MA RESIDENTS FILE DPU FRAUD COMPLAINT WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL

MA RESIDENTS FILE DPU FRAUD COMPLAINT WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL

Contact: StopSmartMetersMASS@gmail.com

MA RESIDENTS FILE DPU FRAUD COMPLAINT WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL

Short Version

 Massachusetts residents have filed a fraud complaint with the Attorney General and the Legislature concerning the $7B MA Department of Public Utilities smart meter mandate.

Smart meters enable electric companies to implement time-of-use billing for electricity. The meters have resulted in rising consumer costs and reported adverse health effects nationally and internationally.

Tobacco scientist Peter Valberg provided testimony justifying smart meter safety for the MA Department of Public Utilities in Feb. of 2014, within weeks of his testifying for Phillip Morris light cigarettes.

Valberg also testified for National Grid before the Worcester Zoning Board of Appeals in May of 2014. Worcester is the site of the controversial $48M National Grid pilot, which was delayed due to citizen opposition. The pilot includes 15,000 smart meters and 180 WiMax microwave antennas.

The fraud complaint states that Peter Valberg misrepresented international exposure limits and health research to the Worcester Zoning Board of Appeals, and calls for an investigation of the Worcester pilot, which is behind schedule. The $250,00 unbudgeted expense for installation of an industrial-scale sound wall in the Tory Fort area was necessitated by noise violations and has been attributed to improper engineering by opponents, who question why the DPU has mandated smart meters without waiting for the results of the pilot program

The complaint to the MA Attorney General delineates how the DPU fraudulently represented FCC limits as inclusive of non-thermal impacts, by falsely referencing sources that did not correspond to the text of the order issued by DPU Chair Ann Berwick in June of 2014.

MA RESIDENTS FILE DPU FRAUD COMPLAINT WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL

Long Version

Massachusetts residents have filed a fraud complaint with the Attorney General and the Legislature concerning the $7B MA Department of Public Utilities smart meter mandate.

Smart meters enable electric companies to implement time-of-use billing for electricity. The meters have resulted in rising consumer costs and reported adverse health effects nationally and internationally.

Tobacco scientist Peter Valberg provided testimony justifying smart meter safety for the MA Department of Public Utilities in Feb. of 2014, within weeks of his testifying for Phillip Morris light cigarettes.

Valberg referenced Canada’s Safety Code 6 for the DPU as evidence of consensus for RF safety limits. On May 7, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a scathing condemnation of Health Canada’s safety guidelines. International experts in radiation and cancer warn that the microwave levels allowed in Canadian classrooms, residences and workplaces are, “a disaster to public health.”

Valberg also testified for National Grid before the Worcester Zoning Board of Appeals in May of 2014. Worcester is the site of the controversial $48M National Grid pilot, which was delayed due to citizen opposition. The pilot includes 15,000 smart meters and 180 WiMax microwave antennas.

The fraud complaint states that Peter Valberg misrepresented international exposure limits and health research to the Worcester Zoning Board of Appeals, and calls for an investigation of the Worcester pilot, which is behind schedule. The $250,00 unbudgeted expense for installation of an industrial-scale sound wall in the Tory Fort was necessitated by noise violations and has been attributed to improper engineering by opponents, who question why the DPU has mandated smart meters without waiting for the results of the pilot program.

Radiofrequencies were classified a 2B possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in May of 2011. The EMR Policy Network provided testimony to the MA DPU that the National Academies of Science identified extensive shortcomings of FCC limits in a 2012 report, including lack of relevancy for pregnant women, infants, children, and the medically vulnerable.  The Office of the Interior has cautioned that FCC limits are 30 years of date and that the impact on birds and other wildlife has not been adequately studied or monitored.

Canada and the U.S. are among the nations using the “thermal” or heating threshold as the safety recommendation for radio frequency exposure, while other nations protect against biological impacts at levels far below the thermal threshold.

On May 11, 190 scientists from 39 nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations, UN member states and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting they adopt more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of risk. These exposures are a rapidly growing form of environmental pollution worldwide. The International EMF Appeal asks the Secretary General and UN affiliated bodies to encourage precautionary measures, to limit EMF exposures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women.

Joel Moskowitz, PhD, of University of California, Berkeley, says, “ICNIRP guidelines set exposure standards for high-intensity, short-term, tissue-heating thresholds. These do not protect us from the low-intensity, chronic exposures common today. Scientists signing the Appeal request that the UN and member nations protect the global human population and wildlife from EMF exposures.”

The complaint to the MA Attorney General delineates how the DPU fraudulently represented FCC limits as inclusive of non-thermal impacts, by falsely referencing sources that did not correspond to the text of the order issued by DPU Chair Ann Berwick in June of 2014.

Posted on HaltMAsmartmeters.org

Advertisements

Court Appeal to Maine Regulator’s Decision that Smart Meters Are ‘Safe Enough’

to Think”

Court Appeal to Maine Regulator’s Decision that Smart Meters Are ‘Safe Enough’

Court GavelYesterday, May 12th, 2015, anti-smart meter activists in Maine filed an appeal to a December Public Utility Commission decision with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

In December 2014, the Maine Public Utility Commission (PUC) issued a decision concluding that smart meters were ‘safe enough’ for the public reflecting a lower standard than the Court or law allows.

In fact, one Commissioner acknowledged that there was a credible threat of harm related to chronic exposure to smart meter radiofrequency emissions.  Quoting from the December 2014 PUC Order:

“Thus as part of the safety finding, there is a low cost or no cost accommodations to recognize that there is some credible evidence of risk of chronic effects.  I find it is not a reasonable utility practice for CMP [Central Maine Power] to fail to provide sufficient risk mitigation and that CMP should provide an AMI meter with a transmitter turned off if recommended by a licensed doctor or medical practitioner.”

Additionally, as stated in the December 2014 Order:

“Commissioner Littell would have CMP provide an AMI meter with transmitter off as part of the safety determination while Commissioner Vannoy would not find that necessary.”

However, as part of the final language in the PUC Order where only two Commissioners participated, the above conditional safety finding was completely abandoned, and it was simply concluded that:

“Fees associated with opting-out are reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory…”

How can this be?  How can fees associated with refusing smart meters be “reasonable” where there is acknowledged “credible evidence of risk of chronic effects”?

With the above information as background, here are some selected quotations from the appeal filed yesterday:

“CMP customers have been complaining about the safety of the smart meter system since it was first installed.  There have been seven 10-person complaints filed over the last five years, …

The Commission failed to satisfy the Legislature’s mandate to ensure safety when it authorized the system, when it responded to complaints in the Opt-Out proceedings in 2010-2011, and when it dismissed Appellants’ complaint in late 2011, as found by this Court in Friedman I.

Now, three years after this Court’s mandate in Friedman I, it has failed again, not only the Legislature’s mandate but this Court’s mandate, and the Constitutional mandate that all Maine residents have the right to obtain safety.

The Decision must be vacated because:

1) It directly contradicts the specific findings and conclusions made by Commissioner Littell …

2) It fails to ensure safety … both Commissioners erroneously concluded some credible threat to health and safety must be allowed,

3) It limits its assurance of safety to fewer than all CMP customers … and fails to account for the cumulative and additive effects of RF radiation, resulting in no assurance to customers with impaired immune systems, to customers with EHS, and to customers who may develop EHS over time.

4) It is not supported by substantial evidence in the record – its findings of safety are based on RF exposures averaged over time, but there is no evidence in the record that averaging of exposures is relevant to the threat of non-thermal effects; …

Applying the correct legal standard to the facts in the record compels the conclusion there is a credible threat of harm from the direct, unprotected exposure to RF radiation from CMP’s smart meter system.  The findings and conclusions made by Commissioner Littell require this conclusion.

The Decision should be vacated with directions for Commission action ordering CMP to:

1) Remove or disable the AMI system unless and until safety is ensured;

2) Remove from its records all payment obligations of opt-out customers who chose to Defer payment of the opt-out fees until this case is resolved;

3) Reimburse all customers who initially opted out but gave up and paid the fees; and

4) Allocate to CMP’s shareholders the expenses incurred for Exponent’s fees.”

Regarding the appeal brief filed yesterday, time will now be allocated for reply briefs, and oral arguments will be scheduled at a later date.

Reference:  “Anti-smart meter activists filed their appeal,” at http://www.mainecoalitiontostopsmartmeters.org/2015/05/anti-smart-meter-activists-filed-their-appeal/

http://smartgridawareness.org/2015/05/13/court-appeal-to-maine-regulators-decision-on-smart-meters/

Berkeley City Council mandates consumer notice for cellphone sales and leases

Berkeley City Council mandates consumer notice for cellphone sales and leases

By Tom Lochner tlochner@bayareanewsgroup.com

Posted:   05/14/2015 08:02:20 AM PDT0 Comments | Updated:   about 3 hours ago

BERKELEY — The City Council approved an ordinance Tuesday that would require a notice to cellphone buyers regarding exposure to electromagnetic waves when they carry the devices close to their bodies.

“If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF (radio frequency) radiation,” the notice reads in part, adding that consumers should check their user manual how to use the phone safely.
Under the ordinance, approved unanimously on first reading Tuesday, a copy of the notice must be given to each customer who buys or leases a cellphone or be prominently displayed at the retail outlet. Tuesday’s action grew out of a proposal for a notification ordinance sponsored in November by Councilmen Max Anderson and Kriss Worthington.
The notice itself does not contain any new controversial scientific information, and only makes reference to existing federal guidelines, but it nevertheless has raised the hackles of the cellphone industry.
The proposed ordinance “will mislead consumers, and it is unlawful,” said Gerard Keegan, senior director for state legislative affairs for CTIA — The Wireless Association, an industry group, addressing the council shortly before the vote Tuesday.
“The pending proposal will irresponsibly alarm consumers by suggesting that cellphones are dangerous and that avoidance measures increase human safety, all of which is contrary to what impartial experts say on these issues,” Keegan continued, reading from a letter submitted to the council earlier.


“Further, the proposal is unlawful because it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” the letter continues.
Earlier, Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor and director of the Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics, had said he is increasingly concerned that the First Amendment is being used by corporations to bully residents into inaction.During his presentation, Lessig, who has offered to provide legal advice to the city and defend the ordinance pro bono, referred to several recent national and international scientific studies, including one submitted to the United Nations World Health Organization, that raise concern over the effects of increased exposure to electromagnetic fields generated by electric and wireless devices such as cellphones, cordless phones, base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, baby monitors and other devices that generate an extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field, often abbreviated as ELF EMF.

Several speakers told the council about brain tumors, breast cancer and other cancers in their families that they believe were caused by radiation from cellular devices. Another speaker, Dr. Deborah Davis, cited a study that purportedly shows that the devices, if carried too close to the body, damage human sperm, and another that showed prenatal damage to rodent fetuses exposed to the radiation.

A main idea behind the city ordinance is that many tests of the possible effects of radio frequency radiation underlying federal guidelines were done with the assumption that cellphones are carried a small distance from the body, for instance in a holster or belt clip, whereas today they are more likely to be carried close to the body, in a pocket or bra. Another is that safety advice provided with cellphones often is buried in fine print and thus ineffectual.

Worthington, speaking moments before the vote, said the proposed ordinance simply honors the consumer’s right to know, and that “we’re not telling the consumer what to do.”

Contact Tom Lochner at 510-262-2760. Follow him at Twitter.com/tomlochner.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_28111203/berkeley-city-council-mandates-consumer-notice-cellphone-sales

Experts urge cautious use of wireless devices as health effects reassessed

Technology

Experts urge cautious use of wireless devices as health effects reassessed

While some studies claim wireless technology is linked with health woes such as cancer and infertility, other research has shown no such association. (Darren Calabrese For The Globe and Mail) While some studies claim wireless technology is linked with health woes such as cancer and infertility, other research has shown no such association. (Darren Calabrese For The Globe and Mail)

What Cellphone and Tobacco Research Have in Common

What Cellphone and Tobacco Research Have in Common

 By , Epoch Times | May 12, 2015

%d bloggers like this: