What Are Your Credentials?

City Commissioners of Battle Creek - Image from here

 To the City Commissioners of Battle Creek, Tuesday, July 5, 2015, I said:

What are your credentials that authorize you to disagree with hundreds of scientific studies done by independent world-renowned researchers?  Are you willing to be held personally accountable should you be sued by those of us harmed by transmitting public utility meters?

On May 22, 2015, Dr. David O. Carpenter, submitted testimony to the Michigan Public Service Commission in regards to Case No U-17767, one of the many ongoing smart meter lawsuits here in Michigan.

Dr. Carpenter is a public health physician with specialties in environmental health and disease prevention.  He is Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, State University of New York, which is a Collaborating Centre of the World Health Organization.

Dr. Carpenter and his colleagues have been studying the effects of low-level non ionizing radiation for decades.  I will quote a few lines from his testimony:

"I am concerned with the health costs imposed on customers in consequence of the radio transmitters in smart meters and also in consequence of the power quality issues, sometimes called 'dirty electricity' generated by the power supplies used in these meters."

"Diminished health for a minority of the population, probably diminished life expectancy for the majority, probable genetic damage..."

"Widespread deployment (of smart meters) cannot be justified... based on the peer-reviewed research...  universal deployment of such meters throughout our urban areas amount to an experiment on the people... without the consent of the experimental subjects."

"...there is a strong body of evidence that demonstrates a variety of adverse health effects, including cancer and effects on brain and behavior, coming from exposure to radiofrequency radiation like that generated by wireless smart meters." 

So please tell me, what are your credentials that authorize you to disagree?  Are you willing to be held 100% accountable for your approval of transmitting, wireless, AMI, AMR, Digital, Advanced, smart public utility meters? 

Thank you for listening.  May you truly be blessed.

And The Story Continues...

At the January 5, 2016 City Commission meeting, the City of Battle Creek was introducing a Resolution that would allow water customers to have the transmitter part of their new "smart" water meter installed at a distance, up to 100 feet, from their home.  I gave an impromptu comment about that Resolution at about 29:00 here.  This is the approximate script of what I said: 

I’m here to speak about Resolution 47, the remote placement of the device that is the transmitting part of the new water meters.  While this is a Band-Aid, it definitely does not address the real issue of smart meters.

Smart meters are not proven safe.  We have not gone one generation with the level of radio frequency that we are exposed to today.  There is only a small percent of the population, about 3% in the United States, but up to 12% in other countries, that actually feel the effects of the radiation.  Like myself, it took about 6 months before I started feeling pain from my cell phone.  And it took about six months after we had encoder-receiver-transmitter gas meters installed for me to start feeling the pain again in my phone ear, and then a plethora of other symptoms to develop.  

But, like I’m saying, this is a Band-Aid.  All we are doing is moving the radiation a little bit further away from our living quarters, which, hey, that is good, because the pulsing, these meters pulse radiation, and it’s numerous times a minute.  Even though some of them say they only wake-up once a month, when the meter reader drives by or when they go to collect the information, they pulse all the time.

Our gas meters, we were told by the company, pulse 10.67 times a minute.  And these micro-pulses, what they do, whether you feel it or not, it’s when we sleep that the body heals and repairs, it’s kind of hard to go anywhere these days without experiencing wireless radiation.  You go into Meijers and they have WiFi.  So we’re constantly being bombarded everyday by this, but we need to have a safe environment where our body can actually shut-down, rest and repair.

Now, having one of these meters 100 feet or so away from our home will help, but we’re still blanketing the environment with more and more radio frequency than we’ve never experienced before.  We have not gone one generation with the amount of wireless technology we have today.  And even the government says that the studies for non-thermal radiation, that which is radiated by these smart meters, the electronic meters, the wireless meters, the encoder-receiver-transmitters, studies are inconclusive, yet when you look, when you do searches there are studies coming up all over the world.  

There are countries that have banned and outlawed WiFi in schools which utilize radio frequencies very similar to the smart meters.  There are countries that have banned WiFi in schools.  Why?  Because children, and the elderly, and pregnant women, are more susceptible to this pulsed radiation than regular adults, however about 3% of the population in the United States are like me and feel, if not immediate effects, within a short period of time, harmful effects.

So, I just want to say that this is just a Band-Aid.  We are not addressing the real issue of the harm that these wireless devices create.  And it could take 10 to 20 years.  Cancers don’t develop overnight.  It takes 10 to 15 to 20 years for cancers to develop.

I’m just saying that this is a Band-Aid.  Even though it’s going to get it away from our sleeping areas, perhaps, and allow us to do some healing and repairing, we’re still poisoning ourselves with this.

Thank you for listening.  May you all be blessed.

 Later I gave a General Public Comment, at about 70:00 into the recording, where I said:

Regarding what Mr. Dopp said, the FCC is not a health regulation agency. They service the wireless industry. 

Wireless utility meters and smart meters are a source of non-thermal electromagnetic radio-frequency radiation, which means, they do not generate heat. Because they don’t generate heat, there is no early warning, no physiological means by which most people can feel and recognize that they are being affected at a biological and metabolic level by a wireless utility meter. 

There are no government standards (in North America) that establish safe human exposure limits for non-thermal radiation, that which is utilized by the new wireless water meters. When utility companies insist that the levels of electromagnetic radiation their products radiate fall well within government limits, they are referring only to the limits for thermal radiation, not non-thermal. 

On May 11, 2015, 190 scientists from 39 countries submitted an "International EMF Scientist Appeal" to His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations. These scientists have collectively published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on the biological and health effects of non-thermal electromagnetic radiation. The Appeal now has 217 scientist signatures. 

Dr. Martin Blank, from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, says, (quote): 

"We are scientists and engineers, and I am here to tell you - we have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control! Putting it bluntly, they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely.” 

There are videos of live blood analysis that clearly show the harmful effects from non-thermal smart meter radiation. Subjects have blood samples taken both before and after a 2 minute exposure to smart meters. All samples show damage to red blood cells, yet most test subjects feel nothing. 

The important thing is that no one has been able to show conclusively that smart meter radiation is safe. And in 2011 the World Health Organization reclassified radio frequency electromagnetic radiation as a “possible carcinogen,” which means that the wireless devices the City of Battle Creek Water Department, and all of our utility companies are installing, may cause cancer. 

The City of Battle Creek’s mission statement says, in part, that they want to ensure a safe community, yet admit to having no documentation proving the safety of their new wireless utility meters. Perhaps it is time to re-write the mission statement, or, review your approval of wireless smart meters. 

Thank you for listening. May you all be blessed.

~

The City of Battle Creek's Response To My Questions

Because the City Commissioners are the "gatekeepers" of the city, at the last Battle Creek City Commission meeting I submitted two questions in regards to my concerns of the safety of the new utility meters the City Commissioners are welcoming into the city:

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?

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."

The City Clerk, Victoria Houser, wrote in her letter dated Monday, September 21, 2015:

"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.  

Ms. Houser also provided a memorandum that the Water Department received from the City of Grand Haven, Department of Public Works.  The memorandum was written by William Hunter, Director of Public Works, explaining his understanding of RF and Smart Meters.  The memorandum came with two Radio Frequency comparison charts and a propaganda sheet from a "Utility Cooperative" in Hawaii.

Perhaps they don't know that 

the RF comparison charts 

have been proven wrong...

"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.  

In my humble opinion, the information about radiation exposure from Daniel Hirsch, Senior Lecturer on Nuclear Policy at the University of California Santa Cruz, holds more weight than the information from William Hunter, Director of Public Works in Grand Haven, Michigan.  

Is this not serious carelessness on the part of the City Commissioners, allowing these unproven to be safe devices to be installed all throughout the city, exposing the citizens to questionable amounts of radiation?

Bless Us All!

For more information:

• EMFScientists.org
• The BioInitiative Report
• Take Back Your Power
• Smart Grid Awareness
• Smart Meter Education Network in Michigan, USA

Battle Creek City Commission Meeting

It was a long City Commission meeting last night, with lots of drama.  I gave my comment about smart meters at about 46:48 minutes in, which can be viewed here.  The audio is somewhat off sync with the video, but still very understandable.

Towards the end of the meeting, one of the Commissioners asked the City Manger if there was an opt-out program that I could become a part of.  She replied that they were working on an opt-out program.    

And it just occurred to me that the idea of an "opt-out" program is backwards, because we never opted-IN to the City's wireless program in the first place.  We were tricked into having the wireless devices installed, without our knowledge or consent.  

Analogue Water Meter

The "old-fashioned" ANALOGUE meters have a 100-year history of safety, and last an average of 30 to 50 years.  The new, so-called smart meters (wireless/radio/electronic/upgraded/digital meters), do not have a history of safety.  Actually quite the opposite.  Here and here are some links about that.  Plus, the new smart meters that were installed only a few years ago are already failing. 

After the meeting, I met another resident who has been adversely affected by a smart meter.  She and her husband were actually forced into taking a smart meter by the City of Battle Creek Water Department, with the threat of water shut-off if they did not comply.

So not only have they been sneaking these wireless devices onto private property without the knowledge or consent of the property owners, but they've been threatening property owners with water shut-off if they don't agree to having one of these radio devices installed.

And the line from an old Gene Pitney song comes to mind, "What a town without pity can do."

As I was leaving, a uniformed police officer turned to me and said that he really likes what I say at the end of my speeches, blessing everyone, and that he could really feel that I mean it, and that "we could use more people like you."  

I smiled and said, 

"We start with one."

He smiled and agreed.

Here is a transcript of what I said: 

Regarding Vice Mayor Gray's comment to me at the last City Commission meeting, which was in response to my deep concern about the safety of the smart meters the Water Department, and all of our utility companies, have been installing, neither Ms. Gray nor any of you, have been able to provide actual studies, documenting the safety of smart meters, while more and more evidence that smart meters cause harm continues to surface. 

There are 57 jurisdictions opposed to the installation of smart meters in California, a state known to be a forerunner when it comes to the health and safety of their citizens, and 15 have passed ordinances making smart meter installations illegal.  Now Nevada City, NV, is proposing a ban on smart meters.
Hundreds of medical doctors and other health professionals are requesting moratoriums on the installations of smart meters because they are seeing the effects these meters are having on their patients. 

Ms. Gray's email mentioned the FCC in reference to the smart meter manufacturer's documents.  The fact is that the FCC refuses to regulate low frequency radiation.  The new FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, has been active in the over-a-trillion-dollar-a-year wireless industry since the mid-1970's.  And now he's in a position to regulate the very industry that has been his bread and butter.  That is what's called a fox guarding the hen-house, and could explain the lack of regulation by the FCC.

Ms. Gray's email mentioned the World Health Organization in reference to the smart meter manufacturer's documents.  The fact is that there is an appeal in front of the World Health Organization, signed by over 200 doctors, scientists, engineers, and PhD's, requesting that the World Health Organization's  guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened in regards to radio frequency radiation, based upon over 2,000 scientific studies that mostly demonstrate neurological and physiological damage from prolonged exposure to the kind of low frequency radiation generated by smart meters. 

Those who are more quickly adversely affected by smart meters, the proverbial canaries in the coal mine, are currently approximately 5% of the population, and we have a right to be safe from harm from utility company's equipment.
Just as Battle Creek was the first in the nation to honor the needs of the disabled by making curb cuts, there is still time for Battle Creek to be the first, at least in the mid-west, to recognize the difficult truth about smart meters and the harm they cause, by imposing a ban or moratorium on the installation of smart meters within the City of Battle Creek. 

Thank you for listening.  May you all be blessed!

*