Sunday, January 11, 2015

2014: The year the ‘smart’ meter agenda (and its inevitable failure) became obvious

2014: The year the ‘smart’ meter agenda (and its inevitable failure) became obvious

by K.T. Weaver, for Take Back Your Power
With billions in government subsidies paying off utilities to deploy radiation-emitting surveillance devices, the obviousness of the agenda's corruption has sown seeds of its inevitable self-destruction.
The government-energy cartel, lining utility pockets and stealing your rights, have sown the seeds of their own inevitable self-destruction.
Having reached the end of 2014, there is no doubt it has been a devastating year for utility smart meters and smart grid advocates.  Whether all utility executives yet realize it or not, smart meters have failed.  They have failed miserably to the deliver the promised benefits.  We are left with nothing but the increased costs and risks associated with boondoggle projects reminiscent of pork barrel spending bills approved in the middle of the night by a Congress wanting to get home for the Christmas holidays.

The Year in Review

Here is a list of some of the most important articles and events highlighted during 2014 by this Author:
Whether the issue ranges from privacy to cyber threats to fires to health effects, it has been all bad news.  Furthermore, there have been news reports that question the fundamental underpinnings of why governments and the smart grid industry were supposedly trying to ever sell us this smart meter fiasco of a project in the first place.

Cracks in the Industry Narrative

Cracks in the smart grid industry narrative began to appear in June when the industry mouthpiece website SmartGridNews.com ran an article called, “Smart meters trapped between benefits and dangers, claims Forbes.”  In quoting the Forbes article, SmartGridNews.com stated:
“Despite the promise of empowering people through enhanced consumption data… some people are scared and resist the idea of smart metering, citing concerns about meter accuracy, data security, and health,” wrote Forbes contributor Federico Guerrini.  “Privacy is probably the most sensitive issue:  similarly to what happens with phone calls metadata, information about the energy consumption of a family or of an individual, can reveal a lot of details about the life of the persons monitored.”
A “reality check” report was released in July by the South-central Partnership for Energy Efficiency as a Resource (SPEER) in Texas, entitled “An Update on Smart Energy in Texas.”  In that report it was stated that:
“Texas has nearly seven million smart meters deployed, but according to the most recently available published data:
  • Only 30,000 customers log in each month to Smart Meter Texas to obtain consumption information.  That’s less than ½ of one percent.
  • Only 60,000 customers have ever logged in to Smart Meter Texas, or less than 1% (Smart Meter Texas, 2013).
As of the last public report about Smart Meter Texas, there are only 12,000 HAN devices connected to Smart Meter Texas, or less than 1 for every 540 smart meters deployed (Smart Meter Texas, 2013).  According to an anecdotal report from the Smart Meter Texas Operations Manager, that number has fallen by over 15% in the year since the report was issued.”
Also in July an article was featured at Bloomberg.com regarding hackers finding an open back door to the power grid.  According to the Bloomberg.com article:
“Making the electricity grid greener is boosting its vulnerability to computer hacking, increasing the risk that spies or criminals can cause blackouts.”
“Adding wind farms, solar panels and smart meters to the power distribution system opens additional portals through which hackers can attack the grid, according to computer security experts advising governments and utilities.”
“… electronic meters that send real time power usage to consumers and utilities are providing new back-door entry paths for computer hackers to raise havoc with the grid.”
There was another admission from SmartGridNews.com in late December in an article that dealt primarily with smart meter-related fires:
“The fires put utilities in a bind.  Smart meters have been an essential building block for the smart grid initiative and have been represented as providing several benefits, including more reliable service, enabling customers to better control their energy use and participate in money- and energy-saving programs, as well as enabling automating smart devices in their homes.”
“However, several utilities have or are dealing with lawsuits and backlash from customers who do not want the advanced meters, criticism that they invite invasion of privacy and cause health problems — all issues that have led to organized groups dedicated to stopping smart meter deployments.  While many utilities have fine-tuned their customer outreach and communication programs and offered or agreed to opt-out options, those solutions are likely inadequate to the task at hand:  reassuring a number of wary customers that smart meters are safe.”
So finally, there has been at least some recognition of the “dangers” associated with smart meter technology; plus, consumers are not necessarily all that interested in reviewing their private “enhanced consumption data” that was supposedly going to “empower” them.

Warnings from the UK, Canada, and Australia on Costs

Then came a warning in September from the UK:  “Smart metering technology ‘could be out-of-date’ by the time it is rolled out, MPs [Members of Parliament] warn” and that the Public Accounts Committee also questioned the value of the £10.6 billion project, with consumers expected to save just £26 a year.
Plus, keep in mind for the UK that the measly savings of £26 a year, 2% of the average bill, is a hypothetical number that is projected if consumers change their behavior based on what the smart meters are telling them.  This amounts to wishful thinking that people need or want smart meter data to reduce energy consumption.
Furthermore, a new published study released in mid-December showed that in-home displays (IHDs) provided to customers in the UK in combination with smart meters would likely have little effect on influencing consumers to conserve energy.  The smart meters and IHDs may have a “novelty factor” for awhile that will wear off over time.
For a press release summarizing the Ontario Auditor General report, refer to the following link:  Auditor General New Release – Smart Metering Initiative Had Serious Shortcomings – Benefits Not Yet Realized
Smart Meters Not So Smart CTV Image
Also in December, there were reports from Australia that “VICTORIANS will be slugged smart meter fees of up to $226 on their electricity bills next year”:
“Bill shock:  Smart meter charges set to cost most Victorians more in 2015.”
“The rollout, ordered by Labor and continued by the Coalition, has been plagued by cost overruns and safety and privacy concerns.  Victorians have been paying annual smart meter fees since 2010.”

The New York Times Article

On December 6th, 2014, an article ran in the New York Times, entitled “Power Savings of Smart Meters Prove Slow to Materialize.”  The article starts out by stating:
“The end is in sight for the meter reader, … They are being phased out because tens of millions of new meters talk directly to the electric company.  The meters can record use by the hour, changing the price as the market changes and telling the customer — or maybe even the appliances themselves — the best time to buy energy.
But this is not happening. …”
“’The smart meter giving people real-time access to price information is not going to make them get up in the middle of the night and turn their dishwasher on,’ said John P. Hughes, the vice president for technical affairs at the Electricity Consumers Resource Council, a consumer group that represents mostly large industrial users. ‘Getting the enabling technology to do that is going to take a long time.’”
“And there is the reduction in the jobs themselves; although the meters were paid for in part by the Recovery Act, which was supposed to stimulate employment, the effect of the meters has been exactly the opposite.”
“’It eliminated literally thousands of meter readers across the country, and no way has it created any type of permanent work,’ said Michael Langford, president of the Utility Workers Union of America. ‘The meter-reading jobs were decent, good-paying jobs. People were able to buy homes, pay their taxes, buy cars on them, and we eliminated those.’”
“But for consumers, the payoff has for the most part not been realized. In the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, which represents customers in public service commission hearings, William F. Fields, a senior assistant, said that the cost-effectiveness of smart meters had yet to be demonstrated.”
“‘I’ve never seen an analysis that shows that shifting my dish-washing, clothes-washing and clothes-drying load is going to make a significant impact on my monthly bill,’ he said.  ‘It’s just not that much electricity.’”

An Extremely Critical Article from an Industry Blog

On December 8, 2014, an article appeared in the blog for Engerati, “a global meeting place for energy professionals to network, collaborate, share and engage.”  The article was entitled “UK Smart Meters Delayed. Again.”  People should take heed to its message.  Here are some selected excerpts from the article:
“Smart meters – any practical value? … “For the consumer [the UK delay is] likely to mean more unnecessary costs heaped onto future energy bills.”
“Despite the charade of one step forward, one step backwards, we still don’t know whether the deployment will have any practical value.  There is no EU mandate for it – individual countries need to show that smart metering is cost-effective.  The first DECC [Department of Energy & Climate Change] survey showed it was not, but DECC mandarins then fudged the numbers (not my phrase, but that of an involved MP); since then they’ve spent a considerable amount of time and effort in concealing what’s behind their calculations.”
“At [a Freedom of Information] tribunal, a DECC civil servant argued that it was necessary to keep the contents of this document secret, because if they were made public, the SRO who wrote it would be identified and they might be openly criticised or even questioned about how they reached their conclusions.  At the time I didn’t know what an SRO was.  I’ve since discovered it means Senior Responsible Officer. Whilst I might have had some sympathy for this line of argument if the report had been put together by some office junior, I would have thought that the use of words like ‘Senior’ or ‘Responsible’ in a job title would have implied a certain degree of competence and responsibility.”
“Last year’s delay was caused by concerns about security, or rather the lack of it.  Since then, hackers have demonstrated how it’s possible to hack into Spain’s smart meters, so don’t be surprised if there’s another rescheduling of the UK deployment next year for a further security review.”
“It was never cost effective for the industry to deploy these [smart meters].  However, they’ve realised that DECC has given them the opportunity to do it and charge the consumer under the guise that they should have been smart.”
Extracting Sunbeams from Cucumbers“It’s all part of our current energy policy, which is coming to resemble Swift’s satire of extracting sunbeams from cucumbers.  That’s probably the only renewable energy policy that DECC has not tried funding, but now I’ve brought it to their attention, they might.  From feed-in-tariffs to keep the voters happy to offshore windmills that are about as effective as treadmills for mermaids, we have a department that is out of control and prepared to squander taxpayer’s money on anything that can be claimed to save energy, ministerial face, the climate or the world.”
“Perhaps they should read the article that Ross Konigstein and David Fork have just published in IEEE Spectrum.  They’re both long term developers of renewable energy who write in a carefully considered article that ‘We had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: we felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change.  We now know that to be a false hope.  Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.’  Which suggests that the Department for Sunbeams from Cucumbers needs to start thinking hard about a Plan B.”
“Our energy security is too important to be left in the hands of civil servants who deny the concept of ‘senior’ or ‘responsibility’, let alone the idea of an evidence base for their programmes.  I call on the Government to comprehend this and review the smart metering programme…”

Damage Control from the ‘Greenwashed’ Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Getting back to the New York Times article from December 6th and the smart grid industry being in full damage control mode, someone from the Environmental Defense Fund wrote an article at the EDF blog on December 16, 2014 entitled, “Smart Meters Need Effective Electricity Pricing to Deliver Their Full Benefits.”  Quoting this EDF article:
“In Matthew Wald’s recent New York Times article, entitled ‘Power Savings of Smart Meters Prove Slow to Materialize,’ he argues that smart meters have failed to produce measurable savings.  And we agree – but not because smart meters themselves have failed.  Rather, most customers with smart meters don’t have access to people-powered, or time-variant, electricity pricing, which creates opportunities to save money.  This is a missed opportunity for customers, utilities, and the environment.”
This article ends by stating, “smart meters alone won’t be enough.”  So EDF is advocating “time-variant pricing” to “fix” the problem that smart meters have failed to deliver anything meaningful.   In fact, EDF seems to be advocating an “opt-out” approach rather than an “opt-in” approach to time-of-use rates in order to effectively force more people into these pricing schemes.
The EDF article then makes the inexplicable comparison of comparing decisions related to time variant pricing [a new term for Time-of-Use (TOU) rates] to that of making organ donations upon your death.  Regarding an opt-in policy:  “It turns out that this type of choice structure invariably leads to low adoption rates – not just with time-variant pricing, but with a host of other types of decisions, such as organ donation.”  EDF has the apparent belief that everyone should give up a “pound of flesh” for the benefit of the almighty smart meter program in order to somehow make it work at all cost.
What these think tank-type technocrats fail to realize is that ordinary working people and the vulnerable members of our society, unlike large commercial customers, have little to offer in terms of shifting load to off-peak hours.  Sure, they can weatherstrip their homes or change a few light bulbs, but people don’t need expensive and risky smart meters to do that.  And as stated in the New York Times article, “I’ve never seen an analysis that shows that shifting my dish-washing, clothes-washing and clothes-drying load is going to make a significant impact on my monthly bill.”  In fact, it is more likely that TOU rates will increase the bills of most consumers (as has happened in Ontario, Canada).
Think about common sense for a moment.  The EDF article narrowly mentions that a barrier to TOU rates has been concerns of how this type of pricing “might negatively affect low-income customers.”  That is a valid concern, and also many more people who are working out of their homes whether they be self-employed or telecommuting and are not necessarily low-income.  You have stay-at-home parents with young children.  You have elderly people on fixed incomes with medical conditions who need to stay physically comfortable as it has been shown that exposure to temperatures outside of a “moderate range” increases the likelihood of hospital emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and premature death.
Basically anyone who functions on a normal daylight schedule at home would be negatively affected by TOU rates, and the rest have little to offer other than shifting a few routines to late evening such as laundry.  This is not going to offset the overall effect of TOU rates on residential customers or the immense costs to deploy the smart meters in the first place.  [For additional reading about how the smart grid does not save energy and about such issues as “vampire energy,” refer to the article The “Smart” Grid Is Not Smart, Safe, or Green.]

Conclusions

So, no, the so-called “time-variant pricing” is not the solution to saving the already failed experiment with smart meters.  Smart meters have failed. Period.  What we have accomplished so far is reducing the number of people employed as meter readers and the miles driven by those workers.  Meanwhile, customers are left holding the bag with increased costs as well as all the increased risks associated with smart meter technology.  The sooner we halt the continued deployment of smart meters the better off we and society will be.  To extend the more esoteric example of Swift’s satire on extracting sunbeams from cucumbers, let’s use a more simple analogy that hopefully even the smart grid industry executives will be able to understand regarding our current predicament on smart meters, the Humpty Dumpty English nursery rhyme:
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

Humpty TBYP

Source Material for this Article
“Smart meters trapped between benefits and dangers, claims Forbes,” at
http://www.smartgridnews.com/story/smart-meters-trapped-between-benefits-and-dangers-claims-forbes/2014-06-24
“SPEER Releases Report on Smart Energy in Texas,” at
http://eepartnership.org/2014/07/17/speer-releases-report-on-smart-energy-in-texas/
“Hackers Find Open Back Door to Power Grid With Renewables,” at
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-01/renewable-energy-s-expansion-exposing-grids-to-hacking.html
“Smart metering technology ‘could be out-of-date’ by the time it is rolled out, MPs warn,” at
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/public-sector/3544247/smart-metering-technology-could-be-out-of-date-by-time-it-is-rolled-out-mps-warn/
“Smart Meter Rollout a Waste of Money Says New Study,” at
http://smartgridawareness.org/2014/12/21/smart-meter-rollout-a-waste-of-money/
“Smart Hydro meters deemed dumb public investment by provincial auditor general,” at
http://www.manitoulin.ca/2014/12/17/smart-hydro-meters-deemed-dumb-public-investment-provincial-auditor-general/
“UK Smart Meters Delayed. Again.,” at
http://www.engerati.com/article/uk-smart-meters-delayed-again
“Smart Meters Need Effective Electricity Pricing to Deliver Their Full Benefits,” at
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2014/12/16/smart-meters-need-effective-electricity-pricing-to-deliver-their-full-benefits/

Take Back Your Power bolt - 100

About the Author 

K.T. Weaver is a health physicist who was employed in the nuclear division of a leading electric utility for over 25 years.  He served in various positions, including Station Health Physicist, Senior Health Physicist, corporate Health Physics Supervisor, and corporate Senior Technical Expert for Radiobiological Effects.  K.T. has earned a B.S. in Engineering Physics and an M.S. in Nuclear Engineering with a specialty in radiation protection.  He also operates the “SkyVision Solutions” website at www.skyvisionsolutions.org
Posted by at No comments:

Why Is This Giant Cell Phone Tower Smack Dab in the Middle of an Elementary School Playground?

Why Is This Giant Cell Phone Tower Smack Dab in the Middle of an Elementary School Playground?


What is wrong with this picture?

Thanks to a tip, we took a look at the playground for Anne Frank Elementary in Dallas, Texas via satellite image, where a rather large cell phone tower looms over the public school campus.
The very place that these young children (and their teachers) spend their time – both inside and outside the school building – is saturated with powerful electromagnetic frequency radiation.
This is unconscionable. How is this even allowed? To have a giant cell phone tower standing in the middle of an elementary school right on the basketball court directly between the playground where small children with developing brains are playing and the buildings they are supposed to be learning in every day on this public school campus?
HOW ARE THEY GETTING AWAY WITH DOING THIS?!

 And how many other schools are doing this to their students across America?
Considering that numerous studies have linked cell phone radiation with cancers including leukemia and brain tumors – and that studies have found young children to be more susceptible to damage from EMF fields, allowing a cell tower to operate right in the middle of an elementary school campus seems particularly flagrant and unwise.
What’s worse, the cell tower – which is directly next to the outdoor basketball court – carries a warning sign reading in large read letters:
“Warning! Beyond this point: Radio frequency fields at this site may exceed FCC rules for human exposure. For your safety, obey all posted signs and site guidelines for working in radio frequency environments.”
cell-phone-tower-warning
Yet no one put two-and-two together and considered that if the radio frequency fields were hazardous to humans, that school children don’t belong in their proximity. Wow!
How many other locations in society is this technology also posing a risk to human health? There are enough scientific studies to make clear to anyone paying attention that there is a problem… but of course, the long term effects are yet unknown.
As Truthstream Media previously reported:
Estimates show that those of us living in modern-day America are experiencing 100,000,000 times more electromagnetic frequency (EMF) than our grandparents did simply by existing. Incidents of brain tumors have also been found to be higher in Western, developed nations. Everything from cell phones to cell towers going up everywhere to household appliances to computers…even cars emit EMF. Many of these technologies were never tested for potential harmful effects. Research has found EMF does have an adverse effect on tissues and cells, and this non-ionizing radiation has been classified as a carcinogen or potential carcinogen.
The top two childhood cancers are leukemia and cancers of the brain and nervous system. Studies have linked both EMF exposure and childhood leukemia (for a few examples, see here, here, here and here), and EMF exposure to childhood brain tumors (see here, here and here). Belgium just banned cell phones specifically designed for children up to age 7 based on this risk.
It is abundantly clear that there are plenty of reasons to apply the precautionary principle and limit your child’s exposure (and your own) to both cell phones and to cell phone towers, as well as other sources of EMF pollution, but here are a few considerations:
But does the average parent who does this even realize that studies have shown people who use cell phones before the age of 20 have a five times higher chance of developing malignant brain tumors?
Do they know that the country of Belgium has banned all cell phones manufactured and marketed towards children age seven and under because the International Agency for Research on Cancer cited a potential increase in brain cancer risk back in 2011?
Did they realize that the United Kingdom has told its schools to discourage students under 16 from using cell phones due to health risks citing a scientific report which states that children “have smaller heads, thinner skulls, and higher tissue conductivity than adults” so “they may absorb more energy from a mobile phone than adults”?
Were they aware that the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety has confirmed “the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter” which includes “blood brain barrier changes, learning and behavioral effects, changes in anti-oxidant enzyme activities, DNA and biological damage”?
That this caused the commission to conclude, “We strongly advise limited use of cell phones, and other similar devices, by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant standards are developed to protect against, not only the absorption of electromagnetic energy by the head, but also adverse effects of the signals on biochemistry, physiology and electrical biorhythms”?
In fact, childhood diagnoses of brain cancer are ‘mysteriously’ on the rise and have been for awhile now…
Here are just a handful of studies showing that cell phone exposure could be very dangerous, especially for children…
Also, the Cellular Phone Task Force compiled a list of all the governments and advocacy organization on record warning against or even banning wireless technology (see here).
Posted by at No comments:

Spain: New Law Gives Telephone Companies the Right to Install Mobile Phone Masts on Roofs Without Residents' or Council Permission

20 May 2014

Spain: New Law Gives Telephone Companies the Right to Install Mobile Phone Masts on Roofs Without Residents' or Council Permission

Following is the press release (near verbatim Google translation from Spanish) issued on 19 May 2014 by CAVAragón and ASIDES denouncing the new law on telecommunications which gives telephone companies the right to install mobile phone masts on roofs without either residents' or council permission.

CAVAragón and ASIDES Denounce the New Law on Telecommunications
Press Release, 19 May 2014

CAVAragón and ASIDES are denouncing the new law on telecommunications, saying it is a law for the profit of telecoms companies which invalidates the powers of councils and autonomous communities in matters of urban planning and territory, as well as environment.

In particular, the installation of antennas on the roofs of buildings poses an environmental and health risk to exposed persons. Emission controls are now in the hands of telecoms operators.

The law does not take into consideration the resolutions of the European Parliament in health and environmental matters, or the recommendations of resolution 1815 of that Parliament in the field of human health prevention, nor does it consider the recent recommendations of the European Environment Agency. It ignores the May 2011 declaration of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an international body of the World Health Organization, stating that radiation used in mobile telephony is possibly carcinogenic.

There is now no denying the scientific evidence that warns of severe alterations to health, both proven through experimental research in laboratories with animals, as well as statistically in the human population. Exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields produces alterations in cellular DNA, and it is well known that cancer arises precisely as a result of this type of alteration.

In addition to these wrongs, the new law allows the direct expropriation by the telephone companies of the roofs of private dwellings for the installation of phone masts. This measure represents an outrage insofar as it generates insecurity and helplessness in citizens with regard to the interests of large and powerful corporations in the sector.

CONTACTS: Cavaragon: Miguel Angel Mallen: 657 74 93 29 ASIDES: Juan Manuel Puértolas: 52 41 31 (afternoon) - 732-319 (mornings)

Original text in Spanish:
https://www.facebook.com/peccem/posts/331980613593785


New Telecommunications law in Spain enables telephone companies to install mobile phone masts on any roof they deem necessary without either the residents or the council permission
Posted by satandpcguy, 8 May 2014

On April 29, the newly approved telecommunications law in Spain will enable telephone companies to install mobile phone masts on any roof deem necessary without either the residents or the council can protest.

All political parties have voted in favour of the adoption of this new law.

The law was passed with concensus to move forward with a rule that will serve to develop the telecommunications sector and economy.

This new law seems tailor-made to facilitate the implementation of 4G networks in all urban areas.

When more and more evidence linking proximity to the antennas with the increase of cancer cases, this law gives power to the companies, and people who have one of these antennas on their roof cannot oppose it.

Operators only need to ask the Ministry of Industry approval to place antennas on a given roof.

http://www.satandpcguy.com/blog/2014/05/new-telecommunications-law-spain-enables-telephone-companies-install-mobile-phone-masts-roof-deem-necessary-without-either-residents-council-permission
Posted by at No comments:

Town without wi-fi draws people sensitive to electronics – and the locals hate them


Town without wi-fi draws people sensitive to electronics – and the locals hate them

Tom Boggioni
TOM BOGGIONI
04 JAN 2015 AT 22:19 ET                   


 Woman experiencing head pain (Shutterstock)
Woman experiencing head pain (Shutterstock)

A town situated in the middle of a National Radio Quiet Zone has become a magnet for people claiming to be sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies from devices like cell phones and wireless routers, much to the dismay of the locals, reports The Washingtonian.

Green Bank, West Virginia, is home to the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope — one of the largest radio telescopes in the world, — which requires electromagnetic silence every hour of every day in order to function properly. The GBT is one of nine such telescopes situated in the 13,000-square-mile ‘radio free’ zone, established in 1958 by the Federal Communications Commission.
Radio telescopes differ from ‘ocular’ ones, displaying electromagnetic radiation coming off of planets or other celestial bodies and allowing scientists to study regions of space where light can’t reach. In recent years, the telescopes have been used to track NASA’s Cassini probe to Saturn’s moon and to examine Mercury’s molten core. The telescopes in the Green Bank area are so popular that the the GBT observatory is four times oversubscribed by scientists from around the world researching projects.

Due to their high sensitivity, radio telescopes require complete ‘silence,’ meaning that everything from AM radio broadcasts to cell phones and Wi-Fi are banned by state law. Even cars powered by gasoline are banned on the observatory grounds because the engine’s spark plugs give off interfering radiation.

Because of this, people living in the area are limited to land-line phones and wired internet, which locals call “sloooow.” Because there are no cell phone towers, travelers passing through the region are unable to use their cell phones, but the town of 143 does maintain a single outdoor pay phone for emergencies.

Since the community is free of electromagnetic frequencies, sufferers of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) — who identify themselves as ‘electrosensitives’  — have begun to move into the area in search of relief.

Monique Grimes, moved to Green Bank from Florida after suffering debilitating pain after moving into a St. Petersburg apartment. According to Grimes, she suffered from nausea, fatigue, ringing in her left ear all at once, and had no idea why.

“I was trying to come up with every excuse in the world for what was happening to me,” Grimes said. “Moving is stressful, but the symptoms just kept piling on.”

Grimes said she saw an internist, a neurologist, and then a psychiatrist, but still received no explanation.

“If we can’t test it,” one said, “it doesn’t exist.”

Frustrated, she began poking around online and soon remembered reading an article about the potentially deleterious health effects of the new “smart” electricity meters that send customers’ usage data back to the utility over wireless signals.

Grimes discovered her building had 17 of them.

Eventually Grimes found herself moving to Green Bank, where she was followed by others, only to find the locals less than thrilled by the influx of more than two dozen EHS sufferers in the tiny town.
“There have been some rough spots in dealing with other members of the community,” said Sheriff David Jonese, whose Pocahontas County department has been called in several times to mediate disputes between locals and newcomers. “They want everybody in the stores and restaurants to change their lighting or turn their lights off when they’re there, which creates some issues.”

Diane Schou and her husband left their Iowa farm to escape the radio waves, explaining that she had once been forced to live for months in a Faraday cage: a wood-framed box with metal meshing that blocks out cell signals.

Moving to Green Bank was a culture shock, Schou said, “If you want to have Starbucks and shopping malls, you won’t survive here.”

After buying and rewiring a home in the community, Schou states she has had her share of run-ins with the locals.

Schou says that when she tried to get the local church to uninstall its fluorescent lights, which electrosensitives find excruciating, one local grew angry with her and pushed her before storming out.
Schou also asked the church not to use its wireless microphones and told people to stop using their cell phones as cameras around her.

“Some people started to deliberately expose me just to harm me,” she says.

One resident, Arnie Stewart, saw things a different way, inviting an EHS sufferer to a club meeting earlier this year to explain her disease.

“She was presenting her case, and about ten minutes later she came up to me and says, ‘Arnie, someone has a cell phone on in here,’ ” Stewart recalled, noting that he saw the woman’s hands redden and her wrists swell.

He asked the room if anyone had a phone powered up. “And this one guy very sheepishly said, ‘Oh, I do have one, and it’s on.’ That was his test, and she passed it. When that happened, everyone snapped to and listened.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/town-without-wi-fi-draws-people-sensitive-to-electronics-and-the-locals-hate-them/
Posted by at No comments:

Saying Good-Bye to Wi-Fi - A Waldorf School Takes a Precautionary Step

08 June 2014

Saying Good-Bye to Wi-Fi - A Waldorf School Takes a Precautionary Step

Is this one way to have Wi-Fi removed from schools? Good ideas here, but it’s not that easy…

Saying Good-Bye to Wi-Fi - A Waldorf School Takes a Precautionary Step
by Ronald E. Koetzsch, PhD

In the summer of 2010, a prospective parent walked into the office of Caroline Askew, admissions director at the City of Lakes Waldorf School in Minneapolis. The parent was an attorney with two young daughters. Caroline is accustomed to answering all kinds of questions from parents, but this mother had questions and concerns that Caroline had never heard before.

The parent first inquired whether or not the school utilized a WiFi system – an array of wireless transmitters that allows persons with laptop computers or smartphones to access the Internet and their email from any location in the building. On learning that WiFi was in use, she asked Caroline, “Would the school be open to the possibility of removing the system?” WiFi transmitters constantly emit pulsed radio frequency radiation (RFR), and this mother was concerned about the possible effect on the health of her children. She had done much research and had compiled a collection of documents – articles from scientific journals and abstracts of scientific papers – that pointed to the possible dangers of microwave radiation in a WiFi environment. She asked Caroline if the school would be willing to consider those documents in order to make an informed judgment.

City of Lakes first installed a WiFi router in 2004 in preparation for an accreditation team visit by the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America. WiFi use was limited until 2008, when the school hosted the Association’s annual summer conference. In time, staff members came to depend on the wireless network to work throughout the day on personal laptops. The majority of faculty and staff did not question the safety of the WiFi system. One class teacher was an exception and frequently caused havoc and frustrated his colleagues by intentionally disabling the system.

This teacher was very sensitive to electrical influences (electrosmog) and tried to raise awareness about the problem. He left his class in the middle of fourth grade due to health issues.

At the close of her interview with the concerned parent, Caroline Askew, herself a mother of young children and a person with broad interests, agreed to read through the binder of material. Most of the documents were abstracts of scientific studies on the effects of cell phone use and exposure to the pulsed radio frequency radiation emitted by cell phones. The studies also included research on possible health concerns related to WiFi routers, cordless phones, and cell phone towers. The research had been conducted at various universities and research centers in Sweden, Australia, China, the United States, and other places around the world.

Two documents from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe expressed deep concern about the “potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment.” One article mentioned that the World Health Organization had identified pulsed radio frequency radiation as a class two carcinogen. Another reported that some public school systems in Canada had removed WiFi from their schools out of concern for the health of the children. A letter from David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany-SUNY, strongly advised against the use of WiFi in schools. One recurring point was that whatever ill effects pulsed radio frequency emissions may have, children, because of their size and ongoing, rapid growth and development, would be particularly vulnerable.
Caroline shared the concerns with her colleagues. She asked Betsy Leighton, director of IT at the school, and Bob Amis, a science teacher, to read through the material and offer additional perspectives. In February 2011, Caroline and other City of Lakes staff attended the regional Great Lakes conference at the Chicago Waldorf School. The keynote presenter was Michael D’Aleo, a highly respected Waldorf high school science teacher. Caroline asked Michael if he thought the concerns about WiFi were credible. He answered in the affirmative and added that he is one of the small percentage of the population (about 3%) who are electrosensitive (ES), i.e. extremely sensitive to electromagnetic and radio frequency influences.

Following the regional conference, a presentation of the issue was made at a City of Lakes weekly staff meeting. Most staff members were open to further investigation, although there was significant reluctance to eliminate the convenience of WiFi. Some people had recently purchased iPads, which cannot function without a wireless connection to the Internet. A few faculty and staff were and remained staunchly skeptical.

At this point, the mother who had initially raised the concern and was now a parent in the school offered to pay for an inspection of the school building by a company called Intentional Environment. The company specializes in creating healthy environment by identifying and eliminating energetic interference created by electromagnetic fields (EMFs), pulsed radio frequency radiation, and other factors.

One weekend, the company’s two owners spent many hours assessing electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation throughout the school building, using a variety of electronic meters and measuring devices. In many places they found high levels of RFR from the school’s WiFi routers as well as from the WiFi transmitters outside the building.

When the building WiFi was turned off, they were able to assess the levels of the AC (alternating current) electric fields coming from building wiring, appliances and other electronic devices. In some areas, they detected what is called “dirty electricity”. This is AC current that has tiny energy spikes in the sine wave of the current flow. Dirty electricity is also considered a possible health risk.

The team discovered other problematic factors:

- Fluorescent lights emitting unnecessary RFR
- Electric cords wrapped around metal water pipes and creating very strong electromagnetic fields
- A strong EMF created by a large transformer located on a pole right outside one of the lower-grade classrooms
- “Dirty electricity” being generated by the motor for the school elevator

Following the assessment, the company gave the school a sixteen-page report, describing the problems present and recommending measures for remediation. The first and most important recommendation was to remove the WiFi routers from the school and have staff and faculty connect to the Internet by Ethernet cables instead. Other recommendations included rewiring lights, putting long extension cords in metal conduits, using outlet filters to eliminate dirty electricity, installing metal window screens to prevent radio frequency radiation from coming in from the outside, and not placing student desks in particular areas of certain classrooms. The recommendations were not particularly costly, and the school was able to implement many of them. Additional improvements have been made each year since.

City of Lakes Waldorf School has not chosen to publicize its decision to remove WiFi. Staff and faculty have adapted to the non-wireless environment. Parents and visitors to the school are not surprised when they discover they cannot get a WiFi connection to the Internet with their laptop or smartphone. There are, after all, “Cell Phone Free Zone” signs in the school lobby. A visitor with a laptop can, if necessary, access the Internet via a hardwired connection.

Is WiFi Really Harmful?

In the binder presented to the school by that first concerned parent, there were about fifty abstracts of scientific studies. Some focused on the effects of cell phone use: the combined impact of the heat and the pulsed radio frequency radiation that cell phones generate. Those studies indicate the following problematic effects of relatively long-term (ten years or more) cell phone use:

- Oversecretion from the parotid (saliva) gland on the side used for the cell phone
- Increased risk of tumors in the parotid gland
- Increased risk of glioma (a brain tumor that develops from the glial cells)
- Increased risk of acoustic neuroma (a tumor in the ear that develops from nerve cells)
- A correlation between the amount of cell phone use and behavioral and mental health problems

Most of the studies involved the effects of short-term exposure to pulsed radio frequency radiation on human beings, on animals (rats, mice, rabbits), and on plants. Some of the studies were carried out on the actual subjects (in vivo), and others involved cells taken from the subject and exposed while in a test tube or other vessel (in vitro). These various studies indicated that exposure to pulsed radio frequency radiation does the following:

- Changes electroencephalogram (EEG) patterns in the brains of human beings – in particular, a reduction in alpha waves, associated with relaxation, with women being more affected than men
- Reduces the ability of human adults to do tasks involving spatial memory
- Decreases the attentiveness of young adults when performing memory tasks
- Affects melatonin levels during sleep
- Affects the changes in blood chemistry related to the circadian rhythms of waking and sleeping
- Causes breakdown in the DNA strands and thus changes the structure and functioning of genes, i.e. is genotoxic (an in vitro study of human cells and an in vivo study involving brain cells of rats both indicated this effect)
- Adversely affects the quality, viability, duration and motility of sperm cells (this effect also was observed with human cells in vitro and rat cells in vivo)
- Negatively affects the function of the thyroid gland (in rats)
- Decreases the function of endocrine cells that secrete digestive hormones (in rats)
- Affects the function of the inner ear (in rabbits)
- Affects the function and structure of normal human hemoglobin (in vitro)
- Disturbs the normal functioning of worker honey-bees
- Causes genetic damage in mung beans and inhibits their germination and root formation
- Compromises the blood-brain-barrier (the BBB is a selective permeable barrier that allows into the brain fluid the nutrients, water, and other things the brain needs, but keeps out potentially toxic substances; the relevant study involved rats)

These and many other studies are readily available on the Internet. The website of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, whose mission is to advance science and health by providing access to biomedical and genomic information, can be found at www.ncbi.nim.gov/pubmed

It should be noted that there are also studies that indicate little or no ill effect from cell phone use and exposure to WiFi. These studies, like the studies just cited, are of necessity short-term studies. Even a study focusing on the effects of ten years of cell phone use is, in the context of a normal human life span, a short-term study. In any case, there is as yet no unanimity in the scientific community about these issues. Studies funded by the communications industry tend to find no harmful effects.

Rudolf Steiner, founder of Waldorf Education, considered electricity a realm of “subnature”. Early in the 1900s, Steiner predicted that by the end of the century there would be so much electrical influence in the environment that it would be detrimental to human health.

Dr. Michaela Glöckler, who is head of the Medical Section at the Goetheanum, the center of the world anthroposophical movement located in Dornach, Switzerland, has for some years been warning about the dangers of WiFi. This past February at a conference on technology in education at Rudolf Steiner College in California, she addressed the issue. Dr. Glöckler explained that a WiFi router, even when it is not in use, is constantly emitting a very regular high frequency pulse of energy. The human body also operates with electrical energy, and the cells communicate by means of electromagnetic fields. However, the pulsation is slightly random and irregular and not exactly the same speed as that of the router. Thus, the pulsed WiFi signal can interfere with the natural, optimal functioning of the body.

Dr. Glöckler stated that we can and should use electronic technology. However, we should use it only when it is necessary. She strongly advised against the use of WiFi in schools when wired connections can serve the same purpose. She emphasized that children, due to their small size and rapid development and growth, are particularly at risk. Dr. Glöckler also advised people with serious health problems to avoid WiFi environments, since exposure may compromise the immune system. She pointed out that work spaces can usually be arranged to provide Internet access via a cable and, if WiFi is an absolute necessity, at least the router can be turned off when not in use.

In Dornach, Switzerland, the Goetheanum contains many offices, lecture rooms, a cafeteria, and other spaces where one would expect to find WiFi. However, WiFi is available only in a limited area on the ground floor of the building and only for visiting conference participants. In talks and private conversations, Dr. Glöckler has often speculated that WiFi may be the asbestos of the twenty-first century – something universally accepted as perfectly safe and then, in time, after much harm has been done, discovered to be a serious hazard.

Recent research has provided some evidence of the possible short-terms effects of electromagnetic fields and pulsed, radio frequency radiation. At this point, however, no one can know or predict the long-term effects. WiFi networks and the continuous exposure to radio frequency radiation are recent – only within the past fifteen years – factors in our daily lives. Long-term studies have not yet been possible. Until time allows such studies to be conducted, we and our children are subjects in an extended biological experiment.

In the decision to have WiFi in a school or in our homes, it is perhaps wise to apply the Precautionary Principle. This principle, developed in the early 1980s, is meant to guide decision making regarding ecological and health policies. In the agencies of the European Union, the Precautionary Principle is officially recognized as a determinative guideline in making decisions that affect the environment and public health.

The Precautionary Principle states that when a new device, activity, or policy is proposed, and before it is implemented, those who will provide and profit from it must prove conclusively that it is not harmful. The burden of proof should be on those proposing and promoting the innovation. Those who question or oppose the innovation should not be required to prove that it is harmful.

At this time, no one, including the very powerful electronic communications industry, has proven conclusively that exposure to Wifi is safe. There is no proof that short- or long-term exposure to WiFi for children or for adults is benign.

City of Lakes Waldorf School took a courageous and perhaps prescient step in eliminating WiFi and going back to hardwired access to the Internet. The school ran the risk of being perceived as alarmist and for taking a side in an unresolved scientific controversy. However, the school chose to act out of concern for the health and well-being of the students entrusted to its care.

The school is in good company, though. The Israeli Department of Education, the French National Assembly, the European Environmental Agency, the Council of Europe, and the German government are but a few of the many governments, government agencies, and scientific authorities which are now warning about and/or banning WiFi in schools.

http://parentsforasafeschool.blogspot.ca/2014/06/a-waldorf-school-takes-precautionary.html
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)