Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

[geomancer]

I know one of the women who bragged to me that she was part of the opposition. Last time I saw her she was, no kidding, wearing a foil hat in the Pacific Market parking lot. Probably to protect herself from xfinity, which is fucking everywhere.

I am actually grateful for the person who said that they wanted a Smart Meter. I do also. Some of those people you mention are the ones that voted against free wifi that was offered to the city by Sonic. That was really really stupid. Free Wifi!!!

[podfish]

I know one of the women who bragged to me that she was part of the opposition. Last time I saw her she was, no kidding, wearing a foil hat in the Pacific Market parking lot.

little do they know - the real risk is the hazard to your intestinal biome. Gotta wear foil underwear, not hats!

[scamperwillow]

I was actually instrumental in getting Sonic and our city manager together to make the free wifi happen. Council voted to do it and then reversed it when a few people complained. It is all over downtown anyway - It would probably result in fewer EMF's if there was just one system for all.

[rossmen]

Wasn't this offer rescinded by sonic about two years ago? Smart phones are the personal computer now. I believe the city council approved more cell capacity, over objections at about the same time, right behind the library. Maybe thats why my brain is scrambled by memory. So now that we do have one system for all, are emfs less? This question will be answered in hindsight, thats the way we play in the usa.

[Sasu]

Sonic gave up their free wi-fi with owner Dane Jasper stating "I hate wireless"
https://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2012/04/04/i-hate-wireless/

[spam1]

And the best part: the cable company went ahead and put in all the WiFi nodes anyhow, charging for access. So we have all the Wifi anyway. We just have to pay for it.

Well, at least we can hold off that other wireless threat, KOWS, for a little while longer. That should help ease the electrosphere .

[spam1]

Sonic gave up their free wi-fi with owner Dane Jasper stating "I hate wireless"
https://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2012/04/04/i-hate-wireless/

This has NOTHING to do with the free Wifi in town. The business the sold was far from free (~$80 per month for 4ish MBs). It is a different system altogether: point-to-multipoint wifi to support broad band connection to folks like me in the west county that cannot get DSL, cannot get cable, cannot get fiber. Nothing free about it.

It was started by Pogowave, bought by sonic, then sold to CDS, who seems to be doing a pretty good job. This wifi is very directional, unlike your phone or laptop wifi;

Wish I lived on Joy Road, they'll get high speed. Out here on GVR we can't even keep the dial-up phones working (supposed to be fixed by ATT on Saturday, whole road is down). Wireless has the key advantage that trees don't knock it down.

[spam1]

correcting myself (thanks Barry), I should have said "this has less to do with free wifi" rather than nothing, since it was pointed out that sonic also said: As we shift away from wireless, we are also retiring all of our free public WiFi projects. These provided WiFi access in a number of city centers. With the rise of smartphones and 3g, plus the growing challenges of maintaining aging WiFi equipment, this is also something we cannot focus on anymore.

This has NOTHING to do with the free Wifi in town. ....

[Sasu]

For those who think ridiculing people with electromagnetic sensitivity (EHS) is funny- I hope you never suffer the headaches, the heart palpitations, the tinnitus, and other symptoms that they (I) live with. Some people have it mildly, some moderate, and some suffer severe reactions and avoid exposure, or suffer the symptoms. That means we avoid wireless cafes, we modify our homes to minimize electrical exposure, we limit our time or must avoid public places where the frequencies are stronger. I actually consider myself lucky to have made the connection because by practicing avoidance of EMF's I have been able to restore my health, as have many other people, and not just a "few". So for those of you who "want" a smart meter or want wi-fi everywhere: remember we share the air, with each other, with insects, birds, trees and animals.

Anyway, the main purpose of smart meters has nothing to do with climate change- that's how they tried to sell them to the public. The main purpose of smart meters is surveillance. The industry, academia, and law enforcement are eager to have access to all the "data" smart meters generate. (war on terrorism, profiling, targeted marketing)

Today I read my grandson a story about the seven blind mice, there's a big something in their pond. Each day a mouse investigates and they feel out a part of the big something. Since each one only feels part of it they all have different descriptions. They think it's a pillar, a fan, a rope, a spear, a cliff. Then the last mouse goes and runs all around it, feeling all parts. She comes back and declares it's an elephant.

So it seems to me the people who want a smart meter are only seeing a part of the whole- and I am hoping that people, especially activists who care about our future, care about the earth, and care about people will take the time to see the bigger something.

little do they know - the real risk is the hazard to your intestinal biome. Gotta wear foil underwear, not hats!

[sqb]

Yeah, I guess if you think global warming is a hoax.

Why do we have this junk science meme still flying around about the 'dangers' of a 35 watt FM broadcast transmitter 40 feet off the ground, when the real danger is your own cell phone in your pocket if you are really worried about radiation.

...Well, at least we can hold off that other wireless threat, KOWS, for a little while longer. That should help ease the electrosphere .

[spam1]

Happens every time. I always forget to set the
#define Irony On
and those that are hard-of-sarcasm send along a note to chastise me.

Or course the 35 watt FM transmitter will have no affect on anyone.
And of course the 2 watt Wifi will have no affect on anyone either.

The cell phone in my pocket may cause local heating, and that may cause an issue, but move it away and Gauss's law is your friend (EM fields drop as radius-squared). and the 0.1% duty cycle smart meter...c'mon!

And, epidemiology wise, after a multi-decade experiment with more than 6 billion subjects, there still hasn't been a statistically significant increase in any health affects other than distracted driving and walking.

So yes, I believe in man-made climate change; How is it that Science is good for that, but not good for lack of any verifiable evidence of EM induced effects. I actually read the original studies, and so far, nothing really is found, except heating effects.

Here is a website from the WHO, which might be relatively unbiased:
https://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/Wh...en/index1.html

here is a key paragraph from that website:
Conclusions from scientific research
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. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research.

So, in Sebastopol, where "evidence based" reasoning rules (re: climate change); why does it not rule re: EM ?

I don't know, let me consult my crystals. #snarky comment on.

Yeah, I guess if you think global warming is a hoax.

Why do we have this junk science meme still flying around about the 'dangers' of a 35 watt FM broadcast transmitter 40 feet off the ground, when the real danger is your own cell phone in your pocket if you are really worried about radiation.

[gaiasophia]

Hello everyone,

I wanted to share 2 excellent science-based books regarding this topic in general.

Both books are available through the library, and document where the info comes from.

Though they are science based, they are easy to read and written for non-scientists.

"An Electronic Silent Spring" by Katie Singer (also has many solutions).

"Overpowered: What Science Tells Us About the Dangers of Cell Phones and Other Wifi-Age Devices" by Martin Blank, PhD (has 18 pages of footnotes).

I don't want to get involved in arguing about this--my hope is that we can all keep our minds (and hearts) open and be kind to each other in our little WACCO world.

With Kindness, Dusty (aka on WACCO as gaiasophia)

[Sieglinde]

I had a person put in my microwave oven who said he was electrosensitive. He could actually calibrate equipment by how it felt. The issse is, does it just cause symptoms in a tiny minority of the population or harm them. His theory was you feel symptoms. This makes you think harm is happening to your body. Fair enough. Let those of us who don't have this problem get our Smart Meters. I will eat wheat, peanuts, meat, etc. You can opt out of the meter. Go ahead.

[Sieglinde]

Science!!!! Not a belief system but a reality system.

...Conclusions from scientific research

[podfish]

I had a person put in my microwave oven who said he was electrosensitive. ...

you should never put people in your microwave. [ ~ Barry]

I don't agree that this problem hinges solely on the size of the population that's sensitive. If it's causing health issues, it seems reasonable to regulate it. Peanut allergies are easily demonstrated. EMF sensitivity, while demonstrated to the satisfaction of some, doesn't have that same level of objective support. And as the WHO report points out, it's not for lack of testing.

Science was unaware of the hazards of radiation for decades after its discovery; it's not impossible that there are indeed health effects. But that's not the question - the question is should restrictions be imposed even though the current research doesn't support the need for them.

[Sasu]

There is an overwhelming amount of science showing harm from EMF. There is also a multi-trillion dollar wireless industry that has vested interests in keeping the known harm from the public. The Wikipedia page on EMF Sensitivity is controlled by industry.

Below is a study posted today from CHE EMF https://www.healthandenvironment.org...ienceservs/emf Anyone can join this group and learn more about EMF science.

Do you want to see more studies, on effects on insects, trees, people?

Major influences in households and business spaces — Wi-Fi, telecommunication masts outputs and electrical pollution

Francis Markho, Ioan Tuleasca. Major influences in households and business spaces — Wi-Fi, telecommunication masts outputs and electrical pollution. Electrical and Power Engineering (EPE), 2016 International Conference and Exposition on Electrical and Power Engineering. Oct 20-22, 2016. Iasi, Romania.

Abstract

The paper offers a non-exhaustive perspective, as well as a spectrum of performed measurements, in the field of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Shielding Wi-Fi is shown to be an effective means of counteracting its health risks. The effects of cell phone towers positioning next to living and working spaces is presented and analyzed. Electrical pollution mitigation is described, as well as the problem of earth bound stray electrical currents. Effective actions and measures to be taken for the benefit of future generations are suggested and justified.

Conclusions

The adverse health effects due to Wi-Fi and cell phone towers are well known (Carpenter’s testimony [29] and Dode’s findings [19]) should be more than enough to put the matter to rest in this respect). However, it seems to be no willingness to change the status quo, even if Lloyd’s took
steps [30] to distance themselves from the possible EMF claims related issues. The careless use of this type of technology might cost us dearly in the future in both health sector national budgets blowouts and genetic degeneration.

Dirty electricity (electrical pollution) just completes the picture and adds to the effects of the above mentioned stressors. The seriousness of the problem is compounded by the availability and cheapness of various electrical devices and systems that are responsible for the creation of high
frequency voltage transients in the electrical networks. Mitigating these transients can, fortunately, be performed using shielding and adequate design for electrical circuitry in addition to other appropriate means [31].

The way forward, however, may be linked to broad, thorough and mandatory institutional measures at national and international levels. The first step in this direction was taken by France [32], where the French National Assembly passed a Law that regulates the exposure to electromagnetic field EMF (Law on Sobriety, Transparency, Information and Consultation for Exposure to Electromagnetic Waves, 29
January 2015). The Law addresses a range of EMF-related aspects, from Wi-Fi usage in nurseries (banned) and schools (limited), to mobile phones Specific Absorption Rate SAR labelling and cell phone towers emissions compliance verification. The Electrohypersensitivity EHS issue was also addressed as part of this Law, where a Report on EHS must be presented to the French Parliament within one year.

At international level it may be that not only the Precautionary Principle has to have a role in organising adequate EMF exposure limits, but also specific internationally recognized legal instruments, like the Nuremberg Code of Ethics. According to this Code, one cannot submit human beings to actions causing them harm, where the said human beings are not able to “bring the experiment to an end” [33]. Since the human race is unwittingly submitted to a world-wide encompassing, society-directed, experiment, in the form of biologically adverse, profit driven, imposed EMF exposure, the Code is duly applicable.

Considering the way other crucial health-related issues (asbestos, tobacco, ionizing radiation) were dealt with over the years, it seems that there is a long way ahead in tackling EMF exposure risks. However, this time is different, since our own long term wellbeing as a species is at risk [34], due to the genotoxic effect of the presented stressors.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7781450/

[podfish]

..I wanted to share 2 excellent science-based books regarding this topic in general. ...

"An Electronic Silent Spring" by Katie Singer (also has many solutions).

"Overpowered: What Science Tells Us About the Dangers of Cell Phones and Other Wifi-Age Devices" by Martin Blank, PhD (has 18 pages of footnotes)....

I'm certainly open to new information on this. I often use as an example of how unlikely things can be true the question: 'would you believe that there's an invisible field that can suck the water right out of a river, stranding boats on the sand? and it comes from the moon!' Which sounds silly unless you live near the Bay of Fundy.

Blank seems very legit, but when I tried to find out who supports his findings, all I find are the 'usual suspects', sites that also are big on holistic health, or are selling his book, or are sites that treat it as a story-of-the-day or light news. I don't see any signs he's a crank (and many credentialed outliers attract such commentary) but I don't see anyone building off his research either. So that seems to leave him as John the Baptist - maybe he's on to something but it'll be a while before it's going to change the world. Katie Singer is less qualified; she's an enthusiastic amateur who's trying to synthesize the results of research that supports her concerns. Again, these two may be correct, but it's instructive to compare it to the AGW world, where the few-against-the-many are considered industry shills. Here, their supporters think the 'many' are the shills.

I also found a letter from Blank, on the university letterhead, in support of a court case regarding the dangers of EMF. Again, there was no sign of other scientists supporting his position. I faintly remember this, it's come up before.

So these sources should give hope to people that problems aren't being ignored - that if there are real demonstrable hazards they'll come to light. It won't help those who think the system's hopelessly rigged, I guess, but if your worldview is that hopeless I guess you're used to it by now.

[Barry]

For those who think ridiculing people with electromagnetic sensitivity (EHS) is funny- I hope you never suffer the headaches, the heart palpitations, the tinnitus, and other symptoms that they (I) live with. ...

Sandi,

I don't think EHS ("Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity") is funny, but you could definitely call me a skeptic. I have a bit more openness to long-term effects from EMF exposure, but I'm also rather skeptical about that, too.

Since you seem to be implying that you experience near immediate symptoms to EMF exposure, you would make a great candidate to test the existence of "EHS". I am totally open to being convinced it is real with an objective test.

Here's what I think a test would look like: We'd need an EMF quiet location (presumably your home) and a way to create EMF's (a router?) that could be turned on and off without you knowing. The test would be for you do identify when the EMFs are present and when they are not.

How about it??

[Sasu]

Thanks Barry, but I don't like to subject myself to heart arrhythmias and headaches if I can avoid it.
How about putting the skeptics together in a room, take them into a mindfulness body centered mediation, and then turn on multiple routers and wireless devices and see if anyone can feel it?

Here are 3 studies on EHS:

ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVITY: EVIDENCE FOR A NOVEL NEUROLOGICAL SYNDROME

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.
doi:10.3109/00207454.2011.608139
ABSTRACT
Objective: We sought direct evidence that acute exposure to environmental-strength electromagnetic fields could induce somatic reactions (EMF hypersensitivity). Methods: The subject, a female physician self-diagnosed with EMF hypersensitivity, was exposed to an average (over the head) 60-Hz electric field of 300 V/m (comparable to typical environmental-strength EMFs) during controlled provocation and behavioral studies.
Results: In a double-blinded EMF provocation procedure specifically designed to minimize unintentional sensory cues, the subject developed temporal pain, headache, muscle-twitching, and skipped heartbeats within 100 s after initiation of EMF exposure (P < 0.05). The symptoms were caused primarily by field transitions (off-on, on-off) rather than the presence of the field, as assessed by comparing the frequency and severity of the effects of pulsed and continuous fields in relation to sham exposure. The subject had no conscious perception of the field as judged by her inability to report its presence more often than in the sham control. Discussion: The subject demonstrated statistically reliable somatic reactions in response to exposure to subliminal EMFs under conditions that reasonably excluded a causative role for psychological processes.
Conclusion: EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally-inducible neurological syndrome.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...?dopt=Abstract
_____________________
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Fact or fiction?
Stephen J. Genuisa,a Christopher T. Lipp,b
a University of Alberta, Canada, b Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Canada
Received 9 September 2011; revised 1 November 2011; Accepted 1 November 2011. Available online 5 December 2011.
_______________________________________
Electromagnetic hypersensitive Finns: Symptoms, perceived sources and treatments, a questionnaire study. Hagström M, Auranen J, Ekman R.
Source: Turku University of Applied Sciences/Telecommunication and e-Business/Radio and EMC Laboratory, Joukahaisenkatu 3C, 20520 Turku, Finland. Electronic address: [email protected].

...Here's what I think a test would look like: We'd need an EMF quiet location (presumably your home) and a way to create EMF's (a router?) that could be turned on and off without you knowing. The test would be for you do identify when the EMFs are present and when they are not.

How about it??

[Barry]

Thanks, Barry, but I don't like to subject myself to heart arrhythmias and headaches if I can avoid it.
How about putting the skeptics together in a room, take them into a mindfulness body-centered meditation, and then turn on multiple routers and wireless devices and see if anyone can feel it?

Here are 3 studies on EHS:...

I walk in and out of environments with high EMF all the time and never notice anything, and I meditate near one of my routers, and I don't notice it.

Your first study is quite interesting and directly addresses what I was interested in. Has it been replicated? The other 2 studies seem to be based on self-reporting, which is far less interesting.

[Larry Robinson]

The scientific consensus seems to be that "electrosensitivity" is a psychosomatic phenomenon . But that doesn't mean that those suffering from the condition are making it up. Their symptoms and their suffering are real and deserving of respect and compassion.

However, the mistake is in attributing the symptoms to external factors. Basing public policy on these mistaken beliefs does a disservice to the general population and fails to address the underlying cause of their suffering.

I recommend this article from the Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine: Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess whether people who report hypersensitivity to weak electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are better at detecting EMF under blind or double-blind conditions than nonhypersensitive individuals, and to test whether they respond to the presence of EMF with increased symptom reporting.

Methods: An extensive systematic search was used to identify relevant blind or double-blind provocation studies. This involved searching numerous literature databases and conference proceedings, and examining the citations of reviews and included studies. The results of relevant studies were tabulated and meta-analyses were used to compare the proportions of “hypersensitive” and control participants able to discriminate active from sham EMF exposures.

Results: Thirty-one experiments testing 725 “electromagnetically hypersensitive” participants were identified. Twenty-four of these found no evidence to support the existence of a biophysical hypersensitivity, whereas 7 reported some supporting evidence. For 2 of these 7, the same research groups subsequently tried and failed to replicate their findings. In 3 more, the positive results appear to be statistical artifacts. The final 2 studies gave mutually incompatible results. Our meta-analyses found no evidence of an improved ability to detect EMF in “hypersensitive” participants.

Conclusions: The symptoms described by “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to EMF can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” is unrelated to the presence of EMF, although more research into this phenomenon is required.

[Sieglinde]

The only problem I have with the test is that the subject may take an unknown length of time to react. Also is there an objective way to test the reaction such as a physiological change? A head ache for example could be caused by many different things or psychosomatic.

..Here's what I think a test would look like: We'd need an EMF quiet location (presumably your home) and a way to create EMF's (a router?) that could be turned on and off without you knowing. The test would be for you do identify when the EMFs are present and when they are not. How about it??

[Sieglinde]

Of course the subjects would have to be volunteers. The first step would be to look at the symptoms, headaches and arrhythmia and see if there are other possible causes. Like I stated in my post, this would be very difficult to accomplish. It does not obviously affect everybody so trying this test on subjects without these complaints may not work. Also animal studies may not work because the animals could have a very small electrosensitive population.

[Sieglinde]

I have to agree that trying to do something that goes against the legal rights of PG&E and other power companies since California Edison is doing the same thing should not be forced by a tiny fraction of the population. Since this is psychosomatic, maybe shielding the Smartmeter from the house would act as a placebo. Also, as far as I know, the power companies have opt out provisions.

[Sasu]

The scientific consensus seems to be that "electrosensitivity" is a psychosomatic phenomenon . But that doesn't mean that those suffering from the condition are making it up. Their symptoms and their suffering are real and deserving of respect and compassion....

When it comes to understanding EMF science, people should look to the scientists who've been studying this issue for decades for answers, not to poets and politicians who've only read one study.

Scientists call for Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure
https://www.emfscientist.org/index.p...ientist-appeal

[podfish]

When it comes to understanding EMF science, people should look to the scientists who've been studying this issue for decades for answers, not to poets and politicians who've only read one study.

or to scientists who aren't really trained in that field. There are only five listed in that organization; the local guy, while not a poet, is a psychologist. Another is the above-mentioned Dr. Blank. Dr. Lai is the only real specialist, and interestingly enough he makes the most-convincing case for a (weak) attempt at industry suppression of this research. Organizations like this that exist to push for public policy aren't the most convincing sources.

There's a famous anti-AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming ] petition, signed by 30,000 scientists but apparently includes only a few dozen climate researchers. How many researchers are there in this field? how do their opinions vary across that group? That's the kind of information that would be more convincing. I'm pretty unsurprised that there are a few knowledgable people who feel strongly about the risks, but how widely is that backed? It's very easy to find equally convincing reports where nothing was found; in particular Dr. Havas has had her credentials challenged.

I guess it's obvious that I'm not easily convinced - I don't think it's that I have my mind made up and am entrenched in the concept that there's no EMF threat. But this isn't a Tuskegee-scale experiment, it's an experiment being done on the world as a whole. Barring a Matrix-level conspiracy to suppress any publicity, I can't see how evidence of harm could be so lacking. The tobacco industry isn't a good analogy; they never succeeded in selling the safety of their product. Though they did suppress safety regulations, people have been calling them cancer-sticks for more than half a century.

[Sara S]

Oh, you're funny! I do remember reading that there were a bunch of cops who got testicular (or was it penisilar) cancer, and that there was some possibility posited that it was because they kept their radar guns stuck between their legs as they drove....

...And, epidemiology wise, after a multi-decade experiment with more than 6 billion subjects, there still hasn't been a statistically significant increase in any health affects other than distracted driving and walking. ....

[spam1]

If true, it certainly supports the concept that "cooked nuts=cancer nuts". Heating effects of RF are largely understood. Happened to radar technicians in the Navy first.

And there is some supposition that there will be an increase in breast cancer in men due to cell phones in their front shirt pocket, but to my understanding there is no evidence that this has occurred.

but low intensity RF having biological effects...Science says "no evidence yet"

Oh, you're funny! I do remember reading that there were a bunch of cops who got testicular (or was it penisilar) cancer, and that there was some possibility posited that it was because they kept their radar guns stuck between their legs as they drove....

[spam1]

There is an overwhelming amount of science showing harm from EMF. There is also a multi-https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7781450/

well no, not overwhelming. I have a subscription to IEEEexplore so I pulled the complete paper. It has virtually no new information and the few cases cited were highly anecdotal (as in "my friend went to a motel with lots of wifi, and he didn't feel well. We covered he walls with aluminum and he felt much better"; seriously, that was an example complete with pictures!).

For the first Author, this was his only publication. The second author had one other publication where he proposes the solution to E and M fields in an ellipsoid shell. Not really on topic.

While it is not required that the authors of significant papers are well published, it is common that they are. I'm very surprised this made it through a peer review process; but we're only human.

[Sieglinde]

Citation?

Oh, you're funny! I do remember reading that there were a bunch of cops who got testicular (or was it penisilar) cancer, and that there was some possibility posited that it was because they kept their radar guns stuck between their legs as they drove....