Sedona AZ (October 22, 2012) – In a letter to the SedonaEye.com editor, Monnie Ramsell of Sedona appeals to the public and to the Sedona City Council members to support a Smart Meter information work session:
Dear Council members,
Please support the mayor’s request for a work session in early 2013 to discuss the installation of smart meters in Sedona and potential health risks that could be associated with the meters. The purpose of the meeting would be to provide supporters and opponents of the installation of smart meters to present their findings to the City Council. This is a very fair and reasonable proposal and not one-sided like the one that staff had suggested. I also understand that the work session is an information only and no decision or action from the City is required during such session.
I just learned that city staff suggests that instead of the City council holding meetings, that the public meetings be held by APS and possibly a third party serving as the mediator as an alternative to the City Council holding the meetings. Staff also states the the City should encourage APS to do more public education and outreach in the interim.
I don’t get my information on smart meters just on the internet or reading someone’s blog. I did my research oftentimes on legal documents submitted as part of the legal hearings from across the states and in Canada. Many of my findings are testimonials before judge or under oath or directly from expert witnesses.
I want to share what I have learned from watching 8 hours video of smart meter hearing and workshop in California. Smart meter manufacturers stated in front of the judge that without any obstruction, smart meter’s signals can reach across 1,200 feet. They know because they need to know if any repeater is needed to bridge the gap between meters. Individual opt-out will not guarantee neighboring meters to be outside this 1,200 feet radius. Individual opt-out also will not prevent the utility from putting a repeater in your neighborhood or even outside your bedroom window. Ever wonder why 57 cities and counties in California and more than 50 communities in British Columbia have opposed to smart meters?
During the workshop, someone with technical background said that the power of 1-watt transmitter was increased to a rule-breaking 2.5-watt due to the 4 dBi antenna and the 1dBi antenna inside the meters. FCC limit is 1-watt. It was eventually admitted by the manufacturer of the meter before the judge that RF signal was indeed double. The gain of an antenna represents how well it increases effective signal power in a particular direction, with dBi (decibels relative to an isotropic radiator) as the unit of measure. dBi represents the gain of an antenna as compared to an isotropic radiator, which transmits RF signals in all directions equally. More precisely, dBi equals 10 times the logarithm (base 10) of the electromagnet field intensity of the antennas favored direction divided by the electromagnetic field intensity of an isotropic antenna (with measurements taken at the same distance). Every three dBi doubles the power of an RF signal. Thus in reality, smart meter exceeds FCC safety limits. Someone asked FCC about this and their reply was it was up to the utility company to confirm to their safety guideline.
These are just some of the examples of findings that the council members and public need to know and understand in order to make any informed decision. Unless the hearings are in front of a judge like those in California, APS is not going to volunteer anything that will negatively impact people’s decision to opt out. I am not sure what staff really want to accomplish by encouraging APS to do more public education and outreach. Another example, WHO classified RF as Class 2B Carcinogen on May 31, 2011. APS revised their automated (smart) meter literature titled Smart Meter and Radio Frequency (RF) revised in September 2011 still stating that “the World Health Organization has concluded that no known adverse health effects can be attributed to low-level radio frequency”. If staff has his way, neither the council nor the public will ever learn the whole truth. Hopefully, it is just a suggestion, and the council does not really have to follow such bad advice.
We think the mayor’s approach is far better. Let the council and the public hear from both sides. Rob Adams scheduled the work session in early 2013 is just perfect timing. If usually takes at least a few months for the city to pass any moratorium or ordinance. APS told the Commissioners at the Arizona Commission Corporation Special Smart Meter meeting that Sedona is on schedule for 2013 deployment. There is nothing to prevent APS to change their mind and complete Sedona deployment in early or mid 2013. The City will be caught off guard if we take staff’s advice to wait. The people of Sedona is not going to point their fingers at staff if that happens but to the city and the mayor.
Please allow the work session to be on the early 2013 agenda as scheduled. I would be more than happy to participate and to give you all the support I can. Perhaps we can even bring in expert witnesses if it’s appropriate and if we know the exact date of when the work session is going to take place.
Thank you again for allowing the work session to go on schedule. I will be more than happy to meet with each and any one of you on this matter to share information. Please feel free to contact me if there is anything else I can help to make sure this work session is on schedule on the Council’s agenda.
The citizens of Sedona will thank you for supporting this.
Sincerely,
Monnie Ramsell Sedona AZ
For the best Sedona Arizona News and Views? Subscribe to www.SedonaEye.com today.
Please contact the City Councilors BEFORE TUESDAY 10/23 at 6:00 pm with your comments. The Mayor has requested a work session in early 2013 to discuss the installation of ‘smart’ meters in Sedona and potential health risks that could be associated.
From the Agenda packet:
Staff suggests that instead of the City Council holding meetings, that the public meetings be held by APS and possibly a third party serving as the mediator as an alternative to the City Council holding the meetings. The City should encourage APS to do more public education and outreach in the interim. [Responsible Staff Person: Nick Gioello]
Please email (or call 928) 282-3113) the Councilors and City Manager and Nicholas Gioello to request that the January work session scheduled by Mayor Adams be maintained. Several of us have been sending the Council “peer reviewed” scientific results of studies with electromagnetic frequencies regarding the hazards of ‘smart’ meters for the past year. Many of you have received copies of our correspondence. Please indicate that we need the work session in early January.
Mayor Adams MayorAdams@SedonaAZ.gov
Vice Mayor DiNunzio CouncilorDiNunzio@SedonaAZ.gov
Councilor Litrell CouncilorLitrell@SedonaAZ.gov
Councilor Martinez CouncilorMartinez@SedonaAZ.gov
Councilor McIlroy CouncilorMcIlroy@SedonaAZ.gov
Councilor Ward CouncilorWard@SedonaAZ.gov
Councilor Williamson CouncilorWilliamson@SedonaAZ.gov
City Manager TErnster@SedonaAZ.gov
Nicholas Gioello NGioello@SedonaAZ.gov
From the Agenda packet:
Staff suggests that instead of the City Council holding meetings, that the public meetings be held by APS and possibly a third party serving as the mediator as an alternative to the City Council holding the meetings. The City should encourage APS to do more public education and outreach in the interim. [Responsible Staff Person: Nick Gioello]
http://www.sedonaaz.gov/Sedonacms/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=17412
WATCH CANADIAN ARMED FORCES RETIRED CAPTAIN JERRY FLYNN Present “The Health Crisis of Our Time” and explain the electromagnetic spectrum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-F3nf47kAs&feature=colike
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilors Litrell, McIlroy, Martinez, Ward and Williamson:
On an effort to keep you apprised of other states’ activities into ‘smart’ meters, Curtis Bennett, Chief Science Officer, Interprovincial Journeyman Electrician (Red Seal), Building Construction Engineering Technologist has requested that his testimony that he provided for the Texas Senate on Smart Meter Adverse Health Effects be forwarded to you for your information.
You may contact him directly with any questions you may have regarding this issue.
“The safety of the meters only considered the meters as an end-use device and left out the rest of the wireless circuit radiating large geographical areas to communicate with the wireless meters. Furthering that error was the failure to consider the electrical properties of biological systems, as well as, buildings and infrastructure being radiated.
Energy use and its massive waste will not be mitigated and the links in the attached document support this fact. Here is our latest blog related to wireless use. http://www.thermoguy.com/blog/index.php?itemid=103
Thanks for the questions related to your community on this important issue, contact the writer with any questions.
Sincerely,
Curtis Bennett
Chief Science Officer
Interprovincial Journeyman Electrician(Red Seal)
Building Construction Engineering Technologist
Adjunct Faculty for 2 Medical Education Organizations
33 Year Advanced Thermography Background
Thermografix Consulting Corporation
http://www.thermoguy.com/emfeducation.html
curtis@thermoguy.com
Ph: 604-239-2694
Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 11:38 pm
To: “Commissioner Burns” , “Commissioner Kennedy” , “Commissioner Newman” , “Commissioner Pierce” , “Commissioner Stump” , “‘Representative Fann'”, “‘Representative Pierce'”, “‘Representative Tobin'”, “‘Yavapai County Commissioner District 1′”, “‘Yavapai County Commissioner District 3′”, “‘Yavapai County District 2 Commissioner'”,
Cc: “‘Tim Ernster'” , “‘Nicholas Gioello'” , “‘Barbara Litrell'”, “‘Dan McIlroy'” , “‘Jessica Williamson'” , “John Martinez” , “Mark DiNunzio” , “Mike Ward” , “Rob Adams”
Dear Representatives and Commissioners:
Curtis Bennett, Chief Science Officer, Interprovincial Journeyman Electrician(Red Seal) and Building Construction Engineering Technologist has forwarded the attached letter dated 10/21/12 to the Michigan Public Utility Commission regarding its Opt-Out Program for your information and to be made a part of the record for the above-referenced matter.
