Because the City Commissioners are the "gatekeepers" of the city, at the last Battle Creek City Commission meeting I submitted two questions in regards to my concerns of the safety of the new utility meters the City Commissioners are welcoming into the city:
Though I did not submit a Freedom of Information Request, the Clerk's office submitted one on my behalf, and was then kind enough to waive the fee, "this one time."What evidence do you have of the safety of the new utility meters, all of them, water, gas and electric, other than what comes from the manufacturer?And do you have any independent third-party testing showing, or proving that the new utility meters are indeed perfectly safe?
The City Clerk, Victoria Houser, wrote in her letter dated Monday, September 21, 2015:
"The Water Department has indicated they have no documents from independent parties related to the meters."She also sent a "DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORD," which stated:
Your request is being denied in part for the following reason(s):
Is not in the possession of the City. No independent 3rd party testing. No information on gas and electric meters.They admitted outright that they have no proof that the new utility meters are safe. They admitted outright that they have not seen documentation of safety from independent third parties, and they have no information about the safety of the new gas and electric meters they are allowing to be installed also.
Ms. Houser also provided a memorandum that the Water Department received from the City of Grand Haven, Department of Public Works. The memorandum was written by William Hunter, Director of Public Works, explaining his understanding of RF and Smart Meters. The memorandum came with two Radio Frequency comparison charts and a propaganda sheet from a "Utility Cooperative" in Hawaii.
Perhaps they don't know that
the RF comparison charts
have been proven wrong...
"The problem is, they've compared apples and oranges. They looked at whole-body exposure from a Smart Meter, and compared it to the dose to the ear from a cell phone, instead of looking at the whole-body dose from the cell phone and comparing it to the whole-body dose from the smart meter."
"Secondly, they assumed 100% duty cycle for the smart meter, and a 1% duty cycle for the cell phone; you're only using the cell phone probably an hour a day on average. But they didn't correct for that. So they didn't look at the cumulative exposure. Ninety-nine percent of the time the cell phone wasn't producing radiation, but they assumed that 100% of the time the smart meter would. In the smart meter figure they'd exaggerated a little bit, 50% would probably be a reasonable number. But in any case, when you correct for these two factors, the whole-body and the cumulative part of it, rather than a cell phone being 100 times more exposure than a smart meter, the smart meter turns out to be roughly 100 times more cumulative exposure than the cell phone."
"...the cumulative whole body exposure from a Smart Meter at 3 feet appears to be approximately two orders of magnitude higher than that of a cell phone, rather than two orders of magnitude lower."Quotes from Daniel Hirsch, Senior Lecturer on Nuclear Policy at UCSC. YouTube video link here, another article with the video here, and his Draft Report, "Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters," here.
In my humble opinion, the information about radiation exposure from Daniel Hirsch, Senior Lecturer on Nuclear Policy at the University of California Santa Cruz, holds more weight than the information from William Hunter, Director of Public Works in Grand Haven, Michigan.
Is this not serious carelessness on the part of the City Commissioners, allowing these unproven to be safe devices to be installed all throughout the city, exposing the citizens to questionable amounts of radiation?
Bless Us All!