I can see that silence would have been a wiser tact, thx
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by BobHeisler:
Printable View
I can see that silence would have been a wiser tact, thx
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by BobHeisler:
Bob ~ That's exactly what I did....just opted out a couple of years ago.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by BobHeisler:
My protest comment about "potentially unconstitutional fees" has only been made here and on Facebook, after I received the "hidden fee" buried on our bill in what seems to be a fraudulently adjusted Kwh notation / not our actual monthly usage.
Keep an eye keened on your bill, if you still have the opt-out status. PG&E will be collecting the fee as soon as they can.
Sun Fire ~ Silence only would result in the smartmeter(s) being installed. Unfortunately, we do have to speak up if we don't want the smartmeter.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sun Fire Plumbing:
Gary ~ The threat of sending the $75 non-payment to collections is more a smoke screen for emotional manipulation than a 'real' threat. Unfortunately, most consumers are not aware of this and comply to their fear of a damaged credit rating.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sun Fire Plumbing:
I attended a credit ratings seminar many years ago in connection with our small business. The speaker said utility bills - telephone, gas, electricity, garbage, water services - are rarely (if ever) factored in to our credit rating scores. (Don't know why that is? Perhaps too many accounts are always in negotiation? Or the fees are too minor to deal with?) Past due bills certainly can be sent to collection agencies, but it's not anything to worry about.
Cynthe and anyone else, have you written your experience of your padded bill and complaints in general to the CPUC judge?
Still time to tell the CPUC judge your Smart meter complaints/comments
If you were unable to attend these hearings, you may submit written comments to the to the CPUC's Public Advisor's Office at the address noted below. Please refer to the application filing number, A.11-*03-*014 et al, when writing. Please state if you would like a response, otherwise no response will be sent. Your comments will become a part of the formal file for public comment in this proceeding. The Public Advisor's Office will circulate your comments to the five Commissioners, the ALJ, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), and to CPUC staff assigned to this proceeding.
The Public Advisor California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 E-*Mail: [email protected]
Please also copy it to https://smartmeterhelp.com a site where activists are collecting feedback about all smart meter problems, including billing.
Note:The Press Democrat got the facts wrong about the WHO (World Health Organization) again, other than that the article is accurate. What is true is that in May 2011 the WHO released data saying that non-ionizing microwave radiation is a possible Class 2B carcinogen in the same category as DDT, lead, chloroform, and engine exhaust.
PG&E gets earful over SmartMeters at Santa Rosa hearing
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/apps/p...W=445&border=0
Michael Kyes, the mayor of Sebastopol, speaks during the public comment session at a PUC meeting on Smart Meters at the Steele Lane Community Center in Santa Rosa on Dec. 20, 2012.
(John Burgess/The Press Democrat)
By BOB NORBERG
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 6:40 p.m.
Last Modified: Friday, December 21, 2012 at 7:03 a.m.
Two hundred people turned out Thursday in Santa Rosa to rail against PG&E SmartMeters, complaining that individual opt-out fees are unfair, that cities should be able to get out of the program and that the wireless technology is a health threat.
"Do not impose a tariff to opt out, and allow communities to opt out," Fairfax Town Councilman Larry Bragman told an administrative law judge conducting a public hearing for the state Public Utilities Commission. "If you do that, you will drive more innovative solutions."
"It is unconscionable to extort money for safety, especially for people who cannot afford the cost of removal of this toxic device," said Ami Hartley.
Continues here: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...a-Rosa-hearing
Hi, Folks. This post isn't directly related to the SmartMeter issue, but does relate to future P G & E bills. I'm pasting a portion of an email I received this morning from Mark Toney, the Executive Director of TURN, The Utility Reform Network, which discusses utility bills:
"Great News! If you are a customer of PG&E, Edison, or SDG&E, you are going to save $125 over the next five years on your utility bills. Thanks to thousands of people who wrote letters, testified at public hearings, and signed online petitions, TURN’s campaign for Fair Utility Profits succeeded in pressuring the CPUC to reduce utility profit rates from 11.4% to 10.4%!
