-Gila Region Community News, Calendar, Forum-

Reader Supported Silver City News & SW New Mexico, Grant County NM, Gila NF
* Login   * Register

* FAQ    * Search

All times are UTC - 7 hours

News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 

Silver City Food Coop



We Are Reader Supported
Your recurring contribution goes to support the Forum, Calendar, and Email List, which exists to further local, sustainable, place-based community.
MONTHLY RECURRING GIFT
    Bill Me Now For: $

ONE-TIME GIFT
Bill Me Now For: $

You may also mail a check or cash to
John Crow
PO Box 1792
Silver City, N.M. 88062


Get your ad here








Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author ------ Message
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:55 pm 
Image
1000 "Smart" Water Meters are scheduled to arrive in Silver City early next week and installation is set to begin the first few days of December. According to Town Manager Alex Brown there are 6,900 meters in Silver City and installation will be completed in September 2016. Forty-one of those 6,900 meters have been operational since at least late 2014, 40 in a low income neighborhood northeast of Silver High and La Plata and one at the Grant County Administration building on 180 East.

Arenas Valley Water Association has been using the "Smart" Meter system for 2 years according to Brown who also stated that these units are battery operated and that the battery lasts 20 years.

Back in 2011 Joanie Conners brought up the benefits here on Gila Community News and in 2013 the Silver City Water Conservation Plan advocated for the system and in 2014 serious research by the Town was begun.

There are those who object to the system citing research found on the internet and a couple of days ago a petition was circulating against the system.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: EGGreen
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 8:38 am 
What will these meters do for us? Will they more accurately record how much water is used? I hope they will not increase the cost of our water, as only recently, utility bills have about doubled! Will we be limited in our use of water? Thank you.

_________________
Create a great day! Gale


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 9:59 am 
Here is an article where the World Health Organization declares smart meters, among other RF devices, as a possible carcinogen.

http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wireless-de ... anization/

Click on the window in the left margin "What's all the fuss about smart meters". There are some videos listing health, privacy, and cyber-security issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 12:24 pm 
If you go to the World Health Organization web site and search on "RF Energy" you'll find that WHO doesn't classify smart meter RF energy as a possible carcinogen. They do cite another organization as saying energy from cell phone use is a "possible" carcinogen, but add that there is no scientific evidence of that being true.

The RF energy emitted by a smart water meter is 1/1000 of that of a cell phone and, beyond a three ft distance from the meter, it's virtually non existent. The meter transmitted about one and a half seconds a day. RF emitted is well below the maximum FCC standard.

The only physical effect of RF energy that's ever been shown by a scientific study is a warming of the skin but the dose required to do that is well beyond the level produced by a cell phone or smart meter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 12:27 am 
On May 11, 2015 the organization Electronic Field Scientist (EMFscientist.org) submitted an appeal to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations calling for "Protection From Non-ionizing EMF exposure." So called "smart meters" are listed in the appeal. The appeal is signed by 190 scientists from 39 nations.

https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/ ... ist-appeal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:46 am 
Mirocook, do you, or anyone else, know of any further discussion concerning the "smart meters" referred to in the Appeal, specifically, what kind of smart meters are they referring to? I have a hard time believing they're talking about the water meters under discussion here. Sunlight, radar and radio stations, overhead power lines, every electric motor, light bulbs, toasters, electric ovens and heaters, all generate far more EMF radiation than what these water meters are outputting, and by far, cell phones and wireless routers are way more risky than these water meters. I suspect the meters referred to in the Appeal are the ones that pole continuously and transmit 24-7 real time data back to the utility company. Mostly these are electric meters that not only provide billing information but also relay the status of power quality, variations of frequency and voltage levels, and so forth. These water meters the City is installing are in a whole different class from that, but if anyone's got some different knowledge about this I'd like to know of it. All that I see here is a method of eliminating false meter readings resulting in erroneous bills that end up costing residents more money due to the City's tiered water usage system. Also, the meter reader will probably spend a little less time collecting water consumption figures with these meters potentially saving the City a bit on salary costs, although that savings may be nearly immeasurable, he's still has to drive from one meter to the next which seems like where the bulk of the time goes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Joanie
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 7:39 pm 
Hi John Crow and All,
I don't recall ever saying anything to anyone about smart meters, now or in 2011 (as mentioned in JC's original article). I have no expertise in water meters, or any meters.
I would prefer not to take either side in this debate. I'm debated out.
Thanks for all your work though!
Joanie Connors


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:59 pm 
Hi Joanie, I ment to link to your post which was a reprint of a NY Times article which advocated for smart meters as one solution to drought and water use issues, to read it Click Here. EGGreen responded.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Joanie
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:51 am 
Thanks for the reminder, JC. I didn't remember posting the article. So, despite my intention to remain neutral in this debate, I stuck my foot in it 4 years ago! The perils of reading!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:23 am 
This is a brief interview (2 & 1/3 minute) with Dr. David Carpenter, a Public Health Physician and Harvard graduate. His point is that there have not been any studies done to show that smart meters are safe and that citizens should have a choice as to whether or not they will be exposed to the effects of having a smart meter installed at their home.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7L21XOC2wA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:43 pm 
While it is true that smart water meters haven't been studied specifically, other EMF emitting devices which put out considerably more energy, e.g, cell phones, have. There's no reason to study smart water meters when previous studies have shown other devices that emit considerably more energy have been found to be safe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: RFS!
PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:05 am 
Uh...

Does anyone know / care to share...

The manufacturer of the specific unit(s) to be installed in Silver City?
The specific model(s)?
Have an actual spec sheet on this model(s)?
Any schematic, plan, project description that defines / summarizes or otherwise articulates the configuration of the "mesh network?"
A "white paper" that articulates the point of the exercise and intended benefit / result / outcome?

Seems a productive discussion would begin with the most basic and specific / unambiguous info before us.

Cheers!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:44 am 
I don't know how anyone can say cell phones have been found to be safe. The World Health Organization has determined the radiation emitted from cell phones as "possibly carcinogenic to humans". There are measures one can take to lower the risk but the whole field is so new it may take years before we learn the true risks of rf radiation, just like it took decades before tobacco use was deemed harmful to people's health. The other consideration is the effect on children. They are much more susceptible to rf radiation than adults, and fetuses even more so.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/


Last edited by mirocook on Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:47 am 
RFS!
judging by a look at a image search for "smart water meter" and the illustration in the article's beginning, these meters emit a small burst of data which can be received by the meter reader from his vehicle and this same data nugget can be received by a neighboring meter and passed along to a computer/receiver at the water dept. If the battery lasts ,as claimed, the amount of radio emissions is extremely small and brief, much less than a cell phone or computer. If this is these unit's modality it will be an energy and labor saving device of the first order, paying for themselves quickly. i'll call the water department and post more specifics here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:27 am 
Microcook is right, studies haven't proven cell phones to be safe. I worded that poorly. What they have demonstrated is that there's no scientific evidence that they're unsafe.

WHO did not declare cell phones to be a possible carcinogen. They cited another organization that reached that conclusion, but then said there was no scientific evidence to support that conclusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:52 am 
Bioinitiative 2012, "A Rationale for Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation", Under Table of Contents, Section 24, Key Scientific Evidence and Public Health Policy Recommendations, PDF 2012 Supplement-Ms. Sage and Dr. Carpenter, page 24 paragraph 3 states:

"An urgent example for the need to address the lack of adequate public protection from inadequate safety standards for pulsed RFR exposures is the rapid, global roll out of wireless utility meters ('smart' meters for electricity, gas, and water meters). Current safety standard calculations that rely on time-averaging of RFR almost entirely dilute out the power density of RFR levels that are delivered in millisecond bursts, but occur at intervals of every second, or multiple times per second when in use within a wireless mesh network.....Added together, these RFR pulses that now appear to be a highly bioactive agent but are essentially erased or made energetically invisible by time-averaging the pulses as current FCC safety rules mandate."

Continuing on page 25 of section 24, referring to smart meters,"These meters, depending on where they are placed relative to the occupied space in the home or classroom, can produce RFR exposure levels similar to that within the first 100 feet to 600 feet of a mobile phone base station (cell tower). In the not-so-distant future the plan is to have a wireless device implanted in every household appliance, which will communicate with the smart meter whenever electricity is being used. This will likely make the kitchen a major source of exposure to RFR.

"The cululative RFR burden within any community is largely unknown. Both involuntary sources (like cell towers, smart meters and second-hand radiation from the use of wireless devices by others) plus voluntary exposures from ones' personal use of cell and cordless phones, wireless routers, electronic baby surveillance moniters, wireless security systems, wireless hearing aids, and wireless medical devices like implanted insulin pumps all add up. No one is tallying up the combined exposure levels."

http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

http://www.bioinitiative.org/participants/why-we-care/

http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page_id=212

http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page_id=196


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:06 pm 
After some more research, I probably need to modify my post to say that the World Health Organization "does not currently" classify cell phones as a possible carcinogen. Neither does the American Cancer Society.

There was a study published in 2011 by the International Agency for Cancer Research, which is affiliated with WHO, concluding that cell phones are a possible carcinogen. That study was subsequently discredited by the scientific community as being flawed and the conclusions drawn not credible. WHO still mentions the discredited study on their web site, but then concludes there's no basis for concluding that cell phones are a possible carcinogen.

Microcook's post from Biointiiative brings up the fact that we really have two choices regarding the devices we use and are surrounded by We can accept the science as it stands today and not worry about a thing, or we can take a cautious stance and assume that in the end we'll find out that all that RF energy is actually hazardous to our health, and modify our behaviour accordingly.

Personally, I'm a bit suspicious of cell phones, but not concerned about things like tv remotes, smaret water meters, wi fi and garage door openers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 5:17 pm 
I looked up the Bioinitiative report on line and found that the report is held in less than high esteem by the scientific community. Wikepedia has some information and the following link is even more critical, plus gives a good summary of what the science on EMF was in 2012.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/pi ... ve-report/

The report is generally panned as representing biased opinions, rather than bing based on science, and cherry picking it's facts to support their agenda. One of the lead authors isn't a scientist, but a consultant in the field of EMF remediation.

The report recommends a safe EMF limit of .3 to .6 nanowatts. That's one millionth of the EMF we're exposed to from our sun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 7:47 pm 
CUI BONO? That is the first question I ask when any topic of controversy is discussed. Regarding the article "Picking Cherries in Science: The Bioinitiative Report, one of the authors of the article, Lorne Trottier is co-founder of Matrox, a manufacturer of specialized video and graphics boards. The other author, Kenneth R. Foster wrote an article for The Health Physics Society in which he said, "In 2006 I conducted an INDUSTRY SUPPORTED survey ( caps. are my addition) of RF field levels in urban and suburban areas in four countries-the United States, France, Germany, and Sweden."

https://hps.org/hpspublications/article ... works.html

This makes me wonder how many other INDUSTRY SUPPORTED articles or position papers Mr. Foster has authored. Regarding the other international agencies that say "don't worry, we have your best interests at heart, believe what we tell you", if they are anywhere near as corrupt as the U.S. government, where industry and corporate lobbyists now write most of the laws and regulations, then I have no reason to believe any official announcements regarding health and safety. Granted, this is not very "scientific" but I think it best to err on the side of too much caution rather than not enough.

This is a video trailer about electric "smart meters" which I admit is somewhat sensationalizing the issue, but it address the issue of invasion of privacy and state and industry surveillance.

https://takebackyourpower.net/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:28 pm 
I searched for a report on the potential health effects of EMF done by someone unlikely to be biased and found one issued in Jan 2015 by the Scientific Committee On Emerging and Newly Identified Health Hazards (SCENIHR), a part of the European Commission.

It's long (230 or so pages), but the abstract in the beginning summarizes their findings. Here's the web address:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_c ... _o_041.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:08 pm 
Yes, the SCENIHR report is thorough and exhaustive. The summary states that they find no connection between RF frequency in cell phone use and glioma, a type of brain cancer, but they say the possibility does exist for an association with acoustic neuroma, a type of tumor on the nerve that connects the ear to the brain. The CDC says this type of tumor doesn't cause cancer but can lead to other health problems like hearing loss. Scroll to near the bottom of the CDC page for the statement about acoustic neuromas. They also give some tips on safe use of cell phones.

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._faq.html

Further in the body of the SCENIHR, section 3.13 Research Recommendations p. 218 and scrolling on down to section 3.13.4 RF fields p.220, second paragraph, ".........whether children show an increased tumour risk to RF fields remains unclear. Further studies of the effects of RF fields associated with mobile phone use and brain tumours in children are recommended as a high priority. These should include children of a younger age than those that have been studied to date, and be of sufficient duration to include assessments of cancer risk later in life. Where practical, other sources that produce significant RF exposure of the brain should be included in assessing exposure."

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_c ... _o_041.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: JE1947
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:16 pm 
As far as I can tell ... the RF energy emitted is low enough that I'll for the present trade that off for conserving water. Water wars will loom larger as we move into a zone of unreality by many who claim Climate Change is fiction. Modern flat earthers. For me, the possible climactic changes will possibly dwarf this kind of issue if I live another ten years still be relatively happy. I don't know that's possible, but for now: water conservation with being able to precisely measure water usage will be important as we try to prevent a diversion of the Gila River, and, the Plains of San Augustin. Selling water for people who want green yards in Phoenix, etc., will drive up the price of water that we HAVE, and can preserve. I think of the scene in "Ocean's Eleven" I think ... Soderburgh version ... where the one guy get's ready to turn on the EMP machine he's made ... covers his crotch ... and flips the switch. I guess if I get within 3 meters of the digital water meter, I can do that ... having been exposed to Agent Orange and multiple ways of death and dismemberment in Vietnam ... the RF signals aren't what I am prioritizing. But everyone is different. I don't know if we can refuse to have a digital water meter or not. I will accept mine & try to make the best of it. Someone(s) farther north are surely going to want whatever water we have; there are plenty in Congress who won't care ... But, I appreciate that others have researched this both ways ... thank you for your work and effort. I do appreciate the concerns, both ways.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: GCResident
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:29 am 
Amen to the post above!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:10 pm 
I couldn't agree more.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:02 am 
after calling the city I was told the manufacturer of the meters: Metron.
its full name is Metron Farnier.
http://www.metronfarnier.com/wp-content/themes/metron_theme/PDF%20Downloads/AMR%20Content/T2%20AMR%20Brochure.pdf
the meters ordered will be polled by driving by them.
the amount of electromagnetic radiation they will produce will be miniscule, much less than your cell phone, radio or computer.
if anyone likes I have an instrument called a spectrum analyser that can show how much.
hope this helps


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:04 pm 
ynot,,, thanks for bird dogging that down, possibly the most valuable post in this thread. From your link I tracked down this data sheet describing the transmitter and from that dug out this page describing the kind of battery being used:

It turns out these meters transmit at 900Mhz, the same band used by amateur radio, walkie-talkies, cordless phones and numerous other low power devices. These are generally line of sight transmitters of pretty limited range, my cordless phone seems to drop off at about 50 feet or so from its base. It's doubtful these water meters are much different.

The battery they're using is a 3.6v lithium thionyl chloride D Cell. These are not rechargeables, they're more like a generic flashlight battery with an exceptionally long life span. Impressive, but still a battery that needs to be replaced every so often making conservation of battery power a really big deal here. That being the case, data transmitted from these meters every 30 days is just the briefest burst. By comparison, imagine using a cordless telephone for about one second, one time each month. That's the order of RF radiation we're talking about from these things.

More interesting, each of these meters can store 16,000 data points configured to log sample data at 5 minute intervals across 30 days. That data set can then be used to generate a detailed graph of water consumption whose trend analysis can, among other things, reveal the presence of even low level water leaks. There's no way the existing meters can can come close to doing that. This would be like having a dedicated meter reader glued to your water meter 24-7 taking readings 12 times every hour. The question I now find myself having to ask is, once the City has this amazing new capability in operation, will they use it to its fullest potential?

http://www.transparenttech.com/images/M2w_Datasheet.pdf

http://www.batteryspace.com/primary-lit ... d-5-7.aspx .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 10:55 am 
Kevin, i don't really call what i did bird dogging, i just called and someone called me back, the next day , i believe. anyhow, you laid out in good layman's terms what i got from the web pages i perused.
thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 2:05 pm 
Kevin, I believe these have a continual pulsed signal 24/7 like a strobe as opposed to those that broadcast only as the reader approaches. It's not clear why the continual pulse was chosen over the on-demand other than perhaps cost. Tho the massive 230 page study of the studies linked to by mirocook declared the issue of harm to be inconclusive the issue remains inconclusive and for that reason the lesser of signal broadcasts should be chosen, ie the on-demand signal, I would think.

We, most of us, already live in very noisy homes; think wireless internet, cordless DECT phone, cell phones, microwave ovens all having radio frequencies (RF) as well as a strong continuous magnetic field from the analog electric meter which extends into the home a good 2 feet and a vary strong magnetic field every time the refrigerator turns on; all noises that some people can hear. I haven't even mentioned all the broadcast frequencies from outside the home which permeate the atmosphere like radio, including emergency, all types of television, cell towers etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:25 pm 
"I believe these have a continual pulsed signal 24/7 like a strobe as opposed to those that broadcast only as the reader approaches."


John, I'm totally not getting that. Are you seeing this described that way somewhere in these spec sheets? What I'm seeing is that they buffer up a block of data (say 30 days worth) which is then downloaded when polled by a driveby meter reader or, with some additional gizmo, via a remote network.

Page 6 of the Metronfarnier page Ynot linked to says, "T2's AMR system provides an intelligent approach to driveby ARM while allowing for an economical method to migrate to a fixed (Wi-Fi) network meter solution." From the various pages they're saying the, "M2H datalogger stores up to 16,000 datapoints and monitors for user-defined periods," and, "Datalogging - Configurable for log interval, from 5 minutes (1 month storage) to 1 hour (21 month storage)".

So I'm not seeing these strobing out a continual data stream, why would they be storing up so many weeks worth of data? But nor am I seeing how they could be maintaining a continued data transmission being powered by just a single D-Cell battery, in just a few days they'd be dead. Also, I'm thinking, they'd have to either interleave all that parallel data from all the various meters, or they'd have to assign each meter its own frequency, either way, complicated. But if they do work the way you're saying I'd like to understand how, and where/how that's being described. Cheers - kb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:59 pm 
If radiation from nearby devices is significantly harmful to humans, we are doomed. It's too late to change. Waves from cell phones, TVs, radios, phones, and other sources bombard us constantly. The only escape is to live in the wilderness beyond radio range with no devices, no satellite TV, and perhaps no electricity. And even that wouldn't save you from all radio waves. But if we are so doomed, these smart meters will play an infinitesimal part in that doom.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:20 am 
Kevin, I do not have a strong opinion as right or wrong but bring up the inconclusive nature of all the research, which means there have been studies that show both harm and no harm, who's right? My extensive research tells me there are both the continuous strobe like pulse and a drive-by activated pulse and a multiple router automated networked system . When I interviewed both the Town manager and Assistant manager both new my question and agreed it would be a continuous strode-like pulse rather than a drive-by activated system; do they really know?

The information that ynot was directed to is a website sales pitch which contains no real data about the system being installed here and you quoted from it a section which does not address the issue I raised. I have informally requested the engineering spec sheet for this exact model and its configuration from the Town manager early last week and still have not received anything, I will submit a formal records request next.

As to the 20 year battery life, I cannot say but it sounds like one of those "if it sounds too good to be true it probably ...." sort of thing.

This is a $4,143,790 project that may or may not lead to water conservation and is paid for through a NM Finance Authority Bond, approved last June, for $3,643,790 plus a $500,000 grant from the Arizona Water Settlement grant announced today.

I quoted the town managed as saying there are around 6900 active meters which brings the per meter head cost to $600 dollars to be paid for over that 20 year battery life claim.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:30 pm 
as interesting and enjoyable this conversation is, know this: i have the equipment and experience to quantify the emissions of this meter and see it relative to the other emissions in its and your neighborhood. so when some arrive and are installed lets go ck one out with the meter reader.
my suspicion is as was stated before, quite small compared to the many emissions already present in most households.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:43 pm 
Ok John, now I'm totally confused. According to Ynot's post on 12/6, the link to Metron Farnier also came from the City along with the statement, "the meters ordered will be polled by driving by them." Now you're saying the Town Manager told you, "it would be a continuous strobe-like pulse." Both claims can't be true.

So is the City using Metron Farnier M2 Water Meter Radio Transmitters as Ynot was told or aren't they? If so, I see nothing to indicate theses meters do or can generate a continuous output pulse. What's more, I can fathom no need for it. Unlike monitoring and controlling electrical services where precise levels of rapidly changing state are critical, water delivery is neither rapid nor critical. Here's what I mean by that.

If the 110 volt service in your wall outlet drops off by 20% delivering only 90 volts, we're facing brownout conditions, public announcements will be put out asking people to immediately shut down their air conditioners and any other nonessential appliances. If the 60 cycle delivery of that power should drop off to say 59 cycles, our clocks will be off, fluorescent lights will flicker, TV's images will roll, all kinds of other disruptions will follow. Monitoring and controlling our 110v power at 60Hz is critical. On the other hand, if your water pressure drops from 130psi to 90psi, who cares? You can still wash your hands and fill your coffee pot, those kinds of fluctuations in water pressure happen all the time and we never even notice it. So what would be the point of maintaining a continuous data stream to monitor water delivery? What purpose would it possibly serve? And second to that comes the question of how you'd power it.

With "smart" electric meters the power needed to run the meter can come straight from the energy you're monitoring, you've got an unlimited supply of electricity to work with, continuous monitoring and data transmission is no problem. That kind of power source isn't available from a water supply system. So whatever setup the City ends up using the transmitters are going to have to include their own power source, batteries make the most sense, and in that world lithium thionyl chloride batteries also make the most sense.

That said, perhaps a point worth mentioning about the 20 year life span of these batteries is the difference between output and capacity. If you put one of these batteries in your flashlight which sits on a shelf for 20 years, at the end of that time you can flick the switch and the light will still come on. That's what's guaranteed about them. By no means could you put one in your flashlight, turn it on, and after 20 years still expect to see it shining brightly. In real numbers, when used on a continuous basis these batteries can maintain an output of about .720mW for about four days. The same size Rayovac alkaline battery is good for around .820mW for about six hours. If left in a flashlight set on the shelf that same alkaline battery could still turn the light on after about 12 months. That's the "1 year life span" of a regular D-Cell alkaline battery versus the "20 year life span" of a lithium thionyl chloride battery.

As for how that concerns the water meter issue, no matter what kind of meters the City ends up using, they're going to have to come equipped with their own power source, batteries making the most sense. No matter what kind of battery they use, on a continuous basis (for which there's no apparent need), even if pulsed, they'd only last a few days at best. It seems to me, what the Town Manager told you, doesn't make any sense.

I'm not making any statements here about the right or the wrong or the health or the hazard. I'm just saying that when you consider the parameters within the way these systems have to operate, and consider in practical terms what they actually need to accomplish, the amount of radiation we're talking about is far less than what we encounter every second of every day, and have throughout the entire course of human evolution. So, is this whole debate about radiation really that important? Personally, that's why I'm not making any statements about it. On the other hand, these meters offer an ability to examine water consumption at a level that's far beyond anything traditional meters can offer, down to and including the ability to expose even minimal water leaks. Is that important? And which is more important, the concern about radiation or the concern about loss of water? Well, that's up to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:07 pm 
I agree Kevin, this why I'm not satisfied with the website sales pitch and have requested the engineering specs for the exact model being installed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2015 7:12 pm 
Great, do keep us posted John, it'll be interesting to see if the info you get from the City turns out to be different from what Ynot got.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:23 am 
As requested here is an update: After waiting nearly a week after an informal request for what I called the Engineering Specs for the exact model I made a formal records request for the same specific information and today got a generic (general) report on the various models offered and the various RF choices available and that the meters will have a "scalable pulse" but no mention of what model we are spending nearly $4 Million on buying and having installed. My question then becomes does the Town Admin know what they are buying?

I invite ynot to stop by with his equipment and we will go take some readings of these meters I've been told already exist here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:10 pm 
crow, let's go look at a meter first.
i'll stop by


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:23 am 
On learning that the first batch of these meters has arrived I realize I'm still far from clear as to how water consumption data gets relayed from the meter. According to an article in the Press the meters, “use quick bursts of radio signal(s) to keep town utility employees up-to-date on leaks and water usage.” Frankly that description doesn't say much, but moreover I realize that all this discussion about EMF's, battery life, and privacy infringement got me distracted from a far more practical question.

We have a 275 gallon water catchment system we recharge from rainwater off our roof we use to irrigate our garden and landscaping. Certainly we're not alone in doing this but for readers who do not catch rainwater let me assure you, 275 gallons of water does not go very far even with ultra-conservative use. So particularly before the Monsoons, we juxtapose that usage with our monthly City water allocation. Since we're on this tiered billing system, if we've still got some margin left over toward the end of the month we use more City water, if we're close to exceeding our allocated budget we use more rainwater. We can do that because we can monitor our own City water consumption by just lifting the cover and reading the meter. Also, there have been multiple times I've had to rely on the City meter's leak detector to track down a fractured pipe. The last time that was especially valuable was when the Fire Department was out checking hydrants and turned off the water so fast that pipes all over town burst, including one of ours which ruptured about 50 feet away from the meter. So now I'm left to wonder if the new "Smart Meters" actually selected for use have a dial, or will our water usage figures only be available to the City via, “quick bursts of radio signal(s),”requiring some proprietary radio receiver? I appreciate the Smart Meter's ability to analyze trend data over time as a means of identifying low level leaks, but I also appreciate our existing meters' ability to reveal major ruptures immediately while also giving us access to our own usage data for our own water conservation measures. If the new meters eliminate the monitoring capabilities provided by our existing meters they represent a major failing that's going to defeat any potential for water savings in a heart beat. I dearly hope this is not the direction the City's final decision is taking us and that the new meters do in fact have a dial/display and a leak detector function giving customers access to at least the same information we have access to now? Does anybody know the reality on this?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 2:49 pm 
Kevin, the meters have a digital screen with gallons, flow rate etc, below is a link to the company spec sheet with a good photo about half way down the page. These do have a continual pulse broadcast but require a reader to drive by to get a reading. The first group of residents to receive the new meters have received notice by mail but I'm unsure if if installation has begun.

Model: Spectrum 30D
http://www.nelladistribution.com/pdf/EN ... 30D_EN.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: macewa
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:44 am 
another take on the issue: invasion of privacy - first the water meters, next comes gas and electric. If they were just using this where they got info on total amount of water consumption as they now do, that's fine; but when they set these meters on 24/7 and are able to know when you use the toilet, etc . that's a tad too much info for me Call me crazy but any invasion of my privacy is too much and today we already have already given up more than we should - we sit back and let they claim it all. Just my thoughts . . .

One concern is that with these smart meters we are putting more EMFs into the air around us and we certainly have more than enough already. I also have a problem with the data collecting and that needs to be talked about as to what they plan to do with that data,. It is a form of invasion of privacy I've also read that with water meters in Chicago they are over charging customers. Seems like a lot of unanswered questions. The below is a shorten version of other info I have read on this subject. Having this info I can see the day when they will call and say Ms Smith, you are showering too much.

Any invasion of our privacy to me is too much, but perhaps I'm the only one with this concern. Here is the article which coves both water, gas and electric.:

Smart Meters

Electric smart meter Electric smart meter Gas smart meters Water smart meters
Utility companies around the world are replacing electric, gas and water analog meters with pulsed radiation smart meter networks, which are costing us money, privacy, and our health and safety.

Smart Meters, (also called AMI, or AMR) eliminate meter reader jobs and are part of the “Smart Grid”, which is an expensive wireless system installed on our homes, businesses, and in our environment that customers pay for. It’s being installed without informed consent and without full disclosure of how they work, and what they can do with the personal data they collect. Customers and the media report serious complaints about Smart Meters for the following reasons:



SECURITY

Former CIA director James Woolsey says the hacking vulnerabilities of the Smart Grid render it “a really really stupid grid”. Cyber security expert David Chalk says: “There is not a power meter or device on the grid that is protected from hacking – if not already infected – with some kind of Trojan horse that can cause the grid to be shut down or completely annihilated.”



PRIVACY INVASION

Smart Meters are a surveillance device. They are a search without a warrant. They collect detailed energy usage, for instance: when you cook, watch TV, whether you are home or not, when you turn on a light, or if you have guests. This data is very valuable because it can reveal patterns about what you do and when. California utility companies admitted they are providing smart meter data to the government and third parties. More on smart grid privacy: Electronic Privacy Information Center

HARMFUL TO HEALTH

The World Health Organization classifies RF as a 2B carcinogen , same as DDT and lead. Military studies here and here show pulsed radiation can cause serious health problems, including tinnitus, memory loss and seizures. Thousands of studies link biological effects to RF radiation exposure, including increased cancer risk, damage to the nervous system, adverse reproductive effects, DNA damage, and more. The top public health official in Santa Cruz County California prepared this report , confirming Smart Meters pose a health risk. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) sent this letter to the CPUC calling for a halt to wireless smart meters. See also this letter from Dr. Carpenter , endorsed by 50+experts.

Read about customers smart meter health complaints, which include sleep problems, headaches, nausea, anxiety, heart palpitations, tinnitus and ear pain, concentration and memory problems, dizziness, immune, nervous and hormonal system impacts.

Vulnerable groups include people with EMF sensitivities , medical implants , compromised immune systems, children, pregnant women , seniors and the environment ! If you have a pacemaker PG&E warns you to stay 6 inches away from a Smart Meter.

Fires, explosions and burnt out appliances (with use of smart electric meters)

Smart meter installations are causing fires, explosions and burnt out appliances in homes across the US Canada and Australia. See the shocking compilation of reports: Smart Meter Fires and Explosions

Cost increases

There have been widespread reports of smart meter billing overcharges. Smart meters are also failing and needing to be replaced. In 2010, PG&E reported over 43,000 Smart Meter problems of one kind or another. A lawsuit filed was against PG&E in California.

Read customers Smart Meter Complaints about cost and other problems including interference. Time of use metering raises many concerns: The Need for Essential Consumer Protections

How they work

Utility companies are using our homes and businesses for their microwave networks! The electric meter operates around 900 mhz and 2.4Ghz. It constantly transmits and repeats data from 500 +/- homes in a mesh network, which includes collectors which repeat signals back to the utility via cell towers. Depending on where your home is located within the mesh network will determine how much radiation your meter transmits. PG&E finally admitted that the electric meters send an average of 10,000 pulses per meter per day, at a peak power of 2 1/2 watts and a maximum of 190,000 per day! You can hear the constant pulses in this video below, and see the damage to the environment.

Smart Grid proponents are expecting consumers will install a Home Area Network (HAN) and new smart appliances . Installing the HAN will allow the utility company to further monitor your electric usage and control the grid, by turning off certain appliances during peak use time, as they need.

FCC Protection?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF radiation safety standards are for short term thermal effects (5 and 30 minutes), and are configured for a 6 ft 2″ 200 pound male. The meters are assessed for safety compliance in isolation, not in a mesh network, in which they are designed to operate, or in combination with multiple meters, or other sources of RF, such as wi-fi, DECT phones, cell phones, cell towers, baby monitor etc. Sage Associates study found the meters can violate FCC safety guidelines in the manner deployed and operated. In addition the meters can also violate FCC safety conditions. The new FCC chairman is a wireless industry leader, Tom Wheeler.

_________________
Life can change in an instant - enjoy every day to the fullest


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:53 pm 
For Kevin B:

According to what I've read some smart water metering systems have the capability to detect leaks and the monitoring system sends an email to the property owner alerting them to the leak possibility.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:37 pm 
While it sounds pretty ominous that the IARC has classified EMF a class 2B carcinogen, it is far from a kiss of death for smart water meters. Being on that list means that there's no evidence that the item causes cancer, but further study is recommended because the IARC thinks they could "possibly" be carcinogenic.

Coffee and pickled vegetables are both on the list.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: sh1
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:43 am 
Thanks to Tim Matthes for continuing to research the smart meter issue, and providing us all with solid information about the relative risks and benefits. Shelby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: n2ic
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:11 pm 
If you're really worried about EMF, then you should never travel to downtown Silver City. Right across the street from the CoOp, you have the KURU studio. See that antenna above the roof ? That is sending EMF, hundreds of times more powerful than a smart water meter, to their main broadcast location on PA Mountain. It's sending that energy 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except when they are not on the air.

If you are only worried about "pulsed" EMF, such as being transmitted by the smart water meter, then you should stay far, far away from anyone that has a cell phone or smartphone. They also send "pulsed" EMF periodically to the cell site, to let the cell site know your phone is turned on. Oh yes, the level of their pulsed EMF is far in excess of the smart water meter, because the cell site they are communicating with can be many miles away.

Lastly, if you are considering living a 19th century lifestyle to escape from EMF, then make sure you move somewhere that never has thunderstorms. Lightning is a prodigious and powerful generator of EMF across the entire radio electromagnetic spectrum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:59 am 
Thanks all for the updates.

John - Thanks for nailing down the specific meter. They look really great. The City recently painted blue dots on all our meter covers, I'm crossing my fingers that means we're high on the list for upgrade.

Tim - notifying property owners by email of leaks would be so cool, and definitely "Smart", as meters go. Of course, any kind of notification about leaks would be great, I sure hope the City utilizes that capability to its fullest capacity.

As for the IARC's classification of EMF a class 2B carcinogen. After reading macewa's post I searched on <World Health Organization conclusion on RF risk>. The first five returns all link to WHO and IRAC pages. The first page returned at http://www.who.int/features/qa/30/en/ focuses on cell phones and concludes that, "While an increased risk of brain tumors from the use of mobile phones is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group and is currently assessing the health impact of RF fields on all studied endpoints." The pages was posted September 20, 2013.

The second page returned at http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/rf_ehc_page/en/ addresses WHO's desire to get it right, inviting any and all further, "technical consultation by RF experts." The page was last updated on April 8th, 2015 and basically says WHO has been listening, they're still willing to listen, the topic remains open for discussion and any new input.

The third return links to this page at http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/Whatis ... ndex1.html which WHO posted September 9th, 2014. They state, "In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields."

Unless the World Health Organization has released some new position as of, like, yesterday, it seems they do NOT classify RF as a 2B carcinogen, they never did, and they've invested, sponsored, and endorsed tremendous resources into uncovering any reason for why they should. WHO is certainly aware of the potential consequences, they're clearly taking the issue seriously, they've spent a lot of time and money looking, they're open to any new data, there's just no evidence of a threat. To claim that, "The World Health Organization classifies RF as a 2B carcinogen," appears patently false.

n2ic - I have to wonder if there's someplace between galaxies where EMF's are so low as to approach nonexistent and thus reasonable to consider safe even by those convinced they are at risk of exposure? What does seem disturbing is that the most significant transmitter of EMF's are the same industries that have brought us creosote saturated utility poles, PCB laden transformers, ozone producing high power overhead lines, lead sheathed communication trunks, massive quantities of nuclear waste, and so many other known chemical, heavy metal, and gaseous carcinogens. It seems to me that focusing attention on the nonexistent threat from EMF's serves only to divert attention away from the true threats that really do pervade our environment thus contributing to their continued existence, and that is a dangerous condition. Considered in that light one could reasonably argue that wireless technology is reducing the need for our hardwired infrastructure and therefore serving to eliminate those chemical and gaseous agents from our surroundings. Personally I'd rather be exposed to RF's any day than to proven and well known carcinogens. Yet so many others strongly disagree in favor of their ongoing crusade against EMF's. Strange...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:15 am 
As mentioned in my lead article that began this discussion there is a petition against the meters, I've seen 2 different individuals, a guy and a lady, on different days on 6th and Bullard approaching people to sign the petition. Being who I am and interested in who they are and what their issue is, what they experience from emf, each time I see one of them I stop to talk and also ask about how their petition is doing; I''m met with a range of response from aloofness as they stair past me down an empty street as if I'm not there, to anger, arrogance, flurries of fear and terror and despair but not yet a "look in the eyes discussion".

In a discussion Monday with Town Manager Alex Brown who hopes that installation will start next week after a number of delays (sounds like the bridge) he told me that someone was knocking on doors with fliers and the petition in the subdivisions up Little Walnut and that there have numerous complaints of aggressive engagement and the person not leaving when ask to; he is worried for their safety.

Kevin, the plan for installation seems to be to work their way down Little Walnut then down Cottage Sans but it could be a while as each meter box has to be cleaned out (dug out) so the plumber can remove the complete old meter and install a new one and in the case of mine it hasn't been touch in more than 40 years and is nearly unreadable for a number improperly installed reasons and at least 8 years ago I was promised a new one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:38 am 
Wow, that's great news John, thanks again. Being on Cottage San we may be getting upgraded sooner rather than later. Our meters are all accessible and pretty clear so they should be an easy retrofit. Next time I run across Alex I'll tell him that and offer our property up as an alpha site. I'll even offer to dig if it helps. I'm really curious and anxious to find out what these new gadgets are capable of. In all we've got six meters with three more belonging to our neighbors. The longest pipe run is about 150'. After all these years it almost seems improbable that we don't have some amount of leakage. I do check our meters from time to time but their leak detectors are only so sensitive. More than once I've encountered joints weeping enough to actually produce a visible trickle of water. Only because I knew that was the case did I keep watching the leak detector and finally noticed it had moved ever so slightly after about five minutes. Swamp coolers are notorious for developing leaks like that, especially at the compression fittings usually found at the faucet supply or float ends, or from the float valves themselves. Roof mounted versions are the worst since they're pretty much out of sight allowing leaks to go undetected basically forever. Actually seeing displayed numbers count up will be a huge improvement. Water damage from long term low level leakage, especially in trailers and manufactured homes, is far more serious than a lot of people realize. I've seen footings destroyed, walls and floors wiped out, and mold growth so bad its removal requires hazmat protection. My neighbor is in this situation right now in fact thanks to a failed pipe passing through a ceiling that went undetected for more than a month while he was out of town. The entire structure is destroyed and literally needs to be demolished, all of which could have been avoided with the kind of monitoring these new meters have the potential to offer. If, as Tim mentioned, these devices are smart enough to detect leaks and send an email to the property owner, perhaps that warning could include a benefit analysis, something like, 'our system indicates you've got a leak at a rate of X gallons per hour. That volume of water loss represents X% of your first tier allotment and/or $X of your monthly bill.' Obviously there's a huge amount of time and money going into this effort. Homeowners who understand the reality of water damage should really be grateful to the City for making this investment. Everyone (even those terrified by EMF's) will benefit in the end, and if your home is actually saved as a result, how much would that be worth?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:53 pm 
Thanks Kevin, I sure wish people would put some paragraph breaks in their reply's rather than run-on paragraphs which are hard to read. That said, these meters are incapable of sending emails, after the reader vehicles collect the days reading it heads back to the office and downloads the info into the main frame database of users.

Depending on the structure of the main database a deviation in water use patterns could be flagged, at what point a deviation could kick-in an auto notification remains to be determined, we shall see, but if in fact there is a reading recorded every 15 minutes as I'm told it will be an easy matter to analyze.

I don't understand what you mean by a leak detector on your meter, when I've needed my meter checked for leaks in my system a meter reader would come and we would sit for up to a half and hour and watch the hands of the dials for any movement.

As for job loss that was mentioned earlier the plan is that 2 current meter readers will be transferred to other departments that are currently understaffed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: msauber
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:42 pm 
Just a note to all about water pressure to your houses and, as John mentioned, meters and lines that have been in place for many years. If you have really GREAT water pressure in your house or have had leaks from fittings or toilet vales that continually leak (even new ones) please check the pressure at a spigot at your house to ensure that your pressure regulator is doing it's job. After many years they stop working and you have GREAT pressure. If so, you chance having many problems from leaks, (dare I say flooded house?) noisy lines etc. Regulator are usually located attached to the meter on the house side and it is the homeowners responsibility to ensure they work. If it is broken, your pressure could be 170 psi!! (instead of 40-60 psi.) Maybe find a way to replace it when hole is dug and new meter installed? Might need to contact contractor to see what is feasible with them


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:36 pm 
Okay okay, so I didn't put in any paragraphs, picky picky. I did in the previous post,,, pest.

So how's this? : )

As for the leak detector thingy. It's true, I'm told, that not all the City's meters have them. All of ours do so I'm guessing their inclusion has to do with when the meter was installed. In any case, on our meters the leak detector is a small red triangle thing a bit larger than a pencil eraser. This link shows a photo of one and describes how to use it, https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/publicworks/water-leaks .

If a toilet is refilling or a faucet is open the little triangle spins around so fast it's just a blur. It moves a whole lot faster than the needle hand, even with relatively small amounts of water flow you can pretty easily see it turn. Basically, if you have all your water valves, faucets, etc, shut off, and the triangle is spinning, you've got a leak. Not only are you paying for the wasted water you're paying for the resulting water damage if it's from a pipe or joint in a critical place.

Tracking down the source of a leak isn't difficult, it's a matter of divide and conquer and somewhat gratifying once you've got it nailed down. Intermittent leaks, like a bad toilet flapper valve, can be harder to detect since you have to keep watching the meter to catch it in the act of refill cycle. A digital meter with trend analysis capability would make that particular kind of leak a lot easier to identify. If these new meters are capable of graphing water consumption as a function of volume over time just the behavior of the plot should give some insight into the kind of leak you're dealing with, is it consistent, periodic, what's the timing of periodicity, etc. Different kinds of leaks often behave in different ways.

And Mike's advice about regulators is right on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 2:37 pm 
Thanks Kevin, my meter is so old it doesn't have a leak detector, would be nice. Since Water Pressure Regulators came up I'd like to tell a little story.

If your meter, on your house/building side has a pressure regulator it is because either the current or past owner had one installed, the Town does not provide them to protect you from their system. Periodically throughout the 30 years I've been on the system there have been some serious issues that would keep the plumbers on overtime throughout certain sections of Town.

Through the years there have been thousands of complaint to the Town and always their stock response was "install a pressure regulator". Then around 5 years or so ago after a particularly hideous town wide episode some genius figured it out. This episode, as have others through the years, corresponded with the fire department's annual fire hydrant test where the hydrant is opened fully for a given time then shut off, seems the firemen were rapidly shutting them off rather than slowly thereby causing the hammer effect through all associated water lines. After some threats and special training the fire department seems to keep it better together. This has also been know to happen after a water main breakage when the water is turned back on too quickly.

Pressure regulators are a good idea if you can afford to have one installed but the system over the years has improved and become more stable and more carefully operated in my view.

About run-on paragraphs, many people, more than we think, have a difficult time reading text on a screen and my opinion is if it is worth writing, which it is, it is important that as many can read it as possible can read it. My problem with run-on paragraphs is my eyes have a hard time tracking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:08 pm 
John, since you took the opportunity to elaborate on the pressure regulator story I'm going to add two other chapters following this preface. Everyone whose home is served by the City's water supply should be aware of what we're discussing here. Not just this recent topic of the new smart meters, but the role that pressure regulators play, how leak detectors work, the reality of water damage, and the reality of water hammer. Whether you do your own repairs or shell out cash to a plumber, none of this is rocket science and most if not all of the problems that develop with our water supply are easy to understand and prevent.

I've been told, that the City's water supply line along Cottage San, crosses over and continues on up Little Walnut to the Whispering Hills area and beyond. In order to supply sufficient water pressure all the way up the hill, the water pressure at the bottom of the hill (at Cottage San) needs to be crazy high, and indeed, it is. I've measured 130PSI here with no reason to think that's the highest it's ever been. Obviously higher water pressure will lead to more water leaks, but it can also lead to an even more insidious problem that actually results from a pressure regulator, or more specifically, a broken pressure regulator. Here's how.

When municipal water pressure isn't very high and there's no need for a regulator, a home's water supply and the City's supply are always in a state of equilibrium. If the City's pressure increases the home's pressure increases. If pressure in the home's system increases it bleeds off back into the City's system. Pressure regulators don't allow for that. They generally include a device called a backflow valve or backflow preventer which allows water to flow in one direction only, toward the home. Consequently if the home's internal water pressure increases that excess pressure cannot release back out into the City's supply. If the pressure regulator fails, the City's full pressure is exerted on the home's internal plumbing and will not release until somebody opens a faucet or flushes a toilet or something.

While your pipes and fixtures may or may not endure that high pressure, pressures greatly above that will be let off by a device on your water heater that automatically opens to release excessively high pressure so your system doesn't literally explode. That's a worst case fail safe device however, aimed at preventing really major catastrophes. It's not really designed to protect the inside of the water heater, specifically, the flu. A water heater flu is essentially a tube that passes though the center of your water heater tank surrounded by water on its outside while passing heat from the burner up through its center on the inside. Excessive water pressure, particularly over time, can cause the flu to collapse, closing off the flow of heat, closing off the venting of combustion gasses, reducing the efficiency of your water heater, and increasing the accumulation of carbon monoxide. In that regard a faulty pressure regulator can be a really bad thing. As Mike said, "check the pressure at a spigot at your house to ensure that your pressure regulator is doing it's job." This is easy to do, basically you use a pressure gauge fitted with a garden hose connector. They're available at any hardware store.

For a quick and dirty reference concerning water pressure in your general area check your nearest fire hydrant. The hydrants around here follow a color scheme so fire fighters rolling up to a fire can get a quick read on how much water they have access to. The barrel of the hydrant may be any of various colors, but the cap will likely be either blue, green, orange, or red. Firefighters are concerned about water flow or volume measured in gallons per minute, that's what the colors actually indicate, but for our purposes the factors of pressure and volume are similar enough. Blue hydrants put out the highest flow, which is the case because they're attached to water lines with the highest pressure. Red hydrants put out the least amount of water and are generally attached to lower pressure water lines. Knowing this isn't a replacement for actually measuring your own water pressure but it will offer some degree of insight into what you're working with.

Part Two: Periodically the City repairs its water lines. As you mentioned John, a while back some yahoo slammed off a hydrant and blew out pipes all over the place needing considerable repair. I've discovered that our City workers are less than diligent about cleanliness when it comes to doing that work. More than once I've had to replace our toilet refill valves and clean out our faucet aerators thanks to sand messing up the works after the City has done some upstream work from us. My solution to that problem has so far seemed to work. When the City opens one of their pipes I shut off all the supply lines to our places. I wait for a good half hour after they've restored the water before I turn our valves back on. That way sand and other gunk they've let in the line passes by us and heads further downstream. Yeah, that means our friends and neighbors further down the line end up with their toilets and aerators needing attention but at least I've saved myself a bunch of repair work.

re: paragraphs, got it, and sorry to have provoked the difficulty and need for explanation, more empathy and less wise cracking would have helped on my part.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: riverwalkwoman
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:48 am 
FYI: I received a copy of the flyer "Refuse The Smart Meter." It gave how-to instructions to Silver City property owners to legally opt-out from having smart water meters installed. It directed owners to write a certified letter to town manager, Alex Brown, stating their refusal. Today I spoke with Brown's office. I was told that there are NO opt-out options-- "None!" and that "installation is completely mandatory." (...perhaps someone on this thread has already referenced the erroneous info being distributed?)

Bruce wrote, "If radiation from nearby devices is significantly harmful to humans, we are doomed. It's too late to change."
I both agree and disagree. ;)

By imposing limits on the amounts of radiation we receive; by creating appropriate guidelines to address this relatively new phenomenon, it is still within our grasp to prevent significant harm. It is not yet "too late to change." If limits are not imposed on the accumulation of the radiation that we are being exposed to--then yes, we will be doomed. It is true that radiation emitting devices are already ubiquitous, but as most people know, it is the total amounts we receive that cause harm. Many corporations and government entities would have us believe that smart water meters and their like are acceptable because the radiation broadcasted is delivered in minuscule, continuous pulses. Damage to people depends on the accumulated amounts they receive, often over extended periods of time. There are different kinds of radiation each having different effects on the various tissues within our bodies, and the two different basic cell structures of those tissues. The different forms and different levels of radiation received are dispersed and processed into and out of the body with variety of actions and differing amounts of residue. Most scientists agree (as well as suspect it is likely) that the effects of a constant exposure to even "tiny doses" may cause significant, irreversible damage. Presently, those potentials remain unknown and untested. All together this is a terrifically complex subject.

I remember my parents when it was totally "cool" for them and those in their circle to each smoke more than a pack of cigarettes a day. Getting lung cancer and hearing about horrible deaths and heart disease among still young friends was common. Folks were brainwashed into believing tobacco caused deaths were from other natural causes, when in fact, people were witnessing murder for money. The gross ignorance that I and most people have about the real details of quantum physics, and radiation's long term interactions inside our bodies, strikes me as similar to the general unawareness during the tobacco era. The crucial difference with this comparison is that radiation is far more dangerous, with long, sci-fi styled tentacles (particles...) that destroy strands of our DNA.

If ever regulatory implements were needed, they are needed here and now.
rww


Thankfully tonight's snow is beautiful beyond telling.
:)




Odd musings:

-Maybe we should install Sievert meters to meter the meters?

-RE: privacy/property invasion/health issues - is a class action called for?

-What specific laws gave/give The Town of Silver City dominion over standard property rights?

-What effects do smart meters have on people with epilepsy, convulsive disorders, and other conditions susceptible to repetitive, flashing energy sequences?

-How safe are smart meters for workmen/gardeners or anyone who must work daily right next to a meter?

-The Wiley Electron...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: macewa
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:04 am 
I find it interesting that no one is concerned about the invasion of privacy these meters bring. I previously was told that the meters would not be 24/7 but see they will be, so to me that is just one more invasion of privacy.

_________________
Life can change in an instant - enjoy every day to the fullest


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: factoted
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:07 pm 
In-depth info on Smart meters - PDF Here is part 1 (the entire thing is too big a file to be uploaded to this site).
If this looks like it will be helpful say so on this forum and I'll upload the rest.


Attachments:
SMart Meters part 1.zip [33.53 KiB]
Downloaded 82 times
Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: n2ic
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:50 pm 
riverwalkwoman wrote...

Odd musings:

-Maybe we should install Sievert meters to meter the meters?

--------------------------------
Go right ahead.

If you really understood what you espoused, you would know that Sievert meters only measure -ionizing- radiation, such as that emitted by nuclear materials, such as uranium and plutonium. Radio waves are -nonionizing- radiation. Night and day difference !

The level of scientific knowledge amongst the general populace is truly appalling.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: riverwalkwoman
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:19 pm 
Admittedly, a pretty low level, mediocre pun. a minor attempt at 2 a.m. levity to lighten thoughts on a difficult subject.
I never thought anyone would read it as anything other than word play. I assume in your broad expanse of understanding you also well noted the deadly accurate delineations on Wiley Coyote Electron?
Hoping you find a touch of quarkiness while on the subject.
rww

P S: I do not mean to get heavy, so Ill just mu-on.


Last edited by riverwalkwoman on Sat Jan 09, 2016 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:33 pm 
Again I will repost miro's original link to the most comprehensive review and analysis of the scientific studies conducted throughout the world -

"European Commission: Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)
Opinion on Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)
SCENIHR adopted this Opinion at the 9th plenary meeting on 27 January 2015"

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_c ... _o_041.pdf

Ted, there is no author attribute nor link to the original in you post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: sh1
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 11:51 am 
The technological world introduces tens of thousands of new products every year, and we can be, and are, unknowingly exposed to thousands of them on a regular basis. EPA, OSHA, Consumer Product Safety, those agencies work very hard to identify and test new products, but their budgets are continually curtailed by a Republican Congress that considers their work "excess regulations", and in any case they have never been funded adequately to address the deluge of old and new hazards. Rather than endlessly worrying this smart meter bone, I'd urge folks to think in terms of helping to elect a Congress that actually supports scientific programs that can provide us reasonable protection from the myriad risks our technology (and folks who exploit it in search of profit) continue to generate.

PS -- our current Congressman is not worried about such matters whatsoever, and never will be.

Shelby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 2:00 pm 
The invasion of privacy issue is one I hadn't thought of. It's hard to imagine that the Town of Silver City really wants to know when I flush my toilet, especially if they only get the data once a month. It's true that they (or possibly some one else) could send someone around more frequently to monitor my meter. But ordinarily there is no reason to do so.

There's a huge amount of metadata (data about data) potentially available not only from smart meters, but from cell phones, land lines, mail, email, windows, etc. Our protection is generally that no one cares when we flush our toilets or do any of the other things that could potentially be monitored.

If you have reason to believe that someone might want to monitor your activities, there are lots of ways they could do this. Data on water use is one of the least useful, although there may be some ways to misuse the data. As a person who lives an active digital life, invasion of my privacy through water meters is the least of my worries.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 2:04 pm 
John, it would be really great if those who are up in arms over these new water meters would actually read the paper you linked to. There's two sections of it that particularly caught my attention, one concerning the relationship between cell phones and EEG REM responses. In truth, I just hadn't ever thought about it which I suppose is why it struck me.


"The earlier described evidence that mobile phone RF EMF exposure may affect brain activities as reflected by EEG studies during wake and sleep is further substantiated by the more recent studies." "... studies which aim at investigating the role of pulse modulation and which use more experimental signals, indicate that although effects on the sleep EEG are neither restricted to NREM sleep (one study also indicates effects in REM sleep) nor to the spindle frequency range. It seem that depending on the EMF signal, the theta and delta frequency range in NREM sleep can also be affected." ".... it is not possible to derive more firm conclusions." "For event related potentials and slow brain oscillations, results are inconsistent."

So there does indeed seem to be a valid lesson we can extract from this result. If you truly want a good night's rest without even the potential for interruption, don't use your cell phone while you're sleeping. I truly hadn't considered that, but when you stop to think about it, it makes perfect sense. Beyond, I'm left struck by the nature of the study they're actually describing here; at least the part that remains inconclusive.

Having found nothing of merit within event related potentials or slow brain (wave) oscillations, the only areas left somewhat unanswered concern EEG's differentiating theta and delta waveforms. That means, they're separating out those frequencies from signal data acquired through surface electrodes, well down into the uV amplitudes. Simultaneously, they're bombarding their subject with cell phone range RF at high enough levels to compare with typical 'ear distance' exposure. Of course, EEG's are generally recorded in totally quiet, shielded rooms, for the express purpose of isolating the data of interest from any extraneous noise sources. EEG's are extremely low level signals. In this case, they're recording that signal data while blasting away at their subject's head. Okay, so they'd be keeping very careful tabs on the timing of their stimulus pulses, but still the presence of alias waveforms from within their response data would be virtually impossible to discriminate. It makes perfect sense that those results would be inconclusive. Instead of saying, "it's not possible to derive more firm conclusions," they should have just said there's no realistic way to conduct these studies. But of course, the real goal of any research is to make sure the door always stays open for more funding.

Secondly: "The new epidemiological studies are consistent with earlier findings of an increased risk of childhood leukemia with an estimated daily average exposure above 0.3 to 0.4uT."... no mechanisms have been identified and no support is existing from experimental studies that could explain these findings..."

As I recall the first compelling epidemiological work done in this area came out of Sweden or Norway or somewhere like that sometime in late 80's or early 90's. Since then several other studies identified what appeared to be a troubling relationship between childhood leukemia and RF exposure. This observation definitely attracted a lot of attention and a lot of effort went into replicating those results in labs. As described in this SCENIHR report, after massive numbers of subsequent in vivo and in vitro studies, no relationship could be found. How could that be?

Okay, I'll acknowledge this is strictly my opinion, you're free to reach your own conclusions and by all means I'm open to considering any other logical course of thinking.

In every case where increased incidents of leukemia were found the kids under study where in fact exposed to atypically high levels of EMFs. Most notably were cases where schools had been built nearby, or immediately next to, electrical substations. The case I'm best familiar with involved an elementary school in Montecito CA, just south of Santa Barbara. And as in that case, along with EMF exposure the kids were in direct proximity to creosote saturated utility poles, huge PCB laden transformers, cast off copper and other heavy metals leeched into nearby ground water, and numerous other known carcinogens. Research money was NOT being spent to look at those factors however. It was being spent to find a relationship between EMF's and cancer, which after zillions of dollars and countless hours, found no such relationship. So please, do draw your own conclusions.

I'm reminded of the study involving frogs in which it was found that a frog when trained to jump on verbal command could jump a given distance. When that same frog had its legs cut off and was commanded to jump, it no longer could. The conclusion, when you cut off a frog's legs, it can no longer hear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 2:31 pm 
What struck me about the invasion of privacy issue is that those who have been so vocal in their opinion about it offer insight into their grasp of surrounding, interpretive process, deductive reasoning, and overall thinking. From an analytic standpoint, in revealing their opinion they've opened a door leading straight to the inside of their head disclosing their inner fear over privacy; posted on an open internet forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mabaraba
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 3:13 pm 
Below are a couple of links that might be of interest to people who are interested in learning more about the health effects of Smart Meters

Public Health Physician Warns of Smart Meter Dangers, Stresses Need for Analog Option

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7L21XO ... re=feedlik


The Dark Side of Smart Meters: this youtube is talking about electric smart meters, but it goes into the health effects of smart meters in general starting at about minute 8.3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLeCTaS ... re=feedlik


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: factoted
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 6:31 pm 
Crow - I didn't have any author or link for that article since it came as text in an email. We did find the original PDF so here is the link for that entire article. It came from a site called the EI Wellspring.

http://www.eiwellspring.org/smartmeter/ ... erview.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:11 pm 
Bruce, I was beginning to think I was the only one who read that European Commission study, it was fascinating and gave me a lot more information when people claim certain studies as their proof, except usually people don't site studies. That said I have no doubt that there are people that have electro hypersensitivities as some people are allergic/hyrpersensitive to this and that. I have a granddaughter who could hear the old style analog to digital converter from 20+ feet away in a different room when it was left on with the tv turned off.

Seems it is time to go beyond analog but I think the choice of meters could have more conscientious rather than simply dismissing a certain "subclass" in favor of a cheap and dirty technology.

With these meters, as I've pointed out before, the contractor chose to save a few dollars by not buying those meters that only broadcast when the reader approaches rather they choose the cheaper with a constant broadcast. Transceivers are more expensive than simple transmitters. Transmitting once a month on demand or special readings for troubleshooting rather than 24/7 has got to be less intrusive for everybody.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:17 am 
Wikipedia has an extensive discussion of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. According to that summary numerous double blind studies have shown that folks who self describe as having that problem can't detect the presence of EMF, or lack thereof. It does include citations to its sources.

Here's the link: click here


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: conch1
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:03 pm 
I found this to be an interesting study on an EMF effect that I don't think has been covered yet -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_WJ_aJPWIA

Also, this whole thread seems to point to the the necessity of the city utilizing the Precautionary Principle and giving citizens more time to research this area for themselves - I suspect many still aren't aware that Smart Meters have already been installed.
(See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: n2ic
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:16 pm 
crow says... I have a granddaughter who could hear the old style analog to digital converter from 20+ feet away in a different room when it was left on with the tv turned off.

This is not any kind of special sensitivity. It is undisputed that younger people can hear much higher audio frequencies, such as being emitted by the converter. As you age, you lose the ability to hear higher audio frequencies.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... y-hearing/
and many other references.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:41 pm 
Tim, that is not a fair depiction of the wikipedia article. The author simply stated the "The majority of provocation trials.." What does he define as majority, 51%, 95% or? Implying that the rest could pass the test. He goes on to state that up to 5% of the population could be affected. Being conserative lets use 2% of the 10,000 population of Silver City, that would be 200 people; or 1% at 100 people, perhaps that is more acceptable?

What was very interesting is the link to the US National Radio Quiet Zone where it is so EMF quiet that the monitors can detect a wifi router and someone using a microwave oven, both banned from the zone.

n2ic- perhaps that was not the best example, what you say is generally true but is unclear why that is true lacking any obvious physical decay. There are many ways that people "hear", one such is the well the known bone conduction that is indistinguishable from ear hearing as it registers in the brain. Considering that high frequency is lost with age lets go back and ask what do babies hear and loose overtime in early life?

Seems that it behooves the Town to use the least intrusive, quietist technology available rather than the cheapest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:21 pm 
Jon:

The important part of the wikipedia report, which I was referring to follows:

The majority of provocation trials to date have found that self-described sufferers of electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to distinguish between exposure and non-exposure to electromagnetic fields,[3][4] and it is not recognized as a medical condition by the medical or scientific communities. Since a systematic review in 2005 showing no convincing scientific evidence for its being caused by electromagnetic fields,[3] several double-blind experiments have been published, each of which has suggested that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields, suggesting the cause to be the nocebo effect.[5][6][7]

The percentages you quoted refer to the number people who attribute their symptoms to exposure to emf, not that emf causes problems for that portion of the population.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:36 am 
I don't know who is right and who is wrong but your quote starts out with "The majority"; majority means "not all", just a majority, anything over 51%. Then the author uses the word "suggests" twice; suggests is not definitive. This is what has plagued the whole body of research, it is inconclusive, some are industry studies, always suspect, some are badly structured, some well structured and some not able to be reproduced. Inconclusive means "not conclusive".

When Municipalities, water companies, electric companies evaluate the future litigation risk factor they often, as in the case of Silver City, rely on industry supplied cherry picked documentation that everything is fine when, again the body of research is currently inconclusive. This has led Silver City to purchase the cheapest, dirtiest (noisiest), most intrusive technology on the market when there are better technologies well established for these meters.

Tim and many others may remember the 50's radio propaganda hammering away that the chiropractors, naturopathic medicine, herbalist were called quacks and that anybody who claimed back injury or chronic pain were liars, frauds and scammers of the system. Then later there was Repetitive Motion Syndrome and the fight over those "lazy bums" scamming the system. Need I go on? Just because EMF's are more "esoteric" doesn't mean that future technologies won't find problems. Hence the Town needs to install the best current technology. Again look at the the national radio, EMF free zone linked to in my previous comment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:54 am 
Thank you, Crow, for pointing out that a "majority" finding could mean that up to 49% of self-identified sensitives - CAN tell in a blind study that they're in an environment that's bothering them - very significant.

Also, in case folks aren't aware, Wikipedia IS political and they do skew their entries sometimes to suit an interest.

It seems clear that the precautionary principle should be practiced here. Especially when we're also dealing with property rights. I find it unbelievable that any government can force us to accept these things attached to our homes, even against our protest. Otherwise, this seems ripe for a "Takings Clause" legal suit.

Or we could do like some communities have and work together to refuse them.

Meantime, I'm going to take a look at the "opt out" letter - even though we're told we don't have that option. We'll see.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:34 am 
Lets be clear Jean, these will not be attached to the house rather they be replacing the current water meter that is generally out on Town Right-of-way. If or when PNM decides to attach these to our homes that technology will have to looked at and evaluated, there are more ways to record a meter reading than through a wireless broadcast.

Over the months I've followed this story and done research the issue of privacy and these meters has come up many times and always this comes into my brain, and I mean no disrespect to anybody but I can't get it out of my head so maybe this will help: "Holy toilet flush Batman, they want to know how many times I crap everyday" "Indeed Robin, time to put a cork in it"... It's like a crappy song stuck looping in the brain.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: riverwalkwoman
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:17 pm 
One subject worthy of study is how Smart Water Meters interact with copper pipes. For anyone with copper plumbing running through their house this is an vital subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aN3lNfJ4fE
(note last part of vid clip with cell phone/smart meter measurement comparisons)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:41 pm 
Some of us do have water meters directly next to the house, and my water meter lid is actually under the house's siding. So, Crow, I shouldn't have said "on the house," and hope that the rest of my post about privacy, personal property rights, and takings might generate a response.

Some people do have very good reasons to feel threatened that someone working inside the water department could have access to the addresses of all the homes showing no water activity. Sorry the "crappy song" bugs you.

The total amount of toxins in our environment is growing, from "dirty" electronics to food, pharmaceuticals, water, "personal care" products, even clothing, even home furnishings, and chemtrails overhead - speaking of which: Remember the "milky rain" a few years back that we all witnessed, talked about, took samples of, and sent samples into the health department and waited for their reply? If I remember correctly, the Health Department report was found credible by few of us, but coincidentally some other big controversy arose and distracted our attention. We're constantly told not to worry, that our food, water, drugs, teflon pans, cigarettes, fire-retardant pajamas, etc, etc, etc, are safe, and decades later the industries or courts tell us they are not.

Even without doing the research, I tend to have more respect for those advising caution than those believing industry reports. Those industries have been known to lie. Often. Sometimes very often. And we're the sickest "First World" nation probably because of our naive trust.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:44 pm 
The issue of EMF hazard is by no means new. Decades of research has gone into this including attempts to find cause and effect relationships under conditions far beyond those encountered under realistic circumstances. Where the use of some chemical or practice has come to be identified as toxic, evidence to that effect reveals itself to investigators over time, gradually leading to the right set of tests, that give rise to a body of evidence, that makes such warnings conclusive and actionable. If such a progression of findings, or any findings, existed in the matter of low level EMF's over the course of the last 30 years, then cause for concern, or at least suspicion, might be warranted. All that exists here are unsubstantiated claims. Here's my personal concern about this.

Not only have I spent many years around instrumentation, many years before that I was heavily and closely involved with radar and other extremely high power high frequency transmitters. I put myself through school as a Navcom technician. I still use instruments, not the least of which include equipment I use to diagnose my cars' ignition systems, all of which generate extremely high voltage pulses in the vicinity of 60,000 volts or more, basically mini lightening strikes which in a four cylinder engine occur at a rate of about 20 times per second when just casually driving around town. If you're curious to know what that means in terms of actual RF emissions try holding an AM radio near to your car's ignition coil or distributor while tuned to unused frequency and just listen.

I also do, and have for a long time, used welding equipment that emits huge levels of EMF's. In some cases when arc welding currents can be so high the cables actually swing apart due to the strength of the fields produced between them. If anyone should be concerned and attentive to the potential hazards of EMF's it's got to be me or those like me who are regularly and heavily subjected to them. That's why the reality of this topic is important to me. For my own safety and well being I have to know the truth. False, misleading, or just plane crazy claims pose a real threat to me in that they disguise important new findings, knowledge and facts. That's also why, I say again, we should all be concerned about known and proven carcinogens that really do exist in our environment. Claims about the hazards of EMF's from devices like smart meters serve only to divert attention away from where the true dangers actually do exist.

Please, don't put me, yourself, or any of us at risk with false understandings propagated by false claims. This is actually an important issue, which is why I've followed it over what's now become a very long time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:36 am 
Here's more information to consider. Granted, this is mostly about smart electric meters, but there is a good explanation about how mesh networks function.

http://www.smartmetereducationnetwork.c ... do.php#2a4


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: conch1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:05 pm 
Here's a link I posted above re: the Blood-Brain barrier research (Dr. Leif Salford) which kind of goes along with mirocook's post. Important to look at more closely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_WJ_aJPWIA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:14 pm 
conch1, thanks for the link, it is interesting. There's a lot in that video, frankly I'll have to watch it a few more times, but a couple of things stand out so far.

Salford primarily studies tumors, this work is sort of ancillary to that, but clearly he's well acquainted with neural anatomy. That said, he is also working with rats looking for a response that concerns heat dissipation, ultimately radio waves cause water molecules to vibrate and create heat. Rodent brains are quite small, a lot smaller than human brains, and don't dissipate heat anywhere nearly as well as we do. Also, cell phone frequencies are in the UHF range of around 800MHz. Salford seems to be looking at effects from the microwave range, in particular having mentioned radar, which would be in the 8 to 12 GHz area. He's also reporting on results from long exposures, in some cases hours, to signal strengths measured in megawatts, that's millions of watts. A typical microwave oven generates around 1,000 watts of RF energy by comparison, so he's talking about very large signal strengths.

What's really interesting though is the brain's recovery behavior, by no means linear, nor rapid, and evidently his work does show statistically significant results. Also he is clearly working with frequencies far below x-ray for instance and ones we would likely encounter in our daily life. So while a worst case scenario he is finding curious results. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but in no way could I use his work to argue that smart meters, or cell phones, are dangerous to either humans or rats, and he's not saying that either. Accumulation over time and increased use of high frequency transmission technologies seem to be something we should at least remain attentive to, so again thanks for the link, and just in case, it probably is best to not glue your cell phone to the side of your head.

And one last thing, it's a good thing he's doing this work in Sweden. Given the massive quantity of rats he's going through PITA and the Humane Society of the United States would make this kind of study way too expensive to conduct here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: conch1
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:51 am 
This is a letter from a scientist that addressed the smart meter situation in a city in Iowa (around 10K population) which was similar to Silver City's "roll-out". The first link is to his resume (to establish his "credibility") and the second link is to the actual letter, the last part, particularly, is succinct and, I feel, applicable to the situation here in New Mexico.

1. http://www.rfreduce.com/robertsblog/roberts-resume

2. http://www.rfreduce.com/robertsblog/water-meter-letter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: conch1
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:17 pm 
Here is a position statement by the ACLU (Vermont) re: Privacy issues and their stand on a citizen's choice of having a smart meter:
https://acluvt.org/issues/smart_meters_aclu_position.pdf

One can also look up ACLU's of different States. Here's a few links that may be a good start:

Florida
https://smartmeternewsupdates.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/florida-civil-liberties-union-chapter-does-not-endorse-smart-meters/

Ohio
http://www.acluohio.org/legislation/2013-2014-sb-181

Hawaii
http://acluhawaii.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/smart-meters-hawaii.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:20 pm 
Claiming the town doesn't have a right to install or access a smart meter seems like a risky strategy. They just say fine. You get no meter and no water. I doubt you have a fundamental right to hook up to the Town's water system without their meter.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:21 pm 
Last night I watched a movie about Nikola Tesla, which contained a scene in which he became overwhelmed and fairly disabled by the sound of a creaking wagon that wasn’t bothering anyone else and another time by the odor coming off a few peaches delivered to his table.

Few knew then what to think of Tesla, but today we know he was a very gifted man (gave us alternating current, the standard), and was quite psychic by all accounts - and it’s possible his psychic gifts were related to his high sensitivities.

There are many people in the world today who seem to be afflicted, like Tesla, by sounds, lights, odors, and even vibrations that others insist they cannot feel. Sometimes they’re called “highly sensitive people” - HSP’s; other times they’re dismissed as hypochondriacs or given diagnoses that many doctors treat as though they were hypochondria.

But tests have proven that many of these people, in double blind studies, can sense when they’re being exposed to electromagnetic energy - and it bothers them.

So what is the public responsibility toward this growing number of “highly sensitives”? In many ways, we profess to make accommodations for minority members of this society, from handicapped parking and curb cuts to care for the young, elderly, and developmentally disabled, but when it comes to illness that others don’t understand, as a nation we seem to be quite callous, sometimes blatantly cruel in dismissing information or testimony that we find inconvenient.

I haven’t been active in this discussion, or with the anti-Smart Meter folks directly, because, frankly, I don’t know if the meters will bother me, or anyone, and I have other battles to fight. But I am concerned because I (and my mother and brother) have had a life-long hypersensitivity to many things that others enjoy in abundance: coffee, tea, chocolate, sugar, almost all pharmaceuticals, and I recently discovered gluten is a problem, and those blue automotive headlights blind me. By being careful what I expose myself to, I’m happy to say I’m fairly healthy.

Now I wonder about the Smart Meters, try not to worry, but just find the time to read up a little now and then, and what I read is worrisome. Do we just say “tests show most people aren’t bothered” - according to industry science (we know their track record) - and then ignore the testimony of the minority? Force them to suffer or lose their homes and move away?

I don’t know that I’ve been around any Smart Meters yet, for any significant period of time, but I wonder, if they (plural, because they’ll fill my neighborhood and supposedly have long-distance effects) disturb me, what are my recourses?

As a nation, we will deal for a long time with the fall-out of DDT, Agent Orange, cigarettes, Coke, pharmaceuticals, Teflon, TV, fluoride, Sugar Pops, GMO’s, cell phones, wireless, etc. etc. which we’d been told had all been well-tested and were harmless in the doses we’d be exposed to - but today we’re one of the least healthy “First World” nations on Earth. And we continue to make decisions, such as to allow GMOs to dominate our food supply, which other nations make illegal!

Is America trying to create a population of humans impervious to chemicals, GMO’s, and dirty electricity? And if a few percent become sick or even die, or decide they must live on the outskirts of society, it’s considered an acceptable cost?

Will anyone from the city address this here? Or do they not believe in “social media” as a useful communications tool in today's "democracy"? (And so we just get to blab to ourselves here?)

No, I don’t go to city council meetings (too late for me), but I hope if there was something substantial said about Smart Meters in a City Council meeting that it could at least be copied into this Forum for us all to read and reference. Since I’ve not heard otherwise, I assume the Council read and believed the industry literature, made the decision to invest, and now just doesn’t want to talk about it anymore. Understandable. But not responsible.

I stand on the precautionary principle. And ask for some discussion on what our rights will be if we get sick. And how fast with the city act?

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 am 
At last tuesday's Town Council meeting resident Rick Fox, during public input, talked about the over 600 petition signatures he had presented to Mayor Morones a few days earlier and gave the Town notice that they better not put one on his property. Rick's presentation starts about 3:20 minutes into the video. Click Here To Watch It


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: conch1
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:27 pm 
UPDATED POST: The Documentary by Josh del Sol TAKE BACK YOUR POWER INVESTIGATING THE "SMART" GRID is scheduled to be shown February 5, 2016 at 6:30 PM in Room 211, Harlan Hall at Western New Mexico University (intersection of 12th & Alabama), Silver Ctiy - It's close to 1 1/2 hours long. This award winning feature documentary covers a lot of ground and may help answer a lot of your questions. There should be some time afterward for discussion etc.


Last edited by conch1 on Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:34 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:33 pm 
copied from http://www.theprovince.com/health/hydro ... story.html

B.C. Hydro needs to remove more than 88,000 smart meters that are either faulty or may not meet Measurement Canada standards, public records show.

On top of that, the Crown corporation wants to replace 8,200 old analog meters and introduce nearly 5,000 new meters that work in rural areas that have poor wireless connections.

The total bill will be at least $20 million.

Despite this information — contained in a request for proposals to supply the new meters — B.C. Hydro’s vice-president of customer service Keith Anderson said he’s “confident” most of the province’s 1.9 million smart meters will last 20 years. [Read on below for another opinion.]

“We’re pretty confident at this point we’ll get the life expectancy we wanted and expected,” Anderson said.

B.C. Hydro estimates that by 2019 it will need to remove 40,000 faulty or failed meters, and another 48,000 meters for testing to see whether they still meet Measurement Canada’s accuracy standards. Hydro says those meters found to meet standards will be put back into its inventory.

The call for bidders closed Jan. 14.

New meters cost $200 each, including installation. Anderson said he was unable to release the budget for the replacement project and could not comment on the length of warranty for smart meters from supplier Itron.

“That’s commercially sensitive to Itron,” Anderson told The Province. “It’s something that we negotiated out past their regular warranty provisions.”

Under its old analog system, B.C. Hydro exchanged about 40,000 meters per year.

Doubts have been raised elsewhere in North America about the lifespan of smart meters. The 2014 annual report by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario said “distribution companies we consulted said the 15-year estimate is overly optimistic,” compared to 40 years for an analog meter.

The report said smart meters are like other types of information technology: subject to upgrades, short warranties and malfunctions. Moreover, they will likely be obsolete by the time they are re-verified every six-to-10 years by Measurement Canada.

Last October, the chief information officer for Ohio-based FirstEnergy told a U.S. Congress subcommittee on power system security that the lifespan is five to seven years.

“These devices are now computers, and so they have to be maintained,” Bennett Gaines testified.

Anderson said he was not familiar enough to comment on either the Ontario report or that testimony, but said B.C. Hydro’s units are more advanced.

NDP critic Adrian Dix doubts both the 20-year life estimate and planned 20-year amortization period in the 2011 business plan. The project was budgeted at $930 million.

Dix said the number of failures would “presumably continue to go up as the smart meters get older.”

“Would you amortize your TV over 20 years? Would you amortize your cellphone over 20 years?” Dix said. “I don’t think you would. This is what B.C. Hydro has done or been ordered to do by the government.”

The tendering documents also show that the Crown corporation wants to replace 4,180 units by the end of March with ones that are cellular compatible. Those non-communicating units removed from rural areas and behind concrete walls will be returned to Hydro’s inventory,

Anderson said.

Health concerns motivate holdout

Liz Walker finds herself among a dwindling group of B.C. Hydro customers who refuse to convert from an analog meter to a smart meter.

“A lot of people folded because they couldn’t afford the legacy fees and they’ve been railroaded to accepting smart meters,” said Walker.

She pays $32.40 a month for her analog meter to be read manually at her house in Surrey and a property she inherited in Peachland.

B.C. Hydro installed 1.9 million smart meters from 2011 to 2013, but backed away in July 2013 from imposing smart meters on 68,000 holdouts.

Keith Anderson, Hydro’s vice-president of customer service, said there now are fewer than 14,000 customers paying extra to keep analog meters or use smart meters with the radios switched off.

A B.C. Hydro tender call seeking installation companies forecasts 8,200 “legacy-to-smart” exchanges in the next four years.

Walker said her original 1968 analog meter was replaced last summer with another analog one after the accuracy seal expired.

Walker, who said she worked as a chemical technician at B.C. Hydro’s Powertech Labs for 10 years until 1990, is concerned about health risks of radio frequency electromagnetic fields.

She said Hydro tried to convince her that the stucco walls at her Surrey house would reduce exposure levels. The problem was, Walker said, “my meter would end up behind that stucco wall” and too close for comfort to her son’s room.

In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radio frequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

A 2011 Health Canada document, however, says that exposure from smart meters does not pose a public health risk: “Survey results have shown that smart meters transmit data in short bursts, and when not transmitting data, the smart meter does not emit RF energy.”

Walker is hoping a B.C. Supreme Court class action lawsuit against B.C. Hydro gets a green light from the courts. Justice Elaine Adair reserved her decision Dec. 11. Smart meter foes want refunds and the choice to return smart meters for analog units.

“I don’t think, financially, the province can afford this program, especially if we’re going to replace smart meters within a decade,” Walker said.

— Bob Mackin

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: riverwalkwoman
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:58 pm 
A slow intro for me, but I later realized intro was necessary to present a comprehensive understanding of what follows. Lots of crucial, scientific info how radio magnetic fields effect the body, and their specific impact on cells and proteins. After discussion of the hazardous effects from over exposure to cell phones, cell towers, CFLs, other RF broadcasting devices, etc., Dr. K specifically addresses "smart meters," enumerating findings that make them "by far the worst" and most dangerous. He offers a short list of protective actions we can take as necessary.

"Smart Meters" & EMR: The Health Crisis of Our Time
- Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_wxM6IAF1I&list=PLi3Kss2h77twCk-_flhQx2kg7Pn1b2zo4&index=9


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:23 am 
Here's the cover letter I wrote to the Town, accompanying my opt-out letter (sent certified, which I encourage all to do) - and I've bolded sections for those who skim:

... All the legalese of the accompanying letter is to protect my rights which I DO believe are being threatened by Smart Meters. As I’ve told others recently, [i]I don’t know for certain [/i]that these meters will hurt me, but the science seems to indicate that some people CAN tell when the meters are turned on because of the discomfort in their bodies. And whether or not the World Health Organization has changed the classification of these meters (perhaps for political reasons), I believe there is still reason for concern, for myself and others.

Personally, I have been dealing with a number of health issues in recent years which I find are helped immensely when I carefully control my food and environment. Some of my environmental sensitivities I’ve recently recognized include sensitivity to light, sound, and vibrations of certain vehicles (even passing through my fence, vegetation, frame wall and concrete block wall - all between the street and my living room), some of the vibrations which literally hurt my chest cavity and can have effects lasting many minutes. Therefore, I have great concern about these Smart Meters, and am impressed by the fact that whole nations and American cities, as well as scientists and people like me with health issues, have spent tremendous amounts of time and money researching and acting to stop the proliferation of these things.

I do not look forward to the disruptive prospect of a class action lawsuit, but if necessary I will participate, for which this letter serves its purpose.

I am very sorry to know that the City has already purchased them and begun to install them. I’d hope that the City could realize the unfortunate error (caused by industry disinformation) and could demand their return and compensation because of the falsehoods under which they were sold.

If the City should go forward, and if I should find my health deteriorating, I will probably have to leave the community I’ve built here the last 9 years and move away. As a former real estate agent, I can estimate this will cost me, and every homeowner, at least 10% of the value of our homes (6% to sell, 3% to buy another somewhere else, and 1% or more for other moving costs). Those costs, plus medical expenses, multiplied by the number of people affected will certainly run into millions - not to mention the heartache of disrupting our lives and moving, then doing our research, hoping to find some place that’s not about to make the same mistake.

I do hope that all of us worrying are wrong about this. But the track record for industry reporting honestly about their new inventions is not a good record; for decades at least, it’s been fraught with lies, misinformation, disinformation, and the results are that people are often made ill by new products with unintended consequences. Therefore, I urge you to practice the Precautionary Principle and not install these meters until the science has been fully investigated and conflicting results thoroughly explored. Alternatively, the City might request or demand of the company (because of their disinformation) that the meters be adapted to transmit less frequently in the event that people do become ill from them. Perhaps there are other alternatives to be explored.

In any case, it is thoroughly disheartening to hear the City so adamant that it will not consider our health concerns. I would appreciate any correspondence that reverses my opinion of the City’s so-far callous response.

Thank you for hearing my, and all our, concerns.

Sincerely,



Jean Eisenhower

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:33 am 
Now listening to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_wxM6I ... o4&index=9, Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt from Germany, talking about Smart Meters and EMR (Smart Meters section begins about 24:10.

Decided I need to begin to learn more science on this subject, but first...

I decided to see what the Town of Silver City has had to say about Smart Meters, so I did a web search and found - Nothing!! Or almost. Way down the search list, page two, way below reports from the various news agencies, local and international, I finally found Town Council minutes from August 2015, in which Linda Aiman-Smith defined a nano-second, which does indeed make one think these can't possibly have a significant effect.

But, that was the end of the input from the city - nothing on what sort of frequencies are used or, more importantly, all the studies that show that these meters ARE toxic to some people, that autistic kids, adults with Parkinson's or cancer, can all be managing well enough - and then within weeks of a Smart Meter's installation nearby, their health begins to deteriorate, and many people are forced to move from their homes, or if they don't, they deteriorate and/or die - so says this doctor - and apparently many others.

Why won't the Town talk opening and completely about this topic? Legal advice to limit liability on a bad financial investment? Personal embarrassment? I'd just like to know which science sources the Town is using to justify this, or if they're just going on industry PR.

Crow, can you get the Town to go on record here about which science sources they're counting on?

And, BTW, why do I have to do tricks with my computer to get around the message "You don't have permission to post on this"? Are you trying to cut me out again?

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:41 pm 
It can be frustrating to be a Town official. Sometimes you raise an issue in the Town Council meeting. You propose an ordinance and set a comment period as required by law. It's reported in the newspaper. Nobody has anything to say about the issue. So after the legal comment period you go ahead with the policy. Then after it's too late to easily change, people who usually don't pay any attention to Town government start coming out of the woodwork to protest the policy.

It happened on plastic bags. The Chamber of Commerce Director spoke against the new policy at the end of the comment period. It happened on smart meters. Those of us who keep track of public policy knew about it long before a decision was made, but the critics only appeared afterward.

Yes, in retrospect, perhaps the smart meters should have been announced by a letter to water customers. But Town officials had no clue that it was controversial enough to justify the extra expense of a letter (there's no room on the postcard bills for it). I'm not sure the critics would have paid attention to such a letter had it been sent.

It's unfortunate. I don't think everyone needs to follow local news to live here. But the decision not to follow news in a newspaper or other media and not to follow the Town's web site has its consequences. You should be aware that your objections will carry less weight after the decision has been made than during the time set for discussion.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:17 pm 
According to a recent Daily Press article, Cynthia Bettison responded to a question re the decision to go with smart meters at a candidate forum, saying that the town used research done by the World Health Organization to conclude that the meters have not been shown to cause health problems.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:41 pm 
Jean, below is the link to the company spec sheet, I did pubish a link to the study suggested by the company and used by to Town. As I recall it was out of Texas but you can ask the Town or company for a copy, I just don't remember where I posted it. The company's name is on the spec sheet.

View the spec HERE: Model: Spectrum 30D

I don't know why your computer is doing what you say it is doing but you probably you hit "new topic" instead of "reply" button. Nobody has permission to post "new Topics" in the News nor Features. I've not had any other complaints and there is nearly 100 comments in the discussion and a few more discussions going on right now.

No need to shoot your paranoia at me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:18 am 
Our meters were upgraded a few days ago with no sign of leaks so my biggest concern going into this doesn't seem to have materialized. The LCD digital display seems easy enough to read though I haven’t looked at any of them while actually counting up water flow so I don't yet know how they appear when operating. There are two things that do seem worth mentioning.

First, the guys installing them said these meters only transmit to the meter reader who will still be coming around once a month collecting their data. That statement seems to contradict the notion that they transmit continuously to a central office creating a large field accumulation of RF, or that they transmit once every 15 minutes or so. And depending on the amount of data they store and download, may also contradict the prospect of them being useful for detecting low level water leaks with continued trend analysis. So despite all the discussion we've had about this, I'm back to be curious as to what these meters actually are transmitting.

Crow, if you and ynotwrite2 care to stop by with ynot's spectrum analyzer maybe we can get to the bottom of this.

Secondly, and I totally should have reasoned this one, not just the meters have been changed, the meter covers have been changed as well. Gone are the clunky old iron plates, now switched out for black plastic, of course, a material invisible to RF. Unfortunately our meters are basically in the middle of our gravel driveway where they're regularly driven over and walked over. That also makes them relatively flush with the driveway's surface and usually covered, at least partially, with gravel. It's almost always necessary to brush it away with your foot before lifting the cover, but a few stones inevitably end up between the ring and the cover getting pulverized into dust with the next passing car. At least that's what happened with the clunky old iron covers. I really doubt these plastic covers will stand up to that. Of course they also won't have to be lifted every month now, but they will still have to be removed for shutting the water on and off and to visually read the meter so at least in our case where renters come and go, they'll still be pretty regularly lifted. Being in the path of foot traffic should one of these covers end up cracked, broken, and falling into the meter canister, it would be an easy matter to fall in right after it and end up with a broken leg. I can totally see going outside at night to throw away the trash and falling into one. So basically, I don't see these plastic covers being as durable as the old iron covers, and because of that and where they're located, at least in our case, I'm seeing a potential for increased risk of injury and liability.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:36 pm 
Tim, re the World Health Organization: They declared it a carcinogen, and then two weeks later reversed their stance for reasons many believe were purely political.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:48 pm 
Crow, I'm not "shooting my paranoia at you," but asking (the manager of this site) why I keep getting the message that I'm not allowed to post. Perhaps we need to have a talk?

Here's a screen shot. Happens every time.


Attachments:
Screen Shot 2016-01-27 at 12.36.11 PM.png
Screen Shot 2016-01-27 at 12.36.11 PM.png [ 30.37 KiB | Viewed 12540 times ]

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Gila River Festival Ad


Silver City & Southwestern New Mexico Monthly Community Calendar

Click To Create A New Calendar Event
<<

Community Events
Week of November 21, 2017

>>

21
Arte Chicano de San Vicente @ SC Museum
Silver City Rotary Club Meeting
Hapkido Class
Tai Chi at Lotus Center
Wine & The Word @The Toad Brewery
Four Shillings Short
Our Paws' Cause Thrift Store
22
Arte Chicano de San Vicente @ SC Museum
Hapkido Class
Insight Buddhist Meditation
Tai Chi Chuan
Gin Rummy
Wednesday Evening Al-Anon Family Group Meeting
23
Arte Chicano de San Vicente @ SC Museum
Our Paws' Cause Thrift Store
Volunteer at The Bike Works 3-7pm
Tai Chi at Lotus Center
Blooming Lotus Meditation
Pet Central Thrift Store
Our Paws' Cause Thrift Store
24
Arte Chicano de San Vicente @ SC Museum
Qi Gung for Health at the Lotus Center
Fiber Arts Collective's Holiday Fiber Art Sale
Holiday Fiber Art Sale
Women's Al-Anon Meeting: Women Embracing Recovery
Pet Central Thrift Store
Hapkido Class
Community Bike Ride @ The Bike Works
Our PAws' Cause Thrift Store
25
Arte Chicano de San Vicente @ SC Museum
Tai Chi Chuan
Fiber Arts Collective's Holiday Fiber Art Sale
Shop Small Saturday
Lighted Christmas Parade
Ecstatic Dance
26
Arte Chicano de San Vicente @ SC Museum
New Hope Al-Anon Family Group
27
Hapkido Class
Tai Chi Chuan
Laughter Yoga at 1 p.m. at the Lotus Center










News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group