By Devvy Kidd
In July 2011, I was notified by ONCOR, the TDSP (Transmission Distribution Service Provider) for Reliant Energy, who I pay for providing me energy service, that if I refused to have a 'smart' meter installed on my home, they would turn off my power without notice. As my husband is disabled, state law prohibits pulling the switch on us. I avoided two months of efforts by ONCOR to install one of those dangerous meters on my home because I have 6' high wood fences with gates on the inside. When ONCOR was given proof of John's serious medical problems, they stopped harassing me. I still have my analog meter.
Why didn't I want one of those jazzy new pieces of technology that are so wonderful for everyone? Once I began to do research, I was horrified by what I found. Utility companies and TDSPs nationwide continue to insist those meters are safe. Utility companies and TDSPs nationwide have billions of dollars at stake here. Below are but a drop in the bucket for the more than 2,000 peer reviewed papers and writings by the best experts in the field worldwide.
On January 19, 2012, The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, a group of esteemed doctors put out a press release:
“The Board of the AAEM opposes the installation of smart meters in homes and schools based on scientific assessment of the current medical literature. The current medical literature raises credible questions about genetic and cellular effects, hormonal effects, male fertility, blood/brain barrier damage and increased risk of certain types of cancers from RF or ELF levels similar to those emitted from smart meters. The Board of AAEM finds it unacceptable from a public health standpoint to implement this technology until these serious medical concerns are resolved. We consider a moratorium on installation of wireless smart meters to be an issue of the highest importance.”
Dr. Magda Havas, Assoc. Prof. of Environmental Resource Studies at Trent University (Canada) who does research on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation has served as an expert witness in both Canada and the U.S. regarding health effects associated with electromagnetic exposure wrote on October 12, 2010 that growing numbers in population are experiencing severe migraines, fatigue, weakness, inability to make decisions, loss of hair, pain in muscles and in the heart region, breathlessness, sexual problems and even a decrease in lactation in nursing mothers.
Olle Johansson, Assoc. Prof. Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, wrote to the California Public Utilities Commission, July 9, 2011:
“Many smart meters are close to beds, kitchens, playrooms and similar locations. These wireless systems are never off, and the exposure is not voluntary.
“...It is becoming more and more obvious that the exposure to electromagnetic fields may result in highly unwanted health effects. This has been demonstrated in a very large number of studies and includes cellular DNA-damage (which may lead to an initiation of cancer as well as mutations that carry down generations), disruptions and alterations of cellular functions like increases in intracellular stimulatory pathways and calcium handling, disruption of tissue structures like the blood-brain barrier.”
Elihu D. Richter MD, MPH (Assoc Professor), Hebrew University-Hadassah, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Unit of Occupations and Environmental Medicine to Susan Hackwood, Ph.D., Executive Director, California Council on Science and Technology. Letter of Comment on Smart Meter Report:
“The risks we are assessing today from exposure to RFMW and dirty electricity from Smart Meters placed everywhere recalls the story of population-wide exposure to lead in gasoline. We now know, in retrospect, that the entire urban population, notably children, were receiving exposures which were impairing their IQ, emotional well being, and long term growth and development. These findings led to the elimination of lead from gasoline. In retrospect, we were not heeding the early warnings regarding an impending population-wide hazard with disastrous effects. I suggest that in the case of population-wide exposure to RF, the situation is similar, with one exception: The warnings may no longer be early. I warn that we may be on the cusp of a similar scenario here with regard to community wide exposures to RF/MW and dirty electricity from Smart Meters.”
In the paper Overloading of Towns and Cities with Radio Transmitters: A hazard for the human health and disturbance of eco-ethics, by Karl Hecht, Elena N. Savoley, IRCHET International Research Center of Healthy and Ecological Technology in Berlin, Germany, listed under the heading: Essential Findings after Long-Term EMF-(EF-)Effect, their objectively gathered findings were:
“neurasthenia, neurotic symptoms, EEG changes (decay of the alpha rhythm into the theta rhythm and isolated delta rhythm), sleep disorders, deformation of the biologic rhythm hierarchy, disorder in the hypothalamohypophyseal adrenal cortex system, arterial hypotonia, more rarely arterial hypertonia, bradycardia, or tachycardia, vagotonic displacement of the cardiovascular system, increased susceptibility to infection, hyperfunction of the thyroid, potency disorders.
