Take Action! Send your comments on 5G to the FCC by March 8

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is accepting comments on whether or not to fast-track 5G wireless networks. 5G will use a dense distribution of antennas (called “small cell”) on power and light poles throughout our towns, cities and rural areas. Fast tracking 5G deployment will thwart public participation and impede local control.

Mobilitie, the company that has petitioned the FCC claims: “ALL Americans” want wireless, and wireless is now an essential public service. Mobilitie argues “Robust deployment of wireless facilities and networks demonstrably serves the public interest…”, and “The Commission has found that all consumers require wireless broadband to have true and meaningful access to the Internet.”

Wireless is not required to access the internet! We can have safer internet access by using wired connections!

Last year, the US government, led by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) linked cancer to cell phone radiation. This study illustrates the need to reduce wireless frequencies not add more!

Will you take a few minutes to comment? The deadline is Wednesday March 8.
1. Start here: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings
2. Click on “Express Comment”
3. Type in 16-421 into the “Proceedings” Field.  A drop down menu will appear, choose Docket No: 16-421
4. Fill out all required fields, write your comment and click continue.
6. Review and submit.
7. Write down your confirmation # so that you can check on your submission.

NTP study can be found here:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html

Mobilitie Petition to FCC http://narc.org/wp-content/uploads/Mobilitie-253-Petition-AS-FILED-c1-c1.pdf

THANK YOU!

Privacy International & the Electronic Frontier Foundation Raise Concerns About Privacy Implications of Smart Meters

Privacy International (PI) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an amicus brief in the case of Naperville Smart Meter Awareness v. City of Naperville before the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

PI and EFF argue that usage data from smart electricity meters differs quantitatively and qualitatively from analog electricity meters, revealing intimate details regarding a person’s private in-home activities.

PI and EFF argue that an Illinois District Court’s decision that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in aggregate electrical usage data, regardless of whether the data is collected by a smart meter or analog meter, is flawed and that the Court’s decision should be reversed.

Patterns generated by smart meter data can be used to infer how many individuals reside in a home as well as their activities, habits, and rhythms of movement, including when they leave their home and when they go to sleep.

Smart meter data can even reveal which appliances are functioning at a given time, allowing one to infer, for example, when residents consume meals, take showers, watch TV, and use exercise equipment.

Privacy International Legal Officer Scarlet Kim said: “The transition from analog meters to smart meters — from a single monthly reading of energy usage to thousands of data points per month — transforms a blunt record of kilowatts consumed into a deeply personal snapshot of a person’s life. The data protection and privacy implications of collecting this data are not confined to Illinois but resonate around the world.”

Electronic Frontier Foundation Staff Attorney Jamie Williams said: “The lower court made false assumptions about how smart meter technology works, and its decision is a threat to the privacy of the 57 million and counting American homes with this new technology.”

For more information: https://smartgridawareness.org/2017/02/28/privacy-advocacy-groups-amicus-brief-on-smart-meters/

“I’m shouting, but no-one is listening!” How to talk to people about wireless radiation.

Rachel Gaunt has an extensive 20 year background in advertising, marketing and social activism. Rachel has written this article, “I’m shouting, but no-one is listening! How to talk to people about wireless radiation so they can hear…and care” to help EMF activists.

She writes, “Why is it that our earnest explanations about the dangers of wireless radiation so often fall on deaf ears? Why in the face of so much science are people not rushing to protect themselves?

I have long been an observer of humans and how they behave, and have spent a long time puzzling the resistance and denial that conversations about wireless radiation can generate.  Recently, a meeting with behavior expert, Matthew Wilcox, author of The Business of Choice, helped to provide the final pieces of the puzzle.

When you look at the way humans make decisions, it turns out that there are three major factors working against us when it comes to shifting beliefs about wireless radiation.

Three factors working against us

First and foremost there is the “It will never happen to me,” response to anything bad that may happen to us in the future. This is especially true among young people.

“It will never happen to me. I am never going to die. It might happen to someone else but not to me.”…

Read Rachel Gaunt’s full article here: I’m shouting but no-one is listening!”

CA Department of Public Health sued for hiding cell phone radiation warnings

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of UC Berkeley School of Public Health has sued the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) for failing to provide a tax payer funded study on cell phone radiation risks. The CDPH refused to comment on the case.

Attorney Claudia Polsky states this is “tax payer funded scientific research over a period of years resulted in a review of the scientific literature about cell phone risks and the production of a document that was supposed to reach the public informing people about how to reduce risks from cell phone use.”

Dr. Moskowitz was asked why the state is trying to suppress the document. He stated, “They [CDPH] claim that they are concerned that this would lead to chaos and confusion among the public. I suspect that they were afraid of the reaction of the telecommunications industry should they publish this document; in fact, they even argued that in their brief.”

UPDATE: In response to media pressure the CDPH pre-released the cell phone advisory to the SF Chronicle. Here it is:  CDPH cell phone document April 2014

Trees injured by cell tower radiation

Scientists in Germany studied tree damage in relation to electromagnetic radiation for nine years, from 2006-2015.  They monitored, observed and photographed unusual or unexplainable tree damage, and measured the radiation the trees were exposed too.

“The aim of this study was to verify whether there is a connection between unusual (generally unilateral) tree damage and radiofrequency exposure.”
They found significant differences between the damaged side of a tree facing a phone mast and the opposite side, as well as differences between the exposed side of damaged trees and all other groups of trees in both sides. They found no tree damage in low radiation areas.
The 30 selected trees in low radiation areas (no visual contact to any phone mast and power flux density under 50μW/m2) showed no damage.
The scientists concluded, “Statistical analysis demonstrated that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone masts is harmful for trees.”  Link to the study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552133?dopt=Abstract#
Damaged Magnolia trees across the street from a cell tower

Fairfax Town Council letter to PG&E “Comply with our Ordinances”

Thank you to the Town of Fairfax CA who sent a letter to PG&E asking then to “cease the impending roll-out of SmartMeter installations in Fairfax.”

Fairfax writes, “By PG&E’s actions to proceed with the SmartMeter program in Fairfax, in essence, PG&E is effectively attempting to render the CPUC rehearing review process moot. Furthermore, by continuing forward on installations, PG&E will be in violation of the Town of Fairfax’s Ordinance and would therefore be potentially subject to Code Enforcement Violations.”

2-14-17 Fairfax letter to PGE – SmartMeter Installation

PG&E has threatened both Sebastopol and Fairfax with smart meter installations even though there are appeals pending at the California Public Utilities Commission, and both cities have laws banning smart meter installation.  EMF Safety Network has been quoted in three newspapers recently.

Marin Independent Journal:

Santa Rosa Press Democrat:

Sonoma West Times and News:

We have asked the City of Sebastopol to enforce the ban on smart meters and they have not responded. However, Sebastopol Mayor Una Glass opened public comments at the last city council meeting with a statement referencing the Marin Independant Journal article,“that basically said that this council doesn’t care about smart meters anymore.” She affirmed Sebastopol still has an ordinance that is not repealed and she stated, “We are concerned with the health of our citizens.”

Changing the conversation on wireless in schools

Palo Alto is in the heart of Silicon Valley, home to tech giants like Google, Apple and HP.  In December 2016 the Palo Alto Unified School District discussed the need to mitigate the health risks of wireless as they plan to renew their internet technology systems.

Medical doctor Ann Lee talks to the board about her son who was diagnosed with a heart murmur at age five, and has chest pain in the library where there are seven wi-fi routers. Dr. Lee reviews the science supporting the connection between health effects and wi-fi.  Peter Sullivan of Clear Light Ventures suggests strategies for reducing wireless, like eco-wi-fi and using a wired computer system.

One board member said, “We have had medical experience with electromagnetic hypersensitivity and it’s quite a real phenomenon”. Another spoke in support of precautionary moves away from wireless, and a third asked for a safety plan.

This school board has been educated over time, which allows them the knowledge to speak out in favor of safety.  What every school board needs: more education.

Watch from 2:59:19 to 3:13:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UapcQ29ciro&start=10745&width=420&height=315

Are PG&E’s estimated utility bills costing you more?

If you are a smart meter opt-out customer you might want to call PG&E to find out if they’ve correctly billed you. People are getting higher bills because PG&E is reading meters every other month. PG&E estimates one month’s bill “supposedly” based on your previous usage.  The next month they read your meter and true up the cost. If PG&E underestimated the previous month your usage will be substantially higher for the 2nd month.  This could be placing you in a higher tier, rather than spreading usage over the 2 months, and billing you in a lower tier.

I called PG&E (1-866-743-0335) and found out they underestimated our December bill by a third, so we were billed in a higher, more expensive tier in January.  The Supervisor asked me to read the meters and told me how to do it. Then she re-calculated our bill.  PG&E gave us a refund of about $90.

I asked if we could self read so we have more accurate bills in the future and was told no, the only recourse is to call PG&E every other month to have the bill recalculated!

Another PG&E customer said she called PG&E and found out her December bill was estimated from the summer months usage which caused a huge January bill.  PG&E told her they would submit a request for correction, but didn’t follow up. She writes, “PG&E has found a way to punish us opt-out customers by playing this little game and then making us call in, be on hold forever, make this request and then make sure they follow up.” 

Another customer has called PG&E about this for a year and she just received a $268 refund. She writes, “How much money has PG&E taken and kept by their slick accounting methods?”

The Utility Reform Network (TURN) states, “TURN is hearing from consumers that high P&GE rates combined with cold temperatures are freezing them out.  Customers say their gas bills have doubled or tripled this winter!” 

In 2012 about a third of all smart meters were still being read by meter readers. PG&E stopped filing public reports on how their smart meter program is working so I can only guess there are still many smart meters being read by meter readers. Are they read bi-monthly too and therefore getting estimated bills?

People have paid for the right to keep the safer analog meter, and now they are at risk for higher bills because the California Public Utility Commission ordered the bi-monthly meter reading and PG&E has a faulty estimated and tiered billing system.

Here’s what you can do if you think you’ve been overcharged: 1. Call PG&E 1-866-743-0335 and ask them about your bill and what the previous month’s estimate was based on. Ask for a supervisor to re-calculate your bill for you.

2. You can also send a complaint to the CPUC: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov