"The Epic Saga of a Smart Meter Opt-Out"

FACT: Utility companies changed the equipment they had been using for about 100 years, installing "smart" and other transmitting electronic meters without customers/ratepayers knowledge or consent.

FACT: I've talked with nearly 100 people now who became ill after installation of pulsed radio-frequency radiation emitting meters. Some became deathly ill, and a few nearly died, but figured out the cause of their illness in time to mitigate or move away from their own home. This is only a small portion of the people in the world who have become ill after smart meters or transmitting meters were installed.

FACT: I've also spoken with people who have become sick after the supposedly non-transmitting or "radio-off" electronic "opt-out" meter was installed. Part of this may have to do with the "dirty electricity" some of the "new" meters create.

FACT: SOME utility companies "allow" us to PAY EXTRA to "opt-out" (of a program we never opted-into), though the safe "old" analog meter that doesn't emit radio-frequency radiation, and doesn't create dirty electricity is usually not an option.

FACT: Transmitting electronic meters usually pulse radio-frequency radiation (RFR) numerous times per minute all day, every day. Some experts argue that this type of continuously pulsed exposure (24/7/365) is more biologically damaging than a single exposure per day of the same accumulated duration.

FACT: No one, not the World Health Organization, not the American Cancer Society, and not the Federal Communications Commission, has EVER said that RFR is 100% safe. Because it's not.

FACT: I prefer to CHOOSE my possible carcinogens, and not have possible carcinogens forced upon me without my knowledge or consent. (Utility companies never gave us full disclosure of how these new meters operate before beginning installations.)

FACT: This radio-frequency radiation exposure is UNNECESSARY since analog meters (that do NOT emit radio-frequency radiation and do NOT create dirty electricity) are still available, and will be available for as long as there is a demand for them.

Some Supporting Information:

• Illinois woman arrested for refusing "smart" meter (Trying to protect her children from a class 2B carcinogen, she gets arrested.)
• Smart Meters: Countdown to a National Crisis of Illness and Death (It's not just electric utility companies installing transmitting meters.  Natural gas companies are installing them also, though they don't call them "smart".)
• Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200Hz  (Unless you understand the science 100%, you have no business saying transmitting meters are safe.)
• The precautionary principle (Something that is being totally ignored with "smart meter roll-out".)
• Analog utility meters  (If a utility company tells you analog meters are "obsolete" or no longer available, you can now tell them, "BS".)

April 28th Open Letter to Energy Policy Committee

On April 28th of this year, I sent the following "open letter - for the record" about a recent very one-sided news article on Analog Utility Meter Choice legislation in Michigan, to Representative Glenn, Chairman of the House Energy Policy Committee, and copied all the members of the committee:

Dear Representative Glenn, 

This article was published yesterday by DEI (Daily Energy Insider):  Smart meters opt-out bill ready for Michigan House energy committee vote - Daily Energy Insider 

Most customers of DTE Energy and Consumers Energy were not given the option of "opting-IN" to the smart and electronic metering program.   

Consumers Energy claimed in their testimony that only a small percentage of customers "opted-OUT", yet they also admitted that a customer would have to go to their website and click on a tab having to do with "questions" in order to find any information about an "opt-out program".  It is no wonder so few opted-out. 

Some customers have had electricity shut-off for refusing a "smart" meter, and have gone through two or more Michigan winters with no electricity.  They would most likely argue that thoughtfulness (per the article) was not, and has not, been used. Regardless of what DTE Energy and Consumers Energy say about privacy and cyber security, "smart" meters remain a "digital back door" to our homes and our personal lives via the wireless connection.   

This article also mentioned that analog meters would cost customers more money to keep in place.  Neither DTE Energy nor Consumers Energy has offered to "show us the books" to prove this claim.  How could a system of metering that has been in place for decades (analog metering), suddenly cost "roughly $9 million more annually for energy"? 

With analog choice, we are not asking for anything new or special.  We are simply asking for the continuation of a system of utility metering that does not infringe upon our property, and other personal rights. 

Thank you for all you do to support this legislation. 

Sincerely, 

Jeanine Susan Deal  

Battle Creek, MI  49015

Just the Facts, Man

In response to this news article:  Michigan 'smart meter' hearing elicits fears, this is what I wrote to the Editor of the Detroit News and the author of the article:

Dear Editor and Mike Gerstein (writer),

"Studies" may have shown our "concerns are unfounded", however experience has not. 

