Dirty Electricity from LEDs

Dirty Electricity from LEDs - Electric Fields

Dirty Electricity from LEDs

Many folks interested high fidelity sound systems or low-EMF environments want to minimize electromagnetic interference (AKA: EMI, High-Voltage Transients, Electrical Noise, and Dirty Electricity) from lighting systems. Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) – the curly pig tail variety with some mercury in them – are notoriously “dirty” and create significant EMI. As the lighting industry and energy code gravitate toward Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), more and more are curious about dirty electricity from LEDs.

LED Dirty Electricity Pie Chart for One Bulb

LED Dirty Electricity Pie Chart for One Bulb

LED Dirty Electricity Pie Chart for One Bulb

Method for Testing Dirty Electricity from LEDs

While there are many methods for testing dirty electricity, this is how we embarked on this quick comparison study of several bulbs with satisfactory other lighting characteristics.

Magnetic Field (MF) and Electric Field (EF) strength were measured with a Gigahertz Solutions NFA 1000 Low Frequency EMF Meter. MF and EF measurements were recorded at distances of 1 inch, 3 inches, 6 inches, and 12 inches from each bulb. To provide consistency, lamp and extension cord positions were not moved during or between sampling events for each lightbulb. Graphs and tables of collected data are displayed below. CREE, Tala, FEIT Electric, USHIO Utopia 2, Sylvania, and Sunlite A19 bulbs were tested, as well as GE Helical and GE Reveal compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) and an incandescent bulb from an unknown brand. EF and MF levels were also measured with no bulb attached for ambient concentrations.

Dirty Electricity from LEDs - Magnetic Fields

Dirty Electricity from LEDs - Electric Fields

Dirty Electricity From LEDs Bandwidth Comparison Chart

Dirty Electricity From LEDs Bandwidth Comparison Chart

Results from Dirty Electricity Testing of LEDs

The highest Dirty Electricity from LEDs MF levels were observed with the CREE and GE Helical bulbs. These bulbs measured above 20 milligauss (mG) at a 1 inch distance, while all other bulbs measured below 4 mG at the same distance. The Tala and Sunlite A19 bulb measurements were similar to ambient levels.

The highest EF levels were observed with the CREE, Sunlite A19, and incandescent bulbs. All bulbs were measured at higher than observed at ambient concentrations.

The CREE, Tala, and FEIT Electric bulbs measured the highest in dirty electricity.

The 50/60 Hertz electricity bandwidth range of the Tala, Sunlite A19, and incandescent bulbs contributed to over 97% of the total electric field; The 50/60 Hertz range of the Sylvania, USHIO Utopia 2, FEIT Electric, and CREE bulbs contributed to over 85% of the total electric field; The 50/60 Hertz range of the GE Helical and GE Reveal CFL Bulbs contributed to 59% and 71% respectively of the total electric field.

We thank Clear Light Ventures for funding this study and supporting education about dirty electricity and impacts to human health and wellbeing.

This is our third blog about LEDs and dirty electricity. See EMF LED Blog 1 and Not All LEDs are The Same for Dirty Electricity Blog 2 for additional information.



FOX43 Finds Out: Smart meter controversy

Demand you keep your mechanical meter or so called smart meter replaced with mechanical meter!!! http://www.freedomtaker.com where you can download demand letter and docs to have it removed…..Sandaura

FOX43 Finds Out: Smart meter controversy

SPRINGETTSBURY TOWNSHIP, YORK COUNTY — The smart meter roll out is happening across central Pennsylvania right now and several people have contacted FOX43 Finds Out to look into the issue.

“We were the last people in the neighborhood. We pushed it as far as we could.”

Chip Nace’s family has lived in Springettsbury Township, York County for decades.

For years, their electricity was read on a mechanical meter like this one.

Then, the family started getting letters in the mail from Met Ed saying they needed to make the switch to smart meters.

After ignoring the issue for a few months, another letter came with a warning.

“They sent a 10 day shut off notice,” said Nace.

That’s why Nace finally gave in and someone came to install the new smart meter.

“It’s their way or no way basically.”

Nace is worried that smart meters haven’t been around long enough to really be studied to know how they work and how they impact us.

“It just seems like an unsafe unit and they’re just throwing them out on people’s homes.”

The Pennsylvania Utility Commission insists the meters can save customers money and are safe.

Claiming smart meters use radio frequency  and that these new meters use less radio frequency than a cordless phone, cell phone or microwave.

However, Nace has another concern.

“There’s plenty of issues of homes completely burning down or the electricity may pass through and blow up the entire box or blow up the outlets.”

A quick search on YouTube  and you’ll find plenty of videos of fires and power outages claiming to be sparked by a smart meter and a Google search will turn up plenty of groups that say a lot of the same.

Power companies, state and federal government say otherwise.

When asked about the issue, a spokesperson for First Energy Corp, which runs Met Rd and Pennelec says “Safety and operating standards address factors such as humidity, rain, voltage surge and others to ensure meters operate properly when functioning within certified operational parameters.”

The power companies also say the new meters are more energy efficient and accurate.

With mechanical meters, most power companies send a meter reader out every other month.

So, the in between month reading is likely an estimate of your power usage, not the exact amount.

The smart meters, which are connected wirelessly,  can be read remotely and don`t require a meter reader.

“I get it, they’re trying to eliminate the meter reader coming out and reading the meter. Again, you’re eliminating jobs, your taking people’s work from them,” said Nace.

First Energy Corp officials say that`s not the case.

Telling us “More than 40 full-time meter readers have been successfully placed in other roles throughout the company over the past year.”

Under Act 129 most power companies in Pennsylvania need to install the smart meters on homes and businesses by 2023.

“The biggest thing is an opt out. I just want the choice to say no, that’s it.”

However, Pennsylvania doesn’t offer an opt out.

The Pennsylvania Utility Commission says “Installation of a smart meter is a condition of service to more accurately reflect rates and usage, and will ensure no disruption to your service.”

“If they want to offer them, that’s fine, but the fact that there forcing people to take them and the fact that they’re willing to shut your electricity off to get you to that point to put it back on, I don’t think that’s the right thing to do,” said Nace.

There is legislation in Pennsylvania right now that could change the no opt out rule.

Representative Mike Reese out of western PA has introduced a few bills in the State House Consumer Affairs Committee to either repeal the mandate  or at least give a chance for people to say no.

Similar legislation has been introduced in the past, but just didn’t really go anywhere.

Pennsylvania is not the only state that is rolling out the smart meters.

States like California, Maryland and Maine do offer opt outs.

In some of those states saying no to the smart meters does require a fee.



FOX43 Finds Out: Smart meter controversy


VICTORY-Shutdown Ordered for Both Falmouth Town-owned Turbines

Shutdown Ordered for Both Falmouth Town-owned Turbines

JUNE 21, 2017

Barnstable Superior Court Judge Cornelius Moriarty issued the order to shut down Falmouth’s Wind 1 and Wind 2 on June 20, 2017. The judge denied the appeal brought by Falmouth selectmen against the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA had found the turbines to be a “nuisance.”

Cape Cod Times reporter Ethan Genter wrote (in “Falmouth ordered to shut down turbines“):

Barry Funfar flanked by turbines (see the Boston Globe profile from 2014)

Moriarty’s decision was welcomed by Barry Funfar, who lives next to one of the turbines and has sunk more than $100,000 into fighting their operation.

“We’ve been waiting for this decision for six months,” Funfar said.

“Wind neighbors” have brought nine suits against the town-owned turbines. Due to a judge’s order in one of these, Wind 1 was already out of operation and Wind 2 was operating on a reduced schedule limited to 12 hours. This has given the people impacted by the turbine a chance to sleep at night–something not available to the people of Kingston, Fairhaven, Bourne, Plymouth and areas near the Hoosac project in the Berkshires.

Shutdown Ordered for Both Falmouth Town-owned Turbines

MA HEARING TODAY FOR: An Act relative to utilities, smart meters, and ratepayers’ rights.

SENATE DOCKET, NO. 344        FILED ON: 1/16/2017

SENATE  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  No. 1864


The Commonwealth of Massachusetts



Michael O. Moore


To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General
Court assembled:

The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the adoption of the accompanying bill:

An Act relative to utilities, smart meters, and ratepayers’ rights.



Name: District/Address:  
Michael O. Moore Second Worcester  
Diana DiZoglio 14th Essex 1/26/2017
David Paul Linsky 5th Middlesex 1/26/2017
Linda Dean Campbell 15th Essex 1/31/2017
Kate Hogan 3rd Middlesex 2/2/2017
Jack Lewis 7th Middlesex 2/2/2017
Marjorie C. Decker 25th Middlesex 2/3/2017
Solomon Goldstein-Rose 3rd Hampshire 2/3/2017
Jennifer L. Flanagan Worcester and Middlesex 2/15/2017
Kathleen O’Connor Ives First Essex 3/27/2017

SENATE DOCKET, NO. 344        FILED ON: 1/16/2017

SENATE  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  No. 1864

By Mr. Moore, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1864) of Michael O. Moore, Diana DiZoglio, David Paul Linsky, Linda Dean Campbell and other members of the General Court for legislation relative to utility meters and the rights of utility ratepayers.  Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy.

SEE HOUSE, NO. 2868 OF 2015-2016.]

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts


In the One Hundred and Ninetieth General Court


An Act relative to utilities, smart meters, and ratepayers’ rights.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Chapter 164 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 116B the following section:-

SECTION 116C: Smart/wireless utility meter information

a) As used in this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(1) “Electromechanical analog meter”, means a purely electric and mechanical device, using no electronic components, no switch mode power supply, no transmitter, no antenna, and no radio frequency emissions.

(2)  “Utility company”, shall mean an electric, gas, or water company, or town or city-owned utility or other utility provider.

(3) “Wireless meter” shall mean: Any transmitting metering device with electronic components and/or any electric or battery operated meter that is capable of measuring, recording, and sending data by means of a wireless signal from a utility consumer or member to a utility company, municipality, or cooperative association in a manner utilizing one-way communication, two-way communication, or a combination of one-way and two-way communication either through the meter itself or through a device ancillary to the meter. Common names include, but are not limited to, AMR, ERT, smart, AMI, and Comprehensive Advanced Metering Plan CAMP.

(4) “Equivalent technology” shall mean utility infrastructure that communicates data using wireless frequencies, but which may be undisclosed due to proprietary rights.

b) The department of public utilities shall direct utility companies to provide ratepayers the following:

(1) a choice of the type of utility meters to be installed and operated on their places of residence, property or business; among the choices offered shall be the installation and ongoing operation of an “electromechanical analog meter”; and

(2) the ability to retain and operate an “electromechanical analog meter” on an ongoing basis at no cost; and

(3) the right to replacement of a wireless meter with a non-transmitting electromechanical meter at no cost.

c) The utility companies shall be required to obtain the ratepayer’s written consent:

(1) before installing wireless meters or “equivalent technology” on the ratepayer’s property and

(2) before altering the functionality of said meters.

d) The utility companies shall provide written notice to ratepayers within 90 days of the effective date of this act for the purpose of informing said ratepayers if wireless meters have been installed on their properties. Ratepayers shall have the right to request that the utility companies remove said wireless meters and install in their place electromechanical analog meters that emit no radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. There shall be no cost or other periodic usage charges to the ratepayer for such removal, replacement installation, and use of a non-wireless utility meter. The utility company shall promptly comply with such removal and replacement installation request made by the ratepayer to said company.

e) Utility companies are:

(1) prohibited from shutting off service to a ratepayer based on the ratepayer’s utility usage or on the ratepayer having electromechanical analog meters;

(2) prohibited from imposing any disincentive on a ratepayer for not consenting to the installation or use of wireless meters;

(3) required to notify ratepayers in writing that the installation and use of wireless meters are not mandated by state or federal law and are not permitted without the ratepayer’s consent;

(4) prohibited from discriminating against ratepayers who may have medical conditions that are exacerbated by exposures to pulsed microwave radio frequencies; and

(5) prohibited from installing “equivalent technology”, such as direct wireless connection to devices in the home or business, on poles or in any other manner near the home or business of an individual requesting a non-transmitting meter.

f) The department of public utilities shall establish terms and conditions to comply with the requirements of this section.

g) This section shall take effect upon its passage.

What’s the secret to happiness? Maybe seven hours of sleep.





UK-Centrica exposes smart energy meters as dumb

Centrica exposes smart energy meters as dumb

The government’s £11 billion plan envisages every UK household being offered smart meters by 2020


The “smart” energy meters due to be installed in every UK home are in fact “pretty dumb”, a senior executive at Centrica has said, suggesting a new type of meter that can monitor individual household appliances and identify problems should be rolled out instead.

Charles Cameron, the British Gas owner’s director of technology, said it was trialling “super smart” meters in Cornwall and they could be ready to deploy more widely in six months.

The sophisticated meters, made by Green Running, could identify the electrical usage of each household appliance, helping to optimise their power usage and even flagging faults, he said. “It’s looking at unusual spikes in your washing machine to say, ‘this device has a problem, it needs to be serviced’.”





Phonegate: French Government Data Indicates Cell Phones Expose Consumers To Radiation Levels Higher Than Manufacturers Claim

Phonegate: French Government Data Indicates Cell Phones Expose Consumers To Radiation Levels Higher Than Manufacturers Claim

Cell Phone Radiation Scandal: More Exposure Than Manufacturers Claim

“PhoneGate” In France, government data release reveals 9 out of 10 phones tested exceed regulatory limits

Click here to read Spanish translation.

(Washington, DC) Under court order, the National Frequency Agency (ANFR) of France has just disclosed that most cell phones exceed government radiation limits when tested the way they are used, next to the body. Manufacturers are not required to test phones in shirt or pants pockets. French government tests on hundreds of cell phones reveal that in 2015, 9 out of 10 phones exceed the manufacturer’s reported radiation test levels when re-tested in positions where the phone is in contact with the body. The government had refused to disclose these test results until the court order.

On June 1, 2017, ANFR posted the details of the make, model and test results for each phone that was tested, after months of legal action by French physician Dr. Marc Arazi. Arazi’s request for the information was initially denied. Popular brands such as Apple, Motorola, Samsung and Nokia were among the cell phone models tested. When tested in contact with the body, some phones have test results as high as triple the manufacturer’s previously reported radiation levels.
“As a physician, I am deeply concerned about what this means for our health and especially the health of our children. People have a right to know that when cell phones are tested in ways people commonly use phones – such as in direct contact with their body – the values exceed current regulatory limits. This is a first victory for transparency in this industry scandal,” commented Arazi.

Ricocheting in headlines throughout France, Arazi and his colleagues have coined the situation as “PhoneGate” because of the parallels to “Diesel Gate” – the Volkswagen emissions saga. Devra Davis, PhD, President of Environmental Health Trust explained, “Volkswagen cars passed diesel emission tests when tested in laboratory conditions, but when the cars were driven on real roads, they emitted far more fumes. In the same way, every one of these cell phones ‘passed’ laboratory radiation SAR tests. These phones are legally considered compliant. However, when these phones are tested in the ways that people actually use them in real life, such as in your jeans pocket or bra, the amount of absorbed radiation emissions in our bodies violates the regulatory limits.”

“This is an enormous international scandal. This is not only about France and Europe, as this applies to all persons who use cell phones in every country. If phones were tested in the ways we use them, they would be illegal,” stated Dr. Davis, pointing out that these findings were replicated earlier by a US FCC certified laboratory as part of an investigation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.  Findings of higher radiation levels than expected (and even higher after phones are fixed) were also documented by the Holon Institute of Technology in Israel and featured on Israeli news.

“Far more concerning is that the regulatory limits do not protect the public from adverse health effects related to long-term exposures,“ Davis commented, pointing to recently published research. A study in the American Journal of Epidemiology found cell phones associated with a doubled risk of glioma, a type of brain cancer. Studies performed by the US National Toxicology Program found glioma and DNA damage increased in rats exposed to long-term cell phone radiation.

“I see children cradling cell phones in their laps as their mothers do grocery shopping. Teenagers are sleeping with cell phones placed on their chest or directly beside their heads all night long. Pregnant women put cell phones and wireless devices on their abdomen. Parents have a right to know that when children use cell phones in these ways, their bodies are absorbing wireless radiation at levels that exceed limits set for adults 20 years ago,” stated Theodora Scarato, Program Director at Environmental Health Trust, referring to how the American Academy of Pediatrics has repeatedly called on the US Government to update cell phone testing to reflect current use patterns. The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued clear recommendations to reduce cell phone radiation exposures to children.

The Public is Unaware

France’s National Agency of Health Security of Food, Environment and Labour (ANSES) July 2016 report “Radiofrequency Exposure and the Health of Children” conceded that the public is largely unaware of instructions to keep a distance between cell phones and anyone’s head and body. ANSES stated that it was “unlikely that people, especially children, are aware of the conditions of use close to the body, as defined by manufacturers.”

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) independent survey of more than 11,000 Canadians found that more than 80 percent were unaware of manufacturers’ recommended separation distance and 67 percent admitted they carry their phones against their bodies.

The newly released French data is also corroborated by the 2017 independently commissioned investigation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that tested popular cell phones in a US government certified testing laboratory and found SAR values surpassed the US and Canadian allowable SAR values when the phones were tested in body contact positions. In response to the CBC report, manufacturers stated they were fully compliant.

The Wireless Industry Argues “No Evidence” To Update Testing Protocols

Read what Apple states here -and you can see in example of how the SAR looks different depending on the tissue averaging at this link https://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/iphone5,1/en/

The CTIA, the wireless industry lobby group is opposed to mandatory disclosures about the manufacturer’s instructions and also is opposed to updating cell phone radiation testing methods to include body contact positions such as were performed by the French government. The CTIA argued that “there is no reliable evidence proving that current testing protocols fail to ensure compliance with RF standards, “ in their submission to the US Federal Communications Commission concerning the FCC Docket on Human Exposures to Radiofrequency Radiation. The CTIA stated that “a zero-measuring requirement would not accurately mimic real usage or increase safety.”

In California, the City of Berkeley was sued by the CTIA, a wireless industry lobby group, when the City passed an ordinance mandating consumers are informed of these manufacturers’ instructions by retail stores. The CTIA argued that the “Right To Know Ordinance” violated free speech rights and recently lost their case in court when the judges ruled that the Ordinance was “in the public interest”.

After litigation by  UC Berkeley public health professor Dr. Joel Moskowitz, the  California Department of Public Health (CDPH) released cell phone guidance that the Department scientists had drafted, but withheld from publicly posting for seven years. The guidelines aimed inform the public from possible health impacts from cell phone radiation.

Litigation is moving forward involving more than a dozen people in the U.S. who claim their  brain cancer is related to their cell phone use. In Italy, a recent court ruling recognized a link between cellphone use and brain tumors and granted lifetime compensation to a man who developed a brain tumor after 15 years of work related cell phone use.

“Why does the public have to sue to get this information?” Scarato asked. “And what about children in schools? The Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council has recommended that schools reduce radiofrequency radiation exposures to children by installing wired networks rather than Wi-Fi, same as in Cyprus, France and Israel. Yet at the same time, schools are now allowing or even insisting children bring cell phones into classrooms. I am sure most of those children are carrying these phones from class to class in their pockets close to their body. They are not aware of the radiation exposures.”

Specific Absorption Rate Testing

Before a cell phone model is permitted to go on the market for sale, its manufacturer performs Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) tests to evaluate the radiation levels. SAR values are expressed in terms of watts per kilogram (W/kg) and are intended to measure the amount of cell phone radiofrequency radiation absorbed by the body when using a wireless device. SAR tests are performed in laboratories by measuring the SAR in a test dummy filled with liquid. The European Union regulations allow a maximum of SAR 2.0 W/kg. The United States and Canada allow a maximum of SAR 1.6 W/kg. Every cell phone is rated with a specific SAR value, and many countries mandate that these SAR values be prominently displayed to consumers on cell phone packaging.

Current wireless device SAR compliance testing regulations allow manufacturers to put a separation distance (usually about 15 mm) between the phone and the test dummy. Cell phone manufacturers are not required to test cell phones for SARs in positions which mimic direct contact between the phone and the body.

ANSES reported the following findings: In 2015, 89 percent of tested cell phones had a SAR greater than the maximum limit value of 2 W/kg and 25 percent had a SAR greater than 4 W/kg.

See below the French government  test data. It is in French so you can scroll to the right to see the column called “DAS tronc (au contact)” which refers to the testing done against the body at “contact” position.

This information is found online here and you can download a spreadsheet of the information. 

Calls For Continued Policy Action

Since 2010, France law has ensured that SAR levels are placed prominently on cell phone packaging and the sale of cell phones was banned for young children. French legislation in 2015 included several new policies aimed at reducing exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Arazi called on the Health and Environment Ministers and Consumer Affairs and Fraud Prevention Agency to take immediate action on this new information by informing the public and issuing new protective policies.

Link to the French ANFR Website with full details on cell phones/make/model

ANFR Cell Phone SAR Measurements (PDF)

Link to France’s National Agency of Health Security of Food, Environment and Labour Report  on Radiofrequency and Children (In French)

English Translation of ANSES Report Section on Cell Phone Studies


Mobile phones: “There is deception on the information displayed” Le Lancer  June 14, 2017

Cell Phones, The Scandal of Electromagnetics, l’Humanité Dimanche, June 10, 2017

Scandal about mobile radiation: Mobile Phones rays more than manufacturer’s claim, Forskning.dk, June 7, 2017

Phones: Test bench or bench?, Journal of The Environment , June 7, 2017

Mobile phone: reassuring results that do not reassure everyone, Journal of Internal Medicine, Paris, June 7, 2017

Electromagnetic waves: Do mobile phones meet standards? Science Avenir, Paris France, June 7, 2017

France publishes the results of tests carried out on 379 GSM, Belgium News, June 3, 2017

Mobile phone: after the publication of ANFR data, Dr Marc Arazi points to irregularities, The Daily Health, June 2, 2017

Suspicions about Mobile Phones  Le Monde , December 23, 2016

Phonegate: A first victory with the publication by the ANFR of the SAR, Press Release by French physician Marc Arazi, June 1, 2017


RE; Bill S 1864, An Act Relative to Utilities, Smart Meters, and Ratepayer’s Rights Sponsored by Sen. Michael Moore

RE; Bill S 1864, An Act Relative to Utilities, Smart Meters, and Ratepayer’s Rights Sponsored by Sen. Michael Moore

(also attached as a PDF)

 I appreciated very much meeting with those of you who spoke with me when I visited the statehouse on June 12th to ask for support for Senator Moore’s bill S. 1864, An Act relative to Utilities, Smart Meters, and Ratepayer’s Rights. 

I discussed expert testimony from smart meter proceedings underway in AZ, MI, NM, and the recent decision by Duke Energy to provide a non-transmitting analogue for a medical practice. I would like to provide the references here. I am also adding Dr. Marino’s testimony from the PN case, and testimony that was provided on behalf of the MI Attorney General.

In particular, I spoke about not only the RF emitted by the meter, but also the issues of radio frequencies riding on the power grid and home wiring and home plumbing, and ground current.


 As part of direct testimony filed in an electric utility rate case in Arizona, Samuel Milham, M.D., M.P.H. stated:

“It is my professional opinion that smart meters are a public health hazard.”

“Because it is at the front end of a building’s wiring, the dirty electricity from the smart meter’s SMPS has a gateway into that building’s wiring, and also into the earth via the house ground.  The house wiring acts as an antenna and the fields capacitively couple to the body through the air within 6 to 8 feet of the house wiring or extension cords plugged into the outlets. …”

Pre-Filed Testimony by Samuel Milham, M.D., M.P.H on behalf of Warren Woodward, April 3, 2017; available at http://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000178631.pdf

The utility rate case in Arizona also contains testimony submitted by a professional engineer to stipulate that “the Smart Meter causes a significant amount of noise on the 60 Hz signal.”

Pre-Filed Testimony by Erik S. Anderson, P.E., C.F.E.I. on behalf of Warren Woodward, April 3, 2017; available at http://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000178630.pdf

 Some of this electrical noise is due to the SMPS (switch-mode power supply) contained in the smart meter, but it is also due to radiofrequency transmissions being conducted along house wiring and re-radiated into the home.

“Study of the Effects of Smart Meter RF Transmissions on GFCI Outlets,” by Simon T. Donahue, et.al., published in the IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility(volume: 56, issue: 6, Dec. 2014);  available a http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6899604/

Based upon a “Report on Examination of Selected Sources of EMF at Selected Residences in Hastings-on-Hudson” by Isotrope Wireless, dated November 23, 2013:  “There was a substantial conducted 915 MHz component on the power line.”  Report available at https://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/report-on-examination-of-selected-sources-of-emf-at-selected-residences.pdf.

 “Therefore, based upon what has been reported, there are at least three potential sources of EMF exposure associated with smart meters:

(1) intentional RF emissions transmitted through the air from the smart meter transmitter(s) used to communicate with the utility and/or smart devices in the home;

(2) dirty electricity associated with voltage transients and harmonics from the smart meter’s switching mode power supply (SMPS); and

(3) conduction of RF emissions from the smart meter’s transmitters along the power line with re-radiation into the home.”


Michigan State Senator Patrick Colbeck is a graduate of the University of Michigan with Bachelors and Masters Degrees in Aerospace Engineering as well as a graduate of the International Space University in Strasbourg, France.  Included among his over 20 years of engineering and management work in a variety of industries, he has worked on systems for the International Space Station. In his March 2017 testimony before the Michigan House Energy Policy Committee, endorsing analogue meters as a matter of national security.

“The power that’s provided to our homes, our businesses, and to our government offices here are put at risk with the addition of these smart meters.  That is a risk that is not entertained when you have an analog meter.”

In his slide presentation, Senator Colbeck reviewed a number of risks that are being imposed on families with smart meters, including:

§  No surge protection with smart meters (that does exist with analog meters)

§  No conducted emissions filter

§  Cyber security “back door”

§  Infrared/ red light emissions on some meters that can tell people from the outside that the home is not occupied (not relevant in MA)

§  No circuit breaker exists between the smart meter and the power source.

Sen. Colbeck offers testimony on need for smart meter opt-out, excerpts from YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMnLZiMMfGI

Sen. Colbeck: Safety and security concerns drive need for smart meter opt-out, March 7, 2017, at http://www.senatorpatrickcolbeck.com/sen-colbeck-safety-and-security-concerns-drive-need-for-smart-meter-opt-out/

“Expert Testimony on Smart Meters/Grid: ‘Retain analog systems to the extent possible’,” https://smartgridawareness.org/2017/03/12/expert-testimony-retain-analog-systems/

Cyber-security expert Cynthia Ayers also testified in Michigan about the risk of an EMP (elecromagnetic pulse) on the grid. She is a national security threat analyst, currently working as an independent consultant within the Mission Control and Cyber Division of the Center for Strategic Leadership, U.S. Army War College.  She is also serving as Deputy to the Executive Director of the Congressionally sponsored Task Force on National and Homeland Security.

“As our electric grid becomes ‘smarter’ and more networked, it also becomes more vulnerable, making it a very inviting – perhaps the most inviting – target for adversaries.  Threats specific to smart grid technology range from the tactical (e.g., house-to-house, building to building) to the national strategic level.  As with cyber activities world-wide, operational attacks against small, inconspicuous elements (smart meters, for example) could ultimately have a much larger, truly catastrophic impact to the grid and to the society it sustains.

Expert Testimony of Cynthia E. Ayers, before the Michigan House Energy Policy Committee, “The Cyber/Smart Grid Tech Threat to the Integrated North American Critical Electric Infrastructure,” March 7, 2017; available athttps://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/ayers-testimony-for-mi-house-committee-7-march-2017.pdf



Expert testimony of Arthur Firstenberg before the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, Feb. 2017.

“The EPA has never issued an opinion about smart meters. It has, however, stated repeatedly that the human exposure guidelines adopted by the Federal Communica­tions Commission (“FCC”) on August 1, 1996 are protective only against shocks, burns, and gross heating and do not protect against chronic, low-level exposure. It stated this before the FCC adopted the guidelines, and it repeated this after FCC adopted the guidelines.”See Page 8

Please note that Arthur Firstenberg’s testimony conflicts directly with the MA Department of Public Utility’s 2014 order 12-76B, which fraudulently claims:

“Another commenter disagrees and asserts that existing standards adequately protect public health, arguing that a number of national and international standards bodies agree on the adequacy of existing RF exposure limits, and that a number of these bodies have recently reviewed their limits.” page 43

The MA DPU continues to endorse wireless smart meters as the cornerstone of grid modernization by relying on their health expert tobacco scientist Peter Valberg. He was recently investigated by the Center for Public Integrity.






The MA Department of Health was never consulted on the issue of wireless utility meters.


Due to intervention by legislators, Duke energy is now required to allow small businesses to opt out of digital and smart meters.

This is the text of the correspondence justifying the need for accomodation:

The building at 4320 S 7th St. Terre Haute IN 47802 is a medical office building. Anderson Management Services Duke business class account # 64202739049 requested in April 2017 to opt out of any digital or “smart” meter at this location/wishes to keep the analogue meter in place.

Brian Maynard, an employee of Duke stated today via phone call that: “Business class services are not allowed not to have an AMI meter because they are required by the IURC to have an AMI meter installed.” He stated that “Duke would get in trouble by the IURC if they were to allow this building to keep the analogue meter.”

Both daily occupants (employee) and transient occupants (patients) have medically documented- genetic mutations in their CACNA1C genes predisposing them to electromagnetic sensitivity susceptibility issues with associated symptoms aggravated and complicated by both signals put out by “smart meters” and ‘dirty electricity’ caused by both smart meters and digital meters(W90.8XXA).

 Anderson Management Services will ethically have to disclose any change to the electromagnetic environment at this location to all employees, and patients receiving care here.

 Due to the nature of the patients treated in this location, it is reasonable to conclude, the placement of a digital or “smart meter” at Anderson Management Services will result in loss of current and future patients and current and future employees, therefore directly affecting current and future ability to make income. We have since talked with the IURC and they explained that they do not regulate this/cannot help us. Obviously, this Duke ‘Strategic Business Specialist’ employee’s comments were incorrect at best, and simply lies at worst.

 We request that you call Duke energy as soon as possible and tell them to leave our analogue meter in place at513-419-1658. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Dr. Matthew Christ DC & Dr. Kristen Walton DC 812-251-9427


“There is a “reasonable basis” for concern regarding health risks associated with smart meter wireless emissions.”

“It is “unreasonable” to involuntarily and chronically expose consumers to the electromagnetic energy emitted by smart meters.”

Dr. Andrew Marino submitted an expert report as part of a case before the Pennsylvania PUC.  In this proceeding several consumers have alleged that their health is being negatively affected by smart meters installed by PECO Energy Company.

Expert Report of Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D., dated August 8, 2016; a link for this document where some personal patient information has been redacted is available here :http://andrewamarino.com/PDFs/testimony-AAM_Report.pdf

 “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Evidence for a Novel Neurological Syndrome.” By McCarty, DE, Marino, A., et.alInternational Journal of Neuroscience, December 2011, volume 121, pp 670-676; refer to link at:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784.

 The conclusions reached by Dr. Andrew Marino and presented in his expert report are as follows:

“First, [there] is a reasonable basis in established science for the Complainants’ concern regarding risks to human health caused by man-made electromagnetic energy in the environment, including the type of electromagnetic energy emitted by smart meters.  These health risks are heightened in the very young, the very old, and in those with preexisting diseases or disorders.

 Second, electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a documented neurological condition in which the affected person experiences musculoskeletal, immunological, and/or neurological symptoms that noticeably flare or intensify upon exposure to man-made electromagnetic energy in the environment.  About 5-10% of the general public are self-reported to suffer from this disorder.

 Third, the Complainants were forced into the almost impossible position of conducting experiment[s] on themselves to prove to PECO’s satisfaction that their claims of a link between their symptoms and electromagnetic energy from smart meters were sufficiently credible as to warrant some remediable action by PECO.

 Fourth, there is no justifiable reason for PECO to doubt the reality of the Complainants’ symptoms, to question their intentions in seeking relief, or to not respect and implement the advice they received from their physicians that exposure to smart-meter energy should be avoided.

 Fifth, chronic exposure to the electromagnetic energy from smart meters causes risks to human health that go far beyond the capability of the energy to trigger hypersensitivity reactions in sensitive persons.  A large literature in experimental biology indicates that man-made electromagnetic energy, including that from smart meters, causes biological effects involving every essentially physiological process that occurs in living organisms.  A large literature in nonexperimental biology shows that man-made electromagnetic energy, including that from smart meters, is associated with a plethora of human diseases.  People who suffer from pre-existing conditions are particularly vulnerable, and all the Complainants suffer from such conditions.

Sixth, PECO’s claim that the FCC has pronounced smart meter safe is spurious because the FCC has made that statement only with regard to the heating and cooking effects of electromagnetic energy.  The Complainants have made no claims that smart meters are like microwave ovens.

 Seventh, PECO has claimed that expert committees have pronounced smart meters safe, but PECO has not acknowledged the blatant conflicts-of interests that infect such committees nor the serious limitations on their reports, such as the failure to address much of the relevant literature.

 Eighth, PECO proposes to expose human beings to smart-meter electromagnetic energy over their objection under conditions that would not be acceptable to any institution in the United States where human experimentation can lawfully be performed.  Consequently, coercing the Complainants to endure the risks and uncertainties of such exposure is unwarranted, unjustified, and would amount to involuntary human experimentation by PECO.”

 Regarding the exposure guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Dr. Marino states that:

“According to the FCC, smart meters and cellphones are safe when manufactured according to the presently mandated emission levels. But the FCC defines an emission level as ‘safe’ if it doesn’t result in adverse biological effects caused by heating or cooking of the exposed subject.  Nowhere does the FCC say that smart meters are safe with regard to physiological changes [caused] by physical processes other than heating or cooking.  That claim is unsupportable and counter-scientific, and has not been made by the FCC.”

 To the contrary:

“There is a very large data base of empirical studies in experimental biology that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that biological effects can occur at levels of man-made electromagnetic energy actually present in the environment.”

And that:

“Consequently [there is] no rational basis to argue that PECO’s energy [levels for smart meters] is too small to matter.”

Regarding the symptomatology of the Complainants in the PUC proceeding, Dr. Marino states that:

“There is a sound basis in experimental biology that supports their concerns regarding the consequences to their health that have occurred and that may occur due to future chronic exposure to the electromagnetic energy emitted by smart meters.  Under the conditions pertinent to the conditions of this case, coercing the Complainants to endure these risks and uncertainties is unwarranted, unjustified, and would amount to involuntary human experimentation by PECO.”

 Again, the expert testimony in the Pennsylvania rate case conflicts with the MA DPU Order 12-76B regarding non-thermal impacts.


Dave Stetzer provided testimony to the Michigan Attorney General on the matter of Consumers Energy Company. Mr. Stetzer describes the electrical readings he has taken at dairy farms in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, where he detected dirty power and objectionable ground currents. He explains the cause of and solution for dirty power (harmonics, transients, voltage sags and swells) and objectionable ground currents. He explains the biological effects of these ground currents on livestock and the dairy business at large as well as the apparent coverup by the utilities.


 “I am presenting evidence in support of the Michigan Attorney Generals case against Consumers Energy Company. Specifically, I will be presenting readings and measurements taken on farms that clearly demonstrate the utilitys electrical pollution, electrical poisoning, and power quality problems.”

“I have found measurable amounts of non-sinusoidal voltage waveforms riddled with harmonics and transients at cow contact points (per the Minnesota Science Advisors Study), originating from the utilitys grounded wire system. I have simultaneously recorded the electrical activity with animal reactions. This can be seen on the video I created entitled The Effects of Low Level Non-Linear Voltages and Frequencies Applied to Livestock.10 There seemed to be no noticeable change in the electrical activity (and the animals reactions) when the farm power was turned off at the main disconnect for the entire farm at the service pole. I also found measurable and dangerous amounts of current flowing down the utilitys down ground.

Essentially, I’ve found and recorded electrical phenomena that deal specifically with poor power quality supplied or caused by the utility including:



Voltage sags

Voltage swells

Some of these electrical phenomena have had economic impacts that directly relate to loss of production. Some of this loss of production is described in two papers I co authored entitled Milk Production of Dairy Herd Decreased by Transient Voltage Events,11 and Milk Production of Dairy Herds Decreased by Transient Voltage Events,12 both of which have been or will be published and submitted for peer review. This loss of production has further been documented by expert Forensic Economist, Michael Behr, Ph.D.13 Finally, the July 5, 1999 Industrial Edition of Fortune Magazine published an expose on the existence of dirty electricity and its affects on electrical and electronic equipment entitled Hot New Technologies for Americas Factories.14

I have recorded and measured this electrical phenomena in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. I also have taken measurements on farms in these states and recorded the reactions of more than 6000 cows and some horses simultaneous with the electrical activity.15 The reactions are clearly correlated with electrical activity hoof-to-hoof, as measured using the protocol recommended by the Final Report of the Science Advisors to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.16 The results in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan all involved the same power quality issues (harmonics, transients, sags, and swells), although the power quality in Michigan was measurably worse than in Minnesota and Wisconsin.”

“The net effect of these power quality problems is a significant amount of neutral current riddled with harmonics and transients being forced onto the earth, as the pathway back to the substation. This is dirty power or more appropriately stated, its electrical pollution (when it impacts equipment) or electrical poisoning26 (when it impacts living creatures).”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JRRMSqxcxc Video of David Stetzer


Bill S.1864 needs to be passed out of committee because

1. There is evidence that a portion of the population is vulnerable to the presence of electrosmog, including MA residents who are already suffering from chronic and acute health conditions, including Lyme and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, as well as those already diagnosed with EHS (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity.

2. When residents appealed to the MA DPU for protection from already –installed wireless AMR meters that transmit 24-7, the MA DPU sided with National Grid allowing them to institute a punitive surcharge. Self reading could be implemented in MA, as in MI. MA is this discriminating against ratepayers based on  a medical condition.

4. Eversource is presently providing no accommodation. Municipal suppliers have varied in their responses. Some have offered late installation, while others have threatened water shut off for failure to accept a transmitting water meter, creating an uneven playing field and leaving residents at risk due to arbitrary decision making.

5. The MA DPU order is fraudulent in its representation of FCC limits.

6. (photo from Gloucester MA, Essex County) The housing for utility meters in MA is in some cases extremely rusted, and will not accommodate a new meter without significant repair. This is especially true in coastal areas. Homeowners are often unaware that they own everything behind the meter. This safety hazard should be addressed regardless, but in the past, meter readers would have reported a small problem before it became a major costly repair.

7. Until the issues regarding meter safety can be addressed, and the DPU’s health claims investigated, those citizens requiring immediate relief in order to protect their health are asking the legislature to advocate on their behalf, as legislators in Indiana have done.

If there are any other resources that I mentioned that you would like me to provide for you, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your kind attention.

Thank you,

Patricia Burke

26 Lake Street

Millis MA 02056

508-530-4131 (corded land-line only)


After 2 Ripon Children Diagnosed with Cancer, Kids and Parents Protest Cell Tower on School Grounds

After 2 Ripon Children Diagnosed with Cancer, Kids and Parents Protest Cell Tower on School Grounds

RIPON — In a colorful protest, about two dozen Weston Elementary school kids in Ripon skipped class on Wednesday and demanded that the Ripon Unified School District remove what they believe is a cancer causing agent.

“Take down that cell tower,” Kyle Prime, a cancer survivor, said.

“Having a cell phone tower on a school ground, it’s… in 2011 it was classified as a known carcinogen so that tells me that it shouldn’t be around our children,” Prime’s mother, Kellie, told FOX40.

Kyle, 11, was diagnosed with cancer last year.

“I had a Wilms’ tumor in my left kidney,” Kyle said.


RIPON — In a colorful protest, about two dozen Weston Elementary school kids in Ripon skipped class on Wednesday and demanded that the Ripon Unified School District remove what they believe is a cancer causing agent.

Another parent, Monica Ferrulli said her 10-year-old son, Mason, was diagnosed six months later.

“I had brain cancer,” Mason said.

Both mothers said it was devastating to learn of their sons’ diagnoses. They believe the radiation from the communications tower, which was installed in 2009 on the school’s campus, may be the reason their sons got sick.

“It’s there. It’s very, very close to the buildings. The kids are there, six, seven hours a day,” Prime said.

The American Cancer Society said there is very little evidence that these towers cause cancer. Even so, Ferrulli said she has demanded answers from the school district only to remain in the dark.

“They don’t know when it’s tested, what the last radiation levels that were tested. How often it’s tested,” Ferrulli said.

We’ve called, emailed the school board and even showed up to the superintendent’s office but administrators told us she wasn’t available. No one would comment. Now, both boys are cancer free but their parents, who are fighting to keep it that way, said they might have to transfer their kids to a different school for their health.

“At this point we just have to eliminate any possible factors that could cause it to come back,” Ferrulli said.


To view video on story at:  http://fox40.com/2017/05/31/after-2-ripon-children-diagnosed-with-cancer-kids-and-parents-protest-cell-tower-on-school-grounds/

%d bloggers like this: