5G Appeal sent to EU

logo

  • 19 SEP 17

5G Appeal sent to EU

From Lennart Hardell
5G Appeal sent to EU

September 13, 2017

Scientists and doctors warn of potential serious health effects of 5G

We the undersigned, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 36 countries, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.  5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment……

We urge EU:

1.To take all reasonable measures to halt the 5G RF-EMF expansion until independent scientists can assure that 5G and the total radiation levels caused by RF-EMF (5G together with 2G, 3G, 4G, and WiFi) will not be harmful for EU-citizens, especially infants, children and pregnant women, as well as the environment.

2.To recommend that all EU countries, especially their radiation safety agencies, follow Resolution 1815 and inform citizens, including, teachers and physicians, about health risks from RF-EMF radiation, how and why  to avoid wireless communication, particularly in/near e.g., daycare centers, schools, homes, workplaces, hospitals and elderly care.

3.To appoint immediately, without industry influence, an EU task force of independent, truly impartial EMF-and-health scientists with no conflicts of interest to re-evaluate the health risks and:

To decide about new, safe “maximum total exposure standards” for all wireless communication within EU.
To study the total and cumulative exposure affecting EU-citizens.
To create rules that will be prescribed/enforced within the EU about how to avoid exposure exceeding new EU ”maximum total exposure standards” concerning all kinds of EMFs in order to protect citizens, especially infants, children and pregnant women.
4.To prevent the wireless/telecom industry through its lobbying organizations from persuading EU officials to make decisions about further propagation of RF radiation including 5G in Europe.

5.To favor and implement wired digital telecommunication instead of wireless.

Read the full appeal here.

 

Advertisements

MA-We need an investigative reporter who can get this story into the media and put pressure on both the AGO and the DPU?

Hi everyone,

I seem to remember Alex Rittershaus, Legislative Director on the House side (House Co-chair Golden’s office) for the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, telling me last legislative session that the smart meter deployments were held up because DPU was hesitant to take the rap for mandating a system involving such exorbitant costs. Theoretically DPU can also be pressured. Does anyone know an investigative reporter who can get this story into the media and put pressure on both the AGO and the DPU?

And let’s not forget that from the point of view of health concerns Eversource is being totally disingenuous. It is arguing strenuously for an opt-in regime with respect to AMI meters, but the default situation is everyone getting an AMR meter, no opting of any kind, certainly no opting out. The AGO needs to be reminded that an option was supposed to be part of the basic ground rules of the grid modernization plans, and Eversource is violating that understanding.

Helen
I think we need some sort of very strong advocacy targeting the MA AGO that the utilities have put her in a terrible position…..she will take the hit for the cost, etc of this….by siding with the “clean” energy community she is on the wrong side of history. how do we do that????

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Patricia Burke <patricia999burke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:46 PM
Subject: MA update, Attorney General for full deployment, 2/3 Utilities for Opt in approach

We have three simultaneous dockets right now for the three investor-owned utilities, each with four levels of deployment.

Note though that MA is already heavily deployed with AMR meters, so has already saved on truck rolls and cutting meter readers

here are 3 most recent Utility’s most recent replies and some useful quote – August 2017

Note AMF= Advanced Meter Functionality, a new word here, so the companies could suggest an alternative to new meters if they could still modernize the grid.

MA DPU 15-122 Eversource; 28 pages ( formerly NStar)
http://170.63.40.34/DPU/FileRoomAPI/api/Attachments/Get/?path=15-122%2fEversource_Reply_Brief_81817.pdf

The AGO, CLC and Acadia principally argue that the IGMP should be rejected because it does not include a proposal for system-wide deployment of advanced metering functionality (“AMF”), notwithstanding the facts that such a measure would be enormously expensive for customers, is unsupportable by a business case analysis, and that Eversource’s opt-in time-varying rates (“TVR”) proposal will enable it to achieve 1 NECEC submitted its initial brief on July 10, 2017. 2 The Network submitted a letter in lieu of reply brief on August 8, 2017. 3 approximately 80 percent of the benefits of TVR at approximately 15 percent of the cost of a full-scale AMF deployment.

 The objectives identified by the Department for grid modernization can be achieved without the AMF solution. AMF is an overwhelmingly expensive proposition that is not in the interests of the overall customer base at this time. The Company’s proposals in the GMBC in D.P.U. 17-05 and the IGMP in this docket provide a better alternative.

The Department’s prior orders do not require the electric distribution companies to present a plan for full deployment of AMF regardless of the cost, and in fact no such requirement would be reasonable or appropriate. Eversource has instead provided a reasonable and less costly alternative in its opt-in TVR proposal for customers potentially interested in taking service on time-varying rates.

