Page 8 - the NOISE August 2013

Faithful Noise readers may recall we last left the “smart” meter issue with a chal- lenge to Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Commissioner Bob Burns. Mr. Burns wrote that “smart” meters provided “signifi- cant cost savings to the utility, a savings that, in turn, gets passed onto its customers.” I challenged Burns, not just in the article but in a letter to him and the other ACC Commis- sioners, to tell us exactly how much we were going to save. If the savings were “signifi- cant”, then it should have been easy for him to reply. But he never did.
This follows a pattern at the ACC. I call out Commissioners and they go silent. Com- missioner Susan Smith was recorded in an Arizona newspaper as saying “it’s not for the commission to weigh all of the conflicting claims about the effects of the radio waves coming off the meters.” But when I pointed out that Arizona Revised Statutes say it is def- initely the ACC’s responsibility to determine safety she never issued a retraction.
ACC Chairman, Bob Stump, sits on the board of the National Association of Regu- lating Utility Commissioners. NARUC pro- motes “smart” meters and has attempted to rationalize the meters’ proven privacy invading capabilities with “guidelines” writ- ten in Orwellian language. NARUC justifies compromising our 4th Amendments rights with statements like, “Rules that govern data access must balance privacy with innovation.” Mr. Stump has not disavowed his complic- ity in this open conspiracy to violate the 4th Amendment even after I called him out.
The latest outrage is that NARUC mem- ber and head of the ACC’s Utilities Division, Steven Olea, recently submitted industry propaganda as evidence “smart” meters are safe. The month before, the ACC had issued a press release promising “due diligence” on the “smart” meter issue. I guess it never oc- curred to them that due diligence was some- thing they should have done before, not af- ter, APS went on a “smart” meter installation binge.
Anyway, it appears that Mr. Olea and the Utilities Division’s idea of damage control — I mean, due diligence — was to submit three of the worst studies available. Coincidentally, APS submitted two of the very same studies on the same day! This leaves citizens such
as yours truly to debunk the bogus studies, submit ones that are truthful, and hope ACC Commissioners will read what is sent them.
Actually, I am not that naïve, but by sub- mitting such information to the ACC docket a paper trail is created so that when the law- suits start it may be possible to hold individ- ual Commissioners liable for knowledge they had but did not act upon.
One of the reports Mr. Olea chose is by Richard Tell Associates. Mr. Tell worked for the EPA and, while there, helped write the microwave radiation exposure guidelines used by the FCC. Then Mr. Tell went into the private sector to write reports (like the one Mr. Olea submitted) showing how toxic emissions are actually safe because they comply with rules he helped write. Nice gig.
Basically, the FCC guidelines that “smart” meter advocates use to allege “smart” me- ter safety only involve protection against thermal radiation — when human tissue is heated. British physicist Cyril M. Smith, co-author of the best-seller Electromagnetic Man, dubbed this inadequate standard the English Muffin Syndrome – If it’s not burnt, it’s all right.
But “Smart” meters emit no shortage of non-thermal radiation — up to 190,000 times per day for one meter. Not only does the FCC not cover this, Mr. Tell keeps men- tioning in his report how the FCC rules are based on 30-minute exposure time spans. Hello? How about 24/7/365 time spans, which is the real world, and especially the real world of “smart” meter emissions.
Additionally, Mr. Tell describes the FCC rules as based on averages: “...present day RF [Radio Frequency] exposure limits are based on time-averaged values of RF power den- sities....” It is absurd to average power over time to make that power seem okay. If I hit you with a hammer, will it feel better if we
“time-average” that “power density?” Would you like to try that? I can show you on paper how, when averaged over time, you’ll hardly feel anything. So for Mr. Tell to harp on the fact that the “smart” meters he measured comply with FCC rules he helped write is meaningless in any serious health discussion.
Here is one more thing about the FCC pa- rameters which is quite interesting. During
the “Cold War” the Russians bombarded the US Embassy in Moscow with microwave ra- diation. An abnormal amount of embassy workers got cancer. The bombardment was within the FCC guidelines. From re- searcher Ann Louise’s Accidental Conspiracy:
“The clandestine activation of what became called the ‘Moscow Signal’ would mark the beginning of a 23-year unde- tectable assault on the diplomatic staff of more than 1800 representing the US State Department. According to the famous Lil- ienfeld Report, the embassy staff would be bathing in a constant field of radio waves for about 50 hours per week that measured between 20 and 100 microwatts.
“These are levels well within the US safe- ty standards today. It would be another dozen years before the US Government un- covered this covert operation and not until
1976 before the US Embassy staff would fi- nally be informed. But it would be too late for three ambassadors, who had served in Moscow.
“All three died of cancer, two of adult leu- kemia, which is strongly environmentally- linked. It would be too late for the hun- dreds of other embassy employees, who fell to a variety of cancers, including breast, prostate, brain, lymphoma and leukemia reaching the alarming rate of eight times the expected mortality rate! It would be too late for more than half the staff who suffered chromosome damage from the menacing rays.”
Mr. Tell often compares “smart” meter Ra- dio Frequency to that of other RF-emitting household appliances like microwave ovens, cordless phones, and wireless routers. Such comparisons are a common trick of the mo- nopoly utility companies and reports like Mr. Tell’s. They attempt to make it seem that be- cause people might have some of these RF emitting items in their homes, that it is then OK for utilities to park their microwave trans- mitter at people’s homes also.
Not OK! For one, taking and using prop- erty without permission is trespass and theft. The utilities have easement for a meter, not for radio broadcasting networking equip- ment, which is essentially what “smart” me- ters are. Via the “smart” grid, utilities are no
longer just delivering a commodity to our property and measuring same. They are now taking our property, without permis- sion or compensation, for purposes related solely to their own profits.
Additionally, the comparison between “smart” meter RF and other items is apples
and oranges. “Smart” meters are broadcast- ing constantly. Does the microwave oven emit RF constantly? No. “Smart” meters are often on walls of bedrooms or other places where people spend many hours a day. Is the microwave oven? No, it’s in the kitchen. And obviously, the use of microwave ovens, cordless phones, and wireless routers is vol- untary. “Smart” meters are forced on people.
Mr. Tell and the monopoly utilities try to use familiarity with other RF emitting prod- ucts to make property theft and trespass by utilities seem “normal.” They also try to make it seem OK for utilities to bombard us with RF because we are likely doing it to ourselves anyway with other things we may own — as if to say, “Hey, what’s a little more amongst friends?” Only it’s really a lot more, and we aren’t friends.
Both ACC’s Mr. Olea and APS also chose to submit a report from the Public Utility Com- mission of Texas (PUCT). The three sources PUCT relied on are the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST), Law- rence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). All are very important sounding but none are independent.
EPRI, the self-described “industry collab- orative,” is primarily comprised of electric companies. EPRIboaststhatmembers“pool their resources to fund research.” Doesn’t ev- eryone know that industry-funded research yields industry-desired results?
LBNL is funded by the US Department of Energy, the same US Department of Energy that subsidized “smart” meters nationwide to the tune of $3.4 billion. I think it is safe to say they are “smart” meter promoters.
Via the LBNL, the CCST is also corrupted by US Department of Energy funding. In CCST’s 2012 annual report, under the head- ing of “Sustaining Members,” LBNL is listed
>> continued on page 35 >>
8 • AUGUST 2013 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
NEWSFeature