In response to this news article: Michigan 'smart meter' hearing elicits fears, this is what I wrote to the Editor of the Detroit News and the author of the article:
Dear Editor and Mike Gerstein (writer),
"Studies" may have shown our "concerns are
unfounded", however experience has not.
And there's a big difference between experience, and
fears. Take a look at the testimonies of
people who attended the 2014 Michigan Oversight Committee hearing on smart
meters. They were talking about experience,
for the most part. Not fears.
As was stated at yesterday's Energy Committee hearing,
industry-funded studies predominantly "don't show any associated health
risks." While NON-industry-funded
studies DO show "associated health risks." So who are you going to believe?
DTE's opt-out fees are HIGHER than you reported, and even
the digital opt-out meter collects granulated data that is downloaded by DTE
when they read the meter.
And Kurmas admitted that it was like "standing next to
their old analog meter." Some
consider this an invasion of privacy, that the utility company will be able to
know exactly how much electricity one is using, and exactly when.
You wrote, "it's not clear if the meters pose an
increased cancer risk." So who is
the utility company to determine if I want to subject myself to a possible
increased risk of cancer?
I can choose to expose myself to the radiofrequency radiation
of a cell phone, or not. I can choose to
expose myself to the potentially carcinogenic effects of cigarette smoke, or
not. I would like to RETAIN the RIGHT to
choose my (potential) carcinogens, and smart meters emit a potential
carcinogen.
The "older equipment" lasts at least twice as long
as the new equipment, smart meters, so when utility companies talk about
"maintaining older equipment," they're talking about LESS maintenance
than smart meters.
HB 4220 would not only protect my property rights, it would
protect my privacy and my right to choose the carcinogens I'm exposed to.
Jeanine Deal
No comments:
Post a Comment