‘NO SMART METER’ GROUP PLANS PROTEST FOR PACIFIC POWER WORKSHOP
The workshop this weekend in Grants Pass is to address concerns about the recent smart meter installation in the Rogue Valley.
Posted: Sep. 21, 2018 11:51 AM
Updated: Sep. 21, 2018 4:30 PM
GRANTS PASS, Ore. — Protesters and Pacific Power workers are expected to clash this weekend as an anti-smart meter group plans to protest the device at the energy company’s upcoming workshop.
The workshop this weekend in Grants Pass is set to address concerns about the recent smart meter installation in the Rogue Valley. According to Pacific Power’s online invite, customers will “meet with Pacific Power staff and smart meter experts, gather information and facts and see demonstrations.”
The anti-smart meter groups is called “No Smart Meter.” This isn’t the first time the group has protested Pacific Power. Protesters with the group have voiced concerns on everything from the meter’s capabilities to track more than power usage data to how smart meters could be impacting their health.
“Our goal is for public awareness for people to understand how these do pose a health risk to your home primarily… For them to see primarily that this is a way for the government [to invade] into [your] home,” said “No Smart Meter” advocate Randal Barrett. “Putting a computer on your home and forcing you to pay extortion fees if you won’t do it. Should put up a red flag for everybody.”
Pacific Power has disputed those claims saying the meters are safe and that no additional information is taken with your meter reading. Opting out of a smart meter costs customers a $36 monthly fee to pay for someone to manually read the meter.
In response, Pacific Power released the following statement:
“We want to be sure our customers know we are here to help them understand the benefits of the smart meter upgrade in Oregon, while also addressing their questions and concerns. These free workshops offer an in-person opportunity to have a conversation with us, learn about smart meters first hand, and gather facts and information,” said Christina Kruger, Pacific Power regional business manager for Southern Oregon.
The Pacific Power workshop is this Saturday, September 22 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Josephine County Fairgrounds, Arts and Crafts Building.
EMF & our health
Our Wireless Tech Is Unsafe, and These 5 US Government Agencies Have Tried to Warn Us
According to science-based safety standards such as the Building Biology guidelines and the Bionitiative Report conclusions, everyday wireless technology such as ‘smart’ meters, cell phones and WiFi produce unsafe amounts of radiation — as seen in this testing video.
But if this is true, how can governments allow it? Many countries’ governing agencies (such as the FCC, Health Canada, and ICNIRP) continue to base their radiofrequency “safety” standards exclusively on thermal effects, or exposure levels which increase the temperature of tissue by a certain number of degrees. So, your body tissue would need to “begin to cook” in order for it to be considered an unsafe exposure level.
This means that thousands of studies which show biological harm from RF radiation are not even considered by the government agencies that are supposed to ensure safety.
But due to the increasing obviousness of harm from the proliferation of wireless technologies — such as the recent $25M cancer study by the National Toxicology Project — there is now increasing pressure being put on agencies to reform.
The FCC is totally controlled by corporate interests
In the FCC’s mission statement, there is no indication whatsoever of any jurisdiction or mandated protection of men, women, and children for biological and medical harm caused by radiofrequencies. There is no clear response from the EPA as to why this responsibility somehow does not fall under their purview.
In any case, this ebook report from the Harvard Ethics Department clearly identifies that the FCC is a captured agency. This is the same with virtually all other western countries’ agencies responsible for wireless and health.
At least 5 other agencies have tried to warn us
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1993: The FCC’s exposure standards are “seriously flawed.” (Official comments to the FCC on guidelines for evaluation of electromagnetic effects of radio frequency radiation, FCC Docket ET 93-62, November 9, 1993.)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002: Norbert Hankin of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division, wrote:
“The FCC’s current [radio frequency/microwave] exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations…. The generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified…. There are reports that suggest that potentially adverse health effects, such as cancer, may occur…. Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, non-thermal exposures.”
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1993:
“FCC rules do not address the issue of long-term, chronic exposure to RF fields.”
(Comments of the FDA to the FCC, November 10, 1993.)
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1994: The FCC’s standard is inadequate because it
“is based on only one dominant mechanism — adverse health effects caused by body heating.”
(Comments of NIOSH to the FCC, January 11, 1994.)
- Amateur Radio Relay League Bio-Effects Committee, 1994:
“The FCC’s standard does not protect against non-thermal effects.”
(Comments of the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee to the FCC, January 7, 1994.)
- The U.S. Department of Interior, 2014:
“Study results have documented [bird] nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death…. The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.”
Part 2 of this series will look at recent developments in EMR research and the drive for safety and solutions.