Please note the warning given regarding critical information that has not been considered when testing for health consequences.
Excerpts from attached:
“The test model used in Specific Absorption Rate used by the FCC only considered smart meters as an end use device and left out the rest of the wireless infrastructure radiating large geographical area hitting humans from head to toe. The test model treated human exposure to kilograms of tissue heating because the millions of frequencies, electricity and vulnerability of biological systems were not considered in this electrical equation. Unintentional stimulation of tissue and the heat effect are to be avoided. Intentional stimulation of tissue is medical imaging in controlled environments with the subject put in intended positions of use with other parts of the body protected . . .
. . . It is critically important the Michigan Public Service Commission and the utility understand we have no agenda other than to inform about the unrealized liability with the random use of radio frequency/electromagnetic frequencies (RF/EMF). Detroit Edison would NEVER allow the electromagnetic induction of their electrical grid changing frequencies of the 60 Hz system, the results could cause catastrophic electrical failure. The RF/EMFs as applied are causing catastrophic electrical failure of the human and biological electrical grid plus much more. We simply aren’t electrically compatible.”
Sincerely,
Nancy Baer
Sedona AZ
As you can see from his recommendation to Council (below), “Assistant to the City Manager” (not to be confused with the “Assistant City Manager”) Nick Gioello is still shilling for APS.
I called him out 2 months ago for disseminating APS misinfo and propaganda concerning so-called “smart” electric meters. Now he wants the City Council, who were considering having a meeting on “smart” meters, to not have any meetings at all on the subject but for APS to hold meetings! Can you imagine? Gioello would no doubt think a fox suitable for guarding a hen house.
Having been to both Arizona Corporation Commission meetings on “smart” meters and having seen APS in action, I can assure anyone and everyone that any meeting held by APS will be nothing but industry propaganda and outright lies.
Gioello, who was tasked by Sedona’s overpaid City Manager, Tim Ernster, to look into the “smart” meter issue, continues to let residents down. In addition to sending out APS propaganda, he met with one of us who is in the forefront of the battle against these meters and was totally unprepared for the meeting. He had not read any of the material sent him even though he’d had more than enough time to do so. Similarly, another resident I know had a conversation with Ernster and found him to be totally misinformed on the dangers of “smart” meters and completely on the side of APS.
As I wrote in my first email to him: “Mr Gioello, for the sake of Sedonans’ health and safety, I suggest that in the future you confine yourself to subjects about which you have some knowledge.” What a pity for Sedonans that we are so terribly mismanaged by the misinformed.
Council needs reminding that their job is to protect the community from the violations the meters pose to residents’ health, safety, privacy and property. Staff should be supporting Council in that role, not shilling for monopoly utilities.
Individual opt-outs (which have yet to be ruled on by the ACC) are better than nothing but they still do not protect us from the almost constant microwave emissions of our neighbors’ “smart” meters should they have them. Remember, the meters have been shown to give off 100 times more RF than a cell tower ( http://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/08/22/smart-meters-more-radiation-than-a-cell-tower/ ). Remember that APS is lobbying the ACC for extortive opt-out “fees” which some people may not be able to afford. And also remember that, if they had intelligence and courage, Sedona City Council could stop this madness by banning the meters outright (the key word being “if”).
Below is from the agenda of this coming Wednesday’s Council meeting. Note Gioello’s pathetic last sentence. Clearly this is someone who does not understand that APS’s “public education and outreach” is nothing but a corrupt corporate monopoly’s agenda for profit based on lies and misinfo.
Smart meters ‐ The Mayor has requested a work session in early 2013 to discuss the installation of smart meters in Sedona and potential health risks that could be associated with the meters. The purpose of the meeting would be to provide supporters and opponents of the installation of smart meters to present their findings to the City Council.
Per discussion with APS representatives, smart meters are not scheduled for installation in Sedona until either the end of 2013 or more likely early 2014. Staff recommends holding off on any public meetings until the City has a more definitive schedule from APS regarding the installation of smart meters. The Corporation Commission, which regulates public utilities, is currently considering an individual op‐out policy. However there is no indication at this time as to when the policy will be in place. Staff has been told that it will most likely be some time in the spring.
Staff suggests that instead of the City Council holding meetings, that the public meetings be held by APS and possibly a third party serving as the mediator as an alternative to the City Council holding the meetings. The City should encourage APS to do more public education and outreach in the interim. [Responsible Staff Person: Nick Gioello]
In my opinion, City bureaucrat Gioello is still shilling for APS.
Warren Woodward
Linda Hersey liked this article on Facebook.
A L E R T : SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, Agenda Item 3a, “Council Priorities,” #6 Smart Meters, Agenda Special City Council Meeting
Wednesday, October 24, 2012, 5:00 p.m.
Vultee Conference Room
106 Roadrunner Drive
Sedona, AZ 86336
Anyone who can appear and briefly state (3 minutes) why the City needs to schedule ‘smart’ meter workshops in early January will be appreciated and can save us all money and grief.
From: Nancy Baer
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 11:08 AM
To: ‘Barbara Litrell’; ‘Dan McIlroy’; ‘Jessica Williamson’; John Martinez; Mark DiNunzio; Mike Ward; Rob Adams
Cc: ‘Tim Ernster’; ‘Nicholas Gioello’
Subject: Agenda Item 3a, #6 10/24/12 Council Work Session ‘Smart” meters
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilors Litrell, McIlroy, Martinez, Ward and Williamson:
I just finished listening to the proceedings regarding ‘smart’ meters during your Work Session on Tuesday evening and I am taking the opportunity to respond to some of the comments made about this issue.
In terms of making decisions based on science, we do that everyday when we decide to brush and floss our teeth twice a day knowing the dental consequences of not doing that, or when we decide what is healthy to eat and what to eat.
As far as deciding whose lies to believe, I’m unsure why you think residents (not just one resident but several of us) would lie after thoroughly researching the issue for over a year and who have furnished you with the results so that you, as your representatives, could make an informed decision. We have no financial benefit to gain, only to retain our health and the safety of our homes.
We are asking the City to issue, at the very least, a moratorium (as many of those 57 California counties and municipalities have done), until the ‘smart’ meters are classified as 100% safe by independent researchers. They are not even UL certified.
Furthermore, delaying this will have serious financial (not to mention mental) consequences for residents who have had their analog meters, in my case, for 33 years and since I’ve been in this house, there has never been any problems with the meter.
APS making a decision about “opt out” is not on the immediate horizon as California is still working out details on that began two years ago. Once that analog meter is removed and a digital ‘smart’ meter is installed, no home or commercial real estate loss linked to a ‘smart’ meter will be covered by any insurance company.
“Opting out” with this technology is very problematic due to range and distance of the frequencies because once the “grid” is deployed it covers areas like a spider web of radio frequencies that penetrates all objects, especially as this relates to the health consequences for people with medical implants and children.
This has been explained in more detail in many of the emails you have received since last August, 2011. If you’d like the information again, please let me know.
In conclusion, there seems to have been no recognition of the lack of Federal mandate requiring installation of ‘smart’ meters. There are two Congressional Acts that are policy related. I have sent you the citation from The Energy Policy Act of 2005 for you to read before, but I will send it again for your information.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 1252 “Smart Meters”
Basically, the info is being suppressed by the media because the corporations and business entities who own, or invest, in the media also invest in utilities. I view The Energy Policy Act of 2005 as a bail out for these companies. Many states are not adhering to the intent of the law contained in Section 1252 of the Act that stipulates these meters only be given to customers who request them.
It says NOTHING about forcing them on people. pg. 373, http://doi.net/iepa/EnergyPolicyActof@005.pdf
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-140[1] originally named the Clean Energy Act of 2007) The bill originally sought to cut subsidies to the petroleum industry in order to promote petroleum independence and different forms of alternative energy.
These tax changes were ultimately dropped after opposition in the Senate, and the final bill focused on automobile fuel economy, development of biofuels, and energy efficiency in public buildings and lighting. (From Wikipedia)
I understand that councilors would prefer not attending any public meeting about this issue, in my opinion, this would be a mistake as it could easily be interpreted as a lack of concern about residents’ health and safety.
Thank you for the opportunity of giving you my comments.
Sincerely,
Nancy Baer
Sedona, AZ 86336
When I read that concerned citizens were accused of lying about this issue, from anyone on the City Council, it remains with disbelief.
For well over a year, within my own area, the subject of Smart Meters has been a hot and serious topic and not just due to some inane whim.
It looks like never, in my lifetime anyway, will we have a city government who will refrain from constantly functioning on some sort of unknown agenda. Go figure.