Home » From The Readers, Letters to the Editor » Arizona Judge Calls APS Smart Meters Extortion

Arizona Judge Calls APS Smart Meters Extortion

Smart Meters face radiation and fire hazard issues while failing to properly monitor electrical usage.

Sedona AZ (December 9, 2012) – The following is a SedonaEye.com Letter to the Editor received from a Sedona resident:

Below is the letter I sent to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) in response to their recently proposed “smart” meter guidelines.

I hope you will read it to see how completely unresponsive the ACC is to ratepayers, and how totally whipped they are by the monopoly utilities. The situation is so bad it is my opinion that it can only be explained by incompetence or corruption. Read my letter and decide for yourself.

I also hope that after you read my letter you will contact your electricity provider and demand NO “smart” meter. If you have a “smart” meter tell them to replace it with analog. If you do not have a “smart” meter say you do not consent to one, and demand to be placed on the “opt out” list.

Remember, if you do not object, if you do not opt out, you are giving the utility your “implied consent” to install a “smart” meter.

To opt out with APS call (602) 371-7171 or (800) 253-9405.

Don’t let them bamboozle you. Depending on who answers the phone, your conversation may be an exercise in assertiveness!

An easier way with APS is via email. Send an email to aps@aps.com and tell them you want to be on the “smart meter opt out list.” Include your name, service address, and account number. Ask for written confirmation.

Expressing your displeasure to the ACC would also be a huge help. If you don’t want to compose your own letter, strip off this intro and resend my letter below. Just add something at the top like “I agree with this letter. No “smart” meters!” and include your name and town.

The Commissioners’ email addresses are below in the “To:” heading. To get your comments posted to their “smart” meter docket Cc mailmaster@azcc.gov .

Let others know by forwarding this article:

From: Warren Woodward <w6345789@yahoo.com>

Subject: ACC smart meter guidelines = corrupt or just incompetent?

To: pierce-web@azcc.gov, newman-web@azcc.gov, burns-web@azcc.gov, stump-web@azcc.gov, kennedy-web@azcc.gov

Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2012, 8:00 PM

Warren Woodward
55 Ross Circle
Sedona, Arizona 86336
928 204 6434

December 3, 2012

Arizona Corporation Commission

Docket Control Center

1200 West Washington Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: Docket # E-00000C-11-0328

Commissioners;

The eight “smart” meter guidelines proposed by your staff are an absolute affront to ratepayers. The “guidelines” seem to be straight from the utilities’ wish list. The “guidelines” reflect none of the concerns raised by ratepayers at the open hearings convened by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) in September 2011 and March 2012. Nor do the “guidelines” address any of the concerns submitted by ratepayers to the docket the ACC set up for “smart” meters. The “guidelines” therefore call into question the ACC staff’s competence and integrity. Is staff corrupt or just incompetent? Either way, a thorough investigation is needed.

I will go through the eight “guidelines” one by one.

Guideline #1:

Home Smart Meter after it caught on fire – meters are not UL approved. Homeowner insurance policies may not cover fire damage that results from unapproved devices.

Unless authorized by the customer or the Arizona Corporation Commission, electric usage measurement will not be specific to any particular appliance or electrical device. Meters with the capability to only measure a single electrical device or a group of such devices will be permitted under this guideline.

It is totally unacceptable and illegal for the ACC to “authorize” electrical usage measurement specific to any particular appliance or device. The ACC lacks this authority under any circumstances due to the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states,The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….”

The ACC would also be in violation of state and federal wiretapping laws. In short, do not even think about it.

The second sentence above is so poorly written it is difficult to understand if the guideline is intended to mean that “smart” meters can only measure general, non-specific electrical use, or if “smart” meters can be used to measure one specific appliance, say a TV or groups of TVs, but no other appliance. If the latter then, again, do not even think about it.

