i never had an opinion about these things until the chatter began about the radioactivity issues....but, i did have a santa rosa client https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2013-02-22_12-58-17.pngwho lived in a complex, and whose landlord had PG&E install the new four smart meters on the other side of his bedroom wall. within four days, he became so ill from whatever poisons these things were spewing, that he had to relocate immediately.
my landlord accepted the installation of two new smart meters on our property as well--only these babies are in their garage and approximately 1/4 mile away from our living space! the only difference that i have noticed is that miraculously, our bill has been significantly reduced and has been at a consistent all-time-low for the last few months! at what other cost, i wonder.....if i start glowing in the dark, i guess it won't matter that i'm saving a few bucks, eh?......
Sebastopol City Council OKs SmartMeter ban :Clap:https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130221/ARTICLES/130229912/1350?p=all&tc=pgall
Connubial Warthog
02-22-2013, 08:11 AM
Too bad we couldn't do this in Forestville. I'm stuck with the bogus opt out fee every month and I swear, my bills have been going up like crazy since I opted out. Just sayin.
spam1
02-22-2013, 05:10 PM
i never had an opinion about these things until the chatter began about the radioactivity immediately.
#Irony_on Do you suppose it's caused by shipping parts out of Japan that were contaminated by the nuclear accident. #Irony_off
And do you (and your clients) use any of cordless phones, cell phones, blue-tooth, dish TV (they use RF remotes)? You do realize that those are all 100's of times more energetic in the EM than the smart meters?
edit: change you to your, 1000's to 100's (handset) or 10,000's (base station)
ubaru
02-22-2013, 06:13 PM
Re: this line in the PD article, "Asked by Councilman John Eder what happens to residents who want SmartMeters removed from their homes, McLaughlin, who is also the city’s attorney, said the measure “cannot compel removal of meters already installed," people should know that they can opt out at any time by calling 1-866-743-0263.
Too bad we couldn't do this in Forestville. I'm stuck with the bogus opt out fee every month and I swear, my bills have been going up like crazy since I opted out. Just sayin.
You can do it in Forestville. Just get a copy of Marin's or Sebastapol's moratorium and present it to your town council with your neighbors and friends. We've broken the ice. They are more likely to follow suit now.
(edit) Barry just pointed out to me that Forestville doesn't have a town council, so your best bet would be to get a moratorium for the whole county of Sonoma.
ubaru
02-22-2013, 06:18 PM
And do you (and you clients) use any of cordless phones, cell phones, blue-tooth, dish TV (they use RF remotes)? You do realize that those are all 1000's of times more energetic in the EM than the smart meters?
No it's the other way around. Smart Meters radiate 100x more than a cell phone. But all the things you mention are EMF pollution.
spam1
02-22-2013, 09:19 PM
Smart Meters radiate 100x more than a cell phone.. (spoken slowly, as if to a child)....you--are--just--making--that--up
Smart meters are regulated by FCC part 15 and must radiate less than 1 watt (https://www.arrl.org/smart-meters).
Cell phones can radiate up to 2 watts, for handsets, and up to 100 watts or more for base stations.
Wifi is also around 1-2 watts but total effective radiated power depends upon number of total subscribers to each router.
Typical Cell phones ping towers several times each minutes, PGE says smart meters ping several times each hour and radiate substantially less than Wifi or cell phones. (https://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20034959-54.html, https://healthvermont.gov/pubs/ph_assessments/radio_frequency_radiation_and_health_smart_meters.pdf or for you tokers https://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/01/will-smart-meters-give-you-cancer). Wifi transmits almost continuously at powers up to 2 watts.
Thus, simple math, 60 times less "on" time and 1/2 (at most) less power means >120 times less radiation.
So, if you want to be upset about EMF, fine. Most people find wifi and cell phones convenient, so don't concern them selves about the radiation. some people fine smart meters disturbing, and need to make up some story about radiation to fight them, often communicating with others from a wireless terminal such as smart phone, ipad, or laptop, in much closer proximity and higher power for longer durations..
An analogy might be a fighting Mrs. Fields to remove vanilla from their cookies (big corporation product, like smart meters) because vanilla comes in alcohol base, even though it is mostly baked out, while sipping wine (cell phone) with pasta, beer (cordless phone) with pizza and a nice JD on the rocks for desert (wifi)....
Yes, alcohol does cause cancer, but really...vanilla?
edit: added a Vermont state site and Mother Jones, wifi clarification.
Connubial Warthog
02-22-2013, 09:37 PM
Well, I appreciate the irony etc but...
it's not actually true that the output of cell phones, wifi etc is "1000's more energetic" than that of a smart meter. The reason Pg&E numbers look so much lower on paper than emf from other common electronic devices is because of the disingenuous way they go about coming up with them. The smart meters are supposed to transmit just a few times a minute. The transmissions spike very high, way higher than any cell phone or wifi, but supposedly only for a few milliseconds and only 6-12x a minute. What they did was average those spikes against all the time the devices were not transmitting and thus came up with a deceptively low number. In reality, the devices transmit many more times a minute than they claim. When you get a bunch of them together as you do with apartment buildings, condos etc, they are going off virtually all the time, like popcorn. This phenonenon can be observed with a good emf meter.
