Page 10 - the NOISE January 2015

adhs rElEasEs smarT mETEr rEpOrT
physiology to which they have applied those measurements to create their standards? I would prefer radiation exposure limits come from an organization more focused on the advancement of health, instead of the advancement of technology.”
In its report, ADHS dismisses the effects of non-thermal radiation from smart meters as “in- consequential” based on an IE&EE statement the concludes they are “insufficient to be consid- ered a health hazard.” So, in actuality, ADHS limited the scope of its report enough to ignore its own goal of considering whether RF exposure from smart meters is “at levels to cause public health concern.” By eliminating all evidence of personal experience from Arizonans who have suffered from the effects of RF exposure due to smart meter installation, ADHS set the stage for concluding harmful effects are “not likely.”
In addition, when ADHS considered the pulsed radiation broadcasts emitted by smart me- ters, it used a method called “time-averaging” to determine whether these pulses comply with FCC limits for RF exposure. “The time-averaging concept can be used to determine the levels of exposure. This means it is acceptable to exceed the recommended limits for short periods of time as long as the average exposure does not exceed the limit,” states the report. APS has been touting its time averaged exposure calculations for years in an attempt to show that RF exposure from smart meters is minimal and within legal guidelines.
But the FCC regulates “uncontrolled exposure” to RF frequencies differently than occupa- tional exposure, where workers are aware they are being exposed and have the opportunity to take protective measures. In the case of uncontrolled exposure to smart meters, FCC regula- tions do not allow for the use of time averaging, as this assumes that exposure can somehow be controlled.
“It is important to note that for general population/uncontrolled exposures, it is often not pos- sible to control exposures to the extent that averaging times can be applied. In those situations, it is often necessary to assume continuous exposure.” — FCC Bulletin OeT 65
While exposure to a single meter might be controlled by the “short and infrequent broad- casts” APS touts — which are disputed by individuals who have taken their own fieldtests, like Mr. Woodward — installation of meters on a million locations in the state certainly falls under the category of assuming continuous exposure.
In his report, Mr. Woodward surmises the time-averaging strategy: “Actually, what that means is they are averaging power density over time to make that power seem OK. It’s a way to level off peaks in transmission to make those peaks disappear. If I hit you with a hammer, will it feel better if we ‘time-average’ that blow? I can show you on paper how, when averaged out over time, you’ll hardly feel anything.”
Mr. Woodward and others have also criticized the methods and instrumentation used by the Arizona radiation regulatory Agency to measure the RF emissions from smart meters. ARRA was commissioned by ADHS to conduct field studies for its report. ARRA apparently purchased one Tenmars TM-195 microwave reader, which retails at $135, with which to conduct its field tests. Mr. Woodward maintains this microwave reader is “one of the cheapest on the market,” as when he conducts his own field studies, he employs a Gigahertz Solutions HF-35C, which is a more sensitive instrument, as it measures microwave arcs at greater frequency (cycles per second), while the Tenmar only samples at 11⁄2 times per second.
Additionally, the ADHS report gave no determination as to what time of day ARRA field agents were meauring microwaves from a smart meter, as the greatest pulse in the smart me- ter’s daily cycle has been reported as between 3:00 & 4:00AM, or when APS schedules data transmission. Indeed, all ARRA recorded was “the average and peak reading over a five minute time interval ... for a total of 15 minutes” in 17 Smart Meters.
The second goal of the ADHS report was “to determine whether the current body of peer- reviewed literature has found an association between RF exposure from low level RF exposure and adverse health effects.” It relied heavily on reports from the California Council on science & Technology and the Public utility Commission of Texas. Neither are peer-reviewed and both entities are known to be heavily biased in favor of new utility infrastructure.
Mr. Woodward states: “in the ADHS’‘Scientific Publication Review’ portion of their study, wig- gle words abound as well as some outright cherry picking of information, misrepresentation, and what looks like deliberate deception. The crafted language sets up a slippery slope, and at the bottom lies our ill health.”
