Has anything more come of PG&E smartmeter opt-out?

[Buttons]

Thank you Howard.

My three comments:

Your precautionary principal argument would seem to support removal of all cell phones and towers. It seems that you're saying the evidence against cell phones is far greater than that against smart meters. I'm at a loss as to why no emergency ordinance was enacted that would banish cell phones and towers.

I'm also unclear as to how those with such sensitivity to EMF can survive in our modern society. Cell towers, radio towers, tv towers, wifi nodes (Comcast has several dozen spread throughout Sebastopol), wifi in schools, wifi in nearly all homes and stores, emergency agency transmitters, Bluetooth, rf tags in retail products; these must drive the anti-EMF people batty. If they truly are so sensitive, how do they survive day to day?

I'm embarrassed that my town council has taken up this anti-science alternative universe in which symbolic gestures trump reality.

Howard

[spam1]

My friend, there is a context here to consider, along with a wide-ranging array of available facts...along with a big, fat, legitimate range of physiological differences and genuine sensitivities among individuals -- like it or not; the latter is a fact.
Oy.

A "fact" is a premise presumed to be true generally supported by wide-ranging evidence, or from our WikiFriends:

The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

I do not think that there has been -any- reasonable (reasonable meaning derived from a reasoned and rational argument) evidence that EMF sensitivity exists, just as there has been no reasonable evidence of the effectiveness of of homeopathic dilutions, or astral projections.

I use as my rationale the evidence of large numbers: if there did exist such a phenomena as EMF sensitivity, then in the 4.6 billion subjects that have been experimented on (cell phone users), at least some would present themselves to academic centers and be confirmed. Look at the numbers...suppose that the 11 people who spoke at the latest Sebastopol council meeting were representative: (4.5x10^9)*(11/8000)=6.2 million possibly sensitive. I just used scholar.google.com to search of "EMF symptoms and sensitivity in humans due to phones", and the best (latest) study was:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072835/

which concluded:

The present data, along with current scientific evidence, led to the conclusion that short-term rf-emf exposure from mobile phone technology is not related to levels of well-being or physical symptoms in IEI-EMF individuals. Furthermore, IEI-EMF individuals are unable to detect the presence of rf-emf under double-blind conditions. It remains, however, that IEI-EMF individuals present with a range of distressing and serious symptoms and often have a very poor quality of life. Given the current findings, together with findings of related research (Rubin et al. 2005), it is imperative to determine what factors other than low-level rf-emf exposure could be possible causes of the symptoms suffered by IEI-EMF individuals, so that appropriate treatment strategies can be developed.

as well as this study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...20518/abstract

In this study, two volunteer groups of 18 self-reported EHS and 19 non-EHS persons were tested for both sham and real RF exposure from CDMA cellular phones with a 300 mW maximum exposure that lasted half an hour. We investigated not only the physiological parameters such as heart rate, respiration rate, and heart rate variability (HRV), but also various subjective symptoms and the perception of EMF. In conclusion, RF exposure did not have any effects on physiological parameters or subjective symptoms in either group. As for EMF perception, there was no evidence that the EHS group better perceived EMF than the non-EHS group. Bioelectromagnetics 30:641–650, 2009. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

or this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...13935108000601

This review showed that the large majority of individuals who claims to be able to detect low level RF-EMF are not able to do so under double-blind conditions. If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet. The available observational studies do not allow differentiating between biophysical from EMF and nocebo effects.

or this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...48969705003694

In conclusion, based on the limited studies available, there is no valid evidence for an association between impaired well-being and exposure to mobile phone radiation presently. However, the limited quantity and quality of research in this area do not allow to exclude long-term health effects definitely.

[dzerach]

Two irrational points, just for you: a cell phone physically contacts my body: my actual head, my ears (very personal). A smartmeter is directly attached to someone's private property, their home, their castle (differently than the previous precedent, the electrical meter). SO, Where are you drawing YOUR line in this Aquarian adventure into utilitarianism? Would you like something attached to your car? When would the line be crossed for you?

Instead of alluding to "objective reality," as if there is one (!), what can be more accurately and usefully referenced is "consensual reality," or "conventional reality." Of course, experiential reality rules. DIRECT experience. Mine. Yours.

Are you at all familiar with ontology? I've studied way too much Tibetan Buddhist logic to briefly discuss with you what "a fact" is. Not to mention the funding politics of research. Quantum physics, anyone? My stance is unreasoned and irrational, eh? You are also implying that facts are not perspective-based (!) and are never interpreted or marshalled for a theory, a proof (they always speak for themselves) and that no scientific facts can be marshalled for the "against" side. That's just not true.

First of all, I agree with the general idea that it's inevitable the available technology would be pursued by a public utility...in an attempt to increase efficiency and make more money. However, I don't think a separation between science and the study of ethics is inevitable, or: technology and the study of ethics.

My earlier underlying point that went unnoticed was that the secular German Jew who could not return to 1930s Germany, Albert Einstein, was personally and directly adversely affected by fascism. I'm guessing he knew what it was when he saw it. Further, he even understood that grave mistakes can be made in the application of science and technology due to human limitations of ego.

Fascism is worth fighting against. You see, HOW a societally-important entity with pervasive power proceeds to accomplish their goals -- this is also important.

You are also implying that a segment of the population simply is not more highly sensitive, truly, than the rest? I would direct you to Elaine Aron and her work with the HSP concept -- The Highly Sensitive person. It's a fact. It's also based on research.

A "fact" is a premise presumed to be true generally supported by wide-ranging evidence, or from our WikiFriends:

I do not think that there has been -any- reasonable (reasonable meaning derived from a reasoned and rational argument) evidence that EMF sensitivity exists, just as there has been no reasonable evidence of the effectiveness of of homeopathic dilutions, or astral projections.

I use as my rationale the evidence of large numbers: if there did exist such a phenomena as EMF sensitivity, then in the 4.6 billion subjects that have been experimented on (cell phone users), at least some would present themselves to academic centers and be confirmed. Look at the numbers...suppose that the 11 people who spoke at the latest Sebastopol council meeting were representative: (4.5x10^9)*(11/8000)=6.2 million possibly sensitive. I just used scholar.google.com to search of "EMF symptoms and sensitivity in humans due to phones", and the best (latest) study was:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072835/

which concluded:


as well as this study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...20518/abstract

or this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...13935108000601

or this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...48969705003694

[podfish]

Two irrational points, just for you: a cell phone physically contacts my body: my actual head, my ears (very personal). A smartmeter is directly attached to someone's private property, their home, their castle (differently than the previous precedent, the electrical meter). ....
Are you at all familiar with ontology? ...
You are also implying that a segment of the population simply is not more highly sensitive, truly, than the rest? I would direct you to Elaine Aron and her work with the HSP concept -- The Highly Sensitive person. It's a fact. It's also based on research.

none of that is a response to his argument. His point, that if you have eleven sensitives in Sebastopol you'd expect there to be millions worldwide, is very defensible by any definition of reality that acknowledges the concept of number theory. His inference that, given such large numbers, more than a few cases would likely be noticed by even the most prejudiced researchers, may be slightly more easily challenged. The existence of single (Aron) or even of a few researchers who are convinced themselves, but who are unable to convince a large number of their peers, isn't really significant evidence against Spam1's position. This is extremely analogous to the global warming debate; you can find possibly many outliers, a few with credentials comparable to the best of those holding the majority opinion, but the weight of numbers counts as evidence for the majority opinion.

And of course the majority can be wrong, but as the cliche goes that's the smart way to bet.

You've raised physics and Einstein (although the "Quantum Physics" trope is off-putting; it's often used to say "anything really weird may in fact be true"). Note that although Einstein's initial proposition was considered outlandish, and his arguments took a while to be accepted, he proposed ways to test their validity. An important part of his work was identifying such tests, which could be widely reproduced. We don't have widely reproduced evidence of HSPs; instead, we have frequent failure to demonstrate it. A serious attempt to prove the existence of HSP would include a serious effort to understand why the other experiments didn't support the idea.

Your irrational points actually make a better argument. We do resist having anything impinge on our bodies or our possessions without our consent. That doesn't need scientific backing - in our culture, anyway, it's considered a personal prerogative. And fighting fascism (as represented by PGE???) is always a good idea on general principle, even when the fascists are pursuing generally worth-while goals.

[Peace Voyager]

I told the City Council they'd need to work to replace the head of the CPUC in order keep the Smart Meter assault from the citizens.
Peevey is as bad as PG&E. Look for my next post on their ties to weather modification.

State utilities board slams Sebastopol over SmartMeter ban

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...09946&tc=yahoo

By DEREK MOORE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Friday, March 1, 2013 at 5:51 p.m.

Last Modified: Friday, March 1, 2013 at 5:59 p.m.


The California Public Utilities Commission called Sebastopol's moratorium on the installation of SmartMeters “unlawful and unenforceable” in a letter sent to city officials Friday.



The strongly worded correspondence represents the latest official response to the city's position.


PG&E also said the city lacks the authority to impose a moratorium on SmartMeters and the company vowed to continue installing the devices within city limits...

[dzerach]

none of that is a response to his argument. His point, that if you have eleven sensitives in Sebastopol you'd expect there to be millions worldwide, is very defensible by any definition of reality that acknowledges the concept of number theory.

Kindly put, I don't understand how this is scientific. You haven't accounted for the many variables involved. We don't really have a control group. The way PG&E has set up the opt-out, someone would have to be courageous to opt out, not just wanting to do so. Remember, it costs money to opt out. A lot of people don't want to make waves or be viewed as different by others, misperceived. Etc.

The EMF research is ongoing, and not conclusive as a body of research? For example, babies, children, elderly folks, apartment complexes etc. are they studied as much? Hasn't the DECT phone been banned in some countries in schools? On and on.

The existence of single (Aron) or even of a few researchers who are convinced themselves, but who are unable to convince a large number of their peers, isn't really significant evidence against Spam1's position. This is extremely analogous to the global warming debate; you can find possibly many outliers, a few with credentials comparable to the best of those holding the majority opinion, but the weight of numbers counts as evidence for the majority opinion.

Sensitivity is a recurring issue in any smartmeter/EMF discussion. Your implied, exclusive definition of what qualifies as scientific research is not widely accepted. The social sciences, anyone?

I'm sure that neither you nor Spam-key intend to needlessly trash the social sciences, which is part of science. Enough to say that employers rely on their findings. For example, the Meyers Briggs findings and measurements are long-standing, widely accepted, and commonly applied in professional situations; the well-established veracity of an "INFP" type would be relevant to our sensitivity discussion.

https://www.myersbriggs.org/

As to HSP -- more widely accepted and built upon than you are guessing!

HSP - "Aron and colleagues developed the notion of sensory processing sensitivity (SPS). Studying it by using the HSP Scale, developed by first interviewing people who saw themselves as "highly sensitive," has resulted in a growing body of interesting research, using a variety of methods (genetics, functional magnetic resonance imaging, experiments, and surveys), and obtaining results equal to or stronger than those found with the typical traits used to study adult personality."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_sensitive_person

If you choose, go to wikipedia and zip down to the "Research" section.

And of course the majority can be wrong, but as the cliche goes that's the smart way to bet.

Well, I respect your intuition. Cultivating and trusting one's internal Intuition is much more reliable than solely relying on science because even scientific endeavors can become subject to social corruption.

But historically, in modern societies, the majority shifts, back and forth, and were frequently proven to have been dead-wrong -- kinda in scary ways too. The majority is sometimes disenfranchised. The majority usually wants to be led.

You've raised physics and Einstein (although the "Quantum Physics" trope is off-putting; it's often used to say "anything really weird may in fact be true").

What I thought was commonly the "take away" from Quantum Physics, even which is now being superceded, is that, ultimately, matter ("object") is fluid in time and space, an infinitely shifting target, modified by the very act of observing. Makes sense since matter is also energy. But I agree, we don't live our human lives that far down the rabbit hole.

We don't have widely reproduced evidence of HSPs; instead, we have frequent failure to demonstrate it. A serious attempt to prove the existence of HSP would include a serious effort to understand why the other experiments didn't support the idea.

This is mis-information. Please see my HSP paragraph, above. Especially note: "...and obtaining results equal to or stronger than those found with the typical traits used to study adult personality."

Your irrational points actually make a better argument. We do resist having anything impinge on our bodies or our possessions without our consent. That doesn't need scientific backing - in our culture, anyway, it's considered a personal prerogative. And fighting fascism (as represented by PGE???) is always a good idea on general principle, even when the fascists are pursuing generally worth-while goals.

Well said. I agree. Makes PG&E slightly "rude"? Now, the "worthwhile pursuit" part does escape me. The rest of this is in response to your astonishment that someone could consider PG&E in a fascist light.

No, I don't think PG&E are fascists, or corrupt. Self-interest appears to be what they are governed by -- is that supposed to be their sole mission? The whole checks and balances operation swirling about them abused power. I DO think the smartmeter run was a fascist-TYPE of move -- they're profit-mongers, they found the technology expedient to install.

Forcible suppression of opposition?: Yes they are doing that. Does it have to be direct, brute, physical force? No. It can be much more sophisticated and subtle, and not even intentional.

A tendency toward strong, autocratic control: Yes, that fits. Autocratic: Seemingly so by necessity, in order to deliver electricity. Because once Edison way back when got the bright idea to sell electricity in the first place....another story.

Economic and social regimentation? This does not fit.
However, they certainly are subjecting things to a certain unnecessary uniformity! The PD would have us believe Seb. is the only town in the state to have objected -- not so.

PG&E is one of the largest utilities in the United States. Society has a pretty big dependency on the electrical grid (understatement). The smartmeter project represents an intensification of their activity. Jobs have been lost. The benefits to users unclear. A case where marketing created the need -- and well after the fact I might add -- instead of an already existing, pressing need fulfilled by an added service.

As Margie, a pregnant cop in the Coen Brothers movie, Fargo, wonders at the end: " And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money ya know. Don't ch'ya know that? (sigh)."

The smaller, contributing entities abiding within a larger, more powerful AND over-centralized system were not given due consideration. They easily could have been. When this happens to the point where it becomes regularly oppressive, then yes, I feel that's leaning toward a fascist attitude.

We can all agree that technology is constantly changing? Once installed, the potential EMF level, and what the smartmeter is used for -- or its future cousin -- all of that could easily change: and ever so gradually, which always makes for fewer objections along the way.

Perhaps emissions will even lower. A future (or a NOW): EMF waves are just another form of pollution that need to be regulated? (More money spent ad nauseam).

Irregardless, once a gizmo like a smartmeter is laid in, the game begins. The smartmeter is not the endpoint. PG&E could have called it the startmeter.

Collectively, we haven't imagined the future very well. We just react react react. Creativity: an involuntary, subconscious interplay between technology and application (form and content). Look at the developments in Art when new forms arise: they determine content. A nation should always be attuned to their "collective subconscious" (one of those crazy Jungian discoveries)-- of course, we are not. And we have a doozy.

[podfish]

I'm sure that neither you nor Spam-key intend to needlessly trash the social sciences, which is part of science. Enough to say that employers rely on their findings.

you shouldn't be so sure!

and, it's not much of an endorsement to say "employers rely on their findings".


Despite my frequent posts that encourage considering scientific evidence, and expressing skepticism about positions that have weak or no scientific justification, I'm not an uncritical booster of the scientific establishment. I do think the scientific method is an extremely successful technique for discovering reality and debunking incorrect ideas. Its greatest strength is that it inherently provides for self-correction over time, and discourages absolutist claims. Its big weakness is that people, who by nature seem to respond favorably to absolutist claims and seem relatively uninterested in self-correction, don't understand how to apply it, to filter the data required for analysis, or interpret the results in context. The "social sciences" are extremely vulnerable to this, and often seem only peripherally scientific. This problem is pretty well understood and fields like psychology and economics are becoming more rigorous over the years. And that's not to say that scientific analysis hasn't been successfully applied to those fields of knowledge for a long time. But by many peoples' standards, they've got a way to go yet.