Battle Creek Tried to Subpoena Me

"If you go down there, they'll start harassing you, 

like they did me," 
(allegedly)...

Yes, he had warned me.  But out of the blue last year, I decided to listen to a video recording on AccessTV of the last Battle Creek City Commission meeting.  They had a guest speaker that night, the one and only Dennis McKee, our electric company's smart* meter representative.

Dennis is a charismatic man who reminds me of "Mr. Clean."  From my experience, he is very polite and well spoken.  And there seemed to be no question in the city commissioner's minds that smart meters were the next best thing to  (fill in the blank) .

Because of my experience, I felt the commissioners needed to know what the electric company and mainstream media weren't saying about the new meters.  They needed to know that some people become sick after smart meter installation.  Some without even knowing a new public utility meter had been installed.  

So I started going to city commission meetings, telling them of my experience with new electronic AMR ERT natural gas public utility meters (which aren't technically called "smart," but they do send pulses of radiofrequency radiation in the microwave range over 450,000 times per month, non-stop), and also sharing scientific information with proof of harm from smart meters.

I shared smart meter stories of fires, illness, over-charging, and cyber security threats.  Month after month, after month I went and shared.

I asked them to pass a Resolution supporting House Bill 4916, the Analog Utility Meter Choice bill, which allows public utility customers to keep analog (non-electronic) public utility meters without having to pay extra to do so.  After all, the old analog meters have been around for eons and didn't make people sick, start fires, over-charge, or create a cyber security threat.

When I asked them for 100% proof that "smart" meters were safe for humans, they couldn't provide it.  And it didn't seem to matter to them that they couldn't.  And it didn't seem to matter to them that the precautionary principle was being completely ignored in regards to smart meter "roll-out," either.

They just wanted to "agree to disagree" with me.

"I told you they were going to start harassing you," 
(allegedly)...

Indeed he had, and he was right (allegedly).  Police officers began visiting us...

The first one came up the driveway, and was a very nice and polite female officer.  

"You're here to harass her," 
(allegedly), he said to her sternly... 

No, she just wanted to ask me a few questions about an incident that had happened at a previous city commission meeting I had attended.  The incident occurred behind me, behind the audience seating area, in the hallway, while I was up at the podium in the front of the room, giving my three minute General Public Comment about smart meters.

I didn't hear what was being said behind me, behind the audience seating area, in the hallway, while I was speaking.  So I told the kind officer,

"I appreciate all that you do to serve and protect the citizens of Battle Creek, however, 
I do not want to get involved."

And so she left.  Not happy, but peacefully.

On another day, we found a younger male police officer parked in his cruiser just outside the gate on the private road.  When we asked him why he was there, he said he was doing paperwork.  He was a very nice and polite man, and didn't say anything about questioning me.  He was just doing his paperwork, and said something about there not being much coverage on this side of town.  

The last ones that visited were two officers in training, also known as cadets.  They were the ones with the subpoena for me.

"You're here to harass her,"

(allegedly), he told them....

They denied it, and told him about the subpoena they had for me.  He then proceeded to give them an earful, telling them he had warned me about being harassed (allegedly) if I went to city commission meetings to complain.  

I don't know how long he talked to them, but eventually the two cadets also left peacefully, and without delivering the subpoena to me.

Later, I called the police station and asked to speak to the cadets who had been looking for me, in hopes of finding out exactly why they wanted to subpoena me.

The woman who answered the phone at the police department was very polite also.  She checked, but the two cadets were in training and not available to talk with me.  

So I shared my suspicions with the woman who answered the phone, that perhaps they wanted to subpoena me regarding the incident that happened in the hallway behind me, behind the audience seating area, during a city commission meeting, while I was giving my General Public Comment at the podium...

"I don't know about you, but when I'm talking, 

I don't really hear what others are saying," I told her...

I went on to say that my back was to the incident.  However, the Mayor, Vice Mayor, all the commissioners, and everyone else seated in the front were all looking directly at the incident.  In fact, I stopped talking to them from the podium when I saw the Mayor's eyes divert away from me, to behind me in the direction of the hallway.  He was looking right at the incident.

If they wanted to subpoena me, I said, everyone seated up front facing the incident during that city commission meeting needed to be subpoenaed as well.  She agreed.

So I left a message for the cadets with the subpoena to call me back.  That was two weeks ago, and they haven't yet.

We haven't had another police officer visit, either.  Though I haven't been back to a city commission meeting, either.

At least the City of Battle Creek Water Department offers a smart meter "opt-out" (to a program we never opted-into, in the first place).  Twenty-dollars a month (unless it's gone up by now) will keep an unnecessary microwave radiation pulsing device from the City of Battle Creek's Water Department off your home.

Such a deal.

Not.

If you live in Michigan, please support House Bill 4916, 

Analog Utility Meter Choice

*When I use the term "smart meter," I am referring to ALL new non-analog pubic utility meters.  They've been called a lot of different things, and the names have changed a few times.  But the one thing they all have in common is that they are electronic and not analog.

National Institute on Disability - My Ability

Update December 21, 2016:  I've posted my revised comment here.

Below is my comment to the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), Stakeholders Listening Session.  

Being sensitive to wireless technology and some electromagnetic fields is actually an ABILITY, because I'm ABLE to feel and hear what most people can not feel or hear.

Written comments must be submitted to the NIDILRR by December 12, 2016 for this Session.  

If you are sensitive to wireless technology and/or some electromagnetic fields, please submit a comment!  For more information about submitting your own comment, please see here.

~

To:  The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research 

Re:  NIDILRR 2018-2023 Long-Range Plan - Stakeholder Listening Session

Question:  What issues (barriers) make it challenging for you to be an active member of your community?

Answer:  I have become extremely sensitive to, and thereby functionally impaired by, some electromagnetic fields including wireless technology (cell towers, antenna, WiFi, "smart"/wireless/advanced/electronic/non-analog public utility meters, and more).

My extreme sensitivity began after two new electronic AMR ERT natural gas public utility meters were installed at my home.  Because radiation is cumulative, I believe the continuous pulses of microwave radiofrequency radiation from the new meters triggered extreme sensitivity to radiofrequency radiation and other electromagnetic fields. 

The symptoms described in studies about myelin sheath damage are consistent with the symptoms I experienced after the new electronic utility meters were installed at my home.

Some Research:

• Myelin & Electrohypersensitivity EMFacts Consultancy -http://www.emfacts.com/2014/09/myelin-electrohypersensitivty-press-release/
• PubMed - Could myelin damage from RF exposure explain electrohypersensitivity -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25205214
• Dr. Magda Havas - MS and EHS - Jan 2011 - http://www.magdahavas.com/multiple-sclerosis-and-electrohypersensitivity/

Question:  What improvements (name the top one or two) would make your daily life better?

Answer:  The accommodations I want are (1) the choice to keep analog (non-electronic, also known as electromechanical) public utility meters without having to pay extra to do so, and (2) the availability of hospital rooms protected from wireless and other electromagnetic fields.

Question:  What has changed, for better or worse, in the last five years that has affected your ability to achieve your goals?

Answer:  Being forced to accept new electronic public utility meters as a condition for natural gas service has affected me for the worse in the last couple of years. 

In November of 2014, our natural gas company installed two new electronic AMR ERT natural gas meters at my home.  I was already avoiding wireless cell phones because of an adverse reaction I experienced from my first cell phone in 2013.  When the utility company installers told us the new meters only transmit one time per month, we did not consider that excessive, and allowed the installations.

Within a few months, though, I started experiencing some unusual and disturbing symptoms (rashes, muscle twitches, pain in my "phone ear" returned, joint and muscle pain, joint swelling, balance problems/vertigo, brain-fog, extreme insomnia, extreme fatigue, and more). 

When I contacted the utility company for more information about their new electronic meters, I received an email response from their Regional Operations Manager.  He told me the new meters send signals, not just once per month, as we were told by the installers, but over 450,000 times per month, or 10.67 signals per minute.  

We asked the utility company to remove the new electronic meters and reinstall the analog (non-electronic) meters.  They would not do that.  However, they did offer to remove the new electronic meters and completely disconnect our natural gas service.

We were not prepared to be without natural gas service, so we did not have the new meters removed.  Instead, we've shielded the meters with lead (to block the continuous pulses of radiofrequency radiation), and we turn electric breakers off at night (to reduce electromagnetic fields), which now enables me to sleep, and slowly recover from the symptoms I experienced.  

If we had not taken these measures, I would not be able to continue living in my own home.

From what I understand, by 2017 our electric company will also give us no choice but to accept electronic meters as a condition of electric service.  If we refuse the electric company's new electronic meters, the electric company may shut-off our (electricity).

This is why the #1 improvement that would make my daily life better is having analog (non-electronic) public utility meters as a choice. 

And if I were ever hospitalized in a WiFi saturated hospital room,  any reason I was in the hospital for would most likely become much worse due to the environment.    

Other Research:

• https://www.emfscientist.org/
• http://www.bioinitiative.org/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25478801
• http://powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp
• https://www.emf-portal.org/en
• https://www.scribd.com/doc/278888178/Biological-Effects-of-Microwaves-and-Radio-Frequency-Radiation
• https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810017132.pdf

Respectfully,

Jeanine Deal

I Think I Voted

Image from here

"Good enough!" said the man at the ballot tally-machine after my ballot went into the machine and displayed one green light and one red light.

"Good enough?" I repeated with a tone of inquiry.

"Good enough," he confirmed.

I did not vote a straight ticket.  The ladies at the table beforehand told me it was okay to leave that section blank, so I did.  Instead, I choose individuals from various parties:  Green, Democratic, Libertarian, Working Class, U.S. Taxpayers, and Republican.  

Variety is the spice of life, right?

WARNING:  I'm about to give unsolicited advise, 

but only to those who've already decided 

they are NOT going to vote for the next US President...

Voting for a third-party presidential candidate will help third-parties reach 5% of the popular vote, which then qualifies them for public campaign funding assistance.

You know the old saying, "If we always do what we've always done, we'll keep on getting what we've always gotten."  And the two-party system has gotten us where we are today, which may be why some (you?) decided not to vote.   

How can we expect our government to change, unless WE change?  

We can begin with our vote, and look beyond the two-party system.  And give some of these third-party candidates a chance.  

I voted for at least one individual from all six-parties, not so much because I like the party, but because I like the person, who they are, where they've been, and what they stand for.  

I voted with my conscious.  I voted with my heart.  

Not for "the lesser of two-evils," and not necessarily to win.  

But to score.  

Hopefully. 

Sensitive to Wireless Technology in the US?

Do you consider yourself sensitive to wireless technology and/or electromagnetic fields?

Has a physician diagnosed you as sensitive to electromagnetic fields?

Would you like to have public places you can go that are free of WiFi routers,

 cell towers and antenna for health reasons?

The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) is taking public comments during their Stakeholder Listening Session, which is going on until December 12, 2016.

Catherine Kleiber of ElectricalPollution.com wrote:

If you are experiencing environmentally induced functional impairment from wireless technology (a.k.a. radiofrequency sickness, electrotoxicity, etc.), please take a moment to participate in the listening sessions...   Environmentally-induced functional impairments are covered under the 2008 ADA Amendments.

~ We have until December 12, 2016 to submit a written comment ~

The NIDILRR requests that your comments answer the following questions:

• What issues (barriers) make it challenging for you to be an active member of your community?
• What improvements (name the top one or two) would make your daily life better?
• What has changed, for better or worse, in the last five years that as affected your ability to achieve your goals?

There are also opportunities to speak in-person, or over the phone, regarding environmentally induced functional impairment, though that opportunity ends on December 5, 2016.  Please see the Stakeholder Listening Session page for more details about in-person or phone comments.

Catherine wrote:

It is imperative that they hear from as many people as possible with narrow specific needs e.g. no wireless, especially WiFi, in public buildings and public spaces, especially medical facilities.  If you have time and are able to do so, please back up your story and the need for wireless-free public buildings and public spaces with research.  If not, your story and the stated accessibility barrier are sufficient.

Please email written comments to:

NIDILRRfuture@acl.hhs.gov

Catherine also wrote:

Please send a copy of those comments to your National Congressional Delegation (2 Senators and 1 Representative) Look them up at: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and http://www.house.gov/representatives/.   

Ask that they stop funding wireless broadband, repeal section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, give the EPA authority to establish population-based biologically-protective limits for wireless radiation, and ban WiFi from public buildings and public spaces. 

They need to hear about this continually from everyone before they will act.  Only rarely do people take action on new information the first time they hear it. 

Thank you for taking the time to participate.  Change will not happen without your active participation.

~ Please submit your written comment by December 12, 2016 ~ 

~ Thank you! ~

[Update November 26, 2016]:  My comment is here.

New Public Utility Rules - My Comments

Below (in black) is the comment I submitted to the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) regarding the proposed new public utility rules.  The proposed new rules can be viewed here.  And comments submitted should be posted for the public to view at their e-Dockets site here.  

Someone had discovered that the MPSC was allegedly redacting comments that had to do with health and medical treatment, and suggested the verbiage in the first two paragraphs of my comment.

October 10, 2016

Executive Secretary

Michigan Public Service Commission

P.O. Box 30221

Lansing, Michigan 48909

Re: MPSC Case No. U-18120

Dear Sirs and Madams:

Please Note:  I want the information below and any attachments published in full in the public comments section of the edocket for U-18120. Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I, as a private person, have every right to disclose and disseminate, in whatever form I choose, any information about myself, including information about my health and health reports from medical professionals. There is nothing in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) that precludes me from doing so.

The Commission does not fall under HIPAA rules and may not use the language of HIPAA to circumscribe the commentary I wish to make of my own free will on the public record in this or any other proceeding in regard to my health or in providing documents from an entity covered by HIPAA.  The Commission is not a health plan, health care clearinghouse, or health care provider, nor does it perform functions or services on behalf of a an entity covered under HIPAA. HIPAA applies only to "health plans, health care clearinghouses, and to any health care provider who transmits health information in electronic form in connection with transactions for which the Secretary of HHS has adopted standards under HIPAA." See HHS.gov at https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/. The only other type of entity that might be governed by HIPAA  "is a person or organization, other than a member of a covered entity's workforce, that performs certain functions or activities on behalf of, or provides certain services to, a covered entity that involve the use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information. Business associate functions or activities on behalf of a covered entity include claims processing, data analysis, utilization review, and billing.” Id.

In reviewing the proposed new rules, I have found areas of concern I will describe, along with my questions:

R 460.102 Definitions; A to F. (b) talks about customer account information and data.  The words "extraordinary effort" are used.  This is vague.  One person's extraordinary effort is effortless for another, such as a hacker. 

With smart metering technology, cyber security is a real threat.  Did you know that Lansing's Board of Water & Light got hacked into this past April?  Or that hackers have already taken down the power grid in the Ukraine?  What is being done to address these real threats to our *safety?  (*See end note)

Please see the following links about smart meters and hacking:

• http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2016/10/12/bwl-employee-severances/91862614/
• https://www.wired.com/2016/03/inside-cunning-unprecedented-hack-ukraines-power-grid/
• http://www.businessinsider.com/power-grid-hacking-ukraine-2016-6
• http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/home-security-systems-may-not-secure-think/

R 460.111 General deposit conditions for residential customers. (8) This is the first place in the proposed new rules where utility companies want to REDUCE the amount they pay to customers in interest by 2%.  Why would you allow this?  Are utility companies loosing money?  Is this *reasonable?

R 460.111a General deposit conditions for nonresidential customers. (5) Another mention of reducing interest utility companies pay to customers on deposits, from 7% to 5%.  While utility rates and tariffs continue to rise, utility companies charge customers more, but PAY customers less when they hold customer money.  I do not consider this *reasonable.  Do you?

R 460.116 Meter relocation. Rule 16. (1) (b) This rule addresses if a customer threatens harm to a utility worker.  What about utility meters that harm customers?  Are you not a "Public Service Commission"?  I thought you were supposed to help protect public utility customers by promoting *safe service.  If that it not your job (among other things) to help protect public utility customers, then what IS your job?

R 460.126a Billing error. Rule 26a. (1) This rule proposes another reduction in the interest utility companies pay customers, from 7% to 5% on overcharges.  Again, is this *reasonable?  Or is this benefiting the utility companies at the EXPENSE of the customers?

This rule also states: "A utility is not required to adjust, refund, or credit an overcharge plus 5% (which should remain at 7%) APR interest for more than the 3 years immediately preceding discovery of the billing error..."  This is unacceptable!  New NON-ANALOG public utility meters have a history of overcharging.  This proposed rule would relieve public utility companies of some of their responsibility for choosing to install faulty, inferior equipment and/or for installing equipment incorrectly. 

To relieve utility companies of some of their financial responsibility to customers is *unreasonable.  Again, it is protecting utility companies at the EXPENSE of the customers. 

Utility companies must be held accountable for billing errors for no less than 7 (seven) years from the time the error is discovered and pay a minimum of 7% interest on the amount overcharged.

Please see the following links about smart meters and over-charging:

• http://fox17online.com/2016/04/07/business-owner-with-smart-meter-receives-13000-consumers-energy-bill/
• http://fox17online.com/2016/04/08/22000-bill-for-two-bedroom-kalamazoo-home-leaves-owner-in-shock/
• http://tdn.com/news/local/customers-protest-high-electricity-bills-call-for-meter-audit/article_786cd8c0-d432-53e1-bd73-12acd180e234.html
• http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/01/05/electric-bill-spikes-blamed-on-smart-meters/
• http://www.kabc.com/2016/03/21/improperly-calibrated-smart-meters-raises-ire-of-city-council-member/
• http://www.reddirtreport.com/red-dirt-news/claremore-smart-meters-create-substantial-increases-bills-residents-claim
• https://envirowatchrangitikei.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/how-smart-meters-are-harmful-raise-costs-and-invade-privacy/

Did you know that "smart" and digital "opt-out" electric meters TAKE electricity to run?  ANALOG meters do not.  Who is paying for this extra electricity usage to run new electric meters?  The customer is.  Is this additional financial burden to customers *reasonable?

R 460.137 Shutoff or denial of service permitted. (1) Why is the word "hazardous" used here but NOT defined under R 460.102 Definitions?  This word and this statement are both too vague for a document of this magnitude.  This is definitely NOT a *reasonable rule.

R 460.137 (1) would allow utility companies to shut-off service to customers who refuse the installation of a new, NON-ANALOG, utility meter.  Some customers already know they are sensitive to new metering technology and want to keep ANALOG meters.

If our natural gas provider had told us their new AMR ERT NON-ANALOG meters send signals over 450,000 times per month, we would have refused installation.  That could happen to a customer in the middle of the winter.  It could be just a matter of hours before water pipes begin to freeze and burst, creating possible catastrophic property loss for utility customers.  Is it *reasonable to expect customers to accept new metering technology when they are already aware of a sensitivity to it?  Is it *reasonable to expect customers to be OKAY with natural gas (or electric) shut-off in the middle of the winter with NO NOTICE?

By not defining "hazardous," you give utility companies the power to create their own rules regarding shutoffs as they go along.  This is definitely NOT *reasonable, and makes the Michigan Public Service Commission of NO VALUE to utility customers.

"Hazardous" must be clearly defined, please.  THAT is only *reasonable!

Furthermore, the following rules must be added:

(1)        Utility companies must provide full disclosure of what exactly they are installing on customers homes.  Utility companies must provide complete and accurate information about equipment before installing new equipment.

I was already avoiding cell phones because of a known sensitivity to radio frequency radiation, prior to new AMR ERT gas meters being installed.

The gas company told us their new meters only transmit once per month, for the meter read.  What they didn't say was that they send signals over 450,000 times per month.  Had they told us the whole truth about their new meters, we would have refused installation.  But we didn't, and within three months, I started having symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity.  I didn't know it, at the time.  I had no idea the new AMR ERT gas meters were going to eventually make me extremely unwell.

About a week after I requested information on their new AMR ERT gas meters, Dave Williams, the Regional Operations Manager at SEMCO Energy, emailed me with the data about what exactly the new AMR ERT gas meters do.  I'm not sure he even knew the details about their new AMR ERT meters before I inquired.

Mr. Williams also told us they have no opt-out, so the only thing we could do if we wanted the new AMR ERT gas meters that made me extremely unwell removed, is disconnect natural gas service.  Is THAT *reasonable?

(2)        Utility companies must offer an ANALOG utility meter choice.

There's a growing number of people in Michigan discovering they are electro-sensitive, thanks to smart meters, as you may already know, given the number of complaints you have and are receiving.  This is a growing health crisis.  Please do your job to help protect us.  We must be accounted for. 

Harm done by wireless technology and electromagnetic fields has been known about since the 1980's.  Perhaps even before that.  You must do your job and protect the people in Michigan who are electro-sensitive.

Also, new NON-ANALOG electric meters now have a growing history of explosions and/or starting fires.  Utility customers who wish to AVOID the increased risk of fire from a public utility meter must be given an ANALOG utility meter choice.

(3)        Utility customers must be given the choice to either:

            a. read their ANALOG meter themselves at NO additional charge if they submit their reading electronically, or

            b. read their ANALOG meter themselves at NO additional charge save postage if they submit their reading via the United States Postal Service, or

            c. have the utility company come out and read their meter for a minimal charge.

(4)        Utility companies must be prohibited from charging customers for utility bills that are printed and mailed via the United States Postal Service.

This is *reasonable given the fact that not all utility customers own a home computer.  It's *unreasonable to expect customers to leave their homes in order to view their utility bills.

I've been told to be respectful to the Michigan Public Service Commission, however I find it difficult to be respectful to people who have been defending and protecting those who've taken away my Rights as a Human Being to *Safety, Security, and Privacy in my own home.

Please, do your job and earn the respect the Michigan Public Service Commission deserves.  Otherwise, you are a useless organization to the People of Michigan.

Most Sincerely,

Jeanine S. Deal

*R 460.101 Applicability; purpose. (2) These rules are intended to promote safe and adequate service to the public and to provide standards for uniform and reasonable practices by electric and natural gas utilities in dealing with residential and non residential customers.  (My highlights added)

Unnecessary Microwave Radiation

Image from Smart Meter Education Network

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016, I spoke again to the City Commissioners of Battle Creek during the three minute General Public Comment time:

Every 14 seconds the new, so-called "smart" water meters the City of Battle Creek Water Department has been installing, send pulses of radio frequency radiation, per Perry Hart from the Water Department.  That's over 6,000 pulses of electromagnetic energy per day from "smart" water meters alone.

Add the over 15,000 pulses per day from new SEMCO Energy AMR ERT gas meters, and we're being zapped over 21,000 times per day from gas and water public utility meters alone.

New Consumers Energy "smart" meters, also known as "advanced" meters (they keep changing the name), will zap us even more.

The citizens of Battle Creek are being involuntarily and chronically exposed to unnecessary electromagnetic energy emitted by the "smart" meters you are in approval of.  

Since you have not been able to provide proof these new meters are safe for humans, let alone the birds and the bees, have you looked into your liability for approving this unsafe technology?

Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D., wrote the book (co-authored the study), “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Evidence for a Novel Neurological Syndrome.”

Dr. Marino also submitted an expert report in a recent smart meter lawsuit here in the United States that probably no one has heard about because smart meter lawsuits are not reported in mainstream media news.  

Dr. Marino testified:

“... [there] is a reasonable basis in established science for the Complainants’ concern regarding risks to human health caused by man-made electromagnetic energy in the environment, including the type of electromagnetic energy emitted by smart meters.  These health risks are heightened in the very young, the very old, and in those with preexisting diseases or disorders."

"... electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a documented neurological condition in which the affected person experiences musculoskeletal, immunological, and/or neurological symptoms that noticeably flare or intensify upon exposure to man-made electromagnetic energy in the environment."

Public utility meters never bathed us in radio frequency radiation.  Until now, that is.  Until smart meters, advanced meters, AMR ERT meters.  

This is unnecessary radio frequency radiation, in the microwave range.

So I ask you again:  If the City of Battle Creek is to error in regards to Public Health, is it not best you error on the side of caution?

Thank you for listening.  May you all be blessed! 

~

Source Information:

• Presentation by Perry Hart - City of Battle Creek Water Department
• Health Risks Associated With Smart Meter Wireless Emissions | Smart Grid Awareness
• Smart Meter Education Network | Smart Meters - How They Work, Why They Are Harmful
• We Are The Evidence - Wireless Technology Injured Advocacy Group