For too long, the CPUC has let utility companies collect windfall profits at customers’ expense.
In fact, with profit rates set at over 11%, California utilities were making out like bandits. Although they faced very little risk or competition, utility profits on investment were guaranteed- on customers’ dime- and higher than most companies, or even most utilities..."
Well, I don't think we can really take all that money to the bank, but at least it's a move in the right direction.
If you could supply a link from TURN , that would be great.
[Here you go: https://www.turn.org/ -Barry]
From TURN - The Utility Reform Network
https://www.turn.org/actions/tell-go...eadership.html
Tell Governor Brown: New Leadership Is Needed at CPUC
The NTSB's investigation into the San Bruno explosion revealed not only that PG&E negligence caused the blast, but also that regulators bore responsibility. The report makes it clear that change is needed not only at PG&E, but at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) as well
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board’s investigation into the San Bruno explosion revealed not only that PG&E negligence caused the blast, but also that regulators bore responsibility.
The report makes it clear that change is needed not only at PG&E, but at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) as well. A Toothless Watchdog
The current president, Michael Peevey, a former utility executive, has exercised leadership at the agency for close to 10 years now, years in which PG&E has seen profits, executive pay—and serious accidents—soar. Under Peevey’s watch, repeated and serious gas safety violations by PG&E did not result in a single fine, not even after the fatal explosion in Rancho Cordova in 2008.
Peevey's Commission has been guided by a misguided philosophy—regulation in the corporate interest. It has rubber-stamped millions in unjustified rate hikes, pushed PG&E into an overpriced and unpopular smart meter program and allowed energy efficiency to become a utility slush fund, all the while insulating PG&E from its mistakes with guaranteed high profits.
Time for a Change
What Californians need is a CPUC guided by the philosophy that puts customers first—regulation in the public interest. The public is wants stricter oversight and quality assurance, and wants PG&E held accountable for past failures. That means requiring shareholders, rather than customers, to shoulder the costs when PG&E has to play catch-up to fix neglected pipelines. And it means making sure PG&E doesn’t make one penny of profits on overdue safety investments. The NTSB findings cry out for a response from Governor Brown. Just days after the NTSB released its report, another explosion occurred on a PG&E gas line, this time in Cupertino. It is time for Governor Brown to step in and replace Michael Peevey with a new president who prioritizes the safety and pocketbooks of Californians over exorbitant profits and pay for utilities and their executives.
Send a letter to the Governor NOW:
New Leadership is Needed at CPUC
TURN's History
TURN began at the kitchen table of pioneering consumer advocate Sylvia Siegel, a fierce advocate who was tired of seeing her electric bills go up year after year, and realized all Californians were getting ripped off by a Public Utilities Commission that rubber-stamped rate hikes. She taught herself the complex laws and rules of utility rates and quickly learned how to use them to the benefit of the public, rather than corporate profits.
In the past 35 years, TURN has identified and exposed corporate waste and lack of oversight, and driven common sense public policy to protect all Californians. TURN has grown into an organization known and trusted nationally for our expertise in energy and telecommunications issues, and our commitment to renewable energy that is affordable for everyone.
Plug in to Support TURN
Member support allows TURN to advocate for affordable and dependable utility services, and to stand up for consumers across the state as an independent and unbiased voice. TURN's effectiveness is largely due to the fact that we are not beholden to any corporate or government funding sources.
TURN is the only independent statewide utility consumer advocacy organization in California. By becoming a member, renewing your membership or making a sustaining donation, you can be sure that TURN has the resources we need to continue to fight for lower bills and a livable planet.
Got Bills? Join TURN.
PolicyVoice:
PolicyVoice is a statewide project that works with community-based organizations, organizers, and leaders to build community power to keep energy, gas, and phone bills affordable in California.
[I edited in this PD article that was published just after our digest cutoff.
Congrats to all the citizen activists who work so hard to accomplish this! :waccosun:
Barry]
https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/...1206081330.png
Sebastopol City Council OKs SmartMeter ban :Clap:https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...p=all&tc=pgall
By GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 12:10 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 12:25 p.m.
The Sebastopol City Council voted unanimously Thursday morning to ban the installation of PG&E SmartMeters, effective immediately, with a $500 fine for violations.
“I’m glad to see democracy in action. It’s heartwarming,” said Alan Horn of Sebastopol, one of at least eight people who urged the council to halt installation of the controversial devices.
The council, citing the “potential risks to the health, safety and welfare of Sebastopol residents,” imposed a moratorium on the meters that have prompted a barrage of protest in the liberal-minded city.
Although it is technically a temporary moratorium, City Manager Larry McLaughlin said it would remain in effect until the council takes further action.
“It starts today and it will last indefinitely,” McLaughlin told the council and 14 people attending a special council meeting at City Hall.
Asked by Councilman John Eder what happens to residents who want SmartMeters removed from their homes, McLaughlin, who is also the city’s attorney, said the measure “cannot compel removal of meters already installed.”
PG&E has said there are 21,000 gas and electrical meters at homes and businesses in the Sebastopol area and it has upgraded 7,100 of them to SmartMeters.
A utility spokeswoman said 1,100 customers have opted out of the change.
Councilman Patrick Slayter voiced the only council reservation on the meter ban, saying that some people are neutral on the issue and others want a SmartMeter.
“That freedom of choice also needs to be protected,” he said.
“I would be fine having one installed,” John Henel of Sebastopol told the council. “I don’t need you to protect me from meters.”
“We weren’t afraid of second-hand smoke either,” resident Dave Hubert said, referring to the time before smoke’s impact on non-smokers was documented. “This is being done as a precautionary approach.”
The ordinance says that “significant health questions have been raised” over the electromagnetic frequency radiation emitted by the wireless meters, which eliminate the need for meter readers.
McLaughlin said the ordinance does not distinguish between people who do or do not want SmartMeters.
Slayter also expressed concern that the $500 fine could be assessed against a PG&E employee or contract worker who is “just doing his job.”
The council took no action on his proposal to set the fine no higher than $1.
The council also voted to send a letter to PG&E and a SmartMeter contractor advising them of the moratorium.
A PG&E spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the measure.
i never had an opinion about these things until the chatter began about the radioactivity issues....but, i did have a santa rosa client who lived in a complex, and whose landlord had PG&E install the new four smart meters on the other side of his bedroom wall. within four days, he became so ill from whatever poisons these things were spewing, that he had to relocate immediately.
my landlord accepted the installation of two new smart meters on our property as well--only these babies are in their garage and approximately 1/4 mile away from our living space! the only difference that i have noticed is that miraculously, our bill has been significantly reduced and has been at a consistent all-time-low for the last few months! at what other cost, i wonder.....if i start glowing in the dark, i guess it won't matter that i'm saving a few bucks, eh?......
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Too bad we couldn't do this in Forestville. I'm stuck with the bogus opt out fee every month and I swear, my bills have been going up like crazy since I opted out. Just sayin.
#Irony_on Do you suppose it's caused by shipping parts out of Japan that were contaminated by the nuclear accident. #Irony_offQuote:
Posted in reply to the post by lindasw:
And do you (and your clients) use any of cordless phones, cell phones, blue-tooth, dish TV (they use RF remotes)? You do realize that those are all 100's of times more energetic in the EM than the smart meters?
edit: change you to your, 1000's to 100's (handset) or 10,000's (base station)
Re: this line in the PD article, "Asked by Councilman John Eder what happens to residents who want SmartMeters removed from their homes, McLaughlin, who is also the city’s attorney, said the measure “cannot compel removal of meters already installed," people should know that they can opt out at any time by calling 1-866-743-0263.
