Utility Smart Meter Fires Continue to Burn

smart meter fireBy Catherine J Frompovich

Utility companies are installing AMI Smart Meters for electric, natural gas and water for a few years now and totally disregarding customers’ rights and concerns about safety. The rollout of these meters has caused numerous problems for consumers, the least of which is FIRE! See this recently-produced video about an exploding AMI Smart Meter in Kansas City, Missouri.


https://youtu.be/yV_cHlxKoIE?

Here’s another video produced by Josh Del Sol of Take Back Your Power, which everyone ought to take the time to watch, as you will learn more than you probably thought you knew, or even cared about, regarding AMI Smart Meters forced on to you and your property by your utility companies.


https://youtu.be/kXDFllquOMw

Note: The full authorized version of Take Back Your Power can be watched on their website HERE, free on Amazon Prime HERE, and on iTunes HERE. Also, don’t miss their other informative videos at their YouTube channel HERE

Some customers’ homes have three AMI Smart Meters!

How can you protect yourself and your family from Smart Meter fires and all the electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs/RFs) they constantly send out, including over the wiring in your house?
This video ought to impress upon consumers the need to understand what’s at stake.

Real Time Physical PROOF of Smart Meter Dirty Electricity Output of RFs/EMFs


https://youtu.be/S57mrknMajY?

For consumers who want to research more about the legalities of EMF exposure, here’s a website that may be of some help.

Image Credit

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich is now available


Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

24 Comments on "Utility Smart Meter Fires Continue to Burn"

  1. It is possible that your cordless phone, which is IN your home and placed against your ear, is more dangerous, that the wifi you may be using to denounce smart meters is much more dangerous. There are numerous studies which make this point.

    Could it be that Apple and other phone makers are behind the smart meter scare? Think about it? It’s a distraction, just as chemtrails are a distraction from the real harms of pollution, including from ordinary jet fuel.Who benefits from this distraction? The fossil fuel oligarchs.

    It is possible, based on comparing the reliable studies of smart meters and phones,that smart meters are being used as a kind of scapegoat to distract people from the RF’s they place an inch from their brain for hours a day (college students use the smartphone 10 hrs a day, according to studies, mostly for aps.

    It is possible that the greatest danger is being ignored because of this distraction. I am not saying that smart meters are not harmful but that things IN the house are likely more harmful.

    BCHydro, which does install smart meters, claims ” B.C.’s smart meters transmit data for about 1.4 second per day, at very low wattage. According to B.C. Hydro, “exposure to radio frequency during a 20-year life span of a smart meter is equivalent to the exposure during a single 30-minute cell phone call.”

    They are for “discriminating” against those with electro-sensitivity. According to a 2005 British study, double blind, the 725 people with “electro-sensitivity” have no medical condition based on electricity:
    “In 2005, researchers at King’s College London performed an extensive meta-analysis of 31 experiments aimed at investigating the claims of 725 self-diagnosed “electromagnetically hypersensitive” individuals — people just like Ms. St. Clair. These experiments involved double-blind testing, in which the allegedly electo-sensitive individuals were subjected to an electromagnetic field, or a placebo condition, and were asked if they could tell the differences based on their own senses and medical symptoms. All but two of the 31 reports they examined found either “no evidence to support the existence of a biophysical hypersensitivity,” exhibited a failure to replicate the original findings, or contained statistical artifacts. (The other two studies, the authors concluded, gave “mutually incompatible results”). The authors’ conclusion: “Our metaanalyses found no evidence of an improved ability to detect EMF in ‘hypersensitive’ participants.”

    Hmnnnn…..our thoughts can make us sick. Who is spreading these thoughts? Who benefits? The only parties I can imagine are the phone makers who wish to distract people form the studies showing that their products ARE harmful. Look away! Get on your phone and tell all your friends to get rid of their smart meters, for RF will make you sick.

    • Smart Meters Suck | September 3, 2016 at 2:04 pm | Reply

      Sure, cordless phones, cell phones and wifi are bad too, but BC Hydro is lying about the frequency of transmissions. And phones and wifi are optional, not government mandated 24/365 emitting toxic microwaves even as you sleep. “Smart” meters transmit from 10,000 to 190,000 times per day. That was sworn testimony in a Santa Cruz court case with respect to the exact same model BC Hydro installs. Whole body exposure from a “smart” meter is about 100 times that of typical cell phone usage.

      • Please provide your evidence that BC Hydro is lying. I would bet you didn’t even look it up but had a kneejerk reaction, based on the idea that any statement that contradicts your cherished beliefs must be a lie. I suggest beliefs are based on lies. I also doubt if you read my entire essay, as you seem ignorant of its contents.

        Phones options: that’s like saying that clothing is optional or a car is optional. For almost all people, it is a daily necessity. The US has about 210 million cell phone users, 2/3 have cellphones, many of which are used for hours a day (10 hours for college students.).

        For most people, a cell phone is essential to their work, their buisness, and their private lives. If you don’t have a cell phone, you probably have a cordless, which puts out RFs IN YOUR HOUSE 24/7.

