Thursday, November 26, 2015

If We Are To Error...

Is it not best that we error on the side of caution?

It has been proven that when we hear something repeated so many times, we begin to believe it as the truth, whether it is true or not.  Advertisers know that, and use it as a strategy.  And that's what the utility companies have been doing with this whole smart meter agenda, telling the public about all the so-called benefits of this smart meter/smart home/smart grid program, yet they've done little research on the actual health impacts all this wireless technology has.  Truth be told, it's really the utility companies that will benefit from these smart meters, not the consumers, as explained here.  

Those who are hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields, like myself, know there are issues with this new smart meter/smart home/smart grid technology because we can feel it.  Our reactions are not always immediate, because there is a cumulative effect, however sometimes the "symptoms" are instantaneous.   

Human live blood analysis shows that our blood does react almost instantly to the pulsed radiation generated by smart meters:

The minutes to the Battle Creek City Commission meeting are available online after the meeting.  Details of public comments are usually shortened down to one or two simple sentences, such as, "Jeanine Deal spoke on the Water Divisions smart meters."  What City Commissioners and city employees say is sometimes recorded in much more detail.  The November 10, 2015 City Commission meeting minutes give a detailed synopsis of what city employees said about the Water Department's new smart meters, and what the city is calling an "opt-out choice."

The Battle Creek City Commission minutes state (in blue)

" meters have been challenged in Michigan courts and that the challenges have not been upheld."
While that statement may be true, it is not the whole truth about what is going on in regards to smart meters and litigation in Michigan.  There's at least three currently open and unsettled lawsuits going on in Michigan right now involving smart meters that could be upheld.  So the statement that smart meters have been challenged in Michigan courts but not upheld is actually quite premature.

And just the fact that smart meters have been and are involved in litigation in Michigan, and all over the world, is a huge red flag in itself, wouldn't you say?!  Would you make a large investment into something that had several open lawsuits against it?  Would you continue to expose others to a product that has been and is currently being challenged in a court of law in regards to health, safety, privacy, and Constitutional Rights, among other things?  Perhaps you would, if you wanted to "feed" the legal system, or had lots and lots of money (as the utility companies do) and more to gain than to loose, at least at the moment.  But if you were a small business owner, you would probably drop the whole smart meter idea like a hot potato and not look back.  Cut your losses, apologize to your customers, and move on.

The minutes further state:
"...approximately 30% are using radio reading technology (in Michigan)..."
What that means is that for every 10% of smart meter installations in Michigan, at least one of those utility customers has taken someone to court about it.
"Mr. Hart (who is the City of Battle Creek Utility Administrator) stated the read system transmits at 902-928 mhz frequency, similar to baby monitors or garage door openers."
A utility company in Illinois did that also, compared smart meters to baby monitors.  You can read about that here, and what was said about that.  Perhaps all utility companies are saying that to the customers who question the amount of microwave radiation coming from smart meters.  Perhaps that is part of the propaganda they were given in order to buy into this whole smart meter program.  The fact is, we haven't gone one generation with baby monitors or smart meters.  I don't know about baby monitors, but smart meters have not been subject to independent long-term testing for safety.

Dr. Daniel Hirsch, UCSC Senior Lecturer and radiation expert informs us in his Abstract that the radiation from one smart meter is 50 to 160 times the radiation from one cell phone.  Dr. Hirsch takes into account cumulative whole-body radiation exposure, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, something no one else seems to have taken into account.  When a radiation expert says that being exposed to one smart meter has the cumulative whole-body effect of being exposed to 50 or more cell phones, is that not cause for concern?

The Battle Creek Water Department has been installing Neptune R900 water meters, similar to the one in the following video.  This video shows how frequently this "smart" water meter pulses microwave radiation:

And it is this pulsed radiation that is wrecking havoc with our health.  It's important to note that just because you can not feel it, does not mean that it is not also affecting you.  What does not affect you today, could affect you tomorrow.    

"Mr. Hart confirmed the City has relied upon their vendor's research of the safety of the device..."

The City of Battle Creek has no independent proof of safety of these devices and are relying upon propaganda from the manufacturer that these devices are safe and do not harm us.  The tobacco industry used to deny any harm would be caused by cigarettes also.  And we all know how that ended up...

The minutes further state:

"...the American Cancer Society has also stated it has not been proven there are cancer causing carcinogens in low frequency radio waves..."

The key words here are, "it has not been proven."  Just because it has not been proven harmful does not mean that it is not harmful!  The American Cancer Society wasn't warning people about cigarettes at first either because it took a while for the evidence of harm to surface.  And if you read the American Cancer Society's page about smart meters here, you will see that they are very vague about the whole thing. They compare smart meters with cell phones and WiFi devices, and state that radio frequency radiation is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as:
"possibly carcinogenic to humans." 
"Because RF (radio frequency) radiation is a possible carcinogen, and smart meters give off RF radiation, it is possible that smart meters could increase cancer risk."
So the American Cancer Society actually states on their website that smart meters "could increase cancer risk," yet utility companies are not telling us this.  Is that not grossly negligent?

The Battle Creek City Commission minutes further say:

"Mr. Hart stated it is very difficult to identify the source of radio waves that may be causing health problems."

While that may be true, it is also true that many people, myself included, were perfectly healthy before a smart meter was installed.  Though after installation, that changed.  I explain more about my symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity here, and how they were gone for about two years until SEMCO Energy, our gas company, installed two AMR ERT meters.

One independent smart meter study concludes:

" meters may have unique characteristics that lower people's threshold for symptom development."
Which means that some people who've never had issues with cell phones or WiFi or any other wireless devices may begin to experience symptoms after a smart meter is installed.  At least one other resident in Battle Creek who was forced to take a wireless smart water meter, who did not have any sensitivity to wireless prior to the smart meter installation, does now.  That story here.
"Mr. Hart also stated the World Health Organization has documentation on their website stating they have not been able to identify what is causing any perceived damage due to the numerous sources of radio waves in our environment today."
Is that still not cause for concern and caution as well, that there are already "numerous sources" of radio waves in our environment today, so much so that we can not determine what is causing adverse effects?  It's kind of like driving through an area where there's already a lot of litter and thinking that it's okay to add to the litter because there's already a lot there and who would know that it was you that littered anyway!

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) since 2005.  Like the American Cancer Society's page on electromagnetic hypersensitivity, the WHO's page is a little vague about the subject also, though they do state that more research is needed and:
"The symptoms are real and can vary widely in their severity."
It is very important to note that we are in changing times in regards to wireless technology, and recently there has been an Appeal sent to the World Health Organization, signed by over 200 scientist, calling for increased protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure, the same type of radiation emitted from a smart meter.  This Appeal is based upon over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing radiation, the type of radiation emitted by smart meters.  Current standards are out-dated given "the numerous sources of (microwave radiation) radio waves in our environment today."

Mr. Hart and the minutes were very unclear about the "opt-out" charges:

"Comm. Sherzer inquired as to how City staff determined the $60 fee."

So at the next city commission meeting, I clarified that it was $20 per month.  The minutes further state:
"Mr. Hart stated the charge is based upon the amount of staff time needed to manually read the meters... along with staff time to estimate the read..."
A flawed argument.  We weren't being charged an extra $20 per month to have actual or estimated reads on the old analog water meters in the past.  Meter reading was included in the water and sewer charges already.  And since water bills are not going down with smart meter installation, as confirmed by the Water Department, they will supposedly already be saving money on meter readers for those who don't "opt-out."  Those who do "opt-out" just wont be saving them as much money.  This is savings they already plan on pocketing, and never intended to pass those savings on to their customers.  So in actuality "opt-out" fees are not covering an added expense (because it was there already).  "Opt-out" fees are an attempt to recover lost savings that perhaps they were counting on in order to make this whole smart meter fiasco worth it, because smart meters cost about double that of the old analog meters, yet don't even last half as long.  So their reason and logic is flawed.  The bottom line is the opt-out charge means water customers will be paying more money for less service because they will only be reading the meters four times a year, yet they want to charge us $20 per month more to do that.

When you are electromagnetically hypersensitive, 
agreeing to pay an opt-out fee is agreeing 
to pay someone to NOT harm you.  
Is that an agreement you want to become involved with?

And how do you explain giving customers an "opt-out choice" when they were never given the "opt-in choice," as many of us woefully experienced, in the first place?  

In summary, the new "smart" water meters are:

  • unproven safe by independent research
  • showing they damage live blood cells
  • involved in numerous open and unsettled lawsuits
  • pulsing microwave radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
  • possibly carcinogenic per the American Cancer Society

If we are to error in regards to smart meters, 
is it not best that we error on the side of caution? 

~ Thank you for reading ~ May We All Truly Be Blessed ~

References and more information:

Thursday, November 12, 2015

November 10th City Commission Meeting

A resolution establishing an opt-out choice was on the agenda for the November 10, 2015 Battle Creek City Commission meeting.  Because it was a "Resolution," I had five minutes to speak about it, and not the usual three.  

No matter how many Resolutions are on the agenda, the City of Battle Creek allows Citizens only five minutes to comment on the resolutions.  So if there are five resolutions and I want to comment on each one, that would be one minute per comment.  If there are more than five Resolutions and I wanted to comment on each one, I would have less than 60 seconds for each comment.  They say that they want our comments, and value public input, but only so much, you see.  Doesn't really seem fair, but it is what it is.

Here's what I said about the smart meters (they are now calling them "electronic meter reading technology") and the proposed opt-out program:
I speak not only for myself, but for many others. 
I speak not only to the Water Department, but to all of our utility companies who have done this to us. 
You changed the utility meters without public consent or consensus.
You sometimes forced the new electronic meters on with threat of service shut-off. 
You sometimes lied to us, or did not tell us the whole truth about the equipment in order to get it installed. 
The only documentation of safety you have is propaganda from the manufacturer, citing FCC guidelines.  The FCC is not a health protection agency. The FCC is a private, For-Profit corporation listed on Dunn & Bradstreet that has its investor’s best interest in mind, not the general public. 
The new electronic meters have a questionable history, and they are being rejected by citizens, not just in the United States, but all over the world. You won’t see that on mainstream media. But it is true. 
Many cities have banned electronic meters due to health, safety, and privacy issues. 
Utility company executives admit that the new electronic meters last only about 5 to 7 years before needing replaced.  (See
  • The old analog meters lasted about 30 years, sometimes much longer.
Utility company executives admit to “catastrophic failures” and inaccurate billing with the new electronic meters.  (See
  • The old analog meters did not have a history of “catastrophic failures” or inaccurate billing.
There are literally thousands of studies that prove biological harm is done by the new electronic meters.  (See below)
  • The old analog meters did not cause biological harm.
There are nuclear radiation experts that say the radiation exposure from one electronic meter, when corrected for whole-body and cumulative effect, is 50 to 160 times that of a cell phone.  (See
  • The old analog meters do not emit any form of electromagnetic frequencies and did not irradiate us.
I have been harmed by electronic meters. Up to 12% of the population IS electromagnetically hypersensitive, which means that over 6,000 people in Battle Creek may become harmed by the new electron meters.
  • I was never harmed by any of the old analog meters.
One of your installers actually told a resident to NOT sleep within about 15 feet of one of the new electronic meters.
  • We were never told to keep any sort of distance away from the old analog meters, because we didn’t need to, because they did not irradiate us.
The old analog meters worked fine, didn’t harm anyone, and had withstood the test of time.
  • We can not say that about the new electronic meters
I was going to say that I am all for the Opt-Out program, but many of us never opted-in, in the first place.
And regarding the fees: If someone tells you that you are hurting them by what you are doing, is it morally correct for you to tell them:
  • “I will stop hurting you, but only if you pay?”
Thank you for listening. May you all truly be blessed.
(End of that comment)

I also gave a "General Public" comment, more or less on-the-fly, though I did have notes.  My comment came after the Director of Public Works, Perry Hart, commented about the new meters.  He had quoted some wrong information, and I spoke-up during his comment, only to be shushed by the new Mayor, Dave Walters.

This is an estimation of what I put together for my second comment:
I've probably done more research on smart meters than all of you put together, including Mr. Hart.  This technology has not been around for 25 years, as Mr. Hart indicated.  It was about 10 years ago that California started installing smart meters.  And California may also be the state with the most cities that have put a ban or moratorium on smart meters.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivy (EHS) is a condition recognized by the World Health Organization.  There is actually a plethora of information on the internet about EHS.  Medical studies have indicated that exposure to smart meters/radio transmitting meters could increase one's risk of developing EHS.  (See
There is a group in Maine that have taken a public utility company all the way to the State Supreme Court.
For information about smart meters, check out and
You forced and deceived many of us into taking the new utility meters, and now you want US to pay to have you remove them?
Some say EHS is a dis-ability, because those afflicted with it really do have to be careful about electromagnetic field exposure, lest they find themselves severely affected.
But is EHS a DIS-ability?  Or is it an ABILITY?  Because we can sense high levels of electromagnetic frequencies most others can not?
Kind of like a smoke detector that has the ABILITY to sense smoke, and wake us up, before disaster happens... 
(End of that comment)

The video of the city commission meeting is here.  I comment at 29:55 and again at 64:10.

We are dealing with unproven to be safe technology here.  And lots and lots of professionals saying that there IS cause for concern.  I know it.  I can feel it.  That's why I feel that paying an opt-out fee is agreeing to pay to not be harmed.  I refuse to enter into such an agreement.

What it also means is that we are getting the exact same service as before this whole smart meter fiasco started, but now we have to pay a fee for it because the utility company doesn't want to pay meter readers.  And I say, we can read our own meters, if that would help.  Just stop irradiating us, thank you very much!

For more information about the health impacts from the new wireless meters, please see:

Thank you for reading ~ May we ALL truly be Blessed!


5G: Increasing Possibilities Exponentially

US Senator Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless Technology  Health Risks at United States Senate Hearing "We're kind...