"System Subjective Complaints: exhaustion, lack of energy, daytime tiredness, quick tiring under stress, constriction of physical and mental ability, concentration and memory decline, cardiac pain, heart racing, weakness of concentration, headaches, lightheadedness.”
Also, from the cited paper above:
“Animals and plants are also very negatively influenced by this high-frequency electromagnetic radiation. In the case of cows, reduction of the milk yield and malformed offspring have been proven. Graver for humankind could be the death of bees observed everywhere due to the electro-smog contaminated environment. When the bees are dead, people not only have no more honey, but also no more fruit, because pollination of the flowers is impossible without bees. Humankind stands today before an important decision.”
Comments on California Council on Science and Technology's Smart Meter Report, January 2011, Nancy Evans, Health Science Consultant, San Francisco. United States District Court – District of Oregon – Portland Division – June 2011:
“This report ignores a fundamental public health principle: prevention of harm through a precautionary approach, based on evidence of harm rather than absolute proof of harm. CCST dismissed the substantial body of evidence indicating that non-thermal effects of radiofrequency radiation (RF) are real and include cancer as well as neurological effects. There are no federal standards for RF exposure based on long-term, chronic exposure or on non-thermal effects, precisely the type of exposure from smart meters and the most likely to cause human health effects. This report also fails to consider the total exposure to RF, which has increased exponentially because of cell phone antennas and broadcast towers. Wi-Fi networks blanket entire neighborhoods and cities as well as homes, schools, cafes and stadiums. Smart meters add one more layer of involuntary chronic exposure to RF.
“It is misleading to compare smart meters to cell phones and other wireless devices that are used voluntarily and that some people choose not to use because of the potential health effects. Mandating wireless smart meters in homes is radiation without representation: an infringement of personal and property rights.”
Sworn Declaration of Dr. David O. Carpenter, M.D., Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany and Professor of Environmental Health Sciences within the School of Public Health. Formerly Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Albany and Director of the Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research of the New York State Department of Health. United States District Court – District of Oregon – Portland Division – June 2011:
“Exposure to EMF has been linked to a variety of adverse health outcomes. The health endpoints that have been reported to be associated with ELF and/or RF include childhood leukemia, adult brain tumors, childhood brain tumors, genotoxic effects (DNA damage and micronucleation), neurological effects and neurodegenerative disease (like ALS and Alzheimer's), immune system disregulation, allergic and inflammatory responses, breast cancer in men and women, miscarriage and some cardiovascular effects. The strongest evidence for adverse health effects of EMFs comes from associations observed in human populations with two forms of cancer: childhood leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in occupationally exposed adults.
“There is suggestive to strongly suggestive evidence that RF exposures may cause changes in cell membrane function, cell communication, metabolism, activation of protooncogenes, and can trigger the production of stress proteins at exposure levels below current regulatory limits. Resulting effects can include DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations, cell death including death of brain neurons, increased free radical production, activation of the endogenous opioid system, cell stress and premature aging, changes in brain function including memory loss, retarded learning, performance impairment in children, headaches and fatigue, sleep disorders, neurodegenerative conditions, changes in immune function (allergic and inflammatory responses), reduction in melatonin secretion and cancers.”
Same Lawsuit; Portland Public Schools; Sworn Amended Declaration of Curtis Bennett, an expert witness for the Canadian Parliament on the dangers of Wi-Fi and Smart Meter Frequencies:
“Governments and taxpayers are funding health costs, wireless technologies are contradicting those objectives.”
Addendum – Assessment of Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Emission from Silver Springs OWS-NIC514 – Model Wireless Electric Meter – February 18, 2001 Assessment of Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Emissions from Smart Meters – January 1, 2011:
“Consumers may also have already increased their exposures to radiofrequency radiation in the home through the voluntary use of wireless devices (cell and cordless phones), PDAs like BlackBerry and iPhones, wireless routers for wireless internet access, wireless home security systems, wireless baby surveillance (baby monitors), and other emerging wireless applications. Neither the FCC, the CPUC, the utility nor the consumer know what portion of the allowable public safety limit is already being used up or pre-empted by RF from other sources already present in the particular location a smart meter may be installed and operated.
“Consumers, for whatever personal reason, choice or necessity who have already eliminated all possible wireless exposures from their property and lives, may now face excessively high RF exposures in their homes from smart meters on a 24-hour basis. People who are afforded special protection under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act are not sufficiently acknowledged nor protected. People who have medical and/or metal implants or other conditions rendering them vulnerable to health risks at lower levels than FCC RF limits may be particularly at risk (Tables 30-31). This is also likely to hold true for other subgroups, like children and people who are ill or taking medications, or are elderly, for they have different reactions to pulsed RF. Children's’ tissues absorb RF differently and can absorb more RF than adults.
“Safety standards for peak exposure limits to radio frequency have not been developed to take into account the particular sensitivity of the eyes, testes and other ball shaped organs. There are no peak power limits defined for the eyes and testes, and it is not unreasonable to imagine situations where either of these organs comes into close contact with smart meters and/or collector meters, particularly where they are installed in multiples (on walls of multi-family dwellings that are accessible as common areas). In summary, no positive assertion of safety can be made by the FCC, nor relied upon by the CPUC, with respect to pulsed RF when exposures are chronic and occur in the general population. Indiscriminate exposure to environmentally ubiquitous pulsed RF from the rollout of millions of new RF sources (smart meters) will mean far greater general population exposures, and potential health consequences.”
Data pirates have been known to intercept and mine data from the smart meters' transmissions and market that data, all at the expense of the consumer's privacy. Criminals could, as well, use intercepted or hacked smart meter data to determine when consumers are at home or away from home, the consumers unwittingly broadcasting to burglars and thieves when the "coast is clear". Utility companies can read everything going on in your home 24/7. New appliances are being sold with sensors making it easier for utility companies to spy on your lifestyle. Those meters are the equivalent of warrantless wiretaps. Experts in security have already demonstrated how easy it is to hack into a 'smart' meter.
Here in Texas, besides TDSPs turning of people's power with no notice, intallers continue to trespass onto people's property. Homeowners who expressly tell installers they don't want to those meters are ignored. Installers jump fences and use bolt cutters to cut locks on gates. In once instance, a petitioner in our battle with the Texas PUC, was actually physically assaulted. Thelma Taormina, was pushed to the ground - seven times by an installer trying to force installation on her house! Thelma went and got her hand gun and called the sheriff. This corporate thuggery has been going on for years here in Texas while the Texas PUC has sat back and allowed utility companies and TDSPs to lie and issue threats against homeowners with impunity.
Our second petition to the TPUC was denied (again) on July 13, 2012. We are now proceeding with one final administrative step and then we head to District Court in Austin, Texas. To date, it has cost almost $12,000 to get where we are with more financial burden to bear in this fight - a fight we should not have ever needed to undertake if the Texas PUC had done their job in determining how safe this new technology is or isn't. California and several other states have now implemented an opt out for customers and then slapped them in the face with an opt out fee plus a monthly charge for a meter reader. This is outrageous!
Here in Texas, we unequivocally reject an opt out which is nothing more than a buy out for the utility companies and TDSPs. They are the ones who exceeded the legislation passed by our legislature, not we the innocent homeowners. To date nearly 4.4 million of those dangerous meters have been installed here in Texas with 3 million more by the end of 2012 or early 2013. To remove them and replace with analog meters would run in the $500 billion dollar range. High stakes.
The one and only thing that matters here is the safety of the public, not corporate profits. The utility companies and TDSPs bought poison and have been trying to sell it as a bunch of roses. The number of people suffering from EMF sensitivity grows as we are being blanketed with dirty electricity or "electrosmog".
The rise of diseases will continue, but here in Texas, we will not stop
until we win. If 'smart' meters haven't come to your area yet, they will.
Those meters are an integral part of the communist UN's Agenda 21 and total
control of your life and how much energy you use while snooping.
To read in-depth, comprehensive articles I've written on 'smart' meters, go to www.devvy.com and click on the meter. You might also want to make a donation to our cause because it's also your cause. A moratorium and full ban on those meters is the only solution, not another Band Aid as more and more Americans become sick and diseased from electromagnetic frequency radiation. We intend to win here in Texas and set precedent for Americans in other states who take up the fight.
As our late attorney, Tommy K. Cryer, said in our petition: “It's like rushing thalidomide to the market … and not knowing the consequences.” Tommy was referring to the 1950s and 1960s use of the drug which caused major birth defects for children whose mothers used it.
Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not a political party. Her web site is devvy.com.