Canary In The Coal Mine: pulsed radiation

Showing posts with label pulsed radiation. Show all posts

Friday, December 30, 2016

Devil in the Details

When public utility companies tell us their new electronic meters (smart, advanced, digital, AMR, AMI, AMR ERT, to name a few NON-analog meters) only transmit for a very short period of time per day/week/month/year, you gotta look at the details.

Recently I answered a question about a new electronic gas meter that "only turns on for a fraction of a second per day," per the utility company.

This was my response (names have been changed to protect the innocent):

Hi Brandon

Under "signal duration" they compare "a fraction of second per day" for the gas advanced meters, to "less than one minute per day" for the electric smart meters.

We know that the electric smart meter's transmissions are made up of numerous micro-bursts of radiation throughout the day, which added together, total "less than one minute" per day.

Is it the same for (the) advanced gas meter? Is the "fraction of a second" transmission they mention, one continuous (uninterrupted) pulse? Or (more likely) is that fraction of a second made up of more than one pulse?

There are 1000 milliseconds in one second. So their advanced gas meters could be pulsing 999 times per day (at the most), in millisecond bursts, to make up the "fraction of a second" signal duration. This is something I would press them to answer.

FYI, our new gas meters, called AMR ERT, pulse in 5.86 millisecond burst, over 15,000 times per day, to make up their 1.5 minutes per day of transmissions. I did the math here: Utility Companies, Lies, Deceptions, Cover-Ups & Fires

Numerous mini-pulses or micro-bursts of radiation, 24/7, is what many experts say is so damaging to the body. They nearly killed me. Our dogs were adversely affected also, until we wrapped the meters in lead, because there's no "opt-out".

There are no studies that show smart or advanced meters are 100% safe, while evidence of harm continues to mount.

Also, the FCC is not a health regulatory agency, and their exposure limits are being contested. Cell phones are voluntary, and can be turned off. Smart and advanced meters expose us to unnecessary radiation. They also operate at the same frequency as cell phones, and the safety of cell phones is questionable: Cell Phones

All the best,

Jeanine Deal

Friday, February 19, 2016

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:

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

"Do You Know What Smart Meters Are?"

Note: When I use the term "smart meter," I am referring to any utility meter that has a wireless component that transmits data. I also call the new gas meters "smart meters," because they pulse radio frequency radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just like electric and water "smart meters." Even though the gas companies call their new meters AMR ERT (automatic read encoder receiver transmitter), and insist they are not "smart meters," I still call them "smart meters."

Another "Say No To Smart Meters!" activist gave me the above name tag last summer, and I've been wearing it everywhere I go.

Whenever I notice someone looking at the name tag, I look at them, smile, and say:

"Say no to smart meters!"

Some people just turn and look away, and that's the end of it. In my mind I bless them, then look away also.

For those who don't look away, who either continue looking at the name tag, or who look directly at me, I ask:

"Do you know what smart meters are?"

The people I've talked to either, (1) have never heard of smart meters, (2) have heard the term "smart meters," but don't know what they are, (3) know enough about smart meters to be very interested in what I have to say about them, or (4) say they love their smart meter (actually, only one person has said that to me).

About a handful of people I've talked to are aware of some, if not all, of the "issues" with smart meters (see links below):

Health - There are 1000's of studies that show that the radio frequency radiation pulses of smart meters cause biological harm to humans, and many people have become very ill after their installation, myself included; there's another issue with "dirty electricity" that smart meters and the digital "opt-out" meters create, which can be just as debilitating to our health
Security - There's lots of hackers in the world, and many people are very concerned about this so-called "smart grid" network our houses and our "smart" appliances will be connected to via a "smart meter"
Privacy - The data utility companies collect can show very personal information about us, and the data is sometimes sold; utility companies have admitted that the data is "worth trillions"
Safety - Electric smart meters have been known to catch fire or explode, though it seems like there's been a lot of cover-up going on around that

The vast majority of people I've spoken with know little to nothing about them. So that is where the conversation begins.

Recently...

One day about a week ago, I was in a "big-box" store, second or third in line, when I noticed the man behind me looking at my "Say No To Smart Meters!" name tag. So I smiled and said my line:

"Say no to smart meters!"

Instead of looking at me, or looking away, this man looked down and didn't say anything. Just as I was about to turn away, he looked up and our eyes met. Then he spoke softly:

"I guess I don't know enough about smart meters to say 'yes' or 'no' to them."

I smiled and nodded, then responded:

"I mean no disrespect, sir, but that is part of the problem. It seems like there's been quite a media blackout about smart meters in Michigan. So you're not alone. I've heard (via Public Works Director in Battle Creek, Perry Hart) that about 30% of Michigan utility customers now have 'radio reading' technology, but only about 1 in 10 of the people I've talked to know what they are."

"There's actually State and Federal laws that make it unlawful for anyone to install a radio device on private property without the property owner's knowledge and consent, but utility companies are doing it all over the United States, and so far, getting away with it."

I went on to explain why I am so passionate about saying "no" to smart meters, and the horrendous health issues I went through shortly after they were installed where I live.

We also talked about the FCC, conflicts of interest there, how the FCC does not protect us, and how radiation limits in the United States are among the highest in the world:

Information...

So if you don't know enough about smart meters to say 'yes' or 'no' to them, you're not alone. Utility companies and mainstream media have done an excellent job at keeping utility customers uninformed about "radio reading technology."

If you want to learn more about smart meters, here are some places to start: