Kniazev: Smart Grid could be harmful to your health

13 responsesSubscribe to comments

1. David Usher January 17, 2011 at 8:51 am
   Permalink | Reply

   Junk science continues to bubble up in Vermont.

2. Donald M. Kreis January 17, 2011 at 1:12 pm
   Permalink | Reply

   The question of how to replace our early 1900s electricity grid with one more appropriate for the public policy challenges of the 21st Century is certainly deserving of attention at vtdigger and other places where the great questions of our time are discussed. And Vermont would certainly be ill-served by uncritical acceptance of the plans developed by VELCO (Vermont’s transmission utility) and other utilities to implement the so-called Smart Grid.

   Unfortunately, however, here vtdigger has opted to provide a public platform to folks whose self-interest (keeping a planned VELCO tower from marring the view from their pristine mountaintop real estate) has apparently driven them into the realm of uninformed argumentation and reckless scientific speculation.

   The lynchpin of the argument by Mr. Kniazev and Ms. Julinska is that if VELCO and other utilities are allowed to proceed with their federally subsidized ‘smart grid’ initiatives, “we’ll be swimming in [electromagnetic] radiation basically everywhere.” They claim it would be “naïve to assume that it won’t have any effect on anyone.”

   However, their essay is devoid of any evidence that electromagnetic radiation causes any harmful effects whatsoever. They rely entirely on fear and speculation, ignoring the fact that the world is already awash in electromagnetic energy – and not just of the human-made variety. That dazzling light that comes bursting out of the sun, warming the earth and allowing life to thrive here? It’s electromagnetic energy, transmitted at frequencies that happen to be within the visible spectrum.

   This is not to say that electromagnetic energy is incapable of having harmful effects. Your microwave oven is a ready source of this energy – energy that would be very harmful to, for example, a small pet that happened to be inside if you turned on the oven without looking first. The point is that reckless speculation about hypothetical health effects is not just unhelpful – it’s dangerous. Think of the thousands of children who have gone without their vaccinations because of the enduring and recently exposed fraud that purported to establish a link between vaccines and autism.

   The California Council on Science and Technology – a consortium of academic research institutions – has just this month issued a draft report on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation emitted by smart meters. It can be downloaded at http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smartA.pdf. The report, compiled at the request of state legislators, concludes that (1) wireless smart meters actually emit less electromagnetic radiation than cell phones, microwave ovens and other commonly accepted household devices, (2) the current federal standard (adopted by the Federal Communications Commission) provides adequate protection against thermally-induced health effects (i.e., what happens to the pet that crawls into the microwave), (3) no scientific studies have confirmed or identified any other health effects, and, thus (4) “not enough is currently known about potential non-thermal impacts of radio frequency emissions to identify or recommend additional standards for such impacts.”

   The authors of this report do not dismiss concerns about the growing amount of overall human exposure to electromagnetic energy – in fact, they urge further study of these effects, both in general and as to smart meters in particular. But they pointedly do not urge a halt to the deployment of smart meters and note that, as with all such initiatives, the best public policy is the result of reasoned cost-benefit analysis. In other realms, Mr. Kniazev and Ms. Julinska use such analysis to guide their behavior, assuming that they do not walk everywhere but sometimes get access to their lovely real estate by using devices like automobiles and airplanes despite their well-documented harms to human health.

   Quite apart from their obdurate refusal to embrace reasonable scientific analysis, Mr. Kniazev and Ms. Julinska do not understand how the electric industry works. For example, they claim that it is “easy to see” the benefit of the smart grid to power companies because smart meters allow the utilities to save money by laying off meter readers. They point to such savings achieved by the Vermont Electric Cooperative (VEC) when it deployed smart meters in its territory.

   In fact, such operational savings are credited to customers rather than utility shareholders in rate proceedings before the Public Service Board. And, at an electric cooperative like the VEC, the customers and the shareholders are the same people – so the VEC didn’t deploy smart meters to enrich utility shareholders in reckless disregard of health consequences to customers, as Mr. Kniazev and Ms. Julinska imply.

   Similarly, Ms. Kniazev and Ms. Julinska claim that utilities are promoting smart grid initiatives because they “would love to be able to sell more power during the night.” According to Ms. Kniazev and Mr. Julinska, “right now if the power is not used up, it gets lost.”

   This reflects a profound misunderstanding of how the electricity grid works. It is true, as common sense would suggest, that demand for electricity drops significantly in the overnight hours. But, in general, this does not mean that vast amounts of power, generated overnight, is “lost” because it is not “used up.” More to the point, it does not mean that utilities are generating vast amounts of power overnight for which they cannot be paid. Utilities power off their most expensive generation resources during the overnight hours, relying on cheaper “baseload” power. To the extent that technology and other logistical constraints preclude the turning off of generation capacity that is not useful overnight, the resulting expenses are considered fixed costs that utilities already recover from customers. Thus, greater reliance on available overnight resources can be understood not as a windfall for utilities but as an opportunity for customers to use what they are already paying for.

   Let me close with some key disclosures. I am the associate director of the Institute for Energy and the Environment (IEE) at Vermont Law School, which is conducting research and analysis in the Smart Grid field under a federal grant (but one that is separate from the much bigger grant that is funding VELCO’s initiatives). It is fair to say that the IEE is institutionally committed to the Smart Grid and, thus, in some sense I get paid to disagree with people like Felix Kniazev and Olga Julinska. On the other hand, I counsel my energy law students at Vermont Law School to be skeptical when they hear the phrase “smart grid” because it is the industry buzzword du jour. Investor-owned utilities like such buzzwords because the buzzwords justify their acquisition of new toys – by which I mean major new capital investments that they can add to their rate base, thereby increasing profits. (This, rather than doing things like laying off meter readers, is generally how utilities make themselves more profitable.) We clearly need to update the electricity grid, which has used essentially the same technology for a century. And this is a great time to do it, since we have the new technologies as well as a need to make infrastructure investments as a way of pulling the nation of its economic torpor. As with any vast deployment of resources, public scrutiny is essential. But the scrutiny should be responsible and not laden with innuendo, speculation and misinformation.

   1. Annette Smith January 17, 2011 at 3:34 pm
      Permalink | Reply

      Professor Kreis, Felix and Olga are to be thanked, not berated, for raising awareness about the issues associated with smart grid implementation. Since I have met them and understand their circumstances, I would advise you to refrain from attacking such fine people without first evaluating the issues they are dealing with because of VELCO’s pursuit of a tower location. As Robert Williams points out, people are not happy about PG&E’s efforts to build out the wireless smart grid in California. My area of expertise is in dealing with Vermonters who have concerns about development, especially when corporations with abundant resources (often thanks to government funding) overwhelm communities with few resources. Based on my eleven years of experience, I predict that attempts to force wireless smart grid meters and appliances into Vermonters’ homes is not going to go well. Don’t blame Felix and Olga for pointing out what is evident to anyone who chooses to do their own research about exposure to electromagnetic emissions, don’t expect people to trust industry-sponsored propaganda about emissions, and don’t expect Vermonters to accept a technology that is being forced onto them without giving them options to say no. Mr. Williams is correct, there is no need to build an entirely new infrastructure. Smart grid can be and has been implemented using existing power and phone lines. Enel hired Echelon to implement smart grid in millions of homes in Italy, Duke Energy hired Echelon to implement smart grid using existing power and phone lines in some of their service territory: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2009/08/10/duke-energy-echelon-team-up-on-1-billion-smart-grid-project/
      My only disclaimer is that I live off-grid with solar PV, and have for more than 20 years. If utilities push wireless smart grid technology onto consumers at a time that solar PV is coming down in price, we may very well see a perfect storm for consumers to get off-grid en masse. While you say we clearly need to update the electricity grid, some people might say the current efforts by utilities to enter into electricity contracts without disclosing the pricing formula combined with forcing consumers to accept wireless meters and appliances in their homes operating 24/7 will be the last straw. Utilities are making their business climate decidedly consumer-unfriendly if they continue on this path.

3. RobertWilliams January 17, 2011 at 2:12 pm
   Permalink | Reply

   SHORT VIDEOS FROM CALIFORNIA WHERE THE DISASTER OF WIRELESS SO-CALLED ‘SMART’ METERS IS OCCURRING.

   (Smart Meters do NOT need to be wireless – Wired smart meters eliminate most problems.)

   Scientists And Honest People Reporting – Quite Different From What Utility Company Tells Us.

   1. Insurance Companies Won’t Insure Wireless Device Health Risks (3 minutes, 13 seconds)
   http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=382

   2. Microwave radiation dangers in our home (6 minutes, 20 seconds)
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAnrmJ3un1g

   3. Truth about Smart Meters – Dr. Karl Maret, MD, Biomedical Engineer
   (Dr. Maret’s presentation begins at 23:40 on the video telecast).
   http://www.communitytv.org/programs/online/truth-about-smart-meters

   4. Radiation Measured From Smart Meter Mounted On A Home (6 minutes, 21 seconds)
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRejDxBE6OE

   5. Skyrocketing Utility Bills after smart meter installation (3 minutes, 19 seconds)
   http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/63581287.html?tab=video

   6. Wounded by Wireless Smart Meters (14 minutes, 19 seconds)
   http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=8403.

   7. Top EMF scientists in the world reporting at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Nov 18, 2010: cell damage, DNA breaks, blood/brain barrier breaches
   http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/cc-video/

4. Felix Knaizev January 17, 2011 at 3:44 pm
   Permalink | Reply

   Thankfully, we don’t have to rely only on the government or industry sponsored studies. Of course, those can be expected to assure us of absolute safety since the income of everyone involved depends on it. There is a lot of independent data and research out there which must be considered. For starters, please take a look at this article from the New York Times. It sheds light on situation in CA where smart grid has already been installed in many places:

   http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/questioning-the-smart-in-smart-meters/?emc=eta1

   And here is a link to a very informative “Assessment of Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Emissions from Smart Meters:”

   http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/

   And a few others:

   http://www.emfsafetynetwork.org

   http://stopsmartmeters.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/understanding-radio-frequency-translated-from-pgese/

   http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_17038771

   This video is worth watching. A doctor begins at 23 minutes.

   http://www.communitytv.org/programs/online/truth-about-smart-meters

   http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation

   http://www.emrpolicy.org

   And that’s just the beginning!

5. Karl Riemer January 18, 2011 at 4:14 am
   Permalink | Reply

   No! Not electromagnetic radiation!? You mean even at night, when the wind usually blows? And you say the power companies will eventually control the electricity supply? And force us to buy new appliances? And give us cancer because it saves having to pay meter readers? What kind of monsters are these faceless, money-grubbing ghouls?

   Oh, for goodness sake! Felix and Olga aren’t being “berated for raising awareness about the issues associated with smart grid implementation”, they’re being berated for Queen of Hearts syndrome: first the sentence, then the trial. Their “research” shows no curiosity about objective reality, it’s a quest for evidence to bolster their conviction. Finding little, they straightfacedly offer speculation, supposition and plain nonsense as fact, and dismiss contrary testimony and evidence as self-serving. They may be sincere, they may be “fine people”, it’s even possible they’re correct, but they aren’t helping anybody with this tripe.

   “profound misunderstanding” is, I suggest, polite. This is obdurate, willful misunderstanding. This is anti-intellectualism as a political tactic. These folks are on the short end of a legal dispute with VELCO. Their legal argument is, at best, weak. This harangue is an attempt to strengthen their position by fanning a range of fears and frustrations using vague, ominous accusations of conspiracy and manipulation, which means their moral argument is even weaker. How is this any different from lunatic right-wing anti-government screeds? Seriously: different bogey, same BS. What’s the social cost of joining the rush to passionate ignorance, of pretending belief is truth, of employing defamation and conspiracy accusations instead of reasoned argument? What do we lose when people want something so badly they’re willing to say anything to get it?

   Corporations often have gobs of money as well as time and experience to achieve their ends. Through planning and coordination they often get to dictate the timing and venue of conflicts. In this case, sad to say, the “corporations with abundant resources” also seem to have a monopoly on intellectual resources.

   1. Annette Smith January 18, 2011 at 9:20 am
      Permalink | Reply

      I see intolerance is alive and well in Vermont.

6. David Hallquist January 19, 2011 at 9:25 am
   Permalink | Reply

   Dear Editor:

   In a recent op-ed, Felix Kniazev and Olga Julinska linked concerns about a proposed cell tower to be built near their property to concerns about the smart grid. Several statements were made that are either incorrect or warrant further explanation. Vermont Electric Cooperative (VEC) was one of the nation’s first utilities to develop a smart grid about five years ago. As VEC’s chief executive officer, I would like to share my knowledge and experience to clarify and correct some of those statements.

   First, there is confusion as to whether or not cell towers will be a part of the smart grid infrastructure. In VEC’s case, our smart grid does share the AT&T wireless cell phone network to obtain data from some, but not all, of our substations. We have found that the cellular network is not reliable enough for the demands of the smart grid and VEC is aggressively collaborating with telecommunications providers to replace that communications medium with fiber optic lines. In other words, cellular networks can be used as part of the smart grid, but they are not the only option. In fact, they are not necessarily the preferred option.

   Kniazev and Julinska go on to assert that the use of cellular networks for the smart grid will saturate the entire state of Vermont in electromagnetic radiation. VEC’s system, which supports approximately 33,000 consumers in northern Vermont, is not a radio-frequency based system. Instead, VEC transmits signals over the electric power lines using a power line carrier. This carrier uses a small and short pulse of the power line, which does not change the overall magnetic character of the waveform. There is no additional measurable electro-magnetic field above and beyond what the consumer induces through their usage.

   While the rest of Vermont’s utilities have not yet chosen their smart grid technologies, I suspect that they will mainly use pre-existing or pre-planned networks. In this case, there would not be additional radio-frequency penetration for the smart grid beyond what will be occurring with the ubiquitous rollout of the cell phone network. If Vermonters are concerned about being saturated in electromagnetic radiation, as Kniazev and Julinska contend will happen, it is misguided to focus on the smart grid instead of the cell phone network.

   Second, the writers are misinformed regarding the payback time on VEC’s investment in smart meters. Yes, there was a fast payback on the investment – in utility time. The system paid for itself in five years. We wish it were 3 months. Five years is very good for systems that will perform reliably for 20 years. This payback was indeed due to reductions in meter readers. However, a very large component of the payback was reduced system losses as well as improvements in outage management. VEC has cut its outages in ½ over the past few years, as well as reduced the duration of the outages. Smart meters have played a key role in these improvements.

   This brings me to a third point of clarification. The smart grid indeed has benefits for both utilities and consumers. In a state like Vermont, in which utilities are regulated, operational savings are reflected in rates. While many costs continue to rise, smart grid offers an important mechanism that enables utilities to operate more efficiently. This helps to offset rising costs in other areas. In fact, in the case of VEC, we are a member-owned cooperative. Every VEC customer is an owner in the utility. When we operate more efficiently, our member-owners benefit.

   One thing we agree upon is that it is not yet known how consumer behavior will change with the smart grid. Smart grid is in its early stages and holds much promise to provide tools that empower consumers to make informed decisions about how to manage electricity consumption. VEC believes that there is not yet enough data available to say how or if consumers will adopt the technology. Federal funding will help VEC and others to conduct research to this end.

   One of VEC’s goals is to raise awareness, educate, and inform the public about the smart grid. As smart grid leaders, we have valuable experience to share. VEC’s original intention was to put a system in place to help VEC respond to outages efficiently, transfer meter data more cost effectively, and provide our consumers with more accurate information during storms.

   Many VEC members now use the VEC wattWATCHERS software to view their usage on an hourly and daily basis. Our high usage complaints have been significantly reduced for these consumers because they are better able to determine activities that result in higher bills. I can also report VEC member satisfaction with our outage management has greatly improved in large part because of smart grid technology.

   So why is smart grid getting so much attention and funding support? On average, the United States electric grid is being used to 45% of its capacity. Yet at certain peak times, the grid is in danger of reaching maximum capacity. It certainly makes sense to try to figure out how to use the grid more efficiently instead of spending a lot of money on new power lines and generation plants. Also, peak generation typically uses fossil fuels. The United States has an opportunity to clean up our carbon footprint and reduce power costs by better managing electric loads. To achieve this potential, we will need to determine how utilities, and consumers alike, can best utilize smart grid technology.

   At VEC, smart grid has already helped us to deliver increased value to our member-owners. The smart grid has made VEC a better utility and we are proud of it.

   David Hallquist, CEO
   Vermont Electric Cooperative
   Resident of Hyde Park

7. Daryl Vernon January 19, 2011 at 1:18 pm
   Permalink | Reply

   For someone engaged in the field in a presumably upright, if not disinterested we learn from his disclosure, manner, Mr Kreis engages in unseemly disingenuous argument right at the outset.

   If an upright opponent acting in the public interest has stumbled a bit in nomenclature, why not offer a simple correction and move on, instead of rhetorically seizing upon it, as he does re “electromagnetic radiation”? The authors would have done better to say something like, synthetic xenobiotic electromagnetic radiation. Can Mr Kreis aver that everything with cells in its body is well-adapted to this sort of radiation? Considering the frequency range involved alone, even a “smart” meter system’s would exceed natural background radiation by factors in the millions or billions.
   It is very strange indeed that someone engaged in a field related to environmental study, would simply appear to assume that one part of the spectrum is as every other for every species and individual at all times. Have a look at this neat graph,
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_electromagnetic_opacity.svg ,
   and consider whether perhaps everything with cells in its body might not depend for clarity of that exploited section of the spectrum to which the earth’s atmosphere is not opaque. Does Mr Kreis not realize that we are beings exquisitely tuned electromagnetically? Whence on earth the presumption of no harm?

   The fraud Mr Kreis goes on about, as has been gone on about in mainstream media of late, remains contested. Much more germane & interesting for the case at hand, are the findings that it’s industry-connected studies which disproportionately purport to show no harm from radiation similar to “smart” meters’, while independent scholarly study is disproportionately the other way, more than suggesting harm, putting it far beyond the realm of mere concern. How someone in the field of law cannot sniff corrupt behaviour in just that alone would be strange indeed, but perhaps Mr Kreis has been isolated from the dissenting scholarly literature muscled out of mainstream view.

   Re point 1) brought by Mr Kreis, the power level additive is irrelevant — if something is harmful, why would one add thereto? Crude consideration of power levels alone is typical of mainstream regulators influenced by industry & its abettors, whereas for a very long time indeed has been known that factors like “windows”, “peaks”, cumulative effect, bio-variability, frequency dependence, etc. must be taken into account, but are not by the culturally or crudely co-opted. Re 2), the thermal paradigm is also largely irrelevant, although it has long been suspected that re cell telephony unmeasurable micro-hotspots might occur leading to grave damage. How this relates at all to “smart” meters is not said by Mr Kreis. Are his words thus not beginning to seem more deserving of some of the adjectives he has used for the authors’? Point 3) is simply outrageous. Have a quick glance at just this one handy list of a small fraction of such studies showing harm, and Mr Kreis will surely retract his reliance on such, http://studien.diagnose-funk.org/downloads/df_studienliste_referenzen.pdf . There is so much more! Should an honest teacher not inform inform himself, even at the risk of losing his subsidy? Point 4) is of course completely backward re a public and environmental health issue. As said, there is an enormity of research that will satisfy any mother, for example, wanting to protect her child. Tell her 9/10 of studies say no harm, 1/10 says harm — her decision — not to be overridden — is no thanks. Tell her more about who finds no harm, who harm, her decision — no way. Tell her some of the really ugly business of fraud, aggression, perjury, bribery, maybe her husband will finally be moved to act, maybe approach a teacher of law like Mr Kreis to assist with legal pursuit…

   Mr Kreis’ appeal to cost-benefit analysis is also problematic: If base valuations are skewed, the entire analysis is faulty. When people already report from all over the world harm suffered from even “low level” radiation such as constantly emitted by most “smart” meters, to disregard this is to show evidence of just such skewing of basic valuation. It is perverse, although sadly especially prevalent in the English-speaking world, to figure that public health depends on putting industry health & freedom at the forefront.

   Another typical and woeful “risk analyst’s” approach to public health, is trotted out by Mr Kreis re planes and cars. While there is some analogy to made from these, it is totally not as he has brought.
   E.g., if mass (and somewhat forced) insane adulation of the internal combustion engine has led to our sacrificing a segment of, say, lung capacity, what % of e.g. brain capacity should a human be prepared to sacrifice to latter-day wireless mania, incl. that involving a “smart grid”?

   I think time-of-use metering a good idea, not even so much in its possibly affording ability to be more readily selective about electricity usage, but in its making people more aware of what has been taken far too long for granted, with dire effects. (To see what kind of dire effect re manipulation by the powers-that-be, consult a fine book by Andrew Marino, Electric Wilderness (’85), about a sorry episode in your neighbouring NY state.) But such metering need not be wireless. There have long existed wired alternatives, using existing phone lines. If a dedicated phone line is judged to be required, a community approach to this can be arranged as well, one phone line in use for perhaps as many meters as are in one particular wirelessly meshed unit now. Freezing out alternatives, lack of creativity, is a by-product of seizure of process by industry & abettors.

   “As with any vast deployment of resources, public scrutiny is essential.”

8. Henry Lowe January 19, 2011 at 5:53 pm
   Permalink | Reply

   Here are five busted smart meter myths: http://www.energyinyourlife.com/article.php?t=100000066

9. Donald M. Kreis January 20, 2011 at 3:04 pm
   Permalink | Reply

   I can’t really follow Daryl Vernon’s argument, but I do have to concede the reasonableness of one specific rebuttal he makes to my prior post. He points out that when it comes to electromagnetic energy, not all frequencies are created equal. Radiation emitted at some frequencies results in visible light; at other freqencies the waves are invisible but bounce nicely off the ionosphere — etc, etc. Mr. Vernon says we’re exquisitely tuned electromagnetically, a characterization I admire for its evocativeness. I admit that waves at some frequencies are potentially dangerous and some are not. My only real point in this respect was to suggest that it is simplistic to claim that because we are (or might be) awash in electromagnetic energy we should avoid the deployment of smart meters that also emit this energy.

   As to others’ comments that make specific reference to me, I have no need to get in the last word and so I will just thank them for the opportunity to read their opinions.

   1. Daryl Vernon January 20, 2011 at 7:47 pm
      Permalink | Reply

      Ever since activation of the “smart” electricity meter affixed to our house, I can “hear” its broadcasting, which occurs at least 4x/hr. I never had this tinnitus before, and have been a total avoider of latter-day wireless mania. So now what I did my best to avoid all these years, is now coming at me in my own home. This Frey effect microwave hearing apparently can be induced, after involuntary subjection of the populace for many years to such emissions, at far lower power levels than Allen Frey had to use to experimentally induce it a generation ago. This suffering, “non-adverse” according to industry hack scientists, should be an index of far graver things happenings in the brain — no pain in the pain, sonic warning instead. This tinnitus is now epidemic, from widespread electromagnetic assault, although far too few realize what is doing it to them. So that’s for only one angle on deleterious microwave effect, chosen here because its existence is undisputed, if the mechanism is unknown.

      Whether the narrower issue be the insanity of institutional wi-fi, or as here wireless utility meters, let it be as an entry point to wider awareness of the travesty endangering everything alive at this rate. The dangers of human abuse of the electromagnetic spectrum constitute the greatest health and environmental issue of our time. Even where electromagnetic assault from cell towers happens to be lower, such a wirelessly meshed metering system will fill in with mass neighbourhood assault of its own.

      A cursory glance at the great mass of scientific & other literature dissenting from the orthodox grip had on regulators, should disabuse anyone of the assurance of safety behind smart meter deployments. If people have been duped into
      pressing radiative devices to their heads, or otherwise near their bodies, that is bad enough, in expectation of mass early dementia and other debility and disease. But subjecting everyone, with no easy escape, to cell towers and now wireless smart meters, is grossly immoral.

      Consult the dissenting literature pushed aside from mainstream consideration. Consider the plight of existing “electrosensitives” — by one reading of trendlines in Europe, 1/2 of the population is heading for “electrosensitivity”, regardless of whether scientific understanding has caught up or not re “mechanism”. One such sufferer I know, had to flee a partial refuge location after activation of the smart meter there, because of recurrent seizures only induced by microwave exposure, which seizures had abated for about a year at that partial refuge. If you don’t feel it now, or know how to read the signs and symptoms, it’ll get you and yours eventually, just how depending on myriad factors of bio-variability. That complexity being too much to handle for pushers of wireless, they remain content with obscenely high allowable exposure levels. Whatever fraction thereof smart meters would emit just adds more to the assault.

      Is that plainly enough said? But do please extend your opposition to all of wireless mania.

10. Sandi Maurer January 28, 2011 at 7:15 pm
    Permalink | Reply

    Smart Meters are costing us money, our privacy, our health and safety. Some people’s bills have doubled, tripled and more. Smart Meters have exploded, burned out appliances and are making some people very sick, insomnia, split second head aches and high pitched ringing in the ears, nausea, etc. This is RF pollution. Refuse these meters now!

    Smart Meters transmit pulsed microwave radiation (RF) constantly, throughout the day and night. Many times a minute. This is a microwave radio system the utilities are placing on our homes, so they can eliminate the meter readers and save money.

    Here’s some science simplified: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=609
    Also: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-conte…09/10/sage.pdf

    People are getting sick from Smart meters http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?page_id=2292

    Read these shocking comments : burnt out appliances, serious over billing, interferencehttp://www.ucan.org/forum/forums/ene…illing_dispute
    http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?page_id=1223

    And Smart Meter fires and explosion http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?page_id=1280

    People can reduce their EMF exposure- something the State of California advises people to do! Here’s some suggestions on how to do it: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?page%20id=327

    Read more about why we and many cities and several counties oppose them here: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?page_id=872

    The fact is, a microwave, a cell phone, wi-fi are a choice, and you can purchase or not. You can also turn these devices on or off at your convenience.

    The utilities will be able to turn off your power remotely, or turn down your heat, or AC or water heater when they need to. Plus they will be able to track your personal activities through the detailed data now available to them, or a smart hacker.

    All new Appliances will be sold with RF chips so our homes will be further polluted with wireless, where there’s evidence of harm

    And that doesn’t begin to touch on the violations of constitutional freedoms.

    Sandi Maurer
    http://www.emfsafetynetwork.org

Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply.