White Paper-Smart Grid – Power Line Communication

2.1 PLC vs. EMC  (Power line communication verses Electro-magnetic compatibility)

Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) regulation normally limits interfering emissions from electronic devices but most EMC standards have a lower frequency limit of 150 kHz. This means that especially the European PLC frequency band is largely uncontrolled when it comes to conducted emissions of connected equipment.

3.0 Recognizing the interference

So what does interference look like? The frequency of an interfering signal is the most common parameter leading to the identification of the interfering source. Thus, an interference problem can often be categorized by its frequency characteristics.

It should be noted that whether the interfering signal is in-band or out-of-band, the signal is almost certainly coming through the antenna, down the cable, and into the affected receiver. Therefore, a spectrum analyzer connected to the operating system antenna will serve as a substitute measuring receiver which will display and help identify unwanted signals. Remember that the system’s band pre-selection filters are inside its receiver, so many out-of-band signals are naturally present at its antenna input connector.  Interference generally only affects receiver performance. Although it is possible that a source of interference can be physically close to a transmitter, the characteristics of the transmitted signal will not be affected. Thus, the first step in recognizing if interference has corrupted a receiver is to learn the characteristics of the signal that the affected system is intended to receive.

By analyzing the frequency domain using a spectrum analyzer the signal frequency, power, harmonic content, modulation quality, distortion and noise or interference can easily be measured. If interference is overlapping the intended receiver signal, it will be relatively obvious on the spectrum analyzer display.

In figure 2 the transmitted spectrum of a PLC system is displayed. The actual signal is the saddle shape pointed out with the red arrow.

A displayed interference “fingerprint” contains important identification characteristics. As mentioned above different causes of interference will typically have a different kind of spectrum.

READ FULL WHITE PAPER AT:  http://www.anritsu.com

Sedona Resident Discusses Smart Meter Radiation with Acting Surgeon General SugeonGeneral

Published on Oct 26, 2014

Sedona resident Barbara Litrell traveled to Washington D.C to meet with the acting Surgeon General Melissa Brodowiki. Ms Litrell presented some educational materials for Ms. Brodowiki’s review and assurances were given that issues surrounding the impact of microwave and radio energy on humans would be investigated.

Dr. Li invited to provide his professional opinion concerning the safety of Smart Meters

Letter from Dr. De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, MPH   (De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, MPH, is a senior research scientist at the Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California).

Kaiser Permanente Division of Research 2000 Broadway Oakland,

CA 94612

Dear Ms. Martin:

Thank you for inviting me to provide my professional opinions on the

SmartMeter safety issue. I will address two questions raised in the attached

letter. But first, here is some background information:

1. Currently there are no national or international “standards” for safety

levels of radiofrequency (a range of 3 kHz to 300 GHz) devices. What FCC

is currently using are “guidelines” which have much lower certainty than a

“standard”. One can go to many governmental agencies’ websites like

NIOSH, EPA, FDA, etc. to verify this. Therefore, for anyone to claim that

they meet “FCC” standards gives a false impression of safety certainty

compared to “guidelines” which implies that a lot is “unknown.”

2. The current FCC “guideline” was adopted by FCC based on EPA’s

recommendation in 1996. EPA made the recommendation “with certain

reservation”. There was a letter by Norbert Hankin, Center for Science and

Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division at EPA describing the

current FCC guidelines (The letter can be found through a Google search).

According to Hankin’s letter, the FCC current guidelines were solely based

on “thermal effect” of radiofrequency, a level at which radiofrequency can

cause heat injury. As we know, heat injury is not what the public is

concerned about regarding radiofrequency safety. Their concerns are about

cancer, miscarriages, birth defects, low semen quality, autoimmune disease,

etc. Hankin’s letter, specifically emphasized that the EPA recommended

guidelines that FCC is currently using do not apply to non-thermal effects or

mechanisms (e.g., cancer, birth defects, miscarriage, autoimmune diseases,

etc) which are the focus of the public’s concern. Hankin’s letter states

Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect

human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified.”

3. In addition to being limited to only the thermal effect, the letter also states

that the current FCC guidelines recommended by EPA were only based on

experiments on animals in laboratories. Establishing firm safety standards

usually requires evidence from human studies such as epidemiological

studies. The current FCC guidelines were based on animal studies only, not

human data, which may explain why they are only considered as guidelines

rather than standards. Furthermore, the thermal effect, used to establish the

FCC guidelines, was based on acute thermal effect. It did not even deal with

chronic long-term intermittent effect. In fact, Hankin’s letter also states

exposures that comply with the FCC’s guidelines generally have been

presented as “safe” by many of the RF system operators and service

providers who must comply with them, even though there is uncertainty

about possible risk from nonthermal, intermittent exposures that may

continues for years”

4. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can come from sources with a spectrum of

frequencies. EMFs from electric power sources usually have a frequency

less than 1 kHz , while radiofrequency (RF) generated by SmartMeters are

reportedly in the range 900 MHz to 2.4 GHz. While overall research on the

EMF health effect remains limited, there are more reported studies

examining the EMF health effect in power line frequencies (< 1 kHz)

including some of my research1-3 than in RF. It is not clear at this moment

whether the findings on the EMF health effect at lower frequencies (i.e., < 1

kHz) can be applied to RF range. If the underlying mechanisms are similar,

the findings in lower frequency EMFs can then be applied to RF range for

SmartMeter. Many studies of power frequencies reported associations with

childhood leukemia, miscarriage, poor semen quality, autoimmune diseases

at a level much lower than those generating thermal damage as used by

FCC.

5. Many chronic diseases that the public is concerned about (e.g., cancer)

have a long latency period and take decades to show symptoms. Most

wireless network and devices have only been used widely in the last 10 to 15

years. Therefore, many studies evaluating RF health effect related to cancer

risk previously, if they failed to identify an adverse health effect, are not

appropriate to be used as evidence to claim the safety of RF exposure since

the latency period has not been long enough to show the effect even if an

adverse association does indeed exist.

6. While the underlying mechanisms of the potential EMF health effect are

not totally understood at present, skeptics have been focused on the EMF

thermal effect, especially those who are NOT in the profession of

biomedical research, such as physicists. It is now known that EMFs can

interfere with the human body through multiple mechanisms. For example,

it has been demonstrated that communication between cells depends on

EMF signals, likely in a very low level. External EMFs could conceivably

interfere with normal cell communication, thus disrupting normal cell

differentiation and proliferation. Such disturbance could lead to miscarriage,

birth defects, and cancer.

To address the two questions raised in the letter:

1. Whether FCC standards for SmartMeter are sufficiently protective of

public health taking into account current exposure levels to radiofrequency

and electromagnetic fields. First, FCC currently has only “guidelines”, not

standards as explained above. Second, as described in the background

information above, the current FCC guidelines only deal with thermal effect,

which was also based on animal studies only. Meeting the current FCC

guidelines, in the best-case scenario, only means that one won’t have heat

damage from SmartMeter exposure. It says nothing about safety from the

risk of many chronic diseases that the public is most concerned about such

as cancer, miscarriage, birth defects, semen quality, autoimmune diseases,

etc. Therefore, when it comes to non-thermal effects of RF, which is the

most relevant effect for public concerns, FCC guidelines are irrelevant and

can not be used for any claims of SmartMeter safety unless we are

addressing heat damage.

2. Whether additional technology-specific standards are needed for

SmartMeter and other devices that are commonly found in and around

homes, to ensure adequate protection from adverse health effects. Safety

standards for RF exposure related to non-thermal effects are urgently needed

to protect the public from potential adverse health effects from RF exposure

that are increasingly prevalent in our daily life due to installation of everpowerful

wireless networks and devices like SmartMeter. Unfortunately

scientific research is still lacking in this area and some endpoints like cancer

take decades to study. The safety standards are not likely to be available

anytime soon. The bottom line is that the safety level for RF exposure

related to non-thermal effect is unknown at present and whoever claims that

their device is safe regarding non-thermal effect is either ignorant or

misleading.

