Friday, March 25, 2016

Corrections, Psychics & Evidence of Health Effects

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: Consumers Energy and SEMCO Energy...

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  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.  And it's our adolescents today who have grown up with increasing numbers of cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, baby monitors, and now smart meters.  

This Oxford Journal analysis confirms 
what these EMF scientists are saying about health effects.

Thank you for listening.  May you all truly be blessed!

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.  

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Censorship & Signs

Total Solar Eclipse seen in Belitung, Indonesia, Wednesday, March 9, 2016 (AP Photo)

Following are my comments given during the Wednesday, March 9, 2016 Battle Creek, Michigan, City Commission meeting...

Consent Agenda Comment

The minutes (of the previous City Commission meeting) state in three places, simply, "Public comment took place."  Nowhere in the minutes was it recorded who spoke, or what they spoke about.

I feel this is a gross lack of transparency and a form of censorship. 

Perhaps that was not your intention, but it is what it is. 

With no information in the minutes about who spoke and what they spoke about, the only public record there is of who spoke and what they spoke about, is in the AccessVision video (recording of the City Commission meeting), which is not always reliable.  Sometimes the meeting doesn't record, which means there would be absolutely no public record of public comments. 

Proposed Ordinance 03-2016 Comment

Currently the public is allowed eleven minutes total to comment on City business.  Now you want to reduce that by 27%.

You say you welcome public comment, but it is deeds, not words.

The proposed Ordinance states, "...very few comment on the consent agenda, so they do not anticipate that these changes will infringe upon public participation."

How can you anticipate when the public is going to participate?  

Recent history may show that few comment, but those who do comment, sometimes fill the allotted time and could even use more!

When you reduce public comment time from eleven minutes to eight minutes, you reduce it by 27%.  How does that not infringe upon public participation?

Passing this Ordinance will most definitely infringe upon public participation, because the public will have only eight minutes total to comment, as opposed to eleven (which is a 27% reduction in Public Comment time).

If you say you welcome public comment, show it in your deeds, not just your words.

General Public Comment

We truly are on a new frontier. Never before in our history have civilians used the level of wireless technology that is commonplace today. 

Is it not a sign, that smart meters are involved in numerous lawsuits in Michigan, throughout the United States, and the world? 


Never.  Before smart meters.  Had I heard of customers suing utility companies over their equipment.  Had you?  Yet it's becoming more and more commonplace today with smart meters. 

Even the City of Battle Creek has even been threatened recently with a smart meter lawsuit.

The precautionary principle or approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or environment, and if scientific consensus is in conflict, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action, which is you in regards to your smart meters.

You have totally ignored the precautionary approach in regards to smart meters.  Not only did you tell me that you did not have independent proof of safety of these meters before you started forcing them upon some customers, but now we know that scientific consensus is mixed at best, and points to most definite harm at worst.

I've read a number of the scientific studies that show that smart meters harm us.  But I didn't have to read the studies to know the truth of it.  I am one who can feel non-ionizing radiation, the type of pulsed radiation emitted by smart meters, unlike most people.

Are you going to continue ignoring the tens-of -thousands of more recent non-industry funded studies showing the harmful effects of smart meter pulsed radiation?

And are you going to continue ignoring the call from 1000's of professionals worldwide for revised wireless safety standards, including the end of smart meters?

Or, are you going to exercise the precautionary principle, and do something like what Marysville, Michigan has done?  (Marysville, Michigan, recently passed a resolution for a no-fee smart meter opt-out, enabling utility customers to keep their analog utility meters without having to pay extra to do so.)

Thank you for listening.  May you all truly be blessed.

Some after thoughts...

Within the last 30 or so years, we've had nearly a 100% increase in "civilian" use of wireless technology.  When I was growing up, no one had cell phones, not even parents.  It seems like there were a few adults who had pagers, but it wasn't common.  

Not only have we seen nearly a 100% increase in cell phone use in the last 30 or so years, but along with cell phones came cell towers, antenna, WiFi, wireless home phones, baby monitors, tablets, lap tops, other wireless devices, and now smart meters.

We've jumped into this wireless world head-first.  


The number one form of cancer in adolescents in the United States today is brain cancer.  

And today's adolescents are the ones who've grown up with this nearly 100% increase in wireless technology use: Cell phones, lap tops, WiFi, cell towers, antennas, baby monitors, and now smart meters...

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Battle Creek Ordinance to Reduce Public Comment Time

Image from here:

(Updated March 3, 2016)

From the City of Battle Creek Agenda: Battle Creek City Commission Meeting, March 1, 2016 at 7:00 PM, (which was cancelled because of a beautiful, wet and heavy snowfall):
Currently, public comment is limited to eleven minutes total, on anything and everything you want to speak about.  You have three minutes to comment on the Consent Agenda, five minutes on Resolutions, and an additional three minutes for General Public Comments.  

My comments usually fall under General Public Comments, and I don't think three minutes has ever been enough time for me.  However...

The above proposed Ordinance will combine Consent Agenda and Resolution comments, (currently eight minutes total), into one - five minute comment period.

What that means is that they want to change total public comment time from eleven minutes, to eight minutes.  That is a 27-percent reduction in the amount of time the City of Battle Creek Commission will allow the public to comment.  Three minutes doesn't sound like a lot, but when it's 27-percent of a total, it is a lot.

Numerous times I've heard them say that they, "welcome public comments."  If that is true, why, then, do they want to reduce public comment time by 27-percent?
"The City Commission Ethics and Meeting Rules Committee met on February 9 and discussed whether to recommend additional revisions to the City Commission Meeting Rules with the goal of furthering the meeting procedure and flow as the business meeting that it is." 
"The consensus is that the five minute time period has proved adequate for citizens to offer their comment as most do not use the entire time period. In addition, very few comment on the consent agenda, so they do not anticipate that these changes will infringe upon public participation."
(My emphasis added)

How can you take away comment time and not infringe upon public participation?  I just don't see the logic in that.

Reducing total public comment time by 27-percent will infringe upon public participation.  Now that statement is logical.

The message I would like to give to the City of Battle Creek City Commissioners is another thing I've heard them say:

"Deeds.  Not words."
You say you value public input, yet want to reduce it?
Please do not pass this Ordinance as it is.
Instead, please increase General Public Comment time to five six minutes, 
where the time is needed.
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...