One of the duties of the ACC is to protect the public from harm. Its job is to make sure public service corporations “furnish and maintain such service, equipment and facilities as will pro- mote the safety, health, comfort and convenience of its patrons, employees and the public, and as will be in all respects adequate, efficient and reasonable” (ARS§ 40-361.B).
Arizona statute further requires: “when the commission finds the equipment, appliances, fa- cilities or service of any public service corporation, or the methods of manufacture, distribution, transmission, storage or supply employed by it, are unjust, unreasonable, unsafe, improper, inad- equate or insufficient, the commission shall determine what is just, reasonable, safe, proper, ad- equate or sufficient, and shall enforce its determination by order or regulation” (ARS§ 40-321.A).
Mr. Woodward believes, in light of the real evidence on the safety of smart meters, APS’ re- quest for an “opt-out” fee in excess of the fee currently charged for meter reading ($1.86 per month) amounts to nothing less than blackmail; paying a fee to protect one’s health, safety and privacy is extortion, plain and simple.
Cindy Cole is out-smarting those smart meters.
cindycole@live.com
cindy cOlE
Omar VicTOr
warrEn wOOdward
sTory by
PHoTos by
giVEs iT an ‘f’
after more than a year of study, the Arizona department of Health services released its 38-page report on the safety of so-called “smart meters,” the digital two-way wireless com- munication devices Arizona Public services has been enthusiastically installing around the state. In its report “Public Health Evaluation of Radio Frequency Exposure from Electronic Me- ters,” AdHs concluded that “exposure to electric meters (AMI [Advanced Metering Infrastruc- ture] and AMr [Automated Meter Reading]) is not likely to harm the health of the public.”
Following the report’s release late on a Friday afternoon on the last day of October, the Ari- zona Corporation Commission quickly scheduled a hearing less than 60 days later (December 12) to consider APs’ request to charge penalty fees to customers who choose to keep a meter (without the wireless “smart” component) at their home or business. [see related article]
ADHS set forth two goals it planned to accomplish in its study of the public health conse- quences of smart meters:
“1) to determine whether RF [radiofrequency] exposure from electronic meters on residences, in- cluding single family homes & apartment complexes are within the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] standards or are at levels to cause public health concern; and
2) to determine whether the current body of peer-reviewed literature has found an association between rF exposure from low level rF exposure & adverse health effects.”
However, Sedona smart meter activist Warren Woodward published a detailed report on the failings of the ADHS study, entitled a Pattern of incompetence & Fraud: exposing Major Mis- takes, Misleading Misrepresentations, & Obvious Omissions in the arizona Department of Health Services’ Smart Meter Health Study.
Mr. Woodward has been investigating the safety of smart meters since APS first announced it would begin installations. He filed as an intervener on the Arizona Corporation Commission docket that concerns APS’ request to impose fees on rate payers who choose to retain their analog and non-wireless meters. His objections include both the scope of the ADHS investiga- tion and its methodology.
Previous studies from a variety of reputable sources have already questioned the efficacy of current FCC standards for RF exposure. In the case of smart meters, FCC standards apply only to thermal exposure — or high-level frequencies that cause the tissues in the body to heat up. A multitude of studies have shown since the mid-1990s that exposure to non-thermal radiation at low- and mid-level frequencies — such as in the frequency range emitted by smart meters — can also have a damaging effect on biological entities (like humans).
As noted by Mr. Woodward, the ADHS — in referring to current FCC standards that essentially dismiss the potential damaging effects of non-thermal radiation exposure — relies solely on evidence supplied by the Institute of electrical & electronics engineers, Inc., an industry promotional organization self-described on its website as “the world’s largest professional as- sociation for the advancement of technology.”
“Just because IE&EE engineers can measure microwave radiation and tissue temperature with great precision,” writes Mr. Woodward, “why is it assumed they know anything at all about the
10 • january 2015 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
NEWSfEaTurE