Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

December 1, 2016

An open letter to the City of Sebastopol, City Manager, Council and Staff,

Enforce the smart meter ban in Sebastopol!

In 2013 Sebastopol passed an urgency ordinance banning smart meter installation because they are a threat to health, safety and community welfare. PG&E threatened to sue, so the city did not enforce the ban. PG&E backed off installations, until recently when PG&E met with the city manager to discuss plans to deploy smart meters in Sebastopol.

We are asking the city to enforce the ban because the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has failed to adequately regulate the safety of smart meters.
• The President of the CPUC, Michael Peevey, knew smart meters were causing people pain, and he abetted PG&E’s pay to opt-out scheme, and delayed CPUC regulation.
• A pay to opt-out program is an unlawful response to smart meter problems, including privacy and property rights, radiation health risks, fire hazards, and co-located meters.
• Mayor Michael Kyes and Sarah Gurney spoke to the CPUC judge asking for community opt-out. The CPUC dismissed community opt-out without taking testimony or holding hearings.
• EMF Safety Network, and three other groups have appeals citing violations of law pending. A CPUC attorney stated the CPUC will rule on those appeals in December 2016.

We ask you to stand up to PG&E and enforce the ban until the CPUC adequately regulates smart meters, including the right of cities to avoid them.

Please agendize this issue for Dec.19th.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sandi Maurer,
Director EMF Safety Network

Chapter 8.58 SMART METERS (TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION OF SMART METERS) https://goo.gl/49n4Yf
Overview of PG&E/CPUC emails on smart meters https://goo.gl/AzfMQU
Summary of Evidence on Smart Meter Fires: https://goo.gl/ZQQH64
EMF Safety Network CPUC Appeal (Rehearing Request) https://goo.gl/updB6M

Really? I do not understood this silly ban on Smart Meters. It ended up with people threatening blue collar guys who were contracted by PG&E to do this. I think this is silly and stupid. I hope the city does not waste resources on this ban.

Empirical evidence of damage to biological systems caused by low level, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation led to justifiable concerns about the Smart Meters. If you do not understand the ban and what led to it, why are you calling it silly and stupid?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

Really? I do not understood this silly ban on Smart Meters. It ended up with people threatening blue collar guys who were contracted by PG&E to do this. I think this is silly and stupid. I hope the city does not waste resources on this ban.

---

Site your evidence from juried scientific publications, I have seen none.

You can do your own research starting here if you're really interested.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

Site your evidence from juried scientific publications, I have seen none.

---

Do you understand what "juried" means? It means published in scientific journals and reviewed by peers in the field of study. Peers are folks who are scientists, real scientists not quack doctors and emotional thinkers.

Also, you are exposed to a variety of electromagnetic radiation on a daily basis. Do you have Wifi in your house, if yes, this is constant exposure? If not, then take a Wifi enabled device such as a smart phone or tablet walk down Main Street. Set it to look for Wifi spots. I suspect many of the businesses have wifi for their internal processes. They don't have to set up a LAN anymore. Cat 5 cable is expensive. Run your business using iPads. I have seen it. That is the same radiation as from Smartmeters.

In 2010 PG&E hired Edelman, a PR firm to track and comment on online smart meter articles because PG&E wanted to control public opinion. No doubt they are still doing this. Their method is the same as yours, first to use ridicule and demand studies. Not saying you are not "real", but it did cross my mind.

Did PG&E have peer reviewed published science, or an environmental impact report published before they deployed smart meters? No, they didn't. Did the CPUC conduct a safety review? No they didn't. Was there peer reviewed published science on the health effects of radiation? Yes, thousands of papers.

If you want to learn more and read studies you can find information and links here:

If you want to understand why the city passed the urgency ordinance in 2013 you can read the minutes here:

I am a former technical reference librarian. All the "children" visiting the library had Engineering degrees or PhDs in a variety of scientific disciplines. I distrust the entire electro sensative movement. Though utility jobs are prime jobs, I have only worked for the Federal Civil Service.

BTW, your tactic of accusing me of being a shill for the power company is similar to what you describe PG&E doing. If I update my electrical panel I will ask for one. The PUC has much more authority than Sebastopol which seems to hire piss poor city lawyers.

If you have worked only for the US Government, and have gotten most of your perspectives from the "Mainstream Media" I can appreciate your distrust of the "entire electro sensative{sic) movement." You may not be aware of the uphill struggles the system imposes on people and organizations, just to gain a fair hearing for their views and concerns. When orthodoxy senses another view threatening its power, it responds with several fairly predictable tactics . . . among them, dismissal and ridicule. Both are often unsubstantiated except by the parrotings of so-called experts who never even directly address the data -- the evidence of something new or unexpected.

As a former technical reference librarian, you may be familiar with the rampant disregard of scientific methodology (and elementary logic) employed by scientific publications in their so-called "peer review" processes. As the adage observes, "follow the money."

We live in an era when the bright and shiny authorities of the past have acquired a patina of tarnish . . . even rust. It is not enough to trust organizations to look out for our best interests; we must be active on our own behalf and insist that those who have public trust live up to the responsibilities of that trust.

Please reconsider your stance and that of those whom you seem to be denigrating. Take Sandi's post seriously. Follow the links and read more about the issue. I think you'll find room for inquiry, thoughtful dialogue, and appreciation.

Best wishes,

Karl

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

... Their method is the same as yours, first to use ridicule and demand studies. ...

---

of course their methods are similar. A good method is widely applicable. The PR firms are perfectly likely to use similar methods to scientists; since they're PR firms they may well leave out the ridicule part. It still comes down to quality of data and understanding the limits of what it indicates.

The post from Karl shows the futility of making these rational arguments in hope of convincing anyone, anyway. Really, you think Seiglinde is so tainted by 'only working for the US government' and only aware of what he's been fed by the 'mainstream media' that he's a poor judge of the facts? Actually, I presume you do think that. This blanket rejection of any information that comes with actual scientific support, thinking that information coming from amateurs is better than that from professionals, makes discussions like this pretty pointless. Unfortunately, the opinions of the participants end up as the policy that affects everyone. The same forces that lead to the success of someone like Trump also shape the debates on policies like SmartMeters and fluoridation. The ability to weigh the evidence and deal with complexity and ambiguity is conspicuously absent when appeals to fear and emotion are made.

Hey, maybe we need a new Godwin's law about bringing Trump into things! He's much more fun to use than Hitler....

EHS article by Dr. Scott Eberle in the Santa Clara County Medical Association/ Monterey County Medical Society Bulletin "What's the Diagnosis Doctor"

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

Site your evidence from juried scientific publications, I have seen none.

---

I have no wifi nor smartmeter. There was no way you went through the info I suggested. I don't believe this discussion is really about sharing information....no different than what I've been exposed to before on this forum...which is if I disagree with those postings, there is an attitude of one upping and baiting and sometimes name calling (not saying you've done that yet)...but not going there. If you were really interested, you might have been aware that the Santa Clara County Medical Association Alliance Foundation sponsored a forum, "Wireless Technology and Public Health: Health and Environmental Hazards in a Wireless World," Oct. 10, '15 where noted researchers, doctors and scientists discussed the issues with wireless.

The summit was held the day after California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed all six bills that would have reigned in a corrupt CPUC, and would have taken mild steps to subject it to greater judicial oversight in the midst of ongoing criminal investigations of the agency. The day after the conference (to add insult to injury) Brown signed legislation (AB57) that shifts the burden of defending against unwanted cell towers to local governments and “deems cell towers approved” by the state, if a local government takes too much time in the planning process.
The summit was completely sold out- an indication of the burgeoning interest in the subject in the Bay Area- and an overflow crowd gathered at video monitors in the lobby to hear what each speaker was saying.

I'm complete on this posting.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

Do you understand what "juried" means?...

---

This conversation is over. The military operates off of facts otherwise they find that what they are doing does not match reality. You can go live in your post factual land, I will live in mine.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Karl Frederick:

If you have worked only for the US Government, and have gotten most of your perspectives from the "Mainstream Media" I can appreciate your distrust of the "entire electro sensative{sic) movement." ...

---

The interesting thing I have found after having moved to Sebastopol from a very conservative part of California (Kern County) that they are more extreme. For example, the city I lived in, Ridgecrest would elect a nice mixture of Democrats and mostly Republicans to the city council. The Republicans were usually businessmen (a reality based group), the Democrats were usually educators (Your mileage may vary but these people were reality based) We never elected Tea Party members to the council.

I move to Sebastopol, find out that for really stupid reasons that they rejected an offer of free Wifi town-wide from Sonic because of this quack medicine they believe in. I have found that the far left is as stupid as the far right. But the conservative town I came from avoided the nutwing of the right. Unfortunately, Sebastopol is electing folks who edge into the nutwing of the left.

I happen to vote Democratic for most things. I even voted for Sanders in the primary. I am not a fan of PG&E. I signed up for the EverGreen level (more expensive 100% sustainable level) of the local power distribution program. Actually, I found that conservatives were also against the Smart meters but based on privacy considerations. That is a personal opinion and at least does not use bogus science.

By the way, Xfinity is broadcasting wifi all over town. Suck it up buttercup.

Antedotal, not juried but at least your argument uses a human experience rather than a accusing me of being a shill for a power company. In order to protect himself, he would need to not work in an office with wifi, not have a router in his house (BTW, you can opt out of Smart meters, or at lease we could with Southern California Edison), he would need to have installed in his house, some sort of Faraday cage in his home and workplace to block the frequency.

EHS article by Dr. Scott Eberle in the Santa Clara County Medical Association/ Monterey County Medical Society Bulletin "What's the Diagnosis Doctor"

I posted a link above which included military studies. As a librarian, I expect you would research and try to understand before you start slinging insults. The fact is military studies show pulsed radiation can cause serious health problems, including tinnitus, memory loss and seizures.

From the US Air Force: "It is known that electromagnetic radiation has a biological effect on human tissue."

Here's another study from the US Army.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

This conversation is over. The military operates off of facts otherwise they find that what they are doing does not match reality. You can go live in your post factual land, I will live in mine.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

I posted a link above which included military studies. As a librarian, I expect you would research and try to understand before you start slinging insults. The fact is military studies show pulsed radiation can cause serious health problems, including tinnitus, memory loss and seizures.

---

both water and the sun can kill you. So can the military with radiation if they dial up the intensity. As Paracelsus said a long time ago: ''sola dosisfacitvenenum'', [the dose makes the poison] thus proving this argument goes way back. Funny how military studies are cherry-picked in support, since they are about as mainstream a source as you can get, while CDC etc. are ignored.

Note that it's the anti-wifi (and, for that matter, anti-vax & anti-fluoride) crowd who are inclined to the all-or-nothing points of view. It's not "scientific" or really even defensible to say that harm from those sources is impossible. It's just that the evidence for harm doesn't rise to the level where it should have such a dramatic impact on policy, compared to the evidence for benefit. Maybe contrast this with the issue of global warming/climate change. In that case there's an equally vocal faction supporting a point of view that disagrees with what's called 'consensus' (not a scientific term I've heard, but it's used in the debate). I betcha the anti-vax/fluoride/emf crowd goes with the majority view on that one. I claim it's because of ideological sympathy rather than the weight of evidence.

and someday, not too soon though, another hazard of our electronic age will be here.

sounds like the days of smartmeters are numbered anyway!

This is microwave radiation and is much stronger than your wifi router or a device such as a Smart Meter. The effects are well known. There were places on the base I worked at that warned you to stay out because of RF hazard. This was not present around ordinary consumer products such as wifi routers. That is why there is a screen on your microwave oven door. It acts as a Faraday cage. Yep, if you stood in front of an operating radar emmiter you would not be happy. Also they transmit at a much more powerful beam than a Smart Meter. The difference also it that the Smart Meter is not broadcasting continually or for a continuous time such as a microwave oven. Great finding a DTIC document. The Air Force is a reality based organization. But the RF they are talking about is far more powerful. You could argue long term exposure but then if concerned with that, don't use a personal computer, cell phone or tablet.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

I posted a link above which included military studies. ....

From the US Air Force: "It is known that electromagnetic radiation has a biological effect on human tissue."
...

---

It is the level of radiation that is misinterpreted. You would not want to stand in front of an operating radar emitter. You would not want to disable the interlocks on your microwave door and operate it. But Wifi is so limited in power. So quoting military studies on the effects of microwave radiation is a real misunderstanding of the differences in exposure.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

both water and the sun can kill you. So can the military with radiation if they dial up the intensity. As Paracelsus said a long time ago: ''sola dosisfacitvenenum'', [the dose makes the poison] ....

---

I can tell from the responses so far that my suggestion (below) fell on deaf ears. My mistake. For some, it seems to be sufficient to hammer away with unexamined opinions, rather than read and consider the data which lead to prudence about exposure to wireless signals.

An essay by Robert Lindsay, entitled My Mind is Made Up, Don't Confuse Me with the Facts
speaks to this common phenomenon --

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Karl Frederick:

Please reconsider your stance and that of those whom you seem to be denigrating. Take Sandi's post seriously. Follow the links and read more about the issue. I think you'll find room for inquiry, thoughtful dialogue, and appreciation.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Karl Frederick:

I can tell from the responses so far that my suggestion (below) fell on deaf ears. ...

---

that is the most self-indulgent way to look at it that's possible. Here's something to consider when making an observation like yours: would my opponents be able to say the exact same thing about me?? If so, it's not a tack to take. Try another. You might want to consider that rather than 'hammering with unexamined opinions' you instead got pushback on the quality of the sources that were cited. It's not much better when things turn into 'oh yeah? your source sucks' but it's a little better. Don't you think Sieglinde's response, pointing out why the military research isn't appropriate when applied to smartmeters, counts as an attempt to confuse you with a factual response?? I guess your mind's too made up to even notice that's what's been presented.

My mind is not made up, and i am still reading and listening. its wise to be cautious with newish tech. electronic device radiation is evolving faster than the ability of medical science to study the effects. research has shown that the quality, as well as the quantity is significant. the electrochemical biosphere of our human bodies is almost completely unknown. to put down individual and group efforts to slow change and protect health is just cruel. who has the responsibility for safety? we all do.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

My mind is not made up, and i am still reading and listening. ..

---

mine's not either - well, that depends on made up about exactly what. It's made up that the documented threats to safety aren't sufficient for some of the restrictions imposed. I'm also convinced that the existence of EMF sensitivity is poorly established, and that there's enough attention being paid to it that if it's real then it will become accepted science. Even then, I don't know that it's clear we need to do widespread banning of use of EMF. That depends on the results of quality research that better describe any health impacts. We still allow peanuts to be added to food. For gods sake, we let kids ride in cars despite the well-documented risks. When the politics of EMF regulation become one of balancing risk vs. reward, we'll have made a nice step forward.

I, for one, happen to want a smart meter. I want to be able to see and control the power my appliances are using. I know this is part of the smart grid system that we have to convert to sooner than later unless we want the whole antiquated grid to fall apart or be destroyed by terrorists. Those of you doing research, do you understand what a smart grid is and why it is needed? Do you understand about localized distributed energy? I am far more concerned about the climate effects of dirty fossil fuels and dangers of our grid going down than I am about the minuscule radiation from a tiny meter on the outside of my house.

I am angry that a few nervous people have managed to deprive me and others in our community from getting a Smart Meter. Opt out if you want, but don't prevent the rest of us that want one from getting it.

"Distributed energy resources (DER) are smaller power sources that can be aggregated to provide power necessary to meet regular demand. As the electricity grid continues to modernize, DER such as storage and advanced renewable technologies can help facilitate the transition to a smarter grid."

"Distributed generation (DG) refers to power generation at the point of consumption. Generating power on-site, rather than centrally, eliminates the cost, complexity, interdependencies, and inefficiencies associated with transmission and distribution."

"Distributed generation (DG) refers to electricity that is produced at or near the point where it is used. Distributed solar energy can be located on rooftops or ground-mounted, and is typically connected to the local utility distribution grid. States, cities and towns are experimenting with policies to encourage distributed solar to offset peak electricity demand and stabilize the local grid."

The present tech of smart meters do not facilitate a smart grid, they simply lower labor cost because meter readers are needed less. the kind of interactive grid you are writing about is facilitated by some things we can do today, like conservation, solar, and converting from fossil fuel to electric. the interactive appliances, electric transport, and solar battery storage needed for the grid we need are just coming into play for large industrial users, like the county wastewater facility. this level of interaction requires web communication, the smart meters today are obsolete.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

I, for one, happen to want a smart meter. I want to be able to see and control the power my appliances are using. I know this is part of the smart grid system that we have to convert to sooner than later ...

---

This conversation is over? Really?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

This conversation is over. The military operates off of facts otherwise they find that what they are doing does not match reality. You can go live in your post factual land, I will live in mine.

---

Marty Roberts,

You state you are angry that a few “nervous” people have deprived you getting a smart meter. Are you saying that the late Michael Kyes, Sarah Gurney, Robert Jacobs and other city leaders are “nervous” people? Or that they are so gullible they would allow a few “nervous” people, to influence them, as if they had not done their own research and did not form their own opinions?

You are misinformed that smart meters will help save the planet, or make a difference with climate change. You have apparently bought PG&E’s sales pitch without question. If you are afraid of terrorists, smart meters are more vulnerable to hacking than the analog meters.

It’s worth the effort to take the time to thoroughly investigate complex issues, which is what we and our city leaders did regarding smart meters.

Sandi Maurer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

I, for one, happen to want a smart meter. I want to be able to see and control the power my appliances are using. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

You state you are angry that a few “nervous” people have deprived you getting a smart meter. Are you saying that the late Michael Kyes, Sarah Gurney, Robert Jacobs and other city leaders are “nervous” people? Or that they are so gullible they would allow a few “nervous” people, to influence them, as if they had not done their own research and did not form their own opinions? ...

---

I don't know how Marty feels, I'm not angry either, but I don't know what part of their research led to their conclusions. I doubt it was the science, given the role of politicians in our society I suspect that yes indeed the feelings of nervous people were given a lot of weight. Why would they have to be gullible to let the fears of nervous people influence them? Being influenced by the desires of your constituents is part of the gig. But it doesn't make the decision a good one, it just (possibly) explains why it was made.

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

here is a key paragraph from that website:
Conclusions from scientific research
In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research.

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

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

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

---

:heart:

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

With Kindness, Dusty (aka on WACCO as gaiasophia)

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

...Conclusions from scientific research

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gaiasophia:

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

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

---

Sandi,

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

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

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

How about it??

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

Here are 3 studies on EHS:

ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVITY: EVIDENCE FOR A NOVEL NEUROLOGICAL SYNDROME

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

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

How about it??

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

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

Here are 3 studies on EHS:...

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Larry Robinson:

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

---

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

https://www.emfscientist.org/images/..._LOGO_site.png

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

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

---

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

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

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

Citation?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

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

---

I remember low sperm count being attributed to underwear that was tight fitting and therefore, kept too much heat in that area of the body. So this is a good point. You have an incidence of cancer in the location of a piece of equipment. What does that equipment do. It gives off radar energy as needed or heat. Heat!!! The radar gun would not be emitting radio waves when not in use but it certainly could give off heat. I assume the cops left the devices on, in the case they needed to use them rapidly.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

If true, it certainly supports the concept that "cooked nuts=cancer nuts". Heating effects of RF are largely understood. ...

---

Yikes. IEEE does not peer review its papers? Everybody had so much trust in them. I hope none of this bogus research that they publish at times affected programs where I worked.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

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

---

This study that Larry cites, claiming EHS is psychosomatic was a study by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme which was funded 50:50 by the Telecommunications industry and UK government.

Dr. Andrew A. Marino, PhD, (Director of Research at the Division of Sleep Medicine, Department of Neurology, Department of Cellular Biology and Anatomy, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, LA.) criticized the author of the study stating:

"James Rubin, King’s College London published a blindingly biased paper in which he argued that there was no such thing as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (no robust evidence). His numerous studies on electromagnetic hypersensitivity are all negative, but that negativity was manufactured by employing experimental designs and statistical analysis that were virtually guaranteed to produce negative results. By means of jaundiced analyses he comes to the conclusion that EHS sufferers have a purely psychosomatic disease, a viewpoint that has untold benefits for his clients and funders, particularly the cell-phone companies.” https://andrewamarino.com/blog/?p=289

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Larry Robinson:

The scientific consensus seems to be that "electrosensitivity" is a psychosomatic phenomenon . ...

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

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

---

The suggestion to a member to be tested to prove the effects of emfs on her is beyond disappointing. Do you also need proof of chronic headaches, the stabbing/unrelenting pain of trigeminal neuralgia, phantom limb pain, nausea, the burning of peripheral neuropathy, the sensory affects of guillan barre, etc.

Where is the compassion of this community.

There's plenty of sympathy, but in this case there's an issue that may affect a public policy and there is not enough solid evidence to the contrary and subjective 'evidence' is rare and anecdotal, the poster that suggested a test that was quite reasonable.

OF COURSE there are examples of exposure to extreme radiation that leaves no doubt, like the idiot policemen who didn't read the REQUIRED warnings on the Radar Guns. But that was a direct exposure, inches away from balls, 100000 times as as strong as a wi-fi router.

It's not a level exposure field here, folks and there are folks that don't want to see a tower in their neighborhood, even if they can't see it. There is also the matter of frequency, and the FM band is way down the scale of damaging radiation compared to the multi-gigahertz world of microwaves.

My dad worked on the microwave radio relay towers in the late 40s, and he was trained to avoid being anywhere near the radiating horns, as would any communication worker. He never got cancer or ever became ill because of it. So the Bell system was big on safety and would have tabulated numbers on exposure. Unlike the military, AT&T and the Bell System took radiation and safety in general as a sacred duty.

Dad told me about some idiots that would warm themselves in front of the horns. There's always going to be stupid but the fact is that all radiation falls off with distance, and when using 'radiation' as a blanket excuse to the deny a low power FM transmitter installation is just BAD SCIENCE.

Note the inverse square law of physics:
"The inverse-square law generally applies when some force, energy, or other conserved quantity is evenly radiated outward from a point source in three-dimensional space. Since the surface area of a sphere (which is 4πr² ) is proportional to the square of the radius, as the emitted radiation gets farther from the source, it is spread out over an area that is increasing in proportion to the square of the distance from the source. Hence, the intensity of radiation passing through any unit area (directly facing the point source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point source. Gauss's law is similarly applicable, and can be used with any physical quantity that acts in accord to the inverse-square relationship."

I'm sure that the affected poster has sensitivity (and I know my daughter is psychic) , but the RELATIVE amount of radiation from this little KOWS tower is so small in proportion to the RF radiation from many of the appliances in your home.

One would have to live in a wooden cabin with nothing modern to avoid ANY radiation. Not even a wired phone (which are all digital to the cabinet, then turned into a pair of wires).

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by diaba:

The suggestion to a member to be tested to prove the effects of emfs on her is beyond disappointing. Do you also need proof of chronic headaches, the stabbing/unrelenting pain of trigeminal neuralgia, phantom limb pain, nausea, the burning of peripheral neuropathy, the sensory affects of guillan barre, etc.

Where is the compassion of this community.

---

When they are trying to force public policy to conform to their needs.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by diaba:

The suggestion to a member to be tested to prove the effects of emfs on her is beyond disappointing. Do you also need proof of chronic headaches, the stabbing/unrelenting pain of trigeminal neuralgia, phantom limb pain, nausea, the burning of peripheral neuropathy, the sensory affects of guillan barre, etc.

Where is the compassion of this community.

---

There are many people with difficult or impossible to diagnose ailments. But this should not affect public policy.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by diaba:

The suggestion to a member to be tested to prove the effects of emfs on her is beyond disappointing. Do you also need proof of chronic headaches, the stabbing/unrelenting pain of trigeminal neuralgia, phantom limb pain, nausea, the burning of peripheral neuropathy, the sensory affects of guillan barre, etc.

Where is the compassion of this community.

---

I was the one who made that suggestion. No, I don't doubt nor need proof of Sandi's headache's, and other symptoms. What I did ask was to test was her attribution of the cause of those symptoms. She is advocating that public policy takes into consideration that EMF's are the cause of hers (and other's ) symptoms. I, and many others, are skeptical of such claims. But I am open to being convinced by a simple test.

Yes, it would subject her to a bit more EMFs (to see if they do seem to cause a symptom), but I have to imagine she often encounters EMFs in any case, such as anytime she within an area serviced by wifi, cell service, or for that matter, radio. That's pretty hard to avoid these days.

Sandi politely refused my suggestion, and offered a counter-suggestion:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

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

---

I'd be happy comply with the terms of her test if no one "feels" anything she agrees to reconsider her attribution of the cause her symptoms to be EMF, however, I highly doubt she would. Furthermore, the proposition is that some people are more sensitive to others, so it would be a poor test.

I still think it would be best if a local EMF sensitive person, or better yet several people, would consent to a test to see if they can identify when they are in the presence of heightened EMF radiation, and when they are not. If there's ever going to be any real data regarding EMF sensitivity, some people who claim to be sensitive are going to have to consent to be objectively tested.

I thought the study that Larry posted, cast considerable doubt on the data collected so far on EHS, however, Sandi's post about the funding of the study effectively cast doubt on Larry's study. So I am back to the beginning. I doubt anybody's opinion has been changed by the discussion so far.

A test sure would go a long way in settling a local/national issue. And if EMF sensitivity is "proven" true, it would do a lot more to advance their cause than tons of unconfirmed, self-reported anecdotal "evidence". I'd be happy to flip from being a skeptic to a "believer" and advocate public policy take EHS into account.

Hi again folks,:heart:
Have any of you skeptical folks read or even looked at, the books I recommended? :hmmm::heart:

I appreciate the person who researched the authors, but that is not the same .

Katie Singer and her book (author of "Electronic Silent Spring") should not be so easily dismissed, as she quotes (and documents) many, many academic studies and sources, of course peer reviewed.

I don't have time or desire to argue about this, or debate, and am kindly hoping that y'all who are skeptical will check out these books at least (as I wrote, they are available for free from library).:heart:

Kindly,
Dusty
ps: "Electronic Silent Spring" by Katie Singer and "Overpowered: What Science Tells Us About the dangers pf Cell Phones and Other WiFi-Age Devices " by Martin Blank, PhD

Hi
I thought we were mostly talking about Smart Meters(the name of this thread), which are posted on people's homes. My neighbor's small studio has a SmartMeter located precisely on the outside wall, where (inside wall) her head is when she sleeps. 3 Smart Meters actually, for all 3 residences on that property.

Cancers, etc. can take many years to develop, which make it hard to make the correlation.

I love science and math, have been a teacher, and must confess that even though I've read the paragraph, "...Note the inverse square law of physics:..." multiple times, I still don't get it! :hmmm:

I love Einstein, and one of my favorite quotes from him was something like, "If you can't explain it in a way that a first grader can understand it, you don't understand it well enough yourself...", something like that.

:heart:I don't mean that you don't understand it yourself, but I feel confident that if I don't understand this paragraph, many others don't either:) I'd like to understand it though! :thumbsup:

From what I understand, Smart Meters were banned in Marin County, but PG&E did it anyway--anyone know more about this?

It seems possible (probable) that the radiation emitted now-a-days has increased since the 1940's (when your dad worked on towers)...

I think the USA, like Europe, should be using the --what's it called? Either the Cautionary or Precautionary Principle, something like that--meaning before we start using things (drugs, Smart Meters, pesticides, food additives,whatever), they should be proven to be safe.

Seems to me the reason we don't do that here in U.S., is probably due to corporations making a lot of money from them. and with Citizens United, of course they have enormous political power...

Gotta go!
With Kindness,
Dusty

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I thought the study that Larry posted, cast considerable doubt on the data collected so far on EHS, however, Sandi's post about the funding of the study effectively cast doubt on Larry's study. ...

---

there should be doubt on any one study. That's one reason that studies of any integrity will disclose their funding. But there's nothing surprising about stakeholders funding studies, and the ones 'in the business' have the most money to spend on them. There's no such thing as a human researcher with no taint of bias; even if the bias is nothing more than a guess as to what the results might be before the data is all in. The system's designed to deal with that. And of course no system is perfect, the system of vetting research can certainly serve as proof of that. There are plenty of examples as to why no piece of research should be treated as gospel. Of course, there's even more examples of why Gospel shouldn't be taken as gospel. We just have to build our opinions and make our decisions with what we get.

We also make decisions as a society where those giving input to the group decision aren't fully qualified - we'd get better decisions if the true experts were the ones with final authority. That's a feature, and maybe a bug, in the way laws and regulations are made. Because who the 'true experts' are isn't always apparent, we can't just find them and get off the hook. We're stuck with this - those who care the most, like those who feel they're affected personally, present what they hope is a convincing case. Sometimes that's just listing sources who take their sides, sometimes it goes farther and includes explanation as to why those sources are believable.

A lot of the posts by the skeptics outline what it might take to be convinced. Sorry, Barry, not to impugn your skills as a scientist, but I'd prefer a bunch more academic studies to one with one subject. If I infer your position correctly, we agree it should be easy to demonstrate EMF sensitivity unambiguously. If so, given how widespread the worry over EMF is, why isn't this done routinely until it's generally accepted as fact?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gaiasophia:

I love science and math, have been a teacher, and must confess that even though I've read the paragraph, "...Note the inverse square law of physics:..." multiple times, I still don't get it! :hmmm:

I love Einstein, and one of my favorite quotes from him was something like, "If you can't explain it in a way that a first grader can understand it, you don't understand it well enough yourself...", something like that.

---

I too love Einstein, and I think I can give the explanation in the spirit of what Einstein meant. First, remember six-year-olds don't know what squares even are! So the explanation to that six year old is: Even if radiation is strong at the center, it gets spread way out as you move farther from the center. Kind of like a balloon spreads out as it gets bigger. As it spreads out, it gets weaker.

Are you just critiquing his phrasing? Of course, all he's doing is saying that radiation spreads out in a sphere, the distance (radius, 'r') that it's gone corresponds to the amount it has to spread out (the surface area). The surface area of a sphere (probably not middle-school math, I forget?) is 4πr² - and since the 4π part is the same no matter how far you go, the key observation is that as you go 'r' farther away, you spread (and thus dilute) the radiation by the square of r. Since squares go up really fast, the strength of the radiation goes down really fast.

Sorry to be pedantic, but the post seemed to call for it!

https://www.quora.com/How-correct-is...nd-it-yourself

Quote:

---

Within the context of the full quote, ""If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.", there is a great deal of truth. This does not mean that you can explain what you might know about quantum mechanics to a six year old (impossible), but it does mean that you should be able to explain it simply to someone with the requisite background to understand a simple explanation.

---

ok, getting OT but besides loving Einstein, there's Feynman. Here he explains why simple explanations are impossible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewcJR2nqDV4

or in transcript form. https://lesswrong.com/lw/99c/transcr...why_questions/

and another fun read:
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...and-it-well-en
I like the barmaid version better.

There are many problems with smart meters beside harm to humans. The city's concerns are expressed in the ordinance, which was modeled after Fairfax.

See Sebastopol's ordinance here.

The legal issues are also written up in our CPUC legal appeal: https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M144/K897/144897236.PD

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

There are many people with difficult or impossible to diagnose ailments. But this should not affect public policy.

---

Barry, the mistaken belief that you and others make is that EHS only means you instantly feel something when exposed. My experience is that my health was poor, I was chronically tired, had pre-cancer removed, chronic sore throats, hip and back pain, cognitive problems, etc. The doctor told me I needed to improve my immune system, but he could not tell me how. I tried many things: Acupuncture, Tibetan herbs, cranial sacral, chiropractic, and none of the treatments lasted.

In 2006 I had Michael Neuert test my house for EMF's and he found high EMF fields. I asked him if that could be affecting my immune system he said it could be. So I asked him "what do I need to do?". He said figure out the least electricity you need and turn the rest off at the breaker box. So we did this. I made no other changes except turning off the electricity. With the power off I felt better, more at peace, more relaxed. And slowly my health began to improve. Within a month I was substantially better and the pain went away, the sore throats stopped, my immune system improved, energy restored...etc.

There are many people each with their own story of harm and that has nothing to do with the idea that we immediately can feel it, although some of us can.

I also posted the kind of study you are seeking. You asked if it had been replicated, and I don't know if it has.
An overview of EMF health effects based on studies can be found here: https://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

A test sure would go a long way in settling a local/national issue. And if EMF sensitivity is "proven" true, it would do a lot more to advance their cause than tons of unconfirmed, self-reported anecdotal "evidence". I'd be happy to flip from being a skeptic to a "believer" and advocate public policy take EHS into account.

---

This is an interesting thread. There is nowhere on this planet that doesn't have some level of electromagnetic field. Every wire that has electric current flowing through it is surrounded by an EMF. Every electrical (or electronic) device has an EMF. The question isn't whether there is an EMF, but rather how intense the field is. And I note that the closer you are to the source, the more intense the field.

Many have expressed concern over the EMF surrounding high-tension electrical wires, and those levels are significant at ground level below the wires.

Research into the effects on humans is ongoing. A search on "EMF Research" yields lots of results.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Bill95446:

... The question isn't whether there is an EMF, but rather how intense the field is...

---

Exactly.
And getting back to my original point - which was that the KOWS transmitter is but a weak firefly compared to the MAJOR 30,000 volt high tension wires in the same vicinity as the tanks and the towers.

A fact conveniently never mentioned in the NIMBY folks testimony or charges.

It's all about degrees.

Whatever, if one wants solar installed, you gotta get a smart meter.
I have one right here on Woodland avenue and welcome it.
I would have a big problem if the city took it away.

Really, a Smart Meter is just another 'cell phone' as far as I can see. The ordinance is super paranoid.
I'd rather see more effort protecting immigrants targeted by Trump right now.
Gotta pick one's battles.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

There are many problems with smart meters beside harm to humans. The city's concerns are expressed in the ordinance, which was modeled after Fairfax.

See Sebastopol's ordinance here.

---

This thread is not about the KOWS antenna, we are discussing the smart meter ban that Sebastopol adopted in 2013.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

Exactly.
And getting back to my original point - which was that the KOWS transmitter is but a weak firefly compared to the MAJOR 30,000 volt high tension wires in the same vicinity as the tanks and the towers.

A fact conveniently never mentioned in the NIMBY folks testimony or charges.

It's all about degrees.

---

Your reasons for wanting a smart meter seem emotional, and not based in knowledge of how they work or why they were designed. No one has to have a smart meter, not even solar customers. A smart meter is in no way like a cell phone. You can't turn it off, it transmits pulsed radiation up to 190,000 times a day, 1 watt or 2 watts plus antenna gain. They pollute the electrical grid with frequencies the grid was never designed to carry. Here is a simple primer of smart meter problems. https://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

Whatever, if one wants solar installed, you gotta get a smart meter....

Really, a Smart Meter is just another 'cell phone' as far as I can see. ...

---

I was all for the antenna. I would like to be able to receive the radio station in Sebastopol. But KOWS dug a trench before approval that apparently damaged some tree roots. They should cooperate more with the city. I suspect that a proper survey would have told them where to dig a trench instead they went off half assed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

Exactly.
And getting back to my original point - which was that the KOWS transmitter is but a weak firefly compared to the MAJOR 30,000 volt high tension wires in the same vicinity as the tanks and the towers.

A fact conveniently never mentioned in the NIMBY folks testimony or charges.

It's all about degrees.

---

Good point. Again, the PUC is the governing force on this and has the power to allow power companies to install Smart Meters. YOU CAN OPT OUT. Why deny this service to the rest of us?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

Whatever, if one wants solar installed, you gotta get a smart meter.
I have one right here on Woodland avenue and welcome it.
I would have a big problem if the city took it away....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gaiasophia:

Hi
I think the USA, like Europe, should be using the --what's it called? Either the Cautionary or Precautionary Principle, something like that--meaning before we start using things (drugs, Smart Meters, pesticides, food additives,whatever), they should be proven to be safe.

---

The so called "precautionary principle" is a canard to stop literally anything.
If one supposes that EMF at low level for a short time might be safe, but for a longer exposure might not be, how long do you wait? 10 years? 50 years? 100 years? Further, how to show anything is safe?
Consider pure water. A lady died in a radio show contest to see who could drink the most water. Thus, based on the precautionary principle we should not sell water in stores as it has been proven, in some circumstances, to be unsafe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

So you have a principle that in practice can never be satisfied. Very handy for anyone wanting to stop anything.

Instead, we must really develop some "risk criteria". Walking across the street on a sunny day exposes one to gamma rays that are cancer causing. Maybe we call this a risk criteria of 1. Flying across country exposes one to much more gamma radiation, maybe this is a risk 10. Smoking, for a year, might be a risk 20. Eating polonium might be a risk 1,000,000 (ask anyone who gets in the way of Putin). Xray: risk 100? Then we can place EMF in the proper risk category. maybe 1.01. However so far the evidence does not even say it is more risky than walking across the street. The reason we know it can't be very risky is the epidemiology factors just aren't there.

There are 3 methods to determining dangerous effects:

Epidemiology: do large groups sharing the same incidence of something, show untoward effects (so far, only texting while driving shows up).

Physiologic mechanisms: gamma rays have be shown to break DNA bonds, such that some few remaining cells mutate to grow more rapidly (cancer) where as many more cells die. This is well documented and repeatable. The EMF network share some sketchy micrographs that claim Ca+ interference etc, but these are done by exposing cells directly, and have not established this effect in real-world situations, nor really established that this has lasting effect; most RF EMF is effectively absorbed or reflected in the first mm of the skin (this is the principle of the L3 scanners used in airports). WHO conclusion is that no physiologic mechanisms have been shown other than heating. FCC EMF rules are based on this science.

Dose-response: A little causes a little problem; a lot causes a lot of problem. But there have been no dose response repeatable studies in any cause of EMF sensitivity from any reputable source (reputable means from a publicly funded university study in a major university). Some guy on you-tube with a $100 meter doesn't count.

When UC Berkeley, a bastion of right-wing capitalism(#define sarcasm on for the hard-of-irony) has a study that shows any effect above, I'll start to pay attention; and still I'll want to know the risk criterion.

If you agree that having a cell phone network might save 1 life a year due to access to emergency services, and contrasted that with the harm done by EMF, I'm guessing the good would far outweigh any bad that could be shown (and none has been).

Now, back to Smart meters. If use of smart meters reduces CO2 at all, then one might imagine your personal harm from EMF is very likely far offset by your personal gain of reducing CO2. The CA PUC seems to think that having smart meters will reduce green house gases through more effective monitoring and grid control.

I'll address the other, very valid, issues of Smart meters and network safety and other public policy later.

This is not true. I have solar, installed 10/15, and have a new time of use analogue meter. Put your smart meter in your pocket and fry an intimate part of your body.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sqb:

...Really, a Smart Meter is just another 'cell phone' as far as I can see. ...

---

Again quality might be just as important as quantity when it comes to devices in our homes and carry on our bodies. We can all agree that research has shown than quantity has risk, lineworkers blood and police officers balls demonstrate this. The research on quality shows difference, and is far below the threshold of demonstrated negative effect. The biggest reason for this is rapidly evolving tech. Preserving rights for individual caution is important for future understanding.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Bill95446:

...The question isn't whether there is an EMF, but rather how intense the field is. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

The so called "precautionary principle" is a canard to stop literally anything.
If one supposes that EMF at low level for a short time might be safe, but for a longer exposure might not be, how long do you wait? 10 years? 50 years? 100 years? Further, how to show anything is safe?

---

Peer reviewed, published science on The Precautionary Principle and Electric and Magnetic Fields
CONCLUSION

"Here we have used EMF policy as an example of failure to implement the precautionary principle even though it could be done relatively easily and cheaply. We have not argued for any particular EMF policy, nor have we tried to define and characterize the full array of precautionary approaches. Instead, we relate the discussion of the precautionary principle and EMFs to larger questions about human agency and public authority. Reluctance to regulate on the grounds of avoiding false positives that may scare and upset people is paternalistic. In our view, concerns about the proper role of government paternalism are at the heart of questions about regulating environmental and health risks and therefore should be as central to the discussion as economic and epidemiological data.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446777/

Dr. Louis Slesin, Microwave News:
"Precautionary policies to protect children from power line electromagnetic fields (EMFs) should have been adopted years ago. It’s a no-brainer, yet health officials continue to sit on their hands.

There has long been widespread agreement that EMFs are linked to childhood leukemia. They are also likely to play a role in both brain and breast cancer as well as in miscarriages and in neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.” https://microwavenews.com/news/case-...onary-policies

The CPUC has a prudent avoidance policy on EMF that includes radio frequencies (RF).However they ignored this policy and allowed deployment of millions of transmitters- on every home- without any safety testing. The President of the CPUC knew people were being harmed by smart meters.

Dr. Jerry Phillips, a scientist who did cell phone safety research funded by Motorola speaks of how Motorola attempted to control the “message” and outcomes of his research. He found DNA damage from cell phone radiation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YBxyY8FoOs

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

ok, getting OT but besides loving Einstein, there's Feynman. Here he explains why simple explanations are impossible:

---

Interesting thread with many valuable opinions ...
I'd like to offer the following suggestions ...

#1 - the saturation of microwave energy in our world is a new phenomenon and we don't know what affects it will have. The military is still testing these affects on their soldiers as microwave weapons become a reality. I can show you the contract offering for such testing which proves that they have a concern for their personnel who are instructed to use such weaponry in the battlefield.

#2 - Barrie Trower, an ex British military scientist who specialized in the field of microwave weaponry has made it his goal to educate the public about the dangers of constant microwave exposure ... Look him up ...

#3 - My own theory about emf sensitive people, and I know many, has to do with previous damage to the nervous system which makes them susceptible ... What causes this damage is unknown by me but it could be fluoride, aluminum exposure, etc.

#4 - This discussion is about the health risks of this technology ... Are there other risks? ... Watch this ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLSn1F05iE4gbC04Kxigodwj2OBQ2MCDqn&params=OAFIAVgB&v=1ebMiax3MWY&mode=NORMAL&app=desktop

I have a few friends with EMF sensitivity. My uneducated opinion is that it goes along with other autoimmune illnesses. If your immune system is compromised, you are more sensitive to other things. It is often combined with fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue which makes you more sensitive to everything. One friend recovered from her EMF sensitivity as her other illness got better. In my opinion, treating for autoimmune disorder is the solution.
Try the Wahls diet - terrywahls.com/about-the-wahls-protocol/ - I have friends who have had great success with this diet. I am always trying to do it, but and short on will-power.... :(

Ahem, this is actually a known and recognized phenomena with either known or suspected physiological mechanisms - published in the Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy.

Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression

Take a look at this from https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...lds-fact-sheet. The wifi is at too low of level of exposure to be a carcinogen.

It takes time for government to catch up with the science. The National Toxicology Program published a 25 million dollar study which is one of the largest and most comprehensive studies on cell phone radiation and cancer. In the study the rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed two types of cancers, glioma, a brain tumor, and schwannoma, a tumor in the heart. The summary includes, “Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to RFR could have broad implications for public health.”

“Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer” “It’s the moment we’ve all been dreading.”-Mother Jones
“A major U.S. government study on rats has found a link between cellphones and cancer, an explosive finding in the long-running debate about whether mobile phones cause health effects.”- Wall Street Journal

You can find the full study here: https://biorxiv.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

Take a look at this from https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...lds-fact-sheet. The wifi is at too low of level of exposure to be a carcinogen.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

...”

“Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer” “It’s the moment we’ve all been dreading.”-Mother Jones
“A major U.S. government study on rats has found a link between cellphones and cancer, an explosive finding in the long-running debate about whether mobile phones cause health effects.”- Wall Street Journal

You can find the full study here: https://biorxiv.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html

---

The Mother Jones article you cited also includes the following paragraph:

Potentially confounding the results, the rats exposed to radiation on average lived longer than those that weren't. Some outside reviewers argued that the study's authors should have given more weight to that caveat. Reviewers were also puzzled that the unexposed control rats didn't exhibit the usual number of brain tumors. "I am unable to accept the authors' conclusions," wrote Michael Lauer, the deputy director of the National Institute of Health's office of extramural research.

So maybe cellphone radiation helps you live longer!

The study had a variety of other problems, as pointed out by ARS Technica:

Study that found cell phones cause cancer in rats is riddled with red flags

Here's an excerpt:

The study, which was not properly peer reviewed—despite what some outlets have reported—is chock full of red flags: small sample sizes, partially reported results, control oddities, statistical stretches, and a slim conclusion. In short, “there is nothing in this report that can be regarded to be statistically significant," Donald Berry, a biostatistics professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, told Ars. "The authors should have used the 'black box warning.'"

Full article is here.

Beyond that, as someone else pointed out, there hasn't been a spike in cancers since cellphones and wifi showed up. If indeed they cause a small incremental cancer risk, it would pale in comparison to the risk we expose ourselves to every day by stepping into a motor vehicle.

Also in rat studies the rats may be exposed to more than a person would be exposed to in order to see effects. Remember the old cyclomate studies that resulted in it being banned in the US? I remember the rats were given the equivalent dose to a human drinking gallons of the stuff.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

...The study had a variety of other problems, as pointed out by ARS Technica:...

---

Apart from the health detriments consequent to chronic, undue exposure to EMF radiation, the dangers and hazards of structural fires associated with Smart Meters are daunting.

Alarming empirical peer reviews coming from meter readers, installers, fire marshalls, civic authorities, and other personnel with direct experience in the field have already resulted in massive recalls of Smart Meters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Lest we become overconfident that these fires can't/don't occur here, remember that close to the time when smeters were first being "deployed", within the same month of April 2011, both Coddingtown and the Santa Rosa Mall had mysterious "electrical" fires and explosions in their panel boxes. Being active commercial establishments, it is unlikely these fires could be blamed on old faulty wiring.

Electrical fire causes power outage at Coddingtown JC Penney store

‘Smart’ Meters Explode, Cause Fire in Santa Rosa Mall

Fast forward to December 18, 2012, at a CPUC hearing in Santa Rosa, where long-time meter reader Pat Wrigley blew the whistle in no uncertain terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINK4U0g02o

Fires caused by superior old-style mechanical analog meters are unheard of. They last virtually forever. There are multiple reasons why Smart meters and their installation cause fires. One is the materials themselves. Analog meters had Bakelite backing plates, with glass covers, able to withstand higher temperatures. Whereas Smart meters of Chinese manufacture have cheap plastic backing plates, with plastic covers. Inferior seals leak, allowing moisture to enter and corrode electrical connections and electronic components.

Unlike analog meters, Smart meters have no surge protection. Where surges have occurred, whole blocks of smeters exploded. Typically when this happens, the utility rushes out to remove evidence from the crime scene, and quickly replaces the burnt out meter with guess what? --another not-so Smart meter. Any damage beyond the meter to the toasted household wiring, is the responsibility of the homeowner.
Furthermore, unlike analog meters, Smart meters are susceptible to voltage transients.

The main culprit in smeter fires is arcing, for which there are at least four separate causes. Arcing can be a very fickle phenomenon, and can take years to fully develop into a fire. To save money (think Flint water), smeter installations are contracted out to unqualified technicians with minimal training, not to duly certified electricians. They are paid not by the hour, but by the number of installations. So they have an incentive to hurry. When they disconnect an analog meter from its base, then quickly plug in a new Smeter to the same base, they twice cause momentary arcing at the plugs if there is any electrical load underway inside the home or business--which there usually is. Due to arcing, the electrical plug connections are no longer clean. This may be of no consequence in the short run, but gradually those damaged connections will surely deteriorate to the point of further arcing and eventual kindling. It's like a ticking time bomb on the side of your house--you never know when it will go off. Installations under load are just the first cause of arcing.

The second cause is poor installation resulting in distortions of the female tabs of the plug, especially when the old meter is yanked out and/or the new one jammed in carelessly.

A third cause is that the (male) blades of the new smeters are often thinner than those of the analog meters they replace, resulting in a loose, potentially arcing fit.

A fourth cause is the not-so-smart remote disconnect feature of smeters--hear Pat Wrigley's testimony cited above.

For an excellent summary, less theoretical and more technical, of this incendiary predicament and its ominous implications for electrical safety, a must-see is Brian Thiesen's succinct and informative presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MfiNYzdi24

Sebastopol, you're already in a fortunate position. Stay ahead of the game by keeping your analog meters and avoiding tragic fires resulting in the trouble and expense of eventual smeter recalls.

Ronald L Melnick, PhD, led the design of the NTP/NIEHS Rodent Study. Melnick was a Senior Toxicologist and Director of Special Programs in the Environmental Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health, and is now retired.
________________

Correcting Misinformation About Health Effects Studies on Cell Phone Radiation

I am compelled to write this letter because of the numerous incorrect and misleading statements made by Aaron Carroll, a pediatric professor at Indiana University School of Medicine (Upshot, New York Times, May 31, 2016) in his critique of the cell phone study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

1) The statement that the NTP report had been “shopped for review, but had not been accepted by any editors” is blatantly wrong and makes one wonder where Carroll obtained such false information or did he simply decide to make up his own facts.

2) While Carroll notes that this was a study in rats, he neglects to note that every known human carcinogen induced tumors in animals when adequately tested. Animals are used as models in toxicity and carcinogenicity studies because it is unethical to intentionally expose humans to agents that might cause an adverse health effect such as cancer that has a long latency period between exposure and manifestation of disease.

3) The finding of significant increases of cancer in male rats but not in female rats is presented as contempt of the data; however, Carroll neglects to note that such findings are common in animal studies especially at sites that have higher background rates in male rats than females. This gender difference might be a consequence of low statistical power, an issue that I comment on below.

4) Carroll claims that control rats “dying early could be responsible for all the significant results of the study.” This statement is wrong for at least two reasons: First, there was no statistical difference in survival between control male rats and those exposed to CDMA at 6 W/Kg (the group with the highest rate of gliomas and heart schwannomas); at week 94, survival of rats in these two groups were the same. Second, no glial cell hyperplasias (potential pre-cancerous lesions) or heart schwannomas were observed in any control rat, even though glial cell hyperplasia was detected in a CDMA-exposed rat as early at week 58 and heart schwannomas were detected as early as week 70 in exposed rats.

5) Carroll seems to endorse the incorrect view that because the study had low statistical power, it is likely to have “an increased risk of being a false positive.” However, having low statistical power means that there is a greater chance for a false negative rather than a false positive result. That is, there is a high probability of accepting the no-effect hypothesis even when a true effect exists.

6) Carroll warns against accepting results from the NTP study, which he refers to as an “imperfect rat study.” He is probably unaware that the design of this study was presented at an annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society prior to the start of these studies. The overwhelming opinion expressed by the meeting participants was that this would be the largest and most comprehensive study in animals exposed to cell phone radiation, and that the results from this study would trump all other animal carcinogenicity studies of this agent.

7) Carroll criticizes the usefulness of human case-control studies while praising cohort studies. Actually both types of studies are important, though each has its own limitations. Carroll neglects to note that cohort cancer studies are reliable if they adequately capture the long latency period for cancer development as well as the actual characteristic of cell phone use by individuals in these studies (e.g., use of speakers, head sets, frequency and duration of calls, type of phone, etc.). Exposure misclassifications in cohort studies tend to increase the chances of a negative result.

8) While Carroll argues against a relationship between brain cancer and cell phone use because the incidence of brain cancers have not increased in the United States since the late 1980s, he neglects to note that unfortunately the incidence of highly lethal glioblastomas has increased during that same time period.

In my view, a pediatrician would be acting irresponsibly if he or she knew and understood the implications of the human and animal cancer data on cell phone radiation and did not offer precautionary advice to the parents of his or her patients.

—Ronald L Melnick, PhD

https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-nyt

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

The Mother Jones article you cited also includes the following paragraph:

Potentially confounding the results, the rats exposed to radiation on average lived longer than those that weren't. Some outside reviewers argued that the study's authors should have given more weight to that caveat. Reviewers were also puzzled that the unexposed control rats didn't exhibit the usual number of brain tumors. "I am unable to accept the authors' conclusions," wrote Michael Lauer, the deputy director of the National Institute of Health's office of extramural research.

So maybe cellphone radiation helps you live longer!

---

I am still not very concerned about EMF risks of smart meters, but I do have concerns about their electrical safety and privacy issues. 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.

In any case, the Sebastopol City Council established a moratorium on any installations of smart meters "until such time as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) completes its Phase 2 hearings on community opt-out" .

I think the council should address whether the moratorium is still in place, and if so, it should be enforced.

Barry

I don't have a strong opinion about radiation dangers. If forced, I would say it's very Sebastopolian. The danger that I see doesn't seem to be discussed. That danger is the taking over of our society by large corporations.

PGE went to smart meters to lower their costs. They can get rid of all the meter readers and their vehicles for the one time cost of installing the smart meters. In a normal business some of the savings would be passed on to customers. Not only haven't they done that, but they are using the smart meters to raise the amount we pay for electricity by billing according to overall hourly usage. That means the more we all use, the more we all pay. Now you know where the term "smart meter" came from.

We have been betrayed by the PUC. They are supposed to be the watchdog that protects us. Instead, they have been purchased lock, stock and barrel by PGE. Can you think of another reason PGE can get away with such behavior?

In the next four years things will get even worse for us. When do we make a stand? The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be and the stronger the government forces will be.

Please let me know if you see merit in my argument.

Old Granddad

PGE can get rid of all the meter readers and their vehicles for the one time cost of installing the smart meters.

One time cost? I don't think so:

Congressional Testimony: ‘Smart’ meters have a life of 5 to 7 years.

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 would be sorry to see possibly good paying jobs go away in my community though. The Smartmeters would allow me to more carefully monitor my power usage. Even though my power all comes from the Geysers since the electrons come from all sorts of power plants, any savings I could add would be beneficial. But I certainly see your point. Just remember that the majority of Sonoma County has this hybrid power scheme.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by OldGranddad:

I don't have a strong opinion about radiation dangers. If forced, I would say it's very Sebastopolian. The danger that I see doesn't seem to be discussed. That danger is the taking over of our society by large corporations....

---