Glendale Water and Power responded to follow-up questions I had about Smart Meter radiation, after the first round of questions was answered, by commissioning a special report from the Utilities Telecom Council in Washington, D.C.
Report to the City of Glendale: Health Effects of Radio Frequency Energy from Smart Meters and Collection Systems accompanied GWP’s own responses to these questions:
Q: Has GWP calculated the cumulative RF emissions from a mesh network of smart meters and their associated transmission devices at varying locations throughout the city?
A: In reality the strength of the RF emissions decrease greatly as one moves away from the transmission source, so once there is some distance from a source overlapping densities would be lower than the density near a source. The attached paper describes that because the RF emissions are very low, and that Smart Meter systems operate intermittently, RF emission densities, even relatively close to the transmission source, are well within FCC requirements.
Q: What is GWP’s position on the concerns raised by Bay Area residents to the CPUC that the cumulative radio frequency emissions of all these meters in a mesh network have not been calculated and therefore might have harmful effects that aren’t known?
A: Please see our answer to the previous question and the attached paper.
Q: How often will these smart meters be transmitting information throughout the day? I read that PG&E first told its Bay Area customers that theirs would only transmit for 45 seconds per day, but these customers later found out that wasn’t the case and that the meters would transmit continuously. Will these transmit once a day, or continuously throughout the day?
A: As described in the attached paper the meters will only need to transmit intermittently. For our calculations used in the attached paper we were very conservative and assumed the meters would transmit many times more frequently than we expect them to. Even so, the exposure less than 1 foot from the meter is still many times below the FCC limit. And as described in an answer to a previous question, because the energy density diminishes very quickly as the distance from the meter is increased, the exposure is even less further from the meter. Please see the attached paper for the details.
Q: I sent a list of peer-reviewed studies which documented harmful effects of long-term exposure to low-level radiation. Is GWP’s position that these studies should be disregarded? The literature I’ve read indicates that the FCC, WHO, and other bodies use industry-funded studies and engineers’ recommendations (as opposed to medical professionals) in setting RF exposure guidelines.
A: The FCC has jurisdiction over the approval and use of radio frequency devices. FCC regulations are based on standards set by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers based on years of research by health professionals. The FCC is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, to evaluate the effect of emissions from FCC-regulated transmitters on the quality of the human environment. The attached paper covers the setting of permissible exposure limits and how conservative the limits are.
Q: If a GWP customer objects to a smart meter installation on the grounds that there are unknown public health effects, what recourse do they have and what rights will GWP assert against them?
A: There is much that the Smart Grid will be able to do to improve electrical service to all customers. The Smart Meters and other components of the Smart Grid will provide for monitoring the health of the system and aid in alarming or performing changes to the Grid before failures occur. It is impractical to operate the system without using the features available for improved reliability and cost effectiveness, and unfair to the rest of the customers who expect the improved performance of the system. Since there are no known public health effects from the meters, and since the meters will meet the FCC requirements, and since the referenced paper clarifies that the anticipated RF emissions are prudent and well below FCC limitations, we certainly hope that all customers will recognize that there should be no concern about unknown health effects.
The commissioned report estimated that smart meters would transmit roughly every 15 minutes, but its calculations of radio frequency energy were based on a transmission rate of every 15 seconds. Ned Bassin at GWP explains, “The use of a frequency of transmission every 15 seconds (a duty cycle percentage of 7%) is simply to be very conservative in the calculation by assuming a frequency considerably higher than what we expect to have. We do not mean to imply that we expect a frequency of transmission that frequent…For the near future we anticipate collecting the data from residential customers perhaps every six or eight hours. The actual frequency that a particular meter ultimately transmits will be dependent on how quickly we need to collect usage data and how effective the communication path for data transmission is. We think that a frequency of transmission every 15 seconds is much more frequent than what we would ever expect.”
Bassin went on, “To be clear about how low the energy density is, the calculation shows that even if the meter was transmitting continuously (a duty cycle percentage of 100%) the exposure 4 inches away from the meter would still be well below the Maximum Permissible Limit over any time period. Again, there is no implication that we expect a frequency of transmission that frequent, only to put the low energy density in clear perspective.”
Whether it is a cell tower, cell phone, wi-max system, or smart meters, the FCC’s commitment to public health is clearly not trusted at the grass-roots level.
In the Bay Area, protests continue as citizens are convinced PG&E isn’t providing complete information about smart meters and isn’t taking health effects into consideration. The first video embedded in the link shows a senior PG&E official acknowledging widespread public concern.
With respect to the potential health impacts of smart meters’ wireless signals, the Glendale-commissioned report states, “While research continues into long term effects, there has been no conclusive evidence that low level RF energy has a long term negative impact.” This statement is an opinion only and not a fact. Several peer-reviewed scientific studies exist demonstrating adverse health effects from constant exposure to low-level nonionizing radiation, and a number of scientists and public health professionals are speaking out about this issue (the Commonwealth Club of California just last month hosted a day-long conference on health effects of wireless technologies). There is plenty of evidence; however, industry, the government, and the utilities have decided that it is not “conclusive.”
Mass installations of the smart meters began in Glendale last week.
WIRELESS SMART METERS DAMAGE CELLS (HURT PEOPLE).
At the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Nov 18, a dozen world renowned scientists reported finding (observing) that low amounts of signal radiation, the kind coming from WIRELESS smart meters, results in cell damage. This trumps whatever previous number of scientists reported that they could not find any.
Once we get up in space and see the world is round, it doesn’t matter how many scientists previously claimed it was flat.
The FCC continuing to base their guidelines on a world that is flat does matter to people who care about themselves, their children, their friends, their complete families, their pets and other animals, birds, bees, etc.
When we combine CELL DAMAGE with epidemiology studies that show associations of the same type of signal radiation exposure and cancer (and other lesser illness symptoms) that places these WIRELESS smart meters into the public health hazard category.
As with cigarettes, asbestos, DDT, lead dust, we don’t know exactly how many will die and how many will become ill. And we don’t know exactly why some people get ill right away and others do not. And we don’t know if everyone would eventually become ill if they lived long enough.
But though those questions are interesting, more relevant for people and animals, is avoidance of cigarettes, asbestos, DDT, lead and now add WIRELESS smart meters to their list, as well as other wireless devices, the most damaging being those that emit PULSED radiation as do smart meters, rather than steady signal radiation.
SCIENTISTS AND REAL PEOPLE REPORTING – QUITE DIFFERENT THAN UTILITY COMPANY.
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. WiFi in schools proven dangerous (14 minutes, 32 seconds)
http://www.youtube.com/safeschool#p/u/3/KN7VetsCR2I
4. 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
5. Radiation Measured From Smart Meter Mounted On A Home (6 minutes, 21 seconds)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRejDxBE6OE
6. Skyrocketing Utility Bills after smart meter installation (3 minutes, 19 seconds)
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/63581287.html?tab=video
7. Wounded by Wireless Smart Meters (14 minutes, 19 seconds)
http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=840
Pingback: Smart Meter Technical Study: FCC Limits Will Be Exceeded in Many Cases