2016-07-31 Talk in USA of suing utilities, meter companies and utility commissions

1)    The “$$mart” grid continues to be expanded around the world, even where many are still without electricity. This from Pakistan.

Pushed by ADB: ECNEC approves Rs47b smart-metering project – The Express Tribune – July 21, 2016:
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1146088/pushed-adb-ecnec-approves-rs47b-smart-metering-project/

2)    A good newsletter to sign up for is from a group in Australia, EMR Aware. I think it helps keep us going to know we’re not alone, not by a long shot, in fighting RF and for our rights to live in a safe environment.

EMR Aware Newsletter – July-August 2016

Welcome to the July-August 2016 edition of our free EMR Aware newsletter. In it you will find a selection of the latest science and media reports on the biological, social, and environmental impacts of electro-technologies.

To view, please click on the image or link below. While at our website, why not also explore our previous newsletters? As a whole, they form a comprehensive overview of current issues relating to EMR.

http://www.emraware.com/newsletter_july_august_2016.html

3)    Dr. Ronald Melnick, one of the authors of the National Toxicology Report, made a strong statement in The New York Times about the responsibility of pediaticians and parents.

In my view, a pediatrician would be acting irresponsibly if he or she knew and understood the implications of the human and animal cancer data on cell phone radiation and did not offer precautionary advice to the parents of his or her patients.”

http://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-nyt

4)    There is increasing talk in the USA (and elsewhere) of possible legal actions against utility companies, $$meters manufacturers and even utility commission members for allowing devices that emit microwave radiation to be put on homes. The companies and commission members here in BC, and across Canada and North America, have been shown evidence that prolonged exposure to even small amounts of microwave radiation is dangerous, so they can’t say they didn’t know. They are ignoring scientific evidence (as well as evidence that these are fire hazards) and are turning a blind eye. I would suggest public health officials, such as Dr. Perry Kendall, would be included as neglecting his fiduciary (and medical) responsibilities.

However, if states public utility commissions don’t recognize RF/EMF non-thermal adverse effects soon and make necessary changes within their utility regulations, I can foresee massive lawsuits being filed against utility companies, AMI Smart Meter manufacturers, and state public utility commissions—including commission members—charging failure to protect public health and the deliberate neglect of fiduciary responsibilities in view of established non-thermal radiation science and academic literature.”

http://tinyurl.com/hfa8jpl

5)    Below in Letters is one from a fellow advocate in the USA who is calling out the Wall Street Journal for an article attempting to reassure the public that cell phones have been tested and found to be safe.  This is an important one to share widely. I have the author’s permission to do so.

6)    In Segment #21, BCUC acknowledges that some components of the smeters are “more combustible” than those of analogs. They mislead because analogs contain no combustible components, being made entirely of glass and metal. They also admit that the evidence they have reviewed does not rule out the possibility that smart meter materials could contribute to fires. Yet we’re supposed to believe these things are safe.

Letters:

From: X
To: ryan.knutson@wsj.com; paul.gigot@wsj.com; editors@interactive.wsj.com
Date: July 29, 2016

Subject: Belt Clip article? Dr. Balzano lied!
Date: July 29, 2016

Dear Mr. Knutson and Editors,

Dr. Balzano makes a false statement in your article of July 6, 2016, entitled, Belt Clip? How the U.S. Tests Cellphones for Safety.  Dr. Balzano says:

“”Motorola put in a substantial amount of research on the biological effects of radio-frequency radiation,” said Dr. Balzano, who retired from Motorola in 2001 and is now at the University of Maryland. “We found absolutely no proof whatsoever” of anything harmful.”

Compare this to what Jerry Phillips says in Scientific American on May 27, 2016:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-might-cell-phone-signals-cause-cancer1/
:
“This is familiar territory for Jerry Phillips, a biochemist and director of the Excel Science Center at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Phillips conducted Motorola-funded research into the potential health impacts of cell phones during the 1990s while he was with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ Pettis VA Medical Center in Loma Linda, Calif. Phillips and his colleagues looked at the effects of different RF signals on rats, and on cells in a dish. “The most troublesome finding to Motorola at the time is that these radiofrequency signals could interact with living tissues, which is what we saw in the rats,” he says…

“…The signal couples with those cells, although nobody really knows what the nature of that coupling is. Some effects of that reaction can be things like movement of calcium across membranes, the production of free radicals or a change in the expression of genes in the cell. Suddenly important proteins are being expressed at times and places and in amounts that they shouldn’t be, and that has a dramatic effect on the function of the cells. And some of these changes are consistent with what’s seen when cells undergo conversion from normal to malignant. These effects vary depending on the nature of the signal, the length of the exposure and the specifics of the signal itself.”

And here is what Motorola did to him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28FtRM4Xw9U

I would like to see Motorola answer for that and hope you would, too.  Motorola did find evidence of harm.  It can be only harmful that an agent is coupling with your body’s cells, indiscriminately creating free radicals in your body, and changing your gene expression.  How can it be otherwise?  Dr. Balzano clearly lied.

Also, consider this statement of Dr. Henry Lai, found here which you may verify by email:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Cell-phone-cancer-risk-debated-1281040.php
:
“That was in the mid-1990s. Lai and Singh published their findings of DNA damage in rats exposed to relatively low levels of the kind of radiation cell phone users get. At the time, the UW researchers had been working with Motorola, sharing findings and meeting the company’s scientists.

“We thought they were collaborating and interested in the science,” Singh said.

“We were naive,” Lai said.

As they later discovered when an industry memo was leaked to Slesin, and published in 1997 in Microwave News, Motorola had secretly drafted a “war games” memo that aimed to use media relations, industry-paid scientists and any other means possible to discredit and suppress the scientists’ findings.”

Here is a link to the leaked memo:
https://www.rfsafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/cell-phone-radiation-war-gaming-memo.pdf

In the interest of the public’s health and right to know, I ask you to please print a retraction and correction.

Sincerely,
X
Tampa, FL

_________________________________________________________________________

Risky Business?

RESPONSE TO “BCUC’s Staff Report on Smart Meter Fire Safety Concerns”    Segment #21

KEY:  Highlighted text is from Sharon Noble  Non-highlighted text is the draft report as written by BCUC staff.

= = =

BCUC

Observations (continued)

The evidence reviewed indicates the safety hazard associated with watthour meters has not materially increased with the introduction of smart meters in BC as further detailed below:

4)    Are the smart meter components and materials more flammable than previous meters and if so does this materially impact their safety?

Some components of the Itron smart meters installed in BC are more flammable than the previous meters. For example the cover of the Itron meters are made of polycarbonate verses analog legacy meter covers which are made of glass. Furthermore, smart meters contain batteries while legacy meters had none. However, the evidence reviewed does not suggest that the flammability rating of smart meter components and materials has resulted in a material increase in the meter related fire incident rate. In the US, the annual number of fires where the ignition source was attributed to the electric meter or meter box dropped from 940 in a pre- smart meter period to 610 during the period when smart meters were being installed.

  • None of this is credible because meters are being removed from fires scenes in US and BC.
  • It has been acknowledged and demonstrated that there is no accurate tracking system in BC, and there is no evidence that the reporting done by the states or utilities in the US is any better.
  • What evidence was reviewed that led to the conclusion that the flammability of the material used in the smart meter has not increased the meter-related fires?
  • Who reviewed the evidence and what were his qualifications?

There is no basis for the assertion that smart meter components and materials have not resulted in an increase in meter related fires.

The evidence reviewed is not sufficient to rule out the fire rating of smart meter materials to be a contributing factor in all fires originating in the vicinity of meters. However, plastic components are commonly used in other electrical equipment and FortisBC submitted that the plastic components of their AMI meters have a rating of V-0 as specified under UL94, the Standard for Safety of Flammability of Plastic Materials for Parts in Devices and Appliances testing.

Comment: This Report statement is a gross simplification, not recognizing the science and the rigorous testing that goes into the insulating material careful choices for electrical equipment.   

Comment: From the UL94C Standard, the ignition source for the material under test consists of a 50W tirrel burner flame ignition source. This does not accurately represent actual unlimited electrical arc energy available from the Grid when the HV Utility fuse does not interrupt a Low-Voltage fault in an adequately short time

The flammability and other smart meter safety concerns prompted Underwriters Laboratories to develop and in 2014 publish UL 2735, the Standard for Safety for Electric Utility Meters. Section 10 of the standard addresses batteries and section 16 addresses flammability. A Canadian version of the UL standard is being developed. There is also a parallel ANSI meter safety standard under development.

  • UL certified 2 meters, Landis & Gyr (Texas) and Sensus (Saskatchewan) as meeting UL 2735 standards after these very same meters caused fires and failed. Obviously this standard is inadequate. Something that is considered safe will not cause fires.
  • According to industry documents the new standards are being developed as a result of concerns about design flaws that make smart meters fire hazards.

“… design flaws in smart meter units have been known to cause serious fire hazards and spotty performance. This has caused a lot of concern for utilities and manufacturers of smart meters.
http://www.metlabs.com/blog/meters/new-ul-2735-electric-utility-meter-standard-ensures-safety-and-performance/

 

 

Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

“Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.”
~ Dalai Lama