-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 Previous  1, 2
Author ------ Message
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:05 pm 
I've read that there are many sorts of "dirty electricity," and some of us can have dirty electricity in our homes right tnow, even without Smart Meters. For instance, electrical wiring that isn't done correctly, DECT telephones, and dimmer switches can all be problematic for some people.

To fully test one's home, I've read that we'd need to purchase a gaussmeter, and RF meter, and a Stetzer meter - and buy/borrow an old AM radio with an old-fashioned dial (not digital channel selector). Estimates on the three add up to $500 total. I wonder if a small collective might want to purchase them or whether someone is willing to loan theirs out. It would be an important exercise, I think, to measure our homes before and after Smart Meters were installed. Some of us might even discover that we have homes right now with dirty electricity problems.

I called the local tool rental, and they don't carry them and probably won't.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:14 pm 
Crow, just to make sure this doesn't get lost in the din, if you and ynot care to stop by with that spectrum analyzer let's get to the bottom of what's coming off these meters. Give me a call....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: n2ic
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:51 pm 
"To fully test one's home, I've read that we'd need to purchase a gaussmeter, and RF meter, and a Stetzer meter - and buy/borrow an old AM radio with an old-fashioned dial (not digital channel selector). Estimates on the three add up to $500 total. I wonder if a small collective might want to purchase them or whether someone is willing to loan theirs out."

Bill Murray, in Ghostbusters shows a better understanding of science.

The smart meters operate at 900 megahertz. That is radio frequency energy at 900 million cycles per second.

A gaussmeter measures magnetic fields, not radio frequency energy.

An RF meter. The are lots of different meters out there for measuring RF. I'll help you out. You want a Field Strength meter.

A Stetzer meter ( https://www.stetzerelectric.com/store/s ... rge-meter/ ) measures energy only at 60 cycles per second. It will measure nothing being transmitted at 900 million cycles per second.

An old AM radio. What are you going to do with that ? It is listening to RF between 540 thousand cycles per second and 1600 thousand cycles per second. It will hear nothing being transmitted at 900 million cycles per second.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:08 pm 
Jean, I'll be replying to your email as I see more in that screen shot, but I still don't have an answer. It may even be a glitch between this software and the Chrome browser you use, but just a wild guess. My reference to you shooting your paranoia at me had to with your comment that I was out to cause you problems, I don't need that in my life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:37 pm 
Kevin, I'v said over and over that these do not transmit to a central office and they do a once every second pulse. Today ynot and I verified this1 second pulse with his test equipment. For other tests we will be be doing further investigation so these figure I'm going to give are preliminary. After filtering out the FM Radio stations (-60 dBm) we found the signal right at the meter to be about -80 dBm and lost it before 20 feet away. 0 dBm = 1 milliwatt. Because dB is a base 10 logarithmic scale the (negative) -80 dBm is many times less then the FM signals at -60 dBm. You might ask, since there will meters many more than 20 feet from the street, what then? The installers will attach an extra antenna. Like I said these reading are preliminary we will be revisiting the study in a couple of weeks, and may call you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:30 am 
n2ic,

I referred those four items as ways to test our homes for "all sorts of dirty electricity" - as I found on the Internet.

As I said - I'm just beginning to try to educate myself. It would be wonderful if someone could put together a basic primer on radiation and all the terms so we could all get up to speed asap - Wouldn't that be nice and democratic?

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: JE1947
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 11:17 am 
As a newbie in this discussion, I find it interesting that there are so many comments ... and I looked up (a one shot, google search to 'keep it simple.')
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercaus ... art-meters
The statement referenced the fact that there is some concern if living with a smart meter in the house.
There were also seven other items that emit radiation ... the top one was bananas. What? I liked that movie, "Bananas." One of Woody Allen's best. Of course, they have lots of carbs, and one banana a day might therefore take a few days off my life.

I look at this like this:

I was exposed as a kid to all kinds of farm chemicals.
I was exposed and actually dosed myself with powdered DDT when I was in Vietnam, and one day, after napping in a Vietnamese "hootch" while on patrol, got up, and realized I had lice all over me. Along with the leeches that we'd get all the time; snakes that were used as booby traps and one nearly bit me and I felt ... really, a darkness in my heart and mind when I looked around at the Vietnamese who had undoubtedly put this extremely poisonous viper under a pot that they probably suspected one of us would turn over as we searched their home ... going through areas absolutely soaked with Agent Orange (I mean saturated and we slept on the ground; walked through jungle that had been wasted with Agent Orange; have had numerous X-rays over my life; and have used the hell out of a cell phone .... I've decided this is the only thing I'll say.

