EMF Exposure Sufferers Tell Their Stories
In this press conference, Josh Hart, Director of Stop Smart Meters, introduces three people from various walks of life who have become electro-sensitive by being exposed to radiation from wireless technology. Their moving stories indicate the dangers to public health and safety of the unregulated, untested deployment of electro-magnetic technologies like PG&E’s so-called ‘smart’ meters.
For more info: EMFSafetyNetwork.orgStopSmartMeters.wordpress.com BioInitiative.orgElectroMagneticHealth.orgMagdaHavas.com
PG&E considers SmartMeter compromise
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is considering options for customers who fear that the utility’s new, wireless SmartMeters jeopardize their health, although company representatives won’t say what those might be.
“We want those customers to understand that we take their concerns seriously,” said PG&E spokesman Jeff Smith. “We’re still in a preliminary stage of review, including weighing the costs of any options. We will make this information public in the coming months as we develop it.” EON photo by J. Heddle
Peter Darbee, CEO of PG&E Corp., acknowledges a ‘year of challenge’
By Dana Hull and Steve Johnson
Mercury News
Dubbing 2010 “a year of setbacks” for PG&E, CEO Peter Darbee on Thursday conceded that his company has misjudged its customers on multiple occasions, but insisted that its response to the San Bruno pipeline explosion shows it is learning.
“The lessons of SmartMeters and Prop. 16 is that we need to further enhance our understanding of the customer,” Darbee said in an interview with the Mercury News. Over the past year, Pacific Gas & Electric has drawn sharp criticism for its dismissive response to concerns about its new electronic meters, and for its heavy-handed effort to block competition from municipal utilities with its failed June ballot measure….
The backlash against SmartMeters began with Central Valley customers who worried that the meters caused a spike in their electric bills. An independent investigation found the meters to be 99 percent accurate. Since then, a small but vocal number of consumers in Marin, Sonoma and Santa Cruz counties and elsewhere have been speaking out about possible health effects. Some are convinced the meters are making them ill, while others fear they will increase the likelihood of brain cancer.
Darbee stressed that a SmartMeter emits a fraction of the radiation of a cell phone but said PG&E was looking for some way to address those concerns.
“The (radio frequency) emissions from one of our meters is less than one-ten-thousandth of what you get from a cell phone,” said Darbee, whose background is in telecommunications. “But there are people that have been concerned throughout their life about RF exposure, people who live their lives consumed with concerns about RF, and so in light of that, we’re asking ourselves, ‘Is there a way to find a compromise solution that they can live with and we can live with?’ ”
He declined to elaborate on what that might be….
Smart meter deployment on the increase in the US
Smart meters are continuing to gain traction in the US, with more than 90 utilities planning to install a total of 57.9 devices, according to the latest figures.
A study being carried out by Pike Research said smart electric meters – that use two-way communications networks to enable frequent readings of electricity consumption – are at the forefront of the utility world’s transition to a smarter electrical grid.
Jevan Fox, research analyst, says, ‘Smart meter installations have grown by leaps and bounds in 2010.’
Jevan said while he estimates that about 21 million smart meters will be installed in the US by the end of the year, utilities have already planned for many more as deployment programmes continue to gain momentum over the next few years.
According to Pike, Switzerland-based meter manufacturer Landis+Gyr is the market leader when it comes to utility vendor selections. The research shows this accounted for 26 per cent of total endpoints as of the end of the third-quarter.
It said during the past year, Landis+Gyr surpassed Itron as the largest smart meter supplier to utilities in the US, as Itron now holds a 24 per cent market share.
Other major players include Sensus with a 21 per cent share of the market, GE Energy with 20 per cent and Elster with five per cent of the market.
Despite Hurdles, Smart Meters Still Ramping Up Fast
By Jeff St. John at Earth2Tech
Mon Nov 22, 2010 2:11pm EST
Despite some setbacks, the U.S. smart meter push is continuing at a stimulus-fueled pace. Pike Research reported Monday that more than 90 U.S. utilities have 57.9 million smart meters planned and on the way.
That’s 7.9 million more than the combined 16 million meters installed and 34 million meters under contract that eMeter’s Chris King counted up in a blog post last month. It seems like the checks from the DOE’s stimulus program are finally reaching utilities.
The $3.4 billion in smart grid investment grants were expected to pay for about 18 million smart meters over the next three years, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the DOE grants were responsible for about 2 million installed meters as of September.
The Pike figure suggests the consumer backlash that has cropped up in certain areas over smart meters — California and Texas power customers have sued over alleged overcharging by their smart meters — isn’t making much of a dent in utility deployments. Regulators in Maryland, Hawaii, Michigan, Indiana and Colorado have asked utilities to shoulder more of the costs of deployment and put less burden on customers’ rates, but haven’t largely put utility installation plans on hold.
While the consumer smart meter backlash probably won’t be going away any time soon, the smart grid industry will be heartened to learn that meter ramp-up stats are on track and higher than expected.
As for the global smart meter picture, Pike predicts a $3.9 billion industry by 2015, with 250 million meters installed. Canada has tens of millions of meters being deployed, Europe has many tens of millions more due by the end of the decade under government mandates (pdf), and Asia — particularly China — is playing an increasingly important role.
Five big companies — Elster, Landis+Gyr, Itron, Sensus and General Electric — dominate the smart meter market in North America and Europe, though Echelon and others are making inr0ads into the business. But smart meter communications and networking are increasingly being handled by startups like Silver Spring Networks, Trilliant and SmartSynch, and back-end management, billing and customer support functions are being tackled by startups including eMeter and Ecologic Analytics.
REPLY COMMENTS OF EMF SAFETY NETWORK ON PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ SULLIVAN
Sublamentary information on alleged ‘smart’ meter compliance with existing FCC exposure limits submitted 11-22-2010 by Sandi Maurer, EMF Safety Network.
Excerpt: Download the full PDF document here.
“The FCC Grants of Equipment Authorization for Smart Meters warn that RF
exposure compliance depends on specific conditions.1 The FCC requirements,
according to Grant of Equipment Authorization notes, include one or more of the
following conditions, depending on the specific make and model of Smart Meter. As
Network reads FCC compliance conditions, it appears that PG&E is in violation of one
or more of the following conditions:
• limited single module approval requires professional installation;
• antenna(s) must provide a separation distance of at least 20 cm from all persons;
• antenna(s) must not be co-located or operating in conjunction with any other
antenna or transmitter;
• end-users and installers must be provided with antenna installation and
transmitter operating conditions for satisfying RF exposure compliance.”
Comments by Cindy Sage,
Sage Associates
November 16, 2010
on the article: ‘No Health Threat From Smart Meters’
by
Klaus Bender. PE
Director of Standards & Engineering
Utilities Telecom Council
Summary In this article, we defined the concept of the smart grid and the benefits to society. We also highlighted the importance of radio networks to the successful deployment of the smart grid. We discuss the important concepts of RF energy and the impact on humans. Specifically, there is no demonstrated longterm impact of low level non ionizing energy on humans.
[Note: Italicized text quoted from Mr. Bender’s statement for UTC.]
The author ignores decades of published scientific work that delineates bioeffects and adverse health effects due to long-term, low-intensity ELF and RF exposures. This statement that there is no demonstrated impact is false and unsupportable.
Ionizing energy, beginning with the ultraviolet component of sunlight, has been demonstrated to have long term impact, but the frequencies citing in this report are hundreds of orders of magnitude below that of sunlight. Therefore, this shows that the often quoted sources in the media expressing concern about the RF safety from smart meters are shown to be based on faulty logic, or faulty “facts” and misrepresentations.
Bender’s assertion that only ionizing radiation has adverse effects on humans shows either an intention to mislead, or gross ignorance of the scientific literature and scientific controversy over the inadequacy of existing FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits for non-ionizing radiation. Further it ignores scientific evidence that anyone in a position of leadership should take into account before issuing industry-position articles.
We show that a specific analysis of the component used in this smart grid deployment are significantly below general population MPE and note, again, that FCC limits for MPE of general population are already at least 50 times lower than levels that can cause tissue heating.
This statement justifies smart meter exposures on the basis of clearly outdated and inadequate FCC public safety limits. Tissue heating is of no relevance. Health harm from chronic, low-intensity exposure to smart meters in the manner installed and operated in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of residences would be due to nonthermal (low-intensity) exposures that are chronic – not acute exposures that are very short term. Bender also ignores the evidence that FCC MPEs for localized exposure (peak exposure) are also likely violated since there is no adequate way to mandate separation distances for the public.
An examination of a majority of smart meters being deployed today will show these devices use low power levels associated with unlicensed devices, on the equivalent magnitude as the devices that provide WiFi connectivity in the home. Millions of laptop computers are used in homes every day that transmit at levels similar to the smart meter and the transmitters from these devices are always “on”.
Exactly the point. The public already has significant exposures to RF/MW, from other sources. The cumulative exposure by adding on mandatory, smart meter exposures may place people over the exising FCC limits (which are inadequate) even in their own homes.
Some utilities are deploying meter reading systems that use commercial wireless providers to gather data. These meters have the same radio components as cell phones, the same phone consumers raise to their head every day.
This thinking highlights how industry is oblivious to the obvious. Cell phone exposures, to which Bender compares smart meter emissions, are already showing a doubling of risk for malignant brain tumors at only 10 years and longer ipsilateral use, in adults and a five-fold increased risk for young people. Surely, a comparison of smart meter emissions to cell phone use is not reassuring. And, the combined exposures are even more likely to be harmful to health.
So when confronted with complaints that say smart meters cause a variety of health effects, ask the complainant to produce the science to support the claim. The conversation should end shortly thereafter.
The author is cheerfully referred to the ‘classroom corner’ to read and report back on the references listed below.
Who is UTC?
From their website at: https://www.utc.org/utc/about-utc “The Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) is a global trade association dedicated to creating a favorable business, regulatory, and technological environment for companies that own, manage, or provide critical telecommunications systems in support of their core business.
Founded in 1948 to advocate for the allocation of additional radio spectrum for power utilities, UTC has evolved into a dynamic organization that represents electric, gas, and water utilities; natural gas pipelines; critical infrastructure companies; and other industry stakeholders.”
What do you expect? This rebuttal by Bender on behalf of an industry trade group should be considered in light of UTCs stated mission “to create a favorable business, regulatory and technological environment for the telecom industry”.– to promote the industry rather than to provide reliable, independent assessment of health problems associated with the industry’s products.
Tragedy of the Commons Revisited: The High Tech-High Risk Wireless World
Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Reviews on Environmental Health, Volume 25, No. 4, 2010, pp 319-324
Freund Publishing House Ltd.
The October-December 2010 issue of Reviews on Environmental Health will carry this article by Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates, and co-editor of the BioInitiative Report. It is a perspective on the need to recognize “the air as commons”. It addresses our diminishing capacity to deploy unlimited radiofrequency and microwave radiation burden into the environment. What is ‘the wireless commons’? Who owns it? Who is monitoring it’s carrying capacity, and who is preventing overuse with respect to public health and environmental impacts?
(Excerpts)
Tragedy of the Commons Revisited: The New Wireless Commons
In 1968, Garrett Hardin, an eminent population ecologist from Santa Barbara, CA published an article in Science titled ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (1). It was immediately hailed as a landmark piece of thinking. It reshaped prevailing views about our place in the ecological network of the planet. It was pivotal in defining how pursuit of our individual actions to maximize self-interest will, across populations all doing the same thing, result in diminished and overused environmental resources.
Hardin focused our attention like never before on three things. Resources are finite. The actions of each of us, acting in our own self-interest, collectively degrades and depletes them over the long-term. And, the inevitable result is diminished quality of life. He saw that where individuals seek to maximize their own use of finite resources at the expense of the common good (i.e. the commons) it’s at the expense of everyone’s ultimate self-interest to do so.
Before sustainability was a even buzzword, Hardin created a way of seeing the world that emphasized how individuals must learn to recognize and to act with more in mind than squeezing one more cow onto the common pasture. He gave us new ways to think about how we might better manage our resources in the face of new technologies. He was not a believer in the technological fix. Those lessons are highly relevant today.
‘The Air as Commons’ and Wireless Technologies
Where wireless is concerned, the new ‘commons’ is the air all around us. The air is an essential part of our common heritage. Decades of traditional air pollution control efforts have validated the need to protect this ‘commons of the air’ from chemical and particulate contaminants (2). Today, the new threat is emissions from wireless technologies.
All wireless technologies impact this ‘commons’ and every one adds to the burden of radiofrequency and microwave radiation that is transmitted through the air, into buildings and into all living things. Wireless transmissions drive electromagnetic energy through our air, into and through virtually all indoor and outdoor living environments. The protective air cushion around our planet holds breathable air, buffers us from space radiation, and supports and sustains life in tandem with the natural electromagnetic signature of the earth itself. We are changing this ‘commons of the air’ in major ways. Wireless signals from broadcast and communications technologies are crowding out and overpowering the natural background. The ‘commons of the air’ is being altered in unprecedented ways that have enormous consequences for life on earth.
Who owns the the new ‘commons’? Who should be allowed to pollute it? What are the limits? On what basis should carrying capacity be defined? Who defines the limits? Do these limits conserve the resource for the future? Do they protect public health and welfare, and the health and well-being of other living things on earth? Who bears the burden of proof of safety or of harm? How should the ‘new commons’ be managed for the greater good? Do we know enough to act responsibly? Who decides? When should limits be placed on utilization?
Societies must now define carrying capacity for chronic electromagnetic and wireless exposures. Taking into account there is large individual variability to withstand it, new limits must conserve and sustain the ‘commons of the air’ so that is sustainable for all – and this includes sensitive populations, the young, the elderly, and those with existing sensitivity.
Correspondence: Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA USA sage@silcom.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Joshua Hart, Stop Smart Meters!
November 8th 2010 joshuanoahhart@gmail.com Stop Smart Meters!
DIRECTOR OF PG&E’S SMART METER PROGRAM CAUGHT FALSIFYING HIS IDENTITY
William Devereaux Infiltrated Health Advocacy Group in Order to Gather Intelligence
San Francisco- William Devereaux, Senior Director of Pacific Gas and Electric’s ‘Smart’ Meter program has been caught falsifying his identity in a covert attempt to access information from a group of citizens opposing the new meters. The group has been identifying and collecting evidence of widespread health problems, meter inaccuracies, electrical interference and customer information privacy problems caused by PG&E’s wireless ‘Smart’ Meters.
Devereaux, who has testified to numerous local governments throughout California and made claims about the meters’ safety and accuracy, has been using a fake name on other activist listservs for months. This may explain how PG&E contractors Wellington Energy knew to evacuate their installation yard in Rohnert Park before a protest planned by neighborhood groups on October 28th. But on Thursday, November 4, Devereaux pushed his luck and was caught lying about his own identity and hiding his position with PG&E. Apparently assuming that his name would be hidden, Devereaux signed his e-mail to Sandi Maurer, moderator of the EMF Safety Coalition, “Ralph.” However, his e-mail program revealed the sender’s true identity:
On Nov 4, 2010, at 3:23 PM, William Devereaux wrote:
> Hi Sandi,
> Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I’ve been travelling a lot. I live in Oakland where Smart >meters have been sweeping across town and wanted to learn more about them and join the conversation to >see what I can do to help out here.
> Thanks,
> Ralph
“This is not a single indiscretion, but rather typical of the false information that PG&E has publicized, fabricating advantages for customers.” said Ellen Marks of the Environmental Health Trust. “Contrary to PG&E claims, we will face significantly increased utility bills, collection of private data revealing information about events occurring inside our home, and exposure to powerful spikes of microwave radiation 24 hours a day through our brains and bodies.”
The deception by one of PG&E’s top officials is only the latest in a series of unethical tactics used to force ‘Smart’ Meters on an increasingly skeptical public. PG&E has been ripping off ‘do not install signs’ on meters, and threatening to cut off the gas and electricity supply to elderly residents of Santa Rosa- even as winter approaches- unless they accept a ‘Smart’ Meter. The company has also censored public comments on its Facebook page, deleting references to peer-reviewed scientific studies showing health damage from RadioFrequency (RF) radiation at levels far below those from the ‘Smart’ Meter.
PG&E’s meter program represents the largest system technology roll out in the history of California, yet they have not even done a basic Environmental Impact Report, which could have caught the massive violations of health, privacy invasion and increased costs to customers. The meters have been plagued with problems since the beginning, starting with widespread reports of inflated bills, privacy violations, electrical interference and reports of health issues from residents who have received the new meters. ‘Smart’ Meters use microwave radiation (similar to a cell phone) to transmit customer data back to the utility, and are being installed just as the public learns of evidence that brain tumors and other health damage can be traced to similar wireless devices. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) which sanctioned PG&E’s $2.2 billion program to install 10 million new meters throughout California at the expense of ratepayers, has not allowed individuals to opt out even in cases of severe health impacts.
Nearly two dozen local governments* have called for a moratorium. The State’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) last month also demanded public hearings be held to study potential health risks resulting from exposure to radiation from the meters.
According to Joshua Hart of Stop Smart Meters!, “This fraud and covert espionage against the people of California, carried out by the Director of the ‘Smart’ Meter Program in California, should immediately force a moratorium on ‘Smart’ Meter installation and open up a full independent State Legislative investigation of the entire PG&E ‘Smart’ Meter Program.”
* California local governments demanding a moratorium include: the City and County of San Francisco, Santa Cruz and Marin Counties, Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo, the cities of Sebastopol, Berkeley, Cotati, Fairfax, Santa Cruz, Piedmont, Scotts Valley, Capitola, Watsonville, Sausalito, San Anselmo, Belvedere, Monte Sereno, Novato, Richmond, Ross, Bolinas, and Camp Meeker
Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/u981653977/domains/eon3emfblog.net/public_html/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4732
