Smart meter opt out problem-meter brand

[diaba]

hi, I have to move from where I currently have the original analog meters. I've set up a smart meter opt-out at the new address and have heard that the elster meters can cause health problems. I have specifically requested GE meters. PG &E are saying they can't guarantee them, I told them I'd wait until they could, but they will be sending someone out but refuse to tell me what brand of meter they will be bringing.

What am I doing wrong here? I even told them they could switch the ones I have here with the new ones, but they won't do that either. Nor will they allow me to pay an electrician to have them switched myself.

How can I get them to get me the general electric meters? Why are they making this so difficult?

thanks

[brian32768]

I would love to hear more about the dangers of Elster meters.
What do you think they do that is bad? How do they differ from GE products?

I am guessing you think it emits RF that is somehow dangerous?

The analog meters I have looked at have a wheel that turns when power goes through it and some way to count how many times it turns. This won't emit RF.

If you are really concerned about RF energy you should tackle the big problems first, and brand A vs brand B of a device that should not emit anything measurable (a power meter) is not worth fretting about.

Even if you have no electricity at all in your house, most of your friends and neighbors probably have cordless phones, cellphones, wifi, bluetooth, smart meters, microwave ovens, cheap light bulbs, remote control garage doors, computers, and switching power supplies. Outside there are cellphone towers, wireless internet routers, tv and radio transmitters everywhere. Stores with electric doors usually have microwave sensors.

So balancing the 0 chance of a dumb meter hurting you somehow against all that, where would you start?

If RF represents ANY danger to you then nearly everything else listed here is more dangerous than a smart meter outside your house. Have you eliminated those other threats from your life already?

[Karl Frederick]

If you are really concerned about RF energy you should tackle the big problems first, and brand A vs brand B of a device that should not emit anything measurable (a power meter) is not worth fretting about.

Brian,

I appreciate your comment about the brand of SmartMeter being of little consequence . . . providing Brand A and Brand B meet the same specifications for emitted RF power. All SmartMeters emit measureable RF power . . . it's part of their function.

If RF represents ANY danger to you then nearly everything else listed here is more dangerous than a smart meter outside your house. Have you eliminated those other threats from your life already?

What's your evidence? I'll counter with my own unsubstantiated allegation: Depending on how immersed one is in the ubiquitous RF "soup" of modern hyper-connected society, the average daily RF exposure can be increased by hundreds or thousands of times by sleeping a few feet from a SmartMeter. Perhaps we both should look at the numbers.

The power, frequencies (including modulation as well as carrier), and duty cycle of the RF signals from the sources you mention are all over the map, and their biological effects are an ongoing matter of study. The biologically generated electrical fields in our bodies are very small, compared with those imposed from the outside by our wireless technologies, so, when a reasonable choice is available, I minimize the internal vs. external signal conflict. I leave the cell phone off unless expecting a call, don't use a microwave oven, and use a wired internet connection.

You may find the conclusions of the freely available Bioinitiative 2012 report offer food for thought and sufficient reason for caution.

[brian32768]

Brian,

I appreciate your comment about the brand of SmartMeter being of little consequence . . . providing Brand A and Brand B meet the same specifications for emitted RF power. All SmartMeters emit measureable RF power . . . it's part of their function.

I want it to be clear I am not convinced about the safety or lack thereof of high frequency RF. Personally I am not worried about it but I respect your decision to be cautious.

The big thing in the original posting was that the person was asking why he/she can't get a specific brand of ANALOG meter not a smart meter. No analog meter will have ANY significant RF at all unless it's very badly made so I was asking why an Elster meter is different than a GE meter.

What's your evidence?

Go jump on Google and look up the specs for yourself. Look up power outputs on various devices that you are worried about, compare them and consider also the effects of inverse square wave law. A 500 mW cell phone 1 inch from your head will have far more impact than a 900Mhz 250 mW smart meter 20-30' away outside several walls. Have you tried measuring the smart meter output yet?

Look up the specs on smart meters. Look up the specs on other similar devices like 900 Mhz phones and baby monitors. Look up and learn about the inverse square wave law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Any information I give you will be considered suspect so you should really go do your own research.
There is a table you can look at right here:
https://www.pge.com/en/safety/systemworks/rf/index.page
Once you see it's PG&E I fear you will shut down your brain, don't do that just go confirm their numbers elsewhere.

Read arrl.org entry on smart meters. Here is a quote --

Q) Do you mean smart meters contain an intentional RF transmitter? A) Sometimes. When a smart meter contains an RF transmitter:

• The frequency of operation is typically in the 902 MHz and 2.4 GHz bands.
• Power output is typically 1 watt in the 902 MHz band and much less in the 2.4 GHz band.
• The intended range of a transmitter in a smart meter is typically very localized. While the utility-side radio needs to reach a neighborhood concentrator, typically mounted on a nearby pole, smart meters can also mesh through other smart meters to communicate with the concentrator. (using five hops or less) See Figure 2.
• The smart meter only communicates when it is commanded to do so, typically several times a day.
• The smart meter’s transmitter operates under Part 15 of the FCC rules.

PG&E meters use 900 MHz. I looked it up. They also can use Zigbee if you ask them to turn it on, which runs at 2.4 Ghz. Both are very low power. Zigbee is mesh --- very low power, transmits only a short distance. But they only turn that on if you ask them.

I have not tried to measure it yet, but I bet they run the transmitter on the smart meter less than 1 minute a day. And it's not even operating on frequencies that people worry about. It's down at 900.

I bet almost anyone reading this presses a cellphone against his/her head for more than a minute a day.

[Karl Frederick]

Hello again, Brian,

Thank you for responding so fully. I understood your observation that the type of meter (analog vs. digital) was more relevant than the manufacturer. Of course, the heart of the analog vs digital safety question is not about the analog or digital measuring circuitry . . . it's about the RF transmitter the digital meter uses to communicate its information.

I am glad to know you are familiar with the way incident RF power diminishes with the square of distance from the source. That's why a person can increase the intensity of exposure so dramatically by being near a SmartMeter when it is transmitting, and of course, increase the cumulative exposure by sleeping nearby.

Your comparison of the relative impacts of a cell phone and a SmartMeter seems to be based only on power. I have read that the subtle biological effects have some correlation with factors which I mentioned earlier. The subtle effects show up at much lower power levels than the gross effects (such as elevated temperature) which can be noticed when higher power electromagnetic fields are present.

From page 14 of the Bioinitiative 2012 report, referring to exposure to cell phone signals:
"Factors that determine effects can depend on head shape and size, the location, size and shape of internal brain structures, thinness of the head and face, hydration of tissues, thickness of various tissues, dialectric [sic] constant of the tissues and so on. Age of the individual and state of health also appear to be important variables. Exposure conditions also greatly influence the outcome of studies, and can have opposite results depending on the conditions of exposure including frequency, waveform, orientation of exposure, duration of exposure, number of exposures, any pulse modulation of the signal, and when effects are measured (some responses to RF are delayed). There is large variability in the results of ELF and RF testing, which would be expected based on the large variability of factors that can influence test results. However, it is clearly demonstrated that under some conditions of exposure, the brain and nervous system functions of humans are altered. The consequence of long-term or prolonged exposures have not been thoroughly studied in either adults or in children."

So, even this three-year-old study acknowledges considerable mystery. There's a lot to learn about this field, which might someday fall under a similar umbrella as "subtle medicine." In the meantime, I'd rather stand on the sidelines than in the line of (RF) fire.

BTW, since you mention the ARRL, perhaps you're a current or former "ham" operator. My ticket, 55 years ago, was K3OCB.

Best to you . . . may clear-eyed science develop and examine impartially (tall order!) all the data, and eventually discover what's going on.

I want it to be clear I am not convinced about the safety or lack thereof of high frequency RF. Personally I am not worried about it but I respect your decision to be cautious.