There is a gal in SF who has a couple of good meters, one being a high end german meter. She goes around her neighborhood in Bernal Neights checking Smart Meter outputs and posts her videos on YouTube. Her meters barely move with an iPhone close by or in wifi cafes, but when hit with emf from a bank of smart meters it quite literally goes off the charts. It's sort of like popcorn- her machine can't even follow each individual spike because there are simply far too many to track; if there are several meters, they are basically transmitting all the time. She then went up to a cell phone repeater on top of a roof where there is a physical barrier that warns people of dangerous emf and there was no difference in the Intensity of emissions when compared to a bank of smart meters where there was no barrier or sign warning people to stand back.
Worst of all, no one has done any testing with regards to how spiked high emissions affect the human body. There are a few scientists and public health officials who have expressed concern about this unknown factor. We are in fact, human guinea pigs involved in a huge experiment, whether we are willing participants or not. Whatever your position on Smart Meter deployment, the health concerns that people are expressing are not unfounded and certainly not a joke. At present, It's an unknown and a very real possible risk.
#Irony_on Do you suppose it's caused by shipping parts out of Japan that were contaminated by the nuclear accident. #Irony_off
And do you (and your clients) use any of cordless phones, cell phones, blue-tooth, dish TV (they use RF remotes)? You do realize that those are all 100's of times more energetic in the EM than the smart meters?
edit: change you to your, 1000's to 100's (handset) or 10,000's (base station)
Connubial Warthog
02-22-2013, 10:54 PM
So, the question is, are high but sporadic spikes of emf harder on the human organism than continuous low level emissions? No one at present can answer that question. PG&E admits to an average of around 10,000 such emissions a day and as much as 20,000 with some machines, but people with good equipment have clocked far more, virtually almost constant spiking and at levels upwards to and well above 2 watts, although these are not scientists making these claims and there have been no studies as to how these devices actually operate in the field. Again these are extremely short pulses, my only point being they add up to way more exposure than PG&E is willing to admit..
Connubial Warthog
02-22-2013, 11:26 PM
By the way, here's Daniel Hirsch, a lecturer and expert in nuclear policy at UCSC who has been widely quoted in the media regarding events in Fukishima following the tsunami. His point is the emf numbers PG&E arrived at regarding cell phone use compared to Smart Meter exposure were not valid, as they measured emf exposure for cell phone just to the ear as opposed to whole body exposure from smart meters, the gist of it being If measured comparably, the Smart meter exposure IS 100x that of a cell phone when measured in whole body exposure for both devices. If that makes any sense....he states it far more clearly here. He also voiced his concerns that the calcs were not done by a disinterested party, which may have led to the inaccurate stats.
https://youtu.be/IsT-pN-5uWQ
So, the question is, are high but sporadic spikes of emf harder on the human organism than continuous low level emissions? No one at present can answer that question. PG&E admits to an average of around 10,000 such emissions a day and as much as 20,000 with some machines, but people with good equipment have clocked far more, virtually almost constant spiking and at levels upwards to and well above 2 watts, although these are not scientists making these claims and there have been no studies as to how these devices actually operate in the field. Again these are extremely short pulses, my only point being they add up to way more exposure than PG&E is willing to admit..
spam1
02-23-2013, 08:12 AM
Well, I appreciate the irony etc but...
There is a gal in SF who has a couple of good meters, one being a high end german meter. She goes around her neighborhood in Bernal Neights checking Smart Meter outputs and posts her videos on YouTube. Her meters barely move with an iPhone close by or in wifi cafes, but when hit with emf from a bank of smart meters it quite literally goes off the charts.
If you mean this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6VwYPL9aE4 , I watched it, and it's really interesting that
1) none of the readings exceed FCC limits for type 15 devices (you can see the limits here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6VwYPL9aE4
Intermittent transmissions are allowed to 12,000 uV/m vs her highest reading of 200 uV (ref: https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf page 22).
There's also a huge difference in the fsk transmissions of smart meters vs the spread spectrum of cell towers. to be discussed at another time.
Connubial Warthog
02-23-2013, 11:27 AM
That's not the video I watched. There are other videos in which the spikes are far more frequent and much higher. But the real question is, what is the biological safe limit of exposure to RF? the numbers the FCC came up with do not reflect this because that is an unknown. And the FCC has no medical staff to advise them on this issue. They only agree with mainstream medicine's opinion that RF becomes unsafe at the point it heats up tissue. No one can say with authority whether lower levels of exposure are safe or not, and yes, of course this goes for the emissions of other sources as well. But the actual amount of emissions from smart meters is unclear. If you view the UCSC prof's video I posted one can see how murky these waters are in terms of obtaining reliable scientific data.
I Know this post in on "the enemy's" site, but I think it is extremely informative.
I don't think anyone can give a definitive answer as to what are biologically safe levels of RF. Look, we live in an environment in which we are increasingly exposed to higher levels for longer periods. Only the future will give us the answer regarding long term effects of this kind of electronic smog.
As for me, I live in the modern world and use the technologies in my work and play. But I try to minimize exposure all the same. I use my cell phone "telegraphically", meaning almost not at all, and use a headset-keeping it away from my body or off when not in use. I turn off my wifi when not in use and always at night. I chose to opt out on a smart meter. I keep my cordless DECT phones off the charger as much as possible. I am not a purist, but then, i am not one of those people who are super sensitive to these emissions. And Im a realist: no, we can't completely avoid exposure to these types of emissions in the modern world. But we can at least minimize the amount of exposure we get in our own homes. Just to be on the safe side, that is what I have chosen to do.
