|Re: Smart Meters in communities||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Valerie McIntyre (valerie333windsong.bc.ca)|
|Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:33:16 -0700 (PDT)|
Yes, let's get this topic back on topic. You population-growth folks can apply for your own subject line! :-) Thanks for the CCST document, Dick. As you likely know, the California Council on Science and Technology Report on the Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters promotes the standard industry line. The Key Findings don't reflect the views of Dr. Magda Havas, author of a requested written submission (See: Appendix D, Biologists/Medical category). Havas' reasons for not supporting the conclusions of the CCST report may be of interest: < http://www.magdahavas.com/2011/01/18/havas-report-on-smart-meters-for-ccst/> BioInitiative Report founder, Cindy Sage's response to the CCST Report may also be of interest: <http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?p=343> I haven't checked all the contributors' submissions but it doesn't take too much imagination to get the drift of things. My response to the four Key Report Findings on page 5 of the CCST Report < http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smartA.pdf> is as follows: No. 1 is irrelevant. Nobody who's concerned about the biological and health effects of wireless radiation cares about ranking common household electronic devices. If any of them are close enough and of sufficient intensity, they're potentially dangerous. No. 2 is also irrelevant. We're not concerned with only thermal impact, the problem is thermal and non-thermal. (For those new to this subject: standards for safe levels of wireless were originally tied to thermal effects, i.e. those effects which would heat up skin or tissue. It's been found now that there are negative non-thermal radiation effects and they're becoming known at a rapid pace, evidenced by the rise in brain tumors among cell phone users, and childhood leukemia in areas near cell towers. No. 3 is simply wrong. There's a wealth of independent scientific information about the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation on people and the environment. The World Health Organization just this year gave wireless radiation a class 2B "possibly carcinogenic" classification. Industry-funded studies manage to discount this legitimate science but many countries have seen through this misinformation campaign. Unfortunately the United States and Canada, due to an apparent lack of money and political will, refuse to take a serious look at the issue. A special note should be made of the fact that smart meters have been sprung on us so recently that there is a shortage of information about their effects. But responsible governments, mostly at the local/municipal level, are calling for a moratorium on installation of smart meters until their impact can be properly assessed. No. 4 is also wrong, and a bit of diversion from the real issue. Enough is known to warrant more study and taking a precautionary approach. The issue is not lack of information but the lack of will in the U.S. and Canada to look at the existing information and to ask for more. This is a fast-changing field and FCC standards based on thermal effects are ridiculously and dangerously out of date. Is consensus in our communities possible? I think raising awareness about the issues is a first step. Cheers, Valerie - from WindSong Cohousing, Langley, BC From: Richard L. Kohlhaas (rlkohlearthlink.net) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Here is another take on smart meters: http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smartA.pdf Dick Kohlhaas (PhD Electrical Engineering) Resident of Colorado Springs Cohousing Community at Casa Verde Commons
- Re: Smart Meters in communities, (continued)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.