Following are my comments given during the Tuesday, March 15, 2016 Battle Creek, Michigan, City Commission meeting...
Consent Agenda Comment
During Commission Comments, Perry Hart (the Director of Public Works in Battle Creek) was asked about House Bill 4916 and he gave some incorrect information. I'd like to correct that.The House Bill doesn't just address Consumer's Energy (electricity provider in Battle Creek), the Bill addresses all of Michigan (public) utility companies who are utilizing wireless technology (in their meters). (House Bill 4916) is a bipartisan supported Bill, with 13% of Michigan State Representatives supporting it. Four Democrats and 10 Republicans are co-sponsors on this Bill. So I just wanted to clarify that it addresses all wireless utility meters, not just Consumers Energy. It would be Consumers Energy, SEMCO Energy (our natural gas provider), Battle Creek Water Department, you name it.
Also, Mr. Hart referred to FCC requirements as the, quote-unquote, "safety net" they are installing smart meters under. It must be noted that the FCC is not a health regulation agency and it must also be noted that the FCC's allowable levels of radio frequency radiation are among the highest in the world. The United States is among the highest in the world. And then, I spoke to Rene' Stoia, Deputy City Clerk in Marysville (Michigan), and she said that their Resolution addressed their electric company, DTE, because that's who the citizens were concerned about. She also said that they sent their Resolution for a no-fee, analog (utility meter) opt-out choice for all their residents, to Michigan State Legislators, and that, (quote), "Hopefully they will do something about this."
One more thing: City Manager said during this discussion (about Marysville), quote, "Very different composition demographics and the provision of utility service than the City of Battle Creek, they don't have a provision of utility services," or something like that. I didn't quite understand what that meant. So if you can explain that? (I've been told that city officials do not have to answer any questions from the public, and so far, City Manager Rebecca Fleury hasn't clarified that statement for me.)
I do want to thank both Commissioner Faris and Flores for supporting a little more detail in the minutes regarding Public Comments. Thank you.
Adoption of Ordinance Comment
I would really appreciate it if you did not pass this Ordinance. I referred to it last week as the "censorship ordinance." No matter how you cut it, when you do the numbers, it's a 27% reduction in the opportunity for the public to comment at City Commission meetings. And like others have said, if you welcome public comment, you're not showing it in your deeds by passing this ordinance, because a 27% reduction in the comment time is not welcoming. It's welcoming 27% less comments. So I would appreciate it if you did not pass this ordinance as it is.
The way (the proposed Ordinance) was worded, and I don't have it with me, but it was worded such that, "we do not anticipate that this will infringe upon public participation." Something like that.
And my argument is, unless you're psychic, and can see the future, and know who's going to say what, when; you can not anticipate who is going to participate. Did you anticipate that I was going to come here and talk about smart meters six, seven, however many months ago? I don't think so. You probably wish I didn't!
A 27% reduction in the opportunity for the public to make a comment is a form of censorship.
General Public Comment
This is regarding health
effects from the City of Battle Creek Water Department's wireless smart meters,
as well as the smart meters from other (public) utility providers in Battle Creek
The number of signatories
continues to grow, and currently there are two-hundred and twenty scientists
(medical doctors, public health physicians, PhD's, university professors,
engineers, and other scientific professionals), who have put their name, their
credentials, their reputation on the line by signing this Appeal to the World
Health Organization, the United Nations, and the United Nations Member
States. You can view this Appeal online
at EMFScientist.org. I would like to
quote a little of it here:
"We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include - but are not limited to - radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors..."
"Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life."
At this point I would like to
bring your attention to an article published by Oxford University Press, Oxford
Journals, Neuro-Oncology: American Brain Tumor Association - Adolescent andYoung Adult Primary Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2008-2012.
This analysis shows that
brain tumors are now the most frequent form of cancer in adolescents in the United States
Thank you for listening. May you all truly be blessed!
This
Oxford Journal analysis confirms
what these EMF scientists are saying about health effects.
what these EMF scientists are saying about health effects.
Some after thoughts...
DTE, the electric company that Marysville's Resolution covers, has a history of shutting-off power to some customers who refuse smart meters. The Resolution Marysville passed was a very smart move, to nip that shutting-off-power sh*t in the bud.