Michigan has never before had over 2 million so-called "smart" and/or electronic public utility meters installed.  Ever.  So logically, experience should override "studies". 

And there's a big difference between experience, and fears.  Take a look at the testimonies of people who attended the 2014 Michigan Oversight Committee hearing on smart meters.  They were talking about experience, for the most part.  Not fears. 

Part 1:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q12IbEtTrwk

Part 2:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJE0flyzv-Y

As was stated at yesterday's Energy Committee hearing, industry-funded studies predominantly "don't show any associated health risks."  While NON-industry-funded studies DO show "associated health risks."  So who are you going to believe?

DTE's opt-out fees are HIGHER than you reported, and even the digital opt-out meter collects granulated data that is downloaded by DTE when they read the meter. 

And Kurmas admitted that it was like "standing next to their old analog meter."  Some consider this an invasion of privacy, that the utility company will be able to know exactly how much electricity one is using, and exactly when.

You wrote, "it's not clear if the meters pose an increased cancer risk."  So who is the utility company to determine if I want to subject myself to a possible increased risk of cancer? 

I can choose to expose myself to the radiofrequency radiation of a cell phone, or not.  I can choose to expose myself to the potentially carcinogenic effects of cigarette smoke, or not.  I would like to RETAIN the RIGHT to choose my (potential) carcinogens, and smart meters emit a potential carcinogen. 

The "older equipment" lasts at least twice as long as the new equipment, smart meters, so when utility companies talk about "maintaining older equipment," they're talking about LESS maintenance than smart meters.

HB 4220 would not only protect my property rights, it would protect my privacy and my right to choose the carcinogens I'm exposed to.

Jeanine Deal

Battle Creek, MI

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.

While Government Agencies & Utility Companies Skirt the Issue of Safety...

My General Public Comment at the December 15, 2015 Battle Creek, Michigan, City Commission Meeting:

The City of Battle Creek Water Department, and ALL of our utility companies, have claimed that their new wireless utility meters fall within FCC guidelines for safety.  

This is from a published FCC bulletin:  

“In general, while the possibility of ‘non-thermal’ biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known.” 

 “Not presently known,” means that they really don’t know. 

A PDF available online called Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates, by Norm Alster, Harvard University, says:  

“…consumer safety, health, and privacy, along with consumer wallets, have all been overlooked, sacrificed, or raided due to unchecked industry influence.”  

Campanelli & Associates, P.C., anti-cell-tower lawyers in New York State, pose the question on their web site: Isn’t the FCC protecting us?  Their answer:  

“No.  To the contrary, the FCC has employed, and continues to employ its power to assist the wireless industry…”  

In May of this year the City of Battle Creek announced they were installing a dozen or so new utility poles for the new water meter read system antennas, though the link to that announcement is no longer working.  

Our modern world is creating an electromagnetic soup filled with electrical pulses, radio frequencies, and wireless signals that emit damaging radiation.  Many peer-reviewed scientific studies draw conclusions that particularly young children and pregnant women are most at risk.  See Bioinitiative.org. 

Professor Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, with eight international awards for his work, is also calling for action against common emitters of electromagnetic pollution.  He says that these devices are a biohazard which need to be abolished.  

While government agencies and utility companies skirt the issue of safety, the City of Battle Creek Water Department, can not produce any proof that the new wireless utility meters are proven safe.  No one can, because such evidence does not exist. 

Unless the new wireless utility meters are proven safe, do you really think it is moral and just to charge a fee to those who do not want the new meters because they either just don’t want them or are getting sick from them?  

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

The video link to the meeting is here, and I begin speaking at about 46:22. 

References:

• EMFscientist.org
• FCC Questions & Answers about Biological Effects & Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields
• Captured Agency:  How the FCC is Dominated by the Industries It Regulates
• Isn't the FCC Protecting Us?
• BioInitiative.org
• Microwave Electromagnetic Fields Act by Activating Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels:  Why the Current International Safety Standards Do Not Predict Biological Hazard

If We Are To Error...

Is it not best that we error on the side of caution?

It has been proven that when we hear something repeated so many times, we begin to believe it as the truth, whether it is true or not.  Advertisers know that, and use it as a strategy.  And that's what the utility companies have been doing with this whole smart meter agenda, telling the public about all the so-called benefits of this smart meter/smart home/smart grid program, yet they've done little research on the actual health impacts all this wireless technology has.  Truth be told, it's really the utility companies that will benefit from these smart meters, not the consumers, as explained here.  

Those who are hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields, like myself, know there are issues with this new smart meter/smart home/smart grid technology because we can feel it.  Our reactions are not always immediate, because there is a cumulative effect, however sometimes the "symptoms" are instantaneous.   

Human live blood analysis shows that our blood does react almost instantly to the pulsed radiation generated by smart meters:

The minutes to the Battle Creek City Commission meeting are available online after the meeting.  Details of public comments are usually shortened down to one or two simple sentences, such as, "Jeanine Deal spoke on the Water Divisions smart meters."  What City Commissioners and city employees say is sometimes recorded in much more detail.  The November 10, 2015 City Commission meeting minutes give a detailed synopsis of what city employees said about the Water Department's new smart meters, and what the city is calling an "opt-out choice."

The Battle Creek City Commission minutes state (in blue): 

"...smart meters have been challenged in Michigan courts and that the challenges have not been upheld."

While that statement may be true, it is not the whole truth about what is going on in regards to smart meters and litigation in Michigan.  There's at least three currently open and unsettled lawsuits going on in Michigan right now involving smart meters that could be upheld.  So the statement that smart meters have been challenged in Michigan courts but not upheld is actually quite premature.

And just the fact that smart meters have been and are involved in litigation in Michigan, and all over the world, is a huge red flag in itself, wouldn't you say?!  Would you make a large investment into something that had several open lawsuits against it?  Would you continue to expose others to a product that has been and is currently being challenged in a court of law in regards to health, safety, privacy, and Constitutional Rights, among other things?  Perhaps you would, if you wanted to "feed" the legal system, or had lots and lots of money (as the utility companies do) and more to gain than to loose, at least at the moment.  But if you were a small business owner, you would probably drop the whole smart meter idea like a hot potato and not look back.  Cut your losses, apologize to your customers, and move on.

The minutes further state:

"...approximately 30% are using radio reading technology (in Michigan)..."

What that means is that for every 10% of smart meter installations in Michigan, at least one of those utility customers has taken someone to court about it.

"Mr. Hart (who is the City of Battle Creek Utility Administrator) stated the read system transmits at 902-928 mhz frequency, similar to baby monitors or garage door openers."

A utility company in Illinois did that also, compared smart meters to baby monitors.  You can read about that here, and what was said about that.  Perhaps all utility companies are saying that to the customers who question the amount of microwave radiation coming from smart meters.  Perhaps that is part of the propaganda they were given in order to buy into this whole smart meter program.  The fact is, we haven't gone one generation with baby monitors or smart meters.  I don't know about baby monitors, but smart meters have not been subject to independent long-term testing for safety.

Dr. Daniel Hirsch, UCSC Senior Lecturer and radiation expert informs us in his Abstract that the radiation from one smart meter is 50 to 160 times the radiation from one cell phone.  Dr. Hirsch takes into account cumulative whole-body radiation exposure, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, something no one else seems to have taken into account.  When a radiation expert says that being exposed to one smart meter has the cumulative whole-body effect of being exposed to 50 or more cell phones, is that not cause for concern?

The Battle Creek Water Department has been installing Neptune R900 water meters, similar to the one in the following video.  This video shows how frequently this "smart" water meter pulses microwave radiation:

And it is this pulsed radiation that is wrecking havoc with our health.  It's important to note that just because you can not feel it, does not mean that it is not also affecting you.  What does not affect you today, could affect you tomorrow.    

"Mr. Hart confirmed the City has relied upon their vendor's research of the safety of the device..."

The City of Battle Creek has no independent proof of safety of these devices and are relying upon propaganda from the manufacturer that these devices are safe and do not harm us.  The tobacco industry used to deny any harm would be caused by cigarettes also.  And we all know how that ended up...

The minutes further state:

"...the American Cancer Society has also stated it has not been proven there are cancer causing carcinogens in low frequency radio waves..."

The key words here are, "it has not been proven."  Just because it has not been proven harmful does not mean that it is not harmful!  The American Cancer Society wasn't warning people about cigarettes at first either because it took a while for the evidence of harm to surface.  And if you read the American Cancer Society's page about smart meters here, you will see that they are very vague about the whole thing. They compare smart meters with cell phones and WiFi devices, and state that radio frequency radiation is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as:

"possibly carcinogenic to humans." 

"Because RF (radio frequency) radiation is a possible carcinogen, and smart meters give off RF radiation, it is possible that smart meters could increase cancer risk."

So the American Cancer Society actually states on their website that smart meters "could increase cancer risk," yet utility companies are not telling us this.  Is that not grossly negligent?

The Battle Creek City Commission minutes further say:

"Mr. Hart stated it is very difficult to identify the source of radio waves that may be causing health problems."

While that may be true, it is also true that many people, myself included, were perfectly healthy before a smart meter was installed.  Though after installation, that changed.  I explain more about my symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity here, and how they were gone for about two years until SEMCO Energy, our gas company, installed two AMR ERT meters.

One independent smart meter study concludes:

"...smart meters may have unique characteristics that lower people's threshold for symptom development."

Which means that some people who've never had issues with cell phones or WiFi or any other wireless devices may begin to experience symptoms after a smart meter is installed.  At least one other resident in Battle Creek who was forced to take a wireless smart water meter, who did not have any sensitivity to wireless prior to the smart meter installation, does now.  That story here.

"Mr. Hart also stated the World Health Organization has documentation on their website stating they have not been able to identify what is causing any perceived damage due to the numerous sources of radio waves in our environment today."

Is that still not cause for concern and caution as well, that there are already "numerous sources" of radio waves in our environment today, so much so that we can not determine what is causing adverse effects?  It's kind of like driving through an area where there's already a lot of litter and thinking that it's okay to add to the litter because there's already a lot there and who would know that it was you that littered anyway!

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) since 2005.  Like the American Cancer Society's page on electromagnetic hypersensitivity, the WHO's page is a little vague about the subject also, though they do state that more research is needed and:

"The symptoms are real and can vary widely in their severity."

It is very important to note that we are in changing times in regards to wireless technology, and recently there has been an Appeal sent to the World Health Organization, signed by over 200 scientist, calling for increased protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure, the same type of radiation emitted from a smart meter.  This Appeal is based upon over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing radiation, the type of radiation emitted by smart meters.  Current standards are out-dated given "the numerous sources of (microwave radiation) radio waves in our environment today."

Mr. Hart and the minutes were very unclear about the "opt-out" charges:

"Comm. Sherzer inquired as to how City staff determined the $60 fee."

So at the next city commission meeting, I clarified that it was $20 per month.  The minutes further state:

"Mr. Hart stated the charge is based upon the amount of staff time needed to manually read the meters... along with staff time to estimate the read..."

A flawed argument.  We weren't being charged an extra $20 per month to have actual or estimated reads on the old analog water meters in the past.  Meter reading was included in the water and sewer charges already.  And since water bills are not going down with smart meter installation, as confirmed by the Water Department, they will supposedly already be saving money on meter readers for those who don't "opt-out."  Those who do "opt-out" just wont be saving them as much money.  This is savings they already plan on pocketing, and never intended to pass those savings on to their customers.  So in actuality "opt-out" fees are not covering an added expense (because it was there already).  "Opt-out" fees are an attempt to recover lost savings that perhaps they were counting on in order to make this whole smart meter fiasco worth it, because smart meters cost about double that of the old analog meters, yet don't even last half as long.  So their reason and logic is flawed.  The bottom line is the opt-out charge means water customers will be paying more money for less service because they will only be reading the meters four times a year, yet they want to charge us $20 per month more to do that.

When you are electromagnetically hypersensitive, 
agreeing to pay an opt-out fee is agreeing 

to pay someone to NOT harm you.  

Is that an agreement you want to become involved with?

And how do you explain giving customers an "opt-out choice" when they were never given the "opt-in choice," as many of us woefully experienced, in the first place?  

In summary, the new "smart" water meters are:

• unproven safe by independent research
• showing they damage live blood cells
• involved in numerous open and unsettled lawsuits
• pulsing microwave radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
• possibly carcinogenic per the American Cancer Society

If we are to error in regards to smart meters, 

is it not best that we error on the side of caution? 

