Smart meters are a fire hazard,

West Hawaii Today

Saturday, May 29, 2021| Today’s Paper|74.408°

Not the way

In a Monday letter to the editor, John Powell suggested the Hawaii County Department of Water Supply “cut costs by using new technology” aka, introduce water smart meters in addition to/partnering with HECO’s “advanced (smart) meters.”

This opinion fails to address several key issues that are timely to consider:

Smart meters are a fire hazard, and such devices have been responsible for thousands of fires, explosions, and other serious safety problems. Smart meters have caused documented health problems. The WHO categorizes RF radiation as a Class 2B carcinogen. There is evidence the smart meters unpredictable blasts of RF make them more toxic than cell phones or Wi-Fi, which are toxic themselves but emit more steady signals. It’s the difference between white noise versus erratic loud blasts. The FCC is a captured agency, primarily interested in cheerleading for the wireless industry, not human health. There are zero biomedical professionals in the FCC, they are engineers.

Smart meters typically overcharge and inaccurately represent usage, when compared with reliable, accurate analog meters. “Smart meters” and the “smart grid” risk national security and reliability of the electricity supply by opening a new portal to hackers and others who wish to disrupt these services. This is a major cyber-security problem. Smart meters are surveillance devices and violate our Fourth Amendment right to privacy in our homes.

Most grid-tied solar homes have a smart meter, and also have the option of a safer, wired connection. HECO is currently petitioning the PUC to roll out smart meters on the Big Island on an “opt-out,” rather than “opt-in” basis, which may cost ratepayers greatly. You can submit comments to the PUC via email at Stay updated on the status of smart meters in Hawaii at

Naomi Melamed



There’s a story that you sometimes hear that goes like this: wireless radiation can’t cause health problems because it’s not ionising radiation, which is known to damage DNA and cause cancer. How lovely it would be if that were true! But it’s not—and this is why. Firstly, let’s take a closer look at what ionising radiation actually is. Physicist Vic Leach explains that ‘ionising radiation—such as X-rays and Gammaλ rays—has wavelengths that are a billion times smaller than those used for wireless communication. And they’re the same size as atoms, which means that they interact with atoms, dislodging electrons in their orbit and creating ionised molecules in air and tissue. Hence the label “ionising” radiation.’

On the other hand, non-ionising radiation—such as ultraviolet (UV) light, mobile phone radiation, WiFi and 5G—doesn’t have enough energy to knock electrons off atoms. However, this does not mean it’s safe. There are other ways that non-ionising radiation can interact with atoms and cause damage such as cancer. Take UV light, for example. We know that it causes skin cancer. There’s a large body of scientific evidence that wireless radiation, even though it’s non-ionising, can, in fact, cause both DNA damage and, most likely, cause cancer. In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency radiation as a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen and since that time much more evidence linking it to cancer has been found, including data from animal experiments such as the $30 million dollar US National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute Italian study

An Italian court proclaimed that a plaintiff’s brain tumour, a rare nerve tumour similar to those seen in animal studies, was caused by his mobile phone use.A recent review by Y Choi found that 17 minutes of mobile phone use a day over a ten-year period increased a person’s risk of developing tumours by 60%. A recent review by Professor Henry Lai, found wireless radiation damaged genes. Wireless radiation causes “oxidative stress” which indirectly creates DNA damage, a precursor to cancer.You’ll be able to see more evidence that wireless radiation is harmful in our regular newsletter ‘EMR and Health’ (see link below).So next time you hear someone tell you that wireless radiation is safe because it’s not ionising radiation, you will know they are not familiar with the science on this issue.For more information see article by Professor Denis Henshaw

What can you do?Limit your exposure wireless radiation:Buy wired-only devices, not wireless devices.Measure to see what wireless devices you have in your home and how much radiation they are emitting:…Use our radiation-free equipment which can be used for internet and landline phones. Protect your body with our new shielded scarves.

What else you can doIf you found the information above of interest, please forward this email to others.If you’d like more information, you can download our May issue of EMR and Health here.If you’ve been sent this message by a friend and would like to subscribe to future updates, you can do that here.

Warm regards

Lyn McLean
EMR Australia PL
02 9576 1772
EMR Australia
PO Box 4721 Sylvania Waters, NSW 2224

Nineteen Hertz and Below: An Infrasonic History of the Twentieth Century

Nineteen Hertz and Below: An Infrasonic History of the Twentieth Century
Author(s): Sophia Roosth
Source: Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities , Vol. 5, No. 3, Common
Senses and Critical Sensibilities (Fall 2018), pp. 109-124
Published by: University of Nebraska Press
Stable URL:
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
University of Nebraska Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities
This content downloaded from on Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:59:17 UTC
All use subject to htt
Nineteen Hertz and Below
An Infrasonic History of the Twentieth Century
Sophia Roosth
Th is is a history of a sound you cannot hear. Human hearing ranges,
on average, between twenty and twenty thousand hertz, and infrasound
vibrates at a frequency lower than twenty hertz, ever so slightly below
the envelope of human audition.1
Infrasound fi rst rattled the scientifi c
world in 1883, when the explosion of Krakatoa between the Indonesian
islands of Java and Sumatra registered on barographs as subsonic vibrations powerful enough to circle the globe seven times.2
shuddered back into scientifi c attention immediately aft er World War
II, when interest in infrasound oscillated between harnessing infrasonic vibrations as weapons and tuning into them as signatures or acoustic
footprints of nuclear testing, unheard vibrations from a stealthy enemy. Because infrasonic vibrations are not easily dissipated by physical
obstacles, they travel much farther than audible sound, a quality that
makes them a useful means for measuring events occurring far away,
from earthquakes and volcanoes to rocket launches. In 2011 the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization presided over a controlled explosion in Israel’s Negev desert to fi ne- tune their infrasonicmonitoring equipment; they found that the explosion was recorded by
monitoring stations as far away as Mongolia.3
In February 2013, infrasound sensors recorded the strongest infrasonic wave on record— a
dense fi reball blooming from the Chelyabinsk meteor as it exploded high above Russia’s Ural Mountains. A report in Science described
the “meteor’s death throes” as emitting a piercing yet “silent scream,”
one that, while inaudible, nonetheless propagated powerful vibrations
across great distances.4
This content downloaded from on Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:59:17 UTC
All use subject to htt
110 Resilience Vol. 5, No. 3
As a liminal category alternately dubbed “unsound” or “sound- like,”5
infrasound affords scholars the opportunity to interrogate sensorial ambiguity. Sound studies scholar Jonathan Sterne differentiates between
sound and other vibrations: “As part of a larger physical phenomenon
of vibration, sound is a product of the human senses and not a thing
in the world apart from humans.”6
Such a definition authorizes sound
studies to turn a deaf ear to those vibrations that are inaudible to humans yet are nonetheless key sensory capacities for nonhuman animals:
ultrasonic vibrations among dolphins, bats, and dogs, for example, or
infrasonic vibrations with which whales and elephants can communicate and anticipate danger in their immediate environments, such as
earthquakes and tsunamis.7
How, then, might sound studies admit into
its purview (its percussion?) those aspects of the vibratory world that
are not, strictly speaking, sonic? To productively draw sensory studies
into conversation with multispecies science studies requires that the
non human umwelt be examined as rigorously and on the same footing
as the human sensorium (and, indeed, to query the very notion of a singular and homogenous “human sensorium” in the first place).8
A more
capacious understanding of sound could consequently reorient its focus away from not only anthropocentric but also “earcentric” models of
sonic perception in favor of an extra cochlear modality that recognizes
entire percussing bodies as vibratory sensory apparatuses.9
Once we retune hearing to incorporate the entire body, rather than
ears alone, then the sensory hierarchy falls away. Sensory studies
scholars consequently must admit the possibility that sound— or any
other sense— cannot be studied (or experienced) in isolation but only
on a spectrum with other sensory and affective states. Infrasound is on
the fringe of the audible yet bleeds into the palpable. It occupies the
threshold between hearing and the many other perceptual modalities
that audition both complements and overlaps (most significantly,
tactility and proprioception, but also nausea and dizziness, as well
as affective, cognitive, and emotional states). The twentieth- century
history of infrasound is one place to begin such a project, as it
problematizes which vibrations do or do not count as “sound”; requires
an extra cochlear model of hearing; and attaches audition to somatic
feelings and moods, including agitation, anxiety, irritability, and
In her history of vibration, Shelley Trower demonstrates how
This content downloaded from on Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:59:17 UTC
All use subject to htt
Roosth: Nineteen Hertz and Below 111
nineteenth- century physiologists, poets, and spiritualists used sound
“to make audible the silent vibrations that were shaping the experience
of modernity.”10 Gillian Beer similarly notes late- nineteenth- century
anxieties that attended the limits of perception: “Not only the distortion
but the extreme tenuity of our senses was brought home as the
subsonic, ultrasonic, and subsensible . . . began to surround and imbue
the human.”11 Dovetailing with these histories, I fi nd that infrasound
became an increasingly salient cultural concern precisely during the
midcentury moment when nuclear weapons testing, Cold War logics,
and ecological consciousness inaugurated planetary thinking anew. A
vibration that could circle the earth and indicate precarious or degraded
environments crystallized widespread scientific and popular concerns
about the hazards of modern geopolitical globality, which resonate to
this day.
Auditing infrasound as it echoes from the mid- twentieth century to
now allows sensory scholars to inquire into the epistemic status of that
which is palpable yet unheard. How do our understandings of sound
change when they are not vibrations acting on bodies but vibrations
that resonate with and within our fleshy, pulpy selves? In this essay, I
relate how infrasonic vibrations were cast as sonic weapons, as well as a
signature of the use of atomic weapons— specifically, in order to monitor international compliance with the Limited and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaties. I examine infrasound as both cause and register of human anxiety in a technological world stuff used with vibrations
both heard and unheard. Finally, I stray into infrasound’s use as a way
of debunking ghostly hauntings in order to tune in to infrasound as
diagnostic of modern paranoias about the imperceptible risks to which
we imagine ourselves exposed. At stake is the relation of sounds to vibrations, of vibrations to bodies, and of bodies to the vibrating and perilous environments in which they are nestled.
A Devastating Whistle: Silent Weapons in a Cold War
In 1941, infrasound reverberated through the pages of Robert Heinlein’s
speculative fiction novel The Day after Tomorrow. Originally serially
published in Astounding Science Fiction as Sixth Column the same year
as the attack on Pearl Harbor, Heinlein’s book features American scientists who develop an infrasonic weapon designed to kill a Pan- Asian
This content downloaded from on Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:59:17 UTC
All use subject to htt
112 Resilience Vol. 5, No. 3
enemy alliance. Vibrations pitched at fourteen hertz struck fear in the
hearts of America’s enemies. Paging through Heinlein’s xenophobic
fantasy of vibrant infrasonic retribution, one reads, “Those damned
subsonics give me the creeping horrors even when I know what’s going
on. . . . There’s nothing like the fear of something you can’t understand
to break a man down.”12
Stories about weaponizing infrasound were not, however, limited to
science fiction novels— they also seeped into peer- reviewed scientific
publications, popular science magazines, and mainstream and yellow
journalism. Foremost among these was the strange tale of Russian- born
French scientist Vladimir Gavreau.13 Twenty years aft er the publication
of The Day after Tomorrow, Gavreau, head of the Electroacoustics
and Automation Laboratory of the Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique (CNRS), and his fellow researchers began to feel nauseated,
dizzy, and unfocused. While investigating vibrations visible in the
liquids found in his laboratory, Gavreau discovered that a defective
industrial ventilator in a nearby building had caused a standing wave to
vibrate below twenty hertz in his laboratory, though not in any adjacent
laboratories. Upon disabling the fan, he and his colleagues immediately
recovered. Intrigued by the connection between low- frequency
vibrations and feelings of illness and unease, and in particular by
the conundrum of “directive vibrations,” Gavreau began researching
whether infrasonic vibrations, while unheard, might nonetheless be
physically palpable. What happens next, however, oscillates between
fact and fiction, making it difficult to separate history from conspiracy
theory. Some writers doubt to this day whether Gavreau existed, despite
the fact that journal articles and patents bear his name.14
A 1967 issue of the UNESCO Courier speculated that Gavreau was
researching a lethal “black noise,” building a “devastating whistle” and
a “mammoth organ pipe” twenty- four meters long that could disable or
even kill enemy combatants by surrounding them in a sonic “envelope
of death” or turning their internal organs into “jelly.”15 Researchers in
his laboratory, the press reported, would be snatched from near death
after their internal organs “hit critical resonance frequencies.”16 One
champion of Gavreau was cut- up writer William S. Burroughs, who
carried a clipping of a Sunday Times article about Gavreau in his wallet
and showed it to several musicians he interviewed in the early 1970s.
Burroughs explained to Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page,
This content downloaded from on Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:59:17 UTC
All use subject to htt
Roosth: Nineteen Hertz and Below 113
Professor Gavreau of France developed infra- sound as a military
weapon. A powerful infra- sound installation can, he claims, kill
everyone in a fi ve- mile radius, knock down walls and break windows. Infra- sound kills by setting up vibrations within the body
so that, as Gavreau puts it, “You can feel all the organs in your
body rubbing together.” The plans for this device can be obtained
from the French Patent Office, and infra- sound generators constructed from inexpensive materials.17
Burroughs similarly sketched out Gavreau’s story to David Bowie
while interviewing him for Rolling Stone in November 1973; the
two imagined making music that might “maim [the audience].”18
Weaponized infrasound left an indelible impression on Bowie, who
told Dick Cavett in a televised interview a year later that a “black noise
bomb” that could destroy a city had been invented in France and that
you could purchase the patent for less than four dollars.19 Industrial
musicians. The robbing Gristle, also devotees of Burroughs, incorporated
infrasound into their live performances, as The robbing Gristle synthesist
Chris Carter explained, to “make people do things that they didn’t
want to do— making people feel ill and dizzy and stuff .”20 The band
also bombarded squatters with infrasonic waves to force them out of
Genesis P- Orridge’s backyard.21 Gavreau’s “mammoth organ pipe”
featured in a 1973 volume of Belgian feminist comic book Yoko Tsuno,
in which the titular electrical engineer must rescue a famous organist
from the villainous Karl Moebius and his destructive infrasonic L’orgue
Du Diable (devil’s organ).
Such anecdotes are, perhaps, symptomatic of Cold War paranoia
heavily dosed with the coke- fueled avant- garde industrial and glam
scenes of the early 1970s. Nonetheless, they persist in sober sources
to this day; the Hastings Center issued a 2010 report warning its
readers, “Acoustical weapons, which have not yet been perfected,
would employ inaudible infrasound to resonate in body cavities and
cause disorientation, nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasms.”22 Such
hypothetical weapons are, in many ways, an insidious obverse to the
use of sonic booms by the American military during the Cold War—
in the 1964 Oklahoma Sonic Boom Experiment, citizens were regularly
exposed to sonic booms (eight times a day over six months) to test
the psychological repercussions of the “sound of freedom.” In such
This content downloaded from on Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:59:17 UTC
All use subject to htt
114 Resilience Vol. 5, No. 3
exercises, “through sound, the state touched people’s bodies,” such that
“the Cold War was mapped onto the field of sensory experience.”23
In Sonic Warfare, Steve Goodman notes how a “tactics of frequency”
“brings into the field of power the dimension of unsound.”24 While the
use of audible sound— loud, piercing noises and grating pop music—
has been studied as part of the history of sonic warfare, from crowd
control to human torture, panic over (or enthusiasm for) infrasonic
weaponry draws our attention toward the specter of sounds unheard,
transmitted from far away yet acting intimately on the bodily interior.
“The Voice of the Atmosphere”
Given that infrasound was already understood to be a weapon in itself, it
is unsurprising that infrasound would soon also be enrolled as indexical
of weaponry and hence a deterrent against the proliferation and testing
of nuclear weapons. By the 1950s both the United States and the Soviet
Union had set up infrasound monitoring stations in order to detect
atmospheric nuclear testing.25 Over two thousand nuclear weapons tests
were conducted between 1945 and 1996; and in the first two decades
following World War II, infrasound was an efficient mechanism for the US
government to keep tabs on Soviet atmospheric weapons detonations.26
“Studying VLF [very- low frequency] emissions produced by nuclear
explosions,” Douglas Kahn notes, “was part of a larger scientific task
of producing and monitoring seemingly every possible electromagnetic
and acoustical (seismic, infrasound) signal and chemical and isotopic
signature from around the world.”27 The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty
moved nuclear testing underground, where its monitoring became the
province of seismic rather than infrasonic recording devices. Infrasound
monitoring of nuclear weapons was revived again in the 1990s, when the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was drafted and codified by the
United Nations General Assembly.28
In the intervening years, a global network of infrasound stations
were installed to monitor compliance with the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the organization of which is headquartered in
Vienna.29 Sixty global infrasound stations are currently being built, and
forty- five, at last count, are already functioning, registering infrasonic
waves, and transmitting signals back to the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) headquarters in Vienna.30
This content downloaded from on Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:59:17 UTC
All use subject to htt
Roosth: Nineteen Hertz and Below 115
When North Korea detonated nuclear weapons in 2010, scientists at
the CTBTO offices knew hours later, before North Korea had made
an official announcement.31 In this respect, infrasound monitoring is
not simply a technology deployed in the service of desired geopolitical
harmony but rather functions as harmonic geopolitics.
While nuclear weapons detonations were rare occasions for most
citizens, other sources of infrasound were growing increasingly commonplace. The same 1967 issue of the UNESCO Courier that publicized Gavreau’s research also reported on the dangers of modern noise
to human welfare. “The Danger of Sounds We Cannot Hear” blames
infrasound for a host of conditions, from the discomfort experienced
by airline passengers to dizziness, fatigue, and a “fl uttering sensation”
plaguing urban dwellers. Readers are warned that “inaudible noise, like
an invisible enemy, is even more deadly than the noise we hear.”32 No
longer thought of only as a literal weapon but also as an inaudible yet
deadly by- product of modernity, infrasound had bifurcated.
Fig. 1. Infrasound monitoring station, Schauinsland, Germany. Image courtesy
of the CTBTO Public Information, https:// www .ctbto .org.
This content downloaded from on Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:59:17 UTC
All use subject to htt
116 Resilience Vol. 5, No. 3
In May 1976, scientists at the Lamont- Doherty Earth Observatory,
Columbia University’s atmospheric infrasound station, began
registering what researcher William Donn reported as “strange signals
[that] began to appear . . . at about the same time on alternate days.”33
After several weeks, the researchers realized that they were recording
the first Concorde flights landing at Dulles International Airport. They
used the resulting infrasonic vibrations, which were degradations of
the Concorde’s “sonic boom,” as an atmospheric probe to listen to what
Donn called “the voice of the atmosphere.” Following the Concorde’s
rumblings, Donn noted small atmospheric differences that registered
on morning and afternoon flights, in summer and in autumn; and in
so doing, he realized that environmental change could be monitored by
listening to infrasonic frequencies.34
Around the same time, physicians began attending to infrasound’s
possible effects on the body. No longer concerned with infrasound as a
weapon, it was now recognized as a resonant, inaudible, yet potentially
hazardous and inescapable artifact of urban modernity— a subauditory
miasma. A literature review published in Lancet in 1973 noted that different parts of the body resonated at various frequencies— “for example,
the abdomen at about 10 Hz. . . . Abdomen vibrations may cause distress
and sickness, whilst excessive chest vibration may interfere with the
normal respiratory system.”35 The authors were careful to note, however,
that while infrasound may be detrimental to one’s health, one person’s
nuisance was another’s pleasure; “Chest vibrations,” they wrote, “incidentally are a welcome effect at discotheques and pop concerts, where
the music is felt as well as heard— the total experience.”36 Th e attention
to our bodies as entities already vibrating in tune with the infrasonic environment triggered concerns that the wrong kind of infrasound
might be deleterious, even fatal. The medicalization of infrasound built
on earlier anxieties that infrasound might be weaponized, joining them
to worries over the ways in which a vibratory ecosystem might impact,
penetrate, and resonate with human bodies.
In 1980, physician Nuno Castelo Branco was appointed the chief
medical officer at an aircraft manufacturing and repair facility owned
and operated by the Portuguese Air Force. He began noting strange
symptoms and behavior among his employees, which he chalked up to
their long- term exposure to infrasonic vibrations.37 He reported that
several employees, in apparent fugue states or epileptic fi ts, would want This content downloaded from on Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:59:17 UTC
All use subject to htt
Roosth: Nineteen Hertz and Below 117
der dangerously close to spinning propellers, from which fellow colleagues would drag them away at the last minute. He named this condition “vibroacoustic disease.” Castelo Branco compared diseases caused
by acoustic vibrations to other conditions that result from invisible or
impalpable environmental phenomena; “It is high time that scientists
begin to view acoustical phenomena with a framework usually applied
to electromagnetic phenomena,” he pronounced.38 Within the electromagnetic spectrum, for example, the eye registers light within a small
range of frequencies. Electromagnetic waves beyond that frequency—
most notably, x- rays— are unseen yet nonetheless profoundly hazardous to one’s health. He proposed a similar model for vibratory phenomena; while not perceived by the human ear as sound, the acoustical
spectrum nonetheless includes frequencies that can do serious bodily
damage or be harnessed for medical diagnostics and therapies, as is the
case with ultrasound.
Castelo Branco’s work has in the last five years been bolstered by
physicians studying a contested illness that was named wind turbine
syndrome in 2009. Nina Pierpont, the pediatrician who coined the
term, noted that infrasonic waves emanating from wind turbines cause
“a sensation of internal quivering, vibration, or pulsation accompanied
by agitation, anxiety, alarm, irritability, rapid heartbeat, nausea,
and sleep disturbance.”39 Recall Robert Heinlein’s science- fictional
scientists railing against “those damned subsonics” giving them “the
creeping horrors.”40 Though not recognized as a legitimate medical
illness, people who live or work near industrial wind turbines report a
wide variety of symptoms ranging from vertigo to nausea, irritability,
annoyance, stress, and panic attacks.41 Anxiety is here treated as a suite
of symptoms triggered by resonance frequencies, similar in many
respects to Vladimir Gavreau’s report half a century earlier. If anxiety
and paranoia was once a side effect of what infrasound vibrations might
be indexical of, now infrasound itself is identified as the immediate
cause of embodied anxiety. If infrasound was once considered a rarity,
triggered by a rogue nuclear blast or a defective generator, for those
who today identify as suffering from vibroacoustic disease or wind
turbine syndrome, it is an unavoidable blight, a vibration blanketing the
modern technologically mediated globe.
In the last ten years, infrasound monitoring facilities are increasingly being repurposed toward monitoring and predicting environment. This content downloaded from on Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:59:17 UTC
All use subject to htt
118 Resilience Vol. 5, No. 3

In the last ten years, infrasound monitoring facilities are increasingly being repurposed toward monitoring and predicting environmental risks— earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, meteors hurtling toward
earth from outer space— in addition to anthropogenic phenomena such
as nuclear explosions and rocket launches. Though built to eavesdrop
on clandestine nuclear tests, infrasound is now a burgeoning and globalized data- collection project aiming to hearken the vibratory world,
a “soundtrack to catastrophe.”42 A Science article reported on the rumbling of Mt. Etna in the summer of 2001: “The shaking mountain, with
its roiling ash cloud, acted like a giant transmitter, triggering pressure
waves that undulated through the atmosphere.”43 Volcanoes register
signature infrasonic vibrations in advance of exploding, giving CTBT
stations a few minutes’ to hours’ lead time in warning communities living nearby. In 2013 the CTBTO signed an agreement with the director
of the Geophysical Survey of the Russian Academy of Sciences allowing Russians to receive data from infrasound stations in order to deliver near- real- time global tsunami warnings.44 Russia, the country for
which infrasound monitoring stations were built in the United States in
the first place, is now a steward of infrasonic vibrations.
The retooling of CTBT stations to monitor and predict volcanoes
and earthquakes filters infrasound’s previous technological uses, refashioning the enemy not as a political threat but an environmental
one. In this regard, infrasound might be considered, following sound installation artist Raviv Ganchrow, to be “the bandwidth of the Anthropocene,” because “environmental infrasound exhibits an intermingling
of large- scale human industrialized activity with these other earth- and
atmosphere- related frequencies.”45 Such techno-ecological vibrations
are, to quote Douglas Kahn, “emissaries of earth magnitude” that allow
globalized auditing of an imagined “whole earth” absent the technological surveillance afforded by “the ‘earthrise’ and ‘blue marble’ photographs of the 1960s and 1970s” or contemporary GPS satellites.46
Conclusion: A Shiver in the Air
In the early 1980s a British engineer named Vic Tandy started doing design work for a company that manufactured medical equipment. Working in the company’s laboratory one evening, he began to feel unwell:
“There was a feeling of depression, occasionally a cold shiver.”47 Sitting
at his desk writing, he “began to feel increasingly uncomfortable”—
“sweating but cold,” he reported, “and the feeling of depression was not. This content downloaded from on Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:59:17 UTC

“sweating but cold,” he reported, “and the feeling of depression was noticeable. . . . It was as though something was in the room with” him. He
had the uncanny sense of being watched. He saw a ghostly apparition
appear on his left , moving, he later wrote, as one “would expect a person to.” He felt a chill in the room, and his hair stood on end. When he
turned his head, the apparition vanished.
The following morning, Tandy, an amateur fencer, was sharpening
his fencing blade in the laboratory, when he noticed that it quivered at
a regular frequency. Using acoustic equipment, he investigated the lab
and found that there was a standing infrasonic wave in the laboratory
vibrating close to nineteen hertz, which was caused by a new fan recently installed in the extraction system. Once the fan was replaced, the
hauntings ceased. Tandy speculated that the infrasonic vibration was
responsible for the feelings of unease and dread sometimes associated
with ghostly hauntings. He even suggested that the spectral figure was
caused by the viscous fluid in his eyeball vibrating at the same frequency as the standing wave, thereby distorting his vision and causing visual
hallucinations. He made a modest career over the next few years as an
amateur ghost hunter, traveling to other haunted sites— medieval cellars, moldering castles— in the United Kingdom in search of infrasonic
Infrasound cannot be contained by canonical definitions of “sound,”
nor has it ever been properly contained by scientific orthodoxy. From
the alarmed report of a Soviet scientist’s “devastating whistle” that could
liquefy internal organs to science- fictional death rays to contested illnesses marked by feelings of quivering and vibratory dread, infrasound
has, since its discovery, been associated with hidden, oft en sinister or
malevolent forces, those which are all the more unsettling because exposure is unnoticed, even insensible. A liminal vibration propagating
at the cusp of human audibility, ever so slightly below the threshold of
human perception, invites all- too- human anxieties about the limits of
our own capacity to sense and know the environment in which we are
The infrasonic calls attention to our embodiment, our status as sacs
and pockets of quivering fluid and pulp that are submerged in and resonate with an uncertain environment— hence long- standing worries
over vibrating vitreous humors, organs jellifying, and head- exploding
sonic waves. Infrasound also pulsates with human panics over hidden
forces and the limits of our ability to perceive them— phenomena not…


Human and Pollinator Sanctuary Resolution-a Hill town Health Initiative

HAPS: Human and Pollinator Sanctuary Resolution
a Hill town Health Initiative
To see if the town will vote to declare itself a human and pollinator sanctuary (HAPS) free of
microwave radiation from low-altitude satellites and additional wireless infrastructure until a
panel of independent MD’s and scientists familiar with long term patterns of disease in
populations completes a risk and environmental assessment for these additional layers of
microwave radiation exposure.

  • Whereas the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), a “captured agency”1 has approved more than
    13,000 low altitude 5G satellites and appears ready to approve many more.
  • Whereas corporations like SpaceX and OneWeb have already launched more than 1,400 such satellites
    and along with Telesat, AST and Science, Lynk, Amazon, Omni-space and Facebook are planning to launch
    approximately 100,000 in total.
  • Whereas the majority of independent studies on this type of radiation indicate significant biological
    harm to humans, pollinators and other flora and fauna.2
  • Whereas the increased number of rocket launches required for this deployment will likely increase air
    pollution, deplete the ozone layer and accelerate global warming according to researchers.3
  • Whereas we have not consented to be part of any biological experiment conducted by any corporation
    or government entity.
  • Whereas our taxpayer dollars are currently being given to Big Wireless by the FCC to build cell towers in
    rural areas which require pollinators to continue farming and which are already served by broadband
    internet, often at additional taxpayer expense.
  • Whereas rural areas are the last and final refuge for millions of people around the world suffering from
    electrical sensitivity, aka electro-hypersensitivity (EHS) aka microwave sickness, a debilitating condition
    recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
  • Whereas fiber to the home is a secure, safe, energy-efficient and future-proof way of insuring everyone
    has access to the digital economy.
  • Whereas the FCC and Big Wireless are currently facing multiple lawsuits for failure to protect public
    health and/or willfully obscuring relevant scientific studies.4
    If adopted, the town clerk is directed to communicate the results of this resolution to local, state and
    national elected officials.
    2,,, etc.




MA-an opt-out tariff which is likely illegal under ADA to discriminate against those with the ADA recognized disability of electromagnetic sensitivity. There is a lawsuit in Maine on this right now and the court is allowing it to proceed.

From: Cecelia Doucette <>

To: Michael O. Moore <>;

Cc: MacNeill, Shelly (SEN) <>
Sent: Thu, May 27, 2021 6:25 pm
Subject: Thank You for DPU Letters!

Dear Senator Moore, Senator DiZoglio and Representative Linsky,

The members of Massachusetts for Safe Technology wish to extend our gratitude for the letters you sent to the DPU for Docket 20-69. The Order on the Grid Modernization Plan, attached, was issued this month. It references your input (p. 21) and requires the utility companies to submit a plan that includes a ratepayer opt-out (p. 35-36).
Unfortunately, it also includes an opt-out tariff which is likely illegal under ADA to discriminate against those with the ADA recognized disability of electromagnetic sensitivity. There is a lawsuit in Maine on this right now and the court is allowing it to proceed.

So, Senator Moore, we are grateful you have once again filed your no-fee utility meter choice bill S. 2204. Thank you, Senator DiZoglio for co-sponsoring this too, and we hope Rep. Linskey will consider doing the same.
Senator Moore, and others, if you are planning to send a letter of bill support to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy may we once again ask to receive a copy? 
Now that New Hampshire legislators passed a law to investigate the health and environmental impact of wireless radiation and issued their final report documenting the conflicts of interest with industry and our federal agencies, and making 15 recommendations to inform the public and transition to safe technology, we are hopeful MA will be next to act by passing the EMF bills this session.

Thank you again for looking out for the public, and for all you do, especially during these most unusual times.

Kind regards,
Cece and the MA for Safe Technology Team
Cecelia (Cece) Doucette, MTPW, BATechnology Safety EducatorDirector, Massachusetts for Safe TechnologyFounder, Understanding EMFsEducation Services Director, Wireless EducationNew Hampshire Legislative Report on EMF/5GCity of Boston Legal Comment to FCCHiBR Conference @ NIHExpert Forum on Wi-fi in SchoolsTechSafe SchoolsMunicipal Presentation on 5G & EMFsAdditional YouTube EMF TalksGeneration Zapped Award-Winning FilmEMF Conference for Health Practitioners

Energy bills: Are smart meters so smart when it comes to cost?

Energy bills: Are smart meters so smart when it comes to cost?

By admin in Household Bills May 27, 2021 0

Smart meter owners have fewer tariff options from which to choose and typically pay more to switch energy deals, new research by has found.

The price comparison website analysed 223 tariffs and found only 37 (17%) were available to households with a smart meter already installed, leaving them with fewer choices when it comes to switching energy supplier.

In comparison, people who have not yet switched to a smart meter had 186 tariffs to choose from.

When it comes to price, smart meter households were also losing out, the analysis found.

The average annual switchable dual fuel tariff price for those with smart meters was £1,089, compared with households without smart meters being offered tariffs for £1,071 per year – a difference of £18.

Peter Earl, head of energy at said: “The industry should be encouraging people who haven’t yet to switch to smart meters, but this does not seem to be the case with tariff variety and pricing.

“There needs to be more incentives to encourage people to switch, including competitive pricing,”

According to the price comparison site, the latest government figures show in 2020, a total of 3.1 million smart meters were installed in domestic properties.

The smart meter programme’s aim is to replace traditional gas and electricity meters with smart meters to help make the energy system cheaper, cleaner and more reliable.

However, the rollout of smart meters was hindered by the installation of meters that did not retain their smart functionality when people switch supplier.

At the end of 2020, there were 22.2 million smart meters in domestic properties in Great Britain, 42% of all domestic meters.

However, only 17.6 million were smart meters operating in smart mode, leaving millions of households without a fully operational meter.

Peter added: “The original target to ensure all UK homes had been offered smart meters by the end of 2020 was clearly unrealistic, since only two-fifths of households have them installed.

“The rollout has been extended so there are fewer excuses for missing the next deadline, even if timings are tight.

“Smart meters are a useful tool to help people manage their energy consumption, but millions of homes are stuck with smart meters that operate in the same way that a traditional meter does, which doesn’t allow them to receive the full benefits promised.

“We need to see dedicated action to ensure these meters are soon enrolled into the smart systems and so that customer get the smart benefits and do not lose them when switching supplier.”


Skip to content

NEWS RELEASE April 22, 2021

For immediate distribution PG&E REFUNDS SMART METER “OPT-OUT” FEES TO EMF-DISABLED CUSTOMER On April 16, Pacific Gas and Electric refunded Smart Meter “opt-out” fees paid by the family of Nina Beety who is disabled by electromagnetic sensitivity. Beety requested disabled accommodation from PG&E to have analog electromechanical meters on her family’s home when the company initiated its wireless Smart Meter roll-out in her community. She explained that EMF-emitting devices cause her disabling health effects. PG&E ignored Beety’s requests for disabled accommodation, and refused to allow residential customers to have analog, non-digital meters without paying a so-called “opt-out” fee. The family was forced to pay $415. in fees to avoid Smart Meters on their home. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits surcharge fees for disabled people. When PG&E filed for bankruptcy in 2019, Beety’s family then filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court for the “opt-out” fees they paid, stating the claim basis as “Smart Meter opt-out fees that were unlawful surcharges against a disabled person (ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, II-1.3000 Relationship to title III)” PG&E objected to this claim, and on February 25, 2021, asked the court to expunge it. “The simpler Customer Bar Date Notice made clear that Customers were not required to file Proofs of Claim for ordinary and customary refunds, overpayments, billing credits, deposits, or similar billing items. The Customer No Liability / Passthrough Claims listed on Exhibit 1 arise from either (1) Customer Security Deposits or (2) Claims that arise from Customer Billing Disputes…Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, the Customer No Liability / Passthrough Claims should be expunged because, in accordance with the Bar Date Order, they will be resolved in the ordinary course.” On March 24, 2021, Beety submitted this timely Response to the Bankruptcy Court: Our claim is not an “ordinary and customary” customer billing item.

We have a special type of billing claim dispute that rises on the fact that I am disabled, and unlawful charges were placed on the household account that interfered with my disabled accommodation. Those unlawful charges were surcharges that are not allowed under the ADA/ADAA and FHAA. This is a meritorious disabled rights claim that was never resolved. It should be resolved by a full and complete refund. Closing my claim would be yet another burden, abrogating my civil rights. Please ensure that my rights are protected. Faced with a federal judge who had read Beety’s response, PG&E withdrew its objection to the family’s claim to the Bankruptcy Court and did not further contest it (recorded in Judge Dennis Montali’s ruling, April 5, 2021).  On April 20, Beety’s family received a full refund check from PG&E for the $415. surcharge fee, plus $24.17 interest which they had not requested. It is noteworthy that this refund was not a percentage of claim or pennies on the dollar which bankruptcy claims often receive, but a complete refund with interest. It took facing a bankruptcy judge in court for PG&E to quit fighting and refund fees that were unlawful surcharges under the ADA and that discriminate against disabled people.  Beety said, “With this action, PG&E and other utilities must now halt their practice of charging unlawful “opt-out” surcharge fees to customers disabled by electromagnetic sensitivity or who have other EMF-sensitive medical conditions, and the companies must refund all unlawful surcharge fees already paid by these disabled customers.

