What Are Your Credentials?

City Commissioners of Battle Creek - Image from here

 To the City Commissioners of Battle Creek, Tuesday, July 5, 2015, I said:

What are your credentials that authorize you to disagree with hundreds of scientific studies done by independent world-renowned researchers?  Are you willing to be held personally accountable should you be sued by those of us harmed by transmitting public utility meters?

On May 22, 2015, Dr. David O. Carpenter, submitted testimony to the Michigan Public Service Commission in regards to Case No U-17767, one of the many ongoing smart meter lawsuits here in Michigan.

Dr. Carpenter is a public health physician with specialties in environmental health and disease prevention.  He is Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, State University of New York, which is a Collaborating Centre of the World Health Organization.

Dr. Carpenter and his colleagues have been studying the effects of low-level non ionizing radiation for decades.  I will quote a few lines from his testimony:

"I am concerned with the health costs imposed on customers in consequence of the radio transmitters in smart meters and also in consequence of the power quality issues, sometimes called 'dirty electricity' generated by the power supplies used in these meters."

"Diminished health for a minority of the population, probably diminished life expectancy for the majority, probable genetic damage..."

"Widespread deployment (of smart meters) cannot be justified... based on the peer-reviewed research...  universal deployment of such meters throughout our urban areas amount to an experiment on the people... without the consent of the experimental subjects."

"...there is a strong body of evidence that demonstrates a variety of adverse health effects, including cancer and effects on brain and behavior, coming from exposure to radiofrequency radiation like that generated by wireless smart meters." 

So please tell me, what are your credentials that authorize you to disagree?  Are you willing to be held 100% accountable for your approval of transmitting, wireless, AMI, AMR, Digital, Advanced, smart public utility meters? 

Thank you for listening.  May you truly be blessed.

Pushing The Limits

Tonight's comment to the Battle Creek City Commission:

This is a chart of outdoor pulsed radio frequency radiation exposure limits, a country comparison, measured in micro-watts per centimeter squared:

Image from Environmental Health Trust

The following cities and countries allow 10 or less micro-watts per centimeter squared of pulsed radiation:   

Paris, Poland, Italy, Russia, Lithuania, China, Switzerland... they actually have two categories, one for "general" and one for "schools and hospitals," the Ukraine, Belgium, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein, and Salzburg. 

The next two countries allow double that:   

India and Israel.

And the last three countries allow one-hundred times that of the first group: 

The US, Canada, and Australia.

Perhaps we've all done it, made a decision based upon not enough information. 

When wireless and smart meters were introduced, public utility companies gave us very little information about them. 

Public utility companies told us that wireless and smart meters were safe because they fell within certain limits set by certain agencies. 

What we were not told was that here in the United States, we have the world's highest allowable limits of pulsed radio frequency radiation exposure. 

We were also not told that never before in our recorded history had we been continuously exposed to the levels of pulsed radio frequency radiation we would be exposed to when wireless and smart meters were installed on our homes. 

If the precautionary principle were followed, we would have much more stringent guidelines for pulsed radio frequency radiation. 

Sunday night I sent all of you information about several more communities in Michigan who have just recently passed Resolutions modeling House Bill 4916, the Utility Meter Choice Bill, allowing public utility customers to opt-out of wireless and smart meters, and to keep analog utility meters without having to pay extra fees to do so. I also sent you a video of testimonies from several other people here in Michigan reporting adverse health effects. 

These communities that are passing Resolutions modeling House Bill 4916 are exercising the precautionary principle for their citizens. 

Isn't it time the City of Battle Creek do the same, before more people are harmed by wireless and smart meters here?  Because, as you can see by this chart, we really are pushing the limits! 

Thank you for listening ~ may we all truly be blessed!

Battle Creek Ordinance to Reduce Public Comment Time

Image from here: http://designthefaith.com/2009/deeds-not-words/

(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):

03-2016  A proposed Ordinance to amend the Battle Creek City Commission Rules of Procedure, Chapter 212.02(X) and (XVII) regarding public comment.

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!

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 http://bit.ly/1N9B52w)

• 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 http://bit.ly/1k8Fn3n)

• 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 http://bit.ly/1MHFf6I)

• 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.

• We were deceived, or forced in.

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 http://1.usa.gov/1W17qgC)

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 Bioinitiative.org and EMFScientist.org.

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:

• Bioinitiative 2012
• EMFScientist.org
• American Academy of Environmental Medicine - Wireless Smart Meter Case Studies
• Clear Light Ventures - The Emerging Link between Wireless and Autism
• Electromagnetic fields stress living cells
• International Agency for Research on Cancer - classifies RF and EMF as possibly carcinogenic
• Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - an increasing challenge to the medical profession
• Self-reporting of symptom development from exposure to radiofrequency...
• Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters
• Smart Meter Radiation Exposure Up to 160 Times More Than Cell Phones
• Smart Meters 100X Radiation of a Cell Phone
• Cancer Expert Warns: Extremely Important to Adopt Precaution against RF Exposure
• AAEM - Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health

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

***

Battle Creek City Commission Meeting - October 6, 2015

The video where I start talking at about 38:00 is here, and the script is below:

The Radio Frequency Comparison chart you sent me from the Director of Public Works in Grand Haven, has been proven wrong by Daniel Hirsch, radiation expert, Senior Lecturer on Nuclear Policy at University of California Santa Cruz.  Hirsch states, “rather than a cell phone being 100 times more (radiation) exposure than a smart meter, the smart meter turns out to be roughly 100 times more cumulative exposure than the cell phone." 

Dominique Belpomme, MD, Master of Public Health, Professor of Oncology, Paris Descartes University, Executive Director of the European Cancer & Environment Research Institute states, “The harmful effects of electromagnetic fields, regardless of their frequencies, are now scientifically settled. Pregnant women (the fetus) and children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable.” 

Paul Pecorale, Vice President of the New York State United Teachers Union, states: “We have enough evidence to justify taking action and we are not willing to wait until our members, their children and the students suffer health consequences from not doing anything.” 

In Naperville Illinois, City Council members settled a federal lawsuit filed by an opponent of the city's smart meter installation program.  The 12-page agreement calls for paying over $117K to a Naperville resident whose lawsuit accused the city and four of its police officers of violating her constitutional rights when they forced a smart meter installation on her property. 

It is quite alarming that the City of Battle Creek Water Department has no actual documentation of proof of safety of the new utility meters being installed by them, and all of our utility companies.  

It is quite alarming that you, the City Commissioners, are relying exclusively on manufacturer propaganda and incorrect information to defend your stance that smart meters pose no health risk.  And it is quite alarming that you can hear many expert sources quoted that prove the new utility meters do indeed cause harm, yet continue to do nothing about it. 

PLEASE investigate this further.  For it is never too late to change your mind about this unproven to be safe technology. 

I conclude with Pope Francis’s words:  “We must move forward together, as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.” 

Thank you for listening.  May you all be blessed!

*