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