Guideline #2:

Unless authorized by the customer, the utility will not share customer-specific data except with entities under contract with the utility and bound to comparable confidentiality provisions as would apply to the utility itself. However, such authorization is not required if the data is requested by law enforcement or other public agencies, including the Commission or its staff, or is used in conjunction with legitimate collection activities, or to provide safe and reliable service to the customer. Customer-specific data will never be sold without customer approval. Usage data unaccompanied by any other information that would associate the usage data with a specific customer (e.g., customer name, service address, telephone number, SS# or EIN, etc.) is not considered “customer-specific data” for the purposes of this guideline.

Smart Meter that caught on fire after installation

Utilities should not have any more customer usage data than what they received previously with analog meters. Gathering information from us then telling us to trust the utilities with it is not acceptable. The utilities’ job is to provide electricity at the cheapest possible price, not to gather information.

At the last ACC “smart” meter meeting I witnessed the utilities admit they did not have the source codes for “smart” meters, and that therefore they really had no idea what data was being collected and who exactly could access it.

That should shock anyone into realizing how totally insecure ratepayers’ data in a wireless “smart” grid really is.

Any alleged “safeguards” such as are expressed in the above “guideline” are meaningless in today’s world of hackers and warrant-less wiretaps and searches (even Gen. Petraeus found he was not exempt from a warrant-less search).

And speaking of Petraeus, just last March he was enthusing about the spying opportunities opened up by the new “internet of things.” He was excited about the ability to turn people’s electronic gadgetry and appliances into intelligence gathering stations.

Read Wired.com’s article, “ CIA Chief: We’ll Spy on You Through Your Dishwasher” here: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/ .

According to a very recent MIT Technology Review article, “Government and law enforcement demands that Google share user data are growing 25 percent every six months.”

As government fishing expeditions increase, it is not a stretch of the imagination to think that something similar will happen with ratepayers’ electrical usage data. ( article: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/507441/the-us-governments-growing-appetite-for-google-users-data/ )

For over a year now, the cyber insecurity of “smart” meters has been pointed out repeatedly to the ACC by myself and many others, both in person and in writing. When will the ACC start paying attention? Why has the ACC staff ignored the very real and documented vulnerability “smart” meters pose to ratepayers? Why is the ACC parroting the utilities’ paper promises? Why isn’t the ACC focused on making the utilities provide us with electricity at the cheapest possible price instead of enabling them to spy on us?

Guideline #3:

Customer specific data wirelessly transmitted between meters and the utility must be encrypted and/or password protected. The utility will use recognized industry security practices and controls and will continue to evaluate emerging technologies and standards in order to update its security practices, as appropriate, to protect customer specific data.

These sentences are just more empty promises. Everything is hackable. In today’s world, once any information leaves someone there can be no guarantee that the information will remain private – none.

Cyber insecurity is why former CIA director James Woolsey has deemed the “smart” grid “stupid”. Watch him say that here: http://www.energynow.com/video/2011/08/10/preview-mix-james-woolsey . Who would know more about security, the ACC and the utilities or him?

Guideline #4:

Data from each meter must use unique identifier(s) associated with the customer‘s service to ensure that each customer is billed only for his/her own usage.

Sounds great but this, too, is hackable.

As investigative reporter Jon Rappoport asks:

Remember Jonathan James, who at the age of 16 put a back-door into DOD’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s server, and stole software from NASA computers that set temperature and humidity at the International Space Station?

Recall Adrian Lamo, who hacked into security systems at B of A, Citigroup, and Cingular?

Keven Poulsen, who hacked into federal computers that record wiretaps?

Tsuromu Shimura, who used a simple cell phone to to hack into phone calls all over Capitol Hill?

The 18-year-old Greek boy, “n-splitter,” who was arrested for hacking into systems at Interpol, the Pentagon, the FBI, and the NSA?

I won’t even bother mentioning hackers who are hired by the NSA and other agencies.

And, although I could, I won’t bother listing even more hacking reports, including personal ones.

If you do not understand how vulnerable the so-called “smart” grid and “smart” meters are by now then you never will, and at some point we will all suffer from your ignorance and neglect of this issue.

Guideline #5:

The utility will not control or shut off individual appliances without customer consent or unless authorized by an approved Arizona Corporation Commission tariff or program.

This sounds reasonable but in fact it opens the door to a future in which the ACC could in fact decide what appliances they could remotely shut off. Nobody should have that kind of power.

Guideline #6:

The utility may shut off electric service per Arizona Corporation Commission rules or other Commission-approved procedures. The utility will abide by current regulations or other Commission-approved procedures with respect to shut-off of service and curtailment in power emergencies.

So, if there is no change to ACC “rules and procedures”, why is this item here? Is it here to lend some kind of legitimacy to the rest of the nonsense? To make it seem like there really are safeguards?

Guideline #7:

The utility will only use equipment that limits data transmission, so as to keep radio frequency exposure within the limits established by the Federal Communications Commission.

Here is where I start to wonder if the ACC staff is not just incompetent but corrupt. How else can hours of testimony and pages of emails from those suffering from the effects of overexposure to wireless “smart” meter microwave radiation be so easily ignored?

In the ACC staff’s cover letter accompanying these proposed “guidelines”, staff claims to have formulated the “guidelines” “based on a review of filings in the docket and the Utilities’ comments”. Baloney is the polite word to describe staff’s self-assessment of their “review”. The filings in the docket are loaded with both personal accounts and scientific reports concerning the dangers of “smart” meter radiation to the health of humans and all that lives. Likewise, the filings in the docket are loaded with the failure of the FCC to acknowledge the issue.

The docket would have even more information but it has recently come to my and others’ attention that not all of our submissions have been posted. So once again the question must be asked: Is that because of incompetence or corruption?

For more than a year now, it has been repeatedly pointed out to the ACC that the FCC exposure limits are hopelessly out of date and terribly inadequate. Again, when will the ACC pay attention? People’s health, their very lives are at stake. The ACC has heard first hand accounts of people who can no longer live in their wireless “smart” metered houses and neighborhoods yet the ACC just blows them off?! Are you afraid of the utilities you are supposed to regulate? Are you stupid? Lazy? Are you taking graft? What is it? Is it because those who suffer are a minority of the population that they can be so callously brushed aside in the utilities’ pursuit of profit?

Relying on the FCC’s radio frequency exposure guidelines is a pathetic excuse for inaction. They date to 1996. The FCC data only involves protection against thermal radiation (when human tissue is heated), and even then the FCC findings are not protective of sensitive populations such as children and pregnant women since the test population was average weight males.

Sadly – and negligently – FCC exposure guidelines do not cover non-thermal, low intensity radiation generated by “smart” meters and other wireless devices at the lower end of the microwave range. The FCC exposure guidelines are thus completely inapplicable for the microwave radiation emitted by “smart” meters. Again, this has been pointed out over and over to the ACC for more than a year now.

Here are two explanations of what I have just stated. They are written for the layperson. Read them.

SERIOUS FLAWS WIITH THE FCC RF//MW SAFETY STANDARDS

http://www.emrnetwork.org/pdfs/flaws.pdf

A Primer on FCC Guidelines for the Smart Meter Age

http://stopsmartmeters.org/2012/03/09/a-primer-on-the-fcc-guidelines-for-the-smart-meter-age/#skipmath

If there is anyone at the ACC who can understand scientific literature then here is a report that goes into more detail. The ACC has received this report many times before but evidently chose to ignore it. Assessment of Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Emissions from Smart Meters – http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/

Guideline #8:

The utility shall allow customers to request, and have installed, meters that do not transmit date wirelessly. For those customers that request to have a meter that is not capable of transmitting data wirelessly and where the utility is using only meters that transmit data wirelessly, the utility may propose a tariff, for Arizona Corporation Commission consideration, that would recover appropriate costs from such a customer.

Here is another guideline that causes me to question staff’s integrity. Just whose side are they on and why? Are they getting paid to do the utilities’ bidding? We need to know.

It is the utilities, in their insatiable greed, who want opt-out fees. And again, as has been pointed out to the ACC repeatedly both in person and in writing by myself and many others, opt out fees are bogus.

For the umpteenth time: There is no federal mandate requiring companies to force smart meters on customers.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 1252, “smart meters”, states that electric utilities shall provide such meters to those customers who request them. Therefore, people should have to “opt in”. We should not have to “opt out”. (Energy Policy Act is here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/html/PLAW-109publ58.htm )

In addition, there is no mandate that “smart” meters be wireless. Fiber optic would have been a safer alternative. Yet the utilities, bolstered by junk, tobacco-company-style “science”, rushed headlong into applying a bio-hazardous wireless technology. The utilities were allowed to get away with this due to the ACC’s apparent ignorance and subsequent neglect of its duty to protect the public.

What is remarkably callous and inexcusable is that even after being informed of the wireless microwave radiation dangers by scientists, medical professionals and people who actually suffer from radio frequency overexposure, the ACC still allows wireless “smart” meters and now has the audacity, the effrontery to propose a fee for those who wish to avoid it!

People will also want to opt out to avoid the other dangers “smart” meters pose. House fires, appliance damage, medical implant interference, over-billing, spying – these hazards have all been documented and brought to the ACC’s attention. We are now expected to pay a fee to avoid these hazards?! Are you co-conspirators in a protection racket or what?!

Opt out fees are extortion. As was pointed out by retired Arizona Superior Court Judge Howe at the March 23, 2012 hearing, charging ratepayers a fee to keep the safe analog meters they already have in order to avoid a rights-violating, bio-hazardous, not-UL-certified “smart” meter amounts to extortion.

There are no “appropriate costs” for any utility to “recover”. That is sheer fiction. Meter reading is not an additional or new cost to the utilities that needs to be “recovered”. It is part and parcel of the utilities’ business, something they have been doing since day one.

Doing away with meter readers, their vehicles and etc. has not saved any ratepayers anywhere one dime. The “operational savings” the utilities talk about do not go to the customer and are not reflected on bills.

Indeed, APS is still charging meter reading fees for those who have “smart” meters! When questioned about this at the last ACC “smart” meter meeting, APS said there were still costs associated with “infrastructure”. APS wants it both ways so ratepayers get charged no matter what. I think that’s fraud.

APS’s CEO made $5.66 million, up more than a million from the year before – not a bad raise in a down economy. Perhaps the “operational savings” are reflected in his and other executives’ excessive compensation. (Sickening side note: $1.44 million of the APS’s CEO pay was an “incentive plan” – as if his other $4.22 million was not “incentive” enough!)

In any case, when APS stops wasting money on advertising (which buys a compliant media), political donations (which buy compliant politicians), and charitable pursuits (which buy respect and legitimacy), when APS stops giving energy glutton businesses a better rate than homeowners, when executive pay for running a public monopoly is not obscenely excessive, then maybe a talk about fee increases would be appropriate. Under present circumstances it is definitely not.

It has also been repeatedly pointed out to the ACC by myself and many others that if meter reading is such a huge, costly concern then ratepayers could read their own meters and send in the results on a postcard or via email with a picture of the meter. This has been done successfully in rural areas, and one of the utilities even agreed this was viable at the last meeting. So again, this begs the question: Why is staff recommending what amounts to a rate increase?

Additionally – and this is most important – inherent in this guideline is the supremely arrogant assumption that utilities have some kind of right to set up a radio broadcasting station on the private property of ratepayers. Pay attention: Utilities have easement for a meter. Utilities do not have easement for a microwave radio broadcasting station that doubles as a meter with surveillance capabilities. Taking private property to set up radio stations is theft and trespass.

In conclusion, as a ratepayer, taxpayer and concerned citizen, the absolute ineptitude reflected in these guidelines, the total disregard for ratepayers and the blatant shilling for the monopoly utilities is a huge, huge disappointment. The proposed “guidelines” reflect the complete failure of the ACC to represent and respect the citizens who elected them.

At the March 23, 2012 hearing, it was pointed out that ACC staff had incompetently used the wrong device to analyze the radio frequency of a “smart” meter. I followed up on this in a letter hand delivered to each Commissioner asking what measures, if any, had been taken to correct staff. I asked,”Will they lose their jobs for this? Will pay be docked? Will someone at least correct them and tell them they need to do better?”

I was ignored, but my point – which was that staff gets a paycheck regardless of their performance – remains and is underscored by these pathetic and totally unacceptable “guidelines”. This is the sort of “work” myself and other Arizonans are paying for? It’s a disgrace, and a disgrace made worse by the fact that all the Commissioners and their staff had to do is listen to us.

We, the unpaid and independent volunteer voices are the only ones without an ulterior motive or corporate agenda. We have done all your work for you. We have researched this issue with a thoroughness that not one of you or your staff have done. We have been sending you the results of our research for well over a year now. Have you listened to anything we’ve said, read anything we’ve sent? It certainly does not seem so.

We elected you. We did not elect your staff or the monopoly utilities, yet they seem to be calling the shots. Your staff has proved themselves useless in looking out for ratepayers. That should be your job anyway. When will you do it?

Sincerely,
Warren Woodward

Cc: Governor Jan Brewer, Attorney General Tom Horne, Commissioner-elect Robert Burns, Commissioner-elect Susan Bitter Smith

For the best Sedona Arizona News and Views? Subscribe to www.SedonaEye.com today.

8 Comments

  1. Jean Jenks says:

    It’s great to receive the valuable information on opting out.

    Also, if needed, Warren has provided plenty of information on what to write to the Arizona Corporation Commission. We should be sure to include in our comments that Arizonans need to Opt-In, not Opt-Out, of the ACC’s “Smart” Meter requirement.

  2. Jana Shiloh says:

    12-11-12 Sedona City Council Presentation – Jana Shiloh, MA CCH HMA, Sedona resident

    Here is a letter recently sent to the CPUC by engineer Rob States:

    Two engineers have been diligently working on Smart Meter dirty power and RF issues – the combined team possess two MS degrees from MIT, a California P.E. license (Professional Engineer’s License), and a PhD from Stanford in Electrical Engineering, Magna Cum Laude. They have been working on this nearly continuously for the last four months.
    The scientific data tells us that 5% of the population will get sick immediately from RF disease, and another 10% will develop the disease over time. This means about 4.5 million people in California are potential victims.
    Since individuals with no history of RF disease are experiencing symptoms the first day the meter is installed, we can assume the meter’s RF emissions are not the only problem. The RF network is activated months after initial meter installation.

    Extensive measurements have demonstrated that all of the meters measured so far, including ABB, GE, and Landis Gyr, emit noise on the customer’s electric wiring in the form of high frequency voltage spikes, typically with an amplitude of 2 volts, but a frequency any ware from 4,000 Hertz, up to 60,000 Hz. The actual frequency of the phenomena is influenced by the devices that are plugged into the customer’s power. Some houses are much worse than others, and this observation has been confirmed by PG&E installers that have talked to us.

    Since 85% of the population is not immediately effected by this phenomena, the knowledge about what is causing symptoms in PG&E’s customers will be slow to evolve. We expect word of mouth to be the primary information source since the media is so disconnected from this phenomena.

    The scientific literature has studied microwave illness since the 1930′s when radar operators became ill. Radar equipment emits radiation that is intermittent, and recent scientific papers have increasingly reported that pulsed radiation is significantly worse than continuous radiation. Humans have been exposed to continuous microwave transmissions from radio for decades. Exposure that Smart Meters present to California citizens is new and unlike previous electromagnetic emissions.

    PG&E has published none of the functional specifications of the meters now being installed, including their BLOCK DIAGRAMS, SCHEMATICS, or BILL OF MATERIALS. The scientific community has been prevented from identifying any of the design problems prior to their installations.

    The decisions by PG&E and the CPUC to conduct NO SAFETY STUDIES has forced them to discover the current problem after the meters have been installed and after significant capital has been invested in this project. Even a rudimentary safety test with 100 randomly selected people would have probably uncovered this problem long before its appearance in PG&E’s customer base.

    The fix for preventing dirty power disease in PG&E customers is expensive. Because the dirty power must be stopped in the customer’s LOW IMPEDANCE house wiring, all of the filter components must handle high power, and therefore are expensive. Current estimates put the end customer cost at $500, and that does not include fixing dirty power interactions that Smart Meter causes with devices already in the customer’s home, such as computers, FAX machines, copiers, plasma TV’s, and the like. Merely treating 15% of the California households puts the total liability for after market problems at $2B, approximately equal to the entire cost of the existing program’s roll out.
    Though 15% of the population has early and obvious symptoms, a large number of microwave disease related health problems will not surface for some time. As science advances, the links between microwave disease and its sources will only improve, causing ever increasing liability for societal institutions that are responsible for the offending emissions. Though the cell phone industry has purchased immunity from liability through their extensive lobbying efforts, the experience of the tobacco and chemical industries has shown that this immunity can fade as priorities of the general population affects the political process.

    Though microwave disease is not directly observed in 85% of the population, the asymptomatic effects (meaning effects that have no apparent symptoms) are well published in the scientific literature, and span a wide variety of lethal and debilitating diseases, including cancers, auto immune diseases, suicide risk, depression, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), and a host of others. Steve Job’s pancreas and liver problems are particularly conspicuous when manifested in a life long vegetarian who was chronically exposed to pulsed microwave emissions from wi-fi, computer power supplies, and the like. Liability for microwave diseases could explode in the future, as data in the cell phone industry already suggests.

    Among the population of affected individuals, there are sure to be attorneys who are experienced in class actions suits, and who clearly recognize a $2B avoidable cost has been imposed on an unwilling public. This type of law suit has been responsible for some of the largest corporate liabilities in our civilization’s history, and has already affected PG&E and the CPUC in the past (i.e. hex-avalent chromium in Hinkley CA).

    Once the California real estate community becomes aware that 15% of the general population will no longer be able to live, work, or shop in their properties, the potential liability will be in the trillions of dollars, and will effect a population of wealthy individuals who have significant political influence in Sacramento. These entrepreneurs have been particularly skilled at legally punishing institutions that are responsible for declines in their asset values. In fact, the asset base of the retirement trust of California’s state employees is significantly exposed to California’s real estate market.

    A reasonable person could conclude that the potential liability PG&E currently faces, both immediately and in the evolving future, could be significantly larger than their asset base. Their long term survival as a corporation could be at risk, and a potential outcome could include the wholesale transfer of their asset base into receivership pending settlement of outstanding liabilities.

    Legal liability could force PG&E to approach the CPUC for a doubling of the existing utility rate. This would be a politically untenable request, and could result in the dissolution of the CPUC’s existing regulator authority.
    The future for both the CPUC and PG&E is uncertain, and potentially disastrous. A prudent course would be to treat the entire Smart Grid project in California as a major risk, and to aggressively engage in damage control. Since the technology that is actively being dismantled by the CPUC and PG&E has previously demonstrated none of the current risks, an aggressive plan to offer an analog meter opt out is a prudent option. Since so much damage has already been done, there are no guarantees that even this measure will prevail.

    PG&E’s current course of relying on PR spin has little chance of stemming the trends that have already been set in motion.

    Rob States, M.S., P.E.
    Chief Engineer, Wave Dry, LLC.
    415-927-2739 Office
    415-596-2718 Cell

    Since Sedona has not had smart meters installed yet, NOW is the time to get smart and have a community wide opt out for the whole city of Sedona.

  3. N. Baer says:

    Everyone needs to be aware, if they aren’t already, the Internet is seriously not safe or secure. Anyone can hack it.

    In October, the Soviet Union stole personal data from the South Carolina’s Department of Revenue of 75% of that state’s citizens. The Soviet Union took tax returns that had been filed since 1997. Now, the State of South Carolina must spend billions of dollars insuring all of those citizens for the rest of their lives.

    http://www.thestate.com/2012/10/26/2496396/south-carolina-taxpayers-privacy.html#.UMjAsayANWU

    If such a thing were to happen with our data that APS wants to “harvest,” do you believe they will purchase an insurance policy to cover you until your death?

  4. N. Baer says:

    Councilor Mike Ward giving his report on NACOG’s Telecommunications Subcommittee reported at the 12/11/12 City Council meeting that fiber optic cable is being laid next to I-!7. THAT is what IS SAFE. Not dumb meters. Why isn’t the City exploring hooking us up to that further?

  5. Claims That EMF and RF Emissions Have Reduced Property Values

    In recent years, legal claims over damage to property value because of EMF and RF emissions have met with some success. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits usually allege that the value of their property has been reduced because of its proximity to devices that emit RF or EMF. The theory behind this argument is that, since the general public believes that exposure to RF or EMF emissions is dangerous, the property is less valuable regardless of whether or not fears over the dangers are founded. For example, the selling price of a house located near an RF or EMF transmission line may be much lower than prices of similar properties located farther away, simply because families are afraid of potential negative health effects that could result from living in a house that is so close to the transmission line.

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/emf-radiofrequency-exposure-from-cell-32210-2.html

    Nancy Baer

  6. […] Those that are for smart meters are generally politicians, energy workers, regulators etc. Few are regular citizens or properly informed citizen. For the record, a properly informed citizen is not one that accepts facts or a study from a corporation or one that has financial or intellectual ties in any way. Those that are against smart meters are generally tech savvy bloggers, Youtubers, web crawlers and adversely affected citizens. The argument from the “for” side is that the other side of the spectrum are conspiracy theorists, fear mongers and misinformed. The argument from the “against” side is that their facts are wrong, they have significant health effects from the technology, their liberties are being infringed upon, subject to hacking and security risks, in some cases using extortion. […]

  7. Nancy Baer says:

    We now have Australia joining Italy and Israel awarding damages to those who developed cancer from cell phone use.

    Lloyds of London will not cover cell phones.

  8. Nancy Baer says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=snt2uaQd_Ps

    Doctors groups around the world have spoken up to call for Precaution against wireless radiation and for reduction of exposure, especially on Children, Youth, Pregnant Women and Babies.

    Medical Advisory: Statements from 14 Agencies on Wi-Fi Radiation and Children’s Health
    http://www.safeinschool.org/2013/02/m

    Harvard Neurologist Warns: WiFi Radiation can Damage Children’s Brain Function
    http://goo.gl/Okafv

    This Video: Measuring the pulsed microwave radiation from an iPad with an Acoustimeter. The rapid and continuous pulsing is the beacon signals emitted by the router (similar to celltower beacon signals). The irregular spikes are emitted by the iPad.

    Swisscom, Switzerland’s largest IT services provider, recognized the genotoxic effects of WiFi routers. In 2003 they attempted to reduce this danger through an automatically-deactivated router design. Unfortunately, North American manufacturers have not adopted this patent, but continue to produce WiFi
    routers which bombard humans and all living beings with microwave beacon signals, 24/7. The Swisscom document with the explanation on the genotoxicity can be found here:
    http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en

    The maximum measuring threshold of the Acoustimeter is 6.0 V/m and the radiation from the iPad exceeded this level often while actively on WiFi. We measured a WiFi-iPad and found that its signals peak every few seconds at levels that are several times HIGHER than an iPhone on talking transmission. See:
    http://www.safeinschool.org/2012/01/i

    Here are some exposure limits in other countries which correspond to the levels indicated on the Acoustimter.

    Russia, China, Italy, Paris,Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria: 6 V/m
    Switzerland (Children and patiends): 4 V/m
    Belgium, Ukraine,Luxembourg: 3 V/m
    Vienna: 1.9 V/m
    Italy base station, Lichtenstien: 0.6V/m

    USA and Canada have a microwave exposure limit of 60 V/m! Criticized by many independent (non-industry-affiliated scientists) as OUTDATED and OBSOLETE.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2014 · Sedona Eye · All Rights Reserved · Posts · Comments · Facebook · Twitter ·