FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                       Feb. 21, 2014

Contact:  David Morrison

503 236 8600                                                                        email:

Contact:  Rodrigue DeChennes

503 236 1706


The Health Committee of the Oregon House Legislature will hold a hearing on the health problems associated with the use of wireless technology, Feb. 26th @ 1:00 at the Capital in Salem.    Scientific consensus from independently funded studies now confirms a myriad of serious health problems arising from the unchecked use of wireless technology.  Cell phones, wi fi routers, lap tops, ipads were all marketed without any premarket safety testing by any federal agency or scientific organization.   Microwaves, from wireless devices, were classified by the World Health Organization as a Class 2B Carcinogen in 2011.

Dr. Martin Pall, Professor emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University,  and 8 times international award winner will be discussing his recent paper in the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine that has resolved a long-standing puzzle about how EMFs can influence our bodies and how it affects humans and all biological systems on this planet.

Dr. Pall’s paper has been chosen by the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine to be listed on the “Global Medical Discovery” site as one of most important medical papers of 2013.

Also presenting will be Dr. Paul Dart, currently a practicing physician in Eugene who has been working with informing the public of the hazards of smart meters, wi fi in schools and cell phones for a long time and has testified as a witness in many different public venues.

There will be audio visual presentation from both Doctors.

Electromagnetic fields and radiation damage DNA and enhance cell death rates therefore they are a Ubiquitous Universal Genotoxic Carcinogen that enhances the rates of Cancer, Cardiac, Reproductive and Neurological disease and mortality in human populations.  Therefore there is no safe threshold level. “ Dr. Neil Cherry ..

Hearing on the health problems associated with the use of wireless technology, Feb. 26th


Major U.S. Utility Says “No Rational Basis” for Mandating Smart Meters

Major U.S. Utility Says “No Rational Basis” for Mandating Smart Meters

NU Smart Meter CommentsNortheast Utilities (NU) operates New England’s largest utility system serving more than 3.6 million electric and natural gas customers in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

In a written submittal filed with the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Northeast Utilities was highly critical of a proposed state plan that would require utilization of “advanced metering” or smart meters within the state of Massachusetts as part of an electrical grid modernization plan.  In fact, the comments are quite remarkable in that they appear to reflect reality without undue political spin or bias.  Let us hope that other utilities, public utility commissions, and politicians everywhere can soon come to similar unbiased conclusions that are based upon economic realities and reflect consumers’ and societal best interests.

What is presented below is a summary of key points made by Northeast Utilities in its filing of January 17, 2014, with only slight editorial changes, for example, replacing the term “advanced metering infrastructure” with the term “smart meters.”

Overall Perspective – No Rational Basis for Smart Meter Mandate

“There is no rational basis for …mandated implementation of [smart meters].”

Mandating smart meters “comes without due consideration of key issues such as:

  • the immense cost attached to the technology choice;
  • whether customers are willing and able to pay the price of this technology choice;
  • whether the functionality provided by the technology choice will be utilized by customers or is even sought by customers;
  • whether the imposition of significant costs … for this technology conflicts with other policies encouraging … increased penetration of distributed resources [like wind and solar];
  • whether investment in distribution upgrades needed to accommodate distributed energy resources [would be] a better investment of customer dollars given the relatively small incremental benefit afforded by [smart meters]; and
  • whether other issues such as market alternatives, time-varying rates, and cyber-security should be resolved before there can be any rational determination that this technology is a good choice for customers.”

Smart Meters Are Not a Good Choice for Consumers

The [smart meter] technology choice is made although there is no evidence that this is a good choice for customers.  Conversely, there is ample evidence that this technology choice will be unduly costly for customers and that the objectives of grid modernization are achievable with technologies and strategies that rank substantially higher in terms of cost-effectiveness.  For customers who will pay the price of this system, there is no rational basis  for this technology choice.”

“There is no evidence that customers are willing to pay for the limited incremental functionality gained through implementation of [smart meters].  In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.  For example, industry studies show that only 46 percent of customers are aware of the concept of ‘smart metering,’ and of that percentage, 33 percent associate smart metering with complaints of meter inaccuracy, higher customer bills, invasion of privacy and health concerns.  Many customers have a deep aversion to technology that links them to the ‘grid’ in a way that they perceive as an invasion of their privacy and/or detrimental to their health.”

Smart Meter Costs Can Not Be Justified

“There is no cost justification that can support the implementation of [smart meters].  As identified by Northeast Utilities, … [a smart meter] roll-out is problematic due to the extraordinary cost associated with, at best, a modest increase in functionality.”

“Northeast Utilities estimates, conservatively, that the price tag for a [smart meter] rollout, including the recovery of existing investment on the Companies’ books would likely approach, and possibly exceed, $1 billion over the course of … implementation – all of which is to be borne by customers who may or may not be interested in interacting with the distribution system at the level implicated by [smart meter] technology.”

Smart Meters Are Not an Appropriate Technology Platform for Grid Modernization

Mandating smart meters “creates an intractable obstacle to grid modernization.  The mandate precludes [utilities] from designing and implementing grid modernization plans that are best suited to customers and that mitigate the cost that customers will bear for progress.”

“An Advanced Metering System is not a ‘basic technology platform’ for grid modernization and is not needed to realize ‘all of the benefits of grid modernization.’”

Meters do not reduce the number of outages; metering systems are not the only option for optimizing demand or reducing system and customer costs; and metering systems are not necessary to integrate distributed resources [such as wind or solar] or to improve workforce and asset management.  Therefore, it is not correct that advanced metering functionality is a ‘basic technology platform’ that must be in place before all of the benefits of grid modernization can be fully realized.”

“Accordingly, not only is there a flaw in the … premise that an advanced metering system is a ‘basic technology platform’ for grid modernization, but also the implementation of a costly, advanced metering system is at odds with policies designed to promote the growth of distributed energy resources.”

“Immense, near-term investments in [smart meters] should not be mandated without (1) methodical, valid analysis of the associated costs and benefits; and (2) the development of a plan to solve the detrimental impact of cost-shifting driven by the pervasive installation of distributed energy resources.”

 “It is also premature to assume that [smart meters] can provide for large-scale conservation voltage reduction (‘CVR’).”

Cyber-Security Issues Prevent Development of a Suitable Implementation Plan

“Without resolution of the [issues related to] cyber-security, it is not possible … to develop a suitable [smart meter implementation plan].  [Smart meters] introduce a brand new portal into the Companies’ information systems, significantly increasing the cyber-security risk.  Currently, the only mandatory standard for electric distribution company cyber-security is the North American Electric Reliability Corporation Critical Infrastructure Protection (‘NERCCIP’), which applies only to bulk power systems and not to the electric distribution systems and metering infrastructure…”

Smart Meter Technology May Soon Be Rendered Obsolete

“Last, but not least, there is little confidence that the incremental benefits of moving to a [smart meter] platform will be sufficient to warrant the cost.  Given that the grid modernization technology sphere is a dynamic, rapidly evolving marketplace, it is also unclear whether the incremental benefits, if any, would begin accruing to customers prior to the implemented [smart meter technology] being rendered obsolete.  In any event, the cost remains unjustified by the benefits.”

Formulate a brief comment about the dangers of automating vehicles using wireless technology

The National Highway traffic Safety Administration is in the process of finalizing its 2014 – 2018 Strategic plan and because of that is taking comments for the next 2 days!  
Please take the time to formulate a brief comment about the dangers of automating vehicles using wireless technology due to increased exposure to RF radiation – a possible carcinogen, impaired driving abilities, and let us not forget to mention what an access restricting move this would be – totally in violation of the ADA.
It has gotten hard enough for many people to leave their homes, but each vehicle having a transmitter would make it almost impossible, especially if they were unable to get a vehicle without a transmitter themselves.  I have been unable to find a more formal way to make a comment on this upcoming policy.  I think it is important for them to hear what a bad idea this is from the standpoint of public health and safety.  Hopefully this will not be the only chance to do so.
Here is the statement soliciting public comment, which leaves us a great opportunity for commenting on putting transmitters in every car, or even any car – “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is currently finalizing its 2014-2018 strategic plan, and announces that it will hold a public listening session to solicit public comment on emerging or potential traffic safety problems and solutions. Public feedback will assist the agency in preparing to meet the challenges it faces in the next 5 years on improving motor vehicle and traffic safety in the United States. This notice invites comments, suggestions and recommendations from all individuals and organizations that have an interest in motor vehicle and highway safety, consumer programs (e.g., fuel economy, vehicle theft, odometer fraud, tire performance) administered by the agency, and/or other NHTSA activities. NHTSA will give a brief overview of the plan, and then interested organizations will be provided 10 minutes to present comments to the agency. Alternately, organizations and individuals may provide comments to the docket.” (
Written comments must be submitted by February 24, 2014 at:!submitComment;D=NHTSA-2014-0014-0001 Docket Info
Docket Number
Docket Name
NHTSA’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan – Public Listening Session and Request for Comments
Please read the excellent blogs and the policy statement at the links below for background information.