Smart meters: Coleman has no opposition from celebrities

Smart meters: Coleman has no opposition 

from celebrities

 

 

LANGLEY ADVANCE NOVEMBER 22, 2011

 

 

Dear Editor,

Isn't it amazing that Energy Minister Rich Coleman, MLA for Fort Langley/Aldergrove, is forcing us to accept the replacement of our old electric meters with so-called smart meters that will poison our homes with high doses of electromagnetic radiation?

And isn't it strange that not one "celebrity" has come to champion the cause against smart meters?

Not one celebrity from government, business, entertainment or even any of the so-called guardians of the planet like the Suzuki Foundation, Green Peace, Ducks Unlimited or any other "tree hugging" organization.

Yet, harm one baby seal, cut one-old growth tree, spill one drop of oil or endanger the life of one creature in a bog some where in the world and they come out of the woodwork looking for photo opportunities and money to support their cause!

It's sad that you haven't taken an interest in protecting your families and that you are leaving it up to a small group of citizens, right here in your home town, who are standing up for you and your families, fighting our government and corporations trying to prevent them from spying on us or poisoning us in our homes and work places with dangerous levels of "Electromagnetic Radiation"?

People, this isn't about effective delivery or conservation of electrical energy or protecting the environment or jobs it's all about profit and control.

Many of our grandfathers and fathers gave their lives to ensure that we had democracy and freedom. Can you imagine what they would say if they could see what our government, both provincial and federal is doing in the name of profit to stifle the freedom they so valiantly died for?

What's next? Smart meters are only the tip of the ice berg. Big business and government have other more sinister ideas to generate more profit and greater control over the worlds population and our resources like water, gas and oil.

So what are you going to do about it? Let others carry the fight for you? Just sit there and watch TV, play your video games and surf the internet while your rights and freedoms are being stripped away from you and your children?

You need to get involved. Seek out those organizations that are fighting for you and me to stop this travesty.

Brian Turner, Mission

© Copyright (c) Langley Advance

more:http://www.langleyadvance.com/Smart+meters+Coleman+opposition+from+celebrities/5750339/story.html#ixzz1eievu9VY

UCSF's Stan Glantz on Cell Phone Safety Parts 1 & 2

Another Piece of the Puzzle: EMFs and Candida

Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(2):79-85.

Suppression of natural killer cell activity on Candida stellatoidea by a 50 Hz magnetic field.

Canseven AG, Seyhan N, Mirshahidi S, Imir T.

Source

Department of Biophysics, Gazi University Medical Faculty, Ankara, Turkey. canseven@gazi.edu.tr

Abstract

Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) is ubiquitous for almost all individuals living in industrialized countries. Epidemiological and laboratory studies suggest that exposure to Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) EMF increase cancer risk. The immune system functions as one of the body's main protective mechanisms, and Natural Killer (NK) cells are a subset of lymphocytes that can destroy several types of tumor cells. In this study, we investigated, NK cell activity after exposure to a 50 Hertz (Hz), 2 mT magnetic field generated by a Helmholtz Coil. Nineteen male, 10-12 week old guinea pigs were used, and NK cytotoxic activity of splenocytes was measured in vitro by natural anticandidial colorimetric index. The Mann-Whitney U test was applied for statistical analysis. NK cell cytotoxic activity was decreased in exposed compared to controls. Our data suggests that part of the immune system, the NK cell, can be suppressed by a 50 Hz magnetic field.

PMID:

 

16771296

 

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16771296

Smart meters = tip of the iceberg

RF foes claim electro-smog is killing us

Phil Carson | Nov 21, 2011

   

In the high desert in northwestern Colorado, bentonite clay abounds. A soaking rain means trouble. When you walk on wet bentonite, it builds up on the sole of your shoe until it's nearly impossible to walk. And roads become "impassable."

I mention this factoid to illustrate what it's like these days when you write about interval or "smart" meters. It's akin, in so many words, to "stepping in it." First, it's assumed that most interval meters are sending and receiving data wirelessly. (A fair assumption.) Second, for what appears to be an increasing number of people and "organizations" (quotation marks here because it's impossible to tell the difference between an individual and an "organization" on the Web), that means that the nation's power utilities have become merchants of death.

I'm not sure whether that line is likely to elicit a wry smile or a rueful smile. In either case, keep smiling, as you may need to scrape some, uh, bentonite clay off your shoes.

Yesterday I wrote about the digital meter opt-out option in Vermont, in "Vermont and the Opt-Out Provision."

We received numerous posts to the article forum, from advice to utilities on articulating the meter value proposition to extolling the wisdom of Vermont's opt-out option to objections to the cost of meters and their perceived low value to the consumer. Several folks wrote privately; one to offer a paper entitled "No Health Threat from Smart Meters" and two to offer explanations for why interval meters indeed threaten us all.

In "No Health Threat from Smart Meters," which appeared in the Fourth Quarter 2010 issue of UTC Journal (Utilities Telecom Council), author Klaus Bender, director of standards and engineering at UTC, succinctly describes the following topics in 8 pages:

• Why interval meters on modern grids
• The federal role in evaluating the safety of RF devices
• Federal Communication Commission mandates on RF exposure and its impact on humans
• The impact of RF energy on humans
• Meter reading system configurations

Bender told me yesterday that a specific utility member of UTC asked for guidance in addressing the backlash on interval meters and their alleged impacts on human health. The paper was generalized to be useful to all utilities.

In the paper, Bender concluded: "So when confronted with complaints that say smart meters cause a variety of health effects, ask the complainant to produce the science to support the claim. The conversation should end shortly thereafter."

Ah, an engineer's solution—so logical. If only that were true! Actually, that's the beginning of the conversation. First, the objectors will say that the science on this topic is just beginning to escape the clutches of industry influence and that fledgling, peer-reviewed science now documents that low-level, non-ionizing RF energy can mix-and-match your DNA, is slowly baking all of us to premature deaths and that electrosensitivity is real and that forcing "smart meters" on us all is an unconscionable act that causes barbaric suffering.

The more rational folks in the anti-meter movement—and make no mistake, this is a movement to be taken seriously—are also campaigning for cell phone warnings. But for the most part, the movement is focused only on interval meters.

I'll just say that if those opposed to interval meters limit their focus to those devices alone, that undercuts their argument. (At first I wrote that that argument is "conveniently dishonest and morally bankrupt," but I'll let you decide whether gentle or not-so-gentle is appropriate here.) If the opponents of low-level, non-ionizing, low-frequency RF emitted by interval meters really believe that that's harmful, then they should be opposed to the use of radios in any setting. The argument that "cell phones are voluntary" and meters are involuntary doesn't wash. Radio frequencies are everywhere. Even if you rid yourself of cell phones, microwave ovens, Wi-Fi routers and the like, your neighborhood and every public place including the backcountry is awash in what opponents like to call "electrosmog."

It's disingenuous to argue that meters are hazardous and not take the fight all the way. So, if wireless meters go, so do radios, TVs, cell phones, laptops, airplanes and, by extension, national defense and modern commerce. It's that simple. And we haven't begun to discuss data privacy and interval meters.  

When one opponent of wireless interval meters said that hundreds of complainants can't be wrong, that there must be something about interval meters causing symptoms due to the mere numbers of complaints, I could only cite the history of popular folly, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles Mackay, published in 1841. And I tried to keep smiling.

Here's a smattering of websites dedicated to stopping smart meters for a variety of reasons. I'll say this: these folks are way better organized than the power industry, they are creating converts every day and they're not going to stop with a puny opt-out option.

The People's Initiative

American Association for Smart Meter Safety

Stop Smart Meters

Ban Smart Meters

Smart Meters

Center for Electrosmog Prevention

Phil Carson
Editor-in-chief
Intelligent Utility Dailypcarson@energycentral.com
303-228-4757

http://www.intelligentutility.com/article/11/11/smart-meters-tip-iceberg

Warning: Electrosmog Bigger Threat Than Global Warming

Radiation emission guidelines set for mobile phones, telecom towers

Joji Thomas Philip, ET Bureau Nov 19, 2011, 02.35am IST

Tags:

• Samsung Galaxy S2|
• Radiation emission guidelines

NEW DELHI: New radiation emission guidelines for mobile phones and telecom towers finalised by the government this week will, for the first time, stipulate emission levels for handsets sold in India and make it compulsory for these levels to be displayed on phones and retail outlets.

It will also become mandatory for handsfree devices to be sold with handsets as the government feels the use of these devices will significantly reduce the risk of exposure from electromagnetic waves. At present, about 645 models of low-end handsets don't comply with the new emission standards and will have to be redesigned, said the industry body that represents handset makers in the country.

In a presentation to the government in July this year, the Indian Cellular Association had said the industry will take 6-9 months to redesign these handsets, and their prices would increase by 5-30%. The sale of ultra-low cost handsets will have to be completely stopped, it warned. The new guidelines are expected to be formally announced by Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal shortly.

The minister has instructed his officials to prepare an implementation road map. The telecom department has finalised these norms in response to growing concerns about impact on consumer health from excessive mobile usage. An inter-ministerial group consisting of representatives from the communications, health, and environment ministries had earlier this year concluded that radiation from mobile phones and towers poses serious health risks.

"People chronically exposed to such radiation have reported unspecific symptoms, ranging from burning and tingling sensation in the scalp, fatigue, sleep disturbances, dizziness, ringing in the ears, headache and palpitation," the report said. It suggested that children, adolescents and pregnant women should avoid excessive use of cellphones while people with medical implants should keep their cellphone at least 30 cm away while talking.

The final norms prepared by the telecom department are largely in line with the recommendations of the inter-ministerial group. Radiation emitted by cellphones varies from instrument to instrument, and is measured in terms of specific absorption rate (SAR) — the amount of radio waves absorbed by the body tissue when aphone is in use. The new rules state that cellphones can be imported and sold in India only if the SAR level is below 1.6 watts per kg (W/kg). So far, India had unofficially followed European norms.

Guidelines Closer to US Norms

These norms state the maximum SAR level must not exceed 2 W/kg but the new standard is closer to the US norms. The guidelines state that SAR value, or the radiation emitted by the handset, must be specified on the device, its manual, the box as well as the websites of both the company and the DoT. The radiation figure of each handset model must also be displayed prominently at all retail outlets that sell mobile phones.

Leading handset makers did not comment, as the rules were not public yet. But an executive with a telco said that with the exception of low-cost phones, most handsets were already adhering to the US specified radiation limits. For instance, the Apple iPhone 4 has a SAR value of 1.17, the Samsung Galaxy S2 has a SAR of 0.338, while for the BlackBerry Curve 8310, the corresponding value is at 0.72. Radiation limits for towers have also been tightened to a tenth of the existing exposure level.

But a key recommendation of the inter-ministerial group, regarding restrictions on installation of towers close to schools and hospitals, has been kept out of the guidelines for the time being. Sibal has asked the DoT to prepare a comprehensive list of places where towers would not be allowed. The minister has also suggested towers should be installed in cities and metros after taking safety clearance from the urban development ministry.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-19/news/30419525_1_sar-level-mobile-phones-handsets

At Safra Center event, cell phone radiation and institutional corruption addressed (video)

At Safra Center event, cell phone radiation and institutional corruption addressed (video)

Dr. Franz Adlkofer, former Executive Director of the VERUM Foundation for Behavior and Environment

November 18, 2011

On Nov. 3, Dr. Franz Adlkofer, former executive director of the VERUM Foundation for Behavior and Environment, spoke to a Harvard Law School audience as part of the lectures and events series hosted by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics. 

In his lecture, “Protection Against Radiation is in Conflict with Science,” Adlkofer discussed the difficulties he and other scientists face when presenting research on the carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields emanating from cell phones. He also discussed the institutional corruption which he says obstructs their research.

Adlkofer described his experience with the EU-funded study REFLEX, which aimed to explore the effects of cell-phone radiation on the brain. The study’s conclusions demonstrated that low frequency as well as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below the allowed exposure limits displayed gene-damaging potential.

In 2004, shortly after releasing those findings, Adlkofer was the target of allegations questioning the validity of the findings and even accusing him of fraud. While an ethics panel eventually dismissed the accusations, his struggle against slander continues, he said.

In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified high frequency electromagnetic fields including cell phone radiation as merely “possibly carcinogenic” for humans, Adlkofer said, but he pointed out that studies such as REFLEX were not taken into account in reaching that determination. Had they been, he said, the classification likely would have changed from “possibly” carcinogenic to “probably.”

“The practices of institutional corruption in the area of wireless communication are of enormous concern,” said Adlkofer, “if one considers the still uncertain outcome of the ongoing field study with five billion participants. Based on the unjustified trivializing reports distributed by the mass media by order and on account of the wireless communication industry, the general public cannot understand that its future wellbeing and health may be at stake. The people even distrust those scientists who warn. In democracies, it is a basic principle that above power and their owners are laws, rules, and regulations. Since in the area of wireless communication this principle has been severely violated it is in the interest of a democratic society to insist on its compliance.”

View Dr. Adlkofer’s full lecture:

Click to Play

—Sophy Bishop

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2011/11/18_safra-center-cellphone-radiation-corruption.html