        A team of academicians in my State did a study and found no evidence:
        “. The CCST report in April 2011 found no health impacts, based both on lack of scientific evidence of harmful effects from radio frequency (RF) waves and that the RF exposure of people in their homes to smart meters is likely to be minuscule compared to RF exposure to cell phones and microwave ovens.” The CCST is headed by the former head of university and an electrical engineer; it is mostly funded by universities. I have seen no evidence its study was biased, which I am sure you will assert without evidence.

        That is, your mind is closed, so you are immune to facts, evidence, and any presented will be rejected. Meanwhile ALL your information is from amateur or corporate funded websites which are not run by experts and which are unaccountable.

        Cellsphones, which most feel are esential, are much more dangerous than smart meters, and I no of know one who sticks his ear against a smart meter hours a day: do you?

        So unless you have sources, reliable links, your assertions must dismissed as opinion which require no evidence to dismiss.

        The typical smart meter releases about 10,000 pulses a day (tho it can rise to 190,000 at the extreme), which is average. Wikpedia reports that typical RF waveform will do about 1000 pulses per second…so 10,000 pulses would be released in ten seconds, 190,000 at the extreme 3 minutes of transmission. This information, which even you quote, was uncovered by an anti-smart meter organization.

        Another anti-smart meter website states: ” . PG&E finally admitted that the electric meters send an average of 10,000 pulses per meter per day, .. PGE admitted that the length of each pulse is .0045 seconds, so if yo do the math, using the median (9600 pulses per day,) you get transmission time of……43 seconds.

        Sorry, that’s what you wanted to hear, but this is the information that the anti-smart meter websites (all sources above are from such sites) forced out of PGE in court.

        The research shows that smart meters are far far less harmful than cell phones:
        “The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.) IARC also noted that exposure to the brain from RF fields from cell phone base stations (mounted on roofs or towers) is less than 1/100th the exposure to the brain from mobile devices such as cell phones.”

        You assert cell phones are optional but the fact is that the 1/3 who do not have cell phones are inundated by RF waves: “Electronic devices that send information through the air are everywhere. Between Wi-Fi, cellphones and other networks, people are in a nearly constant cloud of wireless signals.”

        Most people have jobs where they are in close contact with many cellphones……it’s not really optional if you have to leave society to find an RF free environment. Here are more uses of RF: Radio and television broadcasting, cellular telephones, personal communications services (PCS), pagers, cordless telephones, business radio, radio communications for police and fire departments, amateur radio, microwave point-to-point links and satellite communications are just a few of the many telecommunications applications of RF energy. Microwave ovens are an example of a non-telecommunication use of RF energy. ”

        You can only avoid this sea of RF by heading into the woods! But the good news is that RF effects diminish radically with distance. It’s an exponential decrease, so if you spend, as college students, do, 10 hours a day with your cell phone on (most of for aps), you are putting RFs inches from your brain, whereas your smart meter is outside and you rarely come close to it……..”

        The “smart meters put out 100 times the RFs as cellphones comes from the Center for Eletrosmog Prevention, which sells shields against cell phones and they give numerous ways to minimize harm from cell phones: use the speaker phone, turn off, use one of their shields for sale!

        What is lost in this is the matter of distance: the same RFS pushed against your ear or in your pocket loses almost all its biological effects at a short distance. Smart meters are safer by the dfstance you have from them……..

        Well, you have no doubt stopped reading long ago, so I will conclude by saying that there is research that shows RFs can be harmful (of course radios give off RFs…and how long have people been listening to radios, TVs, etc. and the studies show that cell phones and cordless phones are by far the most dangerous because of how close they are held to the body.

        Most people cannot avoid cell phones, such as at work, and very few use speakerphones, as recommended because of the nuisance to co-workers.

        I am not saying smart meters are safe, but rather that cell phones and cordless phones, because of proximity, are far more dangerous…..now get on your phone and tell your friends what a loonie I am!

        I doubt if you have an open mind: I do..I recognize the strong possibility of dangers, and I think we need more research. Most claims made by the anti-smart meter websites just repeat unsupported claims made by other websites, and serious research is dismissed by the true believers as “lies>”

        I say, show me the peer-reviewed evidence that PGE (which had to come clean and court,as I detail above) or HYdro BC is lying. There is none. Do you have a cell phone (Yes!; do your coworkers (Yes!); are you ever around wifi, such as at a restaurant or work (Yes). Is it optional? Not really, not unless you want to leave society……..

        which may not be a bad idea, but no TV, no radio, no Wifi, no smart or cordless phones, no police or fire departments, etc etc……………….I mean, we are in a sea of electrical waves……….and we need to know more. Assuming we already have the answers is the surest way to remain in ignorance.

        Join me with an open mind……….and please don’t call or use wifi or amateur radio to contact me.

        I know one guy who sleeps with his smart meter seeking to find out if it is harmful if he keeps it near his brain hours a night. He says it give him wood!

        • Smart Meters Suck | September 4, 2016 at 10:46 am | Reply

          Dr. David Carpenter (public health physician, Harvard educated) determined that WHOLE BODY EXPOSURE from a smart meter is approximately 100 times that of typical cell phone use. BC Hydro obfuscates the actual transmission frequency by only mentioning the actual usage data. They never mention the fact that “smart” meters rely on a mesh network that is continuously communicating between neighbouring “smart” meters. On another note, this is actually hijacking your private property to be used unlawfully as a form of cell tower, uncompensated of course, without your permission, to relay your neighbours’ usage data through your meter using electricity that you pay for. Cell phones are entirely optional, far more so than anyone could argue basic electricity service is. I don’t own one, never have, and I got rid of my cordless many years ago (which I barely used and it was the type that only transmitted from it or its base station during actual calls) when I learned of the dangers. I’ve never had wifi, and don’t need it. I have had my house tested with a variety of meters and my in-house RF levels are below the very stringent building biology limits, even those recommended for sleeping quarters. The CCST report you cite has been rendered out of date by more recent science. In the CCST report they do not even acknowledge the possibility that non-thermal microwave exposure is a possible health risk. It has since been unequivocally proven to cause tumour growths in both the brain and heart. All RF radiation is not equivalent as far as biological effects go. Some is even used for therapeutic purposes. It has been known for decades that the type of frequency band and type of modulation have a huge influence on biological effect. Electrical engineers are not qualified or educated in these differences because it simply doesn’t enter their sphere of relevance. In general, their job is to design communications systems, not be concerned with their health effects. It’s unfortunate that they are often cited as though they are experts, and you’ll usually see industry using this trick to confuse the unwary. Comparing broadcast FM radio to digitally modulated microwave radiation is simply not a valid comparison; they are completely different in their biological effects. There is also a very unusual toxicity effect, so far unique to modulated microwave radiation, called the “window effect.” It has been shown in several experiments that stronger field densities of microwave radiation on occasion will do less harm than weaker ones, a reversal of the expected dose-response curve which is assumed when dealing with toxins to the human body. The awareness of this can shed light on experiments conducted before it was known and it explains how negative results are obtained when positive results were expected based on traditional dose-response curves. If you have studied microwave radiation as long as I have, you’d realize that it is extremely complicated, and there is likely much more to learn about it and its detrimental effects to human biology, but funding is always a problem, and that’s where industry happily steps in and swamps the research with pre-determined results so those not well educated in the scientific method can be victim to bogus claims of “weight of evidence” or “scientific consensus.” The proof that funding biases the research is that when studies are sorted by results and funding source, roughly 3/4 of those funded by industry show no detrimental health effects, while the proportion is reversed for independently funded science. The fact is that if a thousand studies show a negative outcome, but a single study shows a positive outcome, and that one study can be repeated following the same rigorous method, the one study stands and the thousand previous studies are rendered irrelevant. That is how science is conducted. There is no “scientific consensus,” for that would be an oxymoron. I have reached my current level of knowledge and understanding of the health effects of microwave radiation by keeping an open mind and studying everything that is available with a skeptical eye.

          • I had trouble reading your word mass, wiithout paragraphing but I note your evidence that HYdro lied is that they don’t mention the mesh network….
            but you provide no evidence for THAT assertion. My sources were all anti-smart meter. The PGE info was gained by taking them to court. ARe you claiming that all these anti=smart meter people who filed the suit failed to account for 90% of the pulses? That is illogical.

            “The PG&E Silver Springs Network “smart” meter operates in the 902-928 MHz range, near the range of most cell phones, and in the radio-frequency microwave range (300 MHz to 3 GHz). The 2-millisecond spikes of RF (radio-frequency) it emits are randomly assigned to a pattern of alternating frequencies—the pulses keep shifting which frequency they are using. At least 90% of the pulses are not your data, but the “mesh network” talking to itself—also known as network “chatter.”
            Source: stopsmartmeters.org.

            So with an average pulse release of 10,000 a day, which take 43 seconds combined (documented in previous post), even if we assume (and I can find reason to assume this) that the 90% is in addition to the 43 seconds, it would be 6 minutes….but per the anti-smart meter court case, there is no reason to think the 10,000 is not a complete figure. Do you think the anti-smart groups that sued and the judge just let this slip by. There is no evidence for that.

            As for the physician who found that whole body exposure of smart meters is 100 times that of cell phones, can you provide his peer-reviewed study. As you know,, claims that are made without peer-review are suspect.. I need to see if Dr. Hirsch took into account the exponential decrease in effect with distance, a critical question since cell phones are held inches from the brfain while most smart meters are outside and a good distance from the body.

            It seems you didn’t read my post, since I dealt with this.

            “Daniel Hirsch, a radiation expert and instructor at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), published a paper refuting the findings of the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST), which concluded based on industry data that smart meters are safer than mobile phones. Hirsh countered that:

            “… the cumulative whole body exposure from a Smart Meter at 3 feet appears to be approximately two orders of magnitude higher than that of a cell phone, rather than two orders of magnitude lower.” naturalnews

            This totally misstates the actual situation, where cell phones are used for hours pressed against the ear, whereas few spend hours 3 ft from a smart meter. I walk about ten feet away a few times a week, taking seconds.

            Cell phones are totally optional? Tell that to the 200 million workers and students who, even if they choose to go mobile-less are surrounded by cell phones in use.

            I suppose work is an option.

            I won’t go on…I see you have done lots of reading but you have failed to used critical thinking skills and ignored some good studies and accepted some poor studies, as detailed above.

