Fire captain finds hazardous power surges follow Smart Meter installations

Matt Beckett is a fire captain who lives in Cameron Park, CA. He sent the following account of serious electrical problems that occurred after Smart Meters were installed on his house:

“My family moved into a 1982 built house approximately nine years ago and remodeled almost everything (including ALL electrical fixtures: lights, fans, switches, sockets, etc). Our home had what I believe to be it’s original analog meter at the panel. Two years ago PG&E replaced that meter with a “Smart Meter”. Immediately following we noticed power surges in the form of our refrigerator motor intermittently speeding up simultaneously with our lights becoming brighter. As a seventeen year veteran and current Fire Captain this caused me to become very concerned. We notified PG&E and called a licensed electrician to come out and assess. Both arrived at our house within one hour. The electrician checked “our side” and PG&E theirs. Nothing was found to be wrong or faulty, but PG&E decided to change out the connections at the power pole just in case. He also pulled the smart meter and replaced it with an analog. Two years have come and gone without any electrical problems. However, on 11/5/12 our analog was replaced with another smart meter. Within one week of this we noticed power surges once again in the form of lights becoming brighter, refrigerator motor becoming louder, motion light activating by itself in no wind conditions, and while vacuuming the motor increasing speed much like the refrigerator. This culminated on 11/25/12 with my wife noticing a plastic like burning smell coming from our office. Upon further inspection we noticed our computer, phone, and shredder were not working. They were plugged into a Belkin brand surge protector that fortunately did it’s job. This caused the carpet to become hot and melted underneath in a dime sized spot and burned up (inside) the surge protector. Immediately, we called PG&E and another electrician as in the past. Both were at our house within an hour and the same result was found. “Our side” checked out fine and PG&E did not notice anything wrong or faulty. The connections at our roof top power drop were changed by PG&E just in case (even though he thought they were fine). However, the smart meter was replaced with another smart meter. Later that evening our family room TV and components were working fine. However, the next morning they had no power. When I inspected the surge protector that they were plugged into, the same condition was found as in our office.”

Some homes just don’t work well with Smart Meters?

Matt spent four hours on the phone with PG&E, dealing with this problem and notifying them of his concerns. He demanded a rush on switching back to an analog meter. He says, “I’ve been met with multiple attitudes and accusations that I’ve not done everything I can do to make sure it’s not my house causing the problem.”  According to Matt, the only time there were electrical problems was when PG&E changed from the analog to the Smart Meter.

Although PG&E tells Matt he can file a claim for the damaged surge protectors, they say he now has to pay $75  plus $10 a month to keep an analog meter on his home.

Matt’s story is similar to the East Bay fire captain who reported electrical problems and a too hot to touch Smart Meter. Arcing Meter Hazards. Evidence is piling up against Smart Meter installations connected to burnt out appliances, fires and explosions.

Sandi Maurer, director of the EMF Safety Network has been compiling Smart Meter related fires stories since 2010. She says, “It is unthinkable that PG&E, other utilities, and regulators in California have neither publicly admitted to, nor squarely addressed this serious safety hazard related to Smart Meter installations. They are failing their statutory obligation to ensure safe and reliable utility service. ”

Nevada PUC set to vote against utility customers

Nevadans arguments for keeping their analog meters have fallen on deaf ears as the three person Nevada Public Utilities Commission is set to vote on Tuesday November 27, to charge utility customers extortion fees to avoid a Smart Meter- only to obtain a radio off Smart Meter.

Radio off Smart Meters still capture intimate details of a customers utility usage and emit radio frequency (RF) radiation onto electrical wiring. Customers want to retain or restore the analog utility meter!  So why is the Nevada PUC ignoring what customers want?

Angel DeFazio, of NV Energy Stop Smart Meters says, “Anyone with any modicum of concern for their health, the health of their children and future children, will be impacted by this regulatory agency. With Commissioners such as these, it’s much more prudent to avoid moving to Nevada than have a future of health problems and higher utility bills.”

Michael Hazard of NV ENergy Stop Smart Meters who criticizes the utility for double dipping also says, “NV PUC needs to hold NVE accountable for the huge profit they are making from their ratepayers. Along with the need to stop rubber stamping requests from NVE. ”

Meanwhile a Nevada customer was left in the dark when her power was shut off for refusing a Smart Meter.  In addition, a recent article recognizes the connection between  installations in Nevada and Smart Meters exploding and catching fire.  According to the article NV Energy Gary Smith admitted to problems with arcing and burnt out appliances, stating, “What happens is sometimes in the panel itself, you can get heating in those clips (where the smart meter’s prongs plug in) if they’re worn out or damaged,” Smith said. “Then we get what we call a ‘hot socket’ and you’ll have arcing and you’ll have a flashover.”

Has the Nevada PUC ever held evidentiary hearing on the safety of Smart Meters? Were the utilities safety claims ever cross examined?  No…just like in California, the utilities safety claims are rubber stamped by the “so called” utility regulators.

Smart Meter Infrastructure

PG&E smart meter gas data collector

In California, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) uses two types of antennas to relay and collect data from smart meters.  The smart meters themselves use a mesh network system that transmits pulsed RF radiation sending data from meter to meter. Most of the near constant transmission is for the wireless management system that ensures the system is working.  The PG&E system also uses cell phone antennas to relay data.

The gas data collectors are often mounted on utility poles.  They have a two prong antenna, that looks like a football goal post and that’s mounted above a small  solar collector (not shown).

PG&E electric repeater

Electric repeaters are also mounted on utility poles or streetlights and the antenna points downward.  If you’d like to know where these are located in your area contact your utility company. For PG&E contact Denise Alexander.

PGE electric repeater

Thanks to Amy O’Hair and Angela Flynn for these photos.

Who should pay the costs of restoring analog meters?

In the CPUC smart meter opt out proceeding, how the utility costs for retaining or restoring analog utility meters will be recovered is a key issue. There are three groups to consider assigning cost allocation: shareholders, socialize them (all customers pay), and/or individuals pay.

We have asserted in our legal filings that shareholders should pay, but we want to know how you feel about socializing the cost and/or splitting it between shareholders and socializing. Please take a minute to answer this quick survey. Thank you!

Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey, the world’s leading questionnaire tool.

CPUC Evidentiary Hearings

Last week evidentiary hearings were held in San Francisco in the Smart Meter Opt Out proceeding. On behalf of the EMF Safety Network I prepared questions for, and cross examined nine witnesses with a focus on who should pay the costs of customers retaining or restoring analog utility meters. We say shareholders should pay, but most other parties said individuals should pay.

PG&E wants to keep the current interim rates of $75/$10 and $10/$5 and socialize the rest. SCE, SDG&E and So Cal Gas want to charge even more. For customers with two utility companies, they could be charged twice.

The seasoned consumer advocates in the proceeding do not support our position. The DRA did not address cost allocation. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) changed it’s public position radically, from boycott the meters, to require 50% shareholder responsibility, and now to  individuals should pay 100% of the costs. Aglet Consumer Alliance is advocating for no cost for medical conditions, but for all others he suggests individuals pay $30 and $3 a month.

We need to prove that its wrong to charge individuals for not having a Smart Meter and why shareholders should pay.  This will be done through filing of briefs which are due January 14.

You can help by filing a complaint about the fees first with your utility, then with the Consumers Affairs Branch.  The Consumer Protection and Safety Division (CPSD) will likely investigate this issue if there are hundreds of complaints. Also please attend a public participation hearing in your area.

PG&E currently estimates over 237,000 utility meters are/or will be unable to complete. May of these customers are refusing to choose between accepting a Smart Meter or paying to keep the analog meter, or they are denying access. PG&E says they plan to place these customers in the opt-out program after several attempts to get them to decide.

The PG&E witness James Meadows said, under oath, that breaking locks or crossing fences to force Smart Meter installation was not a practice they would approve.

To the question of whether or not SCE customers can have an analog meter SCE witness L. Oliva responded , “I think they can.”

I asked Raymond Blatter, a PG&E witness the following question, “Do you consider it reasonable that if a SmartMeter is installed on someone’s home and they’re experiencing headaches or sleep problems or ringing in the ears, that that person should have to pay not to have that device on their home?”

Mr. Blatter answered, “I think that if that customer receives a benefit of not having that meter on their home, that they should pay for that benefit or at least partially pay for it.”

Well, I don’t think that line of reasoning can hold up for long! A conclusion to this proceeding is expected by next Spring.

Public Hearings on Smart Meters December 13- 20, 2012

CPUC Holds Public Hearings on Smart Meters

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will hold a series of five “public participation hearings” from Dec 13-20, 2012 to gather public input on the Smart Meter opt out program. Currently customers who want to retain or restore the analog meters are charged  “interim fees” to not have Smart Meters.

The CPUC judge Amy Yip-Kikugawa will preside over the hearings. This is an opportunity for customers to comment on cost and cost allocation issues: costs include customer impact; fees; billing overcharges; health costs; environmental costs; interference; fires or burnt out appliances following installation; banks of Smart Meters; and the need for community Smart Meter free zones, etc.

In your comments be sure to address cost allocation: Do you think it’s unfair that individuals should have to pay to protect themselves from Smart Meter radiation? Should shareholders, everyone, or individuals pay?

  • Hearings are free and open to the pubic.
  • They are scheduled to be 2 hours long.
  • Encourage politicians to attend. They will be allowed to speak first.
  • The length of time to speak will depend on how many people show up: The more people, the less time, for example 1-2 minutes. If hundreds show up the ALJ may ask for one person to represent and speak on behalf of a group of customers…”I represent #’s of customers.”
  •  There will be a court reporter and the public comments will become a part of the record in the Smart Meter consolidated proceeding (A.11-03-014)

BAKERSFIELD December 13, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. Bakersfield City Hall Council Chambers 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

SANTA BARBARA December 14, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. County Administration Building Board Hearing Room, 4th Floor 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101

LOS ANGELES December 17, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. Junipero Serra State Office Building Carmel Room – Auditorium, 1st Floor 320 West 4th Street Los Angeles, CA 90013

SAN CLEMENTE December 18, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. San Clemente Community Center –– Ole Hanson Fireside Room 100 N. Calle Seville San Clemente, CA 92672

SANTA ROSA December 20, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Steel Lane Community Center –– Dohn Room 415 Steele Lane Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Secondhand radiation can be considerable according to a newly published study.

By: Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley

Many people are unaware that they are exposed to cell phone radiation when their cell phones are in standby mode.  This occurs because their cell phone contacts the nearest cell tower periodically to update its location.

In a moving vehicle, cell phones in standby mode contact cell towers more frequently. Thus, exposure to cell phone radiation from one’s cell phone is greater in transit.

Two Swiss researchers, Damiano Urbinello and Martin Roosli, set out to measure personal cell phone radiation exposure during car, bus and train trips when one’s own phone was in standby mode.

Their study just published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology identified a source of cell phone radiation that may constitute a public health problem. Namely, secondhand exposure to cell phone radiation from other people’s cell phones can be considerable while traveling on buses and trains (1).

During bus or train trips, individuals may be exposed to considerable amounts of cell phone radiation from other people’s cell phones. Buses and railroad cars act like “Faraday cages” that reflect much of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones throughout the vehicles’ interiors. Thus, all passengers, including infants and pregnant women as well as those without cell phones, may be exposed to considerable levels of cell phone radiation emitted by others’ phones.

As for car trips, the results of the study suggest that exposure to cell phone radiation from one’s own phone in standby mode is relatively low compared to overall exposures during public transit. Nonetheless, those who are concerned about their exposure to cell phone radiation should turn off their phones during car trips, or at the very least, avoid using their phones for calls.

● “The study indicates that own uplink exposure during car driving can be considerably reduced (about a fraction of 100) when turning off ones own mobile phone in order to prevent it from location updates.”  (1)

The researchers found that GSM, the 2G carrier system in Europe which is used in the U.S. for voice communication by AT&T and T-Mobile, is particularly problematic compared to UMTS, a 3G carrier system used for data transmission. The researchers did not test CDMA which in the U.S. is used by Verizon and Sprint for voice calls. Other research has found that GSM emits 13 to 28 times more radiation on average than CDMA during phone calls. No published studies have examined exposures from LTE, the 4G carrier system now in widespread use in this country.

● “GSM levels in the reference scenario during bus and train rides were about 100 times higher than those during car rides. As a consequence of this high background exposure in trains, due to the use of other people’s mobile phone in a closed area intensified by the Faraday cage effect, the relative contribution of the location update from ones own mobile phone is small”  (1)

The study also reported that smart phones, including the iPhone 4 and the Blackberry Bold 8800, which can operate on four radiofrequency bands emit more radiation during standby mode than classic phones, like the Nokia 2600, which operate on two bands.

Earlier this year, a study was published that examined cell phones in standby mode while stationary. Kjell Mild and his colleagues from Sweden found that under these conditions cell phones contacted the cell towers only once every two to five hours. They concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation in this situation “can be considered negligible.”  (2)

These studies should be replicated in the U.S. as well as in other countries since every cell phone carrier system operates differently.

In the meantime it is advisable to keep cell phone use in moving vehicles to a minimum as low level exposures to cell phone radiation have been associated with deleterious effects in humans.

To protect us from the health risks associated with cell phones and related devices (e.g., cordless phones, Wi-Fi, wireless Smart Meters and security systems, and cell towers), we need research independent of industry to develop biologically-based standards and safer technologies.  A nickel a month from each cell phone subscription would suffice to fund a comprehensive program of research. Since the average cell phone subscription costs more than $47.00 per month, this tiny fee constitutes a prudent investment in our health and our children’s health.

References

1) Urbinello D, Roosli M. Impact of one’s own mobile phone in stand-by mode on personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology advance online publication, Oct 24, 2012.

Source  Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland and the University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Abstract

When moving around, mobile phones in stand-by mode periodically send data about their positions. The aim of this paper is to evaluate how personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) measurements are affected by such location updates. Exposure from a mobile phone handset (uplink) was measured during commuting by using a randomized cross-over study with three different scenarios: disabled mobile phone (reference), an activated dual-band phone and a quad-band phone. In the reference scenario, uplink exposure was highest during train rides (1.19 mW/m(2)) and lowest during car rides in rural areas (0.001 mW/m(2)). In public transports, the impact of one’s own mobile phone on personal RF-EMF measurements was not observable because of high background uplink radiation from other people’s mobile phone. In a car, uplink exposure with an activated phone was orders of magnitude higher compared with the reference scenario. This study demonstrates that personal RF-EMF exposure is affected by one’s own mobile phone in stand-by mode because of its regular location update. Further dosimetric studies should quantify the contribution of location updates to the total RF-EMF exposure in order to clarify whether the duration of mobile phone use, the most common exposure surrogate in the epidemiological RF-EMF research, is actually an adequate exposure proxy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=23093102

2) Mild KH, Andersen JB, Pedersen GF. Is there any exposure from a mobile phone in stand-by mode? Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2012 Mar;31(1):52-6.

Source  Department of Radiation Sciences, Ume niversity, Ume Sweden. kjell.hansson.mild@radfys.umu.se

Abstract

Several studies have been using a GSM mobile phone in stand-by mode as the source for exposure, and they claimed that this caused effects on for instance sleep and testicular function. In stand-by mode the phone is only active in periodic location updates, and this occurs with a frequency set by the net operator. Typical updates occur with 2-5 h in between, and between these updates the phone is to be considered as a passive radio receiver with no microwave emission. Thus, the exposure in stand-by mode can be considered negligible.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22268596/