May 2012 – EMF Safety Network

Cell Phones and Breasts- A Bad Connection

Environmental Health Trust circulated this video today to warn women about the serious health risk of tucking their cell phones into their bras. They state, “Growing numbers of young women in this fast-paced connected society keep their phones in their bras, hijabs (headscarves), or pockets–unaware of manufacturers’ hidden warnings.” The iphone manual states to keep the phone 5/8″ away from the body.

In 2009, the Breast Cancer Fund issued policy and research recommendations (State-of-the-Evidence-2008) to reduce exposure to radiation. They write:

“Decades of research indicate that exposure to EMF is associated with many adverse health effects including breast cancer (in both men and women) and other cancers, neurodegenerative diseases and impaired immune function. Existing public exposure standards for EMF are inadequate to protect public health because they are based on a short-term (30-minute) thermal effect.”

The Breast Cancer Fund Federal Policy Recommendations:

Based on the scientific evidence set forth in The Bioinitiative Report and a growing body of additional research, exposure limits for electromagnetic radiation should be set at the federal level for:

Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF), including power lines, appliances, interior electric wiring an other devices; and

Long term and cumulative radiofrequency (RF) radiation from outdoor pulsed sources including cell phone antennas, radar, TV and FM broadcast antennas and wireless internet antennas, and from indoor sources including cell phones, wireless internet equipment and radiation that permeates buildings from outdoor sources.

With the setting of federal limits for non-ionizing radiation, special protections should be required for homes, schools and places where children spend large amounts of time.”

“You Ain’t Nothin But a Dumb Meter”- Spotlight on Ellen and Tobie Cecil

Join Anna Logmeter as she does the “Dumb Meter” dance and sings this Smart Meter parody to the tune of Elvis Presley’s “Hound Dog”.

Anna Logmeter, aka Ellen Cecil and Tobie Cecil have been educating and helping others protect their homes from electromagentic radiation Smart Meters for the past two years. They manage a 70 unit apartment building in Monterey County in which they have circulated a petition opposing Smart Meters, and built cages around the analog meters to protect the multi-age residents who live there.

Ellen writes,”Tobie and I began our “Most Excellent Smart Meter Adventure” over two years ago because of our Biblical belief that we should love God and love our neighbors as ourselves. Tobie also wanted to protect his employer from the potential disaster inherent in these digital time bombs.” Tobie has been called a “true folk hero” by a Monterey Herald writer because of his heroic efforts to protect their residents.

They recently published this article in a trade magazine for Apartment owners and managers: AOA Why “Smart Meters” Are Not Smart For You!

You can hear more Smart Meter tunes from Ellen and friends: Rap: “A-2-Z Smart Meter Rap (24/7 Ray Freaks)”and blues “Smart Meter Blues”.

Help Elvis and Anna “pull the plug on Smart Meters!”

(You Ain’t Nothin’ but a) “Dumb Meter”

You ain’t nothin’ but a Dumb Meter;
You got me cryin’ all the time.
You ain’t nothin’ but a Dumb Meter;
You got me cryin’ all the time.
Well, you ain’t never been smart
And you ain’t no meter of mine!

They said you was high-tech
But your pulses make me fry.
They said you was high-tech
But your pulses make me fry.
Well, you ain’t never saved me money
‘Cuz your promises are nothin’ but a lie.

They said you was clean and green
But you’re just a ball o’ slime.
They said you was clean and green
But you’re just a ball o’ slime.
Well, you ain’t never been natural–
Now you’re breakin’ my heart and that’s a crime.

You ain’t nothin’ but a Dumb Meter;
Your eyes are spyin’ all the time.
You ain’t nothin’ but a Dumb Meter;
Your eyes are spyin’ all the time.
Well, you ain’t never seen the truth
Now your cheatin’ ways have gone and made you blind.

They said you was high-tech
But your pulses make me fry.
They said you was high-tech
But your pulses make me fry.
Well, you ain’t never saved me money
And your promises are nothin’ but a lie.

CPUC Smart Meter Opt-Out Proceeding Phase 2 Begins

On May 16, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prehearing conference was held in San Francisco to establish the scope of the second phase of the Smart Meter opt-out proceeding. The scope was intended to address opt-out cost, allocation of cost (who pays) and the rights of whole communities to opt-out. Parties are also asking for hearings on Smart Meter health and safety impacts, and commercial rights to be included in the scope of phase two. EMF Safety Network’s comments can be heard at 24:50. Read the Network PHC Statement. More information including part 2 of the video taping of this proceeding visit Ecological Options Network.

SCE Commercial Smart Meter opt-out letter

TO: Southern California Edison Smart Meter Department

PO Box 6400

Rancho Cucamonga CA. 91729

[Insert date]

NOTICE OF NON-CONSENT TO INSTALL A MICROWAVE TRANSMITTER, (SMART METER) ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, NOTICE OF LIABILITY

To: SCE customer service, SCE agents, officers, employees, contractors and interested parties:

The installation of a utility smart meter that transmits or emits microwave radiation on the commercial property located at [INSERT BUSINESS ADDRESS], is hereby refused and prohibited. Because the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) order is silent on opt-out for SCE commercial customers, we are expecting and asserting the same rights as residential customers, who may opt-out for any reason, or no reason.[1]

While my reasons include [INSERT REASONS], I would expect my request to be honored without a stated reason.

If you refuse our request and place a smart meter at our business, we will have no choice but to promptly remove the meter ourselves and restore the analog meter.