You can do it in Forestville. Just get a copy of Marin's or Sebastapol's moratorium and present it to your town council with your neighbors and friends. We've broken the ice. They are more likely to follow suit now.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by MalletKatMamdu:
(edit) Barry just pointed out to me that Forestville doesn't have a town council, so your best bet would be to get a moratorium for the whole county of Sonoma.
No it's the other way around. Smart Meters radiate 100x more than a cell phone. But all the things you mention are EMF pollution.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
(spoken slowly, as if to a child)....you--are--just--making--that--upQuote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
Smart meters are regulated by FCC part 15 and must radiate less than 1 watt (https://www.arrl.org/smart-meters).
Cell phones can radiate up to 2 watts, for handsets, and up to 100 watts or more for base stations.
Wifi is also around 1-2 watts but total effective radiated power depends upon number of total subscribers to each router.
Typical Cell phones ping towers several times each minutes, PGE says smart meters ping several times each hour and radiate substantially less than Wifi or cell phones. (https://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20034959-54.html, https://healthvermont.gov/pubs/ph_as...art_meters.pdf or for you tokers https://www.motherjones.com/blue-mar...ive-you-cancer). Wifi transmits almost continuously at powers up to 2 watts.
Thus, simple math, 60 times less "on" time and 1/2 (at most) less power means >120 times less radiation.
So, if you want to be upset about EMF, fine. Most people find wifi and cell phones convenient, so don't concern them selves about the radiation. some people fine smart meters disturbing, and need to make up some story about radiation to fight them, often communicating with others from a wireless terminal such as smart phone, ipad, or laptop, in much closer proximity and higher power for longer durations..
An analogy might be a fighting Mrs. Fields to remove vanilla from their cookies (big corporation product, like smart meters) because vanilla comes in alcohol base, even though it is mostly baked out, while sipping wine (cell phone) with pasta, beer (cordless phone) with pizza and a nice JD on the rocks for desert (wifi)....
Yes, alcohol does cause cancer, but really...vanilla?
edit: added a Vermont state site and Mother Jones, wifi clarification.
Well, I appreciate the irony etc but...
it's not actually true that the output of cell phones, wifi etc is "1000's more energetic" than that of a smart meter. The reason Pg&E numbers look so much lower on paper than emf from other common electronic devices is because of the disingenuous way they go about coming up with them. The smart meters are supposed to transmit just a few times a minute. The transmissions spike very high, way higher than any cell phone or wifi, but supposedly only for a few milliseconds and only 6-12x a minute. What they did was average those spikes against all the time the devices were not transmitting and thus came up with a deceptively low number. In reality, the devices transmit many more times a minute than they claim. When you get a bunch of them together as you do with apartment buildings, condos etc, they are going off virtually all the time, like popcorn. This phenonenon can be observed with a good emf meter.
There is a gal in SF who has a couple of good meters, one being a high end german meter. She goes around her neighborhood in Bernal Neights checking Smart Meter outputs and posts her videos on YouTube. Her meters barely move with an iPhone close by or in wifi cafes, but when hit with emf from a bank of smart meters it quite literally goes off the charts. It's sort of like popcorn- her machine can't even follow each individual spike because there are simply far too many to track; if there are several meters, they are basically transmitting all the time. She then went up to a cell phone repeater on top of a roof where there is a physical barrier that warns people of dangerous emf and there was no difference in the Intensity of emissions when compared to a bank of smart meters where there was no barrier or sign warning people to stand back.
Worst of all, no one has done any testing with regards to how spiked high emissions affect the human body. There are a few scientists and public health officials who have expressed concern about this unknown factor. We are in fact, human guinea pigs involved in a huge experiment, whether we are willing participants or not. Whatever your position on Smart Meter deployment, the health concerns that people are expressing are not unfounded and certainly not a joke. At present, It's an unknown and a very real possible risk.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
So, the question is, are high but sporadic spikes of emf harder on the human organism than continuous low level emissions? No one at present can answer that question. PG&E admits to an average of around 10,000 such emissions a day and as much as 20,000 with some machines, but people with good equipment have clocked far more, virtually almost constant spiking and at levels upwards to and well above 2 watts, although these are not scientists making these claims and there have been no studies as to how these devices actually operate in the field. Again these are extremely short pulses, my only point being they add up to way more exposure than PG&E is willing to admit..
