Smart water meters do not detect a leak, only knows after the leak, any other problems it has no idea!!!

Guest column

Drought ‘Solutions’ Deserve Closer Scrutiny

By JJ Gasparotti

How do all us water wise Lagunatics feel now? We saved and saved water while our neighbors in New porsche Beach kept their sprinklers going full blast right up till the end. The result is they must cut back 28% from their profligate consumption and water wise Laguna has to cut back 24% from our already low consumption level. Doesn’t seem fair does it?

Puts me in mind of an old Murphy’s law, “No good deed goes unpunished.”

Well don’t worry too much because what is going on now is more like a government shutdown before they raise taxes rather than a rational response to drought.

Our use of water in the urban areas is about 10% of the total surface waters in the state. When we multiply the 25% cutback asked of us to by the 10% of the total water that urban areas use, we get a net contribution to the total solution of 2.5%. Not much of a contribution from all those dead lawns, two second showers and flushed every other day toilets.

It sort of seems like when they close the state parks and DMV during a financial crisis. More like they want you to feel the pain, not solve the problem.

Agriculture uses 40% of our surface waters and produces 2% of our economic activity. To really solve a water shortage you could stop flood irrigating monsoon crops in the desert so you can send alfalfa pellets to China’s dairy industry. That would save as much water as we use in all of urban southern California. That isn’t happening.

What is happening is we are being subjected to an old adage in the water industry, “Don’t waste a good drought.” Don’t be surprised when another big water bond is floated in time for the next election. Even though they haven’t found ways to spend the money from the last bond we passed.

The issue with this is a lot of money gets raised and spent in ways that don’t address the real problem.

A local example is the water district’s plans to spend $3 million on smart meters. How will that help?  It won’t. Sure, we’ll be able to check our consumption on line just like the instant MPG reading in our car. Has that improved your gas mileage? Didn’t mine.

A meter reader costs around a $100,000 a year, including benefits. If we fire the meter reader and put in automatic meters, it’ll take 30 years to recover the $3 million cost. But we won’t fire the meter reader; we’ll find something else for them to do. When before they were doing something very important. They were our eyes and ears visiting every water meter in the district six times a year. That smart meter only knows about a leak after the leak, not before. Any other problems, it has no idea.

And that $3 million, wouldn’t it be better spent on building a way to use all that water we dump in the ocean from the Aliso Creek sewer plant? This is millions and millions of gallons a day just going to waste. We need to clean it to potable standards and put it back in our existing distribution system.

Orange County Water District finds this source so valuable that when San Bernardino County wanted to start reclaiming the sewage they dump in the Santa Ana River, reducing that flow, Orange County sued to stop them and won.

Don’t get me wrong. This drought is real and we need to adjust. But we also need to watch out we aren’t sold a bill of goods during that adjustment.

Mark Twain once said, “Water is a funny thing. Money can make it run uphill.”

Let’s make sure our money makes it do that.

Retired general contractor JJ Gasparotti served five years on the Design Review Board and two terms on the Laguna Beach County Water District board.

http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/guest-column-30/

Advertisements

Lloyd’s of London excludes liability coverage for RF/EMF claims including NOISE!

RF NOISE CAN BE WON IN A COURT OF LAW.  THE NOISE HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY MEASURED AND CONFIRMED.  IT IS IN OUR AIR 24/7-NONSTOP!  THE UTILITIES CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES AND WIN IN A COURT OF LAW FIGHTING AGAINST THE NOISE POLLUTION.  IT IS REAL!  LLOYD’S OF LONDON IS WORRIED ABOUT IT, OBVIOUSLY.  BECAUSE ANYONE EXPOSED TO THE GRID IS A POTENTIAL COMPLAINTANT!  WE CAN DO THIS PEOPLE!  THIS IS A CONCRETE CASE FOR US TO WIN AND FOR THE UTILITY TO FINALLY BE BROUGHT DOWN AND MADE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE AUDIBLE TORTURE AND PUBLIC HAZARD THEY HAVE PERPETRATED WITH THEIR SMART GRID TECHNOLOGY….Sandaura

Lloyd’s of London excludes liability coverage for RF/EMF claims

Credit to Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia, for bringing this information to the public. 

Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims,

Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” (Exclusion 32)

This information is from CFC Underwriting Limited, which is a Lloyd’s of London underwriter (page 12-13 of policy document, page 13-14 of pdf), and was posted by Citizens for Safe Technology:

[This] is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s:

“‘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.”
http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168

The policy document is here: http://emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/InsuranceAEWordingCanadav17Feb2015.pdf
Also http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/scribd/Insurance%20AE%20Wording%20Canada%20v1%207%20Feb%202015.pdf

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.”

This would include the microwave radiation and electromagnetic radiation emitted from Smart Meters (AMR, AMI, PLC), from Home Area Network devices and appliances (including AC and thermostats), from Wi-Fi transmitters, from wireless devices in schools, offices, and homes, and from wireless sensors and wireless-connected fire alarms.

“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.

“Consider yourself notified once again that you could be held legally responsible for the decisions you have made.”

Yours truly,
Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

The full letter with policy document is here: http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168