Oakland, MI-Legal case who hope to avoid a smart electric meter by going off grid

Posted on May 9, 2016 by

HEARING THIS WEEK
by David Sheldon
May 9th, 2016

There is a legal case in Oakland Circuit Court this year that may have far reaching implications for those of us in Michigan who hope to avoid a smart electric meter by going off grid.

Georgetta Livingstone has been forced to develop alternative sources of electric power since DTE denied her service in July 2014. Her story is very well described in this flyer  that has been circulated in her community.

The lawsuit was brought by her Oak Valley Estates Homeowners Association, which has been demanding she not use alternative energy sources and accept a smart meter. This association has been imposing fines for every day that she continued to use her generator and other devices. If a court ultimately enforces these fines Georgetta could very well lose her home.

The status of this case now is that it has been set for a trial next October. In the meanwhile, however, Georgetta has filed a counter suit against the Homeowners Association. The association has filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal of her counter claim. There is to be a hearing on this motion this Wednesday, May 11th before Judge Hala Jarbou in the Oakland County Circuit Court in Pontiac. The motion is called for 8:30 am along with all the other motions Judge Jarbou will be hearing that day. Motion hearings usually last about 10-20 minutes each. While we hope that Georgetta’s counter suit survives this hearing, the burden of proof on the original suit still rests on the Homeowners Association and the trial next October will still be scheduled whichever way the judge rules on the motion this week.

New Court Challenge to Off Grid Living

 

Recent epidemiological study from Australia, on cell phones and brain cancer…

Posted on May 10, 2016 by

Updated May 10, 2016 at 12:10 (see at the end of post)

Recent epidemiological study from Australia, on cell phones and brain cancer, made headline news: Chapman S, Azizi L, Luo Q, Sitas F. Has the incidence of brain cancer risen in Australia since the introduction of mobile phones 29 years ago? Cancer Epidemiology, 2016 May 4.

Reason for this global interest is simple, the authors claim to have proven that cell phones do not cause brain cancer and the issue should be put to rest. The study analyzed the 29 year history of cell phone use in Australia and compared it with the numbers of brain cancer reported to cancer registry.

However, I think the authors greatly overstated significance of their results leading to misinformation of the readers and the general public at large.

The title of the study is correct but it is also misleading. The 29 years since introduction of cell phones in Australia is a correct time-frame. However, the broad introduction of cell phones in Australia begun only after year 2000, after the saturation of the “market” reached 70 – 90% of the population, as shown in Figure 1 of the study.

The other problem is the latency period for brain cancer that Chapman and colleagues used for calculations – only 10 years (!). For brain cancer, a disease that we do not know how it is caused, we do not know what is the time-point when it begins and we do not know what is the period of time before it becomes symptomatic and can be diagnosed, it is not correct to use in calculations only 10-year latency period. It might be so short but, as well, it might be much longer. This is why predictive calculations made by Chapman et al for brain cancer trends with 10 years latency, should be extended to latencies of 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years. Also, the latency might be different for different causes of brain cancer.

In my opinion there are two major problems in this study. First, the misleading claim of 29 years of cell phone use in Australia should be replaced with at the most 15 years, when the phones become really common. Second, use of latency period of 10 years only gives false impression that we should expect that something should be already seen in cancer statistics. If we do not see rise then there is not problem. This is misleading too.

I asked Professor Simon Chapman, Professor Emeritus from the School of Public Health of the University of Sydney, about the two above issues and he, graciously, provided brief answers. With his permission, the questions and answers are copy/pasted below:

Leszczynski: You selected 10 years as the only lag period used in your calculations (page 3 of your manuscript)). How the curves would look like for 20, 30 40 or even 50 years of lag period. Since we do not exactly know what is really the  lag period for the brain cancer, it would be more informative to consider several of the possibilities and not only a single, very short (10 years) lag period.

Chapman: We selected a 10 year lag for the reason explained in the paper. I won’t speculate about what the data would look like in 40 or 50 years, but we know that peak incidence of cancers do not appear suddenly out of nothing. The peak is preceded by a steady rise which can be slow at first and then increase. With brain cancer in Australia we are seeing no evidence of any steady rise, so it would be very surprising if suddenly there was any significant and sustained rise.

Leszczynski: Your claim of the 29 year period of usage of cell phones in Australia is correct but at the same time it is misleading. As it comes out from your figure 1, the 70% of saturation with cell phone accounts in Australia was reached only in year 2003. At that time, as I recall myself, the usage of cell phones was limited by the costs. Even though people owned cell phone they limited its usage. Therefore, the really avid use of cell phones, and exposing brains, began only after year 2003. This means that your Australian data should be referred as to analyzing only the last 10-13 years of use, and not 29 years. The first 16 years (from 1987) was the time of a very limited spread of cell phones and of a limited use because of prohibitively high costs, at least for private users.

Chapman: I’m afraid I don’t agree at all that “avid use” of mobile phones began only after 2003 in Australia. Figure 1 sourced from both the Australian government regulator & the mobile communication industry show that 70% of Australians were using mobiles by 2003, with about 1 in 4 using them by 1997.

From the answers of Professor Chapman, clearly appears that our opinions differ and that he does not accept my concerns. Likewise, I do not accept Professor Chapman’s explanations.

Also, the authors of the study did not provide any information on where from the funding was provided. It is important omission. The journal of Cancer Epidemiology should have asked and insisted on providing this. Transparency in the area on the border of business and science is important.

In my opinion the authors of the study overstated their findings and misled the non-scientific readers. No study is perfect and every study can be improved. However, providing unfounded conclusions, not supported by the evidence is wrong.

The conclusion of the Australian study: “…After nearly 30 years of mobile phone use in Australia among the millions of people, there is no evidence of any rise in any age group that could be plausibly attributed to mobile phones…” is completely false because it is not supported by the evidence.

Update: read also comment, submitted by Prof. Chapman in response to my blog post, available below.  Follow link below to read comments:

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/professor-simon-chapman-responds/

WiFi in schools: Is it hurting your child?

WiFi in schools: Is it hurting your child?

By Paul Joncich, 8 News NOW Anchor

Published 05/09 2016 11:40PM

Updated 05/10 2016 08:14AM

Microwave radiation from cell phones and WiFI — it’s something a lot of people aren’t too worried about.

But a growing contingent of doctors are worried about school children who are — they say — under a “constant barrage” of microwave radiation.

In 2011, the World Health Organization declared radiation from WiFi in cell phones as a possible carcinogen right up there with formaldehyde and car exhaust.

New Court Challenge to Off Grid Living

New Court Challenge to Off Grid Living

HEARING THIS WEEK
by David Sheldon
May 9th, 2016

There is a legal case in Oakland Circuit Court this year that may have far reaching implications for those of us in Michigan who hope to avoid a smart electric meter by going off grid.

Georgetta Livingstone has been forced to develop alternative sources of electric power since DTE denied her service in July 2014. Her story is very well described in this flyer that has been circulated in her community.

The lawsuit was brought by her Oak Valley Estates Homeowners Association, which has been demanding she not use alternative energy sources and accept a smart meter. This association has been imposing fines for every day that she continued to use her generator and other devices. If a court ultimately enforces these fines Georgetta could very well lose her home.

The status of this case now is that it has been set for a trial next October. In the meanwhile, however, Georgetta has filed a counter suit against the Homeowners Association. The association has filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal of her counter claim. There is to be a hearing on this motion this Wednesday, May 11th before Judge Hala Jarbou in the Oakland County Circuit Court in Pontiac. The motion is called for 8:30 am along with all the other motions Judge Jarbou will be hearing that day. Motion hearings usually last about 10-20 minutes each. While we hope that Georgetta’s counter suit survives this hearing, the burden of proof on the original suit still rests on the Homeowners Association and the trial next October will still be scheduled whichever way the judge rules on the motion this week.

New Court Challenge to Off Grid Living

 

 

 

League of United Latin American Citizens RESOLUTION FOR A MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION OF ‘SMART’ METERS AND NO

League of United Latin American Citizens – LULAC – adopts resolution for moratorium on Smart Meters and for no cost opt-outs

From Coalition for Safe Meters

Adopted July 11, 2015

League of United Latin American Citizens

RESOLUTION FOR A MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION OF ‘SMART’ METERS AND NO COST OPT-OUT

WHEREAS, since its inception on February 17, 1929 in Corpus Christi, Texas, LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the largest, oldest and most successful Hispanic civil rights and service organization in the United States, has championed the cause of Hispanic Americans in education, employment, economic development and civil rights, and

WHEREAS, LULAC members throughout the nation have developed a track record of success in advancing the economic condition, educational attainment, political influence, health and civil rights of the entire population of the United States, and

WHEREAS, utilities are now engaged in subjecting customers to wireless technology by their installation of so-called ‘smart’ technology, which includes ‘smart’ grid infrastructure and radiation pulsing meters on homes and businesses across the country, and

WHEREAS, utility regulatory legislation is enacted with the provision that it not conflict with any authority of the United States, however, wireless radiation pulsing meters and the data they collect violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which ensures the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and

WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, which proposed the use of wireless ‘smart’/radiation pulsing meters, mandates that utility companies ‘offer’ wireless meters and install them ‘upon customer request’, however, utilities are installing these meters without the consent of the property owner, and

WHEREAS, municipal governments and utilities across the country have not warned the public and their customers of inherent health, safety, and privacy problems with ‘smart’ grid technology and the wireless radiation pulsing meters, and

WHEREAS, we are concerned that monopoly utilities have approved this technology without public knowledge or debate and in many cases without a vote of local government or the citizenry, and

WHEREAS, these monopoly utilities argue that they will save money by eliminating the cost of meter readers, however, cost benefit studies have in many cases not been undertaken or proven this assertion to be false, and

WHEREAS, utilities have not warned the public of known health hazards to ‘at-risk’ populations, which include those with EMR sensitivities, individuals with pacemakers, individuals with metal in their bodies (teeth and prosthetics), and

WHEREAS, utilities have failed to warn customers that the World Health Organization has designated exposure to Radio Frequency a Class 2B (Possible) Carcinogen and that the United States Military have identified radio-frequency (RF) radiation as a health risk, and

WHEREAS, persons in densely populated areas may be at higher risk of health effects due to the proximity to the meters, a population which includes not only the poor and minorities but the elderly that have downsized to live in apartment complexes and condos, and

WHEREAS, some utilities classify apartments and condos as ‘non-residential’, and have a policy that forces ‘smart’/RF meters on them, Clearly this is an arbitrary decision on their part that is dismissive of property rights and which puts the apartment or condo owner and their tenants in harm’s way when meters are clustered near an apartment or condo unit, and

WHEREAS, ‘smart’/RF meters are proven vulnerable to hacking, intrusion, and the ‘smart’ grid to be more susceptible to terrorist attack and disruption;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the League of United Latin American Citizens supports the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 that time-based meters be provided upon customer request only, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that our organization supports the right of the property owner to have an ANALOG meter (and not be forced to have a non-communicating RF/’smart’/time based meter installed), and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that our organization supports the right of the property owner to disallow a tenant from having an RF/’smart’/time-based meter installed, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that our organization supports the right of the property owner (or tenant with permission of the property owner) to have a previously installed RF/’smart’/time-based meter replaced with an ANALOG meter, at no cost, by the utility, if it is determined that the utility did not have proper permission to install the meter, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that our organization opposes all fees associated with refusing RF/‘smart’/ time-based meters, especially a monthly charge that will be disproportionately harmful to the poor, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we support a Moratorium on the installation of RF/‘smart’ meters until such time that we determine that all safety, health, and privacy concerns have been resolved to the satisfaction of this organization.

Voted and approved at the 2015 National LULAC Convention – July 11, 2015.

Roger C. Rocha, Jr.
LULAC National President

http://coalitionforsafemeters.org/LULAC/LULAC_OfficialSmartMeterMoratorium.pdf