$80.00 donated in past month
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay FeatureRelated Categories: East Bay | Health, Housing, and Public Services
Testing shows smart meters transmit far more frequently than industry claims
This was originally a letter to the editor of the Alameda Sun, outlining reasons for concern, and urging concerned citizens to attend the upcoming Public Utility Board meeting, Monday, October 16 at Alameda City Hall 7pm.
As many Alamedans know, AMP has been implementing their smart meter program in residential neighborhoods across Alameda this year. What most Alamedans do not know, however, is the hidden potential for danger these RF radiation emitting devices have. There is current evidence of a link between cancer and RF radiation, even a $25 million study by the US government proves there is in fact, a link. This was study was done by the National Toxicology Program and reported by the Wall Street Journal, among other media outlets. ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/cellphone-cancer-link-found-in-government-study-1464324146 )
I asked Rebecca Irwin of AMP how many times per day do the new smart meters transmit data. She told me that they only transmit 3 times a day, for a total of 87 seconds. So three bursts that last approximatley 29 seconds each. I told her that was funny, because I have a hand held RF meter that measures RF radiation, and I have stood in front of one of these smart meters and was getting short microbursts lasting less than one second, between 6 and 12 per MINUTE. I also tested banks of multiple meters and what I discovered was shocking. Standing in front of a bank of 5 smart meters, my meter was picking up pulsed microbursts of RF radiation faster than 2 per second, about as fast as my meter can count. This bank is constantly emitting a steady, continuous stream of pulsed microwave radiation, 24 hours a day, and 7 days a week. I made a video and sent it to AMP.
Others who have been analyzing these readings estimate at a minimum, smart meters transmit over 9,000 times per day, and up to a maximum of 190,000. That is just for a single meter. For a bank of multiple meters, just multiply the number of meters times 9,000 for a minimum estimate. Visit stopsmartmeters.org for the studies showing this.
The apartment building I live in has 13 analog meters that are on the outside of my children’s shared bedroom wall. If AMP gets their way, my children will be subjected to a constant stream of pulsed RF radiation 24/7. This would be like having your bed right next to a cell phone tower, or an array of microwave ovens always on. I do not allow my children wireless devices because of the risks, I certainly do not want this in our home!
They say we can ‘opt-out’ for $125 and $10 a month. But what about the 12 other meters on my kid’s wall? This is extortion and discrimination, and is not fair to people who live in multi-unit buildings.
Rebecca Irwin saw my video, and when I asked for her response, she said, “We have an RF meter here and we’re planning to go out in the field to do some testing.” This was last week, and I’m still waiting to hear the results of this testing. I think all Alamedans have a right to know about this testing and the results of it.
I urge all concerned citizens to purchase an RF meter online, and conduct your own testing. Or contact myself (christopher.r.rabe [at] gmail.com) to schedule a free RF test of your smart meter and other RF emitting devices. I also urge those concerned to attend the next Public Utilites Board meeting, Monday October 16, 7pm, at City Hall. You get 3 minutes to speak. I plan to talk about how the opt out disadvantages people in multi-unit dwellings, and I will ask for if at least one resident wants to opt out at an apartment building, then the whole bank is analog for no fee.
Three times a day is very different from 9,000-190,000 times a day. If the smart meters were only emitting 3 times a day, they would be a lot safer, but then there are still privacy, overcharging, and fire concerns. We need to enact a moratorium like 57 local governments (including Santa Cruz County, Marin County, and the city of Berkeley) have already done in California. To stop implementation of this new technology, and conduct further testing to make sure it is 100% safe before subjecting the public to it.
Christopher R. Rabe