Monday, February 22, 2016

Who Are You Going To Believe?

Image from this story about how "intent matters" when migratory birds are killed
The following is my three minute comment to the City of Battle Creek, City Commission, on Tuesday, February 2, 2016:
In July of last year, I stood before you and demanded a public hearing before any ordinance or anything was passed that would force smart meters upon water customers.  Instead of making smart meters mandatory, you passed a Resolution establishing an uncapped monthly charge for water customers who do not want a smart meter.  This Resolution was introduced and passed without a public hearing. 
Research on the biological effects of long-term exposure to non-thermal radiation, the form of radio frequency radiation we are being exposed to by the City's new water meters, is relatively new. 
Wireless industry funded studies show less often, while independently funded studies show more often than not, that biological harm is being done by your smart meter's non-thermal radiation.

The Bioelectromagnetic Society, established in 1978, has been studying long-term effects of non-thermal radiation, and have found, "rigorous and repeatable evidence for non-thermal physiological effects and hazards including potential carcinogenicity," Larry Burk, MD, CEHP.

Actual DNA damage has been documented by Dr. Henry Lai in the BioInitiative 2012 Report.

And Dr. Albert Manville, Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins University, Senior Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and one of the signatories on the Appeal warning the World Health Organization and United Nations of the emerging public health crisis from wireless technology, including the non-ionizing radiation from your smart meters, wrote: 
“While we like our electronic gadgets, the worldwide demand for these technologies of convenience only grows, as do the gargantuan profits that come from selling the devices and their services.  While human health and safety continue to be dismissed by many, growing scientific evidence is showing a dark side to cell phone, WiFi, smart meter and point-to-point technologies."  He then goes on to talk about migratory birds and how they, "now appear to be negatively affected by non-ionizing radiation." 
So the question is, who are you going to believe?  Those who stand to profit from smart meters?  Or those who have nothing to gain except public health? 
Thank you for listening.  May you all truly be blessed!
 The video of the City Commission meeting is here, and I begin speaking at about 55:05.

Friday, February 19, 2016

Undertows, 'Smart' Meters & Canaries in Coal Mines

Wild & Scenic Menominee River by Thomas Young

In the summertime, when I was a little girl, my grandparents, Nonnie and Gramps, would sometimes take my sisters and I on canoe trips down a relatively calm section of the Menominee River in Wisconsin, close to where our cottage was.  It was always a big thing to paddle down the Menominee River for me; such an adventure, and I loved to canoe!  We would pack our lunch and some snacks, and head out early on a sunny day.

Every year for a number of years in a row, we would travel the same section of river, stopping about half-way at the same little sand-covered island in the river, to eat our peanut butter, jelly and butter sandwiches, and rest, before heading out on the river again.  I remember especially loving Nonnie's PBJ&B sandwiches because of the butter.

One year, during our lunch stop, I asked my Gramps if I could take a little swim in the river.  From a young age I was a good swimmer, and had little to no fear of the water.  But Gramps said, "No, it's too dangerous."  
I was very surprised by his answer, we had just been canoeing on that river, and it didn't seem, or look, dangerous at all.  Gramps proceeded to tell me about something I had never heard of before.  He said that an "under-toe" could grab me and carry me off down the river so fast, I could be gone before anyone knew what had happened to me.

Not knowing what an 'under-toe' was, I imagined some big toe under the water, waiting for unsuspecting people to grab and carry off (though I wondered how a toe could do that).  So I asked my Gramps, "What's an 'under-toe?'" 

Instead of telling me what it was, Gramps said, "Watch."  He proceeded to pick up a small, dried-out log that had washed up on shore some previous day, then tossed the log out into the river.  It landed about 6 to 8 feet off shore, and just kind of floated there for several long seconds, and again I began to think about that big toe that was under the water, and wondered if I would be able to actually see it grab the log.  

While we stood there and watched, the log just floated there as if it were stuck in place.  I began to doubt that the under-toe was there, maybe it had moved down the river, maybe it wasn't so dangerous after all, maybe I could still swim there.  Slowly the log began to turn a little, then suddenly it started moving so quickly down the river that within no time it was out of sight. 

Gramps then explained that an undertow (which has nothing to do with a big toe, of course) was quickly moving water that couldn't always be seen, and that sometimes it was even under a very calm surface of water.  So unless you know it's there, and believe it's there, you could be caught by it and carried off.

