San Diego Earth Day Fair

2013-04-21 23.59.09On Sunday April 21, Center for Electrosmog Prevention, Stop OC Smart Meters and the EMF Safety Network gathered at the San Diego Earth Day Fair to educate the public about health and environmental risks of EMF and smart meter exposure.

2013-04-22 00.00.10The booth next door to ours was a 350 campaign raising awareness about the oil pipeline and they had a cut out of Obama on their booth which stood right next to the smart meter opt-out sign. It was a nice match.

2013-04-22 00.10.23Only one person came to the booth to argue about safety of smart meters, and the risks of radiation.

Every other person was very interested in having their cell phone measured.  This gave people the opportunity to “hear” the sound of the radiation their cell phone emitted, even when they were not using it.  Android and Iphones seemed to be the worst emitters, with many emitting “pings” and some emitting a wi-fi signal.

And finally here was one fairgoer who was willing to pose for the camera. 2013-04-21 21.59.39

Special Film Showing in Sebastopol on Wed. April 17 at 7pm “Take Back Your Power: The “Smart Meter” Agenda Unveiled”

promo-tbyp-ver11The EMF Safety Network presents a special pre-release screening of the film “Take Back Your Power:  The “Smart Meter” Agenda Unveiled”, by Canadian director Josh Del Sol on Wednesday April 17 at 7pm.  The film will be followed by a panel discussion, at the new Sebastopol Center for the Arts.

This eye-opening documentary feature film investigates the “smart” meter program being rolled out worldwide without the people’s consent. The film uncovers alarming issues about health, privacy, property rights, corporate fraud, and the unprecedented vulnerability of the “smart” grid. You will leave with a deeper understanding of the motives behind the agenda and proven solutions for coming together and co-creating a healthier world.

Following the film there will be a Q and A panel discussion moderated by Sebastopol City Council member John Eder.  The panel includes Cindy Sage co-editor of the BioInitiative 2012 Report,  Michael Neuert EMF electrician, Take Back Your Power director, Josh Del Sol, and EMF Safety Network director Sandi Maurer.

This is a great opportunity for people to learn why the City of Sebastopol and a dozen other cities and counties in California made Smart Meter installations illegal.

This event is a fundraiser for the film. Donations requested, but no one will be turned away for lack of funds.

Take Back Your Power:  The “Smart Meter” Agenda Unveiled

Wed. April 17 at 7pm

Sebastopol Center for the Arts (Veteran’s building) 282 High Street Sebastopol

Letter to the Press Democrat: PG&E Smart Meters vs. Sebastopol

PG&E met with the Press Democrat (PD) editorial board last week regarding Sebastopol’s ban on Smart Meters. Following that meeting the PD printed two misinformed editorials, both heavy handed against Sebastopol.

Chris Coursey in “Feeling Sorry for Goliath” writes, “Meter readers are threatened with citations and fines for doing their jobs.” This is wrong. Only installers have been warned not to deploy Smart Meters in Sebastopol. Meter readers love Sebastopol because they still have a job.

Coursey writes, “Sebastopol seems to be getting pulled around by the nose by a small group of anti-technology folks known as the Electromagnetic Field Safety Network.” Our name is the EMF Safety Network and we are not anti-technology. We advocate the use of precaution with electromagnetic fields (EMF’s) and radiofrequency radiation (RF) (wireless), and advocate corded and wired alternatives to protect public health and the environment. Our work is based on decades of science.

According to Coursey 10% of Sebastopol has opted out of Smart Meters. That means there are hundreds of people in Sebastopol that are concerned enough about Smart Meter hazards to pay PG&E’s extortion fees not to have them.

Coursey states the World Health Organization (WHO) says there’s no evidence of harm. Wrong again. In May of 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the WHO, classified wireless as a 2b carcinogen, same as DDT and lead.

Coursey says Sebastopol is rethinking its moratorium. The city manager stated there was “zero consideration” of repealing the ordinance.

In the other article, “Let’s not wage war on PG&E workers”, the editor stated Helen Burt, PG&E’s chief customer officer said, “we don’t want to be at war with our communities”.

PG&E threatened a lawsuit against Sebastopol, refused to mark gas lines, and halted commercial work, including the $23 million Barlow project. These are strong-arm tactics and intimidation.

PG&E has been at war with many communities over the last three years. Since 2009 more than 50 California local jurisdictions have opposed Smart Meters, and fifteen have made the deployment illegal. Supervisor Carrillo asked for a moratorium, safety studies and a free opt-out. The PD even called for a moratorium!

PG&E responded by accelerating Smart Meter deployment and forcing installations, without informed consent or full disclosure about how the meters work, and what they are capable of, including surveillance and profiling. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is already discussing how to access the data Smart Meters collect and how to make it available to third parties.

In 2009, Bakersfield residents complained about skyrocketing bills and PG&E defended their Smart Meters as accurate. Two years later PG&E admitted billing errors due to Smart Meter defects.

In 2010, PG&E said Smart Meters transmit radiation once an hour. In 2011, the CPUC ordered PG&E to provide the specifications and PG&E admitted Smart Meters can transmit up to 190,000 times a day!

The head of PG&E’s Smart Meter program was caught trying to  infiltrate our group by lying about his identity. The CPUC safety division investigated and found the spying was a system wide problem within PG&E.

PG&E and the CPUC have refused to address Smart Meter health and fire safety impacts.

Feel sorry for PG&E? I don’t think so.

Sebastopol’s unanimous decision to ban Smart Meters is applauded by many people in Sebastopol and beyond. According to Sebastopol’s ordinance (available on their website), Smart Meter technology subjects residents to “privacy, security, health, accuracy and consumer fraud risks.”

It’s shameful the PD editors have been influenced by PG&E. The PD should be a source of accurate information, not more of PG&E’s disinformation.

Sandi Maurer
www.emfsafetynetwork.org
PO BOX 1016
Sebastopol CA 95473

CPUC Smart Meter Judge Gets an Earful in Santa Rosa

The fifth and final California Pubic Utility Commission (CPUC) Smart Meter public participation hearing on the Smart Meter opt out program was held yesterday in Santa Rosa, California.  People came from as far away as Santa Cruz, Mendocino and Sacramento to speak to the CPUC judge, Amy Yip-Kikugawa, who allowed each person 2 minutes to talk.

Stop Smart Meters organized a bus from Santa Cruz which also picked up people from San Francisco, and Marin and Alameda counties.

An estimated 200+ people attended the hearing and 100 speakers signed up to comment on PG&E Smart Meters which many said had caused them serious health problems. Heart palpitations, headaches, tinnitus and sleep problems were common complaints. The hearing lasted fours hours, which was two hours longer than scheduled.

One meter reader from Marin told the judge that PG&E was covering up Smart Meter fires and that he lost his job for not being quiet. He said when a customer had their power remotely turned on, after a a delinquent bill was paid up, the Smart Meters were frying.

An article in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, “PG&E gets earful over SmartMeters at Santa Rosa hearing” reports on the hearing, although the article errs by stating the World Health Organization (WHO) has not found “a provable link” between SmartMeters and health.  In May 2011, the WHO classified radio frequency (RF) radiation (aka wireless) as a 2b carcinogen, same as DDT and lead.  The classification was based on long term cell phone studies, but is applicable to all wireless devices: cell phones, DECT and cordless phones, wi-fi, cell towers, baby monitors, Smart Meters and other wireless devices.

The CPUC held five hearings in all: Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Clemente and Santa Rosa. Here’s a media report from Santa Barbara: Edison Customers Express Concern, Frustration Over Installation of Smart Meters. 

Speakers comments will become part of the record in the Smart Meter opt out proceeding. Parties in the proceeding will next file briefs which are due January 11, 2013. A Commission decision is expected sometime next spring, or early summer of 2013.

If you were unable to attend these hearings, you may submit written comments to the to the CPUC’s Public Advisor’s Office at the address noted below. Please refer to the application filing number, A.11-­03-­014 et al, when writing. Please state if you would like a response, otherwise no response will be sent. Your comments will become a part of the formal file for public comment in this proceeding. The Public Advisor’s Office will circulate your comments to the five Commissioners, the ALJ, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), and to CPUC staff assigned to this proceeding.

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.

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/

 

CPUC smart meter opt out testimony

On Oct 5, 2012 testimony was served in the CPUC smart meter opt out proceeding. On behalf of the EMF Safety Network I served the Testimony of Sandi Maurer. Here’s the summary,

“All customers should be allowed to opt-out of Smart Meters at no cost. Smart Meter opt-out costs should be paid by utility shareholders and/or shifting of utility funds. There should be no initial fees, no monthly fees and no exit fees. I believe that charging fees to opt out of a health and safety hazard is unlawful, and defeats the purpose of the opt out program which was to give utility customers a choice. Punitive opt out fees must be eliminated because they are unjust, unreasonable and in my opinion unlawful based on the Public Utilities Code.

The customer did not create this problem. The Commission, in concert with the utilities forced Smart Meters onto customers. They failed to fully vet the technical specifications prior to approval. They dismissed formal public opposition and continued to deploy Smart Meters and scrap analog meters.

Customer choice should be extended to commercial customers. Customers who have paid opt out fees should have their money refunded. Future costs of Smart Meter problems should be considered. Millions of Smart Meters are not working properly, and tens of thousands are failing and being replaced annually. Investigations on Smart Meter fires are currently taking place in three other states. The long term public health risk is a serious cost and liability issue, and health experts are advising against Smart Meters. A free opt out is an important step toward resolving these and other Smart Meter complaints.”

Six other parties in the smart meter opt out proceeding also served testimony. The Center for Electrosmog Prevention and Jeromy Johnson took a similar position as I did, calling for no fee opt out. Aglet Consumer Alliance called for a health and safety review and free opt out for customers with medical conditions. CLECA, an industry group, did not want business customers to pay more for the opt out program.

The District Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), who are a division within the CPUC whose mission is: “Our statutory mission is to obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. In fulfilling this goal, DRA also advocates for customer and environmental protections. ” DRA did not recommend how opt out fees should be allocated.

In a shocking turnabout, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a leading California utility consumer advocacy group who has encouraged its members to refuse Smart Meters on their homes since 2009, is now advocating Smart Meter opt out customers pay even more than the current “interim opt out fees “of $75/10 and $10/5 for CARE- low income. TURN testimony  Although it’s not clear what TURN recommended for PG&E customers, they sided with SCE and SDG&E in recommending individual customers pay all opt out program costs.

TURN recommends SCE customers pay $56 initial fee and $19 every month, and for low income $45 initial fee and $15 a month!  That’s $89 more per year, and $155 more per year for low income customers than the current proposed “interim” fees, which are already punitive! This is a major contradiction. I called TURN to discuss this, but the lawyer who worked on the case was out of town and unavailable for comment.