I Am Hopeful

Last night I went to a Conservative Republican convention, called "Battle Cry Michigan," held at Soaring Eagle Casino in Mt. Pleasant.

I had been invited to sit at the "Utility Meter Choice 4 Michigan" vendor table, and chat with people as they stopped, and I'm really glad I went.  

I voted 3rd party, not for Trump, however, I loved the energy of the people in that convention room.

They were hopeful, confident, and resolved.

They were certain that life for Americans would get better, that endless wars would begin to diminish, and that America would become "fair" again, among other things.  And they seemed determined to help make it all happen, as well.

Most of the people who stopped at the Utility Meter Choice 4 Michigan table agreed with us: 

Michigan public utility customers need an analog choice when it comes to utility metering.

Several had already formed an opinion of "smart" and electronic public utility meters.  Some of the comments I heard:

"This is how they can hack into our homes."

"They create a privacy issue."  

"They mess with my radio."

 "I've seen them at fires."

"Of course they mess with our central nervous system."

These were professional people, for the most part, making these comments.  How refreshing to be among so many people who saw beyond the rhetoric of "smart," electronic, and wireless technology.

Some even knew of the link between wireless technology and cancer.

Those who had not already contacted their Michigan state representatives and senators regarding analog choice legislation, promised to do so.  

And a few had already seen the excellent "smart" meter documentary, "Take Back Your Power," by Josh Del Sol. 

It was a "feel-good" evening, making me very hopeful for the future of utility meter choice legislation in Michigan.

 [Update October 25, 2020:  The bill number for no-fee analog choice legislation introduced in 2020 is HB 5606.] 

May we all be blessed!

Disdain vs. Concern

Perry Hart, the Director of Public Works here in Battle Creek, returned my phone call regarding the Water Department's new electronic water meters.  In his phone message, he stated, "I understand your disdain for our read devices."  

The definition of disdain is:

The feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.

Disdain does not describe my feelings around new electronic public utility meters.  I realized that I do not like it when people put words into my mouth, words that I never said.  So I wrote him, hoping to give him some clarity to the real gravity of this issue:

Dear Mr. Hart, 

I listened to your phone message, and you are wrong.  I do not "disdain" your "read devices."  Disdain has nothing to do with my issue.

I have multiple valid concerns about your read devices, Mr. Hart.  I have concerns about health, and a disability in the form of a functional impairment that some people have.  A functional impairment triggered by wireless devices and/or electromagnetic fields.  We Are The Evidence 

I have concerns about a loss of freedom, Mr. Hart.  Having to pay to not be exposed to something that causes me and others a functional impairment is a loss of freedom.  Having to pay to not be exposed to wireless devices and electromagnetic fields is a loss of freedom.  My Ability - Revised

I have concerns about human rights also, Mr. Hart.  I am/we are loosing the right to a safe environment. 

And it's about ignorance, Mr. Hart.  It's about government agencies ignoring all the science proving non-ionizing radiation is not 100% safe.

So you see, Mr. Hart, disdain has nothing to do with my issue.

My concerns are for health, a disability in the form of a functional impairment, freedom, human rights, and ignorance.

Perhaps the "disdain" that you "understand" is your own disdain, Mr. Hart.

Most Sincerely,

Jeanine Deal

 "When you make a world tolerable for yourself,

you make a world tolerable for others."

~ Anais Nin

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:

• EMFScientist.org
• Conclusions from BioInitiative Report
• Take Back Your Power
• Smart Grid Awareness
• Michigan Stop Smart Meters
• Smart Meter Education Network in Michigan
• Smart Meters & Electromagnetic Radiation - The Health Crisis of Our Time

If You Do Not Have A Thorough Understanding...

Pulling up the drive after the Battle Creek City Commission meeting last night, I saw a beautiful bushy-tailed fox running off into the brush.  Fox is a "good omen," and portends, among other things, "a new world opening up," and "the world is growing and shapeshifting itself into new patterns that will be beneficial," per Ted Andrews in the book Animal Speak.  Perhaps the end of the smart meter and smart grid agenda is closer than it currently feels to me...

