Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

For one thing, since you can opt out there will still be customers who have the older meters and a meter reader will have to go to that neighborhood. PG&E can use the data from the meters to distribute power distribution across the grid in a more efficient manner but I don't see this as necessary in our area due to the lack of intensive use of air conditioning. I have only electric heat in my house but I use a pellet stove and other less electricity using devices to stay warm. So the grid balancing that needs to be done is Southern California is not a real issue here. I suspect this is only to get rid of the meter readers using a technology more appropriate for the deserts of Southern California. We just don't get the heat here.

PGE is a horrible company. They are coddled by the the California officials because to challenge PGE is a risky move. My cousin was the auditor for PGE for many years. The old families who hold preferred stock siphon fortunes out of this public utility. They pay themselves 10% off the top. They claim this is fair because there is risk. There is no risk. They have been pulling in fortunes for a hundred years with no risk. You can't buy that stock. No one is selling. Why should they? It's a sweetheart deal.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by joehogan:

PGE is a horrible company. They are coddled by the the California officials because to challenge PGE is a risky move.... There is no risk. They have been pulling in fortunes for a hundred years with no risk...

---

Too true, joehogan. I remember hearing years ago that PGE is guaranteed a certain percentage of profits by law/contract every year, and if they don't get those profits, then they can raise the rates until they do. There is no other corporation that is guaranteed a certain level of profits!

In 2012 PG&E reported millions of smart meters in their service areas were still being read by meter readers. People who "opt out" and keep the analog meter are forced to pay $435 over three years for a meter reader. That's just not right. Opt out fees are a penalty scam by the CPUC and PG&E.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I also think users should have a choice about accepting one (or more) to be installed at their home if they are willing to pay the increased cost of having a "dumb" meter read by hand....
Barry

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

...People who "opt out" and keep the analog meter are forced to pay $435 over three years for a meter reader. That's just not right. Opt out fees are a penalty scam by the CPUC and PG&E.

---

With their sanction of opt-out charges, outlaw CPUC violates their own code. California Public Utilities Code section 745 (d) states that "on or after January 1, 2014, the CPUC shall only approve an electrical corporation's use of default time-variant pricing in a manner consistent with the other provisions of this part, if all of the following conditions have been met:
(1) Residential customers have the option to not receive service pursuant to time-variant pricing and incur no additional charges as a result of the exercise of that option . . ."

Please educate yourself so your posts make sense. Sonoma clean power might be lame competition forced on pge by the voters, but it anyt no hybrid, it just buys electrons as an alternative to pge, pge is still in charge, responsible for the grid, meters, and billing. And pge is fighting the death spiral of alternative dispersed generation and storage, guess who will win? Play the game and be in the fight for a sustainable world, otherwise be a guppy sucked into the kill screen. Money rules power... hopefully.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

Ironically, these types of savings etc. may benefit our public power supplier that uses PG&E assets. Sonoma Clean Power would possibly find savings if the meter readers were replaced...

---

I feel that this statement ignores some facts. We (the state) have granted P.G.&E. a monopoly on electric (and gas, where applicable) distribution because we don't want to have the electric wires and poles of competing companies all over our landscape - these are not only unsightly, but also expensive to install and maintain. In return, it is regulated - if it weren't, it could raise rates without any limit.

The PUC determines rules by which P.G.&E. sets its rates. When P.G.&E. wants to make significant changes to its infrastructure that cost money not built into the tariffs, it petitions the PUC for a rate change - these petitions must be advertised to the public which can speak to the matter before the PUC makes a decision at its public hearing.

In order to make this an orderly process, the PUC has established standards on what constitutes a fair return on investment for the owners (shareholders) of the company. The requests for rate change are then measured (in part) against this standard.

P.G.&E. is not the only company so regulated - most utilities are regulated; the PUC also regulates telephone, water, and sewer providers.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

Too true, joehogan. I remember hearing years ago that PGE is guaranteed a certain percentage of profits by law/contract every year, and if they don't get those profits, then they can raise the rates until they do. There is no other corporation that is guaranteed a certain level of profits!

---

Thanks for the additional info, Bill95446. However, since the PUC is pretty much in thrall to PGE, what it comes down to is that PGE gets to set its own terms. Last I heard, they were guaranteed a return of 14%. Seems pretty outrageous to me.

So I'm wondering, in having paid the $10/month for 3 years and $75 opt-out fee initially starting in Dec. 2012, if I'm due a reimbursement from January 1, 2014 according to what you wrote? I appreciate knowing that this code even existed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Runningbare:

With their sanction of opt-out charges, outlaw CPUC violates their own code. California Public Utilities Code section 745 (d) states that "on or after January 1, 2014, the CPUC shall only approve an electrical corporation's use of default time-variant pricing in a manner consistent with the other provisions of this part, if all of the following conditions have been met:
(1) Residential customers have the option to not receive service pursuant to time-variant pricing and incur no additional charges as a result of the exercise of that option . . ."

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

Thanks for the additional info, Bill95446. However, since the PUC is pretty much in thrall to PGE, what it comes down to is that PGE gets to set its own terms. Last I heard, they were guaranteed a return of 14%. Seems pretty outrageous to me.

---

So according to CNN ( https://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=PCG ) PGE net income was 5.28%; interesting to compare with Apple at 21.3%

As I understand it, CPUC (which is appointed by the governor of course) has the job of interpreting the results of the work of utilities to determine if they are good stewards of the monopoly they are given. The have a target percentage return but the utility takes on all the risk in any one year associated with providing electricity. The wisdom of this is that the mostly private company rewards its owners and managers with high returns when they work efficiently, such as eliminating someone driving around in a car to read a meter when it can be done remotely. If you object to that loss of jobs, I would submit you should also object to the car and have the meter readers walk around rather than drive (as walking would require even more meter readers).
Or to the same point (attributed to Milton Freedman):
At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

When costs go up (higher pay, more storm damage, costlier green power) the utility applies for higher rates. So it is the CPUC that in fact carries almost all the blame for approving the work approach and setting the rates.

The main issue I see is if the rewards to senior managers are not based on long term results, then short term thinking can cause bad decisions. I don't know if CPUC has influence on senior pay but I would guess they have substantial influence on all aspects. So, why doesn't the governor appoint better CPUC members? Mostly I guess CPUC members are chosen based on political payoff for past services rendered. So who is the CPUC: 2 white guys, an African American woman, a white women and a Hispanic woman (nicely diversified according to standard democratic norms) all appointed by Jerry Brown. They have tremendous power. Ask yourself why the don't use it to keep your rates down.

The three year cap on opt-out fees was a CPUC decision from Dec 2014. There are four appeals pending on this case. If you paid fees starting in Dec 2012, in Jan 2016 you should no longer be charged, unless you move, then the scam restarts.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

So I'm wondering, in having paid the $10/month for 3 years and $75 opt-out fee initially starting in Dec. 2012, if I'm due a reimbursement from January 1, 2014 according to what you wrote? I appreciate knowing that this code even existed.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

The wisdom of this is that the mostly private company rewards its owners and managers with high returns when they work efficiently, such as eliminating someone driving around in a car to read a meter when it can be done remotely. If you object to that loss of jobs, I would submit you should also object to the car and have the meter readers walk around rather than drive (as walking would require even more meter readers).

---

With respect to wisdom, efficiency, and the choice of how to get the meters read, we shouldn't overlook another option that is leagues ahead of the car OR the walking meter reader. Back in the day when gas was cheap, newspapers were routinely delivered by bicycle. Those beastly clunkers were loaded down with bulky canvas bags full of newspapers, pedaled around in all kinds of weather. That was before gas got expensive concurrent with an insane switch to cars for delivering newspapers.

But now we've come full circle with really tricked-out, highly efficient bicycles. Clipboard payloads are a lot lighter than bags of newspapers. And with today's atrocious traffic congestion getting worse every year, the reality is that sleek bicycles can often get around actually faster than cars. Behold the infinite gas mileage and truly zero emissions! Not to mention the exercise--any organic couch potato can drive a car.

However, all this fretting over the most efficient way to get the meters read, turns out to be a mostly moot issue. The utility wants to charge monthly for the cost of reading the meter. But just as it was belatedly discovered that most Californians are quite capable of pumping their own gas--ostensibly to keep costs down--we are likewise literate enough to be "allowed" to read our own meters. It is well known that monthly meter readings on the part of the utility are unnecessary, and that biannual readings on their part suffice perfectly well. Customers behind locked gates in rural and remote locations have been performing monthly readings of their own meters for decades now; the precedent is well established. We can read our own analog meters and communicate monthly readings to the utility, thereby rendering $120 annual meter-reading charges inappropriate and unwarranted.

As noted by fired PG&E meter reader Pat Wrigley ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINK4U0g02o), CPUC has already allocated a lot of money for reading meters, ultimately reflected in rates charged to everyone. By eliminating the need for meter readers, there should rightfully be a dividend in the form of a credit applied to all customers with smeters. But in fact this allocation has never been rescinded, probably because, as Sandi noted, "In 2012 PG&E reported millions of smart meters in their service areas were still being read by meter readers." If that scenario remains unchanged, the touted promise of efficient, thrifty wireless transmission of metered data remains largely bogus and unfulfilled. Hence it is patently unfair and discriminatory to charge only people who opt out for having their meters read.

