Category: Commentary

Separating Industry Fiction from Facts

The Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative (SGCC), an industry group, has published a video “Separating the Facts from the Fiction about Smart Meter”.  PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, BC Hydro, PEPCO, BGE, FPL, other utility companies and Smart Meter manufacturers like Landis and Gyr, Itron, Silver Springs Network, GE, Aclara, are SGCC members.  Affiliate members are utility regulators including Public Utility Commissions from California, Colorado, Texas, and including big environmental groups like EDF and NRDC.

This video attempts to counter legitimate Smart Meter complaints and serious problems. They start by saying there’s misinformation about Smart Meters floating about the internet (displaying a panic button) and they plan to set the record straight. “Let’s get down to business” is a key introductory phrase. Promoting Smart Meters IS their business.

  • Industry fiction: Smart Meters don’t know how you’re using power
  • FACT:  Smart Meters “…can be used to pinpoint the use of most major household appliances. Such detailed information about the in-home activities of electricity customers can thus be used to piece together a fairly detailed picture of an individual’s daily life or routine.”
  • Industry fiction: “Most of the time your meter is idle”
  • FACT: One PG&E Smart Meter can transmit up to 190,000 pulses a day. PG&E’s Big Confession
  • Industry fiction: “Your power company has kept your data private for decades.”
  • FACT: PG&E released names, email addresses and private online conversations they gathered by deception to the media. They redacted PG&E and third party names, and emails and left open customer data, at the same time claiming privacy was a great value to them. PG&E’s spying may cost them
  • Industry fiction:”Smart Meters will allow you to make choices that limit your bills.”
  • FACT: Over-billing complaints have been reported widely after Smart Meters are installed. Customers in Bakersfield CA were so outraged about overcharging they filed a class action lawsuit against PG&E. See complaints. See also:PG&E admits billing errors, offers scanty refund
  • Industry fiction: Science doesn’t support the claim that RF causes cancer
  • FACT: The World Health Organization classified RF radiation as a 2b Carcinogen, same as DDT and lead.
  • Industry fiction: A household radio transmits RF
  • FACT: A household radio receives RF, it is not an RF transmitter.
  • Industry fiction: Smart Meters create less exposure to RF radiation than a microwave, cell phone, wi-fi.
  • FACT: Daniel Hirsch, a UC researcher, has calculated that smart meters expose you to more than 100 times the full body, cumulative exposure as a cell phone.
  • Industry fiction: “Even if you cozied up to a Smart Meter all day, it would require you to snuggle up to one for 375 years before it would equal the exposure of having a daily 15 minute cell phone call over the course of one year.”
  • FACT: Smart Meters can exceed FCC safety guidelines (Sage reports)
  • FACT: Smart Meters can violate FCC conditions for installment
  • Industry fiction: Read the Hobbit instead of worrying that the” Smart Meter is the fourth horseman of the apocalypse that will wreak havoc on your life”
  • FACT: Lawsuits are being filed against Smart Meters in several states, California, Maine, Hawaii, Texas, Illinois and more. Utility Regulators in Maryland, Illinois and Pennsylvania are investigating Smart Meter related fires.

Smart Meters are designed to work in a mesh network, transmitting radio frequency (RF) radiation pulses from home to home.  If too many customers refuse, the mesh system can fail. Having to provide customers a choice, has become a serious problem for the industry. The industry, with support from regulators are penalizing customers for non-compliance by charging them to opt out. The Smart Grid program which was initiated by the federal government, was designed to be offered, but not forced on customers.

Environmental and activist groups are fighting smart meters in states across the US, Canada, Australia, and England. Join a group in your area.

Initial comments on the video indicate Smart Consumers aren’t buying the industry propaganda:

“The most ridiculous aspect is that they call themselves “Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative” yet they’re 100% INDUSTRY! If you needed iron clad evidence of intent to deceive, I don’t think you could do much better than that.”

“This video reminds me of a video I just watched on youtube titled “Cigarettes are good for you.flv” a must see!”

“Mislabeled as science, this video is the stupidest thing I have heard or seen.”

“Wow, what a bunch of lies! I sure hope people see through this garbage!”

KPFA interview – Smart Meter Lawsuit

Yesterday on KPFA 94.1 Layna Berman, host of Your Own Health and Fitness talks with EMF Safety Network director Sandi Maurer about Smart Meters, and the legal action against the utilities and regulators in California.  Covered is both a review of the basic Smart Meter problems and complaints, and some new information about how the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and PG&E have never addressed or resolved the serious complaints, but only offered an opt-out with penalty fees.

There is an intro by Layna Berman, followed by commentary by Dr. Jeff Fawcett, followed by the Smart Meter discussion. You can access the show at: http://www.yourownhealthandfitness.org/Sage/20120828.mp3

Does the FCC Plan to Rubber Stamp Outdated Cell Phone Radiation Standards?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will conduct a formal review of the U.S. cell phone radiation standards according to a Bloomberg news report: “FCC. Wireless Devices and Health Concerns.”

An FCC spokesperson emailed a statement to a Bloomberg reporter that is truly alarming. Her message suggests that the FCC has already decided that the current standards are fine, and will conduct a review to rubber stamp the 1996 FCC guidelines:

“Tammy Sun, a spokeswoman for the agency, said in an e-mailed statement. The notice won’t propose rules, Sun said.

‘Our action today is a routine review of our standards,’ Sun said. ‘We are confident that, as set, the emissions guidelines for devices pose no risks to consumers.'”

The Bloomberg article cites a major review of the literature conducted by our research center in which we found an association between mobile phone use and increased brain tumor risk especially after 10 years of cell phone use:

“There is possible evidence linking mobile-phone use to an increased risk of tumors, according to a study of scientific studies and articles that was published in 2009 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.”

The research we reviewed and subsequent research strongly suggest that the current standards for cell phone radiation are not adequate to protect us from health risks associated with exposure to cell phone radiation. A year ago, a 31-member group of experts convened by the World Health Organization agreed with our conclusions and classified cell phone radiation a “possible carcinogen.”

The FCC standards were established in 1996 at a time when few adults used cell phones. Today, children and most adults are exposed to far more cell phone radiation than the FCC-approved test models are subjected to when new cell phones are certified. Moreover, the test assumes that cell phones can harm us only by heating tissue. This is not true as there are numerous studies that demonstrate non-thermal effects from cell phone radiation including increased glucose metabolism in the brain, generation of heat shock proteins, free radicals, and double-strand DNA breaks; penetration of the blood-brain barrier, damage to sperm and increased male infertility.

The FCC admits on its web site* that “there is no federally developed national standard for safe levels of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy.” “The FCC’s guidelines and rules regarding RF exposure are based upon standards developed by IEEE and NCRP and input from other federal agencies.”

I have grave concerns if the FCC continues to rely on industry-funded expert groups because our research found that industry-funded epidemiologic research was generally of lower quality and biased against finding harmful effects. Dr. Henry Lai at the University of Washington has come to a similar conclusion in his analysis of the toxicology research.

In my opinion, it is premature to adopt new safety standards because we need more research that is independent of the wireless industry’s influence. The Federal government needs to sponsor a major research initiative on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. Martin Blank and Reba Goodman from Columbia University recently published a paper in the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, calling for the development of a biologically-based measure of electromagnetic radiation (abstract below).

In the interim, to protect cell phone users we must adopt and disseminate precautionary health warnings that promote safer cell phone use. Although The FCC web site provides some simple steps to reduce exposure to cell phone radiation, it “does not endorse the need for these practices.” A dozen nations and the city of San Francisco have issued precautionary warnings about cell phone use to its citizens. It is time for our Federal government to do so.

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director Center for Family and Community Health
The UC Berkeley Prevention Research Center
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
 

“You Ain’t Nothin But a Dumb Meter”- Spotlight on Ellen and Tobie Cecil

Join Anna Logmeter as she does the “Dumb Meter” dance and sings this Smart Meter parody to the tune of Elvis Presley’s “Hound Dog”.

Anna Logmeter, aka Ellen Cecil and Tobie Cecil have been educating and helping others protect their homes from electromagentic radiation Smart Meters for the past two years.  They manage a 70 unit apartment building in Monterey County in which they have circulated a petition opposing Smart Meters, and built cages around the analog meters to protect the multi-age residents who live there.

Ellen writes,”Tobie and I began our “Most Excellent Smart Meter Adventure” over two years ago because of our Biblical belief that we should love God and love our neighbors as ourselves. Tobie also wanted to protect his employer from the potential disaster inherent in these digital time bombs.” Tobie has been called a “true folk hero” by a Monterey Herald writer because of his heroic efforts to protect their residents.

They recently published this article in a trade magazine for Apartment owners and managers:  AOA Why “Smart Meters” Are Not Smart For You! 

You can hear more Smart Meter tunes from Ellen and friends: Rap: “A-2-Z Smart Meter Rap (24/7 Ray Freaks)”and blues “Smart Meter Blues”.

Help Elvis and Anna “pull the plug on Smart Meters!”

(You Ain’t Nothin’ but a) “Dumb Meter”

You ain’t nothin’ but a Dumb Meter;
You got me cryin’ all the time.
You ain’t nothin’ but a Dumb Meter;
You got me cryin’ all the time.
Well, you ain’t never been smart
And you ain’t no meter of mine!

They said you was high-tech
But your pulses make me fry.
They said you was high-tech
But your pulses make me fry.
Well, you ain’t never saved me money
‘Cuz your promises are nothin’ but a lie.

They said you was clean and green
But you’re just a ball o’ slime.
They said you was clean and green
But you’re just a ball o’ slime.
Well, you ain’t never been natural–
Now you’re breakin’ my heart and that’s a crime.

You ain’t nothin’ but a Dumb Meter;
Your eyes are spyin’ all the time.
You ain’t nothin’ but a Dumb Meter;
Your eyes are spyin’ all the time.
Well, you ain’t never seen the truth
Now your cheatin’ ways have gone and made you blind.

They said you was high-tech
But your pulses make me fry.
They said you was high-tech
But your pulses make me fry.
Well, you ain’t never saved me money
And your promises are nothin’ but a lie.

You ain’t nothin’ but a Dumb Meter;
You got me cryin’ all the time.
You ain’t nothin’ but a Dumb Meter;
You got me cryin’ all the time.
Well, you ain’t never been smart
And you ain’t no meter of mine!

Parody Copyright 2011 by Ellen Cecil

SDG&E Says Smart Meter Opt-Out charge is a “Penalty Fee”

Sent from Susan Foster

Dear CPUC Commissioners and Judge Amy Yip Kikugawa:

I am an SDG&E customer writing in opposition to the $75.00 fee I must pay to SDG&E to keep my analogue meter that was never removed when smart meters were originally installed in my neighborhood in Rancho Santa Fe, CA. I wrote to SDG&E prior to installation, advising them of my medical condition along with a letter from my cardiologist, as well as a scientific study linking RF radiation to cardiac arrhythmia. SDG&E eventually decided to label my home as a “bypass”, and therefore I have retained my original analogue meters.

When I called SDG&E on April 24 to ask why I needed to pay $75 since there would be no actual work done at my home because I had retained the original meters, I was informed that for me the $75 was a “penalty fee.” I was surprised at this terminology, as I read Judge Amy Yip Kikugawa’s rulings with respect to the opt-out, and I do not see where a “penalty fee” is to be assessed. I thought we had the freedom to choose whether or not to accept a smart meter. Nowhere in the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling do I see justification for penalizing a customer with a medical condition for opting to bypass a meter that would cause harm to my health when that customer requires no work to be done on her property.

In fact, it is my understanding that I have already paid SDG&E through increased fees for installation of smart meters I never had installed, as well as through my Federal tax dollars for stimulus funds that have funded this smart meter program, at least in part. Where is the logic in a penalty fee under such circumstances?

I asked the SDG&E employee who said I was being assessed a “penalty fee” to check and see if she was using the right terminology with me. After a short time on hold, she returned to the phone to tell me her original statement was correct.

Could you please explain SDG&E’s justification for assessing a “penalty fee” when I am simply asking to protect my health, which I have every right to do.

Thank you for your prompt reply, as I must respond via certified letter before June 15, 2012.

Respectfully Yours,

Susan Foster

Sonic.net Inc. Internet Provider CEO: “I Hate Wireless.”

*Sonic.net Inc, CEO Dane Jasper writes, on his blog:

“Wireless is magic. You point two antennas at each other over a span of miles, and broadband comes out the other end. Most of the time.

I hate wireless.

Today, we sold our wireless network.”

Several years ago, Sonic had hoped to install a free public wi-fi network in Sebastopol.  But after months of campaigning against Sonic’s wi-fi, the Sebastopol city council decided to terminate their contract based on health and safety risks of wireless.  Sonic now states it is retiring all of their public wi-fi projects!

CEO Jasper contends the wireless is difficult and their focus is changing to wireline services, which include fiber optics!

*About Sonic.net Inc: Sonic.net, founded in 1994, provides broadband access to consumers and wholesale ISP partners in a thirteen state region. Sonic.net’s flagship product is “Fusion”, which combines unlimited broadband and local and long distance home telephone service. For $39.95, every Fusion customer gets the maximum Internet speed possible at their location — up to 20Mbps — plus a traditional phone line with U.S. and Canadian calling included.