Taking a Stand – Part 3

Posted on April 25, 2013 by Stop Smart Meters Australia

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.

Steve

Posted in Smart Meter | Tagged , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

Power Companies to Control Your appliances.

Posted on April 22, 2013 by Stop Smart Meters Australia

An article in the Herald Sun on Friday 12th April has caused uproar with Victorian households and angry responses in letters to the editors that followed.

If we allow Power Companies and the Government to get there way, they will have control of your airconditioner or heater, but where does this stop.

Can we trust this level of control in the hands of the same people whom still deny the scientific evidence that RF Devices can be harmful to Humans.

“Manufacturers of airconditioners, water heaters, pool pumps and electric car chargers would be required to offer “smart appliances” that were capable of being “cycled” on and off during the peak demand times – with customer permission.”

“An Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee consultation paper proposes that appliances sold after June next year have mandatory “interfaces” that could be activated to communicate with the electricity network.”

In response to the article in the Herald Sun, Nick McCallum from Channel Seven News ran a television news segment the very same evening which featured Sonja Rutherford from the Broadmeadows Progress Association.

The Herald Sun article can be found here.

The Channel 7 News segment can be found here.

Posted in Smart Meter | Tagged , , , | 35 Comments

Anti-Smart Meter March – 5 May

Posted on April 21, 2013 by Stop Smart Meters Australia

May Day March 2013

Posted in Smart Meter | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Smart Meters in Victoria: Information and Concerns UPDATED

Posted on April 19, 2013 by Stop Smart Meters Australia

This is an updated paper that gives an overview of the situation regarding smart meters in Victoria. It includes substantial new material, and covers recent developments within Australia as well as overseas.  Issues addressed include:

  • Which costs have never been included in a Victorian smart meter cost benefit analysis and who will be responsible for paying these costs.
  • Why actual traffic on smart meters may be thousands of times higher than what power distributors have told us.
  • How the Australian radio frequency standard fails to protect us.
  • Why the introduction of Home Area Networks poses an additional threat to health.
  • What is the legal situation in Victoria.
  • How the introduction of smart meters contravenes Victorian and international human rights.

Over five pages of references, most of which are available on-line, are included.

 

Stop Smart Meters Australia

Smart Meters in Victoria:  Information and Concerns Version 3: Updated March 2013

View original post

Posted in Smart Meter | Tagged , , , , , , , | 34 Comments

Venus Bay smart meter awareness meeting a resounding success!!

Posted on April 12, 2013 by Stop Smart Meters Australia

A smart meter awareness meeting was held at the Venus Bay Community Centre on Friday the 15th of March. Two sessions were available; one in the morning and one in the evening.

The guest speakers were John and Sonja Rutherford from the Broadmeadows Progress Association.

Almost one hundred people were present between the two meetings, which is unheard of in Venus Bay. This obviously displays the concerns of many people have about smart meters in this area.  Most were local, but some had travelled quite a distance.

Sonja and John did an amazing job explaining the many different concerns related to smart meters. The audience was captivated – learning about the different issues regarding this technology.

A Venus Bay Smart Meter Awareness Group was formed from these 2 meetings with much work to do in the future.

One of the issues for this area is that the majority of houses are owned by holiday makers. The group is looking into how this will affect our area.

Also present was South Gippsland Shire Mayor Cr Kieren Kennedy. Mayor Kennedy was very interested and supportive into looking at what council may be able to do.

Since the meeting many people in the Venus Bay and surrounding areas have locked their meter boxes and vowed not to give up.

The smart meter meeting was reported in both the local papers, The Star and The Sentinel Times. Also a couple of days after Star FM Radio were talking on the Breakfast Show about the Venus Bay meeting. Some time was spent talking about this issue on air with many individuals calling in with many different concerns.

Star FM have been in contact with the Venus Bay Smart Meter Awareness Group and are wanting to have a representative speak on air soon. They passed on their support from everyone at Star FM. Calls continue to come in each day from concerned residents wanting to know more.

The smart meter meeting continues to be the talk of the town.

Kylie Laing                                                                                                                          Convenor Venus Bay Smart Meter Awareness Group

Posted in Smart Meter | 10 Comments

Taking A Stand – Part 2

Posted on April 8, 2013 by Stop Smart Meters Australia

This is part 2 of my blog Taking A Stand

As I mentioned in my previous blog, I had sent a letter (letter of the week on this site) to Powercor, DPI and the then energy minister Michael O’Brien. Mr O’Brien, after receiving advice from his advisers, responded to my health concerns with “Smart Meters are safe and fall well within the requirements for electromagnetic and radio frequency emissions” and that “the radio emissions are weaker than other household devices such as mobile phones and baby monitors”. I realised I was not going to get anywhere unless I could find flaws with Australia’s RF standards on which he has based his safety comment or find evidence that contradicted what Mr O’Brien was saying with regards to smart meter emission being safe. So I spent the next 6 months of my personal time investigating this issue by reading our RF Standards (all 136 pages), scientific journals (that were peer reviewed) found on reputable medical and university portals, the Bioinitiative report, the Interphone study as well as looking at health issues that were being claimed by people in Australia and other countries. What I found was quite alarming and so I decided to write a letter to ARPANSA challenging them on the current state of our RF standards which can be found here Letter to ARPANSA – for public, a critical review document that analysed specific points raised by the standards ARPANSA RF Standards Critical Review and a separate question sheet which I will provide in part 3 of this series.

A summary of the key findings are as follows:

ARPANSA RF Standards Related Findings

  • ARPANSA’s RF standards do not provide any “proof of safety” and are very clear to state this without any ambiguity “It is impossible to prove, with absolute certainty, the absence of an effect. To prove with certainty that radio frequency energy, or any other aspect of the human environment, is completely safe is impossible”, which of course is at odds with what the Minister and the DPI are claiming.
  • ARPANSA RF Standards are over 11 years old now and are based on out-dated and presently inadequate ICNIRP guidelines created in 1998. Some of the reasons why they are inadequate are outlined further below.
  • They are riddled with uncertainties that have remained unanswered 11 years since the time they were last published. The typical response documented in the RF standards is “more research is needed”
  • They provide protection against thermal damage for acute exposures only
  • They do not take into consideration the latest scientific research nor do they consider non-thermal effects that have been found by many independent scientists
  • They provide no response that adequately addresses WHO/IARC’s categorisation of microwaves as a “group 2b carcinogen”. It should be noted that the IARC rarely down grades a classification. In fact it is more likely that as evidence accumulates that this rating will be upgraded!
  • ARPANSA’s RF standards indicate that the use of SAR (measurement of thermal absorption) is only useful for research purposes and device compliance.

Other related findings

  • International EMF standards and guidelines are based on the assumption that only ionizing radiation causes chemical change. This is not correct.
  • EMF standards are based on the assumption that non-ionizing EMF only causes damage by heating (i.e., damage by thermal effects only). This is not correct.
  • There has been no research to date performed on smart meter RF emission safety and potential impacts to health, so any claim that is being made stating that they are safe is unsubstantiated
  • Mobile phones and smart meter RF emissions share a lot of similarities including frequency of operation (smart meters that are set up in a meshed network operate between 915 and 928 Mhz while mobile phones operate at a range of frequencies including 900Mhz) and both use pulsed signals. The Interphone study investigated the risk of cancer when using mobile phones and despite its flawed protocols did actually find increased risk of brain cancers amongst heavy users. Heaviest users at the time of the study are normal users by today’s standards (i.e. 30 minutes a day).
  • What is truly alarming is that cancers normally taking 20 – 30 years to materialise yet an increased incidence was observed in the Interphone study which only looked at people who used mobile phones over a 10 year period!
  • The effects of both ionising (x-rays, gamma rays etc.) and non-ionising (microwaves, RF etc.) are accumulative.
  • Although the exposure levels may be lower for smart meters, the accumulated exposure over time has the potential to be greater and to cause greater harm. We usually operate one mobile phone. However several smart meters are typically located very close to bedrooms and living areas especially when living in a high density arrangement.
  • Microwave radiation from a cell phone damages theblood-brain barrier, but it does so even when the exposure level is reduced a thousandfold. Even more disturbingly, and contrary to what was expected, the damage to the blood-brain barrier worsened when the experimenters reduced the exposure level. One can assume the same will hold true for exposure to smart meter RF.
  • There are literally 1000’s of peer review research articles that show RF EMR below the thermal threshold has biological effects. Some include genotoxic events (DNA breakage) which can lead to the potential formation of cancer.
  • Children are more vulnerable to the effects of microwaves than adults.
  • There are no long-term studies (>15 years) of the effects of radio frequency radiation on humans
  • We live in bizarre and irrational regulatory world where controlled medical tests of EMR on humans are unacceptable but uncontrolled exposure is accepted and unregulated.

Both documents linked above are quite large and I hope you all can find the time to read them. The documents also include references should people wish to do their own research.

My next blog will look at the response I received from ARPANSA, my response to their letter along with a list of questions I believe the public deserves to have answers to (had been sent with the above letter but were not answered by ARPANSA).

Happy Reading

Steve

Posted in Smart Meter | Tagged , , , , , , , | 39 Comments

Buyer Beware, RF Appliance Warning

Posted on April 3, 2013 by Stop Smart Meters Australia

This is a personal story out of the USA, though this directive to appliance manufactures is being driven and forced worldwide.

We just purchased a new Bosch washer and dryer – for delivery next week.

“I’ve just tested a home with an oven and dishwasher that had continuously radiating RF from internal power transmitters”.  He could verify the RF signal was continuous, and only stopped when he threw the circuit breakers for those appliances (turned off the electricity to them).  He could say with certainty the RF signal came from the appliances, because the signal was strongest at the appliance and attenuated with distance.

We have been told that these power transmitters will – in the future – be placed on appliances to monitor and report their energy usage to a wireless smart meter. Further, they should only be giving off RF pulses (the signal) very infrequently.

Well, these appliance power transmitters are, in at least some cases, transmitting CONTINUOUSLY.  This puts them into a category more like wireless routers and WI-FI.  No one is going to tolerate 12-15 such power transmitters inside their homes that radiate
full time.  These are appliances you come into close contact with while you cook and move around your kitchen.  Multiple, continuously transmitting RF sources are absolutely unacceptable to people with EHS and some ADA people with medical implants.

Please enjoy the original post here.

 

 

Posted in Smart Meter | Tagged , , , | 16 Comments

Taking A Stand

Posted on April 2, 2013 by Stop Smart Meters Australia

Taking A Stand: My personal journey to holding those responsible for my health issues to account – Part 1

It is my intention over the next few weeks to post  to this site some letters that I have written over the past 12 months that will hopefully inform people clearly what the issues are, who has responsibility for choosing the technology for data transmission by smart meters as well as providing evidence that the State government, Victorian health department and the power companies are failing in their responsibilities, particularly with respect to their duty of care to the Victorian Public. It will also hopefully give people some hope that there are people in this community actively fighting this very serious breach to our democratic and human rights. I will be providing information that clearly shows the potential risks that lifetime exposures to microwaves have on our health and how our RF standard,  which is maintained by ARPANSA, is woefully out of date, does not consider latest scientific findings or provide adequate protection to all RF effects.  Some people may have seen my first letter that was published on this website in 2012 as a “letter of the week” which can be found here https://stopsmartmeters.com.au/2012/06/28/letter-of-the-week-2/#comments. I had sent this letter to the former Energy Minister, Michael O’Brien, the DPI and Powercor.

For my first installment I have included a letter that I wrote recently (Sent January 2013) to Powercor’s CEO after receiving their response  to my original letter which basically ignored the epidemiological evidence I provided, indicated they could not provide any health assurances and tried to apportion blame to the Government as to why they have had to install smart meters with wireless. Not surprisingly I am yet to receive a reply to this latest letter.

A few things that stand out and are of interest to the public are the following points:

  1. Power companies had a choice as to which technology was chosen to convey power usage data back to the utility. The Government was neutral on this issue.
  2. Power companies could have opted for Power line communication using power line carrier (PLC) or  distribution line carrier (DLC)  communications technology for data transmission with appropriate high frequency filters (no wireless required). Of course what would have been even better is if power companies piggy backed onto the NBN Fibre optic cabling.
  3. Powercor has failed to give health assurances for the technology that they have chosen. The fact that people such as myself and many others are suffering due to the smart meter RF emissions puts them in breach of section 98 (a) of the Electricity Safety Act 1998 which requires power Utilities ”to design, construct , operate and maintain their networks to minimize as far as practicable hazards and risks to the safety of any person arising from the supply network. “
  4. Power companies are not providing clear and concise information as to how frequent smart meters are transmitting (not just household data which is only part of the smart meters RF duty cycle – when operating in a meshed network)
  5. Power companies are not accurately conveying the legality of the smart meter roll-out to the public – it is not so clear cut as they make it out to be.
  6. Power companies are using stealth and bullying tactics to install smart meters.

The letter I sent to Shane Breheny, CEO of Powercor, covers the above issues and more, can be found here Powercor Letter 31-12-12

My next installment will look at our RF Standards maintained by ARPANSA and regulated by the ACMA.

Happy reading,

Steve

 

Posted in Smart Meter | Tagged , , , , , | 29 Comments

Smart Meter Health Issues – Real or Psychosomatic?

Posted on March 27, 2013 by Stop Smart Meters Australia

I was recently asked by SSMA to answer an email from a member of the public. She provided a link to this article http://theconversation.edu.au/smart-meters-are-about-as-dangerous-as-9413 and asked whether SSMA had any comment. She also indicated a friend who is a scientist mentioned “that the smart meter issue is like the wind turbine issue and that both only affect those people who are worried about being affected by them and that there is no reliable evidence of adverse health effects from either.” In writing my response to her I thought it would also be good to share what I wrote with the rest of you in a hope it will generate a healthy discussion. My response began as follows:
“Yes I have seen the article you included in your email and I couldn’t help but note that both contributing authors are mathematicians, which hardly makes them experts in the field of RF emission safety or qualified to make comments on biological effects that radio frequencies are reputed to have (claimed by many independent scientists). Conversely here is a link to an article that is pretty much in opposition to what they have said http://maisonsaine.ca/smart-meters-correcting-the-gross-misinformation/. As you can see it is a very hot topic that has divided scientists.

Just a little background on myself, I have a science degree in Biochemistry and Microbiology. I work in the IT industry and so you can say I have a logical mind and use scientific reasoning when investigating issues like these. For me, Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity also referred to as EHS is a very personal issue because I have been aware of my sensitivity to wireless for more than 10 years when I used mobile phones and wireless internet. Prior to the rollout of smart meters I was able to manage my sensitivity by not having any wireless devices turned on in my house. I did have a cordless phone but I was not sensitive to its frequency of operation which is 30 – 40Mhz. Mobile phones and smart meters (except WiMAX) typically operate at around 900Mhz and I am very sensitive to this frequency. With the recent rollout of smart meters in Victoria without the public’s consent my health is being compromised. EHS symptoms have been acknowledged by WHO and they have also admitted that it can be very disabling for some people but they refuse to link it to electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

Your scientist friend mentioned that smart meter issue is like the wind turbine issue. He is likely to be correct but not in the way he thinks. Both technologies share a lot of common symptoms which include:

  • Insomnia,
  • nervousness,
  • chest tightness
  • tachycardia or increased heart rate

Of course EHS has quite a few additional symptoms over and above what is listed immediately above.

I do not proclaim to be an expert in wind turbine technology but I understand that the effects mentioned above have been attributed to low frequency sounds (infrasonic to ultrasonic noise) that are emitted by the turning blades which interfere with the ear’s vestibular system (responsible for controlling our sense of balance). Of course what your scientist friend and many others in the science/electrical fraternity are alluding to is that the ailments claimed by sensitive people for both of these new technologies are psychosomatic in nature. Of course making such a statement is disingenuous to people such as myself who are very aware of our health issues and their cause. Words like ‘Nocebo effect” are being put forward as a possible reason. Of course how does nocebo effect come into play in the following scenarios?

  1. People who had no prior experiences in the use of a wireless device, have no phobia/fear of using the product and are actually looking forward to experiencing the benefits of said technology suddenly get headaches, tingling in the skin, pressure and pain in the chest, dizziness, altered state of mind (feelings of aggression – short fuse  or even anxiousness etc.), joint pain, lethargy etc. when using them. This is exactly what happened to me. It was both perplexing and very troubling when I first experienced this. It is only through applying scientific reasoning and testing myself to various RF sources and for varying durations was I able to come to the conclusion that EHS is real and can be directly attributed to EMR.
  2. People go to areas without knowing there are RF transmitters in the area, feel the same symptoms as described above and upon further investigation, triggered by these feelings, find that there is a transmitter close by.
  3. When people are suddenly finding they are waking up at similar times, finding it difficult to fall back asleep and suffering headaches after the installation of a smart meter but never had these symptoms prior to the rollout. With the feelings of worry only developing because of the effects they are experiencing and not because of the fact that a smart meter was installed. Most people in the community are uninformed of the potential dangers wireless emissions have on health and so are unlikely to be worrying about the equipment when they are installed.

EHS is a very misunderstood condition. Tests such as the provocation test which are used to test whether a person is EHS are very subjective. There appears to be a serious lack of interest and funding to look for biological markers – at least in Australia. What also makes it difficult for sufferers is that the majority of people do not experience this and so it is easy for people, including scientists, to come to the conclusion that it is not real and that it is in our heads so to speak. Of course not everyone suffers peanut allergies but we know it can occur because the symptoms are very obvious and visible. How does one see a headache? I believe there are biological markers if one wants to find them and is exactly what a French professor, Dr Dominique Belpomme  has indicated in an interview in 2010 on this subject. Refer to http://www.emfacts.com/2012/01/electromagnetic-intolerance-elucidated/.

There is quite a lot that is known about RF effects particularly from a military perspective with over 70 years of research available but conversely there are still huge gaps in our knowledge particularly in terms of understanding the biological processes that are effected/contributing to the generation of non-thermal effects that have been observed by many independent researchers and include genotoxic events.

You will note that I put a lot of emphasis on independent research because it is important to understand what affiliations and sources of funding that researchers have particularly when:

a)     The majority of research in the past has been performed by or sponsored by the industry

Evidence: When the FCC created its RF standards they were based on the research that was available at the time which was predominantly performed by the industry. Please refer to page 8 of this document http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf

One can also safely assume the same research pool was used by the ICNIRP to develop their 1998 international guidelines on RF safety that Australia adopted in 2002.

b)    There is evidence that industry is influencing research findings – this is not a new concept especially when we look at past history relating to research on smoking, asbestos, thalidomide etc. and the behaviors of the those peddling their dangerous goods. I can only speculate on the actual reason but I feel pretty confident when I say the wireless industry is unlikely to release results that are unfavorable to their position especially when it could jeopardize a >4 trillion dollar global industry!

Evidence: One only needs to actually look at ratios of finding of “effects” vs “no effects” between industry funded research and independent research to get a clear picture of what is really happening.

Cellphone Biological Studies

Industry Funded:             27 studies          28.1% Effects Found          71.9%  No effects found

Independently Funded: 154 studies         67%    Effect found              33%    No effects found

source: http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/reasons_us.pdf  (Page 34)

Another article I had not included in my response but supports my statement above can be found here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/

There seems to be a lack of commitment by the science community in general to seriously investigate these issues. In some cases this is purely because there is a lot of money at stake particularly in regards to the wireless industry. The catch phrase “follow the money” is very apt. Much of the money provided for research is from the industry that markets these devices and to a lesser degree the government who actually make money from access to the RF spectrum through licensing (ACMA).”

It is my intention to write further blogs on the SSMA website soon.

Best Regards,

Steve

Posted in Smart Meter | Tagged , , , , , , | 29 Comments

Smart meter protests step up – La Trobe Valley Express

Posted on March 23, 2013 by Stop Smart Meters Australia

LOCALS opposed to the widespread installation of smart metres across the Latrobe Valley have stepped up their campaign against SP Ausnet.

A public forum in Boolarra last week had 60 attendees, from Mirboo North, Morwell, Boolarra and Traralgon, unanimously agree to “resist smart meters and lock their switch boards”.

Despite SP Ausnet’s assurances smart metres complied with all “relevant international and Australian standards” and were safely installed, numerous householders have vowed to fight what they feared was risky technology with potentially harmful levels of radiation.

Central to more recent debate between householders and SP Ausnet were claims by some residents SP Ausnet had threatened to cut off their power supply if they did not allow access to their meter box for the installation of smart meters.

Churchill resident Ian Hamden is one resident accusing the energy company of making those threats.

He said when SP Ausnet first visited his Cedar Court property he advised them “when I pay for the house, this is my meter and I have it locked and I do not want a smart meter”.

“He (the SP Ausent employee) said I would have to have it whether I liked it or not and if I didn’t give him access he would disconnect the power,” Mr Hamden said.

“He had upset me enough so I told him if he did that then I would see him in court as the power supplier has a contract to supply me with power and I have a contract to pay said bill.”

Experts disagree on whether the provision of access is legally binding.

Legal advice sought by the Broadmeadows Progress Association, and provided to The Express by local anti-smart meter campaigners, said the Electricity Distribution Code did not contain “express terms to the effect that consumers are obliged to allow persons on to their property to install smart meters”.

Solicitor Eugene White also advised it was “misleading simply to advise customers that if they refuse to accept the installation of an AMI (advanced metering infrastructure), their power will be cut off”.

SP Ausnet, however, argued under the EDC a customer not complying with the code “may be disconnected” but said the company would “only ever consider this as a last resort” and proactively worked with customers to “understand their questions and concerns with the rollout”.

The spokesperson told The Express “we will never threaten or harass customers, but inform them of their rights and responsibilities…”

Mr Hamden disputes this, claiming the SP Ausent employee who visited him was “telling me lies… and I told him he would be out on the street with his arrogant attitude”.

He said when another employee visited his property weeks later “I told him my meter box was staying locked, he said okay… and left”.

Churchill Stop Smart Meter Action Group spokesperson Trevor Bridges, who helped organise last week’s forum, pointed to a recent decision by Greater Dandenong councillors to continue their fight against the meters, despite receiving legal advice they could not stop installation.

A Springvale Dandenong Leader report said that council would “look into the cost of hiring an independent contractor to measure electromagnetic waves and radiation”.

Concerns have long been raised by Mr Bridges who has warned three to four per cent of the population were sensitive to radio frequencies, which meant in Churchill there could be 141 radio sensitive people and in Traralgon the number could be as high as 660.

“A smart meter on their properties could be a real health problem for them,” he added.

By Lynda McRae, March 21, 2013 

Via: Smart meter protests step up 

 

Posted in Smart Meter | Tagged , , , , , , , | 34 Comments