2016-06-15 ITRON meters – huge number of signals daily

1)    More information about ITRON $$meters, from the website of SMUD (Sacramento Municipal Utility District ) shows the huge number of signals sent each day. This can be controlled by the utility so BC Hydro’s numbers could be higher or lower, but these numbers are similar to those reported by other utilities. This is under question “Do smeters generate RF fields”?   More than 13,375 signals on average (one every 6 seconds), and maximum of 240,396 a day (2.8 signals every second). When using our RF meters, many of these signals are missed because they are too short (about 5 milliseconds long) and too strong (all but the most sophisticated and expensive meters max out).

Itron_Logo_Ribbon

In September 2012, SMUD conducted a detailed analysis of the transmission frequency and weighted average “on air” time across the smart meters network. The results of the study are below:

Electric system message type Transmission frequency per 24-hour period: Average Transmission frequency per 24-hour period: Maximum (99.9th percentile)
Meter read data 6 6
Network management 15 30
Time sync 360 360
Mesh network message management 13,000 240,000
Weighted average duty cycle 61.4 seconds 1,262 seconds

https://www.smud.org/en/residential/customer-service/smart-meters/common-questions.htm

2)    $$meters emit 2 types of radiation, both of which are dangerous and to which many people are sensitive. As described in this article, measurements taken after installation of a smeter, even with the transmitter turned off, show high EMF on the home wiring. What would be extremely useful and telling would be to have the measurements taken in a home with an analog, and then later if/when the homeowner is forced to accept a smeter with or without the transmitter activated. Taking measurements in this manner would be proof of the increases due to the smeter.

Screen Shot 2016-06-16 at 5.05.31 PM

The utility industry’s argument that smart (AMR, ERT) meters are safe must be rejected, because it relies on FCC testing for radiofrequency (RF) interference, which is not a safety testing protocol, and flawed FCC radiation exposure guidelines.  The FCC testing for smart meters is done in an isolated laboratory, divorced from the context in which these meters are intended to be used, connected to the wiring in a home or business.

We present below compelling technical and empirical proof that, when these meters are used as intended, they cause an antenna effect, inflicting great harm to occupants inside their homes and businesses.  When used as intended, smart meters that appear to be safe in the testing laboratory are lethal.”

http://stopsmartmetersny.org/debunkingutility.html

3)    Dr. Mercola often has warned about RF radiation, especially from cell phones. Here is his article today. Of special note is information that explains why the prestigious New York Times was just about the only media that criticized the NTP study – Chairman richest man in the world, Carlos Slim.

“While many publications wrote responsibly about the recent NTP rat study, such as The Wall Street Journal,27 Scientific American,28 Mother Jones, Science,29 Consumer Reports,30 and several others globally, The New York Times downplayed the findings, and also put out a video on the subject that contrasted sharply with the video of the Wall Street Journal’s Ryan Knudson.

telmex

latest

When one looks into who owns The New York Times, it is not surprising to learn that billionaire telecom magnate Carlos Slim, who owns wireless assets globally, and who is Chairman and Chief Executive of telecommunications companies Telmex and América Móvil, is a major shareholder.”

– http://web.archive.org/web/20160615164257/http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/06/15/cell-phone-radiation-effects.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20160615Z1&et_cid=DM108141&et_rid=1531064613

4)    A great banner across the front of a school in Fullerton, California, USA.

-1

Letters:

From: Sharon Noble
Sent: June 14, 2016
To: bcauditor@bcauditor.com
Subject: Smart meter safety report by the BC Utilities Commission

Dear Auditor General Bellringer,

Carol Bellringer_Indoor_Web

I’m writing you about a draft report prepared by the BC Utilities Commission in which significant acknowledgements were made regarding the failure of various agencies to track incidents involving smart meters, thereby being unable to determine whether smart meters cause fires or not.

Over the last 3-4 years I have been investigating fires that appear to be related to smart meters. I began this project after discovering that ITRON Centron meters had many design flaws and had been responsible for fires and damages in many homes throughout the US. In June, 2015, I challenged BCUC’s assertion that it was prevented by the Clean Energy Act from investigating evidence that I had provided regarding meter failures and fires in BC. Finally, after many months, the draft was sent to me for comments, which I gladly provided on March 3, 2016. To date the final report has not been released. Because I believe that the public is at risk, I am sending my response to the draft to you, asking that you call for an investigation of these defective products and the procedures that are not working to protect the public from them.

My comments were based on information relating to more than 100 incidents that I have gathered over the last 2-3 years from several government agencies including the Fire Commissioner’s office, the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General (who maintains information that is supplementary to the Fire Report submitted by the local fire authorities), BC Hydro, local fire authorities, the BC Safety Authority and others. Because this information has been requested on more or less a random basis, I believe the problems I identify in the draft demonstrate the need for a serious review of the various reporting systems that are maintained to ensure the safety of the BC public in general.

BCUC’s draft report was certainly a mixed bag.  It encompassed admissions that are warranted – along with conclusions that were not.  The admissions were long in coming.  The conclusions were based on no evidence at all or, at times, on evidence that was weak, controversial or even contradictory.

My comments included detailed analysis of this draft report in which the points above were developed, perhaps more than was anticipated. There was no reliance on evidence that was faith-based.

Much of the evidence that BCUC relied on in its draft report came from Len Garis’s fire report.  That was an unfortunate dependence. Garis’s report suffered from a lack of objectivity as well as incomplete and poorly researched data, and arrived at conclusions based on insufficient and questionable evidence.  The BCUC must have  been  aware of the severe limitations of this study and yet, by depending on it, gave it credence it obviously didn’t deserve. The inadequacies of the Garis report were made manifest in my comments.

A significant failing that was obvious in the BCUC draft report was the absence of a competent independent authority determining whether the smart meters placed on the walls of our homes are safe.  That shortcoming was addressed by the 3 independent engineers who provided commentary on the significant design flaws and other problems inherent in the digital (electronic) meters that are being installed under the BC Hydro Smart Meter Program. Unfortunately I do not have permission to share this portion of the response with you.

My summary of the draft is that the system is fraught with problems:

–      There is no overall authority responsible to ensure that information is accurate and complete, and is gathered and reported consistently in a timely manner.

–      There are regulations that are illogical and inadequate, e.g. allowing a utility’s electrical equipment that is put on homes to be exempted from the BC Electrical Standards Act.

–      Regulations that do pertain to BC Hydro and its equipment are not being enforced, e.g. the removal of smart meters from the fire scene before the fire inspector has been able to complete his investigation.

–      There is absolutely no basis for the conclusion that there have been no fires or serious incidents involving smart meters. Rather there is evidence to the contrary which, inexplicably, is being disregarded.

I attach my comments, (http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/BCUC-fire-report-responses-1.pdf)  many of which are premised on information that I have circulated widely over the last 2-3 years. I will be happy to provide any or all of the information that I have gathered – most of which has been given to various politicians, including Mr. Bennett,  to BC Hydro, and to the BC Utilities Commission, all of whom (until this draft report) have denied any smart meters have failed or burned.  It’s time that I handed this investigation to someone who has the authority to demand a recall of this defective product.

Sincerely,
Sharon Noble

[BCUC Fire Report by Sharon Noble – Covering Letter for “Responses to BCUC Fire Report Draft:
– http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/special-report-re-bcuc-fire-report-by-sharon-noble/]

 

 

Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

“The truth is inconvertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it. But there it is”
~ Winston Churchill