Utilities must allow the simple, readily achievable, and reasonable disabled accommodation of analog, electromechanical, non-digital utility meters for all disabled persons who require them.”

U.S. State Health Authority Downplayed Wi-Fi Health Risks to School Children and Omitted Scientific Research Showing Harm

U.S. State Health Authority Downplayed Wi-Fi Health Risks to School Children and Omitted Scientific Research Showing Harm

Breaking News: Oregon State Health Authority Downplayed Wi-Fi Health Risks to School Children and Omitted Scientific Research Showing Harm

Experts worldwide slam the Oregon Health Authority report and call on the governor and legislature for retraction. An investigation may result in hearings in the Oregon State Legislature.  The Washington Spectator has published an investigative report by Daniel Forbes entitled “Oregon Health Authority Condemned by Scientists For Scrubbing Report on Wireless Hazards in Schools,” which exposes how the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) issued an error-ridden report to the legislature on children and health effects of wireless radiation in schools. An international group of experts, the Environmental Working Group and Physicians for Safe Technology have sent letters on the scientific basis for a retraction of the OHA report to Oregon Gov. Kate Brown.
“No way round it: Oregon’s public health agency, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), has issued a shoddy, biased report on the potential harm to the state’s roughly 600,000 school kids from the wireless devices proliferating in classrooms” Forbes wrote. 

Forbes, a Portland-based reporter, documents how the OHA relied on wireless industry-funded studies, inaccurately presented research findings, and ignored studies showing harmful effects. 
Forbes analyzed several drafts of the OHA report that he obtained through public information requests. He found an inadequate review process coupled with deletions of scientific findings linking wireless radiation exposure to cancer and other health issues.

In response to the OHA report, senior scientists from the United States and around the world, including Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, signed a letter sent to Brown, the State Legislature, and OHA’s leadership calling for immediate retraction of the report due to its flaws, inconsistencies, and lack of science-based conclusions. The numerous inadequacies and lack of science-based conclusions have been documented in a 100-page report by Environmental Health Trust, referenced in the scientists’ letter. 

Devra Davis, Ph.D., founder of Environmental Health Trust, released a video commenting on the report. She says it would never have passed peer review or been published by the National Academy of Sciences. “It’s a highly selective, skewed analysis of a limited amount of literature that includes biased studies funded by industry.”
Investigative Hearings
Cindy Franklin of Consumers for Safe Cell Phones characterized the report as reeking of “pressure by the wireless industry to repeat the lie that wireless radiation is safe, even for children.” She urged Oregonians to call or email their representatives. “OHA leadership has been implicated in this blatant, coordinated public health deception,” Franklin said. “How high up does this go? Governor Brown and the legislature must immediately hold investigative hearings.”
The Washington Spectator investigation could lead to hearings in the Oregon State Legislature. Oregon State Sen. Michael Dembrow was quoted by Forbes as saying, “If there are flaws in the report, they need to be remedied. The report is important to get a clear assessment of the science.”
“We need to have a hearing to hear both a critique of the report and OHA’s defense. Then the legislature needs to come up with funding to do a more in-depth report,” added Dembrow, chair of the Senate Committee on Education.
Dembrow concluded, “It was a mistake on OHA’s part to make it look like a real study. It’s more like a memo.” Unlike a scientific journal article, “There were no reviewers as such.”

Scientific Letter by International Experts, Physicians, and Environmental Health Organizations
The letter by scientists to Brown states, “The report would not pass peer review as it omitted animal and cellular studies and thus it does not provide a comprehensive or systematic review of the relevant literature. … The failure of Oregon Health Authority to utilize in their review the significant body of evidence showing harm to animals from wireless radiation exposure is contrary to public health principles and OHA’s own established protocols of using animal studies in many other reviews. By omitting key peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects and downplaying the scientific studies showing impacts to memory and the brain, the OHA review does not comport with the agency’s mission of protecting and promoting public health.”  Read the letter by U.S., International, and Environmental Health Trust experts. Watch Dr. Devra Davis’s Response to the Oregon Health Authority Wireless ReportPhysicians For Safe Technology Response
Physicians For Safe Technology (PST) also sent a letter to the Oregon Health Authority stating the Oregon Health Authority report “endangers the public by asserting that health risks are absent or minimal.” 
“PST believes that today the scientific evidence strongly suggests risks for cancers, neurological disease, reproductive harm, and neurodevelopmental risks for the fetus and newborn. Sufficient evidence exists in peer-reviewed professional and scientific papers published over more than two decades to reach the conclusion that public health warnings are necessary, and that the public should be both educated and protected by health agencies. … Existing FCC (Federal Communications Commission) guidelines for public exposure are grossly inadequate. The public is not protected by them. The State of Oregon is unwise to rely on the FCC’s outdated and grossly inadequate wireless health safety standards as a measure of protection for children.”
Read the letter by Physicians for Safe Technology 

Environmental Working Group Response
Another major environmental health organization, the Environmental Working Group, also submitted a letter to the Oregon Health Authority stating, “Given the substantial scientific evidence demonstrating that RFR (radiofrequency radiation) exposure can negatively affect the brain and the heart, EWG is calling for the Oregon Health Authority, or OHA, to revise its report … by including the latest findings from human and animal studies that demonstrate the risks of RFR for children’s health and public health generally.” 
Read the letter by the Environmental Working Group 

Background on the Oregon Report 
On New Year’s Eve 2020, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) released the “Wireless Technology Health Risks Report” following the Oregon State Legislature’s Senate Bill 283 mandate to “review peer-reviewed, independently funded scientific studies” of the health effects of exposure to microwave radiation, particularly exposure that results from the use of wireless network technologies in schools or similar environments.” 
Click to DownloadScientific Letter by US, International, and Environmental Health Trust experts Scientific Letter by the Environmental Working Group Scientific Letter by Physicians for Safe Technology EHT Critique Documenting the Errors and Unscientific Conclusions of the OHA Wireless ReportPrintable Factsheets on Health Effects of Wi-Fi School Washington Spectator article “Oregon Health Authority Condemned by Scientists For Scrubbing Report on Wireless Hazards in Schools”
About Daniel Forbes Daniel Forbes is a Portland, Ore.-based reporter whose 20-article series on Portland’s Bullseye Glass helped spur Oregon’s air toxics regulatory reform. (Bullseye paid its neighbors $6.5 million to settle claims against it.) His journalism helped lead to a change in Portland’s regulation of neurotoxic lead dust from unfettered housing demolitions. He has also covered issues such as lead in Portland school water and lead dust from construction.
He has received awards from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, the Online News Association, and a chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. He’s published widely, appeared on national TV and radio, and also testified before the U.S. House and Senate at hearings his reporting initiated after catching the U.S. drug czar paying TV networks to demonize marijuana to influence voters. He also published a series on the theft of a black Southern Baptist church. Sparked by his successful, free-speech federal lawsuit against Lincoln Center and the New York Police Department, he authored the novel Derail this Train Wreck, published by Fomite PressRead the Washington Spectator Article NowFinal Thoughts
The Oregon report exposé highlights the urgent need for science-based wireless safety limits. As EHT documents in our critique of the OHA report, no U.S. health agency — not the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), nor the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — has ever reviewed the full body of research on the health effects of wireless radiation in the last 30 years.
The webpages of U.S. federal agencies are a house of cards. No group of U.S. government experts is staying updated on the latest science. No pre-market safety testing of Wi-Fi was done before it came to market. There is no post-market surveillance of effects. The EPA was fully defunded from setting proper safety limits in 1996, and the federal government adopted its current “safety limits” based on input by groups dominated by the telecommunications industry. These limits did not consider long-term exposure and did not incorporate research on health effects to children whose brains are developing. Yet despite over a thousand studies showing harm, these wireless radiation limits have not changed since 1996. This is why Environmental Health Trust has filed legal action against the FCC.
— Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of Environmental Health TrustEnvironmental Health Trust is a nonprofit 501(c)3 that relies on your donations to publish independent research and create educational resources to spark meaningful change and protective public policy.

Download EHT’s New Resource on Wi-Fi in SchoolsDownload EHT’s Wi-Fi in School Factsheets

Please Donate to Support EHT ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌

Opposition to California Bills SB 556 and AB 537- URGENT ACTION NEEDED TO STOP TELECOM POWER GRAB

Opposition to California Bills SB 556 and AB 537- URGENT ACTION NEEDED TO STOP TELECOM POWER GRAB
Sometimes when you are up against overwhelming odds against a corrupt system intent on depriving you of your rights of due process and health & safety, you need to get creative to get your message across. That’s what two guys did the other day in the California state senate, in order to draw attention to two bills quickly moving through the state legislature that would destroy local governments’ right to regulate 5G and other wireless infrastructure on the public right-of-way. Particularly alarming is how COVID is being used as a pretext to get these bills through with minimal public involvement. Watch the last 20 minutes of the video posted on our site, to get an idea of what we are facing, and how bold activists are raising the alarm. Now it’s your turn.
If you live in California, your urgent action is required to preserve local control over wireless cell siting decisions. Your options are now limited to the following if you want to avoid a 5G cell site going in 6 feet from your kids bedroom:
1. Speak out now against these bills by going to Wire California OR….
2. Prepare to take direct action and get arrested, with uncertain effect
If you don’t fancy being stuffed in the back of a patrol car with handcuffs, or having your health destroyed by Crown Castle or Verizon, I recommend you contact your state Senator and Assembly member right away. Even better is to go to Sacramento and tell them in person. Thank you- we appreciate you making some noise on this one. -Stop Smart Meters!

p.s. if you do not have a good EMF meter, or need to upgrade to one more likely to detect newer 5G frequencies, please visit our online store to pick up a meter at a discount. Shipping is fast and free and all proceeds support our outreach and advocacy. You can also donate to us by visiting this page.

Thank you. via

Mystery neurological illness cluster New Brunswick, Canada

Mystery neurological illness cluster New Brunswick, Canada

  • Home
  • Mystery neurological illness cluster New Brunswick, Canada
  • 19 MAY 21Mystery neurological illness cluster New Brunswick, CanadaNew Brunswick Cluster of Neurological Syndrome of Unknown CauseOffice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, New Brunswick The Province of New Brunswick is collaborating with local and national subject matter experts and health-care providers to investigate a group of individuals who are experiencing signs and symptoms of a neurological syndrome of unknown cause (NSUC).At this time, the investigation is active and ongoing to determine if there are similarities among the reported cases that can identify potential causes for this syndrome, and to help identify possible strategies for prevention. The investigation team is exploring all potential causes including food, environmental and animal exposures.Investigation overviewSince early 2020, physicians in New Brunswick have been identifying a number of individuals with an unusual combination of neurological symptoms. Despite extensive medical investigation, a diagnosis for these individuals has not yet been determined.Local health-care providers in New Brunswick have engaged the Public Health Agency of Canada’s Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance System (CJDSS) to actively investigate the possibility of human prion disease, but to date, all test results have been negative for known forms of human prion disease.  Due to commonalities in signs and symptoms and the lack of a confirmed diagnosis among cases, a cluster of NSUC has been identified.At the time of referral by their health-care provider, most of the individuals under investigation were living in the southeastern and northeastern regions of New Brunswick, around the Acadian Peninsula and Moncton areas. However, so far our investigation has not found any evidence suggesting that the residents of these regions are more at risk than those living elsewhere in the province.Canadian health-care providers have been alerted to this investigation and are advised to contact New Brunswick Public Health for further information or to make referrals for individual cases.Some symptoms include, but are not limited to:
    • memory problems
    • muscle spasms
    • balance issues, difficulty walking or falls
    • blurred vision or visual hallucinations
    • unexplained, significant weight loss
    • behaviour changes
    • pain in the upper or lower limbs 
  • Read the full notice hereNOTE: What is interesting with the above symptoms is that they are very similar to symptoms reported in people who were sleeping in close proximity to smart meter radiofrequency emissions. Ref:  Lamech F, “Self-Reporting of Symptom Development From Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields of Wireless Smart Meters in Victoria”.