Thank you for respecting our request.

Your signature

Your name

Your address

[1] Decision 12-04-018, date of issuance, 4/30/2012 Conclusion of Law #1.

Vermont Legislature Adopts Free Smart Meter Opt-Out

Last week the State Legislators of Vermont voted to allow utility customers a no fee Smart Meter opt-out! Specifically, the bill says that customers must be allowed “to choose not to have a wireless smart meter installed, at no additional monthly or other charge”.

*From the proposed House of Representatives bill: Sec. 15. 30 V.S.A. § 2811 SMART METERS; CUSTOMER RIGHTS; REPORTS (b) Customer rights. Notwithstanding any law, order, or agreement to the contrary, an electric company may install a wireless smart meter on a customer’s premises, provided the company: (1) provides prior written notice to the customer indicating that the meter will use radio or other wireless means for two-way communication between the meter and the company and informing the customer of his or her rights under subdivisions (2) and (3) of this subsection;

(2) allows a customer to choose not to have a wireless smart meter installed, at no additional monthly or other charge; and (3) allows a customer to require removal of a previously installed wireless smart meter for any reason and at an agreed-upon time, without incurring any charge for such removal.

The legislation also calls for future reports related to smart meters to be submitted on: cost-savings associated with smart meters; whether any security breaches occurred because of the wireless technology; and the health effects of smart meters.

Meanwhile, the Vermont Public Service Board who regulate the Vermont utilities had already approved delaying opt-out charges until April 2013. The purpose of suspending the fees were to evaluate the real costs, instead of arbitrary numbers.

In California, the Public Utilities Commission approved arbitrary and punitive opt-out fees, and is forcing customers who do not want Smart Meters to agree to the charges- even though they’ve never evaluated the charges! Seems like Vermont has a few smarter people in charge.

Matt Levin, Outreach and Development Director for Vermonters for a Clean Environment stated they were “pleased the Legislature made such a strong statement on this issue”, however he also expressed caution as the Public Service Board and utilities will continue to evaluate the costs associated with opting out in upcoming proceedings and he said, “our enthusiasm is tempered by the realities and struggles of past experiences”.

However, there will be NO fees charged for at least one year and the legislature has banned the fees altogether. For now, Vermonters have been provided with relief and a victory! CONGRATULATIONS!

Call for Smart Meter Declarations

We are collecting declarations from California utility customers who’ve been impacted by Smart Meters. These declarations will be included in CPUC proceedings, and/or future civil lawsuits. This is a legal document, that you believe is true to the best of your knowledge and you will testify to.

Copy and paste the declaration template (below) into a word document, or download in word.
Follow the prompts in the template. Click here for an example.
Email completed form to legal@emfsafetynetwork.org
You will receive a confirmation by email and further instructions.

Please circulate this call for declarations to others who have been impacted by Smart Meters.

Thank you for your help!

* * * declaration template * * * *

Declaration of <insert full name>

I, <insert full name>, have personal knowledge of all facts set forth in this declaration and am competent to testify thereto if called upon to testify in a court of law. I hereby declare:

1. My name is <insert full name>, and I reside at <insert address, city state and zip>

2. I am a utility customer of <insert name of gas and or electric company>

3. <Continue using a numbered List- write out point by point your situation and complaint against the utility, the Smart Meters, or any aspect of the program, or deployment that impacted you. This is a legally binding document. You must be truthful to the best of your knowledge. End your declaration with the following wording:>

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of <insert state> that the facts set forth above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. This declaration was executed this <insert date> day of <insert month>, <insert year> at <insert city>, <insert state>.

/s/

SDG&E Says Smart Meter Opt-Out charge is a “Penalty Fee”

Sent from Susan Foster

Dear CPUC Commissioners and Judge Amy Yip Kikugawa:

I am an SDG&E customer writing in opposition to the $75.00 fee I must pay to SDG&E to keep my analogue meter that was never removed when smart meters were originally installed in my neighborhood in Rancho Santa Fe, CA. I wrote to SDG&E prior to installation, advising them of my medical condition along with a letter from my cardiologist, as well as a scientific study linking RF radiation to cardiac arrhythmia. SDG&E eventually decided to label my home as a “bypass”, and therefore I have retained my original analogue meters.

When I called SDG&E on April 24 to ask why I needed to pay $75 since there would be no actual work done at my home because I had retained the original meters, I was informed that for me the $75 was a “penalty fee.” I was surprised at this terminology, as I read Judge Amy Yip Kikugawa’s rulings with respect to the opt-out, and I do not see where a “penalty fee” is to be assessed. I thought we had the freedom to choose whether or not to accept a smart meter. Nowhere in the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling do I see justification for penalizing a customer with a medical condition for opting to bypass a meter that would cause harm to my health when that customer requires no work to be done on her property.

In fact, it is my understanding that I have already paid SDG&E through increased fees for installation of smart meters I never had installed, as well as through my Federal tax dollars for stimulus funds that have funded this smart meter program, at least in part. Where is the logic in a penalty fee under such circumstances?

I asked the SDG&E employee who said I was being assessed a “penalty fee” to check and see if she was using the right terminology with me. After a short time on hold, she returned to the phone to tell me her original statement was correct.

Could you please explain SDG&E’s justification for assessing a “penalty fee” when I am simply asking to protect my health, which I have every right to do.

Thank you for your prompt reply, as I must respond via certified letter before June 15, 2012.

Respectfully Yours,

Susan Foster