Smart Meters: Government Pushing For Installation To Detect ‘Illegal’ Water Usage

Smart Meters: Government Pushing For Installation To Detect ‘Illegal’ Water Usage

Posted in: Green News Posted: April 9, 2015

water drought


A Stop Smart Meters website reports states that fire dangers are also a problem associated with smart meters. Fire calls after smart meter installations reportedly include the shorting out of electronics of all varieties and the burning out of appliances.

“People are becoming increasingly aware of the potential harm done by chronic exposure to RF radiation-emitting devices and are taking steps to change how they use them,” the report said. “Most people are not offered a wired smart meter and you can’t turn it off once it is installed,” the group contends.”

The Stop Smart Meters group also maintains that the devices do not always emit less RF (radio frequency) exposure than a cell phone — as some utility companies allegedly state.

What do you think about smart meters? Are they efficient and safe or an intrusive hazard?

Our Undeniable Human Experiment

ADD RF/emf radiation pollution this mix and we have a DEADLY COMBINATION!!!!!……..Sandaura

Our Undeniable Human Experiment

Elise Miller, EdM


Last week was “National Public Health Week,” an initiative of the American Public Health Association (APHA). The organizers posted an infographic highlighting some disturbing statistics about the health of Americans, including how poorly the US does overall relative to other developed countries (and even some developing ones). While this is not new news, the graphics are well-designed and the facts are well worth restating:

  • the US ranks 34th in life expectancy
  • inequities, such as less access to nutritious food, healthy communities, good education, etc., are far higher in the US than other high-income countries and have the greatest impact on people of color
  • though nearly 50% of Americans suffer from preventable, chronic disease, only 3% of health care spending is on prevention
  • and so forth….
One way to help effect positive action on these critical issues is through visual media. Notably, several video and film documentaries have been released or are about to be released this year on the impact of toxic chemicals on human health. All of them feature a number of prominent and highly respected scientists and advocates in the environmental health field–from Linda Birnbaum, PhD, DABT, ATS, Director at NIEHS and NTP; to Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, Director at the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at UCSF; to Andy Igrejas, Campaign Director at Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. Though CHE’s membership is quite diverse and some may not agree with aspects of how the science is characterized in these films, the message is undeniable: We are continuing to conduct a vast chemical experiment on ourselves, and the health picture–nationally and globally–is not pretty.

This month, “The Human Experiment“, narrated and produced by Sean Penn, was released and is currently being shown all over the country. It’s been touted as Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” but focused on chemicals. Another is “Toxic Hot Seat” (released earlier this year), a documentary on the investigative report by the Chicago Tribune which exposed the corporate coverups regarding the uselessness and toxicity of flame retardants (Not coincidentally, Ashley Furniture, the largest retailer of furniture in the country, announced last month that it is no longer going to use flame retardants). Also recently publicized is “Stink” by Jon Whelan, which provides a gripping narrative from the perspective of one father’s attempt to find out why so many everyday products expose us to toxic chemicals associated with chronic health conditions. Similarly, “Catalyst: Our Chemicals Lives” asks the question: “Is there adequate regulation and testing, or are we in the midst of an uncontrolled, human experiment?”

Though CHE itself is not in the business of making films, we are well aware that bringing attention to the emerging science on environmental contributors to chronic disease and disability is not enough. The research also needs to be translated for decision-makers and the public. In this light, we applaud all of our CHE’s colleagues who are finding creative ways to make sure that significant new research is accessible to those outside our field. Art not only saves lives, it makes them healthier.

Warm wishes,

Smart meter implementation process damaging democracy

The Langley Times

Smart meter implementation process damaging democracy

Editor: This is my feedback on the letter “Smart meters ‘a necessary step’ for BC Hydro,” (The Times, April 8), by Greg Alexis of BC Hydro.

Smart meter radiation power is designed to cover a two-mile distance, and with a close proximity to the walls where people sleep or work, it makes them harmful, especially when considering the cumulative radiation source effect.

Pulse radiation is acknowledged by many sources as being more damaging, compared to regular sine waves.

In dense communities, the number of meters per square mile makes any safety claims a cynical joke.

The smart meter rules in B.C. left all of us with:

• A BC Hydro tariff which exempted it from any liability of doing any harm to home property;

• Smart grid enforcement in a shape of blitzkrieg implementation actions, with no return on investment mentioned in the “business case;”

• The government ignoring the Union of B.C. Municipalities’ decision to apply a moratorium to the so-called smart grid project. Two “choices” were given at the very beginning: either like new meters, or leave the province. Only strong opposition made government rethink its brutality;

• B.C. Utilities Commission ordered not to interfere with smart grid directives. It was   literally blocked from doing its job of providing safe and fair options for the utility company customers; and

• The technology forced on people, with a cynical expectation that people would be either indifferent or mesmerized by the key word of deception, “smart.”

Punitive fees to keep analogue meters are penalties, not a fee. The only aim is to create a condition that many will not be able to afford to pay them, and thus submit to “authority.”

People with smart meters still have them read manually. They do not pay any fees.

So for the same service, those with analogue meters are charged high fees. There is no logic, no justice, no sound rationale.

Smart grid has a diversity of implementations, yet BC Hydro chose to ignore concerns about wireless options.

In B.C., we not only crossed the line where democracy was damaged, yet on the technological side the least beneficial option was chosen.

We all make mistakes, yet it is a sign of leadership and maturity to accept the existence of man-made issues, and take further responsibility, accountability and courage to fix them instead of staying in denial.

The government ridiculed our claims about health and safety.

The government failed to give true democratic options.

Now it is a high time for the government to accept the truth, and take right steps to correct the issues.

Michael Volansky,


Corporation Commission approves AEP-PSO charges on smart meter installations

How would you like to live in an apartment building with a bank of 17 microwave transmitting devices.  Studies have proven that smart meters are higher in radiation emissions than cell phones!!!  The Government/utitities aka America, Inc. does not inform the public of this truth.  Why?  they would not be able to do it and make the billions in revenue….Sandaura

Corporation Commission approves AEP-PSO charges on smart meter installations

The utility has put in more than 100,000 of the advanced meters.

Posted: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:00 am

Tulsa-based electricity provider AEP-PSO finally got approval Tuesday from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission for an increase in monthly charges to pay for the installation of smart meters statewide — even though the utility already has put in more than 100,000 of the advanced meters and charging for it for months.

The state regulatory panel voted 2-1 to approve the final order on the case that AEP-PSO originally filed in January 2014. Commissioners Bob Anthony and Dana Murphy voted for the order, while new commissioner Todd Hiett was the nay vote.

  Smart Meters

The election season ongoing last year and various oppositions to the rollout, officially called the advanced metering infrastructure, delayed the state’s approval process, a spokesman said.

“There was a lot of challenging timing,” AEP-PSO spokesman Stan Whiteford said Tuesday.

The utility already is charging its customers about $3.11 per month to pay for the systemwide installation and has been doing so since last year. The installations, which began last year in southeastern Oklahoma, are currently underway in the Tulsa area and will be completed statewide by next year.

The final order does not include an opt-out option for customers who don’t want the smart meters installed on their properties. The opt-out is part of a separate filing and is still to be decided, Whiteford noted.

AEP-PSO came to a settlement with various parties including the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office, industrial customers, Wal-Mart and the commission’s own public utility staff last year. Others, such as retirees’ advocate AARP and some individual stakeholders, still oppose the meters on arguments that they don’t save customers money and could be dangerous to health due to radiation emissions, respectively.

The Corporation Commission did add a couple of wrinkles to the final order on the AMI plan. AEP-PSO will be required to deliver presentations on reliability expenditures and low-income rate research in the near future.

The AMI system is made up of digital “smart” meters which communicate directly with the utility’s computer database. The online meters benefit AEP-PSO by eliminating the need for residential meter readings and other efficiencies.

The savings for customers, AEP-PSO has contended, is that they will have the ability to control their usage during peak hours, among other things.

San Antonio, TX Takes to the Streets to Stop Smart Meters!

San Antonio, TX Takes to the Streets to Stop Smart Meters!

Cancers and other diseases caused by EMF radiation from cell phones, mandatory smart meters will not be covered by insurance

Cancers and other diseases caused by EMF radiation from cell phones, mandatory smart meters will not be covered by insurance

(NaturalNews) According to the site, thousands of people have complained of tinnitus, headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, heart arrhythmia, and other symptoms after a ‘smart’ meter was installed. The ongoing research results and evidence of the health hazards of wireless technology is growing right alongside the staggering increase of use of these devices. Smart meters are being installed all around the world and can exceed the already high FCC limits on human exposure to microwave radiation and are not optional even in homes of people who have “electro-sensitivity”. There have been some concerns whether ‘smart’ meters may cause interference with pacemakers and other implants.

Cancer victim leaves a legacy

Attorney Jimmy Gonzalez gives testimony in October 2012 to the Pembroke Pines Florida Commission asking them to petition the City to issue a Resolution raising awareness of the health risks of cell phone radiation. He warns others about cell phone use and the connection of usage to his three fatal tumors. He spent the last of his energy and passion lobbying for these issues. Mr. Gonzalez died in November, 2014 at the age of 42. You can watch his impressive appeal that hopefully leaves a legacy of change here:

Insurance exclusions based on EMF risks

And now some major players in the insurance world are taking their own stance against the risks being posed by exposure wireless technology including “smart meters”. A global insurer, Lloyd’s of London, known for taking on risky policies has put in a major exclusion clause for all policy holders, to exclude coverage related to exposure to wireless devices as of February 7, 2015.

Lloyd’s of London is one of the largest insurers in the world and often leads the way in protection, taking on risks that no one else will. The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.

This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada.

Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors’ insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors’ insurance applies when people are performing their duties “in good faith”. It is hard to argue they are acting “in good faith” after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer. (Excerpt from letter by Sharon Noble Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia Victoria, British Columbia, Canada)

Lloyd’s exclusion is basically on all of their liability insurance policies. Without reinsurance coverage all insurance policies will exclude coverage of health damaging radiation. If suits for cancer and other associated health issues occur from wireless radiation exposure there would be a catastrophic influx of claims. This is a standard liability insurance response to risk exposure from a global and universal health danger. Perhaps this could be a repeat to issues like asbestos, chemical hazards in building materials and other types of toxic exposure.

Policy exclusions very specific

From the Lloyd’s of London policy: “Exclusions (starting on Page 6 of policy, Page 7 of pdf)

We will not:

a) make any payment on your behalf for any claim, or
b) incur any costs and expenses, or
c) reimburse you for any loss, damage, legal expenses, fees or costs sustained by you, or
d) pay any medical expenses:

32. Electromagnetic fields (General Insurance Exclusions – Page 7 of policy): directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.”

So what does the insurance industry know that the rest of the world has not yet come to terms with?

In Pennsylvania, House Bills 393, 394, 395, 396, and Senate Bills 816, 817, 818


Learn more:

Learn more: