Published on Apr 27, 2012
Download documentation for this talk: http://takebackyourpower.net/thurs-ap…
On a conf call (26 Apr 2012), Prof. Glen Chase explains several critically important documents about smart meters – privacy and health – in an easy-to-understand way.
♦ Did PG&E really admit in a court order that the average smart meter emits radiation bursts 14,000 times per day… and some up to 190,000?
♦ What key scientific research paper did the County of Santa Cruz Health Department base its ‘no-smart-meter’ ruling on, and how can it be easily understood?
♦ What does the science actually say about smart meters, in their advanced ability to report private details of your use for each appliance… and why do we not have access to this data in the home? What other facts are being withheld by utilities and governments?
Professor Chase teaches Systems Management specializing in Environmental Economics and Statistics; faculty alumn USC, Cal State, Monterey Institute of Int’l Studies, Naval Post-Graduate School.
Clearly, FCC personnel have a conflict of interest in their selection of which radiofrequency and microwave radiation exposure limits to adopt. They cannot help it: they work for industry. And they do a great job of it. They simply are NOT a public health agency and therefore are UNABLE to prioritize public safety and health.
The FCC does not even monitor or enforce its own high microwave heating radiofrequency limits on cellular antennas, according to an established EMR safety organization’s RECENT REPORT. This allows microwave meat-cooking levels of radiation to ebb and flow near cellular towers. The slow-cook of people’s bodies and brains is occurring, including babies, pregnant women, the elderly and other vulnerable individuals. RF radiation exposure is cumulative. But most people do not experience EFFECTS until the damage is entrenched.
Stop the FCC from slow-cooking Americans. Please SIGN THIS PETITION to get the ball rolling and create a record that can gain traction. Save your own loved ones and future generations from being slow-cooked. Let’s get congress to enlist the EPA and create meaningful, biological exposure limits – it is our best hope at this point.
Plenty of financial reasons exist to avoid installing wireless broadband in Wisconsin localities or counties, and instead put in long-range fiber optic systems. Here is a reprint of a consumer comment posted at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin broadband input page (with a couple additions by the writer).
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 4:55 PM
To: Chattopadhyay, Tithi – PSC
Cc: Evenson, Gary – PSC; Jones, Krystal – PSC; Paske, Sandra – PSC; Rybarik, Brian – PSC; Jahn, Peter – PSC
Subject: To Tithi Chattopadhyay, and other PSC participants in Broadband Symposium, RE: consumer information, from Ms. Zehfus
Dear Tithi Chattopadhyay and other (2013) PSC Broadband Symposium participants,
I would like to send you this information as a consumer and (state inhabitant impacted by) Wisconsin broadband planning. Please consider the following information for the 2013 Broadband Planning Symposium this week, and beyond. Thank you.
Wisconsin residents and industries deserve an efficient, expandable, economical, cohesive broadband infrastructure. Fiber optic fits the bill, while wireless broadband fails to rival the durable, speed-of-light, high-capacity wired system.
“Building big broadband networks is not just a matter of international competition; it is also economically efficient. Because of the limited dollars available, it is more economically efficient to invest these resources into networks with unlimited potential (such as fiber-optic cable) than to invest in the deployment of a multitude of interim technologies whose bandwidth could be overwhelmed by Internet traffic in a few years. American policy should thus focus on future-proof networks – networks employing technologies that are scalable and adaptable to future growth in demand. Several existing technologies are limited by physics and geography and will be obsolete in three to five years. Our resources will be better spent on technologies that have a long shelf life.” –A Blueprint for Big Broadband: An Educause White Paper
When speaking of overall costs, initial installation outlay for fiber (in places where the groundwork has not yet reached) is a one-time expense. Fiber will soon pay for itself, while the wireless broadband systems create an ongoing money drain in numerous ways.
$$$ As described in the above quote, as soon as a wireless system comes out it has already begun to become obsolete. Constant wireless upgrades attempting to meet growing demand for bandwidth and applications add ongoing R&D expenses to costs for users and supporting governmental agencies/funding.
$$$ The wireless system is not reliable or dependable, being vulnerable to interference from terrain, structures (especially metal) and weather variations. Wisconsin residents will pay more for maintenance and repairs than they would for protected wired systems.
$$$ Radiofrequency broadband poses serious privacy and security risks for individuals and at the state/national levels. Hackers/terrorists may glean data from the emitted signals at significant cost to consumers and government. Continuous updates of security software and associated law enforcement work would incur additional (hidden) expenses.
$$$ Potential losses to farm profits and the food supply exist according to science that has found impacts to the navigational and immune systems of bees that pollinate crops. Expanding rural wireless broadband may increase this serious risk.
$$$ Safety questions about wireless RF emissions are not resolved. People are hearing from reputable, established experts and scientists about biological risks of RF exposures. (see studies at end). Resistance to WiFi in schools is growing (worldwide). Studies show that children absorb more electromagnetic radiation than adults. The UK Stewart Report shows that a 5-year-old will absorb around 60% more than an adult. As more consumers understand how wireless broadband blankets their homes, neighborhoods, daycares, parks, not just school buildings, they may connect the dots and reject the system.
$$$ It does not inspire consumer confidence that the FCC has no biologically-based RF exposure limits, nor that the agency appears to be failing to enforce its existing thermal limits for cellular antenna sites. (Professional medical groups are warning about wireless risks, especially for children.) In the end, educated, health-conscious consumers will eventually run, not walk, away from wireless and insist upon radiation-free wired options.
$$$ And, finally, the fact that established insurance companies, such as Lloyd’s of London, have refused to insure cell phones and other wireless devices due to safety and liability risks should turn the light bulb on: investing in wireless broadband is an expensive dead-end endeavor, especially when you figure in the (inevitable) fiber “do over.”
Wisconsin should get it right the first time. Safe, durable, efficient, economical, expandable fiber optic is the long-term investment that will keep the profits flowing and serve state (inhabitants) and stakeholders for decades to come.
Charyl Zehfus, researcher/writer
Studies and Scientist/Expert Reports to consider
Electromagnetic Fields and Leakage of the Blood Brain Barrier: Dr. Leif Salford
Can Cell Phones Damage DNA and Cause Cancer? Dr. Henry Lai
“Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and listed RF radiation as a class 2b potential carcinogen.
2012 BioInitiative Report: 1800+ recent studies showing reason for RF precautions
SOME Wisconsin areas have planners who believe they are getting ahead with county-wide wireless broadband. But inhabitants of these areas will be paying the ongoing costs detailed above unless a transition to smarter fiber optic occurs.
Excel.net map shows broadband radiation’s reach in Sheboygan County:
If you ask to opt out of a WI smart meter, the utilities and the PSC will say no and hand you the following propaganda.
Compare the propaganda to This industry document written by a Wisconsin PSC lawyer. Click on “Regulatory Aspects of Smart Metering: United States Experience” by Diane Ramthun at bottom of page to view.
The 2011 paper clearly reveals how utility regulators have known about many smart meter risks, which they call “consumer protection” regulatory issues. Yet, there was never a public disclosure or discussion of these and other risks prior to roll-outs.
MarshfieldTV, INSIGHT with Jeff Cannon interviewed area resident Dorothy Schnitzler on the dangers of Smart Meters.
Marshfield Utilities Co. is soon to begin a $4.2 million transmitting electric meter installation that will take three years to complete. It is yet unclear where the funding comes from, and whether opt outs will be available.
Find out more at the public meeting on January 30, 2013 at Marshfield Public Library BeeBee Forum, or contact Northwoods@centurytel.net for more information.
Not all utilities allow smart meter opt outs in Wisconsin.
That is why we need to contact WI lawmakers to create code to allow ALL residents this basic right to control their own home environment and privacy.
Here is the latest about the Madison Water Utility opt outs:
WISC-TV CH 3 News At Ten Lead Story Tuesday October 2, 2012
City Council approves opt out policy for new water meters
Opt out policy was approved as follows
Option One: one-time charge was increased back to the original proposal of $50.69. (And the news article above is wrong on this–this is a one-time charge, not a monthly charge.) Roll call vote was 12-8.
Option Two: approved the WUB’s proposed $7.78 a month charge. Voice vote.
This is all subject to PSC approval.