Biologically Safe Levels For Wireless Exposure Have Never Been Established

Biologically safe levels for long-term exposure to pulsed modulated non-ionizing wireless radiation at non-thermal levels, what today's wireless technology exposes us to, have never been established by any United States health regulatory agency.  Current safety guidelines are based upon the heating of tissue, or thermal effects, from short-term exposures only, and do not consider long-term non-thermal effects.

"The RFR (radiofrequency radiation) exposure limits were designed to protect the general public only from heating risks due to short-term exposure to this type of non-ionizing radiation. The limits were not designed to protect individuals from chronic exposure to low-intensity (i.e., non-thermal levels of) RFR. Yet the preponderance of peer-reviewed research on low-intensity RFR exposure finds biological effects and adverse health effects."  ~ Joel M. Moskowitz,  Ph.D., Director of the Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley | Worldwide Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits versus Health Effects

In 2002 (and prior) the EPA questioned the adequacy of the current U.S. RFR safety guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1996.  Yet U.S. RFR exposure guidelines are still the same today as they were in 1996, and are based upon thermal, or heating effects, only.  They still do not consider long-term exposure at non-thermal levels.

The 4G / 5G small cell antenna infrastructure is creating long-term exposures to exponentially higher levels of RFR at non-thermal levels.  NO safety is assured.

If someone tells you that 5G technology is going to use lower power or lower energy levels than 4G and 3G (and therefore assumed 'safer'), let them know it's not the power levels or energy levels that elicit the most severe  adverse biological effects.  It's the pulses and modulation that appear to be so biologically damaging, according to the scientists and medical professionals who have been studying this issue (see images HERE for a better understanding of modulation).

The 5G wireless infrastructure is in ADDITION to the 3G / 4G infrastructure, adding exponential levels of RFR to our environment, with no biological health impact or environmental impact assessment.

Large cell towers are not being removed as the 4G / 5G infrastructure is being built.  In fact, many large cell towers are getting taller with more cells and antenna.  RFR measurements are increasing exponentially across Michigan as the 4G / 5G infrastructure is being installed.

Because safe levels for long-term exposure to pulsed modulated non-ionizing RFR at non-thermal levels have never been established, we have absolutely NO assurance of safety from any of the wireless technology we are exposed to over the long-term.

We can limit cell phone use, use speaker-phone or air-tubes, turn WiFi 'off' at night, and shield 'smart' meter RFR.  But when a small cell antenna is installed on a light pole outside our bedroom window, our options to avoid excessive untested exposure to RFR  (already making some people very ill) are limited.

This is why we need an immediate moratorium on wireless infrastructure expansion including small cell antenna installations until safe levels for long-term exposure to pulsed modulated non-ionizing RFR at non-thermal levels are established. 

To protect your health, and the health of your loved-ones, please contact state lawmakers and ask for legislation placing a moratorium on wireless expansion until a systematic review of the science is done by independent researchers without conflicts of interest, and safe levels are established for long-term exposure to pulsed modulated non-ionizing RFR at non-thermal levels.

5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects

Monday, August 7, 2017

5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects

by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

The emergence of 5G, fifth-generation telecommunications networks, has been in the news lately because the wireless industry has been pushing controversial legislation at the state level to expedite the deployment of this technology. The legislation would block the rights of local governments and their citizens to control the installation of cellular antennas in the public “right-of-way.” Cell antennas may be installed on public utility poles every 10-20 houses in urban areas. According to the industry, as many as 50,000 new cell sites will be required in California alone. 

Although many major cities and newspapers have opposed this legislation, the potential health risks from the proliferation of new cellular antenna sites have been ignored. These cell antennas will expose the population to new sources of radio frequency radiation including MMWs.

5G will employ low- (0.6 GHz - 3.7 GHz), mid- (3.7 – 24 GHz), and high-band frequencies (24 GHz and higher). In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has allocated “low-band” spectrum at 0.6 GHz (e.g., 600 MHz), “mid-band” spectrum in the 3.5 GHz range, and 11 GHz of “high-band” frequencies including licensed spectrum from 27.5-28.35 GHz and 37-40 GHz, as well as unlicensed spectrum from 64-71 GHz which is open to all wireless equipment manufacturers.

Prior to widespread deployment, major cell phone carriers are experimenting with new technologies that employ “high-band” frequencies in communities across the country. The “high-band” frequencies largely consist of millimeter waves (MMWs), a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths of one to ten millimeters and frequencies ranging from 30 to 300 GHz (or billions of cycles per second). 

The characteristics of MMWs are different than the “low-band” (i.e., microwave) frequencies which are currently in use by the cellular and wireless industries. MMWs can transmit large amounts of data over short distances. The transmissions can be directed into narrow beams that travel by line-of-sight and can move data at high rates (e.g., up to 10 billion bits per second) with short lags (or latencies) between transmissions. The signals are blocked by buildings, and foliage can absorb much of their energy. Also, the waves can be reflected by metallic surfaces. Although antennas can be as small as a few millimeters, “small cell” antenna arrays may consist of dozens or even hundreds of antenna elements.

What does research tell us about the biologic and health effects of millimeter waves?

Millimeter waves (MMWs) are mostly absorbed within 1 to 2 millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Thus, the skin or near-surface zones of tissues are the primary targets of the radiation. Since skin contains capillaries and nerve endings, MMW bio-effects may be transmitted through molecular mechanisms by the skin or through the nervous system. 

Continue reading HERE.

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.

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:

Mike, 

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?

https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal 

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, EMFscientist.org, 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, Electromagnetichealth.org; 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?

Respectfully, 

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:

• EMFScientist.org
• Conclusions from BioInitiative Report
• Take Back Your Power
• Smart Grid Awareness
• Michigan Stop Smart Meters
• Smart Meter Education Network in Michigan
• Smart Meters & Electromagnetic Radiation - The Health Crisis of Our Time

If You Do Not Have A Thorough Understanding...

Pulling up the drive after the Battle Creek City Commission meeting last night, I saw a beautiful bushy-tailed fox running off into the brush.  Fox is a "good omen," and portends, among other things, "a new world opening up," and "the world is growing and shapeshifting itself into new patterns that will be beneficial," per Ted Andrews in the book Animal Speak.  Perhaps the end of the smart meter and smart grid agenda is closer than it currently feels to me...

I gave two comments last night at the commission meeting.  The video of the meeting is here.  My first comment was brief and begins at about 11:40.  It was in response to two different Commissioner comments that were spoken at the end of the previous commission meeting.  This is an approximation of what I said in my first comment:

In the minutes from the last City Commission meeting, commission comments, it says Commissioner Sherzer requested supporting documentation on the safety of the wireless water meters.  I had done that once also...

At this point, I was interrupted by the Mayor, followed by a discussion between Commissioner Helmbolt and City Attorney Jill Steele.  After about four minutes they allowed me to continue:

Commissioner Sherzer asked about documentation about the safety of the wireless utility meters, and I wanted to say that I had already requested that (in the past).  The City Clerk had turned it into a Freedom of Information Request on my behalf, and waived the fee, and she said that the Water Department has indicated they have no documents from independent parties related to the meters.  My request was denied.  No independent third-party.  No documentation.

And then also it was Commissioner Owens that asked (about notification regarding smart meters), she had not been notified that a smart meter was installed on her home.   

That has been the experience of a lot of people.  I gave a copy of this law (to the Public Works Director, Perry Hart), it's a State and Federal law, stating that it's unlawful for anyone to install a transmitting device on anyone's home without their consent.  Yet the (City of Battle Creek) Water Department has done it numerous times.   

So, that's all regarding my comments for Consent Agenda.  Thank you!

My second comment begins at about 41:55 in the video, and here's an approximation of what I said then:

What if all this new and so-called “smart” wireless technology is really not-so-smart?

What if governmental regulatory agencies really are in cahoots with wireless agencies and are ignoring the medical doctors, scientists, and engineers who are stating that there IS proof that biological harm is occurring, even at extremely low frequencies?

Remember, governmental regulatory agencies ignored warnings about the harmful effects from tar and nicotine in cigarettes at first, though some of you may not be old enough to know or remember that.  But it was a big thing.

What if greed is again usurping the safety of us all in regards to smart meters, cell phones, cell towers, antennas, and wireless technology in general?

Is it going to take a generation, like it did with the tobacco industry, for safety issues with wireless technology to be acknowledged and widely accepted?

When you, the City Commissioners of Battle Creek, were asked to approve smart meters in Battle Creek, did you realize that you were being asked to approve a new technology that has NO long-term testing proving safety?

Do you thoroughly understand the wide spectrum of electromagnetic fields?

Can you tell me which, if any, electromagnetic fields are beneficial to human biology?

Can you tell me exactly where thermal or noticeable heating of molecules begins?  

Smart meters pulse micro-bursts of radio frequency microwave radiation through our homes and our bodies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Can you tell me what the World Health Organization says about electromagnetic fields and cumulative effects?

If you do not have a thorough understanding of something, you have absolutely no business saying that it is safe for others.  That is why I am asking you to please reconsider your decision to allow smart meters in Battle Creek.

I will end with a quote from Martin Luther King: 

'Never, never be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake.  Society’s punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our souls when we look the other way.' 

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

At the end of the meeting, Commissioner Sherzer mentioned having around 70 pages of information regarding smart meters.  He suggested Mr. Kenefick, who has also commented on smart meters, and I sit down together with him so that he could explain the perspective the City of Battle Creek has, and perhaps address a few of the issues we've brought up.  Mr Kenefick requested that the documentation be emailed to us prior to sitting down with Commissioner Sherzer (excellent suggestion), to which Sherzer stated that he would have to check to make sure that was okay. 

However...  as I've told someone one Twitter:

"Your papers hold no weight against many people's actual experience after smart meters were installed (with a link to my blog post, Others Like Me)"

For more information please see:

• BioInitiative.org
• EMFScientist.org
• Smart Grid Awareness
• Take Back Your Power
• Smart Meter Education Network in Michigan, USA
• Isn't the FCC protecting us?
• Electromagnetic Radiation Safety - An Expose' of the FCC: An Agency Captured by the Industries it Regulates
• International Agency For Research on Cancer - World Health Organization: IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans

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!

***