By the way, here's Daniel Hirsch, a lecturer and expert in nuclear policy at UCSC who has been widely quoted in the media regarding events in Fukishima following the tsunami. His point is the emf numbers PG&E arrived at regarding cell phone use compared to Smart Meter exposure were not valid, as they measured emf exposure for cell phone just to the ear as opposed to whole body exposure from smart meters, the gist of it being If measured comparably, the Smart meter exposure IS 100x that of a cell phone when measured in whole body exposure for both devices. If that makes any sense....he states it far more clearly here. He also voiced his concerns that the calcs were not done by a disinterested party, which may have led to the inaccurate stats.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by MalletKatMandu:
If you mean this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6VwYPL9aE4 , I watched it, and it's really interesting thatQuote:
Posted in reply to the post by MalletKatMandu:
1) none of the readings exceed FCC limits for type 15 devices (you can see the limits here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6VwYPL9aE4
Intermittent transmissions are allowed to 12,000 uV/m vs her highest reading of 200 uV (ref: https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/E...3/oet63rev.pdf page 22).
There's also a huge difference in the fsk transmissions of smart meters vs the spread spectrum of cell towers. to be discussed at another time.
That's not the video I watched. There are other videos in which the spikes are far more frequent and much higher. But the real question is, what is the biological safe limit of exposure to RF? the numbers the FCC came up with do not reflect this because that is an unknown. And the FCC has no medical staff to advise them on this issue. They only agree with mainstream medicine's opinion that RF becomes unsafe at the point it heats up tissue. No one can say with authority whether lower levels of exposure are safe or not, and yes, of course this goes for the emissions of other sources as well. But the actual amount of emissions from smart meters is unclear. If you view the UCSC prof's video I posted one can see how murky these waters are in terms of obtaining reliable scientific data.
I Know this post in on "the enemy's" site, but I think it is extremely informative.
https://stopsmartmeters.org/2012/03/...art-meter-age/
I don't think anyone can give a definitive answer as to what are biologically safe levels of RF. Look, we live in an environment in which we are increasingly exposed to higher levels for longer periods. Only the future will give us the answer regarding long term effects of this kind of electronic smog.
As for me, I live in the modern world and use the technologies in my work and play. But I try to minimize exposure all the same. I use my cell phone "telegraphically", meaning almost not at all, and use a headset-keeping it away from my body or off when not in use. I turn off my wifi when not in use and always at night. I chose to opt out on a smart meter. I keep my cordless DECT phones off the charger as much as possible. I am not a purist, but then, i am not one of those people who are super sensitive to these emissions. And Im a realist: no, we can't completely avoid exposure to these types of emissions in the modern world. But we can at least minimize the amount of exposure we get in our own homes. Just to be on the safe side, that is what I have chosen to do.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
Well, the good news is there is a huge experiment going on. The latest figures I saw say there are about 6 billion cell phone subscribers, and there are about 500 million new phones produced a year, and about 10 billion RF products produced every year (RF ID tags, connected homes with TVs, remote sensing, etc). So, if there is even the tiniest of increased risk, one would suppose that some aspect of that increase would become evident in the subject population. So far, nothing really.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by MalletKatMandu:
Hence my "alcohol in the vanilla" analogy. Cell phones and smart meters both produce a maximum of about 1 watt of RF power. Inverse square law says that the power drops as distance square. A cell phone at 3 inches away produces 100 times the field strength as a smart meter 30 inches away, so dose/response normally would say it is 100 times more likely to cause an effect. But we don't see much in the 6 billion test cases.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by MalletKatMandu:
AND, I'm not saying smart meters are all good; there is plenty to worry about as described in this post https://depletedcranium.com/smart-me...e-people-sick/ (I refer to the ease with which power can be shut off, and usage tracked.
However, in the time we have spent discussing this, we have probably created in each of us a substantially higher risk of death, just by sitting here typing. https://news.discovery.com/human/is-...ing-120301.htm
edit: death for desk
As I'm sure you're well aware, it is far too early to make any kind of call re whether or not exposure levels are safe. It will take decades to have enou data to understand whether there are any health impacts as a result of RF exposure.
Also, you never spoke to the way the study was conducted with regards to the "apples and oranges" comparison of cell phone- to -ear exposure as opposed to whole body exposure of smart meters. Both sources should've been tested in the same manner for the data to have any significance.
As you are probably well aware, even the most conservative scientists are conceding that cell phones can and do heat tissues in the brain, and have observed cellular changes especially in children, but no one has yet to say they definitely cause cancer, although correlations have been found between cell phone use and benign brain tumors found close to the ear. I forget the name of these types of tumors but I remember the study; I believe it was conducted in Sweden. So there is some data. I remember two brain surgeons from John Hopkins speaking on CNN, who both stated that knowing what we already know about tissues heating in children's brains, they would not let their small children use cell phones.
So the jury is most definitely out. There is no way one can say the facts are in on long term health effects from RF. we are many years away from drawing any such conclusions.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
Thanks for mentioning the spiking. Really tired of these oversimplified, fallacious explanations of how the smartassmeter transmits. As if the meter also never spends any energy talking to the network. Mr. Spam-key Number 1, I am sending you to your room so that you can ponder whether Albert Einstein would have been for choice, or no choice. Should you tire of contemplation, here is a game: Which one doesn't fit: DECT phones; cell phones; smartassmeter; blue-tooth; dish TV.
FYI, y'all.
https://www.pge.com/en/myhome/custom...cts/index.page
SmartMeter™ devices and FCC Limits
Based on years of studying whether radio waves cause health effects, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for radio transmitters of all types, including SmartMeters™. It includes a prudent margin of safety just in case some health effects are too subtle to have been detected. Even so, SmartMeters™ operate far below the limit—typically only about one-seventieth as much.
Exposure is based on the transmitter's power and your distance from the source. In general, doubling your distance cuts the "power density" by a factor of four. That's a major reason why radio waves from a SmartMeter™, at a distance of 10 feet, are only about one one-thousandth as much as a typical cell phone. That's also why powerful but distant radio and TV transmitters are not seen as posing any danger.
Some people have expressed concern that the long-term use of devices like cell phones might have unexpected health effects even if daily exposure is low. The World Health Organization (WHO) advises: "A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone use." And cell phones are typically held against your head when in use, while SmartMeters™ are outside your house, on the other side of the wall.
Should you be concerned about long-term exposure to smart meters if scientists haven't established health problems from cell phones? Consider that SmartMeters™ transmit only about 45 seconds a day (see Field Study Update in right-side panel). You'd have to have one of our meters on your home or business for more than 1,000 years to get as much exposure to radio waves as a typical cell phone user gets in just one month.
Comparison of RF Power Density in the Everyday Environment
Source: Richard Tell Associates, Inc. (2008)
Power Density in Microwatts per square centimeter (µW/cm2) Adjacent to a gas SmartMeter™ (1 foot) 0.00166 Adjacent to an electric SmartMeter™ (10 feet) 0.1 Adjacent to an electric SmartMeter™ (1 foot) 8.8 Microwave oven nearby (1 meter) 10 Wi-Fi wireless routers, laptop computers, cyber cafes, etc., maximum (~1 meter for laptops, 2 - 5 meters for access points) 10 - 20 Cell phones (at head) 30 - 10,000 Walkie-Talkies (at head) 500 - 42,000
Here's a video that's about the effects of microwave RF (which is emitted by all Wifi, cell phones and towers and smart meters) on humans and other living organisms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vb9R0x_0NQ
Never said that, just said the energy density of a smart meter is far less than a cell phone. Cell phones ping towers something like every 6 seconds, whether you are talking on them or not. Cell phones can emit up to about 3 watts, smart meters 1 watt maximum. That's just a fact. Energy density goes down as distance squared. I know a lot of people don't think it's fair that it isn't linear (twice is far is four times less strong, rather than the intuitive idea that is only half as strong, or even more commonly held idea, that distance doesn't matter and one gets the same effect at 1 foot or 10 feet). However, distance does matter, one can understand this by way of a soccer ball analogy. If you want to make a soccer ball 10 inches in diameter, you need a certain amount of material (78.5 square inches, to be precise, not including some for seams). If you want to make one 20 inches in diameter, you need 314 square inches. Yes, I know it doesn't seem fair that a ball twice as big needs 4 times more leather, but that's just a fact.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by dzerach:
And it is also a fact that a cell phone transmitting 1 watt at 3 cm from your head will produce 100 times MORE energy density than one 30 cm from your head. just a fact.
-and I never said there shouldn't be choice. What I said is that (and I'll say it very slowly for you) The concern about smart meters in the light of billions of much stronger sources of RF energy is so completely irrational that I find it irksome (even more than barking dogs).Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by dzerach:
PS. to your riddle, they all fit. Dect phones emit RF, so do cell phones, smart meters, blue tooth, and even your dish TV remote control (if you have one of the fancy --record in one room and watch in another-- units).
Also, note that there is a tremendous daily source of EMF that produces 1,000 W/meter square every where, every day proven to be a strong carcinogen, and not one seems to want to stop it, (yes, I mean sunlight, which is also EMF, just higher energy, and heat is also EMF if it is from an IR source,) One often sees confusion between ULF (power lines), RF, IR, light, UV, and gamma radiation. ALL are EMF, but their different energies make them very unlike each other.
For a couple of reasonable mostly non-aligned (not PGE, not EMF-sensitive-believers) latest news on RF danger, you can see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15387297 and https://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/...isk/cellphones
But if you still believe smart meters are worse than cell phones, well that's your religion and I hope you enjoy it (#DEF Religion=belief without proof).
Finally, what Sebastopol passed is not choice....it is no choice (ban of smart meters, even if one wants one).
I think Albert was mostly rational, but even he had trouble with -factual- ideas that were not of his experience.
edit:oops, more for less
May I first add (rather than burying comment at the bottom) that the situation with apartment complexes -- all of those smart meters attached to one building -- is very very sad. Thoroughly unfair.
Needless to say, some phenomena -- if not ultimately, ALL -- cannot be illuminated by the searchlight of rationality. Further, I find your above comment to be one such. What I find irksome is encountering this commonly extended, and fully "ex post facto" justification: "Eh, a little more of the same ain't gonna hurt anybody, we already got a ton of this sh*# raining down on us. What are you, crazy?" It always goes something like that. It's horrible reasoning.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
As you already know, I saw the "which one doesn't belong" game to be about forced intimate association vs individual choice. Feel free to whip out your measuring sticks to patiently explain exactly how much zip is being zapped, and to go on about what is already commonplace in society. Choice, whenever accompanied by a big hassle and "cost recouping" retribution for making the wrong one, is not choice as Americans understand it. The communities in Calif who have said "no" are simply responding in kind to a series of unfortunate events that have already been perpetrated upon them. An important distinction.
My friend, there is a context here to consider, along with a wide-ranging array of available facts...along with a big, fat, legitimate range of physiological differences and genuine sensitivities among individuals -- like it or not; the latter is a fact. I propose -- b/c I personally think it's always a good question to first ask, "What does it mean to be "reasonable," given the situation? A good question to pursue as it reflects some kind of ethical/values query. It is not the deer-hoof wide, narrow path you seem to want to tread.
Your assorted factoids and analogies -- Yeah, well, relationship matters, as you have repeatedly pointed out. Daily sources: If I held the sun to my head, instead of a cell phone, for an hour, I would probably feel light-headed as a result of doing that too, BUT I DON'T. WE conventionally CALL all as "EMF," but their different energies make them very unlike each other.Quote:
ULF (power lines), RF, IR, light, UV, and gamma radiation. ALL are EMF, but their different energies make them very unlike each other.
Personally, I find true religion to be about cause/effect practices, not beliefs. If the situation were such that I were FORCIBLY MADE to rely on a cell phone (and this is upcoming in our society) in the same manner that PGE is holding people hostage and making them rely on the smart meter, (instead of just reducing the number of meter readers), I would wonder, as I already do now, WHY a capitalist society cannot support diversity, and WHY a public utility has to make a profit. We have a minority running the country (a unique and predictable species, the willlfully ignorant backwoods hick), and the majority is subsidizing them, so why can't my minority landline be subsidized instead of building even more cell towers? By the way, the needs of independent recording artists are creating a new demand for high bias audio cassette tapes, rediscovering all of their unique benefits.Quote:
But if you still believe smart meters are worse than cell phones, well that's your religion and I hope you enjoy it (#DEF Religion=belief without proof).
Oy.Quote:
I think Albert was mostly rational, but even he had trouble with -factual- ideas that were not of his experience.
My three comments:
Your precautionary principal argument would seem to support removal of all cell phones and towers. It seems that you're saying the evidence against cell phones is far greater than that against smart meters. I'm at a loss as to why no emergency ordinance was enacted that would banish cell phones and towers.
I'm also unclear as to how those with such sensitivity to EMF can survive in our modern society. Cell towers, radio towers, tv towers, wifi nodes (Comcast has several dozen spread throughout Sebastopol), wifi in schools, wifi in nearly all homes and stores, emergency agency transmitters, Bluetooth, rf tags in retail products; these must drive the anti-EMF people batty. If they truly are so sensitive, how do they survive day to day?
I'm embarrassed that my town council has taken up this anti-science alternative universe in which symbolic gestures trump reality.
Howard
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by MalletKatMandu:
The way i see it, we are already too invested as a culture in this technology to turn back. We live in an electronic smog that is only going to get denser. I am guessing that for most of us, it won't be the deciding factor in shortening our lives or impacting our quality of life. But yeah, for those who are truly sensitive to EMF, it must be hell. I have heard some real horror stories about people who had to flee their homes in order to escape the effects of emf exposure. Some of these people have had to move to remote areas in order to maintain their health and sanity.
I have to be a realist when I admit we can't go back. All I try to do is give myself a break from exposure when I'm home, but even after I turn my wifi off at night, there are a number of wifi routers close enough to be seen by my iPad. And of course the cell phone networks are doing their thing 24/7. So, we're never out of the soup really.
Yeah, banning the future installation of smart meters is a largely symbolic gesture. There are towns in Europe that have banned wifi. And a few schools here and there. But you're right: it's a moot point, considering cell phone towers and repeaters are literally everywhere. Coverage is so much more widespread now. I don't have any answers. Maybe turning off my DECT phone chargers, wifi, limiting cell phone and cordless phone use and using special headsets when I do are empty and futile exercises. And perhaps I'm one of those people who won't be impacted significantly by emf. I just feel bad for those who are. Apparently exposure over time can lead to sensitivities in certain people, so eventually there may unfortunately be a lot more sensitive people. I'm guessing that if and when there are enough people who truly can't tolerate the emf, or if a direct link is found between say, cell phone usage and cancer, we'll finally see some legislation that addresses it. Of course, it could be decades before we see the long term impact of this stuff. As for me, as my meter is (outside my studio wall,) literally about 4 feet from where I work all day, I'm still glad I opted out.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Howard: