Glendale resident Tony Passarella announced a new website providing information on smart meters, GlendaleAction.com, and a community-wide forum on smart meters (details TBD), at last night’s city council meeting. Passarella said many citizens have questions and concerns about GWP’s city-wide smart meter installation.
Passarella highlighted questions about health, privacy, security, and need for the meters. He spoke at 1 hour, 30 minutes into the meeting; his comments can be viewed on the City of Glendale September 27, 2011 meeting video.
At the September Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council meeting, the vote was 8-2 to hold a community forum on this subject. GWP sent two representatives to that meeting, and although they weren’t on the schedule, they spoke about smart meter benefits. While a small minority supported them, the majority at the meeting were upset about the program.
Comments from homeowners to the GWP representatives included:
“I don’t need something with bells and whistles.”
“You let the horse out of the barn and now you’re trying to lock up the barn.”
“We’re already savvy.”
“The vast majority of residents are not even aware they have smart meters.”
“I think the [GWP smart meter] program is very punitive. I have a family of 7 — my dad has Alzheimer’s, and I work out of my home. I opted out. My grandkids play in the back yard. This program is being shoved down my throat and [with the GWP opt out program that may involve fees] I will have to pay for my grandchildren not to have cancer. It is very punitive and I’m very unhappy.”
When the fact emerged that GWP had set up a “do not install” list, and only those who happened to write or call in and ask about it had learned this was an option, people were again upset. Several then wanted to know if they now had a right to opt out, and why they were never told that they could opt out.
According to Martin Powers, GWP is waiting to hear what the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will decide for PG&E customers who don’t want smart meters. This is a heated issue: PG&E customers have been relentless in criticizing the universal roll-out of smart meters in Northern California. GWP is not bound by the CPUC’s decision but Powers indicated that it would be easier to adopt a similar policy.
The financial aspect of GWP’s smart grid investment was also touched on at the Glendale homeowners meeting – more on that in an upcoming post.
Glendale residents should be aware that this is a state-wide and nation-wide issue. Citizens everywhere are upset about this roll-out, the technology, and its implications, and their sustained activism is the only reason the CPUC now has this issue on its docket.
A CPUC administrative law judge has been holding regular hearings on proposals for smart meter opt-outs. Just last week, CPUC ruled that SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E are required to offer delay lists to customers until a smart meter opt-out proposal is approved.
The CPUC is holding a rare Southern California meeting in Los Angeles on October 6; residents here opposed to smart meters can speak up against them during Public Comment (Location, time, and background information here: http://burbankaction.wordpress.com/calendar/).
I went to GlendaleAction.com and found this:
#############################
Have you seen one of these RF radiation emitting smart meter communication devices installed on a light post outside or near your home or child’s school (see photo to the right)? We found right outside our hillside homes and at the corner of Jefferson Elementary in Burbank! World Health Organization scientists have just classified the type of radiation emitted from smart meters as a Class 2B carcinogen — on par with lead and DDT! Would you spray the inside and outside of your home, schools and neighborhood with DDT 24/7 every day of the year? Smart meters have also been found to emit radiation levels that exceed the FCC’s RF public exposure standards. No wonder people are reporting health problems from smart meters (headaches, nausea, heart problems, insomnia and ear ringing).
###########################
This is absolute garbage. Zero credibility. Nothing but fearmongering.
To refute just one of the egregious lies from above:
Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) or electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), also referred to as electrohypersensitivity, electrosensitivity and electrical sensitivity (ES), is a set of claims of adverse medical symptoms purportedly caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields. Although the thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on the body are established, self-described sufferers of electromagnetic hypersensitivity report responding to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (or electromagnetic radiation) at intensities well below the limits permitted by international radiation safety standards. The majority of provocation trials to date have found that self-described sufferers of electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to distinguish between exposure to real and fake electromagnetic fields, and it is not recognized as a medical condition by the medical or scientific communities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity
If people are reporting health problems from smart meters like headaches, nausea, heart problems, insomnia and ear ringing, their problems are not coming from the smart meters. As with every other wireless radio device that communicates over microwave frequencies, carefully-controlled double-blind tests confirm that people who claim such sensitivity CANNOT TELL whether the device in the room with them is on or off.
So Bill Weisman we know you work for the energy company! Rather than criticizing the truth–how about being thankful that you are not one the people who are made immediately sick by smart meters? Hope you’re looking forward to your greatly increased risk of cancer!
See what Dr. David Carpenter has to say on the subject…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7L21XOC2wA
What the wireless industry is doing to us is criminal!
Read these double-blind peer reviewed studies that show how this type of radiation affects electromagnetic hypersensitive individuals:
1. Read “Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from DECT phone affects autonomic nervous system,” by M. Havas, J. Marrongelle, B. Pollner, E. Kelley, C.R.G. Rees, L. Tully, published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5, 2010. The study shows that radiation from a digital cordless phone base station affects the heart in a double-blind provocation study.