Eversource’s analysis concluded than an opt-in TVR program is a better value proposition for its customers compared to an opt-out TVR program, and that an opt-out plan would punish those customers who cannot take advantage of TVR (Tr. Vol. 2 at 348)

The Company’s opt-in TVR is all about providing customers choices, because Eversource knows that is what drives customer satisfaction (Tr. Vol. 2 at 235). To the extent “customers are interested in participating in time-varying rates . . . we’re giving them that option to participate” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 235-6). Eversource recognizes that a relatively small number of customers have an interest in TVR or sufficient discretionary load to benefit from TVR, but for those who are interested the Eversource plan is designed with some of the more innovative structures in the country:

Eversource decided not to deploy 100 percent AMI meters for the opt-in TVR program because of the cost. “It’s a very expensive proposition to . . . burden that cost across all customers. But if that, again, is where the Department would want us to be . . . the costs associated with a total AMI infrastructure, then we say it’s approaching a billion dollars. It’s a very different cost proposition for total AMI” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 266).

Eversource noted that for other companies that have installed advanced metering capabilities, one of the challenges has been in increasing the customers’ knowledge of the system (Tr. Vol. 1 at 117). “This cannot be underestimated, the importance of educating our consumers, particularly if we’re looking at an opt-out program where we’re going to force them to go onto something that they do not want to be a part of. So education is vital” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 116-118).

For Eversource, “we have already gained that with the AMR [installation] . . . . 80 percent of the benefits associated with AMI we have already gained because of our AMR installation, and thankfully, with the advances of technology, with the advances of IOT, with the ability for our meters to communicate with systems like Alexa, we will soon be able to provide our customers with more information regarding their usage without changing out all these meters in a costly method” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 82- 83). The Company provided substantial information on the record about the costs and benefits associated with an opt-out TVR rate proposal, which is dependent upon full AMF deployment, and demonstrated “that would be a very costly endeavor, benefiting few customers, because we’ve already gained the benefits with AMR” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 82-83).

As Eversource noted in its initial brief, the Compact and other intervenors largely ignore the fact that advanced in-home resources are currently available to residential customers and more are coming that would make an investment by Eversource in full AMF deployment particularly ill-advised. The Company’s customers have the ability to control their energy usage with the assistance of next-generation technologies, and these options will continue to expand. Specifically, given the advancement of technology, customers that are interested in managing their usage will have the ability to do so through new phone apps and voice command devices (Tr. Vol. 1 at 168-69). In noting the possibilities, “advancements are coming fast in that. And by that time, within, you know, a ten-year horizon, who’s to say we won’t have solutions that won’t require the significant and non-cost-effective expense of advanced metering infrastructure, where we could leverage the investment that we already have in our automated metering infrastructure and leverage those signals that are coming out every 15 seconds to provide that information”

The Compact claims that customers with “medical or moral objections” to AMF are adequately protected with opt-out provisions (CLC Reply at 20), but this position ignores the potential harm to the vulnerable customer population. The Company’s TVR proposal recognizes that most residential customers do not have the discretionary load to shift
 (Tr. Vol. 2 at 343-44). “One of the biggest demand opportunities is central AC, and we only have a 38 percent penetration of central AC” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 343-44). In fact, there are low-income customers and customers who are dependent on electric appliances to live who could be harmed by timevarying rates. If a customer has an oxygen machine that needs to run, the Company noted the concern that TVR could give rise to a low-income “having to make a poor decision and justify sacrificing their health because of that. So we need to be cautious as we look at the impact of burdening customers and making them take in time-varying rates” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 347). “Medical equipment does not represent that discretionary use” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 347). CLC argues in its reply brief that the Company’s customers with moral or medical objections to the types of smart meters necessary to utilize TVR are “adequately protected” by an opt-out TVR approach. These claims are pure conjecture and not based on record evidence. Rather, CLC simply asserts that customers with medical needs, such as life support “likely do 22 not live alone any pay their own electric bills; these patients are probably taken care of by family members who consume electricity or they are located in hospitals or nursing homes. Customers using oxygen to some extent…can still make decisions about their usage, such as when to use a clothes dryer or whether to install load-shifting appliances” (CLC Reply at 23). CLC downplays the very real concerns regarding the most vulnerable customers (CLC Reply at 23). Nothing in CLC’s reply brief supports its contention that these vulnerable customers are adequately protected by CLC’s preferred opt-out TVR approach (CLC Reply at 21-23). The Network’s reply brief correctly notes that full AMF will be punitive for a vast majority of Eversource’s customers and that the Company is not required to deploy full AMF regardless of costs (Network Reply at 1). It also notes that opt-out TVR is less cost effective than opt-in TVR plans, such as the opt-in TVR plan proposed by the Company as part of its IGMP (Network Reply Brief at 2). The Network also argues that, if the Department approves AMF for TVR, such an approval should protect customers by being limited to an opt-in proposal

Full AMF Deployment is not Cost-Justified The Compact argues that the required functionalities of AMF for the collection of interval data in near real-time and for two-way communications “are not impossible” (CLC Reply Brief at 25), and somehow this should justify requiring Eversource to move forward with 24 full AMF deployment. This claim is another iteration of the Compact’s basic theme that the Company should be required to deploy full AMF irrespective of the $1 billion cost. The Company has made clear that “in our case we have provided [the Department] with information about the cost/benefits associated with an opt-out time-varying rate proposal, versus opt-in, and based on our system at Eversource, that would be a very costly endeavor, benefiting few customers, because we’ve already gained the benefits with AMR. Most of the benefits associated with advanced metering infrastructure come with the elimination of manual meter reading” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 82-83). A full AMF deployment and mandatory “opt-out” TVR program would not be costjustified and would in fact be punitive for the majority customers, including low income customers and those customers who are medically compromised (see Tr. Vol. 2 at 346). An opt-out program would require residential customers, most of whom do not have a substantial amount of discretionary load, to: (1) pay higher rates, since they are unable to reduce load during peak periods; and (2) pay for the enormous up-front implementation of the wide-scale, opt-out TVR structure, including meters, communications and billing systems and other ancillary systems. The Company’s overarching goal is to provide quality service to its customers and an opt-out TVR structure in no way advances that goal. While the cost of the opt-in TVR initiative are estimated at $108.2 million, costs would increase to $946 million with an opt-out TVR program, approximately eight times more costly than the Company’s opt-in proposal (see Exh. Eversource-CAH-1 at 13).

MA DPU 15-121 Fitchburg Gas and Electric Unitil   11 pages
http://170.63.40.34/DPU/FileRoomAPI/api/Attachments/Get/?path=15-121%2fUnitil_Reply_Brief_81617.pdf

In its reply brief, the AGO continues to argue that the Company’s GMP fails to achieve the Department’s grid modernization goals, and that the Company’s plan is not eligible for targeted cost recovery because its fails to achieve full Advanced Meter Functionality (“AMF”) within five years (see AGO’s Reply Brief at 2). As detailed in the Company’s response below, the AGO’s arguments are flawed and continue to ignore the poor net benefits of broad AMF deployment within a five year timeline. Based on the Company’s comprehensive business case analysis, the Company has presented a GMP that will make measurable progress towards the Department’s grid modernization goals under a theme of “practical grid modernization” that considers both technical and financial considerations and selects investments that provide net benefits for customers with acceptable rate impacts (Exh. FG&E-2 at 5; see also Unitil’s Initial Brief at 25-26). The Department should approve the Company’s balanced and reasonable GMP without modification.
The AGO argues that: (1) the Company’s GMP is not eligible for recovery through its Short-Term Investment Plan (“STIP”) because the GMP “does not provide for the full deployment of AMF within five years or include a business-case-supported plan to fully deploy AMF over a longer period of time;” (2) that full AMF deployment is the best path forward for grid modernization; and, (3) the Department should reject the Company’s Opt-In Plan for Time Variable Rates (“TVR”) because it has a benefit to cost ratio of less than one (AGO Reply Brief at 3-7). The AGO’s arguments should be rejected because they are both inaccurate and internally inconsistent. The AGO argues that full AMF deployment should be pursued, despite the significant cost and poor net benefits, and yet simultaneously argues that the Company’s proposal for a more modest opt-in plan should be rejected simply because it has a benefit to cost ratio of less than one. The AGO cannot have it both ways. Faced with the realities of the high costs to deploy AMF to all customers, the Company selected an opt-in plan with a scaled deployment of AMF that will make measurable progress towards grid modernization goals while balancing customer costs. The AGO incorrectly argues that the Company has not supported its AMF deployment plan with a sufficient business case analysis. In fact, the AGO has yet to acknowledge, in its initial brief or reply brief, that AMF investments have very poor net benefits if deployed for all customers (Exh. FG&E-1 at 64). The Company’s business case analysis indicated that replacing all existing smart meters to offer AMF and TVR to all customers on an opt-out basis would cost approximately $11,732,000 over the ten year GMP while providing only $3,311,000 in customer 3 benefits, resulting in a benefit to cost ratio of only 0.28 (see Exh. AG-4-6 and AG-4-27 Attachment 15). Due to the high cost of full meter replacement, the Company proposed a transitional approach that uses the existing smart meters and a new communications network to enable AMF, which will allow the Company to offer customers TVR on an opt-in basis and provide those customers who choose to participate a new smart meter that meets the full AMF/TVR criteria (Exh. FG&E-1 at 33). For those customers that do not opt-in and receive a new meter, the Company has indicated that it will start replacing existing meters with AMF meters once the FAN is installed enough to accommodate those installations, which is currently projected to begin in 2020 (Tr. at 97-98).

In its GMP, written in August 2015, the Company indicated that one of its ten substations was already experiencing reverse power flow at the substation resulting in backflow through the substation transformer and onto the system under light load and high generation conditions (Exh. FG&E-1 at 40). Two other substations were close to the point where backflow was likely at the time of writing the GMP (id.). Penetration of distributed energy resources has only increased since that time. As the Company’s witnesses explained in their rebuttal testimony, the Company now has four substations that are forecasted to experience reverse power flow through the substation transformer at light load conditions (Exh. FG&E-6 at 10).


MA DPU 15-120 National Grid;  55 pages
http://170.63.40.34/DPU/FileRoomAPI/api/Attachments/Get/?path=15-120%2fNGrid_Reply_Brief_81817.pdf

The largest source of benefits is from demand reductions that will result in avoided wholesale energy and capacity market costs as a result of customers being on time-varying rates (“TVRs”)and shifting their consumption from higher price periods to lower price periods. GMP at 111; Exhs. AG-3-1, part m; Attachments AG-3-31(a)-(d), tab 13, lines 437, 457.

The AG states that the Company assumed that as a result of being on time-varying rates, residential customers would achieve an 8.4% peak demand reduction (Exh. Attachment DPU-1- 12(a), Tab ‘TVR Response Model Concentric’, Row 67), and argues that this may be too optimistic an assumption. AG Br. at 32. The Company based its demand reduction assumptions in part on the results of its Smart Energy Solutions Pilot (“SES Pilot”) in Worcester, Massachusetts.

The AG asserts that AMI meters with remote disconnect switches should not be approved by the Department because of cybersecurity concerns, among other reasons. AG Reply Br. at 7. The potential of threat actors, such as malicious individuals, should not stop the progress of the GMP. While National Grid acknowledges that two-way communications with a meter presents 34 certain complexities, the Company has developed a robust cybersecurity plan to address those threats and evolve with the GMP. Tr. Vol. 2 at 197-199. The meter remote disconnect switch does not itself add any additional risk, and National Grid already has a strong and comprehensive plan to address those risks. Therefore, the Department should approve the Company’s cybersecurity and privacy proposals as filed.

The Department has acknowledged that “marketing, education and outreach are vital to ensuring that customers are well informed about and engaged in: (1) their options for managing their energy consumption; (2) the tools and technologies that will assist them; and (3) the benefits associated with reductions in consumption and/or shifting consumption away from highcost times.” D.P.U. 12-76-B at 26. The Company designed its MEO Plan with these priorities in mind. Exh. MB-WFJ-Rebuttal-1 at 6. The MEO Plan will provide critical customer education on time-varying rates, as well as on other aspects of grid modernization, to support customers’ grid modernization journey. Exh. MB-WFJ-1 Rebuttal at 5-6. Because the Department should approve one of the Company’s GMP scenarios (contrary to the arguments of a number of the intervenors), the Department also should approve the accompanying MEO plan for that scenario. GMP at 158-167; Exh. MB-WFJ-Rebuttal-3 (Confidential).

In particular, National Grid is not proposing to use the remote turn-on, remote shutoff or service limiter features in the AMI meters for any non-payment or collection activities, whether for low-income customers or for any other customer. GMP at 43. National Grid’s only proposal is to use the remote turn-on and shutoff features when customers are moving in or out of a premises. GMP at 43. This will make turn-ons and shutoffs more convenient for customers, and will also result in fewer labor and vehicle costs, creating cost savings. GMP at 43, 110.

The Company has proposed that costs for AMI meters be allocated to all customers because all customers will benefit from these meters. Installation of AMI meters, which enable demand response and time-varying rates, will result in avoided wholesale capacity market costs. GMP at 110. Lower peak demand from customers means that energy suppliers will have to pay for fewer megawatts of capacity resources in the ISO-NE capacity market, thus realizing savings for all customers, including low-income customers. Exh. NG Panel-Rebuttal-1 at 14. In addition, low-income customers – as with all other customers – can take advantage of TVRs, the proposed CLM program and the real-time usage information provided by AMI meters to save on their energy costs as well. GMP at 53-54, 110. Low-income customers thus will benefit from AMI meters, contrary to the arguments of the Low-Income Weatherization and Fuel Assistance Network (“Network”). See Network Br. at 5-10. The Department itself “fully expects that a large portion of low income customers in the Commonwealth will benefit from the time varying rates framework” that the Department adopted in D.P.U. 14-04-C. D.P.U. 14-04-C at 11-12.

Mobile firms face lawsuits

MailOnline US - news, sport, celebrity, science and health stories

Mobile firms face lawsuits

by PAUL KENDALL, Daily Mail

Some of the world’s largest mobile phone companies are facing billion-pound lawsuits brought by brain tumour victims. The biggest ever legal assault on the industry will seek to prove that handsets can cause cancer and that firms have deliberately covered up crucial medical information.If the American action is successful, mobile phone companies will face crippling bills for compensation. As investors digested the news, the four major UK opera-tors – Vodafone, BT Cellnet, Orange and One 2 One – and their parent companies, saw £5.5 billion wiped off their share values.

Vodafone, in particular, was said to be a potential target because it owns 45pc of the firm Verizon Wireless, which is said to be named in nearly all the lawsuits. More than half of Britons now own a mobile phone. Medical evidence on the danger to people’s health remains ambiguous, with some studies indicating a connection and others ruling it out.

But claims for compensation – set to be launched in March – will be the most extensive examination yet of allegations that radiation from handsets cause cancer. The lawsuits are being brought by one of America’s most successful lawyers, Peter Angelos, who recently helped to win £3billion in damages for smokers who suffer from cancer.

John Pica, an attorney at Mr Angelos’s firm, said: ‘If these companies knew about the dangers of cell phone radiation, they should be punished and they should be punished dearly – not only for what they did to the public, but for the billions of pounds of profits they made.’

The lawsuits – to be launched initially in California, Kentucky and Maryland – will be filed against handset manufacturers and network providers. Experts believe the cases could prompt copycat claims in Britain and the rest of the world.

