public Hearing Ref. 2015-H-04.
"Interventions / Interventions (CNSC/CCSN)"


Louise Levert,

The commission's response to my submission is reckless, negligent and undermines their mandate on safety. The commission's response is an administrative response dismissive of applicable codes and standards. 

Your response says there is an "absence of specific argumentation"? 
Building Code Rule 4.1.3.6.(Vibration) is very specific to every building in the country. Compliance with building code is a requirement with new and existing buildings. The Building Code reference is separate of the adverse health effects that are lectured for education credits required for ongoing medical licensing and applicable across Canada as well as the United States.

The Darlington Power Plant and others are not designed to accommodate highly penetrating RF Electromagnetic Fields that will electromagnetically induce the building. It will cause high speed vibrations billions of times per measurable second 86,400 times per day and the peer reviewed science is called electricity.

I spoke with Marc Leblanc and he made ridiculous comments that I wasn't specific to Darlington in my submission as well as that FortisBC information was irrelevant. The reference number is specific to Darlington and the mention of other Nuclear Power Plants is specific to the real dangers. I would not be doing my job and have liability if I didn't include it.

The reference to FortisBC is because the link includes transcripts and evidence of the BC Government in legal hearings with the experts under oath. There is no higher legal precedent for the commission to see. While FortisBC dismissed the dangers of the RF EMFs saying people were safe 20 cm away from a smart meter, they left out the smart grid required to communicate with smart meters. FortisBC Engineer Mark Warren admitted under direct cross examination by me that would cover 17,000 sq. kms to communicate with the meters. That admission puts several cities, buildings, infrastructure and ecosystems inside man made microwave ovens. There is ZERO margin of error and Ontario is covering large geographical areas as well which can adversley affect buildings and infrastructure.

The submission also contains the reality the BC Legislature allowed BC Hydro to bypass ALL regulatory process to install smart meters. The CNSC can understand the ramifications if there was a deregulation of Nuclear Power Plants and industries did what they wanted. It would be catastrophic.

While I understand this might be administratively and politically inconvenient, applicable governments in Canada and Ontario will have to account for not sharing with the CNSC that the RF EMFs were illegal as applied. 

My qualified opinions are not singular, engineers with errors and omission's insurance were not informed or consulted. Professional Engineers would NOT allow the electromagnetic induction of their buildings, they aren't designed for it.
The commission can verify that with engineers and Building Inspection Department specific to the Darlington Nuclear Power Plant's location.

The commission has to amend their agenda to incorporate this information subject to any challenges but it can NOT be dismissed. It isn't definable as sustainable under the Auditor General Act.

As per Marc Leblanc's direction, this is our response to the commission and we are available for presenting by Skype or whatever teleconferencing the commission has arranged for the hearings. 

Sincerely,

Curtis Bennett
Chief Science Officer
Interprovincial Journeyman Electrician(Red Seal)
Building Engineering Technologist
Adjunct Professor for Accredited Medical Education For CME Credits
Thermal Radiation Consultant for 35 Years

Ph: 604-239-2694

Copyright © 2015 Thermoguy. All rights reserved.

From: Interventions / Interventions (CNSC/CCSN) <cnsc.interventions-interventions.ccsn@canada.ca>
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: My submission - Public Hearing Ref. 2015-H-04.
To: Curtis Bennett <info@thermoguy.com>
Cc: "Interventions / Interventions (CNSC/CCSN)" <cnsc.interventions-interventions.ccsn@canada.ca>

Dear Mr. Bennett,

We refer to your request to participate at the Darlington hearing on November 2-5, 2015.  This is to inform you that, pursuant to Rule 19 of the CNSC Rules of Procedure, the Commission will not permit you to participate as an intervenor in the hearing on the basis that the Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field focus of your submission and the absence of specific argumentation in your submission of the impact of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field to the Darlington facility do not demonstrate a sufficient interest in the matter being heard, and that such information is not likely to be useful to the Commission in assisting it in coming to a decision.

Please communicate with Mr. Marc Leblanc, Commission Secretary, at 613-995-6506 if you require additional information.

Regards,

 

Louise Levert

Senior Tribunal Officer, Secretariat Division
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission / Government of Canada
tel: 613-996-9063,  1-800-668-5284

Rule 19 - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Rules of Procedure (SOR/2000-211)

From: Interventions / Interventions (CNSC/CCSN) <cnsc.interventions-interventions.ccsn@canada.ca>
Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:20 AM
Subject: RE: My submission - Public Hearing Ref. 2015-H-04.
To: Curtis Bennett <info@thermoguy.com>
Cc: "Interventions / Interventions (CNSC/CCSN)"

Dear Mr. Bennett,
 
We have received on October 21, 2015 your revised submission for the public hearing regarding the proposed renewal of the Darlington nuclear facility.  After review, the Commission has decided to accept your written submission and to add it to the record for the hearing.  However, the Commission will not permit you to make an oral presentation at the hearing, as per its discretion under Rule 21 of the CNSC Rules of Procedure.  Your submission will be referred to as CMD 15-H8.161.
 
Please communicate with Mr. Marc Leblanc, Commission Secretary, at 613-995-6506 if you require additional information.
 
Regards,

 

Louise Levert

Senior Tribunal Officer, Secretariat Division
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission / Government of Canada
tel: 613-996-9063,  1-800-668-5284

Rule 19 - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
From: Curtis Bennett
Date: Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:16 AM
Subject: My submission and the CNSC reference # CMD 15-H8.161.
To: "Interventions / Interventions (CNSC/CCSN)" <cnsc.interventions-interventions.ccsn@canada.ca>


Att: Marc Leblanc

re: Oral Presentation or Questions as Per Submission

Good Morning Marc,

I want to thank you for the work being done on this very important topic and the commission accepting my written submission CMD 15-H8.161.

Under Rule 21 of the CNSC Rules of Procedure, the commission does have the discretion to allow an oral presentation. I spoke with Louise Levert briefly yesterday and she spoke of avenues where questions can be asked pertaining to my submission. This email is to ask the commission to use their discretion and allow important questions to be asked. EMF interaction with buildings, infrastructure and including Darlington Nuclear Power Plant is technically complex. EMFs are an electrical interaction first requiring a qualified electrical interpretation before they interact with building construction.

I am one of the provincial and federal governments as well as Industry Canada's certified electricians specific to the utilization of the electrical energy OPG distributes. My Interprovincial Red Seal as a Journeyman Electrician is recognized across Canada. My Building Engineering Technology Diploma is specific to regulation, Building Code compliance as well as the energy use by building development.

100% of our work is without lobby and is specific to energy objectives as well as safety. We spent 1000s of hours of objective investigation including providing expert witness at the request of Canadian Parliament's Standing Committee and as Registered Intervener in FortisBC's application for wireless smart meters.

There are real avenues for OPG to eliminate billions of watts per hour of wasted electrical energy off the grid immediately without expenditure on their part. There was a Nuclear Power Plant in Nebraska where flooding affected the facility and our submission is specific to that as well.

It is critically important to your objective and mandate that I be asked tough questions from any professionals to substantiate the real danger. Once again there is nothing personal in my submission. Electrical and engineering is all science within existing codes. I would be negligent if I did not report to the commission as I am here and in my qualified capacity.

Sincerely,

Curtis Bennett
Chief Science Officer
Interprovincial Journeyman Electrician(Red Seal)
Building Engineering Technologist
Adjunct Professor for Accredited Medical Education For CME Credits
Thermal Radiation Consultant for 35 Years             
                                                           

Ph: 604-239-2694

Copyright © 2015 Thermoguy. All rights reserved.

Revised Agenda with Written Submission from Curtis Bennett

NOTE: Written submissions will be considered throughout the 4 hearing days.

In Response to:

Submission For Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on
RF EMFs Causing Accelerated Corrosion Making the
Power Plants Non Compliant With Building Codes

Related News

RF EMFs Causing Accelerated Corrosion of Power Plants, Buildings & Infrastructure

Adjunct Professor Curtis Bennett

CNSC-Curtis Bennett 2015 10 21 poster

CNSC-Curtis Bennett 2015 10 21 poster
facebook

Response to:Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission On Granting Ontario Power Generation13 Year License For Darlington...

Posted by Dianne Knight on Wednesday, 21 October 2015
twitter
Note: On October 31st, 2015, at the pumpkin carving event, Dianne Knight was privileged to speak sequentially with both Toronto Mayor John Tory and then Sarah Doucette, Toronto City Councillor for Ward 13, and outline our Global Emergency on Radio Frequency Microwave Radiation (RFMR) and the work of Curtis Bennett about how RFMR interacts with our approximately 440 nuclear facilities in the world, including GE Canada Inc., Nuclear Products, 1025 Lansdowne Avenue, Toronto and the Darlington Nuclear Power Plant.

Dianne also mentioned how, according to work of Curtis Bennett, with the Reported Error or Omission in Health Canada Safety Code 6, it is illegal to harm anyone, when the first electron hits the body, especially a child in school.

pinterest

 

 

LinkedIn
Bookmark and Share

Educational and Informational Purposes: All information on this site and all links that are linked to from StayOnTheTruth.com represent solely the opinions of their producers.

This information and links to more information are made available to you as a resource for your own research and evaluation not as an endorsement.

StayOnTheTruth.com is not in the business of persuading you or anyone else to believe anything that that is presented linked to from this site; however, it does encourage you to use all available resources to form your own judgement about very important things that affect your life.

Fair Dealing and Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair dealing' or 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in copyright law. In accordance with the Fair Dealing or Fair Use intention, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair dealing' or 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice. 

 Attribution Noncommercial Share Alike Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Make a Free Website with Yola.