Go here to access the study: http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Havas-HRV-Ramazzini1.pdf
(You can watch a related video: http://www.youtube.com/user/magdahavas#p/u/6/_EI9fZX4iww)
2. In July 2011, a scientific study was released showing that electrosensitivity is not a psychological response. The peer-reviewed study “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Evidence for a Novel Neurological Syndrome,” was published in the International Journal of Neuroscience, and its authors include David E. McCarty, M.D., Simona Carrubba, Ph.D., Andrew L. Chesson, Jr., M.D., Clifton Frilot, II, Ph.D., Eduardo Gonzalez-Toledo, M.D., Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D.
It studied a woman who knew she was electrosensitive and then exposed her to certain types of EMF without her knowing it. Her symptomatic responses were associated in particular with pulsed EMF.
You can find this study on-line at: http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/McCarty_Marino_2011_EMF_ES__neurological_syndrome_Int_J_Neurosci_July.pdf
Given that Mr. Weisman may work for the utility, we must realize there is a certain bias. Those who would profit from these toxic devices will always stand up for them.
But truth has a tendency to shine through untruth.
Read on:
David O. Carpenter, M.D.
University at Albany State University of New York
Institute for Health and the Environment
and
Department of Environmental Health Sciences
School of Public Health
This is a report on the review of the California Council on Science and Technology document, “Health Impacts of Radiofrequency from Smart Meters”. I am a public health physician and former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany. I have been involved in review and analysis of studies on electromagnetic fields, including radiofrequency fields, for many years. I served as the Executive Secretary to the New York State Powerlines Project in the 1980s, and have published several reviews on the subject and have edited two books. In addition I was invited to present to the recent President’s Cancer Panel on the subject of powerline and radiofrequency fields and cancer.
This document is not an accurate description of the state of the science on the issue of radiofrequency fields, and is full of inaccuracies. My specific concerns are as follows:
The benefit of the smart meters is entirely to the utilities, and is economic in nature. If they install smart meters they can fire those individuals who at present are employed to go around reading meters. Thus this is a job-killing proposal, and will increase unemployment in a state that already has too much.
When a smart meter is installed residents have no choice in the matter nor ability to avoid exposure. But every individual has the option to use or not use other personal wireless devices, until more is known about health consequences of chronic RF exposure. There is a major difference between an exposure which an individual chooses to accept and one that is forced on individuals who can do nothing about it.
The statement “The potential for behavioral disruption from increase body tissue temperatures is the only biological health impact that has been consistently demonstrated and scientifically proven to result from absorbing RF within the band of the electromagnetic spectrum that smart meters use” is totally wrong. In the first place there are many adverse health effects other than “behavioral disruption” demonstrated as a result of tissue heating. The evidence for increased risk of brain tumors, acoustic neuromas and parotid gland tumors in individuals who have used a cell phone for 10 years or more is consistent, and the tumors occur predominantly on the side of the head where the phone is used. There is also strong and consistent evidence for increased risk of leukemia in individuals who live near to high power AM radio transmission towers, even though this report characterizes such exposures as being “quite low” and show in Figure 7 that they are lower than the RF fields from smart meters.
The statement “The scientific consensus is that body temperatures must increase at least 1oC to lead to potential biological impacts from the heat” is totally wrong, and makes it obvious that no persons with medical or biological expertise participated in this report. Every enzyme system in the body is exquisitely sensitive to temperature, and increases activity by even a fraction of a degree increase in temperature. In fact all RF generates heat, and what is defined as “non-thermal” is only a function of our ability to measure the temperature increase.
The statement “While concerns of brain cancer associated with mobile phone usage persist, there is currently no definitive evidence linking cell phone usage with increased incidence of cancer” is incorrect. The evidence is strong and consistent among studies looking at long-term and intensive use of cell phones. The AM radio studies mentioned above are also relevant, particularly because like smart phones radio transmission towers give whole body radiation, not just to the head.
The statement “There currently is no conclusive scientific evidence pointing to a non-thermal cause-and-effect between human exposure to RF emissions and negative health impacts is
inaccurate, and depends totally on what one defines as conclusive”. In biology and medicine there is nothing that is 100% proven. We rely on statistical significance and weight of evidence when drawing conclusions about health effects. When one uses these definitions there is conclusive scientific evidence for adverse health effects in humans.
The evidence for adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation is currently strong and grows stronger with each new study. Wired meters with shielded cable do not increase exposure. The report clearly indicates that “smart meters could conceivably be adapted to non-wireless transmission of data. However, retrofitting millions of smart meters with hard-wired technology could be difficult and costly.” Clearly the answer to this dilemma is not to install wireless smart meters to begin with.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this faulty report, and on the general issue of smart meters. Their use is unwise from both a public health point of view, which is where my expertise lies, but and also from a purely short and long-term economic point of view.
Yours sincerely,
David O. Carpenter, M.D.