Telecoms consultant Nick Croll said: ‘As long as mobile phone companies are not holding any vital information back, then they are in the clear. ‘But if these suits are successful, it would put them out of business.

‘The implications would be horrendous because it would mean that users have been subjecting themselves to cancerous signals for the past ten to 15 years.’ In each of the actions, Mr Angelos intends to claim compensation for the pain suffered by brain tumour patients, plus the income they lost as a result of the disease. He is also seeking compensation for the families of mobile phone users who have died from brain tumours.

Mr Angelos’s firm has not put a total figure on the value of the compensation claims. The official Stewart Report into the safety of mobile phones in the UK, published earlier this year, concluded there was no evidence of harm to people’s health. But it also called for more research.

A Vodafone spokesman said that if any compensation claims were filed directly against the company itself, they would be ‘vigorously’ opposed.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11519/Mobile-firms-face-lawsuits.html#ixzz4t4O5GjaH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

5G and this years Science and Wireless 2017 dog and pony show

logo

ACC Approves APS “Smart” Meter Extortion Fee and Discrimination Against Solar & Commercial Customers

ACC Approves APS “Smart” Meter Extortion Fee and Discrimination Against Solar & Commercial Customers
Information & Perspective by Warren Woodward
Sedona, Arizona ~ September 13, 2017

Yesterday, in a 4 to 1 vote, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) commissioners voted to give APS everything APS wanted regarding “smart” meters.

The decision was made without discussion and took about five minutes. The points I made in a filing last week against the administrative law judge’s Recommended Opinion & Order were completely ignored. Condoning accounting fraud, condoning APS & ACC Staff dishonesty, neglecting the requirements of a previous decision, multiple examples of obvious judicial bias — all were ignored. The only reason the decision took five minutes was because the administrative law judge took it upon herself to read her pro-APS, pro-“smart” meter propaganda, and because commissioner Bob Burns wanted to explain his lone No vote.

Burns’ previous statements and votes regarding “smart” meters have all been pro-APS. However, because he is in a legal battle with APS and the other commissioners over APS’s refusal to divulge political donations, he is now voting against anything APS wants. If he wins his legal battle, the whole APS rate case will likely be overturned, yesterday’s “smart” meter decision included.

I will also be appealing the ACC decision. But neither Burns’ current legal actions nor my upcoming appeal will stop what the majority of commissioners decided until and if either Burns or I win. In other words, just because a decision is appealed does not mean that decision gets put on hold.

Meanwhile here’s what will go into effect this October 1st:

  • $5/mo. on your bill for refusing a “smart” meter. (Still cheaper than all the problems you may get from a “smart” meter. I get calls and emails all the time from injured people.)
  • $50 upfront fee to refuse a “smart” meter if you have not done so already. In other words, if you don’t have a “smart” meter now, you will not be charged the $50 upfront fee.
  • Solar and commercial accounts not allowed to refuse “smart” meters. Once the “smart” meters are installed, I strongly suggest those customers contact Paul Harding at totalemfsolutions.com. Using thousands of dollars worth of state of the art equipment, Paul will measure your place and make recommendations for mitigation. (I do not get any kickback from Paul.)
  • No more analog meters. Refuseniks will get a non-transmitting digital meter. By the way, unless APS pulls a fast one (something never to be ruled out!), the non-transmitting digitals APS has used so far (and is proposing to use) really are non-transmitting. I’ve measured them. They do not have a Switch Mode Power Supply either.
  • Not that anyone reading this would, but no lipping off to APS employees. Here’s a highly discriminatory provision that applies only to customers who refuse “smart” meters. You will not be able to refuse a “smart” meter if “Company employees have received verbal or physical threats, including, but not limited to, verbal threats while installing meters or performing maintenance to Company equipment, and physical threats such as weapons or dogs.” One would think that provision would apply equally to any APS customer — nope, just to Refuseniks. So when they come to take your analog, my suggestion is to suffer in silence. Hate to see anyone end up in Room 101.

It’s hard to say how quickly APS will be changing out the analogs. I doubt everyone’s will get changed exactly on October 1st. The pity is that if Burns or I win our cases, APS will have already removed the analogs and likely say they just can’t get analogs anymore. In various filings during this rate case, I hammered on how wasteful it was to chuck perfectly good, working meters, but the commissioners and ACC Staff, who normally beat their chests about “sustainability,” couldn’t have cared less.

Wireless Industry Brochures Lead The Public To Misinterpret That Wireless Is Safe

Wireless Industry Brochures Lead The Public To Misinterpret That Wireless Is Safe

Wireless Industry Creates “Communication Materials” And Propaganda: When The Public Misinterprets It As Cell Phones And Wireless Being Safe, Industry Does Not Clarify

 

Just as the Tobacco Industry created a “Playbook” to defend cigarettes and manufacture doubt about the health effects of cigarettes, the Wireless Industry seems to have a fine-tuned “Playbook” of advertising, public relations and industry-funded science to defend wireless products and falsely reassure the public that cell phones and wireless products are safe.

