OPINION: Unsatisfactory Science from LPEA, Part Two
If you haven’t already done so (in Part One) you can click here to download the letter I received from La Plata Electric Association (LPEA) — my electric cooperative — two months after submitting a list of questions regarding smart meters.
We know that the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned us about possible serious illnesses being caused by over-exposure to EMF (electromagnetic frequencies.) These illnesses are, for the time being, classified as symptoms of what is called “Electrical Hypersensitivity Syndrome” (EHS).
WHO also classified EMF radiation as a class 2B “possible cancer causing agent.”
We also know that the smart meters recently installed in the homes of unsuspecting customers by La Plata Electric Association are sources of EMF radiation.
Gary Duncan, PhD in physics, has written, “This is, however, the tip of the iceberg… the evidence resulting from immune suppressions, psychological disorders, brain damage, sexual function disruption, sleep loss… the list goes on… is overwhelming, even for the minimally informed. The point does not hang on either/or, it is that LPEA has arbitrarily and in the light of severe contradictory evidence, taken away the rights of choice in health and safety from every consumer. Their arguments weaken with every outpouring, and are now translucent to the point of being ludicrous.”
In his responses (after a two month delay) to my series of questions regarding smart meters, LPEA engineer Ron Meier claimed that the WHO 2B classification was based on inconclusive studies on RF from cell phones, and isn’t as broad as some have taken it to be.
How does LPEA know that, since they didn’t even recognize the correct classification in the first place? And since RF dose from cell phones has been proven to be far less than the RF dose being delivered by smart meters, their explanation seemingly holds no water.
LPEA never fully answered my questions — not because my questions were invalid, but because they can’t answer them. For this reason alone these meters must be removed ASAP using the precautionary principle — if there is a possibility of harm, don’t do it.
How much is the extreme dose variation from each meter?
How will each individual person react physically?
What is the dose each person is getting as an individual?
How much is too much for each person as an individual?
Saying that smart meters are on a different frequency than cell phones is a meaningless response, probably geared to make us wonder if a different frequency changes the whole spectrum of harm. Hasn’t LPEA claimed that smart meters are “no more dangerous than cell phones?” Which is it? According to WHO, both are equally dangerous; both are class 2B carcinogens, at the very least.
In his letter, Mr. Meier directed me to a copied enclosure, saying, “In the box on the next page is a snippet from the concluding comments from WHO regarding Electrical Hypersensitivity Syndrome, which I believe highlight [sic] the issue.”
In that box the following is said about Electrical Hypersensitivity Syndrome (EHS):
EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.
This conclusion is self-contradicting, saying indeed there is such a thing as Electrical Hypersensitivity Syndrome which certainly can be disabling… but they don’t know the exact cause.
Gary Duncan, PhD, has written, “This statement excerpted from the WHO website is seriously flawed and outdated. 16 million cases globally indicate this (EHS) is caused and exacerbated dramatically and overwhelmingly proven from EMF exposure and most specifically to Radio Frequency radiation. In case studies of over 800 EHS sufferers regionally this is undeniably and universally the case. Electro-sensitization is neither a psychological or a medical disorder, any more than infection in a cut is an indication of immune dysfunction. They are identical. They are healthy normal reactions to a technology which ̶ no matter what LPEA’s coverup linguistic gymnastics of the moment are ̶ they knew they never should have deployed. The effects on the other 183,000 species prove the premises conclusively ̶ none of whom are psychosomatic or knew about EMF prior to their disablement and demise.”
My questions #17-24 were about LPEA’s liability for injury and ailments resulting from Electrical Hypersensitivity Syndrome and /or ailments occurring from exposure to the EMF radiation emitted from the meters installed on customer’s homes. Mr. Meier wrote, “Respectfully, we see no factual basis in the concepts of various staff and board members being personally liable and not ‘protected’ by the corporation, implied within the question. We have repeatedly verified this with both our insurance providers and legal staff.”
My response to LPEA is that insurance providers and legal staffs have been known to say whatever the person(s) paying them wants to hear. LPEA’s incorporation does not license LPEA, its Board of Directors or its staff to commit crimes — which is what harming a person or destroying their rights amounts to. This is being demonstrated in the California case with PG&E and California PUC where officials have known since 2011 — the same year LPEA incorporated — the proven physical harm these RF meters do. Officials then colluded to cover this up, and went ahead and installed the meters anyway. PG&E too is incorporated, and they are now under criminal investigation.
Assertions of no legal liability or wrongdoing are the common denominator of any criminal, with few exceptions. Evidence of their (LPEA) prior knowledge regarding the pain and disablements caused to the sensitized communities and their effects on general health and environmental impacts are in place and are identical to the now unraveling cover-up and resignations and federal investigations in California. Lloyds of London long ago denied any underwriting of insurance to issues or damages originating in EMF causes. That means LPEA is uninsured.
— Gary Duncan, PhD
LPEA cannot hide behind the claim that they didn’t know the science that exists behind our claims. They knew, or should have known by due diligence, the true impact of these meters upon our bodies and our rights. It was LPEA’s job to uncover all research on these matters before they planned the installation of these meters. It was LPEA’s job to fully inform members of the co-op of all of the possible and known problems inherent to this technology. It was LPEA’s job to give both sides of the issue and let the customers decide, especially when these meters infringe on our personal choices, our rights, our personal health, and the rights and health of our families.
It is quite obvious to me that LPEA is trying to continue the promotion of AMI meters through purported ignorance of the available science, ignorance of ethics, the need to protect personal credentials… thinking they are keeping liability at bay, and a hundred other excuses that all amount to willful blindness.
These ploys we have come to realize are thinly veiled attempts to keep alive LPEA’s policy of installing these meters, and a false front for extracting extorted money from those of us who don’t want these meters anywhere near us.
I ask the LPEA board of directors and staff to think about and apply these concepts:
Serving those whom you are supposed to serve.
Non-infringement upon anyone’s person or property.
Granting personal choice without extortion.
Honor and respect of the peoples’ right to control their own health to and defend their rights.