“Smart Meters should be banned”

On December 7, Josh Hart of StopSmartMeters.org led about a dozen women to return smart meters to the PG&E Capitola office where they told their stories to reporters about why they removed the smart meters and restored analog meters.

One woman spoke on behalf of her family stating, ” We’ve been a guinea pig for a year and a half” and ” I believe from my experience that they should not just have an opt-out, they should be banned.”  Six police officers showed up in response to PG&E’s request and they closed the office.

PG&E is sending letters to people who’ve swapped smart meters for analogs and is threatening to turn off their power, however their letter does not include any legal codes to justify their threats. In a letter dated Dec.2, 2011, PG&E writes, “Given the public safety issues, if we do not hear from you, we will have no choice but to terminate your electric service.” It’s clearly bullying tactics.

EMF Safety Network lawyer who defined tampering for us is drafting a letter to PG&E to inquire about their legal authority to turn off people’s utility service.

Help is on the Way! Submit Your Complaint Today at SmartMeterHelp.Com

Today, the EMF Safety Network and Stop Smart Meters! are excited to announce the official launch of our new joint *project: SmartMeterHelp.Com  This is a website was designed with the sole purpose of burying our elected officials, utilities commissions, and health departments with complaints about the debacle that has resulted from the poorly planned, undemocratic, and ill-advised rollout of ‘smart’ meters into our communities.

Even if you have already submitted a complaint, please take 5 minutes now to fill out the form and tell your story.  This will make it that much easier for advocates working to put a stop to this program to demonstrate that these meters are having a detrimental effect on thousands, if not millions of people.

Were you forced to have a Smart Meter when you didn’t want one?  Have you been overcharged? Were you on the “delay” list and they installed anyway? Have Smart Meters caused you headaches, sleep problems, tinnitus or other health problems? Have you had interference problems or burned out appliances, since a new meter was installed? A meter catch on fire? Have the utilities lied to you, or made false claims about their service? Did you feel threatened or intimated by installers?  Did they assault you or your pets? Do you think it’s wrong to have to pay to not have one?  We’ve heard complaints about all of the above happening to members of the public.

We are fed up, and we’re not going to take it anymore!    Spread the word about this new website to your friends, family, and co-workers.  Post on social media and encourage others to take action.

Together, we can put a stop to ‘smart’ meter abuse!

*This project is now closed.

Industry safety assurances unwise

Sage Associates recently published An Assessment of the EPRI Technical Report An Investigation of Radiofrequency Fields Associated With the Itron Smart Meter – Richard Tell Associates, Inc., December, 2010 by Sage Associates, November 11, 2011″

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) commissioned a report by Richard Tell Associates Inc. that has assessed radiofrequency (RF) emissions from an Itron ‘smart meter’.  The Itron meter is being installed in California by two electric utilities (SCE and SDG&E) and is similar to others being installed by other utilities. EPRI bases its report primarily on field measurements at the Itron meter test farms in southern California and South Carolina, two homes in Downey, CA, a drive-around street test in Downey, CA, and test results from two utilities.

The EPRI report concludes that no violations of current FCC public safety limits are predicted to occur. However, our analysis shows that this conclusion is unsupported and in error, according to the FCC OET Bulletin 65 rules for predicting public exposures.

The EPRI report does not address compliance of multiple meters, at 100% duty cycle (which is required under FCC OET 65 formulas), and our calculations show violations at 60% reflection factor (the lowest level the FCC regulations specify). Multiple meters will also violate FCC OET 65 public safety limits for calculations using 50% to 100% duty cycle at 100% reflection factor, which are reasonable, worst-case assumptions.

The EPRI report provides a generic, best-case assessment of RF emissions since it focuses on ‘typical’ meters rather than a broad range of conditions of location, installation and operation of Itron meters under real-world conditions.  It does not provide a reasonable, worst-case analysis, nor take into account the way in which utilities are actually locating meters in neighborhoods, nor address that the public cannot be excluded from very close proximity to meters on their own homes.

The author says that only approximations of RF exposures for ‘typical’ meters, in ‘common’ installations applying to ‘common’ exposures of individuals, are ‘likely’ to comply with FCC exposure limits. This report ignores meters that are being installed outside these highly limiting parameters, where duty cycles may be far higher, installations within or very close to occupied spaces of a home, and where there may be less shielding and more reflection of building materials that amplify exposures rather than reduce them. Tell discusses many problems with predicting RF emissions and the need for long-term statistical monitoring of matured (read fully deployed and operational) smart meter networks across regions. He says this testing cannot be done today.

Utilities are hoping for the best, and deploying at full speed, regardless of the clear ‘between-the-lines’ warnings, from their own highly regarded expert.

Deploying millions of wireless utility meters on such limited testing and questionable assertions of safety is unwise. Given that RF has recently been classified as a Possible Human Carcinogen, and this wireless utility meter initiative imposes the most extensive RF blanket yet created over every living resident that is electrified, ratepayers and the decision-makers will not know what irretrievable commitments of health and resources have been made until it is too late. Where even the best industry study cannot give more reliable and defensible evidence of compliance with FCC safety limits, public utility commissions should halt the rollout, pending demonstration that RF emissions meet FCC public safety limits under a reasonable worst-case assessment as determined by FCC OET 65 formulas. As a consequence, no positive assertion of safety can be made by the parties involved in this issue, nor are any solid answers provided by this EPRI report.

Opt-out OUTRAGE!

Today the President of the California the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Michael Peevey issued a Proposed Decision on what to do with the thousands of complaints against the (dumb, too smart, not smart, spy, murder, dirty, hazardous, merd, smeter)  microwave computer utility meters that companies are stealthily installing with support from government and environmentalists.

The CPUC, whose mission is to provide safe and reliable utility service at reasonable rates, and regulate the utilities has once again rubber stamped PG&E’s demands. Peevey’s proposed decision says we must pay $90 upfront and $15 a month for a “radio off” meter. Analog meters are not included.  The fees are an obvious punishment, and likely illegal.

What can we do about this outrage in California?  Here’s an idea: We can REFUSE to pay. Deduct it from the utility bill in protest.

Here’s what others think about the concept of opt-out:

“We should not have to pay for NO CHANGE in electric service. We don’t pay for not getting cable. We don’t pay for not getting satellite. We don’t pay for gas if we don’t use gas appliances. What the heck is going on when we have to pay MORE for something we don’t want, don’t need, won’t use and can’t get out of. When the vacuum salesman comes to the door, and I don’t want to buy a vacuum, I don’t buy it and he doesn’t get into my wallet.” Anonymous survey comment

Just removing the meter from our home I don’t think will restore the peace and freedom from harm. As you know with all the homes having the meters on them, the amount of radiation is substantial. I don’t think I am overstating this. I am beginning to think they are trying to do a slow kill, so we don’t wake up to it. It is interesting that some of us have a super sensitivity to the radiation while others no less being slowly harmed by it are clueless because they don’t sense anything. CMC, Riverside County CA

“These folks are way better organized than the power industry, they are creating converts every day and they’re not going to stop with a puny opt-out option.” Phil Carson, Editor-in-chief, Intelligent Utility Daily

Murder Meters Refused

RefuseSmartMeters  posted the following message and photo:

Anonymous patriot gives thumbs up as the dangerous, “bio-hazard” smart murder meters are pulled down on 11/11/11 at 11AM from Southern California units.

Industry tested and time proven “safe” analog meters were reinstalled to protect the residents from further harm. Anonymous builds steel cages to prevent vandalism and keep intruders and thieves out.

Shown here the hero gives the utility company a final message!

Maine utility admits smart meters cause interference

Utility meters are breaking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule not to interfere with other radio frequency devices.

The Portland Press Herald reports the Maine Public Advocate’s office released a statement this week saying:

“Smart Meters are interfering with a wide range of household electronic devices, from garage door openers and WiFi devices to security systems.”

On Central Maine Power’s FAQ, in answer to the question: “Will the smart meter interfere with my other household appliances such as computer routers, television signal, cordless phones, etc.?” they respond: “Separating interfering devices usually reduces interference, so make sure the wireless device is located as far from the smart meter as possible. Also, adjust the position of the antenna on the device, if possible, and move the wireless device away from any walls that may absorb the signal.”

According to the FCC Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: the meters are not supposed to cause interference, and if they do the FCC states,

“The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative  that the device is causing harmful interference.”