Cell phones and wireless were never adequately tested for human health effects. Wireless devices were not premarket tested for long term safety. Research has accumulated indicating that wireless “radiofrequency” radiation has serious biological effects. Despite this reality, the wireless industry has and is currently heavily funding a public relations effort that propagates the myth that cell phones and wireless “are safe”. This webpage is an educational resource documenting materials used for the wireless industry “Playbook”.

THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY PLAYBOOK

Key to this public relations effort are industry created resources, websites and materials that communicate the myth of no proof of harm from wireless products. These are all part of the Playbook to manufacture doubt that a problem exists. Examples of such propaganda range from glossy brochures, Questions and Answers on Hot Topics such as “children and cell phones”, websites on EMF (Electromagnetic Fields) and Health and research forums.

These materials are paid for, designed and prepared by “non profit” organizations that are created by telecom and wireless companies pooling money together. When citizens raise concerns about a particular product or when research comes out indicating a health risk, companies can simply pull from these materials to respond as if there are no concerns.

MISLEADING THE PUBLIC

Many of these brochures cite industry-designed research studies as “proof” of no health risk. However, a deeper look at the science referred to on these brochures shows no proof of safety. For example, the WLAN and HEALTH” Brochure created by two wireless non profits (the Wi-Fi Alliance, and the Mobile Manufacturers Forum) features a 2007 research study that was funded by the same wireless organizations (the Wi-Fi Alliance, and the Mobile Manufacturers Forum) that created the brochure.

If a reader looks into the industry funded cited research study, it is clearly not about health—it is merely a random survey of various hotel and tourist rooms in various countries (not any scientifically statistically valid sample) where wireless signals were measured at least one meter away from a computer in use. As expected, this study found compliance with international guidelines—guidelines that were created by industry three decades ago. The study did not measure the exposure to the person actually using the computer, or near a computer. Yet in this industry brochure this study is put forth as if it is documentation of safety.

In other words, this industry-created brochure cites industry-created science that bases conclusions on industry-created regulations.

EMFs and health is a complex issue for the general public. These brochures and industry-created factsheets and websites omit the body of research indicating electromagnetic fields have biological effects  and omit the fact that adequate premarket testing was never done. This propaganda seems to seek to confuse the public and reassure that cell phones and wireless are safe.

Please see examples of the industry “Playbook” public information materials from the past and present on this page.

https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/wireless-industry-brochures-lead-public-misinterpret-wireless-safe/

 

 

Massachusetts 2017 EMF Bills Testimonies And upcoming hearings

Massachusetts 2017 EMF Bills Testimonies

Mark Your Calendars

The legislature posts hearings one week in advance, but we’ve received tentative advance notice of these two bills:

S.107 An Act relative to disclosure of radiofrequency notifications requires manufacturer warnings be prominently displayed on product packaging of wireless radiation-emitting devices. Sponsored by Senator Julian Cyr. Tentative:Tues. Sept. 26.

H.3400 An Act clarifying authority and responsibilities of the department of public utilities will allow a group of ratepayers to intervene in dockets for electricity and gas before the D.P.U., as well as allow elected officials to participate. This bill came about in part due to the way that the DPU handled the gas pipeline dockets, but will assist all ratepayers. We feel that this is one of the most important bills in this legislative session. The bill may be up for its hearing in mid-October. https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/H3400

We are extremely disheartened that the MA Attorney General has endorsed smart meters, suggesting that municipals and aggregators also be approached:

http://170.63.40.34/DPU/FileRoomAPI/api/Attachments/Get/?path=15-120%2fAGO_Initial_Brief.pdf

Please continue your advocacy efforts with the Governor and the Attorney General regarding the DPU’s reliance on tobacco science, human rights concerns, greenwashing, and cost overruns for the Worcester pilot program. We hope this will become an election concern. The Attorney General has been authorized to spend $150,000 for consultants to review the Worcester smart meter pilot program overruns:

http://170.63.40.34/DPU/FileRoomAPI/api/Attachments/Get/?path=17-53%2f1753_Order_9817.pdf

The public comment period has passed but please provide your input directly to  Alexander.Early@state.ma.us andShannon.Beale@state.ma.us to assist the AG in her investigation.

H.2030 and S.2079  The hearing before the Joint Committee on Education for two MA bills pertaining to Wi-Fi in Schools was held on Sept. 5. It is still possible to send written testimony for all bills. For more information, seehttps://sites.google.com/site/understandingemfs/ma-emf-bills.

Videos of citizen testimony for the Wi-Fi bills here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMAz9ZRXjYmoXSabQE54w0DhZ28y11mEO&disable_polymer=true

Here is a very sweet activist video about cellphones and 5G from the Piti Theatre group in Massachusetts (about 4 1/2 minutes) My New Phone the 5G Song:
https://vimeo.com/232413190

Many thanks to two very gracious supporters:

Mauro DePasquale, Executive Director of WCCA Channel 194 Worcester, the People’s Channel, has been one of the most important supporters of investigative reporting, free speech, and community in the Commonwealth.  He has been selected as the “Outstanding Italian” recipient of 2017 and will be the Grand Marshal of Worcester’s Annual Columbus Day Parade. WCCA’s “About Smart Meters” was one of the most important outreach toots in assisting over 5,000 people who decided to opt out of the auto-enroll smart meter program. He’s not only an outstanding Italian; he’s an outstanding person all around.

Victor Venckus has been the host of Expanding Awareness on WZBC Channel 90.3, Boston College’s radio station for over 40 years. Expanding Awareness presents interviews regarding the paranormal, holistic health, environment, and progressive ideas with live interviews with listeners calling in, on Saturdays from 10-11 am. Victor is credited with bringing the issue of smart meters to the attention of his loyal listening audience as early as 2011, and has hosted Patricia on the show numerous times. On Sat. Sept 9, 2017 CeCe Doucette and Patricia Burke were back to talk about MA bills, WiFi in schools, and emerging science.  The show’s archive is available for the next 2 weeks at:http://zbconline.com/ (about an hour). We are extremely grateful to Victor and his listeners for continuous support.

“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented”  (Ellie Wiesel – Nobel Peace Prize Winner)

URGENT CALL TO ACTION AGAINST CALIFORNIA SB649- click here for more info:

URGENT CALL TO ACTION AGAINST CALIFORNIA SB649- click here for more info:

—————–

Hello All,

We just got word that the vote on SB 649 could be as early as today, if not tomorrow. We are aware AT&T and others in support of SB 649 had large packets filled with letters in support of SB 649 delivered to the Sacramento offices of all Assembly members on Friday. To counter that, please call today. Call as many offices as you can and the message can be as simple as PLEASE VOTE NO ON SB 649. Feel free to share this message.
Here is the list of Assemblymembers. http://assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembers You can find the “916” phone number with ease and call. The legislators appear to be listening more to the following:

1) 300 of 400 cities in Calif and 47 of 58 counties are opposed. We do not want to lose local control.

2) The firefighters are protected as fire stations are exempt from SB 649. What about the rest of us?

Also: I am concerned about cell towers constantly exposed my children/grandchildren to a 2b carcinogen (same category as DDT). There is no off switch for this. The exposure will be at home, at school, at work, absolutely everywhere, and this does not seem like prudent public policy. Would we do the same with DDT which is in the same “possible human carcinogen” category? [It was banned in the US in 1972.]

Use whatever argument you prefer … liability is not clearly covered, property devaluation, will ruin the appearance of our community …. etc.

Keep it short. The offices will simply put you down as a yes or no. It’s all about numbers today.

PLEASE CALL RIGHT NOW IF POSSIBLE, AND STRONGLY OPPOSE SB 649

-Reinette

The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use

The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use

by Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research:

Environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) for military use constitute, in the present context of global warfare, the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.

Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use.

Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than half a century. US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which was initially developed in the 1990s under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), was an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP  –which was officially abolished in 2014– is  a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world.

Officially, the HAARP program has been closed down at its location in Alaska. The technology of weather modification shrouded in secrecy, nonetheless prevails.

Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report,  offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary”, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:

‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.”

In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned ‘military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’  According to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques:

The term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva: 18 May 1977)

While the substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, debate on weather modification for military use has become a scientific taboo.

Military analysts and scientists are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter and environmentalists are largely focussing on greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, is not part of the broader debate on climate change under UN auspices.

While discussion ofthe post Cold War military applications ofweather warfare is a taboo, the US Air Force has nonetheless acknowledged the strategic importance of ENMOD techniques in the modern battlefield of non-conventional warfare and intel opsincluding the conduct, without the enemy’s knowledge, of “covert” weather modification operations.

While the US Force acknowledges that ENMOD weapons are part of military arsenal, there is no formal proof or evidence that ENMOD techniques have been used by US military against a foreign country or enemy of  the US.  

At this juncture in our history, US-NATO forces are deployed worldwide.

The US and its allies are waging war on Syria and Iraq and targeting Iran and North Korea. They are also threatening Russia and China.

The Pentagon has formulated the contours of a global military agenda, a “long war”, a war without borders.

“Weather warfare” is the ultimate WMDwith the potential of destabilizing an enemy’s ecosystem, destroying its agriculture, disabling communications networks. In other words, ENMOD techniques can undermine an entire national economy, impoverishmillions of people and “kill a nation” without the deployment of troops and military hardware. 

The following text, with the exception of some small edits was first published in September 2004.

The 2004article was a follow-up on an earlier study by the author entitled Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change, Third World Resurgence, January 2001, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html

While TheEcologist published in 2007 a shorter version of the above study, the issue of climatic manipulation for military use has largely been ignored by Environmentalists.

The URL of the original article is:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO409F.html.

This essay is dedicated to the memory ofDr. Rosalie Bertell, who, from the very outset revealed the diabolical nature of the HAARP project, as part of an integrated non-conventional weapons program:

“It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. … HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature. The military implications of combining these projects is alarming. … The ability of the HAARP / Spacelab/ rocket combination to deliver very large amounts of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is likely to be “sold” to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer.

https://www.sgtreport.com/articles/2017/9/11/the-ultimate-weapon-of-mass-destruction-owning-the-weather-for-military-use

NY regulators catch an earful on higher rates for National Grid

The utilities lied to customers and continues to do so, in order to sell their corrupt and harmful so called, smart grid.  It is not cost saving, safe, secure OR harmless!!!!  Their only hook to sell customers on it benefits is to lie about the savings it will pass on to its customers…Sandaura

NY regulators catch an earful on higher rates for National Grid

POWER: Customers, advocates say higher prices unnecessary

  • By JOE MAHONEY CNHI State Reporter

ALBANY — Advocates for consumers and senior citizens are leading the fight against National Grid’s proposed boost in electricity and gas rates.

But, pro-business groups say a hike is necessary to fortify the upstate economy.

Since late April, when the rate requests were filed, the State Public Service Commission has been flooded with more than 600 comments — most of them arguing the higher prices sought by the company are excessive.

The company says it plans to use the additional revenue from higher rates to invest $2.7 billion into its electricity and natural gas networks across the upstate region.

It also says it plans to equip its residential and commercial customers with two million new smart meters and increase assistance to an additional 50,000 customers who are struggling to pay their bills.

‘CAN’T AFFORD IT’

But scores of consumers are asking New York regulators to pull the plug on the requests.

“I’m retired and my wife is retiring this year,” Constantia resident Robert W. Timerson wrote to the utility regulators. “We cannot afford these increases. And please don’t tell me to apply to some assistance program.”

National Grid’s request — revised in July when it shaved more than $70 million from the initial application — would allow the company to collect an estimated $261 million more for electricity delivery and an additional $70 million for gas delivery.

The increases, according to the company, would result in total monthly bills for both supply and delivery to rise by 11 percent, or $8.93 per month, for a residential customer using 600 kilowatt hours. The increase on delivery alone would be 17.5 percent.

For residential gas customers, based on 77 therms of consumption, the monthly increase would be $8.70, or 12.5 percent overall, with an increase of 20.5 percent for delivery.

‘SAFE SUPPLY CRITICAL’

Opponents of the increase include the Public Utilities Law Project, the New York chapter of AARP, which advocates for people age 50 and older, and an array of organizations advocating for low-income residents.

But the company has forged alliances with some influential business and community organizations, including the Eastern New York branch of the American Red Cross, whose chief executive officer, Gary Striar, gave the proposed rate increase his blessing.

Striar, in a letter to the Public Service Commission, noted National Grid has supported his agency’s blood donation drives and helped it distribute smoke alarms in upstate communities.

“Obviously, a safe and reliable supply of energy is critical to our region,” Striar said in his comment to commissioners.

Another endorsement came from Kate Fish, executive director of the Adirondack North Country Association, based in Saranac Lake.

She said the proposed changes in delivery rates “are aligned with our strategies to drive cleaner and more efficient energy systems” across northern New York.

SHUT-OFF NOTICES

But opponents say higher National Grid rates would cause pain in communities that have not yet recovered from the Great Recession and where many people are already hard-pressed to pay existing bills.

Some 66,000 customers in National Grid’s service territory were hit with shut-off notices last year, and that number will escalate if rates go higher, said Richard Berkley, the Public Utility Law Project director.

In places such as Niagara County, where customers of National Fuel Gas saw a 2 percent boost in their gas bills in May, a jump in electricity delivery rates would exacerbate the pain among those who can least afford the higher prices, Berkley said.

“The reason why so many individuals are getting involved is that rate cases are when the company’s operations become transparent and accountable,” he said.

A rate case is “the formal process used to determine the amounts to charge customers for electricity, natural gas, private water and steam service provided by regulated utilities,” according to the State Department of Public Service website.

“The rest of the time the company is doing its thing,” Berkley said, “and John and Jane Q. Public don’t have any way of knowing whether the company is spending their money prudently. A rate case allows you to make sure your community gets benefits, not just the company.”

‘PUT CUSTOMERS FIRST’

Several elected officials have weighed in against National Grid’s application, among them Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner, who is exploring a run for governor next year.

“The PSC must reject the rate increases as proposed and put customers first,” she said.

Stephen Brady, a National Grid spokesman, said the delivery portion of the company’s bills has been “remarkably stable for the better part of the past decade,” and a rate increase would strengthen the company’s ability to maintain and improve the grid.

Brady also noted the company hopes to attain a settlement with regulators that would allow it to gradually phase in the higher rates, so bills would not suddenly spike higher in the first year.

ENERGY VISION

National Grid’s request for higher rates comes on the heels of the Cuomo administration’s effort to increase the state’s reliance on renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar power, to 50 percent by 2030. That goal is known as Reforming the Energy Vision or REV.

“Part of the rate case process is to ensure that it is not business-as-usual for utilities and to obtain, consistent with REV, more capital efficiency and energy efficiency as part of utilities’ plans to modernize the grid and ensure reliability affordably,” said Public Service Commission spokesman James Denn.

He said the rate review is designed to ensure that National Grid’s rates “remain just and reasonable.”

The commissioners will have the final say in setting the rates, he noted. A decision is expected in early 2018.

Email Joe Mahoney:

jmahoney@cnhi.com

 

%d bloggers like this: