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.

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