Taking a Stand – Part 3

This is part 3 of my blog Taking A Stand

In my previous blog I shared with you all a letter I wrote to ARPANSA challenging them on the validity of our RF standards in providing long term health assurances to RF exposures. What I received in response from ARPANSA’s CEO did not fully acknowledge my concerns and failed to answer any of the questions I had posed to them.

ARPANSA has given me permission to post their letter on this website on the condition I do not change their response or misrepresent them. So I wish to make two things clear. Firstly I have obscured my personal details only for privacy reasons and the points made in this blog are my own personal views on the matter. ARPANSA’s response to my original letter and critical review from blog part 2 can be found here –>ARPANSA’s response.

Of course I was extremely disappointed with their thin response that only selectively dealt with my concerns. It also appeared that they had intentionally avoided answering my questions, questions that I believe the public has a right to know the answers to. As such, I decided to respond with a much shorter hard hitting letter along with updated questions.

My response letter can be found here –>  ARPANSA response to CEO – 16-3-2013 – Public

The list of questions from blog 2 was revised to take into account ARPANSA’s response letter and resent with my letter above. ARPANSA Questions – Revised

The key points I would like to make people aware of in this blog are as follows:

  1. Testing of microwave emitting devices is performed against tissue-simulant material in the shape of a person (usually a large adult male) that does not represent the majority of people.
  2. These tests are not biologically based and are limited to thermal measurements (for measurement of SAR). They do not test whether microwaves impact cell wall or blood brain barrier permeability nor do they test impacts on internal cell processes or whether it has impacts on the integrity of our genetic code i.e. DNA
  3. ARPANSA’s RF standards do not provide adequate details on RF safety that take into consideration a typical home environment where there are a multitude of RF devices all operating simultaneously i.e. wireless security, wireless network, mobile phone, DECT cordless phones which are always emitting, baby monitors, smart meters etc. Remember the standards are used for testing single device compliance only.
  4. There appears to be no personnel on the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council that I could see that has a background in medical sciences which might explain why there is no consideration for non-thermal biological effects.
  5. It is my opinion that ARPANSA releases often incorrect or conflicting and confusing statements, all of which, individually and collectively, are irresponsible. This is most evident when they make authoritative announcements such as: “The weight of national and international scientific opinion is that there is no substantiated evidence that exposure to low level RF causes adverse health effects”. By making such statements ARPANSA appears to have completely ignored all recently amassed evidence that contradicts this finding. There are literally 1000’s of peer review research that shows biological effects below the thermal threshold. Of course the main problem with statements like this from ARPANSA are:
    1. First it weighs up opinion which is based on the evidence at hand. Evidence that at the time the standards were developed (11 years ago) has predominantly come from those who market wireless equipment (telecommunication companies like Motorola) or those who use it extensively and is critical to their operations (e.g. Defence agencies). One cannot look at the evidence and make a sweeping generalized statement that Microwaves do not cause health effects without taking into consideration ALL evidence. To use the famous example by Karl R. Popper, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as “All swans are white” or in our case “RF is safe” or “RF does not have adverse health effects” which is suggested by ARPANSA’s RF standards and fact sheets, yet it is logically possible to falsify it, as by finding only one black swan. The reality of course is that there are a large number of studies that have found “black swans”, i.e. adverse effects below present ICNIRP guidelines yet they appear to be conveniently ignored or worse, rubbished.
    2. The second problem is the use of the word “substantiated” which suggests there is an element of proof that is required before wireless is deemed to be unsafe. This goes against scientific principles espoused by ARPANSA. Refer to page 80 in ARPANSA’s RF standards http://www.arpansa.gov.au/Publications/codes/rps3.cfm where it specifically says “Scientific studies are designed not to give ‘proof’, but are designed to disapprove or ‘falsify’ the current hypothesis or accepted viewpoint on an issue. So, given that ARPANSA says scientific studies are not designed to give proof and we know from the statement made in point 5 above that ARPANSA will only recognise the potential dangers of wireless if substantiated evidence (proof) is provided, we are therefore stuck in a quandary. Wireless will never be recognised by ARPANSA as being potentially unsafe while they continue to require proof of harm and disregard mounting evidence that clearly challenges (falsifies) their current view point.
  6. There is a complete lack of transparency when it comes to making such a statement. What research papers were investigated and by whom in order to reach such a conclusion? No supporting evidence has been provided to back up this statement. There has also been no justification from ARPANSA as to why they are ignoring the 1000’s of peer reviewed research that do show effects.
  7. ARPANSA relies on opinion from international organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and ICNIRP. WHO has been previously found to have been conflicted and colluding with the Tobacco industry when it came to research on tobacco smoking and cancer – refer to this article written by Don Maisch (page 15 A forgotten lesson? Big Tobacco and WHO Decision Making) http://www.emfacts.com/download/IARC_2011_IARC_May_5_FINAL.pdf.
  8. Professor Anders Ahlbom and Dr. Alexander Lerchl were excluded from the IARC RF Working Group because of the ‘possible perception of conflict of interest’. In Prof. Ahlbom’s case it was due to his links to the telecom industry through his brother and their common company.  Prof. Anders Ahlbom was also chairman of the ICNIRP Standing Committee on Epidemiology until 2008 and has been an ICNIRP member from 1995 until 2008. This begs the question of whether ICNIRP is truly independent.

Source: http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Anders-Ahlbom/24055467 and http://www.monanilsson.se/document/AhlbomConflictsIARCMay23.pdf.

Rather than putting the onus on individuals such as myself to prove that microwaves are dangerous, the element of proof should be on the purveyors of this technology to prove that it is safe. Which of course they are unwilling to do i.e. Powercor will not give any health and safety assurances with regards to smart meter wireless emissions. I do wonder whether the power company’s public liability insurance will cover them when people start taking them to court suing for damages?

The big issue we all face today is that we have to now wait 15 to 20 years for the collection of data from areas of ongoing exposure, then we have to wait for someone to perform an analysis of the collected data before scientists will have a clear sign of whether the dangers exist or not. This is because wireless smart meters are a very recent technology and there have been no research studies to date on the health effects that smart meters may have.  Even if they do find some evidence of impaired health in the future, it is likely to be indifferently brushed aside as being caused by some other environmental factor.

In part 4 of my blog I will include a synopsis of ARPANSA’s response to my questions (yes they finally did respond a couple of weeks ago). This will be followed by a blog detailing what the supposed role of the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) is with respect to regulating and enforcing our RF standards.

PS: It is important to note that although all of my blogs to date have had a health focus – simply because it is a personal issue for me and many others – privacy, security, billing errors and impingement on our freedom of choice are equally important issues. I will try to find the energy to cover some of these topics in future blogs as well.


This entry was posted in Smart Meter and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Taking a Stand – Part 3

  1. Nick says:

    Steve, thanks for all your efforts in this area. I empathise with what you’re going through and feel reassured that you’re not willing to back down just because they are trying to fob you off. I know what Bureaucrats can be like and it’s not pleasant. Keep up the good fight!

    I’m writing also as I live in Vic (in Elwood in Melbourne, to be more precise) and am concerned about RF radiation at my apartment and am not sure who to contact about it. My concern is that I am getting typical readings of around 1390mV/m (or 0.3mW/cm^2) all through my apartment which I originally thought were coming from the smart meters next to my son’s bedroom but now suspect to be the large transformer on the power pole outside his window. The readings are intermittent throughout the day but constant in the evenings (i.e. when he and I are sleeping and our rooms are right there in the RF firing line). Unfortunately that is when the readings are constantly high. I say high as the IEEE recommends a safe limit of 0.2mW/cm^2. I’m not particularly convinced by the ARPANSA limits as they’re based purely on the heating effects of radiation.

    My RF meter is a TENMARS TM-195 so not the most reliable out there, which is why I would like to get the RF levels checked professionally. Can you recommend anyone for this? Furthermore, if they do turn out to be high, what can be done about it (short of moving elsewhere)? I live in a fairly high-density area (it’s mainly apartment buildings), so a lot of people are being inadvertently affected by this.

    Many thanks in advance,

  2. Pingback: How Mobiles Are Affecting Your Health – BoldSky | EMF Doctor

  3. Anxious Victorian says:

    Hi Steve,

    I have commented in the past on this site about my issues with Smart Meters and how I have suffered ill effects on and off for the last 2 yrs in two different houses. I was actually one of the very first to report my issues and went as far as going on Today Tonight, then others followed. I found APANSA and the two different Power Companies I dealt with all useless and not interested in my family’s health and safety. Therefore I was forced to look at other options to try and fix my problems on my own and at my own expense. I was forced to shield both houses to stop any RF’s coming in from these devices. I managed to do so in both houses and my ill effects to smart meters were no longer an issue for me. However, as i explained in my other post my neighbor recently got a new smart meter installed and it’s bum end sits at the back of my wall which happens to be our front sitting room. Instantly i felt ill once it was turned on. I got the power company to turn down the power on this meter which they did but it did not make a difference to me, i still felt like crap in the front rooms of my home. I got it tested and found the RF’s coming into my rooms was tiny, 2 to 4 Micro Watts. By the way my neighbor’s meter pulsated every 15 sec not 6 TIMES A DAY as we are told by the power companies, however I already new that was a lie from my past experience a year before. On the street facing the neighbors meter 5 meters away it was pulsing every 15 sec at very high levels, 500 Micro Watts. I was lucky to have solid brick walls which helped reduce the amount coming into my home. Even with these small amounts of RF’s, I still suffered ill effects to the point where I could not sit in the first room nor the second room which happened to be my kids bedroom.

    I was forced to re-shield my front room again at my own expense. To date we have managed to reduce the RF’s to 0.03 Micro watts which is pulsating every 3 min now. Still with these very small amounts I am still unwell. I plan to put a few more coats of shielding paint to hopefully kill off any further RF’s still coming into my home and hope and pray that I can get back to using my front rooms and getting my two young girls back to sleeping in their bedroom. I moved them out of their bedroom as it makes me very uncomfortable knowing they are being pulsed with radiation constantly whilst they slept.

    Although the amounts coming into my home from this newly installed Smart Meter are small, they are still enough to make me sick. Yes, I am a mobile phone user and have been for 20yrs and I get so much more exposure to radiation from my mobile yet I don’t seem to be getting sick from my mobile, so why the hell do smart meter’s make me sick…This is the million dollar question which no one can answer.

    Everyone has different sensitivity levels but when it comes to smart meters I could potentially be the worst given that my body reacts to such small exposures. Having said that though not all meters are the same and inner city ones seem to be the most powerful and the worst. Most in the area are pulsating on a regular basis,some every 15 sec some every 3 minutes and some at alarming high levels. My meter for example was pulsating every 3 min at 300 micro watts. I hate to think what that could do to a child in the long term that sleeps in a bedroom facing one of these devices.

    I did what i had to do to protect me and make me well again and protect my family. Maybe you too can look at other solutions on improving your health and protecting your family whilst you still fight. Shielding for me got my health back in the past. Although I am yet to fix my latest problem I am hopeful that I will and soon. Anyhow if I can help you in any way I am more than happy to do so, as I know all to well what if feels like to be sick in your home by these smart meters. If you like I can go into further details with you about what worked for me and what didn’t. Just let me know and we can exchange email addresses.

    • john A. LeRoy says:

      The reason illness is experienced when exposed to the pulsating energy from a smart meter is the number of pulses of an impact nature (Photons) over a time period being experienced. To understand this it is necessary to be familiar with several facts..No 1 is that DNA is the only reactive molecule in every living species. No 2 is that it reacts to its environment and hence the environmental energy pulses (All effects of an environment, whether by direct or chemical means access the DNA by energy pulses drawing a reaction that triggers off a response from the cell that results in protection evolving by way of proteins etc that provide a muffling effect) The protein that is evolved protects only against the normally present environmental energy pulses (Protection against the unknown does not evolve as there is no reason or driving effect) with the result that the significantly different energy pulses (Man induced) penetrates straight through the protective protein (e.g.infra red energy pulses can penetrate a sheet of glass but ultra violet cannot), impacting the DNA nucleotide pairs and significantly damaging them resulting in cancer etc. The damage to the nucleotide’ is due to a material property known as fatigue and this is induced by the number in a given timer and size of the impacts. This repetitive impact problem does not occur to the same extent when exposed to mobile telephones etc. This then is the million dollar answer “There is simply not the required number of the usually non damaging impacts in a specific time frame”. The cells actually propagate due to this property as the DNA molecules are split apart in a controlled version of the process. ( Neither the Propagation or reaction of a cell occurs spontaneously as put forward by biologists/geneticists, this is shear nonsense and totally against the law of physics, “Every effect has a cause”and is the basic reason the problem has not been resolved..
      This all boils down to an understanding of the involvement of physics and engineering principles and accounts for the lack of appreciation by ARPANSA staff as they are not prepared or in some cases unable to think outside the square. I personally am a retired professional engineer..
      ARPANSA are aware of my position on this, refuse to take heed and cannot advance any scientific rebuttal, despite having been alerted to the fact that in the future, populations exposed to the effects of these meters stand to be wiped out, the same as any species when exposed to a significant change of environment (effect)
      The Vic. government including premier and energy minister have also been informed and continue to sit on their hands.
      This is just a brief outline of my theories and hypothesis supporting the conclusions. Please let me know if further interested. (I have had some professional support but none that can dismantle the hypothesis, just a reaction of disbelief because they can’t get their minds to accept it.)..

  4. kenny says:

    The ARPANSA Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Standard states:
    “The ARPANSA Standard is relevant to RF emissions from all devices that produce and radiate RF electromagnetic energy (EME) fields either deliberately or incidentally during their operation – this includes mobile phone handsets and base stations as well as radio and television transmitters and industrial sources.”

    If smart meters are not mobile phone handsets and/or base stations or radio and/or television transmitters they must be an INDUSTRIAL SOURCE.

    A smart meter could be described as a patented item of machinery that requires an external source of power in order to operate, plus a source of manual labour which, as in the case of a smart meter, is carried out through persons interacting with the equipment, such as manipulating switches that power on and off appliances, at which point in time, viable information is created and transported to another location, to be sold or used to profit in some manner.

    Turning to residential zoning requirements:


    Zone requirements (Clauses 30 to 37)
    A zone controls land use and development. Each zone includes a description of its purpose and the requirements that apply regarding land use, subdivision and the construction and carrying out of buildings and works.
    Each zone lists land uses in three sections:

    Section 1 : Uses that do not require a permit
    Section 2 : Uses that require a permit
    Section 3 : Uses that are prohibited

    Section 3 – Prohibited
    Industry (other than Car wash)

    Stonnington_PS_Ordinance, page 176

    As residents, we are either manufacturers involved in industry, which is prohibited under Section 3, or seeing as we don’t profit from our labour, simply slaves in a factory which is prohibited under any law.


    MANUFACTURER. One who by labor, art, or skill transforms raw material into some kind of a finished product or article of trade. Henry v. Markesan State Bank, C.C.A.Minn., 68 F.2d 554,. 557.

    MANUFACTURE, v. The primary meaning of this word is “making with the hand,” but this definition is too narrow for its present use.
    Meaning of word “manufacture,” which is defined as the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery, especially on a large scale, has expanded as workman-ship and art have advanced, so that now nearly all artificial products of human industry, nearly all such materials as have acquired changed conditions or new and specific combinations, whether from the direct action of the human hand, from chemical processes devised and directed by human skill, or by the employment of machinery, are now commonly designated as “manufactured.” Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Price, 168 Md. 174, 177 A. 160, 163.

    Note: Smart Meters are patented:
    MANUFACTURE: In patent law, any useful product made directly by human labor, or by the aid of machinery directed and controlled by human power, and either from raw materials, or from materials worked up into a new form. Also the process by which such products are made or fashioned. BLacks Law 4th page 117

    An instrument created by the exercise of mechanical forces and designed for the production of mechanical effects, but not capable, when set in motion, of attaining, by its own operation, to any predetermined results. It receives its rule of action from the external source which furnishes its motive power.
    A manufacture requires the constant guidance and con- trol of some separate intelligent agent; a machine oper- ates under the direction of that intelligence with which it was endowed by its inventor when he imposed on it its structural law. The parts of a machine, considered separately from the machine itself, all kinds of tools and fabrics, and every other vendible substance, which is nei- ther a complete machine nor produced by the mere union of ingredients, is included under the title “manufacture.” Rob.Pat. § 182.

    MANUFACTURER. One who by labor, art, or skill transforms raw material into some kind of a finished product or article of trade. Henry v. Markesan State Bank, C.C.A.Minn., 68 F.2d 554,. 557.

    MANUFACTURING CORPORATION. A corporation engaged in the production of some article, thing, or object, by skill or labor, out of raw material, or from matter which has already been subjected to artificial forces, or to which something has been added to change its natural condition. People v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 99 N.Y. 181, 1 N.E. 669.

  5. Chris says:

    I think part of the problem is that the same argument and proof that Smart Meter RF is damaging to your health also can be used for mobile phones. And there is such massive corporate powers-that-be that do not want that evidence to come to light or be categorically proven. If one is true then the other must also be true. I think chasing the RF proof trail will just drive you insane, it has been so muddled and results purposely rigged to demonstrate what the sponsor wants to be proven. With the right “independent” study you can prove that the sky is green and the grass is blue if you really want.