Think bicycles, just once or twice a year . . .

Yes the cpuc regulates pges monopoly on power. So it is one of our true chances to influence the sustainable future of the world. Current meter tech is counting pennys on the ground at our expense. You're for that?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

...As I understand it, CPUC (which is appointed by the governor of course) has the job of interpreting the results of the work of utilities to determine if they are good stewards of the monopoly they are given. ..

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

..., since the PUC is pretty much in thrall to PGE, what it comes down to is that PGE gets to set its own terms.....

---

has anyone ever said "the regulators are honest and fair"??? even less likely, has there ever been a situation where the consumers and the regulated body both think the regulations/regulators were fair??

politics and public policy discussions so often just involve declaring one or the other side incompetent/dishonest/corrupt. I'm getting so that's the first thing that jumps out, way before any actual points of fact. Not that the points of fact are always forthcoming anyway.

btw, kudos to Sasu for the way she's using this forum. You can tell she's put in her hours of homework.

Thanx...yes, I knew it was 3 years and I haven't paid opt-out fees since Dec. 2015; but wondered, in the ruling being Dec. '14, if there was reimbursement. From what you wrote, it's all pending in court. And those of us who don't pay the opt-out only get meter reading every other month. At first, they were going to let me read my own meter and even talked me through it over the phone. I was sent a letter and set up with a schedule. Then one of their Sacramento heads rudely called me out-of-the-blue on a Sunday night and told me that I would not be allowed to read it any longer. PG&E is such a corrupt corporation...Hinkley is still contaminated after 20 years.

Toxic plume spreads, PG&E faces 2nd Hinkley suit

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

The three year cap on opt-out fees was a CPUC decision from Dec 2014. There are four appeals pending on this case. If you paid fees starting in Dec 2012, in Jan 2016 you should no longer be charged, unless you move, then the scam restarts.

---

Just a brief query to all the participants on this thread. Have any of you considered the impact of eliminating meter readers on the people who actually read the meters? Do you keep in mind that whenever a job is eliminated due to transferring a function to the customer, or automation, someone loses his/her means of making a living? Do you ever wonder, what happens to all those people who no longer can support themselves or their families? I know the companies and utilities don't ever consider these questions. Do you?

No reimbursement in the 2014 decision, but we are asking for refunds in our appeal. When the CPUC adopts a "decision" parties to that decision can appeal, so that's where it stands now- still at the CPUC. If the CPUC denies the appeals, parties can sue the CPUC in CA appeals court. In 2012 we sued the CPUC and the CA appeals court dismissed our case without written comment. So PG&E's PR soundbite that the smart meter was just like a cell phone which they paid a PR company to invent, was allowed to stand without question or investigation. No CEQA, no safety studies, only PG&E's assurances of safety, which the CPUC parroted.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

Thanx...yes, I knew it was 3 years and I haven't paid opt-out fees since Dec. 2015; but wondered, in the ruling being Dec. '14, if there was reimbursement. ...

---

Thank you so much for raising this issue! I sure do! Was talking to someone about similar issues today...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:

... Have any of you considered the impact of eliminating meter readers on the people who actually read the meters? Do you keep in mind that whenever a job is eliminated due to transferring a function to the customer, or automation, someone loses his/her means of making a living? ...

---

I'd lay odds that at least some of them would end up voting for someone like Donald Trump...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gaiasophia:

Thank you so much for raising this issue! I sure do! Was talking to someone about similar issues today...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:

... Have any of you considered the impact of eliminating meter readers on the people who actually read the meters?...

---

oh, I think they consider it, a little. And boy, is this an important topic - but it's wayyy OT. Guaranteed minimum income, or other solutions, are better than refusing to modernize certain random jobs. Trump was mentioned - preserving jobs this way is what he's doing for publicity but it won't scale to all who need them. So... where's that other thread? probably waiting for some other political event to trigger it!!

This is an excellent question and does argue for compassion. But if jobs are automated and more efficiently done by machines, those workers need to move on. I would not advocate keeping an old method of doing things just to keep jobs. This would not be my argument for or against Smart Meters. Think of the thousands of phone operators who don't do that job anymore.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:

... Have any of you considered the impact of eliminating meter readers on the people who actually read the meters? ...

---

Pge is not bad to work for. Reading meters is low end, sometimes used for punishment when demoted. Disliked because of common and unpredictable unfriendly interactions with dogs and people. As this work has dwindled people are reassigned, no layoffs, just reduced hiring. I have never worked there, though know some who do or have.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:

...Have any of you considered the impact of eliminating meter readers on the people who actually read the meters? ...

---

On Thursday Jan 12, at 7 pm at the Sebastopol Grange we will be showing the smart meter documentary "Take Back Your Power", followed by a panel and Q&A. See this event listed here: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...459#post209459

This weeks news: PG&E to begin SmartMeter installation by Amie Windsor

https://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_we...49ad31fc3.html

We have quite a few things that are more pressing right now than this issue... like

FASICST OLIGARCHS taking over our country's government.

Here's most of an excellent article about the Smart Meter ban coming to an end. Of particular interest is that ban was not "lawful" in the first place, yet PG&E backed off anyway. That's about to change!

The opt out charge is a one -time $75 setup charge and then a monthly $10 charge for 3 years " to offset the costs of operating the older analog meters". CARE customers only pay a $10 initial fee plus $5 monthly.

The CPUC approved this fee as reasonable, and I agree.

So it's time to decide if you want to pay for meter readers to come to your home or take advantage of technology to do efficiently. The choice is yours.

Note there will be a documentary film showing and panel discussion next Thursday, January 12th at 7pm at the Sebastopol Grange. Clearly, this film is made by people who think you have reason to be concerned. While biased, I'm sure it presents some good information, including privacy concerns.

Barry :waccosun:


https://i.imgur.com/yv1Iu.png
PG&E to begin SmartMeter installation
By Amie Windsor Staff Writer [email protected]
Wednesday, January 4, 2017

City not enforcing ban

The city’s 3-year-old effort to ban SmartMeters will come to an end this month as PG&E begins to install the self-reading utility meters throughout Sebastopol.

{snip...}

In 2013 during a special city council meeting, the city adopted a moratorium banning SmartMeters. The ordinance made installation a crime punishable by a $500 fine.

According to Sebastopol City Manager/City Attorney Larry McLaughlin, the ban wasn’t going to stop PG&E.
“It wasn’t a lawful ban,” McLaughlin said. From day one, he believed the ban was “unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable” because the CPUC has overarching jurisdiction on electricity and power statewide.
Nevertheless, the ban was enforced for about two or three days, McLaughlin said. The Sebastopol Police Department received one phone call of a breach wherein the caller requested the installer be arrested.
No arrests were made, however the situation catapulted conversations between PG&E, Sebastopol Police Chief Jeff Weaver and McLaughlin.

“Basically the head of PG&E security at the time called Weaver and told him PG&E was going to be quite aggressive,” McLaughlin said. “His initial idea was to let an employee get arrested so that PG&E could use that arrest and fight it in criminal court.”

The plan wasn’t acted upon, McLaughlin said. “A day or so later he came back and said the ban was unconstitutional and that they would go to court over it,” he added.

McLaughlin directed Weaver to cease enforcement of the ban.

The utility company never took the city to court but, in fact, upheld the city’s wishes, withdrawing plans to install meters. “We agreed to a couple of exceptions, including the Barlow and another housing development,” McLaughlin said.

All was quiet for the next 18 months. Then, this November, PG&E contacted McLaughlin with a new plan for meter installation.

“The feel they have to uphold the CPUC’s rulings or they’d be in violation with the commission,” McLaughlin said.

McLaughlin believes the installation plan will be swift. “Basically whenever they are on a property for any reasons, like reading a meter,” the utility will make the switch. “They plan on being fairly aggressive and installing meters in a fairly short period of time,” he said.

PG&E is meeting this week to outline an installation schedule, according to PG&E’s media representative Deanna Contreras.

PG&E plans on engaging in outreach via a letter campaign to inform customers of the upcoming switch, Contreras said. The letter will explain the SmartMeter plan, as well as opt-out options.

Customers may opt out of the SmartMeter program, for a price. Those customers paying regular rates (non CARE — California Alternate Rates for Energy) are required to pay a $75 initial fee plus a $10 monthly charge for up to three years. CARE customers must pay a $10 initial fee plus $5 monthly, also for up to three years.
The fees are meant to offset the costs of operating the older analog meters. A 2014 CPUC decision allows PG&E to accrue $35.35 million dollars for providing the opt-out program.

“We find the three year period to be reasonable, as it is a sufficient duration for the utility to recover a portion of the utility’s incremental costs in setting up services associated with accommodating the request of the opt out customer,” the decision reads.

In 2014, PG&E estimated roughly 54,000 customers within its service area, which serves approximately 16 million people throughout northern and central California, would opt out of the SmartMeter program. That’s less than one-half of 1 percent of customers.

The ratio of opt-out customers could be significantly higher in Sebastopol. 2014 numbers show 21,000 SmartMeters are to be installed citywide. Approximately 1,100 customers in Sebastopol have already opted out.
Opt out is the only legal option opponents have of fighting the installation.

Nevertheless, McLaughlin said he’s mentioned to PG&E there may be “civil unrest” and attempts to deny PG&E access.

“We’ve heard rumblings around the city,” McLaughlin said. “Something about linking arms and not allowing PG&E in. I did advise PG&E there could be confrontations.”

Maurer said the EMF Safety Network is “organizing” a protest effort. “We’d like PG&E to back off and leave us alone,” she said.

See full article here.

Fascism is the forced deployment of smart meters (radiation transmitters on every home)--or pay to avoid them, which is (according to our lawyers) coercion by exaction- extortion. Instead of meter readers PG&E is using our homes for their transmitters- this is an outrageous taking of private property rights.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

We have quite a few things that are more pressing right now than this issue... like

FASICST OLIGARCHS taking over our country's government.

---

Sebastopol's ban on smart meter installation is still a LAW (Sebastopol's ordinance Chapter 8.58), and it's not ending unless the council votes to take it down. How can a law be unlawful, unless it's proven in court to be so?

I adamantly disagree the fees are a reasonable solution. The CPUC is breaking many utility laws, property rights laws, and safety codes on smart meters. Smart meters are harming the environment, they are not in any way possible a "green" solution. Waste upon waste, throwing out perfectly good analog meters, for digital meters that may last ten years and have expensive batteries replaced every five years. "New" isn't always better!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Here's most of an excellent article about the Smart Meter ban coming to an end. Of particular interest is that ban was not "lawful" in the first place, yet PG&E backed off anyway. That's about to change!

Theopt out charge is a one -time $75 setup charge and then a monthly $10 charge for 3 years " to offset the costs of operating the older analog meters". CARE customers only pay a $10 initial fee plus $5 monthly.

The CPUC approved this fee as reasonable, and I agree.

---

I saw that. I now will understand my electric bill better. I think we should replace our city attourney with one who understands the laws of the State of California better.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

This weeks news: PG&E to begin SmartMeter installation by Amie Windsor

https://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_we...49ad31fc3.html

---

I think the city should fire their attorney. When I read that the PUC had the say in these sort of things and the city went ahead with the ban, I figured the city council was getting bad advice from their lawyer who obviously did not know state law. Sebastopol needs a new attorney now.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

.. Of particular interest is that ban was not "lawful" in the first place, yet PG&E backed off anyway. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

Fascism is the forced deployment of smart meters (radiation transmitters on every home)--or pay to avoid them, which is (according to our lawyers) coercion by exaction- extortion. Instead of meter readers PG&E is using our homes for their transmitters- this is an outrageous taking of private property rights.

---

Indeed, upside-down "reasonable" fee amounts to bogus extortionate "choice". As for efficiency, the most efficient part of the Smart Grid is the outlaw utility's wholesale confiscation of siting rights from private property. Rightfully speaking, who should be paying whom? In the candid words of Edward Hasbrouck:

"A thorough consideration of opt-out charges must be balanced with a corresponding consideration of costs that should be borne by the utility and paid to customers unable to afford the discriminatory opt-out option and consequently imperiled with wireless transceiver meters. PG&E usage of existing on-premises gas and electric delivery easements as the basis for a claim of entitlement to install digital mesh network antennae and transceivers for third-party data at current meter locations, is illegitimate. If PG&E wants to build out a digital wireless mesh network infrastructure for for-profit use by third parties, it can do so in the same way that every competing digital wireless data network operator has done: by purchasing or leasing property for this purpose, and/or by negotiating and obtaining permission to place equipment on non-PG&E property. The utility company cannot be permitted to effectively take valuable radio transceiver and antenna siting rights on private property without compensation, which property owners would otherwise be entitled to reserve, to exercise for themselves, or to sell or rent to parties and on terms of their choosing."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

Sebastopol's ban on smart meter installation is still a LAW (Sebastopol's ordinance Chapter 8.58), and it's not ending unless the council votes to take it down. How can a law be unlawful, unless it's proven in court to be so?

---

Agreed. I think that the Sebastopol City Council should revisit the ban and either affirm it or rescind it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

I adamantly disagree the fees are a reasonable solution. The CPUC is breaking many utility laws, property rights laws, and safety codes on smart meters. Smart meters are harming the environment, they are not in any way possible a "green" solution. Waste upon waste, throwing out perfectly good analog meters, for digital meters that may last ten years and have expensive batteries replaced every five years. "New" isn't always better!

---

Perhaps a better approach would have been for PG&E to offer discounts to people who accepted smart meters.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Perhaps a better approach would have been for PG&E to offer discounts to people who accepted smart meters.

---

The utility has from the beginning been overzealous to the point of breaching the law in order to implement their program. The choice whether to enroll in the program was clearly intended to be left to the customer, not the utility. Coercion was not to play a part.

Energy Policy Act of 2005, Title Xll, Subtitle E, Section 1252, (a), (14), (C) states:

"Each electric utility subject to subparagraph (A) shall provide each customer requesting a time-based rate with a time-based meter capable of enabling the utility and customer to offer and receive such rate, respectively."

This scenario in fact sets the stage for opting in, not out.

Your opinion is late since the city hired its attorney to be city manager. Think what you will, and inform yourself with fact.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

I think the city should fire their attorney. ...

---

This quote about "It is a law" does not mean it actually is. Sebastopol can pass laws all day long. They could require all of us to wear tie-dye but if state or federal law is contradictiory to this, it is not a real law.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

Sebastopol's ban on smart meter installation is still a LAW (Sebastopol's ordinance Chapter 8.58), and it's not ending unless the council votes to take it down. ...

---

It is a law, and what you are talking about is the question of jurisdiction, not law.

According the the city council minutes, the City attorney/manager said nothing about the ban being unlawful. He "presented the staff report recommending the city council provide direction on adopting measures establishing a temporary moratorium on the installation of smart meters and related equipment..." The council voted unanimously to adopt it. The police chief recommended the $500 fine.

According to the minutes, the City attorney/manager said the ordinance will be in effect until the council takes further action. It was the city attorney/manager who directed the police chief to not enforce it, but the city council has not revisited the ordinance, so therefore it stands, whether or not the fine is enforced.

I am wondering, since it is a law, can residents cite it to make citizen's arrests? And, I also support the council reviewing the ordinance.

Minutes of Sebastopol City Council Meeting: https://web.archive.org/web/20151107...ng_minutes.pdf

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

This quote about "It is a law" does not mean it actually is. Sebastopol can pass laws all day long. They could require all of us to wear tie-dye but if state or federal law is contradictiory to this, it is not a real law.

---

According to this PD article a citizens arrest can be made if it's a misdemeanor. You would have to state something like, “You are under arrest for violating Sebastopol Ordinance Chapter 8.58”.
The ordinance says : "2. Violations of this moratorium may be charged as infractions or misdemeanors …"

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5...itizens-arrest

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

I am wondering, since it is a law, can residents cite it to make citizen's arrests?

---

And the installer will just laugh at you, ignore you or come back later.
Good luck. You might need a gun, but that would take it to the next level.

Choose your battles. The national government is being taken over by people that don't care about other people, only money. The dissolution of the EPA, FDA, FTC and other agencies that protect people is a far more important issue right now.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

According to this PD article a citizens arrest can be made if it's a misdemeanor. ...

---

A camera will do. They run away from cameras.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

And the installer will just laugh at you, ignore you or come back later.
Good luck. You might need a gun, but that would take it to the next level.

---

Interesting. I never knew how a citizens arrest is done. Just remember, the individual involved is a blue collar worker, most likely a contractor with PG&E (an innocent) . The Sebastopol PD may not back you up. (I don't think there would be violence, more likely a verbal argument with the worker calling his boss to have it sorted out.)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

According to this PD article a citizens arrest can be made if it's a misdemeanor. You would have to state something like, “You are under arrest for violating Sebastopol Ordinance Chapter 8.58”.
The ordinance says : "2. Violations of this moratorium may be charged as infractions or misdemeanors …"

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5...itizens-arrest

---

Yep, we have bigger fish to fry the next four years. If Smart Meters are the worst thing, just express graditude and move on.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

...Choose your battles. The national government is being taken over ...

---

Interesting. It is true, that since they are in a public place there is no expectation of privacy but consider who you are photographing. This person will be a blue collar worker, who is either and employee of PG&E or a contractor for PG&E. Be sensitive that he or she has nothing to do with policy, management or poltics.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

A camera will do. They run away from cameras.

---

Here is an article from today's Press Democrat.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6...smartmeters-in

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...4_15-56-29.png
PG&E to install SmartMeters in Sebastopol again
MARY CALLAHAN
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | January 18, 2017, 6:49PM

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is ending a four-year moratorium on the installation of residential SmartMeters in Sebastopol, where strong community opposition resulted in a 2013 ordinance banning new placements of the wireless devices, though the law was suspended before it was ever enforced.

The utility company will start next month on what could be 5,300 installations in the city by introducing a handful of the controversial meters in homes where customers specifically have requested them, spokeswoman Deanna Contreras said. Installations also will resume in the Marin County town of Fairfax, which opposed the meters, as well.

Contreras said the company will roll out its program carefully and deliberately, ensuring residents understand not only how SmartMeters work but that they also have a right to opt out — for a price.

No SmartMeters will be installed where customers have not been notified in advance, she said. Those choosing to stick with conventional meters must pay a $75 fee, plus $10 a month for three years.

But the plan already has aroused the ire of a Sebastopol-based group that has spent years fighting a regionwide plan to replace analog gas and electricity meters with digital ones critics claim pose a threat to human health, safety and privacy.

The group, EMF Safety Network is planning its next steps, Sebastopol resident and Network director Sandi Maurer said, including door-to-door distribution of literature about the perceived dangers of SmartMeters.

The devices emit electromagnetic radio waves similar to a cellphone or Wi-Fi router to communicate with centralized computers that keep real-time tabs on customers’ power use. Some consumers and health practitioners claim these repeated pulses cause symptoms including headaches, insomnia, imbalance, tinnitus and heart problems, though major health institutions have not validated these complaints.

But health concerns were among the problems cited in the urgency ordinance adopted in February 2013 by the Sebastopol City Council forbidding installation of new SmartMeters.

“We’re actively resisting PG&E’s deployment here in Sebastopol,” Maurer said, “and we will be going back to the city council to ask them to enforce the ban again, too.”

PG&E, like energy companies around the world, has been working for the past decade to upgrade old-fashioned meters with SmartMeters. The latter allow for two-way communication enabling faster detection of power outages, remote servicing and real-time access to power consumption that can guide customers’ conservation efforts. Nearly 10 million have been installed in PG&E’s service area, which runs from Bakersfield to Eureka, with an opt-out rate of about 2 percent, company representatives said.

Sonoma County’s opt-out rate is also 2 percent but that jumps to about 6 percent in Sebastopol, PG&E spokeswoman Ari Vanrenen said.

The company has installed about 2,600 SmartMeters in the city. The conversion of the 5,300 analog meters over the next two years represents about 3,000 customers, Vanrenen said.

Longtime council member Sara Glade Gurney said the company risks a public relations problem, if it moves forward.

“We’re expecting citizen action if they come here to install meters,” she said.

But the council’s previous move to ban deployment in 2013 was suspended almost immediately after it began because authority to regulate utility companies resides with the California Public Utility Commission, City Attorney/City Manager Larry McLaughlin said.

The state commission’s general counsel told the city the ban was an “illegal unenforceable ordinance, in violation of federal law,” McLaughlin said.

At the same time, PG&E said it would not honor the ordinance and threatened to sue if any of its employees was cited and charged the $500 fine the law allowed, McLaughlin said.

Sebastopol, PG&E face off over SmartMeters again
Current Mayor Una Glass said Wednesday she doesn’t “see that the council has a lot of options, no matter how much I think it’s kind of an imposition on our residents.

“We’re this tiny little city, and it’s kind of this David and Goliath thing again,” she said.

You can reach Staff Writer Mary Callahan at 707-521-5249 or [email protected]. On Twitter @MaryCallahanB.

I can't wait to get mine. It will help me keep track of power usage and waste. Gas too.

looking forward to get new tech here.

yup, handy.

increased incidence of cancer and other ailments, house fires, major bill increases and corporate snooping and control notwithstanding.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

I can't wait to get mine. It will help me keep track of power usage and waste. Gas too.

looking forward to get new tech here.

---

I wish I had heard about being able to request one months ago. I requested mine yesterday using the PG&E website.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

I can't wait to get mine. It will help me keep track of power usage and waste. Gas too.

---

Here's an article from a man who had similar aspirations as you, thinking the smart meter would help him track power and reduce waste. Here's his conclusion,

"7. My Smart Meter is Irrelevant! The surprising lesson in all of this is that my smart meter has almost nothing to do with any of these lessons. The data I rely upon was available before my smart meter was installed and the monthly summaries are still the most useful data available for my purposes. So where is the consumer benefit from smart meters? As far as I can tell all the benefits are flowing to PG&E, but my rates are still going up."

https://garylhunt.wordpress.com/2010...fter-one-year/

He also claims the smart meter is not to blame for rising bills. However, emails between PG&E and the CPUC prove smart meters were overcharging in hot weather. PG&E gave out scanty refunds to customers. https://emfsafetynetwork.org/structu...-and-cover-up/

But don't worry, Sebastopol doesn't get hot like Bakersfield does.

Dr. Ronald M Powell, PhD in applied physics from Harvard writes, “Smart Meters are a community concern, not just an individual concern.”-

"A Single Smart Meter on a Neighbor’s Home Can Produce RF Power Density Levels Shown to Cause Biological Effects

For some locations in a given home, the distance to a neighbor’s Smart Meter may be less than the distance to the resident’s own Smart Meter. Thus, a neighbor’s Smart Meter may be the principal source of radiation for some locations in the given home. The Biological Effects Chart shows that a single Smart Meter can produce RF power densities found to cause biological effects even at distances greater than 20 meters, and certainly up to 100 meters. And the number of neighbors within that range can be large. A given single-*‐family home in a residential community may have one to eight nearest neighbors, and even more next nearest neighbors, all within 100 meters (328 feet) of a given home, and each with a Smart Meter.

The problem of exposure from the neighbors’ Smart Meters becomes more serious as the distances between adjacent homes, and thus the distances between adjacent Smart Meters, get smaller. So, generally speaking, residents of townhouses will receive more radiation from their neighbors’ Smart Meters than residents of single-*‐family homes. And residents of apartments will receive even more radiation from their neighbors’ Smart Meters, depending on the location of the Smart Meters in the apartment buildings.

So Smart Meters are a community concern, not just an individual concern. To resolve the problems of RF exposure for a given home, it will be necessary to address all of the Smart Meters near that home. Smart Appliances, too, contribute to this concern. While, individually, they have a lower RF power output than a Smart Meter, the Smart Appliances of neighbors can also increase the RF exposure in the given home.

Fortunately, some states have offered an individual OPT OUT from the installation of a Smart Meter. While such an OPT OUT is very helpful, and is definitely the vital first step, the data on biological effects discussed here suggest the limitations of such an OPT OUT in resolving the problem of excess radiation from Smart Meters.

There is no substitute for a roll back of all Smart Meters at the community level, or higher.”
-Ronald Powell, PhD Applied Physics

from "Biological Effects from RF Radiation at Low5Intensity Exposure, based on the BioInitiative 2012 Report, and the Implications for Smart Meters and Smart Appliances" June 11, 2013

My Netgear router is probably producing more and trust me if I went into the neighbors with a Wifi enabled device, I could see my wifi. Are you going to ban routers?

Wi-fi routers can be turned off, and normally their strength and range are less than smart meters. Smart meters cannot be turned off. In apartments there are often multiple meters on one building wall.

Sebastopol banned smart meters because of their effects on the community. We believe the city should be advising residents to use hardwired routers, and wired connections to protect children, communities and nature.

I have spent seven years in proceedings on smart meters at the California Public Utilities Commission. I researched 65,000 emails between PG&E and the CPUC on smart meters. From this experience, I firmly believe surveillance is the main reason smart meters are deployed.

Ok, I'll agree there are legitimate privacy and security concerns w/ SmartMeters. Both need to be addressed by legislation.

The body of science simply does NOT support evidence of real harms. The WHO has been researching the issue for 20 years, with over 25,000 studies published.

Another of the lefts version of the rights "climage change denial" - willfully ignoring the massive body of evidence to the contrary while latching onto the few scientists who hold a contrary opinion- and insisting "they" are the only ones who have it right.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

Another of the lefts version of the rights "climage change denial" - willfully ignoring the massive body of evidence to the contrary while latching onto the few scientists who hold a contrary opinion- and insisting "they" are the only ones who have it right.

---

That's not quite an accurate representation - though I do agree with you that the left should be far more conscious of how many of their attitudes, arguments and issues are mirrors of crazy stuff from the right. You'd be more on track if you were talking about anti-vaxx. It's being pretty well established that most of what we fondly call 'thinking' is more instinctual, trusting sources that for whatever reason resonates with our worldview. It's really not fair to say 'check the science' -- virtually none of us can do that accurately. You can often spot bogus science, but not always. There are what look to be credible sources who share the EMF concerns. As you point out, the concensus point of view is that these concerns aren't well enough established, but those who believe strongly in the precautionary principle (I don't...) can't be so easily dismissed as willfully ignorant cranks. Sadly to say, this is somewhat true of the climate-change deniers too. It's kind of the reverse of the precautionary principle there, though - well, maybe it's taking precautions that they don't lose any money. Like Upton Sinclair pointed out, it's often hard to accept new information that you think will be detrimental to your interests.

I think it's really important for those on the left to be very careful about how they talk about things like this. Every time I see someone talking about those wacky things 'libtards' believe without proof, I cringe - it's giving ammunition to those who would discredit progressive beliefs just when we need credibility the most. It's up to the good guys to be the voice of reason.

The WHO classifies EMF, including the kind of radiation smart meters emit as 2B (possibly carcinogenic) based on science linking cell phone radiation to gliomas, deadly brain tumors. How can that in any way be construed to mean no evidence of real harm?

From Joel Moskowitz, PhD Berkeley: "Two hundred and twenty-three scientists from 41 nations have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. All have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health. In addition, ten scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on related topics have signed this petition."
https://www.saferemr.com/2015/06/int...appeal-on.html

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

The body of science simply does NOT support evidence of real harms. The WHO has been researching the issue for 20 years, with over 25,000 studies published.

---

Because there are no dates or information regarding the differences among units or manufacturing in these reports, you are paint with a broad brush. It's exactly like calling all the KOWS people bad and uncaring as a group due to the actions of one person. If these factors are codified into law in 'other countries' then the manufactures will make changes to make their products more safe. Why wouldn't they? Not everybody's out to get you!

Anecdotal evidence is not conclusive, either. I don't see the numbers, except for stupid highway patrolmen holding powerful radar units in their crotches for hours at a time. And Johnny Cochran.

And you've ruined any confidence I have in your information when you mentioned earlier that the main reason for the smart meters is to SPY ON US???
Good god, girl. you totally lost your credibility now.

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

(buffalo springfield, 1968)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

The WHO classifies EMF, including the kind of radiation smart meters emit as 2B (possibly carcinogenic) based on science linking cell phone radiation to gliomas, deadly brain tumors. How can that in any way be construed to mean no evidence of real harm?

---

I'm curious how you think you're going to get that kind of help from your smart meter. I've had one for 3 years and I don't get any more information about usage than I got with my old meter. I'm especially wondering why you think the meter will help you with waste. How would the meter know if you were wasting power?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

I can't wait to get mine. It will help me keep track of power usage and waste. Gas too.

---

Um... because I will can get information immediately on usage and know what I was using and how much I am paying at any given time.

Loads can be measured. The internet of things offers many devices that can get a signature by noting the load.
Just like a fitbit knows the difference between walking and stairs.

Welcome to the future!

I, however, will not get into a self-driving car in case you think I"m a blind futurist.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:

I'm curious how you think you're going to get that kind of help from your smart meter. I've had one for 3 years and I don't get any more information about usage than I got with my old meter. I'm especially wondering why you think the meter will help you with waste. How would the meter know if you were wasting power?

---

I'm not sure what you're saying. What existing devices interface with the smartmeter? How will that be of help to you

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

Um... because I will can get information immediately on usage and know what I was using and how much I am paying at any given time.

Loads can be measured. The internet of things offers many devices that can get a signature by noting the load...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

I, however, will not get into a self-driving car in case you think I"m a blind futurist.

---

I'm looking forward to them - now horses, hell if I'd ever get on one of those.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:

I'm curious how you think you're going to get that kind of help from your smart meter. I've had one for 3 years and I don't get any more information about usage than I got with my old meter. I'm especially wondering why you think the meter will help you with waste. How would the meter know if you were wasting power?

---

You do realize there are currently (and an ever increasing) number of products that interface with Smart Meters?

You can set your washer/dryer to run when energy demand (and cost) is low. Water heaters that can adjust their hold temperature based on demand/cost/and when you are liekly home to actually use that hot water.

Having lived off grid for ~15 years of my life- consciousness of your energy use is THE factor in reducing your energy use. And smart meters, and the growing reality of connected technologies can play a major role in reducing energy consumption- and reducing the use by the grid of the most polluting forms of power production that are used to meet peak needs.

Yes- you and I may not have most, or any of these devices at the moment. But, like it or not- it is the future. And it will not only save energy, it will help reduce the construction of new power plants.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

I, however, will not get into a self-driving car in case you think I"m a blind futurist.

---

In fact, if you were a blind futurist (you might prefer the term sight challenged) you would be very appreciative of having a self driving car, I would expect. Also if you were aged and infirmed.

I am not going to turn off my router. Why would I?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

Wi-fi routers can be turned off, and normally their strength and range are less than smart meters. Smart meters cannot be turned off. In apartments there are often multiple meters on one building wall.

Sebastopol banned smart meters because of their effects on the community. We believe the city should be advising residents to use hardwired routers, and wired connections to protect children, communities and nature.

I have spent seven years in proceedings on smart meters at the California Public Utilities Commission. I researched 65,000 emails between PG&E and the CPUC on smart meters. From this experience, I firmly believe surveillance is the main reason smart meters are deployed.

---

I noticed, when I lived in a very conservative area of California, that the opposition had to do with privacy. Unless I have an illegal indoors marijuana grow area, I was not worried. I suppose someone could tell if you were home by your electricity usage. This is actually used by the power company to balance the grid. We in northern California, may ask why. In southern California on hot days, the burden from air conditioners is extreme. Even though I don't have gas, I don't use my electric heat that much and I suspect others also don't. As for health concerns, this is the unscientific edge of the left along with being anti vaccination. The left and the right have problems with science they don't agree with. Science is not something you agree or disagree with, it just is science. If you disagree, go to the lab and prove it wrong. But vaccination and exposure to radiofrequency radiation is settled science. (I suspect the word "radiation" is the problem here)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

Ok, I'll agree there are legitimate privacy and security concerns w/ SmartMeters. Both need to be addressed by legislation.

The body of science simply does NOT support evidence of real harms. The WHO has been researching the issue for 20 years, with over 25,000 studies published.

Another of the lefts version of the rights "climage change denial" - willfully ignoring the massive body of evidence to the contrary while latching onto the few scientists who hold a contrary opinion- and insisting "they" are the only ones who have it right.

---

I used to live in a very conservative town in Calfornia. We never elected the nut-right to the city council. The folks were conservative Republicans but not from the Tea Party. They were businessmen and pragmatic. Unfortunatley I noticed when I moved into Sebastopol that there were some nut left people on the board. I would have welcomed Sonic having wireless throughout the town. At least nothing has been said about vaccinations but they should have checked to see who is in charge of utilities before trying to ban Smartmeters.

How interesting. If I buy an on-demand water heater (I live in an all electric place) I will look for that feature. I am on 100% Green from Sonoma power but it still affects the grid.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

You do realize there are currently (and an ever increasing) number of products that interface with Smart Meters?

....

---

The point being the WHO classifies radiation as a 2b carcinogen based on science. Radiation is radiation, the FCC calls it radiation. This is not based on anecdotal evidence.

Industry claims of smart meters saving money and reducing waste are untested, unproven and have been debunked. How they they possibly save energy when they are transmitting all the time, needing battery replacements, and not even working right?

If you really care about climate change, care about health, care about privacy, care about grid security you will educate yourself further, and not just be contented with industry soundbites.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

Because there are no dates or information regarding the differences among units or manufacturing in these reports, you are paint with a broad brush.

---

Sorry, I'm a little confused. How can industry claims be debunked if they are untested? Thanks.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

...Industry claims of smart meters saving money and reducing waste are untested, unproven and have been debunked. ....

---

"Untested" meaning the industry and CPUC approved the deployment of smart meters without proving they would really save energy, save money etc.
EMF engineer Michael Neuert who has been testing for EMF's in our area since the 80's wrote this paper. Concerns Regarding Expected Energy Savings from PG&E Smart Meters https://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-cont...ers-Neuert.pdf

Here's a video showing how the smart meter is using energy even with all the power to the house off.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:

Sorry, I'm a little confused. How can industry claims be debunked if they are untested? Thanks.

---

This video doesn't prove anything. The meter is powered by the incoming line, as is whatever communication method it uses. For all I know, it could be using 'carrier current' where a small signal is being sent back through the power line itself, not through the air. Y'know, like those old X-10 controllers you used to use to turn lights off and on.

The power companies have been considering carrier current technology for years, even at one point considering offering internet service this way, competing with the telephone and cable industry.

The LCD display shown was washed out with ambient light. We'll have to take the videographer's word for whatever was on the display, if it showed some kind of change or movement, it's probably what happens when the meter is hooked up with no load. At any rate this is a guy guessing, not science..


so much BS, so little time. (=Bad Science - what did you think I meant?)

What would be more useful is someone with a broadband spectrum analyzer (like the one that broadcast field engineers use) to stand outside an operating house with a SM... and display the frequencies and amplitude.

please. You are hurting yourself now...

Radiation is radiation? Nope. I am not an engineer but there are decided differences between ionizing radiation (Gamma Rays, Alpha and Beta Particles) and radiofrequency, infrared, visible light and ultraviolet.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

The point being the WHO classifies radiation as a 2b carcinogen based on science. Radiation is radiation, the FCC calls it radiation. ....

---

Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NTSejgsjTc
One with spectrum analyzer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL2JQ0FbgvU

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

What would be more useful is someone with a broadband spectrum analyzer (like the one that broadcast field engineers use) to stand outside an operating house with a SM... and display the frequencies and amplitude.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

The point being the WHO classifies radiation as a 2b carcinogen based on science. Radiation is radiation, the FCC calls it radiation. This is not based on anecdotal evidence.

---

Yes. The same can be said for the smoke detectors in your house. And many, many other things where an aspect is deemed potentially harmful.

The difference being- based on science- harmful levels (and to be honest, well below harmful levels) are heavily regulated.

You do realize everything from water to oxygen are extremely dangerous, even fatal, at levels above what is deemed, and regulated, as safe?

FYI- SmartMeters use the GSM 2 standard. Arguably the biggest concern with them- if you search for the Chaos Conference Smart Meter Hacking, from Guernsey in 2016- it's pretty arbitrary to take over control of a smart meter- indeed, a whole neighborhood of them. They authenticate to the tower- the tower doesn't authenticate to them. So all you need is a simple GSM 2 transmitter with a stronger single then the tower they report to. At which point- you can change billing. See the power used and get a pretty good idea if someone is home or not. Cut the power- including alarms. Or- overload the power causing an explosion or fire at the meter/panel. Highly unlikely- but pretty arbitrary to do.

Oh- btw- my real point was- the information- and the science is all out there. If people bothered. But instead, we have misinformation and bad science being spread by people who get their "news" and their "facts" from Facebook et al...

Norm Alster exposes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in a paper published by Harvard University. “Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates.” https://bit.ly/FCCcaptured Alster calls on the FCC to acknowledge there may be wireless health risks, to back off wi-fi promotion, to acknowledge children and pregnant women may be more vulnerable and more. Excerpts:

Perhaps the best example of how the FCC is tangled in a chain of corruption is the cell tower and antenna infrastructure that lies at the heart of the phenomenally successful wireless industry.

Personally, I don‘t believe that just because something can be done it should heedlessly be allowed. Murder, rape and Ponzi schemes are all doable but subject to prohibition and regulation. Government regulators have the responsibility to examine the consequences of new technologies and act to at least contain some of the worst. Beyond legislators and regulators, public outrage and the courts can also play a role but these can be muffled indefinitely by misinformation and bullying. Norm Alster

More on the inadequacy of the standards.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

The difference being- based on science- harmful levels (and to be honest, well below harmful levels) are heavily regulated.

---

You can watch the smart meter film "Take Back Your Power" for $3.95, or watch trailers here:
https://takebackyourpower.net/

having seen this film twice, i highly recommend that everyone see it - most certainly those engaged in this discussion.
i believe that the conversation will be VERY changed as a result of becoming aware of the information presented in it. the issues are far wider than they seem.
best, jude

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

You can watch the smart meter film "Take Back Your Power" for $3.95, or watch trailers here:
https://takebackyourpower.net/

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

having seen this film twice, i highly recommend that everyone see it - most certainly those engaged in this discussion.
i believe that the conversation will be VERY changed as a result of becoming aware of the information presented in it. the issues are far wider than they seem.
best, jude

---

"Pictures or it didn't happen" is one of my favorite new figures of speech, but really, text is the medium of choice for presenting a reasoned argument. Video is a better tool for propagandists because of the way people react more emotionally to it, so that alone taints it a bit. It's inherently low-bandwidth information, too. Having it behind a paywall makes it even less suitable. Transcript somewhere? I'm at least mildly curious to see what's claimed as so compelling.

this film was shown in sebastopol a week or so ago, for $10 donation.

if you aren't willing to spend 4 bucks on viewing it 'in the comfort of your own home' you are clearly not sufficiently interested in the topic to pursue further discussion.

it has won about 6 awards from varied places. just watch it. sheeeeesh. jude

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

Norm Alster exposes the .. (FCC)...Excerpts:

Perhaps the best example of how the FCC is tangled in a chain of corruption is the cell tower and antenna infrastructure that lies at the heart of the phenomenally successful wireless industry.

Personally, I don‘t believe that just because something can be done it should heedlessly be allowed. Murder, rape and Ponzi schemes are all doable but subject to prohibition and regulation.

---

the earlier post about GSM arbitrary takeover kind of baffled me.. but this is taking us the rest of the way to full-blown conspiracy theory. Of course nearly all regulatory agencies are way too entwined with the business they regulate. Typically, the businesses have more to gain and lose, along with more money to spend, so therefore more interest and direct involvement with the process, than do many of those in the public that benefits from the regulation. That's easily taken as given. The model of the pig & the chicken regarding a stereotypical American breakfast applies - the chicken's involved, but the pig's committed! (There's a pleasant symmetry between the symbol of the pig and the corporation, too.) So they're going to push their interests - but there's nothing hidden about that. The rest of it, though? that's totally circular logic. The 'fact' that cellphone towers are harmful is demonstrated by the fact that the wireless industry-influenced FCC allows cellphone towers?

and the graceful slide from corruption in the FCC to rape, murder and, uh, Ponzi schemes kinda baffles me too.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

if you aren't willing to spend 4 bucks on viewing it 'in the comfort of your own home' you are clearly not sufficiently interested in the topic to pursue further discussion.

it has won about 6 awards from varied places. just watch it. sheeeeesh. jude

---

the discussions on this topic aren't intended just as diversions, at least on the parts of several of the posters. Presumably one 'side' (horrible term, really) is pushing for allies and trying to convince the unconvinced. I'll reiterate my point - advocacy by video, especially paid video, is far less effective than text. But sure, it rallies the team pretty well.

so "podfish" (podfish?) for you, text is the only acceptable / highly preferable form of information?

and if i sent a link to a book, which you'd then need to order (that means $, yes), days for delivery,
and then hours spent reading it,
then be able to reference pages, and it's references, would that be more to your liking? how is that better?

this option costs LESS time AND money. it is VERY WELL DONE, garnering numerous awards, as i mentioned.

if text is your forte, go ahead: read a few books and/or a few dozen/hundred/thousand articles, studies, etc.
report back with your conclusion. or not.

it's what the filmmakers have done.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

the discussions on this topic aren't intended just as diversions, at least on the parts of several of the posters. Presumably one 'side' (horrible term, really) is pushing for allies and trying to convince the unconvinced. I'll reiterate my point - advocacy by video, especially paid video, is far less effective than text. But sure, it rallies the team pretty well.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

so "podfish" (podfish?) for you, text is the only acceptable / highly preferable form of information?

---

boy, this pebble's getting bigger as it rolls down the snowy slope.. but yeah, I'll take door #2 (highly preferable).

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/wacco...5_20-40-15.png
PG&E to defy Fairfax wireless meter ban

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/wacco...5_21-48-46.png

A power struggle is shaping up between Fairfax and Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which announced it will resume installing so-called “smart” meters despite a renewed ban imposed by the Town Council.

PG&E has decided to resume installation beginning with 16 customers it says have expressed an interest in getting the meters.

Deanna Contreras, a PG&E spokeswoman, said PG&E sent the customers a letter giving them 30 days notice of its intentions, which they should have received in mid-January.

“We want our customers to know they have a choice; they can opt out,” Contreras said.

She said the first installations should begin within the next couple of weeks.

“This is the just the first wave,” Contreras said.

The new meters are electronic monitoring devices that continuously measure the electricity and natural gas use at households and businesses and relay data to the utility. The goal is to enable power companies to better understand patterns of power consumption throughout the day so they can adjust power generation accordingly.

Critics have raised questions about health risks from the wireless meters and other concerns, such as the potential for invasion of privacy from the hacking of the wireless component of the system.

The Town Council is not acquiescing to PG&E’s plans. On Wednesday, the council voted unanimously to renew its ban on wireless meters, which was scheduled to expire in March, for another three years. The council also authorized Councilwoman Barbara Coler to write a letter to PG&E CEO Anthony Earley.

“The purpose of the letter is to tell PG&E that, No. 1, our moratorium still remains in effect,” Coler said. “By violating our moratorium, they’re potentially subject to code enforcement.”

PG&E halted installation of the wireless meters in Fairfax and Sebastopol after both municipalities passed ordinances prohibiting them. Fairfax passed its ordinance in 2010. Sebastopol adopted its ban in 2013.

PG&E intends to replace all analog meters in Fairfax and Sebastopol with wireless meters, unless customers officially opt-out.

Contreras said over the next two years, PG&E will seek to convert 6,680 analog meters belonging to some 3,550 customers in Fairfax. Each customer will receive a pre-installation letter 30 days ahead of when their change is expected to occur.

PG&E installed approximately 426 wireless meters in Fairfax for some 210 customers before it responded to pressure to stop. Currently, 218 customers in Fairfax have chosen to participate in the wireless meter opt-out program.

Opt-out charges

Most customers who opted out will be required to pay a one-time $75 fee and an ongoing monthly charge of $10. Low-income customers pay an initial fee of $10 and a monthly charge of $5.

Coler said a townwide ban is necessary because even if some residents want wireless meters there could be a potential health effect for their neighbors. Some people have attributed migraines, nausea and other health issues to exposure to wireless meters.

In 2011, when the debate over smart meters was raging, U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, whose district includes Marin, sought expert advice on the health issue. The California Council on Science and Technology concluded that federal safety standards governing wireless meters are adequate to protect the public from the known effects of radio frequency waves, but added that there had been insufficient research to determine if other health effects exist.

In a statement announcing its intention to resume wireless meter installations in Fairfax and Sebastopol, PG&E said the reason it is acting now is that all appeals and litigation over the matter have been denied.

Coler said that is untrue. She said a request for a rehearing on wireless meters is still pending with the California Public Utilities Commission, and said she will stress that fact in her letter to PG&E.

“By just going ahead with their program, they’re basically rendering something mute that hasn’t been decided by the CPUC,” Coler said. “I hope PG&E takes a pause and realizes we do mean business.”

‘Back-door dealings’

Sandra Maurer of Sebastopol, director of the EMF Safety Network, which has a rehearing request pending at the CPUC, said, “We did not get a fair hearing. There were many ex parte violations and back-door dealings with PG&E.”

In early 2015, some 65,000 emails released by the CPUC showed that former CPUC President Michael Peevey, who retired in 2014, communicated with PG&E managers improperly on a range of issues. Maurer said wireless meters was one of the issues.

“I researched them,” Maurer said. “I wrote a paper on it.”

On July 2, 2010, Brian Cherry, then vice president of regulatory affairs for PG&E, wrote in an email that Peevey was grumbling about efforts to delay wireless meter implementation. Cherry wrote, “(Peevey) implied that this wasn’t going to happen and that by the time the Commission got around to acting on it, we would have installed all of our meters.”

In a Sept. 3, 2010, email, Peevey wrote to Cherry, “If it were my decision I would let anyone who wants to keep their old meter keep it, if they claim they suffer from EMF and/or related electronic-related illnesses and they can produce a doctor’s letter saying so (or expressing concern about the likelihood of suffering same). I would institute such a policy quietly and solely on an individual basis. There really are people who feel pain, etc., related to EMF, etc., and rather than have them becoming hysterical, etc., I would quietly leave them alone.”

Sebastopol’s status

Sebastopol’s city council, however, appears unconcerned about the prospect of wireless meter installation resuming there.

“There has been no discussion by the council whatsoever,” Sebastopol City Manager Larry McLaughlin said.

McLaughlin said he suspended enforcement of Sebastopol’s wireless meter ban within days of its enactment after PG&E threatened to sue the city, and the city received a chastising letter from the CPUC.

McLaughlin said the CPUC didn’t threaten to take action, “but it was kind of implicit that we had exceeded our jurisdiction in their opinion,” McLaughlin said.

McLaughlin said PG&E threatened to sue after a Sebastopol resident called police when a PG&E contractor attempted to install a smart meter in their home.

“PG&E said they were concerned about subjecting their contractors and employees to such confrontations,” McLaughlin said.

McLaughlin said he and Sebastopol’s police chief met with PG&E representatives at that time. Sebastopol decided to suspend enforcement of its ban on wireless meters, and PG&E agreed to suspend installation of residential wireless meters in Sebastopol for an indefinite period of time.

McLaughlin said a small group of residents has requested that the council begin enforcing its ban, but McLaughlin, who opposed the ban from the first, said, “I don’t believe it is any more legal now than it was when it was adopted.”

Contreras said PG&E has completed its installation of wireless meters throughout Marin. So far, about 3 percent of PG&E’s residential customers in Marin, some 3,840 homes have chosen to pay extra to keep their analog meters, Contreras said. She said that throughout PG&E’s service territory, 54,000 customers have opted out of wireless meter installation.

https://www.marinij.com/business/201...less-meter-ban

Several people in my neighborhood have Smart Meters because they asked for them. Not everyone agrees with this foolishness.

Today the town of Fairfax sent the attached letter to PG&E asking then to "cease the impending roll-out of SmartMeter installations in Fairfax.”

Fairfax writes, “By PG&E’s actions to proceed with the SmartMeter program in Fairfax, in essence, PG&E is effectively attempting to render the CPUC rehearing review process moot. Furthermore, by continuing forward on installations, PG&E will be in violation of the Town of Fairfax’s Ordinance and would therefore be potentially subject to Code Enforcement Violations.”

oh, just wait. If smartmeters worry you, check this out:

Quote:

---

Disney Research created a method to wirelessly transmit power through a room, allowing electronic devices to charge quickly via connected Wi-Fi hotspots, removing the need for electrical cords and charging cradles.

The team created near-field standing magnetic waves that filled the room and made it feasible to power multiple smartphones, fans, and lights at the same time. The new system makes it possible for electrical power to become as widespread as Wi-Fi.

---

Devices can be charged anywhere in the room thanks to wireless power transmission

Ok, NOW I have a problem with this one. Tiny RF signals are one thing, but this is just irresponsible and frankly a convenience for lazy-ass people with 'disposable income'. Some tech is just there because they can, not because it's really needed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

oh, just wait. If smartmeters worry you, check this out:
Devices can be charged anywhere in the room thanks to wireless power transmission

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

Ok, NOW <I> have a problem with this one. Tiny RF signals are one thing, but this is just irresponsible and frankly a convenience for lazy-ass people with 'disposable income'. Some tech is just there because they can, not because it's really needed.

---

Trivia for the week:

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/wacco..._11-37-18a.png

there's an entertaining take on this issue in Robert Heinlein's short story Waldo. I haven't read it in decades, but IIRC there's a tinfoil-hat wearing guy who is concerned about the power being broadcast over the airwaves to power everything, even flying cars. This from an writer/engineer who was far from tech-averse! The story also was credited with giving the colloquial name 'waldoes' to robotic-hand manipulators like they use in handling dangerous materials.

This is an excellent 8 minute testimony by Michigan State Senator Patrick Colbeck on the vulnerabilities of smart meters. He has a highly technical background in aerospace and talks about cybersecurity and other risks of smart meters.

Sen. Colbeck offers testimony on need for smart meter opt-out

You may be surprised, but I agree that the possibility of cutting off power is indeed the biggest threat of smart meters; Ostensively the reason for smart electric meters was to save money on reading meters (just as they do on gas meters). The RF concern is really nonsense. But the fact that some smart meters can allow remote cutoff is a real (though small) risk. In West County the risk of a cut-off of electricity from a tree branch is maybe 1000 times higher, but for the consumer there is no benefit to having cut-off ability in the meter. It is solely for the benefit of the utility, to coerce people to pay their bills and allow a cut-off threat without cost to the utility. And a hacked system, or more likely a disgruntled employee, could cause a lot of havoc. So, reason number 1 (possibility of cutting off power) is pretty valid.

Reason no. 2 is recent causes of fire. Likely also legit, not because of the smart meter but because of any change in the meter (analog to analog, for example) is an opportunity to have a poor connection and a failure.

Reason 3 against is that you might pay more: this is a little problematic as the reason is as old analog meters wear, they record lower use than actual. It's nice to get the "old meter discount" and I'm all for it, but it is not exactly fair.
Reason 4, RF, is utter nonsense. but Pruitt doesn't believe in CO2, you can believe in EMF, and I don't get free Sonic in Sebastopol. tough for me.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

This ...cybersecurity and other risks of smart meters.

Sen. Colbeck offers testimony on need for smart meter opt-out

---

Would you mind presenting the facts behind your allegation? Otherwise, I'm going to reluctantly assume you are talking through your hat . . . or someone else's. Over the past several years, Sandi has presented links to the science that continues to trend ever more strongly towards concern for the biological effects of RF fields. If you were to present an argument, for example, about why you consider the research showing biological effects of RF fields to be invalid, or why the fields created by SmartMeters are below the threshhold of biological effect, I'd be interested to consider it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

RF, is utter nonsense

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Karl Frederick:

.... Over the past several years, Sandi has presented links to the science that continues to trend ever more strongly towards concern for the biological effects of RF fields. ...

---

I hope you don't think "the research" approaches any kind of consensus. Sandi's done a good job of finding research that calls the safety into doubt. Not to claim equivalence, but maybe similarity, there's also research showing global warming isn't driven by C02 or human behavior, and that vaccines are dangerous. Pretty good consensus on those subjects, though. And there's a lot of research about EMF that shows no effect. Sure, it took a long time for Lyme disease to be taken seriously, radiation researchers took a long time to discover its dangers, and thalidomide's dangers also weren't immediately evident.

So Sandi's position deserves respect, (I wouldn't call it nonsense, for example) but only as a personal one - her evidence by itself doesn't compel anyone to reach the same conclusions. The reasons given for why it's not accepted are too often the same as any conspiracy theory, relying on claimed mendacity of those whose research leads them to other conclusions. If indeed it turns out that EMF is a real danger, it'll be recognized after the balance of research supports that conclusion. Otherwise you're just forcing people to live by the precautionary principle, which many don't see the need to do.

ok, put all this EMF info, and all the thread on controlling people - can't recall and leaving asap - in the context of documents shown in this interview by deborah tavares, who i've known for many years here in sonoma county, and see if it doesn't make sense in the grand perspective planned and executed by those who plan and execute the show:
https://youtu.be/UmTSXRUpT9w
jude

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I hope you don't think "the research" approaches any kind of consensus. Sandi's done a good job of finding research that calls the safety into doubt. Not to claim equivalence, but maybe similarity, there's also research showing global warming isn't driven by C02 or human behavior, and that vaccines are dangerous. Pretty good consensus on those subjects, though. And there's a lot of research about EMF that shows no effect. Sure, it took a long time for Lyme disease to be taken seriously, radiation researchers took a long time to discover its dangers, and thalidomide's dangers also weren't immediately evident.

So Sandi's position deserves respect, (I wouldn't call it nonsense, for example) but only as a personal one - her evidence by itself doesn't compel anyone to reach the same conclusions. The reasons given for why it's not accepted are too often the same as any conspiracy theory, relying on claimed mendacity of those whose research leads them to other conclusions. If indeed it turns out that EMF is a real danger, it'll be recognized after the balance of research supports that conclusion. Otherwise you're just forcing people to live by the precautionary principle, which many don't see the need to do.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Karl Frederick:

Would you mind presenting the facts behind your allegation? ... why you consider the research showing biological effects of RF fields to be invalid, or why the fields created by SmartMeters are below the threshhold of biological effect, I'd be interested to consider it.

---

Indeed, I have presented many examples of such, and I will again. Start with WHO (alright, lots of right-wingers believe WHO is a communist front, but still ...)
https://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/Wh...en/index1.html

which says (top 6 points):
Key points

• A wide range of environmental influences causes biological effects. 'Biological effect' does not equal 'health hazard'. Special research is needed to identify and measure health hazards.
• At low frequencies, external electric and magnetic fields induce small circulating currents within the body. In virtually all ordinary environments, the levels of induced currents inside the body are too small to produce obvious effects.
• The main effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields is heating of body tissues.
• There is no doubt that short-term exposure to very high levels of electromagnetic fields can be harmful to health. Current public concern focuses on possible long-term health effects caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields at levels below those required to trigger acute biological responses.
• WHO's International EMF Project was launched to provide scientifically sound and objective answers to public concerns about possible hazards of low level electromagnetic fields.
• Despite extensive research, to date there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health.

Next we go to US government National Cancer Institute:
which concludes
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...lds-fact-sheet

"Digital electric and gas meters, also known as “smart meters.” These devices, which operate at about the same radiofrequencies as cell phones, transmit information on consumption of electricity or gas to utility companies. Smart meters produce very low level fields that sometimes cannot be distinguished from the total background radiofrequency radiation levels inside a home (8)."

But I would agree the term "utter nonsense" was inartful: a better term would have been "utterly irrational" as in: Given all the risks we have in our lives, if there were any benefit at all, no matter how small, to having a smart meter, the risk from RF exposure is so low as to assign it importance doesn't make rational sense. Nonsense (as in not making any sensible argument) has essentially the same denotation, but not the same connotation.

Or a direct fact: Smart meters transmit RF ISM band (not the same but close to cell phones) at 1 watt under part 15 FCC code. It is most reasonable to presume the majority of the power transmits away from the house due to the shielding of the Main Panel, so presume 1/10 into the house, would generate a field strength of something like 3 microwatt/cm^2 at 3.3 feet (1 meter for easy computation) away in the house ( (1W/10)/(Pi*100cm^2)). And the time density is something like 1 minute per day (4.5 msec/message*10,000 messages/per day on average) so very low time exposure. This is so much below the levels from cellphones, cellphone towers, baby monitors that it should not add in to the computations on total EMF exposure. Unless, you believe that the EMF effects don't follow dose-response modality.

So worry about the important part of smart meters: cutting off power to your house when it should not be.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

.... see if it doesn't make sense in the grand perspective planned and executed by those who plan and execute the show...

---

Q.E.D. It may not require acceptance of a larger world conspiracy to have doubts about EMF safety, but it seems to correlate.

The WHO lists non-ionizing radiation [ie: cell phones, wi-fi, smart meters etc] as a cancer risk.

Excerpts from (emphasis mine) https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/

Cancer Fact sheet
Updated February 2017

KEY FACTS:
• Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with approximately 14 million new cases in 2012.
• The number of new cases is expected to rise by about 70% over the next 2 decades.
• The economic impact of cancer is significant and is increasing. The total annual economic cost of cancer in 2010 was estimated at approximately US$ 1.16 trillion4.

Reducing the cancer burden

Between 30–50% of cancers can currently be prevented. This can be accomplished by avoiding risk factors and implementing existing evidence-based prevention strategies.
Modify and avoid risk factors

Modifying or avoiding key risk factors can significantly reduce the burden of cancer. These risk factors include:

• tobacco use including cigarettes and smokeless tobacco
• being overweight or obese
• unhealthy diet with low fruit and vegetable intake
• lack of physical activity
• alcohol use
• sexually transmitted HPV-infection
• infection by hepatitis or other carcinogenic infections
• ionizing and non-ionizing radiation
• urban air pollution
• indoor smoke from household use of solid fuels.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

Indeed, I have presented many examples of such, and I will again. Start with WHO (alright, lots of right-wingers believe WHO is a communist front, but still ...)
https://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/Wh...en/index1.html

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

The WHO lists non-ionizing radiation [ie: cell phones, wi-fi, smart meters etc] as a cancer risk.

Excerpts from (emphasis mine) .

---

And apparently careful editing is yours too. I reviewed your link and found JUST BELOW the prevention recommendations:
Pursue prevention strategiesTo prevent cancer, people may:

• increase avoidance of the risk factors listed above;
• vaccinate against HPV and hepatitis B virus;
• control occupational hazards;
• reduce exposure to non-ionizing radiation by sunlight (ultraviolet light);
• reduce exposure to ionizing radiation (occupational or medical diagnostic imaging).

Only two very specific mentions for radiation; neither related to cell phones, smart meters, etc.

So, while I agree with you that WHO lists non-ionizing radiation as possible carcinogen, they also say there is no evidence to show the levels we speak about cause any harmful effects (the link I provided above). Walking across the street is likely 100's or 1000's of time more dangerous (sunlight, plus pollution; yes plus cell phones, but from distracted drivers texting; not RF effects) . Having PGE remotely cut the power off so at night you trip and fall is a much more reasonable causal link to smart meters than any effect from RF radiation. I keep speaking of reasonableness and rationally looking at the risk of Smart meters; that is where the focus should be.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

And apparently careful editing is yours too. I reviewed your link and found JUST BELOW the prevention recommendations:
Pursue prevention strategiesTo prevent cancer, people may:

• increase avoidance of the risk factors listed above;

they also say there is no evidence to show the levels we speak about cause any harmful effects (the link I provided above). Walking across the street is likely 100's or 1000's of time more dangerous (sunlight, plus pollution; yes plus cell phones, but from distracted drivers texting; not RF effects) .

---

You cut it off in a weird spot -- what about:

• being overweight or obese
• lack of physical activity
• alcohol use

Really? Avoid these too? You need to be/do the opposite of all the above? at what cost???
Surely these aren't absolutes - they're risk factors and how risky they are is still a subject of (that word again) research. Though I'd give up smart-meters before beer if I had to choose.

No editing. For "emphasis" I increased the font size-of "non ionizing radiation". That's it. This was excerpted, not the whole page. Fact is the WHO included non-ionizing radiation- which is cell phones, wi-fi, smart meters. cell towers.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

And apparently careful editing is yours too.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

Though I'd give up smart-meters before beer if I had to choose.

---

Amen brother!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

Fact is the WHO included non-ionizing radiation- which is cell phones, wi-fi, smart meters. cell towers.

---

Let's be precise. The referenced web page referred to radiation in three places:

"What causes cancer...physical carcinogens, such as ultraviolet and ionizing radiation"
"Modify and avoid risk factors...ionizing and non-ionizing radiation"
"Pursue prevention strategies...reduce exposure to non-ionizing radiation by sunlight (ultraviolet light)"

While it's true that RF as you reference is non-ionizing radiation. It also seems clear that they're referring to UV. The energy level of UV is quite high and overlaps into ionizing radiation.

It is well known that UV causes damage to cells and DNA. However, compared to microwave RF as used by wifi, etc., UV energy is roughly 1,000,000 times higher. They are not the same thing.

Put another way... let's compare mammals to non-ionizing radiation. An elephant stepping on my toe will damage my toe. An elephant weighs roughly 1,000,000 times more than a mouse. Elephants and mice are both mammals. Should I be concerned about mice stepping on my toe?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by barfly:

Should I be concerned about mice stepping on my toe?

---

well, most people would be, depending on where you are and how often it happens! (sorry, OT)
https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/wacco...3_21-24-50.png