 |
| Wild & Scenic Menominee River by Thomas Young |
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
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?
"It would be unbelievable if external electromagnetic fields DIDN'T have an effect." ~ Prof. Andrew Marino, PhD - Neurology, Louisiana State University
"We are now entering the era of 'The Internet of Things' (IoT) where all our appliances will be Wi-Fi enabled, endlessly communicating with each other and us through so-called smart devices. This 'brave new world' dictates that human exposure to radiofrequency radiation must greatly increase in order to accommodate the technology. This is a planned world being created by technocrats totally ignorant of the reality of our biology, an ignorance fostered by the existing thermal-effects-only standards/guidelines. Now, more than ever, we need new, biologically relevant standards to meet the challenge of the future."
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)
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 have a history of “catastrophic failures” or inaccurate billing.
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 did not cause biological harm.
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.
- The old analog meters do not emit any form of electromagnetic frequencies and did not irradiate us.
One of your installers actually told a resident to NOT sleep within about 15 feet of one of the new electronic meters.
- I was never harmed by any of the old analog meters.
The old analog meters worked fine, didn’t harm anyone, and had withstood the test of time.
- 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.
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 can not say that about the new electronic meters
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:
Thank you for listening. May you all truly be blessed.
- “I will stop hurting you, but only if you pay?”
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...
"I never thought utility meters could actually make me sick."
Though I did not submit a Freedom of Information Request, the Clerk's office submitted one on my behalf, and was then kind enough to waive the fee, "this one time."What evidence do you have of the safety of the new utility meters, all of them, water, gas and electric, other than what comes from the manufacturer?And do you have any independent third-party testing showing, or proving that the new utility meters are indeed perfectly safe?
"The Water Department has indicated they have no documents from independent parties related to the meters."She also sent a "DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORD," which stated:
Your request is being denied in part for the following reason(s):
Is not in the possession of the City. No independent 3rd party testing. No information on gas and electric meters.They admitted outright that they have no proof that the new utility meters are safe. They admitted outright that they have not seen documentation of safety from independent third parties, and they have no information about the safety of the new gas and electric meters they are allowing to be installed also.
"The problem is, they've compared apples and oranges. They looked at whole-body exposure from a Smart Meter, and compared it to the dose to the ear from a cell phone, instead of looking at the whole-body dose from the cell phone and comparing it to the whole-body dose from the smart meter."
"Secondly, they assumed 100% duty cycle for the smart meter, and a 1% duty cycle for the cell phone; you're only using the cell phone probably an hour a day on average. But they didn't correct for that. So they didn't look at the cumulative exposure. Ninety-nine percent of the time the cell phone wasn't producing radiation, but they assumed that 100% of the time the smart meter would. In the smart meter figure they'd exaggerated a little bit, 50% would probably be a reasonable number. But in any case, when you correct for these two factors, the whole-body and the cumulative part of it, rather than a cell phone being 100 times more exposure than a smart meter, the smart meter turns out to be roughly 100 times more cumulative exposure than the cell phone."
"...the cumulative whole body exposure from a Smart Meter at 3 feet appears to be approximately two orders of magnitude higher than that of a cell phone, rather than two orders of magnitude lower."Quotes from Daniel Hirsch, Senior Lecturer on Nuclear Policy at UCSC. YouTube video link here, another article with the video here, and his Draft Report, "Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters," here.
Until about six year ago I had no idea there was a need for “safer technology.” I’d been using computers ever since the 1970’s, though I ...
