Monthly Archives: January 2011

GAO Report Faults 'Smart' Grid Security


This illustration from the GAO report shows the topography of a smart grid.
(Credit: GAO)

GAO Report: ELECTRICITY GRID MODERNIZATION:
Progress Being Made on Cybersecurity Guidelines, but Key Challenges Remain to be Addressed
PDF download

According to the Report,
“With respect to challenges to securing smart grid systems, GAO identified the
following six key challenges:
• Aspects of the regulatory environment may make it difficult to ensure smart grid systems’ cybersecurity.
• Consumers are not adequately informed about the benefits, costs, and risks associated with smart grid systems.
• Utilities are focusing on regulatory compliance instead of comprehensive security.
• There is a lack of security features being built into certain smart grid systems.
• The electric industry does not have an effective mechanism for sharing information on cybersecurity.
• The electricity industry does not have metrics for evaluating cybersecurity. ”

=======
Please remember, your bite-size contributions on our Donate Page are what help keep us going

Digest of Recent Movement News 1-20-2011

The Movement Spreads

Although industry-friendly spin-meisters would like the public to believe resistance to wireless ‘smart’ meters is confined to ‘a few crazies in Northern California’s Marin County,’ media coverage – some fact-based, some denial-based – has gone national and seems to have corporate greed-heads worried. Both serious health and security risks are coming to the fore. Here’s a harvest of some recent pieces.

Photo by Tim Porter – Marin Magazine

Smart Meters, Dumb Idea?
Why Marin activists oppose PG&E’s plan
By Nate Seltenrich – Marin Magazine

Calif. Agency Mulls ‘Opt Out’ or Wired Substitutes as Fallout Over Smart Meters Persists
By Colin Sullivan and Debra Kahn – New York Times

Mendocino considers stalling SmartMeters
By Glenda Anederson – THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Will “Smart” Household Electricity Meters Give You Cancer?
By Kiera Butler – Mother Jones Magazine [ The historical Mother Jones must be rolling in her grave at this snide and shoddy piece. ]

Outsmarting Smartmeters
By Anna McCarthy – Marinscope Newspapers

Marin sheriff defies supervisors, won’t enforce SmartMeter ban
By Nels Johnson – Marin Independent Journal

Are We heading for a Smart Grid ‘Inconvenient Truths’ Experience?
by Gary L Hunt in Electric Power

SmartMeter security is a growing concern!
by Russ Steele – NC Media Watch

Report finds smart-grid security lacking
by Elinor Mills – CNET News

GAO Report: ELECTRICITY GRID MODERNIZATION:
Progress Being Made on Cybersecurity Guidelines, but Key Challenges Remain to be Addressed
PDF

Money trumps security in smart-meter rollouts, experts say
by Elinor Mills – CNET News

Why Pulsed Microwave Frequencies [like those in wireless meters] are More Harmful
From Magda Havas

=======
Please remember, your bite-size contributions on our Donate Page are what help keep us going

FCC Violations Ignored – Cindy Sage on CCST Report

Evidence Disregarded
Cindy Sage is the co-editor of the internationally influential BioInitiative report, which has led some EU countries to strengthen their RF exposure standards. You can watch her interview about the BioInitiative Report here.

Just days before release of the CCST document, her environmental consulting firm Sage Associates released “Smart’ Meter Emissions Finds Multiple Failures to Meet Even Lax Federal ‘Guidelines,’” the most rigorous and extensive, fact-based modeling study done to date on the electro-magnetic emissions of wireless so-called ‘smart’ meters. It reports many circumstances in which the devices – singly and in when aggregated in arrays and ‘mesh’ networks – fail to comply with even the flaccid Federal Communication Commission recommended ‘safety guidelines.’

Like Magda Havas, Cindy Sage’s invited submissions were not included or referenced in the CCST’s final document. You can download a PDF of Sage’s comment letter to the CCST here, complete with numbered references. Her main points:

Conclusions Are Not Supported by Evidence of Compliance with FCC Safety Limits
There is no solid basis in the CCST report to conclude (or to support the contention) that FCC public safety limits are met for smart meters, in the manner installed and operated.