Director, Institute for Health and the Environment
University at Albany
For another physician’s opinion, please see this letter sent to the California Council on Science and Technology. I personally have experienced the devastating effects of the smart meter technology and place my trust in my own body and in the expert opinions that come from individuals NOT affiliated with the utilities, the telecommunications industry, and the financial sector. Consider the source,
http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/docs/letters/Olle_final_to_CCST.pdf
And then there is this:
Karolinska Institutet
Department of Neuroscience
Experimental Dermatology Unit
Stockholm, 2011-02-03
Scientists Urge Halt of Wireless Rollout and Call for New Safety Standards: Warning Issued on Risks to Children and Pregnant Women
Scientists who study radiofrequency radiation from wireless technologies have issued a scientific statement warning that exposures may be harming the development of children at levels now commonly found in the environment. Pregnant women are cautioned to avoid using wireless devices themselves and distance themselves from other users.
The Seletun Scientific Statement has now been published in Reviews on Environmental Health (2010; 25: 307-317). The article recommends that lower limits be established for electromagnetic fields and wireless exposures, based on scientific studies reporting health impacts at much lower exposure levels. Many researchers now believe the existing safety limits are inadequate to protect public health because they do not consider prolonged exposure to lower emission levels that are now widespread.
“Current US and ICNIRP standards for radiofrequency and microwave radiation from wireless technologies are entirely inadequate. They never were intended to address the kind of exposures from wireless devices that now affect over 4 billion people.”
(Olle Johansson, professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, and The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden)
The combined effect of cell phones, cordless phones, cell towers, WI-FI and wireless internet place billions of people around the world at risk for cancer, neurological disease and reproductive and developmental impairments.
“We are already seeing increases in health problems such as cancer and neurobehavioural impairments, even though these wireless technologies are fairly new in the last decades or so for the general public. This finding suggests that the exposures are already too high to protect people from health harm. Evidence suggests there are special risks for persons with occupational exposures to RF/MW as well as ELF.”
(Elihu Richter, assoc. professor, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel)
Safety standards also ignore the developing fetus, and young children who are more affected.
“Pregnant women and children of all ages should avoid using cell and cordless phones given the health effects we are seeing already.”
(Yuri Grigoriev, professor, Dr of Med Sci, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russian Federation)
Many countries are promoting wireless communications on a community-wide scale for energy management and conservation. The SmartGrid concept could require every home to have a wireless electric and gas meter in place of their existing meters. If implemented, it will greatly increase the intensity of new wireless emissions in homes, schools and every other building that uses electricity and gas.
“WI-FI routers, DECT phones and other wireless devices like baby monitors produce radio frequency emissions that will affect millions of people and babies in their homes, and should be halted until other, less harmful options are investigated.”
(Lukas Margaritis, professor, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics,?Faculty of Biology,?University of Athens, Athens, Greece)
The Scientific Panel urges a halt to the rollout of new wireless technologies, especially those that cause exposures for pregnant women and for children.
“New, biologically-based exposure limits are crucial to guide new technology development toward solutions that are not harmful to health. The global rollout of wireless technologies has outpaced both health studies and calls for more restrictive public safety limits.”
(Cindy Sage, co-editor of The Bioinitiative Report, MA, Sage Associates,?Santa Barbara, CA, USA)
Copies of the Seletun Scientific Statement [Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C. “Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: Consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Scientific Meeting: Seletun, Norway, November 17-21, 2009”, Rev Environ Health 2010; 25: 307-317] can be obtained from the Karolinska Institute. Contact: Prof. Olle Johansson.
Pretty funny to see all of these knees jerking and accusing me of working for the utility! I’m ROTFLMAO!!! I have yet to see my first payment from GWP; guess I need to start watching the mailbox. Hey, if I really wanted to make money I’d be manufacturing tinfoil hats to sell to you guys.
How about some simple facts that anyone can verify?
You may not like it, but the fact is that the mainstream consensus regarding smart meters, cell phones, iPads, laptops, cordless phones, Bluetooth devices, WiFi, baby monitors, etc., is that there is currently no credible scientific evidence that they pose any risk to the public health or safety.
The independent Environmental Defense Fund has reviewed the science behind the technology and declared it safe:
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2011/04/18/smart-meter-best-practice-proactively-address-public-concerns/
A recent in-depth review of the scientific literature by the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that “current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields.” The review states that “in the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation, approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals.”
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html
The American Cancer Society, after a careful and thorough review, concludes that there is no credible evidence of health or safety risks from cellular infrastructure:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/cellular-phone-towers
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/cellular-phones
The federal agency responsible for wireless device regulation, the FCC, says “Recently, some health and safety interest groups have interpreted certain reports to suggest that wireless device use may be linked to cancer and other illnesses, posing potentially greater risks for children than adults. While these assertions have gained increased public attention, currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.”
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns
http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/Welcome.html
The Environmental Defense Fund doesn’t think it’s a problem.
The United Nations World Health Organization doesn’t think it’s a problem.
The American Cancer Society doesn’t think it’s a problem. Do you really think that the American Cancer Society is lying to you about this, or is on the payroll of the smart meter industry?
The FCC doesn’t think it’s a problem.
Our smart electric meter was installed a couple of months ago. It’s just on the other side of the wall from where I sit. If you really think that I’m at increased risk of cancer, please help me out here: explain – in your own words – the mechanism by which occasional low-level microwave radio pulses cause cancer. Don’t send me any links – your own words. Because if you can’t or won’t do that, it proves to me that you have no idea what you’re talking about.