            I agree that all RF devises pose potential harm but the really strong research makes it clear that cell phones at 1 inch are far more harmful than smart meters which are almost always a good distance away. I do NOt have a smart meter, as I opted out because, like many who oppose them, I was at the time growing marijuana, and I feared exposure.

            We need further study by real scientists in peer-reviewed environments and less amateur claims. WE need to understand that cell phones are not an option for most people as they live in a sea, at work, at school, and in stores of cell phones in use. As I said (and you ignored), the only way to opt out of cell phones is to leave society.

            I conclude that we need more information, that caution is due, and that you have already made up your mind based on some very sketchy studies which ignore how cell phones and smart meters are used in terms of “body exposure.”

            The studies I cited were not by industry but by actual scientists in the field.

            My skepticism is strong, and it is especially focused on the greatest danger, which is cell phones and cordless phones, and this is not industry progaganda, for the phone industry is much larger and richer than the smart meter industry, since there are worldwide over a 4.5 billion cell phones (statista.com)…
            whereas “Mass roll-outs in China continue to push the global smart meter market, which had nearly 210 million units installed as of 2014.”

            “… electricity meter manufacturers shipped more than 100 million smart meters globally in 2015, generating more than $4 billion in hardware revenue.”

            How much hardware revenue did cell phones make in 2015? If money is controlling the research, who has the most money to buy bias? Statista reports over 400 billion, nearly 100 times as much revenue as smart meters!

            I understand how Big Money buys university positions, funds friendly research,etc. I have written about it for years, and the way it works is that those with the most money do the most controlling.

            It flies against the record and logic that an industry with 1.2% the revenue of another industry would outspend it in seeking to control information. Based on this huge discrepancy, it is much more logical that the huge smart phone manufacturers like Apple are burying the research on cell phones. Apple, which gets over 90% of the profits from cell phones internationally, has revenues of 200 billion a year, 50 times more than the entire smart meter revenue.

            So I accept your thesis that much research is “bought” but I suggest that an industry 100 times larger is not being outspend by the 1% industry of smart meters. Given this thesis, the claim that smart meters are more dangerous than cell phones would seem to be a propaganda talking point to distract the public from the much much greater danger.

            I urge you to think about this.

          • Smart Meters Suck | September 4, 2016 at 12:07 pm |

            Dr. Hirsch wrote a paper showing how his calculations are derived and he is well aware of the inverse square law of propagation. Regarding BC Hydro’s emission: a negative cannot be proven, so it’s up to you to show me a single instance where they even mention the constant communication of the mesh network, or that your neighbours’ data are being unlawfully and without compensation transmitted through your meter.

            If I understand you correctly, you are assuming that the negative health effects calculated from the total transmission time accumulated by adding up each of the 10,000 daily bursts from the “smart” meter are equivalent to an equivalent single exposure of the same duration. I would respond with: if your sleep were interrupted by a single 15 second light burst in your bedroom, would you deem that equivalent to attempting to sleep with a strobe light emitting 3,333 light pulses over eight hours? The human body requires sleep to repair damage sustained during the day. These days, due to government corruption resulting in lack of regulation, that would include microwave exposure from a multitude of uncontrollable sources.

            The importance of a microwave free environment during sleep cannot be overstated. If this “down-time” is not allowed for, cancer is but one of the inevitable results as DNA can no longer be repaired. Modulated microwaves have been proven to create a stress response in the human body which disallows effective DNA repair. They have also been proven to affect voltage gated calcium channels, a mechanism of inter-cellular communication. Obviously if the signalling between cells is disrupted, disease could result.

            Currently cell phones are clearly the leader in revenue, but the world-wide installation of “smart” meters is most likely driven by a control agenda with far broader goals than just making money. The head of the CIA has publicly stated that you will be spied on through your dishwasher, and it’s the smart meter that makes that viable. How much more obvious do they have to be before people will wake up to the Technocrats’ agenda?

          • 1. Is the Hirsch paper peer-reviwed? Otherwise, skepticism is in order. Did you read his paper or about it. Can you provide a source or link: I have looked and looked and cannot find it. Until then, I remain skeptical.
            2. If you claim someone is lying, it is YOUR obligation to provide evidence. When Bush said he had solid evidence that Iraq had a WMD program, the negative WAS proved by a thorough search by the CIA over several years, which concluded there is NO evidence of a WMD program or operatonal weapons. Bush, who lied to start the war, had to admit they had proved the negative.

            It was Bush’s duty to prove his claim, which Iraq (and the UN inspection team) denied. Prove their is solid evidence. Prove that there is no WMD program.

            Both were proved.

            It is up to you to provide the evidence when you claim someone is lying.

            You can’t so you come up with red herrings. My evidence that they are NOT lying is that their claims match those PGE was “forced” by a suit to “admit” before a judge in front of the leading anti-smart meter organizations. This information confirms the information Hydro BC gave out. QED.

            You write (in a highly complicated construction: “If I understand you correctly, you are assuming that the negative health effects calculated from the total transmission time accumulated by adding up each of the 10,000 daily bursts from the “smart” meter are equivalent to an equivalent single exposure of the same duration. I would respond with: if your sleep were interrupted by a single 15 second light burst in your bedroom, would you deem that equivalent to attempting to sleep with a strobe light emitting 3,333 light pulses over eight hours? ”

            No, I am making no assumptions like that. and the comparison with sleeping with strobe flashes is apples and oranges, a logical fallacy and a distraction from the real question: What is the harm done by 43 seconds of pulses every 24 hours from a devise outside your home? Is it more harmful than the cell phone, which several studies link to cancer?

            I personally sleep about 200 ft from the nearest smart meter, but I get RFS from TV, radio, wifi, and my (currently lost) cell phone. I doubt if my sleep is disturbed by my neighbor’s smart meter. Most people sleep with a thick insulated wall between them and their meter and usually they are at least 10-50 ft away, inside and shielded by the wall and distance.

            Cordless phones are in the home often where the family congregates or in the bedroom: much greater exposure due to proximity.

            As for the CIA, they can get a thousand times more info from your cell phone or your internet usage than your smart meter. I think that is your weakest argument.

            I think you are kidding me when you say you have an open mind: Smart Meters Suck seems to expose you as having made up your mind.

            I remain open minded, demanding more research into the dangers of all RF devices, but especially those which we almost wear, such as cell phones.

            I think you are looking for reasons to support your conclusions; I am looking for information on which to base my conclusions, and the fact is, we need more peer-reviewed research to come to conclusions.

            The idea that the industry controlling research and attacks on research is the one with 1% of the revenue of the cell phone industry made me laugh. You had to come up with the CIA spying to dodge that absurdity, but the CIA already has your number!

            Do you think working or going to school or shopping, which exposes you to a sea of cell phones and wifi, is optional? You dodge the real questions such as: how can I avoid cell phones by choice.

            For the 3d time, only by leaving society…………is that a real option for the 4.6 billion cell phone users? Your claim to an open mind has made me laugh with a certain sadness.

            I think we have exhausted the subject, except I await a link to the Hirsch paper, as I believe in looking not at second or 3d hand claims but primary research. I will read the paper and respond………….otherwise, if you have no source, I dismiss your appeal to Dr. Hirsch’s authority.

          • Smart Meters Suck | September 4, 2016 at 1:56 pm |

            Hirsch paper: http://www.committeetobridgethegap(dot)org/pdf/110212_RFrad_comments.pdf

            BC Hydro claims: “a smart meter communicates for 2 to 3 seconds a day.” Get yourself a microwave RF meter and see for yourself that it will be registering a transmission at least every few seconds at all hours of the day and night. To represent that as 2 to 3 seconds a day is a lie of omission at the very least. At no time do they ever admit the reality of the continuous stream of pulses being emitted. How is my comparison to a strobe light invalid? Each of the minimum of 10,000 pulses of microwaves penetrates the skull and affects the nervous system in several ways including causing a stress response, calcium ion balance and glucose metabolism.

            It’s safe to assume that 99% of people are closer than 200 feet from “smart” meters. Some have their heads directly opposite the wall that the meter is mounted on while they sleep and it’s irresponsible to forcibly subject anyone to that kind of exposure without any studies done to determine whether it’s safe and thousands of studies existing showing that a reasonable extrapolation would indicate it is extremely dangerous.

            Insulated walls do not block microwaves to any degree or cell phones wouldn’t work indoors. You keep projecting the assumption that I “wear” a cell phone. I don’t use or own one, and never have. I never stated that the “smart” meter manufacturers were swamping the research with bogus studies. I don’t know where you got that from. They simply cite the same bogus research that the telecom companies provide to deny the harm from their toxic product. There are very few “smart” meter specific safety studies, all the more reason they shouldn’t have been implemented. You will note that no government or authority or manufacturer every explicitly states that “smart” meters are safe.

            Did you know that Lloyd’s of London and other less famous insurers have stopped insuring against harm from radio frequency radiation? Obviously this is because they have recognized that it would be potentially bankrupting for them due to the unquantifiable risk. If it were quantifiable or even non-existent as some claim, they would be able to assign a value to its insurance and be happy to take your money as insurers do.

            I’m not dodging anything, I simply stated that the CIA has admitted their technocratic goals and seem to be quite satisfied with the progress being made according to their agenda. Your thesis is that “smart” meter opposition is controlled opposition to divert attention from the harm from cell phones which is ridiculous in my opinion because there are very valid reasons why “smart” meters are worse. If you think monitoring internet traffic provides as much intel as live monitoring of activities and discussions inside homes, you’re wrong.

            Yet again, you completely ignore my point that the most important time to eliminate modulated microwaves from your environment is during sleep so that the body has a chance to repair as it has evolved to do. Only “smart” meters specifically deny this basic human right and are for that reason alone much worse than cell phone or wifi exposure.

          • My friend, are the Hirsch “comments” peer-reviewed? : NO. These are not a scholarly study but comments with no primary sources. It is useless. since it is mere assetion. Critical thinkers demand sources and evidence.

            His own data refutes his major claim: “) the cumulative whole body exposure from a SmartMeter at 3 feet appears to be approximately two orders of magnitude higher than that of acell phone, rather than two orders of magnitude lower.”

            Now look at Figure 2: it shows that at 3 ft, a smart meter has twice the body exposure. I know of no one who spends any time at all 3 ft from a smart meter.

            The closest I ever come, if I take the side pah to the back door, is about 10 ft for a few seconds, now and then. Figure 2 states that at 10 ft (few spend much time 10 ft from a meter) with the meter “always on,” the exposure drops to much less than a cellphone. Take a look.

            A cell phone, per Fig 2, is minimum 10, max 50. A smart meter at 10 ft is minimum minimum 4 (ie 60% lower than phone, at at max, the cell phone is over 1000% higher.

            3 ft from a smart meter is not real. 10 ft is not even real. I would suggest a reasonable average distance is between 10 (if you sit near the wall where the meter is on the outside) and 50 ft in an average house. In my house, the living area is 5 (if you hug the wall next to the fire place chimney ft and the seating is about 10-20 ft away. The kitchen and bedrooms are 20-50 ft away.

            You would have to choose to be closer than 10 ft, where the cell phone has 60% to 1000% (at max). It is impossible, in the house, to be within 3 ft. My house is typical of most.

            So the 3 ft measurement is unrealistic and thus a distraction from the actual situation, that most people are almost always 10 ft or more from a smart meter, meaning their cellphone is far more dangerous.

            I won’t go on, you have failed to provide peer-reviewed research (comments are not scholarhship) and your own source proves my point.

            That point is that cellphoines which are inches from your brain often up to 10 hours a day (college students/young people). Even in Yucatan in the Mayan villages, I snapped a picture of the street showing every single person on their cell phone. It’s universal: you can’t avoid it.

            Smart meters are at a distance, in almost all cases, where the exposure is far far less than the phone.

            Do you spend hours 3 ft from a smart meter. I don’t think many do.

            The standard is not 200 ft (I gave that as MY example since I don’t have a smart meter (it’s not mandatory) so the closest is a neighbors (I live in the forest).
            The standard is perhaps 10ft and up…..at work, you are surrounded by wifi and cellphones but you are probably 50-100 ft from a smart meter. Figure 2 tells us that the exposure would be tiny compared to the cell phones and wife you are surrounded by.

            Conclusion (and then II’m out): Figure 2, which is Hirsch’s correction of the .CCST report, shows that at 10 ft (much more realistic than 3 ft), the maximum exposure danger of the cell phone is 1200% higher than the smart meter.

            QED.

            To think other wise, you would have to assume that people spend time within 3 ft of a meter. That is absurd. !0 ft is not that realistic. In my entire life, living in perhaps 15 buildings, I have rarely been within 3ft, and I would guess, the same is true of 99% of the people, including you.

            It’s like saying if you stand within 3 ft of a jet engine exhaust, you will be incinerated……but who stands 3 ft from a jet engine exhaust.

            Using unrealistic metrics is one way to skew the results. Tell me why Figure 2 does not refute Hirsch’s own claim, which is based on being 3 ft from an always on meter. That’s a fatal methodological flaw.

            And it would never pass peer-review by experts in the field. An observant 12 yr old could pick out the unrealistic metric.
            “Hey, no body spends time within 3 ft of a meter. That’s bogus, dude.”

            And it is.

            If you have reliable studies, peer-reviewed and based on realistic assumptions, let me know. So far, you have produce “comments” which use absurd assumptions.

            Where are your critical thinking skills. I am not an advocate of smart meters…I think we need more good research before going forward, but the research, including that of Hirsch, shows that at 10 ft, the meter results in much much less exposure.

            So, even using Hirsch’s figures, his claim collapses. It assumes that the equivalent of cell phone use is to be within 3 ft of a smart meter: it doesn’t take a PH. d to see how bizarre that assumption is. Even accepting his undocumented and unsupported figures, his argument collapses. He proves that cell phones are far more dangerous….unless you spend time 3 ft within a meter…..and that just won’t fly.

            Using a realistic assumption (10ft and beyond for 99% of the time) cell phones are up to 12 times more dangerous.

            Unless you hug the wall exactly where your meter is, you wont be within 3 ft.
            Even you don’t think that is a valid assumption, I assume.

            I appreciate your civility and your wealth of (often mistaken) information, but you have refuted your own claiims. Figure 2: take a look.

            Thanks for the motivation to help me in my search for the truth. I do think RFS may be dangerous but it is folly to concen trate on the least harmful aspects, and who do you think promotes this distraction, which I explain in detail in my initial post. The focus should be on cell phones, cordless phones, and devises we use all the time in intimate contact. Distraction is a way that industries can change the subject to avoid focus on the key dangers.

            Well, I won’t stand within 3 ft of a meter…………….but by the same token, I should move to the wilderness to avoid a sea of radio waves.

            I am currently (age 75) doing a cancer treatment (CBD) and I am pretty sure it was not caused by a smart meter, since there are only 1 or 2 within a block.

            I have used a cell phone and wifi for over 10 years however. My concern is very genuine, and the last thing I want is to buy into some fake assumptions leading to unsupported conclusions.

            We need to ignore the propaganda and deal with the most serious dangers, which clearly are those devises we place up against our brain. I urge you to clear your mind and start over with NO assumptions other than that we need to learn more, dismiss unsupported claims, and understand who benefits from the war on smart meters (while putting cell phones, etc aside as “less dangerous”)

            So don’t spend time 3 ft from a smart meter…………………….and get rid of your cell phone, if you really want to be safe. Thanks for the provocation.