The undertow was a clear and present danger to my Gramps.  Even though neither of us could see it, it was still there, and thank goodness Gramps knew about it.  

The pulsed-radiation from 'smart' meters reminds me of that undertow, because even though we can not see it with our eyes, and most of us can not feel it, like my Gramps knowing about the undertow, I know that the pulsed-radiation from 'smart' meters has the potential to cause great harm because I have experienced it first hand.  

This memory returned to me as I was writing a response to one of the City Commissioners here in Battle Creek.  Commissioner Sherzer wrote in an email to me, regarding the safety of 'smart' meters, "that we may be at a point where we will have to agree to disagree on the matter."  I can agree to disagree with him, or anyone else for that matter, about the harmful effects from 'smart' meters.  But this 'canary' knows of the harm 'smart' meters cause, and will continue to 'sing' about it.  It's your choice to listen, or not.

Here is what I wrote to Commissioner Sherzer:
Non-thermal radiation had not been intensively studied for health effects until more recently in the history of wireless technology.  And now there IS documented proof of harm, DNA damage, stress to living cells, and other biological harm done when exposed to non-thermal radiation, the type of radiation emitted by the new water meters. Why would over 200 scientist, medical doctors and PhDs, put their signatures on this Appeal to the World Health Organization and the United Nations if they had nothing to back-up their claims of harm? 
The signatories from JUST the United States includes:
  • Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., Columbia University, USA 
  • Prof. Jim Burch, MS, Ph.D., Dept.of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, USA
  • Prof. David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of New York at Albany, USA
  • Prof. Simona Carrubba, Ph.D., Biophysics, Daemen College, Women & Children's Hospital of Buffalo Neurology Dept., USA
  • Dr. Zoreh Davanipour, D.V.M., Ph.D., Friends Research Institute, USA
  • Dr. Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA
  • Prof. Om P. Gandhi, Ph.D., Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, USA
  • Prof. Beatrice Golomb, MD, Ph.D., University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, USA
  • Dr.Martha R. Herbert, MD, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, USA
  • Dr. Donald Hillman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University, USA
  • Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Fmr. Managing Secretariat, ICEMS, Italy; Director,, USA
  • Dr. Henry Lai, Ph.D., University of Washington, USA
  • Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor, EMF researcher and author, USA
  • Dr. Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D. and C.W.B., Adj. Professor, Johns Hopkins University's Krieger Graduate School of Arts & Sciences; Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, USA
  • Dr. Andrew Marino, J.D., Ph.D., Retired Professor, LSU Health Sciences Center, USA
  • Dr. Marko Markov, Ph.D., President, Research International, Buffalo, New York, USA
  • Jeffrey L. Marrongelle, DC, CCN, President/Managing Partner of BioEnergiMed LLC, USA
  • Dr. Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, USA
  • Lloyd Morgan, Environmental Health Trust, USA
  • Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA
  • Dr. Martin L. Pall,Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry & Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA
  • Dr. Jerry L. Phillips, Ph.D., University of Colorado, USA
  • Dr. William J. Rea, M.D., Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
  • Camilla Rees, CEO,; CEO, Wide Angle Health, LLC, USA
  • Prof. Narenda P. Singh, MD, University of Washington, USA
  • Prof. Eugene Sobel, Ph.D., Retired, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, USA
  • David Stetzer, Stetzer Electric, Inc., Blair, Wisconsin, USA
  • Dr. Lisa Tully, Ph.D., Energy Medicine Research Institute, Boulder, CO, USA
And there are many other signatories from around the world; 218* total now, and the signatories continues to grow, indicating that more and more professionals are convinced of the harm done by non-thermal radiation. 
You can actually access and read the scientific studies on that website.  If you have not done that yet, please do so.  When you are though, there will be no doubt in your mind that these 218 scientists know what they are talking about. 
Though I have read a number of the studies, I don't have to read them to know of the effects because, as you know, I am one of the few who can actually FEEL the effects.  And as you know, most people can NOT feel it, and that is why those of us who can, are called "the canaries in the coal mine."  Coal miners knew that when the canaries stop singing, there was little time left. 
I don't know if you are a father or a swimmer, but consider this: You are swimming with someone you dearly love, and you know there is a strong undertow where your loved one is headed because you have experienced it first-hand, even though your loved one can not see it or feel it and argues that it's not a big deal.  Would you agree to disagree with them that the undertow is NOT potentially hazardous, and turn away? 
You wrote: "...the question of risk is still to be determined."  I would like to know: Why should we have to PROVE RISK of a new technology?  Shouldn't SAFETY first be proven, UNEQUIVOCALLY?

Jeanine Deal

*Note:  As of February 10, 2016, there are now 220 signatories on the Appeal to the World Health Organization and the United Nations.

Recently I watched a video of a father citing the "precautionary principle," and how it was not being followed in regards to installing WiFi in schools. 
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.  (From Wikipedia)
Isn't it time utility companies start using the precautionary principle in regards to 'smart' meters?

For more information, please see:

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

"Do You Know What Smart Meters Are?"

Note: When I use the term "smart meter," I am referring to any utility meter that has a wireless component that transmits data.  I also call the new gas meters "smart meters," because they pulse radio frequency radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just like electric and water "smart meters."  Even though the gas companies call their new meters AMR ERT (automatic read encoder receiver transmitter), and insist they are not "smart meters," I still call them "smart meters."
Another "Say No To Smart Meters!" activist gave me the above name tag last summer, and I've been wearing it everywhere I go.

Whenever I notice someone looking at the name tag, I look at them, smile, and say: 

"Say no to smart meters!"
Some people just turn and look away, and that's the end of it.  In my mind I bless them, then look away also.  

For those who don't look away, who either continue looking at the name tag, or who look directly at me, I ask:

"Do you know what smart meters are?"
The people I've talked to either, (1) have never heard of smart meters, (2) have heard the term "smart meters," but don't know what they are, (3) know enough about smart meters to be very interested in what I have to say about them, or (4) say they love their smart meter (actually, only one person has said that to me).

About a handful of people I've talked to are aware of some, if not all, of the "issues" with smart meters (see links below):

  • Health - There are 1000's of studies that show that the radio frequency radiation pulses of smart meters cause biological harm to humans, and many people have become very ill after their installation, myself included; there's another issue with "dirty electricity" that smart meters and the digital "opt-out" meters create, which can be just as debilitating to our health
  • Security - There's lots of hackers in the world, and many people are very concerned about this so-called "smart grid" network our houses and our "smart" appliances will be connected to via a "smart meter"
  • Privacy - The data utility companies collect can show very personal information about us, and the data is sometimes sold; utility companies have admitted that the data is "worth trillions"
  • Safety - Electric smart meters have been known to catch fire or explode, though it seems like there's been a lot of cover-up going on around that
The vast majority of people I've spoken with know little to nothing about them.  So that is where the conversation begins.  


One day about a week ago, I was in a "big-box" store, second or third in line, when I noticed the man behind me looking at my "Say No To Smart Meters!" name tag.  So I smiled and said my line:
"Say no to smart meters!"
Instead of looking at me, or looking away, this man looked down and didn't say anything.  Just as I was about to turn away, he looked up and our eyes met.  Then he spoke softly: 
"I guess I don't know enough about smart meters to say 'yes' or 'no' to them."
I smiled and nodded, then responded:
"I mean no disrespect, sir, but that is part of the problem.  It seems like there's been quite a media blackout about smart meters in Michigan.  So you're not alone.  I've heard (via Public Works Director in Battle Creek, Perry Hart) that about 30% of Michigan utility customers now have 'radio reading' technology, but only about 1 in 10 of the people I've talked to know what they are."
"There's actually State and Federal laws that make it unlawful for anyone to install a radio device on private property without the property owner's knowledge and consent, but utility companies are doing it all over the United States, and so far, getting away with it."
I went on to explain why I am so passionate about saying "no" to smart meters, and the horrendous health issues I went through shortly after they were installed where I live.

We also talked about the FCC, conflicts of interest there, how the FCC does not protect us, and how radiation limits in the United States are among the highest in the world:


So if you don't know enough about smart meters to say 'yes' or 'no' to them, you're not alone.  Utility companies and mainstream media have done an excellent job at keeping utility customers uninformed about "radio reading technology."