    I think to stop Smart Meters we are still better off pursuing the other avenues (ie trespassing, rights and civil liberties, personal data invasion etc).

    however I applaud your accurate and specific analysis of their response, which is obviously carefully designed to SAY NOTHING, PROVE OR DISPROVE NOTHING, AND COVER THEIR ASSES.

    Typical. Frustrating. But this is how they wear you down until you give up and its seemingly all too hard. You have to keep asking the questions on behalf of us all. thank you for fighting the good fight!

    • Steve says:

      Chris, you are correct that if smart meters are dangerous then it is highly probably that mobile phones are too. I am sensitive to both. The implications on the industry is significant if there was to be acknowledgement that wireless could be a contributing factor to my constant headaches and other complaints that I and many others are attributing to EMR. That is why there is reluctance to even investigate this issue because it might be found to be true. There is so much at stake particularly when one considers how much has been spent on the smartmeter roll out alone. Forget about the Myki debacle this has the potential to top this when it comes Government mistakes and shortsightedness.
      I also agree that from my experience so far dealing with the various bodies such as the DPI, ARPANSA, Energy minister, Health Department, Chief Health Officer, Powercor, AMA and ACMA that they all hope that I will give up because it is all too hard. But a picture is developing which I feel will only help the cause. I will provide more details in a future blog.

      I certainly do not have any plans to give up soon. My quality of life and that of others is at stake.

  6. Lynda says:

    I may be a tad simplistic…yet the sentence from ARPANSA to your Dec 2012 letter is enough for everyone to open their eyes…….I quote from their letter….”There remains some uncertaintity as to the absolute safety and whether there is a complete absence of any risk from such exposure“….. I am completely overwhelmed and very angry that not only the government, the electricity companies and ARPANSA seem to feel that innocent adult and child lives can be used as mice for their experimental play. This sentence alone is “a sitting on the fence comment” – just in case! In case of what? In case healthy people start getting very sick and dying in the future. Like tobacco, with confirmation that it was ok to smoke…..we all know how that turned out. Yet the only difference b/w these two is that no-one shoved a smoke in your mouth…..unlike the smart meter! This message needs to be bigger…..much bigger!

  7. Ian says:

    When I was trying to not get a smart meter. i spoke to a woman over the phone from Powercor who told me, in her rationalisations for smart meters, that baby monitors give off more radiation than a smart meter- as if somehow apologising that smart meters are in the ‘questionable’ basket It would seem much more sane to demand of this technology that it is proven to be safe absolutely, rather than for them to be denying that it is unsafe.. a subtlety that this post has brought up (Taking a stand pt. 3).

    Tonite I go to sleep (yes- how?) while my little daughter sleeps in her bedroom, a smart meter installed on the other side of her wall. How am I to deal with the nagging feeling that her DNAs being altered? – cancer?…..
    Where have wisdom and prudence gone in our society? ( What? theres no such thing as’ society’ ?! ) to bring us to this horror of a state where the civilians are not protected by their Prime Minister or their State Govternment.? ( Yes I know Victoria is no longer part of Australia!! but i dont want to get started on politicians,not here)

    • Sharron says:

      Ian, may I suggest you swap bedrooms with your little daughter. Do you realise chidrens brains absorb 2x the radiation? It is NOT safe for her to be in there!!!

  8. 1vimana1 says:

    Hi Steve,
    I also am Electro Hypersensitive to non-ironizing radiation from Cell Phones and the Microwave so-called Smart Meters. I have now had my Electric Meter Box padlocked for over a year with a Stout Industrial Padlock and refuse to have a dopey Deadly to my Health and as has been now proven many times, dangerous to Victorians private electrical goods.

    The Statement by these five foreign owned C.E.O’s and their weak and equally corrupt minions, “That the Victorian Government has Mandated that all Victorian home-owners and small businesses must have a Microwave Smart Meter/s” is a sheer wicked bullying tactic which I and mounting numbers of other Victorian will not tolerate. These bullying tactics are also ILLEGAL, for we in Victoria as in other states of Australia and Britain and other similar FREE Countries of the world are Democracies where no business, be it Government or Semi-government or Private is allowed to bully their Customers.

  9. Please consider the implications of the widespread use of wi-fi in schools discussed in this FAQ sheet: http://www.scribd.com/doc/134327827/Wi-Fi-in-Schools-Australia-FAQ

  10. Maureen says:

    I have also written to ARPANSA ( several times) and this is part of their response to me
    As previously advised ARPANSA and the WHO are not aware of any electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms such as the ones you have described being confirmed as due to RF fields in well-conducted scientific investigations.”
    Seems to me that they think they can get away with that statement by ignoring people who are reporting adverse health symptoms, like myself and many hundreds of other Victorians and by not conducting any “studies” that , shock, horror, might just prove them wrong.
    Inadvertently, a wireless device was activated in my home two days ago. I spent two days of extreme head pain, muscle aches , burning on my face & increasing agitation until I finally found & deactivated the problem. Tell ARPANSA I will sit any test they care to dish out,regarding EMR ( in a well conducted scientific study ) as it seems their current scientific knowledge needs updating!!

    • Gwen says:

      I’m ready also Maureen to sit any test they care to dish out. My first contact with EMR that I am aware of was when I plugged in a pest control device. I suffered heart palpitations, nausea, dizziness and a big headache. I also felt off balance. I thought I was going to die. When I woke up the next day, and still felt the same, I asked myself what I had done that was different. It was then that I realised the pest device was making me sick. It took some time after it was unplugged for all of the effects to fully disappear. The company that I purchased the device from later contacted me and I asked them if it met the Australian standards. I was told that it was lower than the set standard for EMR.
      Thankyou Steve for everything that you are doing and also the hard workers at stop smart meters. Thankyou also to everyone who takes time to put comments and info here to keep us updated.

    • Steve says:

      Maureen, the Victorian chief health officer, Dr Rosemary Lester, indicated to me in a recent letter that health issues relating to RF are not in the scope of the Victorian Public Health and well being act and that health issues relating to RF be directed to the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA). I find this truly remarkable as I would have thought health issues are a primary responsibility of a health department. ACMA regulates the RF spectrum so I am wondering what expertise they have when it comes to diagnosing RF health related issues. I have sent them a note requesting them to investigate this issue through a web page contact form here http://www.acma.gov.au/interforms/emrissues_Enquiry.asp

  11. Steve says:

    I sent the above letter in an email with the following accompanying text.

    Dear Dr Larsson, I appreciate that you (or someone in ARPANSA) took the time and effort to respond to my letter and critical review document that I sent to you and ARPANSA in December 2012. However, I must say how very disappointed I am that most of the issues I raised were not addressed and no effort was taken to respond to my questions that I laid out clearly in a separate question sheet, questions that the public has a right to know the answers to. Please find attached my response to your organisation’s reply (it is a much shorter letter this time!). I have also included my questions again – slightly modified from the original as your response has generated new questions that I feel are very important and require answers. It would be very much appreciated if this time around the questions posed (numbered for convenience) can be answered, each and every one.

    As you should be aware by now, I am sensitive to non-ionising radiation and is the principle reason for me doing extensive research on this area and why I wrote these letters to your organisation as I feel I am not being adequately protected by our standards in their current form. You may or may not be aware that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Melbourne 2013) made a recent ruling that appears to recognise EHS (attached). You may want to consider this when you formulate your response. I am still awaiting for someone from ARPANSA or the Radiation Health Advisory Committee to investigate my health issue – it is not going away.

    I also attached a very short letter I wrote to the ACMA at the same time I sent the original letter to you in early December 2012. I have yet to receive a reply from them which I feel is very discourteous and unprofessional. It appears that the ACMA feels it is above public scrutiny.”

    • Pam says:

      Steve – Stick to your guns matey and Thanks for keeping us up-dated. Steve please take care and don’t over-work yourself. You sound buggered. These large Organisations don’t care about us, refuse to answer our Questions and keep on passing the buck if and when they do respond to our letters. I haven’t had time to read all of your Blog, as I am not well at the moment, but I will look at it properlly tomorrow night. Nite Nite Pam 🙂

      • Steve says:

        Pam, yes I have put a lot of energy into researching the issues and writing letters. I cannot afford to give up because my health and the health of my kids are at stake. I am not ready to move interstate just yet but it maybe my only option (Victoria – the place NOT to be). You are not wrong about buck passing and will be a topic that I will write a blog on in the near future. It would make a good comedy if it wasn’t so deadly serious.

        • Pam says:

          Steve – The whole of Victoria’s Health is at stake and that includes the “Pollies” – even they will not be able to escape the effects of all this new Technology that is affecting us all. All these organisations that are supposed to be protecting us are doing the opposite and the BIG QUESTION IS WHY???? Your research so far and the research of many other people should be enough for them to question their out-dated responses to our letters –
          IT HAS TO DO WITH THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR – That is the only thing I can think of. Take it easy and have a good weekend if you can. My Regards to your Family……….Pam

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s