If you mean this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6VwYPL9aE4 , I watched it, and it's really interesting that
1) none of the readings exceed FCC limits for type 15 devices (you can see the limits here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6VwYPL9aE4
Intermittent transmissions are allowed to 12,000 uV/m vs her highest reading of 200 uV (ref: https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf page 22).
There's also a huge difference in the fsk transmissions of smart meters vs the spread spectrum of cell towers. to be discussed at another time.
spam1
02-23-2013, 12:59 PM
That's not the video I watched. There are other videos in which the spikes are far more frequent and much higher. But the real question is, what is the biological safe limit of exposure to RF?
Well, the good news is there is a huge experiment going on. The latest figures I saw say there are about 6 billion cell phone subscribers, and there are about 500 million new phones produced a year, and about 10 billion RF products produced every year (RF ID tags, connected homes with TVs, remote sensing, etc). So, if there is even the tiniest of increased risk, one would suppose that some aspect of that increase would become evident in the subject population. So far, nothing really.
... But we can at least minimize the amount of exposure we get in our own homes. Just to be on the safe side, that is what I have chosen to do.
Hence my "alcohol in the vanilla" analogy. Cell phones and smart meters both produce a maximum of about 1 watt of RF power. Inverse square law says that the power drops as distance square. A cell phone at 3 inches away produces 100 times the field strength as a smart meter 30 inches away, so dose/response normally would say it is 100 times more likely to cause an effect. But we don't see much in the 6 billion test cases.
AND, I'm not saying smart meters are all good; there is plenty to worry about as described in this post https://depletedcranium.com/smart-meters-no-they-do-not-make-people-sick/ (I refer to the ease with which power can be shut off, and usage tracked.
However, in the time we have spent discussing this, we have probably created in each of us a substantially higher risk of death, just by sitting here typing. https://news.discovery.com/human/is-sitting-the-new-smoking-120301.htm
edit: death for desk
Connubial Warthog
02-23-2013, 01:24 PM
As I'm sure you're well aware, it is far too early to make any kind of call re whether or not exposure levels are safe. It will take decades to have enou data to understand whether there are any health impacts as a result of RF exposure.
Also, you never spoke to the way the study was conducted with regards to the "apples and oranges" comparison of cell phone- to -ear exposure as opposed to whole body exposure of smart meters. Both sources should've been tested in the same manner for the data to have any significance.
As you are probably well aware, even the most conservative scientists are conceding that cell phones can and do heat tissues in the brain, and have observed cellular changes especially in children, but no one has yet to say they definitely cause cancer, although correlations have been found between cell phone use and benign brain tumors found close to the ear. I forget the name of these types of tumors but I remember the study; I believe it was conducted in Sweden. So there is some data. I remember two brain surgeons from John Hopkins speaking on CNN, who both stated that knowing what we already know about tissues heating in children's brains, they would not let their small children use cell phones.
So the jury is most definitely out. There is no way one can say the facts are in on long term health effects from RF. we are many years away from drawing any such conclusions.
<br><br>
Well, the good news is there is a huge experiment going on. The latest figures I saw say there are about 6 billion cell phone subscribers, and there are about 500 million new phones produced a year, and about 10 billion RF products produced every year (RF ID tags, connected homes with TVs, remote sensing, etc). So, if there is even the tiniest of increased risk, one would suppose that some aspect of that increase would become evident in the subject population. So far, nothing really.
Hence my "alcohol in the vanilla" analogy. Cell phones and smart meters both produce a maximum of about 1 watt of RF power. Inverse square law says that the power drops as distance square. A cell phone at 3 inches away produces 100 times the field strength as a smart meter 30 inches away, so dose/response normally would say it is 100 times more likely to cause an effect. But we don't see much in the 6 billion test cases.
AND, I'm not saying smart meters are all good; there is plenty to worry about as described in this post https://depletedcranium.com/smart-meters-no-they-do-not-make-people-sick/ (I refer to the ease with which power can be shut off, and usage tracked.
However, in the time we have spent discussing this, we have probably created in each of us a substantially higher risk of desk, just by sitting here typing. https://news.discovery.com/human/is-sitting-the-new-smoking-120301.htm
dzerach
02-23-2013, 07:29 PM
Thanks for mentioning the spiking. Really tired of these oversimplified, fallacious explanations of how the smartassmeter transmits. As if the meter also never spends any energy talking to the network. Mr. Spam-key Number 1, I am sending you to your room so that you can ponder whether Albert Einstein would have been for choice, or no choice. Should you tire of contemplation, here is a game: Which one doesn't fit: DECT phones; cell phones; smartassmeter; blue-tooth; dish TV.
Based on years of studying whether radio waves cause health effects, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for radio transmitters of all types, including SmartMeters™. It includes a prudent margin of safety just in case some health effects are too subtle to have been detected. Even so, SmartMeters™ operate far below the limit—typically only about one-seventieth as much.
Exposure is based on the transmitter's power and your distance from the source. In general, doubling your distance cuts the "power density" by a factor of four. That's a major reason why radio waves from a SmartMeter™, at a distance of 10 feet, are only about one one-thousandth as much as a typical cell phone. That's also why powerful but distant radio and TV transmitters are not seen as posing any danger.
Some people have expressed concern that the long-term use of devices like cell phones might have unexpected health effects even if daily exposure is low. The World Health Organization (WHO) advises: "A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone use." And cell phones are typically held against your head when in use, while SmartMeters™ are outside your house, on the other side of the wall.
