Letters on meters offer strange view

NANAIMO: Re: Debate on smart meters one-sided, Letters, Nov. 3; Columnist’s views nothing but babble, Letters, Nov. 6.

To the Editor,

Re: Debate on smart meters one-sided, Letters, Nov. 3; Columnist’s views nothing but babble, Letters, Nov. 6.

On Nov. 3, James G. Smith claimed that “promotion” regarding smart meters is all one-sided.

That’s strange, given the extensive print media coverage of opponents that I’ve seen.

Smith drags in all manner of scare cases – such as tobacco which is irrelevant, but only gives his one-sided vaguely stated conclusions.

He does not provide evidence that B.C. Hydro is hiding the truth, indeed he does not even name his areas of concern (some opponents think the economics are faulty, some are afraid of the radio signals).

Certainly the B.C. Hydro bureaucracy did not explain enough early on, but if Smith looks on its site, he’ll find a summary of its business case, and if he did adequate research on the Internet, he’d find the characteristics of its chosen meters.

Besides its low power RF emissions in the band used by WiFi, he’d see Hydro is full-featured in order to maximize savings in providing electricity service to him.

Smith talks like a conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me the simpler explanation is basic incompetence – B.C. Hydro in communicating, the RF scaremongers in understanding basic physics – they don’t even understand diminishing of field strength with distance despite the obvious fact they cannot receive distant radio stations.

On Nov. 6, A. Donaldson accused Tom Fletcher of babbling and distorted thought, then went into jargon like “Harpies.”

Even if Donaldson had one solid point, he has no credibility with his over-the-top cutesy babbling.

I suppose I should be glad they exposed their incompetence in justifying their views.

Keith Sketchley

Saanich