A math teacher from Ireland tells a story about going to a party where after dinner people are having coffee and tea. Several people have their cell phones on the table. The woman seated beside him places her phone close to his plate. In the video he says why he does not like cell phones, and what happens when he moves her phone away from himself. The table conversation turns ugly.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is responsible for protecting utility customers and ensuring safe and reliable utility service.
Michael Peevey, the President of the CPUC, has been in charge of the decisions regarding smart meters. He approved wireless smart meters without any safety review. He approved smart meter opt-out fees without any legal review.
Listen to Peevey cussing out an attorney who’s asking questions at a public hearing.
Do you have questions about utility smart meters? President Peevey can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org He doesn’t want to hear from you!
Jeromy Johnson of EMFanalysis.com. wrote an excellent article called, “Smart Meters, the Opposite of Green” which was recently published in the SF Bay Area Common Ground magazine. The article summarizes exactly why smart meters are such a bad idea for our communities. Find the article on his website: http://www.emfanalysis.com/1/post/2014/04/common-ground-article.html
There will be a special screening of the documentary “Take Back Your Power” on Saturday April 26, at 7 p.m. at the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists, 1924 Cedar Street, Berkeley. Q&A follows with Jeromy Johnson, film maker Josh del Sol, and Foster and Kimberly Gamble of the movie “Thrive”. To reserve your free seat visit: TakeBackYourPower.net
From SkyVision Solutions:
Northeast Utilities (NU) operates New England’s largest utility system serving more than 3.6 million electric and natural gas customers in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
In a written submittal filed with the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Northeast Utilities was highly critical of a proposed state plan that would require utilization of “advanced metering” or smart meters within the state of Massachusetts as part of an electrical grid modernization plan. In fact, the comments are quite remarkable in that they appear to reflect reality without undue political spin or bias. Let us hope that other utilities, public utility commissions, and politicians everywhere can soon come to similar unbiased conclusions that are based upon economic realities and reflect consumers’ and societal best interests.
DEBATE. The World Health Organization [WHO] has released a bleak future forecast. The number of new cancer cases is expected to increase from 14 million to 25 million per year over the next 20 years – an increase of 70 percent.
“Despite encouraging progress, the report shows that we can not treat ourselves out of the cancer problem,” said Christopher Wild, co- author of the report. But one question lingers for me: Why does WHO themselves not consider another possible cause of this avalanche, a cause that they themselves have warned about and predicted? Let me explain.
Today, various wireless devices flood our homes, schools and other workplaces. The issues around all of these sources of radiation are numerous. Adults are not at all certain that all this radiation is harmless, they are not at all sure that wireless technology is without risk. To this one can add numerous studies and investigations, expert reports and commentaries arise which in summary say that “there is a strong suspicion of damage.”
These texts also emphasize the need for the use of the Precautionary Principle and this even stronger after the WHO has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields – from mobile phones, tablets , etc. – as possibly carcinogenic (Class 2B). Thus, the idea that these techniques would be safe, we can immediately cross out – not even the WHO believes it – and they still have a category into which such proven safe exposures would fall (Class 4 – proven non-human carcinogen).
The question now is instead what we accept the risk to cost in terms of health care, disability and premature death.
It should be noted that this is an addition to the earlier (2001) WHO 2B cancer classification of power-frequency electromagnetic fields (thus including common household current ) – which are also emitted at high levels from handheld gadgets such as tablet devices (iPad etc.) and mobile phones – as a risk factor specifically for childhood leukemia. Given that in 2001 the WHO was already very close, voting 9 to 11, to move it to 2A (thus the higher cancer class ) and considering all the new knowledge that has accumulated since 2001, I maintain that today one should definitely classify the relationship between childhood leukemia and power-frequency electromagnetic fields in the much more serious 2A (“probably carcinogenic”) category.
Why not debate this?
There was a time when people did not understand that radioactivity from radium, uranium and plutonium, medical x-rays and ultraviolet light actually hurts us and can even kill us. You could see shoe-fitting x-ray machines in childrens’ shoe shops in Sweden as late as the end of the 1940s and elderly people will remember the glowing radioactive wristwatches that were popular in the 1950s. About the same time we began to understand that even the sun’s beautiful and warm rays can damage our cells and their genetic material with the development of skin cancer as a result. Today we warn everyone, even for the weakest of ultraviolet light, which we call UVA, especially if you’re a child with fair skin and light hair.
Against this background one might wonder: Can our cells and molecules that are now suddenly exposed to an environmental exposure from power-frequent magnetic fields, microwaves, radio and TV signals, etc. which have never before existed, or if it has, with an immediate increase of one million million million times stand it at all? The radiation goes right through us, and our – and other organisms’ – cells and molecules have no protection at all against it.
I’m afraid, very afraid, that we will soon have to write a new report titled “Too Late Lessons from Early Warnings” …
Olle Johansson is Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. From the original in Swedish published 12 Feb. 2014 by Newsvoice.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) once again delayed the smart meter opt-out proceeding by another two months, until April 7, 2014. The opt out proceeding started nearly three years ago, amid a strong customer backlash against the overcharging, privacy snatching, radiation emitting smart meters and demand for the return of the analog meters.
In 2012, customers were ordered to pay extortion fees to retain or restore an analog meter, even though the CPUC never held hearings on the legality of those fees, or investigated the safety complaints.
In 2012, briefs were filed arguing the fees were unlawful, testimony was taken, evidentiary hearings and five public hearings were held. A second round of briefs, based on the testimony and hearings were filed in January of 2013. Read the EMF Safety Network’s brief here.
The opt out proceeding is in the hands of CPUC judge Amy Yip-Kikugawa who said she would rule on the legal issues in January of 2013. A full year later, no rulings or decisions have been issued and the discussion on the right for a community to opt out is still pending. Nothing has happened for a full year, except delays.
The Commissioner overseeing the proceeding is Michael Peevey who cannot be trusted to care about utility customers when he is personally invested in a “green” technology economy. Peevey is on the board of The California Clean Energy Fund (CalCEF), a multi-million dollar investment fund created to “spur investment and innovation in California’s clean energy economy.”
“With world-renown research universities and a supportive policy-making climate, California has proven to be a leader in developing clean energy innovations,” said Michael R. Peevey, chairman of CalCEF and president of the California Public Utilities Commission. “CalCEF’s investment strategy to help commercialize these innovations fills an important need in realizing California’s goal of becoming the world’s premier clean energy economy.”
Peevey is also an advisor for the UC Davis Energy Effiency Center, and the UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, Environment and the Economy.
The CPUC states they need more time on the opt-out proceeding because the issues are complex and require additional time to resolve. See the ruling here.
Are you frustrated and fed up with the CPUC’s lack of safety oversight and extortion fees? The California State Auditor conducts investigations into improper governmental activities by state agencies. They take anonymous complaints from the public and whistle blowers:
- By phone: (800) 952-5665
- By mail: Investigations California State Auditor P.O. Box 1019 Sacramento, CA 95812
- Online complaint form: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/contactus/complaint
Perspective by Cindy Sage: The misguided program of mandatory ‘smart wireless meters’ has done more to undercut the gains in public support for energy conservation in this country than any other single factor. The national shift to embrace energy conservation in the face of climate change has been derailed by mandatory ‘wireless smart meter’ programs. And judging by the public outrage against the National Security Agency (NSA) spying program revealed by Edward Snowden last summer, Americans have come to understand that government mandates for smart meters is likely one more ‘deep drilling project’ on their personal habits, preferences, life styles and medical conditions.
The smart meter program is widely seen as a spying, snooping, expensive, potentially hazardous, involuntary and entirely unnecessary burden for which energy conservation is a mirage. It is unlikely that Americans will stand for public utilities spying on their homes using energy use and conservation as the ruse, and make money on these data by selling their personal information to third party information brokers for profit.
How could one bad idea so completely galvanize such enormous and widespread public resistance? And lead to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) review of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) wireless safety standards and general distrust for government ideas about energy conservation? And undercut public support for some national environmental groups? It is really quite stunning how a single failed corporate/governmental strategy could backfire so rapidly and so completely.
Some national environmental groups bought into the technology, mistakenly gave it a ‘green’ endorsement, and actively partnered with ‘smart’ technology corporations like the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Some have publicly promoted the ‘smart meter’ as a good way to achieve energy conservation. Other environmental groups have been silent. They have turned a blind eye and refuse to take a position.
Environmental group leadership and independence of scientific assessment has taken a huge blow and will take decades to recover. Donors will think twice about where they send their donations to protect the environment. They believed in false promises but didn’t look deep enough. The national priority to convince families to conserve energy for the good of the planet has taken a direct blow. Who can believe in them now?
It shows how little anyone really knew what these meters entailed in ‘unintended consequences’. And how immediate the adverse effects would become visible.