Should you be concerned about long-term exposure to smart meters if scientists haven't established health problems from cell phones? Consider that SmartMeters™ transmit only about 45 seconds a day (see Field Study Update in right-side panel). You'd have to have one of our meters on your home or business for more than 1,000 years to get as much exposure to radio waves as a typical cell phone user gets in just one month.
Comparison of RF Power Density in the Everyday Environment
<tbody>
Power Density in Microwatts per square centimeter (µW/cm2)
Adjacent to a gas SmartMeter™ (1 foot)
0.00166
Adjacent to an electric SmartMeter™ (10 feet)
0.1
Adjacent to an electric SmartMeter™ (1 foot)
8.8
Microwave oven nearby (1 meter)
10
Wi-Fi wireless routers, laptop computers, cyber cafes, etc., maximum (~1 meter for laptops, 2 - 5 meters for access points)
10 - 20
Cell phones (at head)
30 - 10,000
Walkie-Talkies (at head)
500 - 42,000
</tbody>
Source: Richard Tell Associates, Inc. (2008)
CSummer
02-23-2013, 08:09 PM
Here's a video that's about the effects of microwave RF (which is emitted by all Wifi, cell phones and towers and smart meters) on humans and other living organisms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vb9R0x_0NQ
spam1
02-23-2013, 09:55 PM
Thanks for mentioning the spiking. Really tired of these oversimplified, fallacious explanations of how the smartassmeter transmits. As if the meter also never spends any energy talking to the network.
. Never said that, just said the energy density of a smart meter is far less than a cell phone. Cell phones ping towers something like every 6 seconds, whether you are talking on them or not. Cell phones can emit up to about 3 watts, smart meters 1 watt maximum. That's just a fact. Energy density goes down as distance squared. I know a lot of people don't think it's fair that it isn't linear (twice is far is four times less strong, rather than the intuitive idea that is only half as strong, or even more commonly held idea, that distance doesn't matter and one gets the same effect at 1 foot or 10 feet). However, distance does matter, one can understand this by way of a soccer ball analogy. If you want to make a soccer ball 10 inches in diameter, you need a certain amount of material (78.5 square inches, to be precise, not including some for seams). If you want to make one 20 inches in diameter, you need 314 square inches. Yes, I know it doesn't seem fair that a ball twice as big needs 4 times more leather, but that's just a fact.
And it is also a fact that a cell phone transmitting 1 watt at 3 cm from your head will produce 100 times MORE energy density than one 30 cm from your head. just a fact.
Mr. Spam-key Number 1, I am sending you to your room so that you can ponder whether Albert Einstein would have been for choice, or no choice. Should you tire of contemplation, here is a game: Which one doesn't fit: DECT phones; cell phones; smartassmeter; blue-tooth; dish TV. -and I never said there shouldn't be choice. What I said is that (and I'll say it very slowly for you) The concern about smart meters in the light of billions of much stronger sources of RF energy is so completely irrational that I find it irksome (even more than barking dogs).
PS. to your riddle, they all fit. Dect phones emit RF, so do cell phones, smart meters, blue tooth, and even your dish TV remote control (if you have one of the fancy --record in one room and watch in another-- units).
Also, note that there is a tremendous daily source of EMF that produces 1,000 W/meter square every where, every day proven to be a strong carcinogen, and not one seems to want to stop it, (yes, I mean sunlight, which is also EMF, just higher energy, and heat is also EMF if it is from an IR source,) One often sees confusion between ULF (power lines), RF, IR, light, UV, and gamma radiation. ALL are EMF, but their different energies make them very unlike each other.
For a couple of reasonable mostly non-aligned (not PGE, not EMF-sensitive-believers) latest news on RF danger, you can see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15387297 and https://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones
But if you still believe smart meters are worse than cell phones, well that's your religion and I hope you enjoy it (#DEF Religion=belief without proof).
Finally, what Sebastopol passed is not choice....it is no choice (ban of smart meters, even if one wants one).
I think Albert was mostly rational, but even he had trouble with -factual- ideas that were not of his experience.
edit:oops, more for less
dzerach
02-24-2013, 10:02 PM
May I first add (rather than burying comment at the bottom) that the situation with apartment complexes -- all of those smart meters attached to one building -- is very very sad. Thoroughly unfair.
The concern about smart meters in the light of billions of much stronger sources of RF energy is so completely irrational that I find it irksome.
Needless to say, some phenomena -- if not ultimately, ALL -- cannot be illuminated by the searchlight of rationality. Further, I find your above comment to be one such. What I find irksome is encountering this commonly extended, and fully "ex post facto" justification: "Eh, a little more of the same ain't gonna hurt anybody, we already got a ton of this sh*# raining down on us. What are you, crazy?" It always goes something like that. It's horrible reasoning.
As you already know, I saw the "which one doesn't belong" game to be about forced intimate association vs individual choice. Feel free to whip out your measuring sticks to patiently explain exactly how much zip is being zapped, and to go on about what is already commonplace in society. Choice, whenever accompanied by a big hassle and "cost recouping" retribution for making the wrong one, is not choice as Americans understand it. The communities in Calif who have said "no" are simply responding in kind to a series of unfortunate events that have already been perpetrated upon them. An important distinction.
My friend, there is a context here to consider, along with a wide-ranging array of available facts...along with a big, fat, legitimate range of physiological differences and genuine sensitivities among individuals -- like it or not; the latter is a fact. I propose -- b/c I personally think it's always a good question to first ask, "What does it mean to be "reasonable," given the situation? A good question to pursue as it reflects some kind of ethical/values query. It is not the deer-hoof wide, narrow path you seem to want to tread.
ULF (power lines), RF, IR, light, UV, and gamma radiation. ALL are EMF, but their different energies make them very unlike each other.
Your assorted factoids and analogies -- Yeah, well, relationship matters, as you have repeatedly pointed out. Daily sources: If I held the sun to my head, instead of a cell phone, for an hour, I would probably feel light-headed as a result of doing that too, BUT I DON'T. WE conventionally CALL all as "EMF," but their different energies make them very unlike each other.
But if you still believe smart meters are worse than cell phones, well that's your religion and I hope you enjoy it (#DEF Religion=belief without proof).
Personally, I find true religion to be about cause/effect practices, not beliefs. If the situation were such that I were FORCIBLY MADE to rely on a cell phone (and this is upcoming in our society) in the same manner that PGE is holding people hostage and making them rely on the smart meter, (instead of just reducing the number of meter readers), I would wonder, as I already do now, WHY a capitalist society cannot support diversity, and WHY a public utility has to make a profit. We have a minority running the country (a unique and predictable species, the willlfully ignorant backwoods hick), and the majority is subsidizing them, so why can't my minority landline be subsidized instead of building even more cell towers? By the way, the needs of independent recording artists are creating a new demand for high bias audio cassette tapes, rediscovering all of their unique benefits.
I think Albert was mostly rational, but even he had trouble with -factual- ideas that were not of his experience.
Oy.
Howard
02-25-2013, 11:14 PM
My three comments:
Your precautionary principal argument would seem to support removal of all cell phones and towers. It seems that you're saying the evidence against cell phones is far greater than that against smart meters. I'm at a loss as to why no emergency ordinance was enacted that would banish cell phones and towers.
I'm also unclear as to how those with such sensitivity to EMF can survive in our modern society. Cell towers, radio towers, tv towers, wifi nodes (Comcast has several dozen spread throughout Sebastopol), wifi in schools, wifi in nearly all homes and stores, emergency agency transmitters, Bluetooth, rf tags in retail products; these must drive the anti-EMF people batty. If they truly are so sensitive, how do they survive day to day?
I'm embarrassed that my town council has taken up this anti-science alternative universe in which symbolic gestures trump reality.
Howard
As I'm sure you're well aware, it is far too early to make any kind of call re whether or not exposure levels are safe. It will take decades to have enou data to understand whether there are any health impacts as a result of RF exposure.
Also, you never spoke to the way the study was conducted with regards to the "apples and oranges" comparison of cell phone- to -ear exposure as opposed to whole body exposure of smart meters. Both sources should've been tested in the same manner for the data to have any significance.
As you are probably well aware, even the most conservative scientists are conceding that cell phones can and do heat tissues in the brain, and have observed cellular changes especially in children, but no one has yet to say they definitely cause cancer, although correlations have been found between cell phone use and benign brain tumors found close to the ear. I forget the name of these types of tumors but I remember the study; I believe it was conducted in Sweden. So there is some data. I remember two brain surgeons from John Hopkins speaking on CNN, who both stated that knowing what we already know about tissues heating in children's brains, they would not let their small children use cell phones.
So the jury is most definitely out. There is no way one can say the facts are in on long term health effects from RF. we are many years away from drawing any such conclusions.
Connubial Warthog
02-26-2013, 12:35 AM
The way i see it, we are already too invested as a culture in this technology to turn back. We live in an electronic smog that is only going to get denser. I am guessing that for most of us, it won't be the deciding factor in shortening our lives or impacting our quality of life. But yeah, for those who are truly sensitive to EMF, it must be hell. I have heard some real horror stories about people who had to flee their homes in order to escape the effects of emf exposure. Some of these people have had to move to remote areas in order to maintain their health and sanity.
I have to be a realist when I admit we can't go back. All I try to do is give myself a break from exposure when I'm home, but even after I turn my wifi off at night, there are a number of wifi routers close enough to be seen by my iPad. And of course the cell phone networks are doing their thing 24/7. So, we're never out of the soup really.
Yeah, banning the future installation of smart meters is a largely symbolic gesture. There are towns in Europe that have banned wifi. And a few schools here and there. But you're right: it's a moot point, considering cell phone towers and repeaters are literally everywhere. Coverage is so much more widespread now. I don't have any answers. Maybe turning off my DECT phone chargers, wifi, limiting cell phone and cordless phone use and using special headsets when I do are empty and futile exercises. And perhaps I'm one of those people who won't be impacted significantly by emf. I just feel bad for those who are. Apparently exposure over time can lead to sensitivities in certain people, so eventually there may unfortunately be a lot more sensitive people. I'm guessing that if and when there are enough people who truly can't tolerate the emf, or if a direct link is found between say, cell phone usage and cancer, we'll finally see some legislation that addresses it. Of course, it could be decades before we see the long term impact of this stuff. As for me, as my meter is (outside my studio wall,) literally about 4 feet from where I work all day, I'm still glad I opted out.
My three comments:
Your precautionary principal argument would seem to support removal of all cell phones and towers. It seems that you're saying the evidence against cell phones is far greater than that against smart meters. I'm at a loss as to why no emergency ordinance was enacted that would banish cell phones and towers.
I'm also unclear as to how those with such sensitivity to EMF can survive in our modern society. Cell towers, radio towers, tv towers, wifi nodes (Comcast has several dozen spread throughout Sebastopol), wifi in schools, wifi in nearly all homes and stores, emergency agency transmitters, Bluetooth, rf tags in retail products; these must drive the anti-EMF people batty. If they truly are so sensitive, how do they survive day to day?
I'm embarrassed that my town council has taken up this anti-science alternative universe in which symbolic gestures trump reality.
Howard
Buttons
02-27-2013, 04:57 AM
Thank you Howard.
My three comments:
Your precautionary principal argument would seem to support removal of all cell phones and towers. It seems that you're saying the evidence against cell phones is far greater than that against smart meters. I'm at a loss as to why no emergency ordinance was enacted that would banish cell phones and towers.
I'm also unclear as to how those with such sensitivity to EMF can survive in our modern society. Cell towers, radio towers, tv towers, wifi nodes (Comcast has several dozen spread throughout Sebastopol), wifi in schools, wifi in nearly all homes and stores, emergency agency transmitters, Bluetooth, rf tags in retail products; these must drive the anti-EMF people batty. If they truly are so sensitive, how do they survive day to day?
I'm embarrassed that my town council has taken up this anti-science alternative universe in which symbolic gestures trump reality.
Howard
spam1
02-28-2013, 09:26 PM
My friend, there is a context here to consider, along with a wide-ranging array of available facts...along with a big, fat, legitimate range of physiological differences and genuine sensitivities among individuals -- like it or not; the latter is a fact.
Oy.
A "fact" is a premise presumed to be true generally supported by wide-ranging evidence, or from our WikiFriends:
The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_%28truth%29) to correspond to experience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience). Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.
I do not think that there has been -any- reasonable (reasonable meaning derived from a reasoned and rational argument) evidence that EMF sensitivity exists, just as there has been no reasonable evidence of the effectiveness of of homeopathic dilutions, or astral projections.
I use as my rationale the evidence of large numbers: if there did exist such a phenomena as EMF sensitivity, then in the 4.6 billion subjects that have been experimented on (cell phone users), at least some would present themselves to academic centers and be confirmed. Look at the numbers...suppose that the 11 people who spoke at the latest Sebastopol council meeting were representative: (4.5x10^9)*(11/8000)=6.2 million possibly sensitive. I just used scholar.google.com to search of "EMF symptoms and sensitivity in humans due to phones", and the best (latest) study was:
The present data, along with current scientific evidence, led to the conclusion that short-term rf-emf exposure from mobile phone technology is not related to levels of well-being or physical symptoms in IEI-EMF individuals. Furthermore, IEI-EMF individuals are unable to detect the presence of rf-emf under double-blind conditions. It remains, however, that IEI-EMF individuals present with a range of distressing and serious symptoms and often have a very poor quality of life. Given the current findings, together with findings of related research (Rubin et al. 2005 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072835/#b12-ehp0115-001603)), it is imperative to determine what factors other than low-level rf-emf exposure could be possible causes of the symptoms suffered by IEI-EMF individuals, so that appropriate treatment strategies can be developed.
or this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935108000601
This review showed that the large majority of individuals who claims to be able to detect low level RF-EMF are not able to do so under double-blind conditions. If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet. The available observational studies do not allow differentiating between biophysical from EMF and nocebo effects.
or this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969705003694
In conclusion, based on the limited studies available, there is no valid evidence for an association between impaired well-being and exposure to mobile phone radiation presently. However, the limited quantity and quality of research in this area do not allow to exclude long-term health effects definitely.
dzerach
03-01-2013, 12:03 AM
Two irrational points, just for you: a cell phone physically contacts my body: my actual head, my ears (very personal). A smartmeter is directly attached to someone's private property, their home, their castle (differently than the previous precedent, the electrical meter). SO, Where are you drawing YOUR line in this Aquarian adventure into utilitarianism? Would you like something attached to your car? When would the line be crossed for you?
Instead of alluding to "objective reality," as if there is one (!), what can be more accurately and usefully referenced is "consensual reality," or "conventional reality." Of course, experiential reality rules. DIRECT experience. Mine. Yours.
Are you at all familiar with ontology? I've studied way too much Tibetan Buddhist logic to briefly discuss with you what "a fact" is. Not to mention the funding politics of research. Quantum physics, anyone? My stance is unreasoned and irrational, eh? You are also implying that facts are not perspective-based (!) and are never interpreted or marshalled for a theory, a proof (they always speak for themselves) and that no scientific facts can be marshalled for the "against" side. That's just not true.
First of all, I agree with the general idea that it's inevitable the available technology would be pursued by a public utility...in an attempt to increase efficiency and make more money. However, I don't think a separation between science and the study of ethics is inevitable, or: technology and the study of ethics.
My earlier underlying point that went unnoticed was that the secular German Jew who could not return to 1930s Germany, Albert Einstein, was personally and directly adversely affected by fascism. I'm guessing he knew what it was when he saw it. Further, he even understood that grave mistakes can be made in the application of science and technology due to human limitations of ego.
Fascism is worth fighting against. You see, HOW a societally-important entity with pervasive power proceeds to accomplish their goals -- this is also important.
You are also implying that a segment of the population simply is not more highly sensitive, truly, than the rest? I would direct you to Elaine Aron and her work with the HSP concept -- The Highly Sensitive person. It's a fact. It's also based on research.
A "fact" is a premise presumed to be true generally supported by wide-ranging evidence, or from our WikiFriends:
I do not think that there has been -any- reasonable (reasonable meaning derived from a reasoned and rational argument) evidence that EMF sensitivity exists, just as there has been no reasonable evidence of the effectiveness of of homeopathic dilutions, or astral projections.
I use as my rationale the evidence of large numbers: if there did exist such a phenomena as EMF sensitivity, then in the 4.6 billion subjects that have been experimented on (cell phone users), at least some would present themselves to academic centers and be confirmed. Look at the numbers...suppose that the 11 people who spoke at the latest Sebastopol council meeting were representative: (4.5x10^9)*(11/8000)=6.2 million possibly sensitive. I just used scholar.google.com to search of "EMF symptoms and sensitivity in humans due to phones", and the best (latest) study was:
as well as this study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20518/abstract
or this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935108000601
or this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969705003694
podfish
03-01-2013, 11:27 AM
Two irrational points, just for you: a cell phone physically contacts my body: my actual head, my ears (very personal). A smartmeter is directly attached to someone's private property, their home, their castle (differently than the previous precedent, the electrical meter). ....
Are you at all familiar with ontology? ...
You are also implying that a segment of the population simply is not more highly sensitive, truly, than the rest? I would direct you to Elaine Aron and her work with the HSP concept -- The Highly Sensitive person. It's a fact. It's also based on research. none of that is a response to his argument. His point, that if you have eleven sensitives in Sebastopol you'd expect there to be millions worldwide, is very defensible by any definition of reality that acknowledges the concept of number theory. His inference that, given such large numbers, more than a few cases would likely be noticed by even the most prejudiced researchers, may be slightly more easily challenged. The existence of single (Aron) or even of a few researchers who are convinced themselves, but who are unable to convince a large number of their peers, isn't really significant evidence against Spam1's position. This is extremely analogous to the global warming debate; you can find possibly many outliers, a few with credentials comparable to the best of those holding the majority opinion, but the weight of numbers counts as evidence for the majority opinion.
And of course the majority can be wrong, but as the cliche goes that's the smart way to bet.
You've raised physics and Einstein (although the "Quantum Physics" trope is off-putting; it's often used to say "anything really weird may in fact be true"). Note that although Einstein's initial proposition was considered outlandish, and his arguments took a while to be accepted, he proposed ways to test their validity. An important part of his work was identifying such tests, which could be widely reproduced. We don't have widely reproduced evidence of HSPs; instead, we have frequent failure to demonstrate it. A serious attempt to prove the existence of HSP would include a serious effort to understand why the other experiments didn't support the idea.
Your irrational points actually make a better argument. We do resist having anything impinge on our bodies or our possessions without our consent. That doesn't need scientific backing - in our culture, anyway, it's considered a personal prerogative. And fighting fascism (as represented by PGE???) is always a good idea on general principle, even when the fascists are pursuing generally worth-while goals.
Peace Voyager
03-01-2013, 06:42 PM
:waccosun:I told the City Council they'd need to work to replace the head of the CPUC in order keep the Smart Meter assault from the citizens.
Peevey is as bad as PG&E.:stormcloud: Look for my next post on their ties to weather modification.
State utilities board slams Sebastopol over SmartMeter ban
By DEREK MOORE (https://www.pressdemocrat.com/personalia/DMoore)
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Friday, March 1, 2013 at 5:51 p.m.
Last Modified: Friday, March 1, 2013 at 5:59 p.m.
The California Public Utilities Commission called Sebastopol's moratorium on the installation of SmartMeters “unlawful and unenforceable” in a letter sent to city officials Friday.
The strongly worded correspondence represents the latest official response to the city's position.
PG&E also said the city lacks the authority to impose a moratorium on SmartMeters and the company vowed to continue installing the devices within city limits...
dzerach
03-02-2013, 04:04 PM
none of that is a response to his argument. His point, that if you have eleven sensitives in Sebastopol you'd expect there to be millions worldwide, is very defensible by any definition of reality that acknowledges the concept of number theory.
Kindly put, I don't understand how this is scientific. You haven't accounted for the many variables involved. We don't really have a control group. The way PG&E has set up the opt-out, someone would have to be courageous to opt out, not just wanting to do so. Remember, it costs money to opt out. A lot of people don't want to make waves or be viewed as different by others, misperceived. Etc.
The EMF research is ongoing, and not conclusive as a body of research? For example, babies, children, elderly folks, apartment complexes etc. are they studied as much? Hasn't the DECT phone been banned in some countries in schools? On and on.
The existence of single (Aron) or even of a few researchers who are convinced themselves, but who are unable to convince a large number of their peers, isn't really significant evidence against Spam1's position. This is extremely analogous to the global warming debate; you can find possibly many outliers, a few with credentials comparable to the best of those holding the majority opinion, but the weight of numbers counts as evidence for the majority opinion.
Sensitivity is a recurring issue in any smartmeter/EMF discussion. Your implied, exclusive definition of what qualifies as scientific research is not widely accepted. The social sciences, anyone?
I'm sure that neither you nor Spam-key intend to needlessly trash the social sciences, which is part of science. Enough to say that employers rely on their findings. For example, the Meyers Briggs findings and measurements are long-standing, widely accepted, and commonly applied in professional situations; the well-established veracity of an "INFP" type would be relevant to our sensitivity discussion.
https://www.myersbriggs.org/
As to HSP -- more widely accepted and built upon than you are guessing!
HSP - "Aron and colleagues developed the notion of sensory processing sensitivity (SPS). Studying it by using the HSP Scale, developed by first interviewing people who saw themselves as "highly sensitive," has resulted in a growing body of interesting research, using a variety of methods (genetics, functional magnetic resonance imaging, experiments, and surveys), and obtaining results equal to or stronger than those found with the typical traits used to study adult personality."
If you choose, go to wikipedia and zip down to the "Research" section.
And of course the majority can be wrong, but as the cliche goes that's the smart way to bet.
Well, I respect your intuition. Cultivating and trusting one's internal Intuition is much more reliable than solely relying on science because even scientific endeavors can become subject to social corruption.
But historically, in modern societies, the majority shifts, back and forth, and were frequently proven to have been dead-wrong -- kinda in scary ways too. The majority is sometimes disenfranchised. The majority usually wants to be led.
You've raised physics and Einstein (although the "Quantum Physics" trope is off-putting; it's often used to say "anything really weird may in fact be true").
What I thought was commonly the "take away" from Quantum Physics, even which is now being superceded, is that, ultimately, matter ("object") is fluid in time and space, an infinitely shifting target, modified by the very act of observing. Makes sense since matter is also energy. But I agree, we don't live our human lives that far down the rabbit hole.
We don't have widely reproduced evidence of HSPs; instead, we have frequent failure to demonstrate it. A serious attempt to prove the existence of HSP would include a serious effort to understand why the other experiments didn't support the idea.
This is mis-information. Please see my HSP paragraph, above. Especially note: "...and obtaining results equal to or stronger than those found with the typical traits used to study adult personality."
Your irrational points actually make a better argument. We do resist having anything impinge on our bodies or our possessions without our consent. That doesn't need scientific backing - in our culture, anyway, it's considered a personal prerogative. And fighting fascism (as represented by PGE???) is always a good idea on general principle, even when the fascists are pursuing generally worth-while goals.
Well said. I agree. Makes PG&E slightly "rude"? Now, the "worthwhile pursuit" part does escape me. The rest of this is in response to your astonishment that someone could consider PG&E in a fascist light.
No, I don't think PG&E are fascists, or corrupt. Self-interest appears to be what they are governed by -- is that supposed to be their sole mission? The whole checks and balances operation swirling about them abused power. I DO think the smartmeter run was a fascist-TYPE of move -- they're profit-mongers, they found the technology expedient to install.
Forcible suppression of opposition?: Yes they are doing that. Does it have to be direct, brute, physical force? No. It can be much more sophisticated and subtle, and not even intentional.
A tendency toward strong, autocratic control: Yes, that fits. Autocratic: Seemingly so by necessity, in order to deliver electricity. Because once Edison way back when got the bright idea to sell electricity in the first place....another story.
Economic and social regimentation? This does not fit.
However, they certainly are subjecting things to a certain unnecessary uniformity! The PD would have us believe Seb. is the only town in the state to have objected -- not so.
PG&E is one of the largest utilities in the United States. Society has a pretty big dependency on the electrical grid (understatement). The smartmeter project represents an intensification of their activity. Jobs have been lost. The benefits to users unclear. A case where marketing created the need -- and well after the fact I might add -- instead of an already existing, pressing need fulfilled by an added service.
As Margie, a pregnant cop in the Coen Brothers movie, Fargo, wonders at the end: " And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money ya know. Don't ch'ya know that? (sigh)."
The smaller, contributing entities abiding within a larger, more powerful AND over-centralized system were not given due consideration. They easily could have been. When this happens to the point where it becomes regularly oppressive, then yes, I feel that's leaning toward a fascist attitude.
We can all agree that technology is constantly changing? Once installed, the potential EMF level, and what the smartmeter is used for -- or its future cousin -- all of that could easily change: and ever so gradually, which always makes for fewer objections along the way.
Perhaps emissions will even lower. A future (or a NOW): EMF waves are just another form of pollution that need to be regulated? (More money spent ad nauseam).
Irregardless, once a gizmo like a smartmeter is laid in, the game begins. The smartmeter is not the endpoint. PG&E could have called it the startmeter.
Collectively, we haven't imagined the future very well. We just react react react. Creativity: an involuntary, subconscious interplay between technology and application (form and content). Look at the developments in Art when new forms arise: they determine content. A nation should always be attuned to their "collective subconscious" (one of those crazy Jungian discoveries)-- of course, we are not. And we have a doozy.
podfish
03-04-2013, 08:44 AM
I'm sure that neither you nor Spam-key intend to needlessly trash the social sciences, which is part of science. Enough to say that employers rely on their findings.you shouldn't be so sure!
and, it's not much of an endorsement to say "employers rely on their findings".
Despite my frequent posts that encourage considering scientific evidence, and expressing skepticism about positions that have weak or no scientific justification, I'm not an uncritical booster of the scientific establishment. I do think the scientific method is an extremely successful technique for discovering reality and debunking incorrect ideas. Its greatest strength is that it inherently provides for self-correction over time, and discourages absolutist claims. Its big weakness is that people, who by nature seem to respond favorably to absolutist claims and seem relatively uninterested in self-correction, don't understand how to apply it, to filter the data required for analysis, or interpret the results in context. The "social sciences" are extremely vulnerable to this, and often seem only peripherally scientific. This problem is pretty well understood and fields like psychology and economics are becoming more rigorous over the years. And that's not to say that scientific analysis hasn't been successfully applied to those fields of knowledge for a long time. But by many peoples' standards, they've got a way to go yet.