~ Thank you for reading ~ May We All Truly Be Blessed ~

References and more information:

• Dan Lewis: Smart Meters Are A Bad Deal For Consumers
• Smart Meter Lawsuits
• ComEd Compares Smart Meters To Baby Monitors
• Smart Meter Dangers: The Health Hazards of Wireless Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure
• Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters - Daniel Hirsch
• International Agency for Research on Cancer - RF EMF Fields Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans
• American Cancer Society - Smart Meters
• Canary In The Coal Mine: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
• Self-reporting of symptom development from RF fields of wireless smart meters
• World Health Organization - Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
• Smart Meters & EMF Radiation: The Health Crisis of Our Time
• EMFScientist.org - International EMF Scientist Appeal
• The Emerging Link between Wireless and Autism
• Exposure to extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields and radio-frequency radiation: cardiovascular effects in humans
• Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity From Microwave Technology Finally Medically Proven 
• How Dangerous and Expensive Became “Smart” An Exposé of the “Smart Grid”
• Smart Meters - Correcting the Gross Misinformation
• Health Impacts of RF Radiation: Media Blackout on Smart Meter Dangers
• Smart Meter Radiation Exposure Up To 160 Times More Than Cell Phones
• BioInitiative 2012 - A Rational For Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation
• Electromagnetic fields stress living cells
• The Latest Form of Pollution: Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)

***

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!

***

October 20th Battle Creek City Commission Meeting

Once again, I spoke about smart meters at the City Commission meeting.  Public comments are limited to only three minutes, so I try to pack the most amount of information in, which is why I don't go into much detail, but have posted the links to the studies I mentioned.  The video of the meeting is here, and I start speaking at about 74:37.  While the buzzer is still buzzing, the Mayor addresses the audience, though I finish my speech before the buzzer ends.  Below is a script of what I said:

My comment is regarding the new utility meters the City of Battle Creek Water Department, Consumers Energy, and SEMCO Energy have been installing on our homes, which utilize radio frequencies. The following two studies are from PubMed.gov, a website of biomedical literature: 

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - an increasing challenge to the medical profession: Some people exposed to electromagnetic radiation, including the frequencies utilized by the new water meters, develop Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. While some cannot discriminate between an active radio frequency signal and placebo, others showed observable changes following exposure; reactions in the pupil, changes in heart rhythm, damage to red blood cells, and disturbed glucose metabolism in the brain.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372109

Self-reporting of symptom development from exposure to radiofrequency fields of wireless smart meters in Victoria, Australia: a case series: Shows the most frequently reported symptoms to be insomnia, headaches, tinnitus, fatigue, cognitive disturbances, abnormal sensations, and dizziness, and pointed to the possibility that smart meters may have unique characteristics that lower people's threshold for symptom development.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25478801

Comments on the Draft Report by the California Council on Science & Technology “Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters,” by Daniel Hirsh, Nuclear Expert & Lecturer, University of California, Santa Cruz: Showing that smart meters produce between 50 & 160 times more cumulative whole body exposure than the cell phone.  http://www.committeetobridgethegap.org/pdf/110212_RFrad_comments.pdf

The fact remains that the new radio frequency smart utility meters have not been proven safe, yet evidence they cause harm continues to grow.

The fact is that we have not gone one generation using the level of wireless devices we are today, so we humans are the guinea pigs in this very first long-term study, with many of us already suffering the consequences of unproven to be safe technology. 

The fact is that the Water Department has been working on an “opt-out” program for over three months now. I can understand how it may be difficult to word an opt-out program for something that many of us were forced into in the first place. But the bottom line is, we just want them removed. 

Thank you for listening. May you all be blessed.

* 

City Manager Gets High Marks...

The City Manager of Battle Creek, Rebecca Fleury, got "high marks" on her first year evaluation as the city manager. That story here.

However... 

Fleury has been announcing at the City of Battle Creek City Commission meetings that "we" are working on a smart meter "opt-out" program.  She's said it a few times now, yet the opt-out program has not yet manifested.    

We actually never opted-in to the smart meter program in the first place.  The City of Battle Creek smart meter water meters were unlawfully installed on our property, according to Michigan Act 328 of 1931750.539d. 

Smart meters are a radio transmitting device that record and transmit data.  The City of Battle Creek Water Department admits to that.  And it is unlawful to install a device in a private place that records and transmits without consent.

But the City of Battle Creek installed recording and transmitting smart meter devices without our consent.

Some citizens of Battle Creek have been threatened with water shut-off if they did not accept a recording and transmitting smart meter device.

Almost three months ago, Perry L. Hart of the City of Battle Creek Water Department, also told us they were working on an opt-out program.

Yet to date, an opt-out program for the City of Battle Creek Water Department has not manifested. 

The meters remain in place, despite numerous requests to the water department to remove them. 

In my opinion, Rebecca Fleury and the City of Battle Creek Water Department both have not been doing their jobs in this regard.

May We All Be Blessed!

*