I gave two comments last night at the commission meeting.  The video of the meeting is here.  My first comment was brief and begins at about 11:40.  It was in response to two different Commissioner comments that were spoken at the end of the previous commission meeting.  This is an approximation of what I said in my first comment:

In the minutes from the last City Commission meeting, commission comments, it says Commissioner Sherzer requested supporting documentation on the safety of the wireless water meters.  I had done that once also...

At this point, I was interrupted by the Mayor, followed by a discussion between Commissioner Helmbolt and City Attorney Jill Steele.  After about four minutes they allowed me to continue:

Commissioner Sherzer asked about documentation about the safety of the wireless utility meters, and I wanted to say that I had already requested that (in the past).  The City Clerk had turned it into a Freedom of Information Request on my behalf, and waived the fee, and she said that the Water Department has indicated they have no documents from independent parties related to the meters.  My request was denied.  No independent third-party.  No documentation.

And then also it was Commissioner Owens that asked (about notification regarding smart meters), she had not been notified that a smart meter was installed on her home.   

That has been the experience of a lot of people.  I gave a copy of this law (to the Public Works Director, Perry Hart), it's a State and Federal law, stating that it's unlawful for anyone to install a transmitting device on anyone's home without their consent.  Yet the (City of Battle Creek) Water Department has done it numerous times.   

So, that's all regarding my comments for Consent Agenda.  Thank you!

My second comment begins at about 41:55 in the video, and here's an approximation of what I said then:

What if all this new and so-called “smart” wireless technology is really not-so-smart?

What if governmental regulatory agencies really are in cahoots with wireless agencies and are ignoring the medical doctors, scientists, and engineers who are stating that there IS proof that biological harm is occurring, even at extremely low frequencies?

Remember, governmental regulatory agencies ignored warnings about the harmful effects from tar and nicotine in cigarettes at first, though some of you may not be old enough to know or remember that.  But it was a big thing.

What if greed is again usurping the safety of us all in regards to smart meters, cell phones, cell towers, antennas, and wireless technology in general?

Is it going to take a generation, like it did with the tobacco industry, for safety issues with wireless technology to be acknowledged and widely accepted?

When you, the City Commissioners of Battle Creek, were asked to approve smart meters in Battle Creek, did you realize that you were being asked to approve a new technology that has NO long-term testing proving safety?

Do you thoroughly understand the wide spectrum of electromagnetic fields?

Can you tell me which, if any, electromagnetic fields are beneficial to human biology?

Can you tell me exactly where thermal or noticeable heating of molecules begins?  

Smart meters pulse micro-bursts of radio frequency microwave radiation through our homes and our bodies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Can you tell me what the World Health Organization says about electromagnetic fields and cumulative effects?

If you do not have a thorough understanding of something, you have absolutely no business saying that it is safe for others.  That is why I am asking you to please reconsider your decision to allow smart meters in Battle Creek.

I will end with a quote from Martin Luther King: 

'Never, never be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake.  Society’s punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our souls when we look the other way.' 

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

At the end of the meeting, Commissioner Sherzer mentioned having around 70 pages of information regarding smart meters.  He suggested Mr. Kenefick, who has also commented on smart meters, and I sit down together with him so that he could explain the perspective the City of Battle Creek has, and perhaps address a few of the issues we've brought up.  Mr Kenefick requested that the documentation be emailed to us prior to sitting down with Commissioner Sherzer (excellent suggestion), to which Sherzer stated that he would have to check to make sure that was okay. 

However...  as I've told someone one Twitter:

"Your papers hold no weight against many people's actual experience after smart meters were installed (with a link to my blog post, Others Like Me)"

For more information please see:

• BioInitiative.org
• EMFScientist.org
• Smart Grid Awareness
• Take Back Your Power
• Smart Meter Education Network in Michigan, USA
• Isn't the FCC protecting us?
• Electromagnetic Radiation Safety - An Expose' of the FCC: An Agency Captured by the Industries it Regulates
• International Agency For Research on Cancer - World Health Organization: IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans