Smart Meter Case Testimony Before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission: What No One Wants to Acknowledge About EMF Damage
Part 1 of 4
The following is the testimony I will present pro se [without a lawyer representing me] to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s Administrative Law Court, November 2 and 3, 2016 as a result of my not permitting an AMI Smart Meter to be retrofitted on to my electric service by PECO, an Exelon Company that provides electricity and service to the suburban Philadelphia where I live.
This testimony addresses most of the health, legal, and constitutional issues, plus the politics involved regarding the unsafe and RF/EMF cancer-causing technology forced on consumers, along with threats of no electric service if utility customers refuse an AMI Smart Meter.
There are four parts to the entire testimony that was 18 pages long plus 195 pages of Exhibits A-1 thru W, and other documentation I had in my brief case (not presented but as backup, if needed) that totaled in excess of three to four hundred pages of scientific documentation, published research, etc.
Personally, I think after reading the entire testimony, which will appear in four parts, readers can understand what’s involved with unsafe, fire-prone, and RF/EMF/dirty electricity-producing AMI Smart Meters when for decades utilities provided safe, non-plastic parts analog meters.
Before the Administrative Law Court at the PA Public Utility Commission
Philadelphia, PA – November 2 & 3, 2016
Your Honor, Judge Heep and Judge Pell, Members of the PA PUC, PECO Energy Company, the Exelon legal team, and all interested parties:
Since today is the rescheduled postponed June 27, 2016 hearing and for which I, Catherine J Frompovich, submitted written testimony five days in advance of that previous hearing as per court rules, I have decided to revise and include additional testimony interspersed into the previous 75 pages (10 pages of testimony and 65 pages of Exhibits A thru Q) that I submitted via the U.S. Postal Service and which all parties received, I presume.
However, in view of the paramount importance, plus dire consequences, of EMFs/RFs being forced onto Pennsylvania consumers with no opt-out for personal safety and protection from 24/7/365 non-ionizing radiation emitted by AMI Smart Meters microwave technology, and my being a five-year breast cancer survivor, I submit into testimony and evidence that the PA PUC and all participating Pennsylvania utilities, not just PECO as in my case, must factor in the American with Disabilities Act Amendments, which redefine cancer as a disability, especially since there are cancer-causing effects from EMFs/RFs about which I submit into the record hundreds of documented scientific evidence as dozens of Exhibits per the Schedule of Exhibits I now introduce, plus printed documents I have with me in support of the four-page Bibliography of Pertinent Published Literature Regarding Electromagnetic Radiation, Cancer & AMI Smart Meters that I also submit into the record as Exhibit S.
Since the ADA Amendments Act provides for three “prongs” of what constitutes a disability, I am submitting into evidence a printout titled “Americans with Disability Act Amendments Act (ADAAA)” pointing out appropriate and applicable sections Exhibit A-1 ; a two-page printout titled “ADA Amendments redefine cancer as a disability” Exhibit A-2 ; along with a 43-page dossier containing about 240 published studies regarding BREAST and Other Cancers and EMF/ELF/RF Cancer Studies Exhibit A-3; and topping off those documents with a two-page letter dated 2 August 2016 from the foremost EMF/RF researchers, physicians and academics in the WORLD written to the North Carolina Utilities Commission Exhibit A-4 wherein in the third paragraph they state:
Smart meters and cell phones occupy similar frequency bands of the electromagnetic spectrum, meaning that cell phone research can apply to smart meter RFR. Smart meter RFR consists of frequent, very intense but very brief pulses throughout the day. Because smart meter exposure over a 24 hour period can be very prolonged (pulses can average 9,600 times a day), and because there is building evidence that the sharp, high intensity pulses are particularly harmful, the cell phone study findings are applicable when discussing adverse health impacts from smart meters.
Those five researchers,
- David Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of Albany
- Dr Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Oncology, University Hospital Orebro, Sweden
- Dr Magda Havas, BSC, PhD, Environmental & Resources Studies. Trent University, Canada
- Dr Martha Herbert, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Pediatric Neurologist and Neuroscientist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
- Dr Sam Milham, MD, MPH, Former chief epidemiologist, Washington State Department of Health
point out in the last sentence of the first paragraph, “… it is imperative that the North Carolina Utilities Commission be fully aware of the harm that RFR can cause and allow utility customers to opt out of smart meter installation with no penalty.”
Frompovich respectfully points out, and also cautions the PA PUC, that in not permitting opt outs from AMI Smart Meters in Pennsylvania during formulating its AMI SM regulations, since HB2200 stated AMI SMs were NOT to be mandated, it has breached ethical and legal standards regarding unsafe AMI SMs regarding the RFRs they emit. Various states have permitted safe electric power usage by granting and implementing AMI SMs opt outs, which the PA PUC deliberately refused in formulating its utility regulations regarding AMI SMs thereby subjecting consumers to unknown adverse health effects which, in essence, violate the Nuremberg Code since consumers’ consent was not required nor asked, and their use apparently amounts to an experiment on PECO’s customers.
Again, Frompovich points to the letter addressed to the NCUC Exhibit A-4 at the end of the second paragraph wherein those researchers cite the U.S. NTP June 2016 study Conclusion in part stating “…adds proof to the conclusions from the human health studies that radiofrequency radiation increases risk of cancer.”
Frompovich further elaborates that cell phone RFR exposure is elective, i.e., depending upon personal choice, use, and an individual’s ability to turn off cell phones, thereby reducing and/or avoiding similar frequency microwave bands and RFRs exposures both cell phones and AMI SMs produce.
However, harmful personal bodily RFR exposure has been mandated by PA PUC Regulations—not HB2200/Act 129 (2008) and, therefore, is absolutely illegal, since Act 129 does not defy nor negate the Pennsylvania state constitution’s “Inherent Rights of Mankind, Section 1”, but it’s the Commonwealth’s regulatory agency—the PA PUC—that is guilty of nonfulfillment, I allege:
All men [and women] are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness. … Pennsylvania Constitution, Section 1.
However, contrary to that Pennsylvania constitutional right is the fact that mandated AMI Smart Meter RFR exposure, because of no opt outs in Pennsylvania specifically via PA PUC Regulations not Act 129, literally provides no way to escape and/or avoid AMI SMs microwave RFRs. That is illegal and should be prosecuted criminally, Frompovich contends. Furthermore, the PA PUC overstepped its agency powers and, Frompovich contends, is guilty of committing ultra vires during its rulemaking process.
The above five researchers Exhibit A-4 delineate cell phone and Smart Meters as basically the same “animal” because both occupy similar frequency bands on the electromagnetic spectrum! See paragraph 3 of their letter to the NCUC for more detail, including that Smart Meters over a 24-hour period can average 9,600 pulses a day causing high intensity pulses known as “dirty electricity.”
I submit into the record Exhibit A-5 Dirty Electricity or Dirty Power and the 10-page report “Why Are Electromagnetic Fields Dangerous? – Is Dirty Electricity Making You Sick?” including 2 charts [Table 1 Ranking Electric Meters and Table 2 Ranking Electric Meters for Risk of Privacy and Cyber Security] from the 20-page report “Ranking Electricity Meters for Risk to Health, Privacy, and Cyber Security,” available online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/289782183/Ranking-Electricity-Meters-for-Risk-to-Health-Privacy-and-Cyber-Security.
The KEY dispute and multi-faceted issue of concern in Frompovich’s case – being a breast cancer survivor in excess of five years – is her free and legal exercise of legal and constitutional rights to be free of the fear, exposure to cancer-causing EMFs, and/or actuality of contracting cancer due to AMI SM RFR exposures 24/7/365 in her home—something that the ADA Amendments Act indisputably encompass, since once a cancer patient that makes Frompovich covered within one of the ADAAA prongs for all time, and also includes Frompovich’s indefeasible right to protect property—both her home and her personal body and its life processes—including her reputation.
That federal ADAAA must be factored into Frompovich’s case since PECO has obtained federal grant monies to implement its AMI Smart Meters rollout, and the law states that any business that accepts federal grant money is mandated to abide by the ADAAA, including state regulatory agencies like the PA PUC.
Frompovich’s refusal of an AMI SM, plus her human and innate right to protect her health, body and property, are more than confirmed when those five researchers point out “… the strongest evidence for hazards coming from RFR is cancer, there is a growing body of evidence that some people develop a condition called electrohypersensitivity (EHS).” See paragraph 4 of the letter to NCUC Exhibit A-4.
On page 2, paragraph 1 of that same letter, the researchers further point out a dichotomy in science, which is the very fact that independent research versus industry research studies are at coincidental, if not predictable, variances, as per the chart I raise up and submit into the record, a double-sided poster “Radiofrequency Research: Does Funding Matter,” which shows two pie charts depicting those conflicting statistics.
Non-industry studies indicate 70% harmful effects with 30% no effects, while industry studies indicate 32 % harmful effects with 68% no effects! Statistically, that’s almost a wash, as each just about cancels the other, however, there’s a slight edge of 2% from non-industry studies indicating harmful effects. More interestingly, though, is that industry studies DID find 32% harmful effects studies—almost one-third of the studies and, yet, the industry concludes differently stating there are none! That alone should be a red flag for them, or anyone of scientific mind, to investigate further and they did not, which indicates some sort of collusion of not wanting to know or find out. Is that a crime of omission or collusion?
Paragraph 2 on page 2 of that letter Exhibit A-4 cites the obvious CRUX of scientific and ethical issues regarding AMI Smart Meters in Pennsylvania, in particular, stating “With a leading [NC] DHHS staff member admitting that he is not qualified to review the literature, and the fact that he relied on industry representatives for assistance, the DHHS conclusion is not surprising.”
Frompovich feels compelled to question how much of that microwave technology industry representative assistance occurred, and still occurs, with and from PECO and the PA PUC, thereby illegally depriving Frompovich and all Pennsylvanians of their rights to protect their health and property, along with the exercise of redress against what amounts to experimental AMI Smart Meter science whose proponents wantonly do not recognize non-thermal adverse health effects from RFRs, which have been known since 1932! I introduce Exhibit T Electrosensitivity (ES) and Electromagnetic Hyper-sensitivity (EHS) into the record to document that in 1962, 1979, 2009 and 2015 various health issues have been identified with EMF non-thermal exposures.
Your Honors, I respectfully ask the court to instruct PECO to produce the experimental studies, rather than epidemiological studies, indicating no non-thermal effects from EMFs/RFs. Where’s the science?
Aren’t PECO’s customers entitled to have that evidence?
Frompovich also feels compelled to ask this court the following: How much influence did the microwave industry contribute to PA State Representative Robert Godshall’s campaign coffers and/or his preferred charities that apparently has enabled Godshall, as Chair of the PA House Consumer Affairs Committee, to sit on opt out bills in the PA legislature for several legislative sessions, including Godshall’s verbal proclamations to others that he will never bring opt out bills to the floor for a vote, which obviously is an impeachable offence for depriving Pennsylvanians of their right to redress government and government agency oppressions that enable utility companies to harass and bully customers about cutting off electric service if they refuse fire-prone AMI SMs in Pennsylvania.
Here’s what other U.S. states have done regarding AMI Smart Meters:
Analog meters are definitively offered as the opt-out meter in four states: Arizona, California, Maine, and Texas. The Nevada public service commission urges the utilities to provide the meter that will have the “greatest customer acceptance,” which, clearly, is the analog.
Three states offer the “existing meter” as the opt-out meter. An existing meter might or might not be analog. Georgia, Hawaii, and Consumers Energy in Michigan.
Three states let the utility decide: Florida, Maryland, and Nevada. The Nevada public service commission urges the utilities to provide the meter that will have the “greatest customer acceptance,” which, clearly, is the analog.
Four states or utilities definitively forbid analog opt-outs: Fountain in Colorado, DTE in Michigan, Central Hudson Valley in New York (AMR), and Port Angeles in Washington (touted as the first place to ban smart meters—not much help you are required to have a digital meter on your home!).
Two states/districts require smart meters: Pennsylvania and Washington, DC.