In summary, we do not currently have scientific data to determine where the

safe RF exposure level is regarding the non-thermal effect. Therefore, it

should be recognized that we are dealing with uncertainty now and most

likely for the foreseeable future. The question for governmental agencies,

especially those concerned with public health and safety, is that given the

uncertainty, should we err on the side of safety and take the precautionary

avoidance measures? Unknown does not mean safe. There are two unique

features regarding SmartMeter exposure. First, because of mandatory

installation, it is a universal exposure. Virtually every household is exposed.

Second, it is an involuntary exposure. The public that are exposed to

SmartMeters do not have any input in deciding whether they would like to

have the SmartMeter installed. The installation is imposed upon the public.

Governmental agencies for protecting public health and safety should be

much more vigilant towards involuntary environmental exposures because

governmental agencies are the only defense against such involuntary

exposure. Given the uncertainty of the SmartMeter safety, one rational first

step of public policy could be to require household consent before

installation of SmartMeters. Finally, because of the nature of universal

exposure, many susceptible and vulnerable populations including pregnant

women and young children are unknowingly exposed 24 hours a day, 7 days

a week. Usually, the threshold of harmful level is much lower for

susceptible populations.

References

1. Li DK, Odouli R, Wi S et al. A population-based prospective cohort

study of personal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy and the risk

of miscarriage. Epidemiology 2002;13(1):9-20.

2. Li DK, Yan B, Li Z et al. Exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of

poor sperm quality. Reprod Toxicol 2010;29(1):86-92.

3. Li DK, Checkoway H, Mueller BA. Electric blanket use during

pregnancy in relation to the risk of congenital urinary tract anomalies among

women with a history of subfertility. Epidemiol 1995;6:485-489.

De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, MPH, is a senior research scientist at the

Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Dr. Li completed his medical training and master’s degree in public health at

Shanghai Medical University, Shanghai, China. He then received his PhD in

epidemiology from the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Li has conducted

research in the areas of pregnancy outcomes, sudden infant death syndrome,

women’s health, breast cancer, pharmacological effects on pregnancy outcomes,

genetic etiology, and occupational exposures since 1984. His research interests

include: reproductive, perinatal, and pediatric epidemiology, such as etiology of

miscarriage, sudden infant death syndrome, preterm delivery, preelcampsia, low

birth, infertility, cerebral palsy, birth defects, pediatric diseases (including

childhood cancer and neurological disorders), autoimmune diseases in relation to

maternal-fetal interaction, breast cancer, and risk factors for low semen quality.

Dr. Li’ research areas also include pharmacoepidemiolgical effect of medication

use during pregnancy, genetic determinants of adverse pregnancy outcomes, the

effect of electromagnetic fields on adverse pregnancy outcomes and low sperm

quality, and the effect of endocrine disruptors, specifically Bisphenol A (BPA), on

male and female reproductive systems. He is currently the associate editor of the

American Journal of Epidemiology. Dr. Li has participated in a National Institute

of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) sponsored panel evaluation of

“Back to Sleep” campaign and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome risk. He has also

served as a member on the Ad Hoc Committee reviewing the NICHD program

project, and on several Special Emphasis Panels at National Institute of

Occupational Safety and Health and National Institute of Environmental Health

and Sciences reviewing grant proposals. He has served as a member of the

Policy Committee at the American College of Epidemiology. He was invited by

the National Academy of Science to participate as a panel member in the U.S.-

China Roundtable on Collaboration of Biomedical Research. In addition, he

teaches at Stanford University and supervises doctoral students from the

departments of epidemiology at UCB (University of California, Berkeley) and

UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles).

Dr. Li has published extensively with 29 first-authored publications. He has

obtained, as the principal investigator, numerous grants, ranging from $600,000

to $ 3.49 million from various federal agencies of the National Institutes of Health,

as well as the California Public Health Foundation. Many of his publications have

been widely reported by the national, international, and local news media

including recent studies of caffeine intake and miscarriage, pacifier use and use

of a fan in relation to SIDS risk, and depression during pregnancy and preterm

delivery. Other examples of work receiving wide media coverage include the risk

of miscarriage associated with EMF exposure, NSAID use and the risk of

miscarriage, hot tub use during pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage, and

maternal-fetal HLA compatibility and the risk of preterm delivery.

Current Position(s):

Research Scientist III, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern

California

Lecturer, Stanford University, Department of Health Research and Policy

Primary Research Interests:

Reproductive, prenatal, and pediatric epidemiology, such as etiology of infertility,

miscarriage, preterm delivery, preeclampsia, sudden infant death syndrome,

cerebral palsy, birth defects; pediatric diseases, including childhood cancer and

neurological disorders; autoimmune diseases in relation to maternal-fetal

interaction, and breast cancer.

Health effects of electromagnetic fields

Pharmacological effects of medication use during pregnancy on pregnancy

outcome

Genetic determinants of pregnancy outcome

Risk factors for poor semen quality

Health effect of endocrine disruptors, especially Bisphenol A (BPA), on male and

female reproductive systems

TEXANS AGAINST SMART METERS-PLEASE SHOW UP FOR HEARING APPEAL ON 12/2/2014 IN AUSTIN!

Attention All Texans Who Want An Anologue Meter! Please Read.

To: All Texans

Subject: The Smart Electric Meter

Date: September 1, 2014

This message is for you if you have any interest in having the smart meter on your home removed and replaced with an analog meter.

I will provide a little background information for your consideration.

The movement for a smart electric grid commenced several years ago while we paid no attention to what our representatives were doing. The ultimate goal is to establish one electric grid for the world.

At this time Texas has its own electric grid. The world grid would permit taking electric power from Texas and moving it to China if that is where power was needed. This is the purpose of the world grid.

The Texas legislature passed a bill to start the move toward the world grid. The Governor signed the bill and passed it to the Public Utilities Commission [3 commissioners appointed by the Governor] to enforce. The PUC is the enforcer of utilities laws. In the implantation of the smart grid law the PUC agreed with the electric providers to demand all users have the smart meter whereas the law said users should be encouraged to have the smart meter installed. Herein lays the problem we are faced with today. The PUC [unelected commissioners] have issued a rule with the force of law that demands that all users have the smart meter. A group of citizens have risen up against such tyranny and have succeeded in having the legislature tell the PUC to provide an opt-out for the smart meter. The PUC after many months has published such a rule. However the rule requires the user [customer] pay a large up front [one time] charge and the pay a monthly fee to not have the meter.  I ask you “What do you get for these funds”. My answer is NOTHING. You had the analog meter until the provider changed it and you’ve had you meter read by the provider from the first month of service. So why pay for the reading twice each month?

The PUC issued the opt-out rule without a public hearing the fact is they denied a public hearing request by citizens of Texas.

The citizens group has filed an appeal in court asking the court to force the PUC to hold a public hearing. There are issues that to date the PUC has refused to hear. The public hearing will allow the citizens their day in court.

We encourage you to join us in fighting for our rights. Information on our appeal was written by Thelma Taomina and I placed it below for you to read.

Please plan to attend to help. Please let me know if you can help us.

John Tweedell

Texans Against Smart Meters

Message below is from: Thelma Taormina

On December 2, 2014 an appeal that has been filed with the Travis County Court will be heard.  The complaint filed is regarding a denial by the Public Utility Commission of Texas for a Full Public Hearing on the issue of Advanced Meters (aka Smart Meters).

The appeal is asking for the Judge to order the PUC of TX to order a Full Public Hearing on the “Proposed Rule(s)” initiated by 193 Texans.  The PUC of TX wrongly denied the citizens of TX a full public hearing regarding concerns over the privacy concerns and health issues relating to the smart meters.

At this first court appearance we will be asking the Judge to order the PUC of TX to follow not only the laws in TX, but also the PUC’s own rules as set up by the Commission.

We are asking individuals to please attend this court hearing to impress upon the Judge that it is not only a handful of Texans who are concerned about the smart meters and the issues raised concerning privacy and health.  The more people who attend the hearing will prove to the Judge and all in attendance that Texans are seriously concerned about this issue.

If there is any possibility that you can attend, please show up at  Herman Marion Sweatt, Travis County Courthouse, 1000 Guadalupe, Austin, TX 78701 on December 2, 2014 at 2:00 PM.

http://texansagainstsmartmeters.com/attention-all-texans-who-want-an-anologue-meter-please-read/

Showdown in Pagosa Springs, Colorado as utility comes under fire for “smart” meter policies

FEATURED: Showdown in Pagosa Springs, as utility comes under fire for “smart” meter policies (audio)

The people of Pagosa Springs, Colorado are awake, aware, and are one example accepting of a growing number of cities who are simply not accepting "smart" meters.

All hell broke loose at a La Plata Electric Association meeting held on October 8, 2014, in Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

Approximately 60 residents from Pagosa Springs and neighboring Durango, Colorado, gathered to discuss LPEA’s threat of an opt-out fee of $50 for its co-op members who declined the installation of AMI meters, commonly referred to as “smart meters.” The following day, October 9, 2014, a meeting was held in Durango, Colorado, attended by approximately 70 residents of both communities. Michael Dreyspring, CEO of LPEA, presided over both meetings. Very few Board members or staff were present at either meeting.

At the Pagosa meeting, Michael Dreyspring was in command for no more than two minutes and 40 seconds before the miffed residents of Pagosa Springs went volcanic and LPEA lost any semblance of control. As their pedantic power point presentation went up in flames, so did an outspoken and furious crowd.

Meeting clip #1: Justify fees?

“Where is the data justifying your opt-out fees?” Listen as typical evasion takes place. Why will they not have an open discussion?

Though the Durango meeting was slightly more subdued than the Pagosa Springs’ meeting, members there were also extremely angry and ended up walking out after about an hour of voicing their opinions because they realized that even though the purported purpose of the meeting was to gather information for LPEA staff and board members to discuss in determining a possible opt-out fee, no official recording of everyone’s comments was being made. And, as attendees at the Durango meeting attested, only cursory, sporadic notes were taken by a member of the LPEA staff. The co-op members concluded that the meeting was a sham.

Cat calls and fireworks omitted, the following issues were presented to the LPEA representatives brave enough to show up for the meetings in both towns:

  • The Energy Policy Act of 2005 in part states that utilities “shall provide each customer requesting a time-based rate with a time-based meter,” not extorting or shutting off their utilities when they refuse one.
  • There was no informed consent on the part of co-op members to allow these meters to be installed.
  • Co-op members never opted-in so why did they have to opt-out?
  • Many only realized the installation was taking place because they happened to be at home or arrived during the deployment process.
  • Some signed an opt-out form refusing the meter and LPEA installed it anyway.
  • Installers arrived in neighborhoods like a military stealth operation using personal vehicles and installing meters on members’ properties only if nobody was home.
  • If “smart meters” are the best thing since sliced bread, why did LPEA feel compelled to both sneak around and lie?
  • Members were intimidated and threatened with an exorbitant fee if they did not allow the forced installation.
  • The opt-out fee perfectly fits the criteria of the Webster’s Dictionary definition of “extortion.”
  • The opt-out fee is purely punitive without any basis in reality.
  • LPEA advertised the threatened $25-$50 opt-out fee without any support documents to justify the fee.
  • LPEA is violating the terms of the co-operative by acting autonomously, not protecting its members’ interests and placing them in danger.
  • Whether the opt-out fee is 50 cents or $50, neither are acceptable. To allow any opt-out fee to be charged concedes that LPEA has a right to penalize members for their noncompliance to a life-threatening technology and punish members for their proper exercise of rights.
  • There are many alternative options available for circumventing meter-reading fees including call-in readings, photo readings, mailed in postcard readings, etc.
  • AMI meters and pulsed radiation are a proven health threat.
  • If you Google “AMI meter dangers” you will get more than a million articles.
  • If you Google “AMI meter health dangers” you will get 325,000 hits.
  • There are 9500 peer-reviewed articles stating the results of studies done by credentialed MDs, PhDs, scientists and environmental experts exposing the health dangers that pulsed, electro-magnetic frequency (EMF) “smart meters” emit. [Ed. note: see http://justproveit.net/content/studies for several thousand studies on EMF and health effects.]
  • Pulsed radiation meters expose co-op members to life threatening and debilitating diseases including cancer, neurological illnesses, permanent genetic alterations, and microwave pulse induced heart attacks caused by interference with implanted medical devices.
  • According to a PG&E court-ordered report, AMI meters emit pulsed EMF waves at the rate of 10,000 to 190,000 times per day.
  • The Santa Cruz Department of Health study on the impact of AMI meters states, “New calculations suggest that continuous whole-body exposure to electro-magnetic radiation from so called ‘smart’ meters – which operate around the clock – may be between 50 and 160 times worse than that from cell phones.”
  • Health damage from EMF emissions are cumulative.
  • A power engineer with 25 years in the electric industry stated that electric grids are designed for 60 hertz cycles and that something was very wrong with meters that emit this level of pulsed radiation.
  • AMI meters are catching on fire everywhere.
    [Ed. note: see http://www.takebackyourpower.net/news/category/fires-damage]
  • AMI meters are not even UL rated.
  • Lloyd’s of London quietly removed underwriting for death or injury due to EMF exposure from insurance policies and will not cover damage to a home or personal property caused by “smart meters.”
  • “Smart meters” are a liability.
  • Lawsuits against the installation of “smart meters” are growing around the world.
  • Legal suit against LPEA was threatened at both meetings.
  • AMI meters impact all life forms, not only people. Plants, animals, birds, and insects are all adversely affected by EMF radiation and our ecosystem is being threatened.
  • Whether a person opts-out or not, they are being bathed in this radiation by surrounding meters.
  • Banks of “smart meters” such as seen on apartment buildings, trailer parks and homes for the elderly magnify the danger and these people have with no way of escaping the exposure.
  • “Smart meters” are shutting down solar inverters, which then need to be re-set manually, with potential disastrous consequences for an absent home owner.
  • There is no evidence that “smart meters” will reduce electric fees. Fees are instead systematically escalating after their installation.
  • The constitutionally guaranteed 4th amendment right to privacy is being violated by these meters that invade homes and surveil lives on a 24/7 schedule.
  • The installation of a “smart grid” is a global agenda and amounts to spying on everyone everywhere at all times.
  • “Smart meters” open co-op members to having their homes and their grid hacked or hijacked, as admitted by the FBI in 2010: “The FBI warns that insiders and individuals with only a moderate level of computer knowledge are likely able to compromise meters with low-cost tools and software readily available on the internet.”

Read full article: http://www.takebackyourpower.net/news/2014/10/25/lpea-under-fire-for-smart-meter-policies/

Smart Meter Grid G3-PLC Creating a Pulsed Low Frequency…

Published on Sep 20, 2012

These are the side affects from using a system that touts being able to pass over transformers. The power is off at the breaker but the G3-PLC system keeps delivering a pulsed field around the entire perimeter. This all is happening without a smart meter but with an Elstar analog. There is no escaping this weapon. The electrical engineers should get together with some brain surgeons to understand what they are creating. I have pleaded for the power company to stop sending this 500KHz-5KHz frequency but they continue to do so. I’m sure this is wreaking havoc on all my appliances. Why are all the power companies delivering more than 60 Hertz to our appliances?

Silence of the Bees

<!—->

Silence of the Bees
Introduction

In the winter of 2006, a strange phenomenon fell upon honeybee hives across the country. Without a trace, millions of bees vanished from their hives. A precious pollinator of fruits and vegetables, the disappearing bees left billions of dollars of crops at risk and threatened our food supply. The epidemic set researchers scrambling to discover why honeybees were dying in record numbers — and to stop the epidemic in its tracks before it spread further.

Silence of the Bees is the first in-depth look at the search to uncover what is killing the honeybee. The filmmakers of Bees take viewers around the world to the sites of fallen hives, to high-tech labs, where scientists race to uncover clues, and even deep inside honeybee colonies. Silence of the Bees is the story of a riveting, ongoing investigation to save honeybees from dying out. The film goes beyond the unsolved mystery to tell the story of the honeybee itself, its invaluable impact on our diets and takes a look at what’s at stake if honeybees disappear. Silence of the Bees explores the complex world of the honeybee in crisis and instills in viewers a sense of urgency to learn ways to help these extraordinary animals.

Silence of the Bees premiered on PBS October 28, 2007.

Exclusive Podcast: In this podcast, scientists and bee experts featured in the program discuss the crucial role that honeybees, a “keystone species,” play in our economy and ecosystems, as well as bees’ fascinating social organization and what we can do to reverse the decline of nature’s pollinators.

Share

Avatar
Join the discussion…

  • in this conversation
⬇ Drag and drop your images here to upload them.
  • Avatar

    This is the year, in the fall of 2006 the power grid started using TWO WAY COMMUNICATION OVER THE POWER LINES. This includes wired and wireless RF communication and what they term TWAC. I personally know this to be true because in September of 2006 National Grid installed a digital smart meter on our home, without our knowledge or consent. We immediately started hearing an obnoxious hum, harmonics, buzzing, tones and very low frequency drone in our home 24/7. Insomnia, headaches, nervous tension, heart palpitations, nose bleeds, vertigo ensued.
    We started filing complaints with the utility company because it sounded electro magnetic. We exhausted all possibilities in our home when we did professional power quality monitoring on our system for a week. The report revealed dirty electricity in the form of constant noise on the neutral cable, transients, harmonics above the IEEE 519-92 standards, light flick compliance failure and High impedance. We have audio recording and sound pressure level 1/3 octave band measurement revealing illegal pure tones.
    This was all done prior to our knowledge of the smart meter on our home. We did not discover the smart meter until 2008. This narrowed our investigation to focus on the Smart Grid technology and discovered that the same time we began hearing the noise and experiencing the negative effects the two way communication managing the smart grid network was turned on and this was to include reading of the smart meters remotely.
    We had the meter removed after several demand letter to State and utilities in July 2012. The symptoms have not re appeared since that date. The noise remains, which we expected it would because we came to understand it was not the meter itself or alone, it is the Global Smart Grid Network.
    Every day is a struggle and a constant reminder that I can not escape the noise. Using fans, music and tv to mask the insidious single frequencies penetrating my senses is not a solution, but until this crime is stopped, the quality of our lives will continue to be seriously diminished.

Farren Lander-EMF Consultant, warns of the dangers of smart meters

Published on Aug 21, 2014

Join us at http://EMFsummit.com to learn all about Smart meters and EMF radiation. This expert interview series will help you understand the dangers of electromagnetic radiation and what you can do to protect yourself and your family.

It seems we are asleep and unaware of the international roll out of Smart meters. Women are calling Farren Lander in tears as their children are getting sick from the Smart meters on the home.

Farren calls it residential espionage. Smart meters are used to collect data about your personal and private activities. They are used to cut off your power and more.

Join us at http://EMFsummit.com to watch world class experts in the field.

I’m also sharing strategies on how to look young and feel great in a FREE webinar you can watch at http://longevityrescuer.mobi It is fun and packed with great info.

Of course I’m still committed to bringing you a line up of fantastic experts in the multi-expert interview series Your Vibrant Heath Secrets: http://YourVibrantHealthSecrets.com

Come join my blog at http://LongevityRescuer.com
You’ll find me on Gplus at https://plus.google.com/+AlisonHeath

MICHIGAN-Smart Meter concerns continue as DTE says devices are safe

Smart Meter concerns continue as DTE says devices are safe

(WXYZ) Rochester Hills, Mich. – Carole Garcia showed us the smart meters on the back of her Rochester Hills home.

But she says, she’s scared to stand near it for too long.

“A bloody nose…headache…verdigo…insomnia,” are the symptoms she says she has suffered from since she moved in.

“Within 6 months I started having these health issues,” she says.

She blames it all on the meters—which use electromagnetic frequency to send DTE energy power usage data.

She even showed us letters from her doctors asking DTE to allow her to opt out of the new meters.

“Right now we don’t have a choice and an option,” says Garcia.

She’s not alone. 7 Action News has been reporting on this debate for some time.

Last year, we heard from other Metro Detroiters.

“I suffered headaches, body aches, flu-like symptoms,” said Lillian Cusumano.

But DTE contends the meters are safe, and secure low-power radio-transmissions are used. They also say they have only gotten a small number of complaints.

Garcia believes, that’s because the public isn’t aware of what the meters are doing.

At least one state representative has stepped forward showing concern, and it is now up to the speaker of the House to determine if a hearing will take place on the matter.

Classroom Wi-Fi dangers: Hillary Clinton heckled by US Congressional candidate

Classroom Wi-Fi dangers: Hillary Clinton heckled by US Congressional candidate

Kevin Mottus speaks out against wireless classrooms

A heckler who Hillary Clinton said had “miss[ed] important developmental stages” is hitting back, telling Breitbart News: “I would rather be developmentally delayed than morally corrupt.”

Kevin Mottus, an environmental activist and former Republican candidate for Congress in the 33rd congressional district, claims to be the heckler who disrupted Clinton in San Diego this weekend–and said he would do it again.

As Clinton addressed a gathering of the American Academy of Pediatrics on Sunday, Mottus let off a siren and shouted through a bullhorn in an attempt to garner attention for his crusade against microwave transmissions.

He told Breitbart News in a phone interview that his exact words were:

“Wireless Classrooms cause cancer, heart arrhythmias, electrohypersensitivity, neurological disorders, immune system disorders and damage to reproduction. This is corporate and government murder, corruption, racketeering and cover up. What about [Delaware Attorney General] Beau Biden and the tumor behind his ear where he holds his cell phone? These doctors and people need to wake up–wireless is harming and killing some of us. Wireless classrooms are harming our children and government is covering it up. We need to stop our government from what they are doing. We are the wireless experiment as we are microwaving radiating our children without real safety standards. Wired not wireless classrooms.”

As Mottus was removed from the room, Hillary denigrated him, joking, “Ya know, there are some people who miss important developmental stages.”

When asked to respond to Hillary’s comment, Mottus said, “I would rather be developmentally delayed than morally corrupt spending billions to increasingly exposing people to wireless technology that causes cancer, reproductive harm, and other serious disease. This is corporate and government murder and corruption and the federal government has a long history of covering up wireless health effects.

He emphasized his belief that a number of celebrities, from Biden to Lebron James to Sheryl Crow, have had health issues, including tumors, as a result of carcinogenic microwaves.

He then expressed great concern over use of Wi-Fi in school classrooms, saying that “the issue is about power and money and politics being in the way and our children’s health being jeopardized in the process.”

According to Mottus, he gained access to the Clinton event as a paid conference attendee, and spoke to a number of other speakers during the course of the American Academy of Pediatrics event.

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana

NOTEWORTHY:
• The American Academy of Pediatrics has called for safer wireless standards. AAP President Thomas K. McInerny, MD, wrote, “Children are disproportionately affected by environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation.”

• The microwave power density output from a Wi-Fi router – and also from wireless computers – is typically thousands of times higher than a cell phone.  (And so-named “smart” meters emit pulsed radiation at peak levels even higher than Wi-Fi routers.)

• There are thousands of peer-reviewed published scientific studies which indicate biological harm from low-level microwave radiation exposures, such as double-strand DNA breakage, blood-break-barrier leakage, and cellular mutation. However, it appears the FCC and other agencies’ “safety guidelines” do not take into account any of these studies, as they choose to selective cite only “thermal effects”.

• The FCC is currently run by Tom Wheeler, a former senior lobbyist for the wireless industry. President Obama appointed him in 2013.

%d bloggers like this: