It is hard for me to believe that all those links to all those government documents that put bans or moratoriums on smart meters, in all of those cities and counties, meant nothing to Vice Mayor Gray. It is hard for me to believe that the City Commissioners of Battle Creek think they know better than hundreds of County Board Members, Commissioners and Council People from other cities and counties. But that is what appears to be happening.
Vice Mayor Gray did respond to my August 9th email. She shared a couple of links (http://ccst.us/news/2011/20110111smart.php and http://www.economist.com/node/21527022), then proceeded to tell me that, "...we as a city commission are supportive of the new meters..." She didn't even refer to the new meters as what they truly are: smart meters - radio transmitting devices.
So in truth, the City of Battle Creek City Commission is in support of smart meter - radio transmitting devices, when absolutely no proof exists that they are safe. And why is it so difficult for them to say, or write, "smart meter" or "radio device"?
Here is my most recent reply to Vice Mayor Gray, sent yesterday:
Dear Ms. Gray,
Thank you for your response.
The first report you sent has no studies in it of real people and how the body responds to radio frequencies. No where does it say that it is safe to have a smart meter on the other side of the wall of your child's bed. Nowhere does it say that the elderly and pregnant women are not at all affected by these devices. Nowhere does it say they are 100% safe.
I am looking for real studies of real people, proving that these devices are 100% safe. So far, there are none. But there is a plethora of studies, stories, testimonies, blogs, videos, etc, about people who have adverse affects from smart meter/radio transmitting devices. Here is another one I came across:
Pediatric autism specialist calls for smart meter moratorium - http://emfrefugee.blogspot.ca/2015/07/pediatric-autism-specialist-calls-for.html
The Economist article you sent actually states, "The only possible effect they can have on human tissue is to raise its temperature slightly."
As if that is not cause enough for concern? Have you ever had your tissue raise in temperature? Most likely you have, perhaps from the sun, or perhaps a burn from the stove, or maybe like me, from a cell phone to your ear. Either way, tissues don't raise in temperature for no reason. Something is happening to them to cause them to heat up beyond normal temperatures.
I've had my flesh heat up by wireless devices, which led to constant pain. The pain goes away only when the wireless devices are removed. However, when SEMCO snuck a smart meter on, the pain returned. Unfortunately I can not turn the SEMCO smart meter off! I have since read that previously damaged tissue is more susceptible, which is probably why I had such an immediate reaction to the smart meter.
I suppose we could spend the rest of our lives, or at least until smart meters are outlawed, sending documents to each other supporting our point of view. However, there is one thing neither you nor anyone else can deny: my testimony that these devices hurt me; and other people's testimonies that these devices harm them as well. We have a right to not be harmed by utility company's equipment! And forcing us to pay extra to not have these devices on our homes is extortion.
Approximately 5% of the population of Battle Creek will start experiencing negative effects from these devices, if they have not already. Most people wont know what's going on, because most people don't know what smart meters are, because the City's Water Department and SEMCO gas have not been up-front about what they have been installing on people's homes. The City is even balking at putting my exact words in the legal minutes of the Commission meeting, that these devices are smart meter/radio transmitting devices. Why not call them what they are? And now it seems that the City and Consumers Energy are also misleading the public about what kind of devices Consumers Energy is planning on installing, as evidenced by the very vague and misleading "Battle Creek Current" newsletter, August 2015. What are you going to do when approximately 5% of the residents of Battle Creek begin to link adverse physical symptoms to these devices? Is the Water Department willing to remove 5%, or more, of the devices they are currently installing, because of customer's complaints of adverse health effects?
Thousands of people worldwide are testifying that these devices do cause them harm. I am one of them. Are you still in support of harming approximately 5% of the population in Battle Creek, not to mention the entire world? That's what you do, as someone in a position of authority, when you put your stamp of approval on these devices.
Is the City of Battle Creek willing to sign an affidavit taking 100% responsibility for any and all harm caused by these devices? If not, then perhaps it is time for you and the City Commission to take a second look at these devices, read some real stories about real people. Talk to some real people who have had negative experiences from these devices. Do some leg work, phone work, and your own research. Stop relying on agencies who may have ulterior motives as your only source of information as to why you are supporting these devices.
Looking forward to your responses.
May you be blessed,
(end of email)
Thank you for reading ~ May We All Be Blessed!