If you want to learn more about smart meters, here are some places to start:

Friday, February 5, 2016

Freedom, Democracy & Smart Meters in Battle Creek, Michigan

To the City Commissioners of Battle Creek, Michigan, on Tuesday, February 2, 2015, I spoke:
When you said "yes" to smart meters, did you realize you were taking away our freedom of choice in regards to being exposed to wireless technology?  
Did you realize that you were denying us a democratic process with public awareness and public input on what you were planning on doing?  
Did you realize that some people were ALREADY avoiding or limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields because of KNOWN sensitivities?  
Did you realize that some men, women, and children were having immediate and severe adverse health reactions after smart meter installation?  
We used to think lead paint was safe, and asbestos, and smoking cigarettes.  Medical doctors used to ADVERTISE cigarettes!  That is, until nay-sayers started to surface. 
Those who profited from lead paint, asbestos, and cigarette sales scrambled for evidence that their products were safe.  
You have scrambled to find information about smart meters and safety.  
With lead paint, asbestos, and cigarette smoking, eventually the actual documented proof of harm could not be denied, and was finally accepted.  
Proof of harm done by smart meters has also been documented.  There are 1000's and 1000's of case studies done by independent medical doctors and scientists who have nothing to gain EXCEPT PUBLIC HEALTH.  
They claim we are headed toward a public health crisis in regards to our exposure to wireless radiation, including smart meters.  
I KNOW the harm because I experience it.  
We have not gone ONE generation with all these cell towers, antennas, cell phones, smart meters & other wireless gadgets, INCLUDING baby monitors.  We have not gone one generation with baby monitors. 
If you are to error in regards to Public Health in Battle Creek, is it not best you error on the side of caution?  
It's a matter of freedom...  HEALTH freedom.  Having to pay for that freedom, is not free.
Thank you for listening.  May you all truly be blessed! 
The video link to the entire City Commission meeting is here, and my comment starts at about 55:30.

I was not the only one who spoke about smart meter Tuesday night.  A few other people complained about the new "smart" radio transmitting water meters.  And one woman threatened the City with a Class Action Lawsuit.

There was quite a bit of discussion among the Commissioners and the City Manager at the end of the meeting regarding the new utility meters and what the City of Battle Creek Water Department has done in regards to lack of notifications to customers before installations. 

And the story continues...

For more information about new utility meters and the "opt-out" meters that are also causing physical harm please see:

Monday, February 1, 2016

Smart Meters & Controversy

The City of Battle Creek's Commissioner Sherzer sent me information regarding "RF Exposure and Health Concerns" in response to my numerous comments and objections to smart meter installations.  The information he sent noted the FCC and the American Cancer Society, among other sources.

This was my response to Commissioner Sherzer:

Commissioner Sherzer,

Perhaps you have not heard most, if not all, of what I have been saying at City Commission meetings regarding smart meters, the radiation coming from them, and what others are saying about this controversial subject, so I will reiterate: 

Cell Tower Attorneys explain how the FCC is NOT protecting us:

The Appeal in front the the United Nations and World Health Organization, signed by over 200 scientists requesting, among other things, revised "safe" levels of electromagnetic radio and microwave frequencies allowed in our environment, INCLUDING those coming from smart meters:

UCSC professor and nuclear radiation expert's claim that the radiation from ONE smart meter, when CORRECTED for whole-body exposure and duty cycle,  is equivalent to 50 to 160 cell phones:

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine's view of smart meter microwave radiation and how they OPPOSE smart meters being installed on homes:  

"Emissions given off by 'smart meters' have been classified by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Possible Human Carcinogen. Hence, we call for: (1) An immediate moratorium on 'smart meter' installation until these serious public health issues are resolved.  Continuing with their installation would be extremely irresponsible.  (2) Modify the revised proposed decision to include hearings on health impact in the second proceedings, along with cost evaluation and community wide opt-out.  (3) Provide immediate relief to those requesting it and restore the analog meters."

The American Cancer Society's International Agency for Research on Cancer's view that cell phone radiation is "possibly carcinogenic," (and the radiation from a smart meter is compared to cell phones by the smart meter industry):

What the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did for us:

Wireless Radiation Danger to Babies and Children (video of The Babysafe Press Conference):

And the fact that you can not disprove on paper the actual experience of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who DO react adversely to smart meters and other sources of electromagnetic radio frequency and microwave radiation:

Do you really want to be known as the Commissioner(s) who allowed smart meters to be installed while all this controversy around them exists?  Do you really want to gamble with your health and the health of your loved ones, your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, that they will NOT be adversely affected by the radiation from this massive deployment of smart meters? 

That is a huge responsibility that you may one day regret.  Are you ready for that?

Most Sincerely,

Jeanine Deal

"So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." ~ Romans 12:5

More information:

5G: Increasing Possibilities Exponentially

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