          • Smart Meters Suck | September 4, 2016 at 6:46 pm |

            Hirsch’s analysis is so basic and simply applies geometry and arithmetic to arrive at the simple conclusion that cumulative exposure to a smart meter in a worst case plausible scenario (e.g.: bedroom wall location) results in about 100 times the exposure of typical cell phone use. Note that Hirsch is allowing for the “smart” meter exposure to be whole body, but not the cell phone exposure. I believe this is valid because the head will absorb virtually all the radiation. Safety standards are not based on what your habits are, or mine, but rather must be based on the worst possible case. It’s simply not legitimate to base them on the average exposure. A “smart” meter is a permanent fixture and exposure in some cases cannot be reduced, particularly for large low income families. Cell phone exposure is easily controlled. Again, I don’t have one, never did have one, so I can’t get rid of something I’ve never had.

            Congratulations on realizing that conventional cancer cures are more likely to kill you than the cancer itself and I wish you the best of luck with your chosen treatment. I would advise you to avoid modulated microwaves in all their forms since they are proven to cause and exacerbate tumours. I don’t disagree that distraction is an often used tactic, but I know that “smart” meters are harmful for society for several different reasons and offer no tangible benefits to the utility customer, contrary to claims.

            The microwave “window effect” is real, and has been proven by repeated experiments, so higher field densities can be less harmful. This is completely counter intuitive and can render comparisons based on exposure levels for net harm invalid. It may be because the novelty of modulated microwave exposure to the human immune system requires a threshold level before the immune system can detect the presence of the toxin and then react.

          • Figure 2 shows the flaw in Hirsch’s claim: how many have a bed within 3 ft of a meter? 1%? 2%? I think the average is way beyond 10ft, making cell phones up to 1200% more dangerousl. NO amount of math can ignore this basic unrealistic metric.

            I would make the case, based on 75 years of observation, that 99% of people spend 99% of their time more than 3 ft from a smart meter. You may disagree, but I think 3 ft is an absurd standard to compare to a cellphone pressed to the skull for hours a day. You don’t need a degree in math to know that close proximity to a meter is very rare. It’s not a mathc issue; it’s an observation .

            But, your mind is closed…so I won’t waste my time pinting out the obvious.

            Thank you for your kind words about my health issues.
            ” Congratulations on realizing that conventional cancer cures are more likely to kill you than the cancer itself and I wish you the best of luck with your chosen treatment..”

            I didn’t say that, SMS. I said I was doing a cannabis treatment, stage 2.
            The first treatment (ingesting extract of whole bud) did not work; my PSA rose 20% (from .4 to .5)…..so I am trying a different extract, mostly CBD.

            If it does not work, I go back to my urologist, who 10 years ago removed by cancerous prostate after I had tried many alternatives over a year, from oriental medicine, acupuncture, supplements, etc etc. Nothing helped so my prostate was removed. For 8 yrs, my PSA was 0.0 and there were no side effects.

            Then 2 yrs ago, I got a reading of .2, then two years later .4, then after my cvannabis treatment, .5.

            I am also changing my diet, based on research with 50% raw vegan, 50% just vegan, lots of garlic, curcumin, etc etc….essentila oils, frankencense, etc etc.

            Here is what I am interested in if all else fails:
            “Just months after finding out he had metastatic cancer, former President Jimmy Carter announced this weekend that his doctors have said he no longer needs cancer treatment thanks in part to a groundbreaking new kind of medication that trains the immune system to fight cancer tumors.

            If it doesn’t work, I go back to my urologist to discuss options. I wouild avoid chemo/radiaion and use other new treatments, such as the one that cured Jimmy Carter of brain and liver cancer at age 90. “Just months after finding out he had metastatic cancer, former President Jimmy Carter announced this weekend that his doctors have said he no longer needs cancer treatment thanks in part to a groundbreaking new kind of medication that trains the immune system to fight cancer tumors.”

            Just yesterday I read of a UK study that showed in some hospitals, up to 50% of those given chemo die from it. No thanks, but conventional surgery saved my life before (they used the DOD developed ca Vinci robotic assistant, which involves three small slits in the tummy with the doctor looking at a screen with control sticks…a doctor can operate on a wounded soldier 10,000 miles away with this amazing device! And so I do not dismiss all conventinal medicine, and experience has taught me that most natural cancer cures are bogus.

            I plan to be around another 10 or 15 years, as my mind has awoken and it is on fire. I have a lot to share, a lot to teach, a lot to learn. I keep an open mind and I think that is a survival tool. I have not given up on natural remedies,nor conventional medicine in terms of surgery, the Carter treatment, etc. Keep your options open and you will be free!

            I have studied longevity for 35 years..right now reading the Blue Solution, which is advice from the people who live the longest. I follow the diet of those who have the least cancer and only use supplements which have solid research being them Garlic (which I take both raw and in pills to get like 40-50 cloves a day. I got detoxed and lost 35 pounds!

            I have no tumors, just a recurrence of the prostate cancer which had spread slightly beyond the prostate and it did not register for 8 yrs and now is low but I want to nip it in the bud (with bud).

            You say (with no support) that smart meters have no social value. Well, you might be wrong….My attempts to detedrrnine the value of a smart meter/grid in order to sell back excess energy from your solar installation is hard to find.

            I get various contradictory answers: you don’t need a smart meter if you have solar. That may be true but then you are wasting excess energy which, with a smart meter, can be returned to the grid. The meter measures what you used and what is excess, and then you sell the excess back to the grid, providing a second benefit, supplying others with solar energy instead of dirty energy.

            I think you can have solar with an analogue, but you can’t sell it and help others to avoid using polluting energy. On a national scale, that would clean up America! The smart grid facilitates this process, which saves money, pollution, and provides a social benefit of enormous value. In the West, most households wilth solar have excess, and it would be a social sin to waste it.

            Perhaps you know of some “neutral” sources for more information. I think I am correct but I may be wrong.

            Can you sell back energy to the grid with an analogue?
            How much money and energy is wasted if you don’t sell back?
            Will a smart grid help us end pollution and resource wars about control of oil?

            Perhaps, we could together, with open minds, find reliable answers to these questions. It would either confirm or refute the social and financial and environmental/climae benefits of the ability to sell back otherwise wasted clean energy, leaving others to rely on dirty energy.

            I welcome good information, as my mind is open but burning for knowledge. I don’t want opinions and claims from partisan parties: I want only the truth, for oly the truth will make us free.

            Is there a social benefit to smart meters/grid? Or can we accomplish the return of energy to the grid with compensation with an analogue. Can you help me find an unbiased answer?

            My view is to keep open because we don’t yet know the truth; if we think we do, we will never find it. I welcome any help in my quest.

      • “Exact same model”?? PG&E uses Landis+gyr and General electric smart meters and BC Hydro uses Itron. More misinformation from SMS aka Bob Bichen and who knows what other aliases.

        • Smart Meters Suck | September 4, 2016 at 10:16 am | Reply

          “Smart” meter manufacturers subcontract the manufacture of their communications modules. Santa Cruz “smart” meters use the exact same communications module, made by Silver Spring Networks, as BC Hydro’s Itron Centrons. Just more misinformation from Derek Ward, AKA, DOUBTING THOMAS, AKA, Keith Duhaime and who knows what other aliases?

          • Well “Bob”, my research shows thar Landis+Gyr and General Electric smart meters used by PG+E have a Silver Spring NIC 310 module, while the Itron Centron smart meters used by BC Hydro have Silver Spring NIC 400 module. So much for your “EXACT same model” – different manufacturers and different communication modules. BTW, I use my own name, just my own name and not various pseudonym like you.

          • Smart Meters Suck | September 4, 2016 at 5:51 pm |

            The two communications modules are so similar that Silver Spring only issues a single spec sheet for both of them. In fact they both use IEEE 802.15.4, both use FHSS Spread Spectrum from 902-928 MHz, and both are approved under FCC 15.247,and Industry Canada RSS-210. The only difference is a range of data rates for the NIC 400. The mesh network operation of each is identical. I hope you didn’t waste too long in this desperate attempt to prove me wrong, because you essentially failed.

          • Exact – adjective
            1.
            strictly accurate or correct:
            an exact likeness; an exact description.
            2.
            precise, as opposed to approximate:
            the exact sum; the exact date.
            3.
            admitting of no deviation, as laws or discipline; strict or rigorous.
            4.
            capable of the greatest precision:
            exact instruments.
            5.
            characterized by or using strict accuracy:
            an exact thinker.

            sim·i·lar
            ˈsim(ə)lər/
            adjective
            1.
            resembling without being identical.
            “a soft cheese similar to Brie”

          • Oh, and I spent a total of about 5 minutes using that fancy google search engine.

          • What is the DO NOT INSTALL DISTANCE for your BC Hydro AMI7 FHSS smart meter Derek??

          • God I love the way you spew out lies like they are facts – the NIC310 module is NOT approved by Industry Canada RSS-210

          • Smart Meters Suck | September 4, 2016 at 8:16 pm |

            The following is a direct copy and paste from the spec sheet (between the double quotes) with no editing:

            “NIC 310
            Radio Frequencies: 902-928 MHz
            Approvals: FCC 15.247, Industry Canada RSS-210”

            YOU’RE WRONG, shill.

          • Oops sorry – I was wrong – the Itron is the only one with Measurement Canada approval but both the 310 and 400 have Industry Canada RSS-210.

          • What is the DO NOT INSTALL DISTANCE for your BC Hydro AMI7 FHSS smart meter Derek???

          • What is the DO NOT INSTALL DISTANCE for your BC Hydro AMI7 FHSS smart meter Derek???

  2. “…totally disregarding customers’ rights and concerns about safety”

    You know, I enjoy alternative media sites such as this and a few others. It creates a small glimmer of hope when you see organizations willing to stand tall and report an unbiased version of our dilemma.

    One thing? This truly being an oligarchy, ANYTHING capable of harming corporate citizens’ bottom line isn’t open to scrutiny by the people. Since the dual citizen – run SCOTUS embraced them at the peril of the people, don’t hold your breath for plain old decent justice. Perfect point: where was SCOTUS when the Judas Class passed the DARK act in direct violation of state’s rights AND the people’s right to have an informed choice about what they’re putting into their own bodies? Did SCOTUS create a third arm of the congress? The House of Representatives, the Senate and the Monsanto?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*