PG&E 2 Watt smart meters

PGE Cone HeadPG&E now has on it’s website a description of a new type of smart meter that transmits up to 2 watts of radio frequency radiation. They call it a “meter connector.”  Years ago activists warned there was a meter like this, some called it a “mother” or a “medusa” meter”,  but PG&E didn’t admit to it. In June 2011 PG&E wrote “PG&E’s network design does not use a ‘mother’ meter concept; relay devices and access point collectors are pole-top devices.”

In November 2011, when the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) judge asked for technical details about smart meters, there was no mention of a smart meter that transmitted up to 2 watts.  PG&E only reported using 1 watt meters. The table below is the technical description of the smart meters PG&E reported to the CPUC judge.
Screen Shot 2016-02-13 at 8.02.20 AMWhen did PG&E start using 2 watt meters on people’s homes?  How would someone know if they had one?  Do they look different?

This is from PG&E’s website: http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/customerservice/smartmeter/facts/index.page

“If a standard SmartMeter™ is unable to connect to PG&E’s dedicated radio frequency (RF), a Meter-Connector is installed to act as both a SmartMeter™ and a cellular electric network access point (so it can collect information from neighboring non-communicating meters)… The Meter-Connector either transmits 1.25 watts or 2 watts depending on the speed of the cellular network in your area, compared to a standard SmartMeter that transmits 1 watt.”

FCC approves 5G

Wheeler
FCC President Tom Wheeler

Today the FCC Commissioners unanimously approved a nationwide 5G network.  5G is 24GHz frequencies and higher, also known as millimeter waves. They expressed concern about security risks, and the need to ensure localities, that’s your town and mine, accept the smaller cell sites which will require a higher density deployment.

How will these higher frequencies affect the environment? This is an experiment we don’t want.

This year, the US government, led by the National Toxicology Program linked cancer to cell phone radiation. This study is a game changer for the need to eliminate wireless frequencies (wi-fi, smart meters, cell towers, etc) in our homes and cities.
5G will take a few years to deploy, so we still have time to make a case for stopping deployment.  Stay tuned…

 

We don’t have plastic heads


Everything wireless is tested on a plastic head
Designed by engineers back in 1996
They put salty fluid in it – set their timers for six minutes and if at six minutes
The temperature hasn’t risen more than 2 degrees
They declare the product safe for you and for me
Who don’t have plastic heads – We don’t have plastic heads.

Major US study finds link between cell phones and cancer

The National Toxicology Program published a 25 million dollar study which is one of the largest and most comprehensive studies on cell phone radiation and cancer.  In the study the rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed two types of cancers, glioma, a brain tumor, and schwannoma, a tumor in the heart.

The summary includes,  “Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to RFR could have broad implications for public health.”

A media teleconference is being held today by the National Institutes of Health.  However the news is already being reported on by Mother Jones, Wall Street Journal and others.

Photo credit Mother Jones
Photo credit: Mother Jones

“Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer” “It’s the moment we’ve all been dreading.”-Mother Jones

“A major U.S. government study on rats has found a link between cellphones and cancer, an explosive finding in the long-running debate about whether mobile phones cause health effects.”- Wall Street Journal

You can find the full study here:  http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf+html

Harmful effects of smart meters, cell phones and wireless by Jerry Flynn, military radio expert

Jerry Flynn is retired Captain in the Communications Electronics Engineering Branch from the Canadian Armed Forces. He extensively studied radio communications, including radio and antenna theory, the radio frequency spectrum, radar and telephone systems, electronic warfare, signals intelligence, and more.

Weak Magnetic Fields Can Promote Cancer

 It May Not Be Impossible After All

Dr Louis SlesinFrom Dr. Louis Slesin: Weak RF fields may indeed be able to promote cancer, according to two leading members of the EMF/RF research community.  Frank Barnes and Ben Greenebaum are offering theoretical arguments to explain how low-level RF radiation can alter the growth rates of cancer cells.

“Stuff is going on, Barnes told us. “We can see changes with very small fields.”

Read the rest of the story here.

[admin comment: “Some Effects of Weak Magnetic Fields on Biological Systems” is published in the March 2016 IEEE Power Electronics magazine]

Scientists Challenge SCENIHR

Cindy SageWe are in an era of unprecedented psychological manipulation of the science on potential health effects of EMF and RFR.

Over the last few years, the BioInitiative Working Group has worked many hours on the European Commission’s science reviews of EMF and RFR.  What they say matters.  It’s the expert committee for the European Union (EU) recommending whether EMF and RFR public safety limits are okay, or need substantial revision.  You know where we stand on this.  The limits are grossly inadequate in Europe and the US.

The European Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) did a bad job of it in 2009, and has unsurprisingly disappointed us again in 2015.  Through deceptive language tactics, the Committee has deliberately put out misinformation to erase what should have been clear findings of potential health effects of electromagnetic fields.  Health effects that matter greatly to millions of regular people who want to know about EMF.

What’s their NAME?

The Scientific Committee for Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, right?  Emerging (not proven).  Newly identified (not conclusively demonstrated).

What is the NAME OF THEIR REPORT?  

“Final opinion on Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)”  Not conclusively proven health effects.

What did they conclude?

That there are no conclusively proven biological effects.

How Could That Happen?

” While the scope of the Opinion [SCENIHR, 2015a] did include potential health effects, it was not SCENIHR’s objective to decide whether the possibility of an effect exists, as erroneously suggested by Sage et al. It should be noted that the term “risk” already accounts for probability of a harmful effect and that various levels”. (SCENIHR Leitgeb, 2015)

WHAT?

It would be just an academic farce if our lives didn’t depend on the outcome.  But, we do.  All around the planet, we depend on good advice from educated experts that are supposed to be independent thinkers and good analysts of what is a ‘potential health effect’. No amount of dust-kicking can obscure the basic fact that the SCENIHR failed to do what it was directed to do.

Read for yourselves. This is double-speak.  The SCENIHR’S science review that has failed to carry out the central question asked of this Committee. This is an assessment on which the fate of billions of human beings depends, and upon which global health rests.

For SCENIHR to issue an unwarranted finding of  ‘all clear’ by redefining the reporting terms and misreporting the evidence is bad for science, bad for the public and intensely bad for school children who are sitting in classrooms with WiFi all day, required to use wireless tablets for schoolwork. Read more: http://www.bioinitiative.org/rebuttal-emf-effects/

Cindy Sage