Conclusions Disregard Evidence in the Report for Possible Health Risk
The text of the report only partially documents potential health risks from low-level, chronic exposure to radiofrequency radiation. The conclusions ignore this discussion.

Conclusions Do Not Follow from Report
Conclusions of the report are inconsistent with the report’s more balanced warnings about possible risks to health. The overall legitimacy of the report is cast into doubt as a result.

CCST’s report could equally well have concluded ‘there is ample evidence to advise the California Legislature that, based on multiple studies of radiofrequency radiation below current FCC safety limits, it is advisable to issue a cautionary warning on the wireless component of smart meters until a full assessment of their effects is completed by independent experts. Further, it can be concluded that the continued rollout of wireless smart meters may increase public health risks on a widespread basis and should be reconsidered in light of the existing scientific evidence and public health warnings for such chronic exposures to pulsed RF.’

I was one of the expert reviewers invited by CCST to submit comments for the Committee. CCST asked several experts to answer two questions (see below). Since the Report conclusions apparently ignored much of the expert and committee input – only intervention by the final editor(s) to disregard key evidence explains how CCST’s final conclusions could give rise to the “all clear” message.

Questions asked of Invited Expert Reviewers
1) Are the current FCC standards for smart meters sufficiently protective of public health, taking into account current exposure levels to radiofrequency (RF) and electromagnetic fields?

2) Are additional technology-specific standards needed for smart meters and other devices that are commonly found in and around homes, to ensure adequate protection from adverse health effects?

CCST Report Conclusions

1) “The FCC standard provides a currently accepted factor of safety against known thermally induced health impacts of smart meters and other electronic devices in the same range as RF emissions. Exposure levels from smart meters are well below the thresholds for such effects.”

This conclusion presents a partial response to Question 1 – only that the FCCs thermal standards are adequate (these standards prevent only heating and burning of tissues, and shock hazard, however). The conclusion does not address non-thermal (or low-intensity) RF exposures, which is really the point. It also is silent on FCC violations of public safety limits, which have been calculated to occur.13

2) “There is no evidence that additional standards are needed to protect the public from smart meters.”

By ignoring evidence for low-intensity RF adverse health effects, the Report essentially then dismissed the need for changes in public safety standards for pulsed RF. This conclusion simply cannot be reconciled with the evidence presented in the report (thin as it is), nor with the larger body of evidence known to experts in this field. That evidence is now widely discussed by international health and safety experts who find the existing thermal standards inadequate to protect public health. 1,2


FCC Violations and Excessively High RF Exposures are Ignored

Another report issued on January 1, 2011 is titled Assessment of Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Emissions from Smart Meters by Sage Associates. It documents what RF levels may be expected. The Assessment seems not to have been considered either by the CCST experts nor the Committee.

The Assessment identified where and under what conditions smart meters can cause FCC violations of public safety limits as the meters are typically installed and operated. The CCST report concludes that all smart meter RF exposures will be well below the FCC safety limits, and this is erroneous.

To date, there have been no other studies that provide sufficient information to support the claim that smart meters comply with FCC regulations. In fact, there is solid evidence from a review of the FCC Grants of Authorization and attached FCC RF exposure studies that many thousands (perhaps millions) of meters are in clear violation of one or more of the explicit limitations noted on each FCC Grant of Authorization. The FCC Grants of Authorization are void unless meters are installed in compliance with every one of those limitations.

The Assessment also shows many cases where, although the FCC safety limits may not be violated, excessively high RF levels from smart meters would be predicted to occur within the home or in other occupied space. In many instances, predicted RF levels are many times higher than those reported to cause adverse health effects. 5-12

Such exposures, if chronic, would reasonably be expected to result in increased disease and disability.

Misleading Comparisons Are Made to Cell Phones
CCST’s report makes misleading comparisons of RF exposures from cell phone use and from smart meters, an apparent effort to minimize public health concern. If the FCC had thought smart meters would be held to the head in normal operation, they would have required smart meters to be tested for SAR compliance, not power density. These are not the same, and to compare them is wrong.

Cell phones produce a high, localized RF exposure at the head. They are presumed to be used within 20 centimeters (8”) of the body. Smart meters, like cell towers, create whole-body exposure rather than localized exposure in most circumstances, and specific FCC compliance depends on keeping a 20 cm or greater distance from the meter. Cell phone use is voluntary; smart meter exposure is involuntary. Cell phone use is sporadic or intermittent, but smart meter exposure estimates are ‘all over the map’. There is great uncertainty on this point, and as such, the outcome cannot be known; therefore, no assertion of safety or compliance can be given.

RF Levels from Smart Meters are Unreconciled and Need Assessment
PG&E’s sole figure for RF exposure was given during CPUC proceedings as 1/6000th of the federal health (sic) limit. Nothing is given about the specific conditions under which this estimate might be true (antenna make and model, duty cycle, which FCC formula, what reflection factor, one meter or multiples, etc). However, from that single data point, we calculate that RF exposure to be 0.11 uW/cm2 at 10 feet (where the FCC safety limit is known to be 655 uW/cm2 at the frequencies 915 MHz and 2405 MHz). This means that at 10 feet from the meter, PG&E says the RF level will be 0.11 uW/cm2.

Kundi and Hutter (Pathophysiology, 2009)2 say they don’t yet find RF health impacts at levels below 0.05 to 0.1 uW/cm2” but do find consistent evidence of adverse health impacts at levels generally above that (based on at least eight cell tower studies conducted internationally). These figures were for healthy adult populations.

From the CCST Report, figures 1 and 7 (identical) give a comparison of RF levels from various sources, including two estimates for smart meters. They are 4 uW/cm2 at 10 feet, and 40 uW/cm2 at 3 feet away (no source is identified for these estimates, and again, the operational conditions are unspecified). Another estimate from CCST’s report (pages 17 and 22) says that a ‘worst case’ RF estimate – a meter that transmits continuously – would produce 60% of the FCC limit (which is 655 uW/cm2 for the combined antenna frequencies), or 393 uW/cm2. However, the location at which this RF exposure level is calculated to occur is not given. The information is not useful. But, given the peer-reviewed scientific literature, any of these estimates is too high for chronic exposure to pulsed RF. 1,2

No one can reconcile or separate reasonable from unreasonable RF predictions without some better, more systematic computer modeling of RF exposures.

Cumulative RF is Not Assessed Prior to Meter Installation
None of the PG&E or the EPRI estimates includes any provision for ‘what amount of RF exists already’ and does the smart meter’s additional RF burden push that location over the FCC limit. The CCST report does not consider cumulative sources of RF (WI-FI, nearby cell tower(s), AM, FM, TV, HAM transmitters, etc). The cumulative RF burden must be considered, including ongoing RF exposures from existing sources.

Further, since these meters are part of a radiofrequency surveillance and communications system that includes cell antennas (to relay RF signals to the utility) and eventually, power transmitters on/within appliances (to relay RF signals within the home to the smart meter), these critical omissions in the overall RF burden placed on people from the ‘smart meter program’ should be assessed. No one can install a smart meter and make a blanket assertion the environment still complies with public safety standards in the after condition, if the before condition is not known. RF exposures from multiple sources are additive.

Recommendations to CCST
1) Advise the California Legislature that further assessment of smart meter impacts to public health and safety are necessary before further deployment.
2) Recommend de-activation of wireless transmitters in meters already installed pending further review.
3) Recommend that California Legislative hearings be scheduled on smart meters.
4) Post in their entirety each of the written expert review letters to CCST.
5) Recommend that the California Department Public Health receive and log smart meter health complaints.”

=======
Please remember, your bite-size contributions on our Donate Page are what help keep us going

Unsupported Conclusions – Magda Havas on CCST Report


Dis-Invited to Contribute
Professor Magda Havas is a leading Canadian researcher and public educator on the subject of electro-magnetic radiation health impacts. Her site’s video page and her YouTube Channel offer short, entertaining briefings on various aspects of the topic.

According to Havas, “In October 2010, I was invited to submit a report to CCST on Smart Meters as part of a “Technical Response Team…. My report does not support the overall conclusions in the CCST document that appeared on the CCST website in January 2011. I was informed that the none of the submissions was going to be appended to the final document, nor was any going to be made available….
“I have great concern regarding the current levels of microwave radiation in North America. Instead of promoting wireless technology, we should be promoting wired technology and reserving wireless for situations where wired in not possible (while one is traveling for example). Shortly after X-rays were discovered, they were used in shoe stores to determine shoe-size for young children. Fortunately, we recognized that X-rays were harmful and we restricted their use to essential medical diagnoses. We need to recognize that microwaves are also harmful and we cannot use this technology in a frivolous manner. With more frequencies being used, with the levels of radiation increasing, and with so little research on the long-term, low-level effects of this technology we are creating a potential time bomb. If smart meters are placed on every home, they will contribute significantly to our exposure and this is both unwise and unsafe.”

You can download a PDF of the report full she submitted here. Here are some of her points:
“In my opinion, the FCC standard for Smart Meters is not sufficient to protect public health. This is based on the following facts:

“1.1 Thermal vs. Non-thermal Debate. The thermal vs. non-thermal debate is largely a red herring that has been perpetuated for decades and has influenced the type of research done in the United States. The FCC standard is based on a thermal effect. It was originally based on the amount of radiation that would heat an adult male in the US military exposed to radar. While the heating effect is not disputed, biological effects, some of which have adverse health consequences, occur well below the thermal guideline (Inglis 1970). As a consequence various countries in the world are opting for a “biologically” based guideline rather than a “thermal” guideline, which takes into account not only adult males in peak physical conditions but children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those who have developed electro-hypersensitivity (EHS). I will return to the concept of EHS later.

“1.2 Guidelines in Russia, Switzerland, Poland, and China are well below the FCC standard (i.e. 10 vs. 1000 microW/cm2 or 1% of FCC guidelines). Some military and government insiders tried to get U.S. guidelines reduced decades ago but were not successful (Pollack and Healer 1967, Dodge 1969). Steneck et al. (1980) provides an excellent account of how the U.S. standards were established for radio frequency radiation.

“1.3 Our exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) is increasing exponentially as
we design more equipment that relies on higher frequencies in the electromagnetic
spectrum. Prior to World War II, this type of radiation was negligible. Today we have
radar (military, marine, aviation, and weather), we have cell phone antennas, radio and
TV broadcast antennas, and a growing number of WiFi hotspots, citywide WiFi and
Wi-Max antennas. Inside buildings we have cordless phones, many of which emit
microwave radiation even when they are not being used; wireless alarm systems;
wireless baby monitors, wireless computers, iPads, and Smart Phones that can connect
to wireless internet or WiFi. More children are playing wireless video games than
ever before and radio frequency identification devices (RFID) are placed into merchandise to provide information to the manufacturer about consumer habits. The “smart meter” is just another source of exposure that will be placed on every home and in every apartment. Smart meters are being used to monitor use of electricity, gas and water. As part of this system, appliances are being designed to communicate directly with smart meters, all in a wireless mode, which will ultimately increase levels of radiation in the home.

“1.4 I work with people who have become electrically hypersensitive (EHS) and I have received emails and phone calls from those who have had smart meters placed on their homes. They complain of ill health and many are unable to use the room closest to the smart meter. These individuals have no place to “hide” from the growing levels of electrosmog especially in densely populated urban centers….”

“2.1 Technology specific standards are definitely needed for Smart meters as well as
cordless phones, DECT baby monitors, wireless routers, and all of the other devices that emit radio frequency radiation….

“2.2 We have evidence that pulsed microwave frequencies, that are generated by WiFi and cordless phones are more harmful than continuous wave and yet this is not considered in the FCC guidelines (Reno 1975).
The key microwave emitting devices in the home/office/school environment are:
Cordless phones (some are labeled DECT and others pulsed digital 2.4 GHz). These
radiate all the time even when no one is using them. They should be replaced by wired
phones or cordless phones currently available in Europe, which are “on-demand” phones that radiate only when the handset is not in the cradle of the base station. These phones are so dangerous that I recently submitted a Petition to the Auditor General of Canada to have DECT phones banned (Havas 2008).
The DECT baby monitor also radiates all the time, as does the receiver that is often
carried on the Mother’s waist. Here we need a voice-activated baby monitor that is used in Europe.
Wireless Internet (WiFi or WLan) is not as common in Europe as they are in North
America. There they prefer using wired service in the form of fiber optic and Ethernet
connections. Germany hotels ask that you bring an Ethernet cables with you, as they
don’t provide WiFi. The Swiss government is providing free fiber optics to schools
provided they don’t install wireless routers.

“2.3 An additional point I would like to make relates to dirty electricity. Wires can act like antennas and the radiation produced by radio frequency generating devices can flow along and reradiate from wires both inside and outside the home. This contributes to dirty electricity and localized radiation exposure. Dirty electricity has been associated with cancers (Milham and Morgan 2008); health and behavior problems in schools (Havas and Olstad 2008); and both diabetes and multiple sclerosis (Havas 2006).
From a human health perspective and to protect sensitive electronic equipment it is important to maintain good power quality and to prevent radiation from smart meters
flowing along wires….”

=======
Please remember, your bite-size contributions on our Donate Page are what help keep us going

Who’s Who (& Who’s Not) at the CCST

Expert Choices
In what follows, we begin to take a little closer look at some of the members of the ‘Smart Meter Project Team’ appointed by the CCST Executive Committee to respond to Assembly Members Huffman’s and Monning’s request for “…CCST’s assistance in determining if there are health safety issues regarding the new SMART meters being installed by the utilities. In addition, the City of Mill Valley sent a letter to CCST (September, 2010) in support of Mr. Huffman’s request.”

You can download the resulting document Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters here.

According to the Report’s Appendix B – Project Process – CCST Smart Meter Project Approach:
“In addition to those on the project team, CCST approached over two dozen technical experts to contribute their opinion to inform CCST’s response. The experts were referred from a variety of sources and were vetted by the Smart Meter Project Team. Efforts were made to include both biological and physical scientists and engineers to help provide broad context and perspective to the response. Many of the experts approached indicated they did not time to provide a written response however they provided references to additional experts and/or literature for review. A few experts identified were not asked to contribute due to affiliations that were felt to be a conflict of interest.”

Two of those “not asked to contribute” were Cindy Sage and Magda Havas, leading researchers on the health risks of electro-magnetic health effects and advocates for a science-based revision of public safety exposure standards for wireless radiation. Both were invited to respond to questions, then told their responses would not be included in the report.
[See their personal statements on this process here and here.]

Sage is the co-editor of the internationally influential BioInitiative report, which has led some EU countries to strengthen their RF exposure standards. You can watch her interview about the BioInitiative Report here.

Just days before release of the CCST document, her environmental consulting firm Sage Associates released “Smart’ Meter Emissions Finds Multiple Failures to Meet Even Lax Federal ‘Guidelines,’” the most rigorous and extensive, fact-based modeling study done to date on the electro-magnetic emissions of wireless so-called ‘smart’ meters. It reports many circumstances in which the devices – singly and in when aggregated in arrays and ‘mesh’ networks – fail to comply with even the flaccid Federal Communication Commission recommended ‘safety guidelines.’

Professor Havas is a leading Canadian researcher and public educator on the subject of electro-magnetic radiation health impacts. Her site’s video page and her YouTube Channel offer short, entertaining briefings on various aspects of the topic.

According to Havas, “In October 2010, I was invited to submit a report to CCST on Smart Meters as part of a “Technical Response Team…  [ The report she submitted is here ] My report does not support the overall conclusions in the CCST document that appeared on the CCST website in January 2011. I was informed that the none of the submissions was going to be appended to the final document, nor was any going to be made available.”

So Sage and Havas were ‘not asked to contribute’ to the CCST’s Report because of their ‘conflict of interest.’ But here are some of the people that were asked to contribute – industry-friendly insiders who could be relied on to follow the ‘doubt is our product’ strategy of the ‘product defense’ profession and sow comforting uncertainty in the public mind about the bio-effects of the growing blanket of e-smog that is increasingly engulfs us [please contact us at info@EON3EMFblog.net if you have additional verifiable information]:

1) Rollin Richmond (Chair), President Humboldt State University, CSU
Background:
It is being reported that Rollin Richmond , who was the chair of the CCST Project Team
on the smart meter report, gave a radio interview this week and said something to the effect that:
” our local news here (KMID) in Humboldt County [did] an interview with Humboldt State University President, Rollin Richmond, presenting the CCST report. Apparently HSU played a part in writing this report. He did say that we need more research on the non-thermal effects when questioned by the interviewer, and that we really don’t have conclusive evidence. Then he compared people who don’t want smart meters to those who believe in ghosts and don’t want their bodies interned when they die. ”

According to Wikepedia, Rollin Richmond: The November 7, 2007 issue of the Humboldt State University weekly student-run paper, The Lumberjack, reported that the Academic Senate at HSU voted by 56% to issue a vote of no confidence in Rollin Richmond’s leadership.

2) Jane Long, Associate Director at Large, Global Security Directorate Fellow, Center
for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Background:
That organization is Livermore’s Center for Global Security Research (CGSR), established in 1996 to bring the technology and policy communities closer together. Its goal is to reduce threats to international security, especially those associated with weapons of mass destruction, by sponsoring workshops, research fellows, and independent analyses to study important national and world security issues involving policy and technology. (from their website)

However, Livermore Labs in their pursuit of developing nuclear and biological weapons, has so polluted the area around it, and it’s only 25 miles from the Bay Area, that it’s a superfund site. It’s also regularly leaking and receiving citations for improper handling of the most dangerous materials ever created by humans. It’s pursuit of profit helps keeps the nuclear and biological madness going. [by MBB]

3) Emir Macari, Dean of Engineering and Computer Science, California State
University, Sacramento and Director of the California Smart Grid Center
Background:
The Smart Grid Center at Sacramento State engages in product testing of automated metering infrastructure and develops practical field solutions for large-scale integration of Smart Grid technologies. The Center aims to inform the development of real-time pricing of electricity by providing an unbiased proving ground where utilities, industry and the public sector will work together to impact consumer choice, global climate change and energy security. In addition, the Center works directly with California and national utilities to support the development of the highly desired upgrades to the nation’s electric grid. (from their website)
[Is this an unbiased participant in determining health risks? Eds. ]

4) Patrick Mantey, Director, CITRIS @ Santa Cruz
Background:
The Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) was formed in 2001, when researchers within the UC system realized that the real opportunities lay not just in developing new and innovative technologies, but in applying them. See how CITRIS has built a foundation that can support and deliver long-term sustainable growth. (from their website)

5) Ryan McCarthy, 2009 CCST Science and Technology Policy Fellow
Background:
?

6) Larry Papay, CEO, PQR, LLC, mgmt consulting firm SAIC, Bechtel, So Cal Edison, Nuke Engineer
Background:
SAIC is a big player – with alleged CIA ties – in the high tech, ‘deep state’ world where the military-industrial-finance-intelligence-telecommunications complex does its business.
According to Wikipedia:
‘SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation) is a FORTUNE 500 scientific, engineering and technology applications company headquartered in the United States with numerous federal, state, and private sector clients. It works extensively with the United States Department of Defense, the United States Department of Homeland Security, and the United States Intelligence Community, including the National Security Agency, as well as other U.S. Government civil agencies and selected commercial markets.
In fiscal year 2003, SAIC did over $2.6 billion in business with the United States Department of Defense, making it the ninth largest defense contractor in the United States.’

7) David Winickoff, Assistant Professor of Bioethics and Society, Department of
Environmental Science, Policy and Management, UC Berkeley
Background:
?

8 ) Paul Wright, Director, UC Center for Information Technology Research in the
Interest of Society (CITRIS)
(see #4 above)

Please remember, your bite-size contributions on our Donate Page are what help keep us going