Right now, if I am headed towards death (who isn't, but with what has happened to me in the last five years, and with the life expectancy already worked down lower because of PTSD and the effects of combat in Vietnam), I want to do something that is centered around trying to help preserve the Gila River as a free flowing river here in New Mexico; learn more about water catchment; get closer to God and Jesus; learn to take care of the beautiful garden my wife left me; continue to hike and experience "Apacheria;" show love and affection to my wonderful Zen kitty; take photos of everything around me when I go hike; photograph the wonder of a new bridge being built in our town ... a BIG deal ... but then, think about the 66,000 other bridges that need replaced just as this one did.

And, I've promised God that if a veteran of any war is dying, and has some stuff that he or she might have had on his or her mind and heart, something terrible, perhaps, they've done in war ... and it has blocked them or twisted them ... and they want someone who has "been there, done that," then I will try to be there and listen.

The Gila River's importance is so far beyond the concerns I might have about croaking from radiation from smart meters, there's no comparison.

I'm sorry that the city didn't give us an option, but I'm also happy that these meters will help us as water becomes more scarce as bigger cities around us try to buy up water rights that we take for granted now ... the beauty of the River, all along the route from Iron Creek; Bead Springs; Snow Lake, as it comes down the forks, then joins, and rolls for MILES through Catron, Grant and Hidalgo County (but not Luna?@#$%^&* County) is healing.

If I've been dosed by Agent Orange, and been spiritually and psychically damaged by war, and I have, and other childhood traumas, then the times I've spent along the Gila and out in these vast, open spaces, so sublime and beautiful and empty and silent ... along Bear Creek; Saddlerock and the water there; Blackhawk Cañon; Agua de Santa Lucia; Mogollon Creek; Whitewater Creek; Mineral Creek; the Rio Azul; the Rio Tulerosa; the Rio San Francisco; the Chama River; the Pecos; the Rio Grande; Cañada Alamosa; Ojo Caliente; the Janos River in Mexico; Cañon de los Embudos; Skeleton Cañon; streams in the Chiricahuas and Dragoons that the Apache knew so well ... well, I think that in an organic, holistic universe ... things have balanced out.

I don't think they've installed a new meter here. I don't care if they do. I am for learning more about water. If someone says: wear an aluminum jock strap or something when I approach the water meter ... then I will probably ask where I get one. I don't want to increase the danger to myself needlessly. But I understand this is a big deal for a lot of people who've done a lot of research. I thank you for that and understand you have concerns.

My concern is more focused on some shitforbrains who want to divert a wonderful RIVER ... for us in our sixties ... probably till we die or someone blows the diversion structure up.

I wouldn't want violence ... the idiots in Oregon have once again shown us what being so absorbed with one needle point idea can lead to craziness and violence. Thank you for all the reports on what water meters can do to us.

I'm going to take my chances. I hope that you, too, will take advantage of the awesome surroundings we have. Go out, and allow the experience of walking where Mogollon people, then Apache, were before any of us were even a glimmer in our great great great great great grandparents' lives.
And before them, Archaic people who WALKED from the Bering Straits all the way down to the tip of South America and some stopped here ... lived here and died here. See their rock art, which says: "Kilroy was here!"

But I don't really have that right to say it. All I'm saying is: we live in an incredibly beautiful place. The river "she that runs through 'our country'" is majestic and perhaps God allowed that to be one of the things rivers can be. Majestic. Beautiful. Healing. Soothing. An entity that is precious. The River unites us where water meters divide us. I think. What the hell do I know. Again, thanks for the warnings.

I never filed for Agent Orange because it was such a bureaucratic pile of dung. Just dealing with being shot and PTSD has been quite enough. There's a lot of cancer in my family. My Dad died at 64 with cancer. Six months. My wife died of cancer. She was so very healthy. Uncles and aunts have died of cancer. I thought I might have a tumor in my brain and behind my left eye. Several good friends have died of brain cancer. About six. That's scary. I had open heart surgery and survived. I am not so sure I want anyone messing with my brain. It doesn't "feel" 68. It "feels" younger. That feels pretty damned good, really.

The bridge is coming along nicely. It is cool to watch these guys (many Hispanic) work, and know that at least here, no one is making threats or giving the work force a hard time. Because they might come from Mexico. Jessh. And now we have some numbnuts who wants to do an Oregon thing. Refuse to pay grazing rights? The Laneys did that years ago. Some of them went to prison, then supposedly went to South America. That would be so unfortunate. To have that kind of darkness come into Grant County.

Life is good. I never thought I'd be here this long. I'm going hiking later today. One toe on the right foot. It is more painful, and I am not as steady on my feet, but damn, it is wonderful out there. Where the Archaic people; the Mogollons; and the Apache roamed "once they moved like the wind."

I'll see if John will let me post a few photos of the Gila.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:57 am 
"Kevin, I've said over and over that these do not transmit to a central office and they do a once every second pulse."

John, I'm not suggesting that you said otherwise, but throughout the course of this thread, somebody said it. I'm starting think anything that could possibly be said about these meters has been said by somebody. I'm also starting to think aluminum foil hats would sell like hotcakes around here.

Anyway, thanks for the update on what you and ynot found. I'm trying to picture what you did and what I'm seeing is a display representing power over frequency. I'm guessing you saw a waveform with two peaks, one at 1Hz and another at 900MHz. I'm further guessing that if you dug deeper into one of those pulses you'd have found the data being carried - presumably containing up to 900 megabits of compressed information? It'd be interesting to see the signal over time.

It's not surprising you detected very little signal strength. We're talking about a continuous transmission powered by a single battery rated to last for 20 years! The power drain has to be bare minimum, the signal strength has to be just slightly more than nothing. It makes perfect sense that these transmitters would be easily overwhelmed by FM radio broadcasts. In rough terms what you're describing sounds a lot like a pacemaker. In fact, if you stuck an antenna on the end of a pacemaker lead I'll bet you'd get a similar result.

Further study would be interesting. For sure give me a ring or stop by. - kb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mirocook
PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:26 pm 
In spite of over 1000 signatures of Silver City residents presented to the town government protesting the installation of the so called "Smart" water meters, it appears the town is proceeding with the installation. The next step will no doubt be to install electric "smart" meters. I encourage everyone who has an interest in this issue to go to this link and watch the video "Take Back Your Power." It is free. There is a break in the video at 1:12 for ads. Simply forward to the 8:17 point to continue. For those who don't have time to watch the entire video, the hard science on health effects start at 42:55-54:16. There is a blood cell comparison using Dark Field Microscopy of before and after exposure to a smart meter field at 1:04-1:07.

https://vimeo.com/120615844


Last edited by mirocook on Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:57 pm 
The video above contains a great deal of scientific information and studies that answer many of the questions so far unanswered in this thread.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:23 am 
Kevin, 5three-eight-52 twentynine.
Crow, City manager Alex Brown, Water meter supervisor Chris McNeal, and I with trusty vintage spectrum analyzer (Cushman CE15) built in the 1970's went to Penny Park where several new meters are installed and readings in the low 900 mhz radio band were seen of approximate amplitude of -60 to -80 Dbm which corresponds to approx 20 to 200 microvolts induced into a 2 foot antenna and background noise, both originating inside Cushman and received from the general environment, of -110 Dbm.
As a point of reference the FM radio band,88 to 108 Mhz, has several local emitters , -50 to -70Dbm. These sources of rf energy are located up in the P A range many miles from the setup and these are stronger generally than the signals received from a water meter just a few feet away.

Another point of comparison is what happens to satellite television signals a few times a year when the path of the satellites in the Clarke Belt- geosynchronous orbit- when the sun's path takes it directly behind the satellite and the television signals are completely obliterated for a short while- 10 or so minutes. If negative consequences exist from non ionising radiation and they are additive alone, the sun is far and away one's greatest risk to health.

Dirty electricity: Yes! Every time an appliance comes on and even more so when they stop, a burst of RF travels from the spark of a contact , switching inside a compact flourescent, or LED lamp, inside a laptop or desktop, radio, motor, guitar amp, all these blending together to create a portion of that 110 Dbm noise floor.

I don't remember anyone complaining about the 2 community radio stations raising the level of the RF. Say these water meters emit 50 milliwatts of RF, the plausible legal maximum for the radio band they operate in. Say there's 4000 water meters. Times .05 equals 200 Watts. So, if they all transmit at the same instant , the maximum output would be 200 watts and the likely output given a 10 %duty cycle, 20 Watts, compared to a single FM station ,likely upwards of 1000 Watts.

Hope this helps!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: conch1
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 2:09 pm 
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: AlgaePower
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:13 am 
ynotwrite2 et al, Thanks for the field measurements and explanation of signal strength levels relative to background and some of the other RF sources, etc. This absolutely helps allay any concern regarding safety to health of the new water meters. Perhaps you could help raise the community's awareness of EMF by reporting some more measurements for comparison of common devices we are surrounded by (light switches, household wiring, cell phones, wiFi internet, microwave ovens, bluetooth, wireless computer mice, etc.).

Thanks again for your proactivity on this topic.

Asher


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 9:56 am 
Thanks Asher, I'm working on an article on this topic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:11 am 
Yes, please do post more measurements and comparisons, and please define the terms we're working with here - for all of us trying to get up to speed on electricity.

I took notes during my watching of Take Back Your Power, which includes a list of "Microwave Power Density" (microwatts/cm squared) listing the following numbers from some of the 6,000 published scientific studies on electromagnetic interference with living cells. These begin at about 47:00 in the documentary:

.0000000002 - minimum level for cell phones
.05 - children report headaches and irritation, and display concentration and behavioral problems
0.1 - Germany's Baubiologie (building biology) guideline for "extreme concern"
1.0 - Lap-tops and wifi operation, and level at which sperm DNA fragments and decreases in viability
1.0 - adults report headaches, digestive problems, irritability, fatigue, weakness, insomnia, chest pain, difficulty breathing, indigestion
2.5 - altered calcium metabolism in heart muscle cells
4.0 - changes in the hippocampus, affecting learning and memory
6.0 - DNA damage in cells
7.93-8.0 - one Smart Meter in the US, one foot away
9.5 - legal standard in some nations
10 - legal standard in China, Poland, and Russia; Children show reflexes of avoidance after 30 minutes
19.8 - a bank of 12 Smart Meters in the US
600-1,000 - "safety limit" in US and Canada

Citations exist for each study.

Of course, any of these studies might be questioned, but together 6,000 studies do seem to logically "prove" these frequencies are dangerous, and Smart Meters are not similar to cell phones and laptops. At the same time, NO scientific studies have been done that prove Smart Meters are safe - even those conducted by the industry.

Still, I know that I do not understand electricity as well as others, so I look forward to someone helping. ALSO, is anyone willing to come measure my house now before a meter goes in? Thank you!

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: conch1
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:47 am 
Re: FCC "safety limits" - this important Havard Ethics Committee report exposes the FCC as a completely
captive agency, thus revealing the so-called "safe limits" as meaningless. Long reading, but worth checking out.
http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:12 am 
http://www.iprocessmart.com/techsmart/Spread%20Spectrum%20FCC%20Regulations.htm
this site has a synopsis of the Federal Communications Commission rule for radio linked data transmitters.

http://www.metronfarnier.com/wp-content/themes/metron_theme/PDF%20Downloads/AMR%20Content/M2w%20Water%20Datasheet.pdf
this is the spec sheet for the radio unit on the water meters.

I had some questions so I thought i'd call , in this case Transparent Technologies in Boulder ,CO. 720-406-1294 and was directed to Jim Brown who was only willing to answer 1 question:
What is the voltage of the D cell battery?
Answer: 3.6 volt. the data sheet (above, 2nd link) says 19Ah ( Ampere hours)

He dodged my other question attempts by referring me to my town gov't. He said that if I wanted more answers they'd have to be asked through them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:30 am 
The link above - http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center- ... alster.pdf - is excellent.

It is a well-written, documented, and interesting history on industry-backed research and the FCC - indicating that the studies on RF radiation have long been cooked or repressed or discredited with more cooked research. One telling fact (having skimmed just a portion of the report) is that insurance companies are reacting with concern over who knew what when - which leads me to wonder if the manufacturers are trying to dump these as fast as they can.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: n2ic
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:39 pm 
From Jean Eisenhower's previous posting:

.0000000002 - minimum level for cell phones
.05 - children report headaches and irritation, and display concentration and behavioral problems
0.1 - Germany's Baubiologie (building biology) guideline for "extreme concern"
1.0 - Lap-tops and wifi operation, and level at which sperm DNA fragments and decreases in viability
1.0 - adults report headaches, digestive problems, irritability, fatigue, weakness, insomnia, chest pain, difficulty breathing, indigestion
2.5 - altered calcium metabolism in heart muscle cells
4.0 - changes in the hippocampus, affecting learning and memory
6.0 - DNA damage in cells
7.93-8.0 - one Smart Meter in the US, one foot away
9.5 - legal standard in some nations
10 - legal standard in China, Poland, and Russia; Children show reflexes of avoidance after 30 minutes
19.8 - a bank of 12 Smart Meters in the US
600-1,000 - "safety limit" in US and Canada

The 600-1000 is factually incorrect. See FCC rules, Section 1.1310 .

From 1.1310, the limit for general population/uncontrolled exposure, measured in mW/cm-squared, in the 300-1500 MHz frequency range (which includes the smart meters) is: f/1500 , where f is the frequency, in MHz. So, for the smart meters being installed, the limit is 0.6 mW/cm-squared. A far cry from the 600-1000 cited in the movie.

Here's the link to the FCC rules: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2002- ... 1-1310.pdf . See for yourself what the limits are in the USA.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: conch1
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 9:23 pm 
Here is a link to a document (pdf file - it is available for around 3 days to view) which is like a mini course on Electromagnetic Fields - very clear & concise - good background info. I would highly suggest looking at a small part of the research available which is towards the end of the document.
https://spideroak.com/storage/MNXW4Y3IMJWGC43U/shared/1077327-1-1396/Electromagnetic_Fields_A_Brief_Summary_For_The%20Non-Scientist_Executive_R3.pdf?b5bf1ea270669a951e9d41ce062bb5db

P. 11 & 15 have something relating to the FCC "Safe Exposure Limits" which relates to the meter reading above methinks.

As an aside, AM, FM & TV generally do not pulse as I understand - if smart meters, cell phones, chordless phones pulse, then that is a BIG difference between those techologies that do & do not cause pulsing to take place. It seems that in weaponry pulsed EMF is well known - surprise, anxiety, and dis-orientation.
Hope you find the above document helpful as I did.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:57 am 
I'll check that out soon. Thanks. (And thanks to the friend who's giving me an introduction to RF monitoring later today.)

I found this on Wikipedia re pulsed EM (as in Smart Meters): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_radiofrequency, which makes the energy effect entirely different from cell phones. From this article, I summarize this (seemingly) very important bit:

Pulsed radio frequency occurs nowhere naturally on Earth; it is, however, the defining characteristic of pulsars in space. It is also being explored as a new medical technology - not because it heals, but because it destroys tissue, selected for destruction, of course, such as nerves for those with chronic pain. But pulsing a whole city???? My Goodness.

Everyone reading this should consider attending tonight's showing of Take Back Your Power at Harlan Hall Rm 211, Alabama and 12th Streets at 6:30.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:58 am 
Note that pulsed EM means a lot less radiation. The specs say they pulse once a second, but doesn't say how for long. Let's say they pulse for 100th of a second (although I imagine it's 1000th or less). That means that they put out 100th of the radiation of a similar continuously powered device like a wireless phone, WiFi, or FM radio transmitter. That's probably how the battery can last for 20 years. That's not to say that a strobe-like output couldn't have unexpected effects, but if so they could easily be mitigated by randomizing the output time a little. I don't know if they do that. I'd like to see some better specs on the pulse duration.

The point is, you can't have it both ways--complaining about the amount of radiation and also about the pulse that reduces it. Which one is the problem?

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: frances
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:51 pm 
The white vans were circling my end of town this morning (Friday). I approached Luis..and inquired if they were planning on doing a replacement any time in the next couple of hours. He asked where I lived, I pointed out my house and he said MY METER WAS TOO DEEP...and would not be replaced..hmmm. On another note...we entertain risk just getting into a vehicle, or worse, trying to navigate the streets on bicycles. If you ride a motorcycle and object to some of the possible side effect of this technology...like...really? If you don't prepare every meal you eat at home with scrupulously chosen ingredients , or work a job that is dripping with stress...or dislike your sister in law or hate whichever person is running for whatever office..you get the idea...all very deleterious for one's health. I rejoice that Silver City still has a bountiful aquifer...never mind how it is tweaked for access...think Flint Michigan for proportionality?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: samarpan
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:08 am 
"I rejoice that Silver City still has a bountiful aquifer...never mind how it is tweaked for access...think Flint Michigan for proportionality?" --frances

In the magazine Sierra (May 2012 issue) I read this quote, by a public health director, which speaks to proportionality.

"David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany's School of Public Health, says that the health risk from a smart meter probably depends on how close it is to your bed or your easy chair.

But he also suggests weighing that risk against those from dirty energy, an archaic grid, and climate change: infectious disease, lung damage, famine, heatstroke, fire, and flood. "In terms of a body count," Carpenter says, "that's orders of magnitude more significant."

I am rejoicing with you, frances. We are so very fortunate to have water.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 4:29 pm 
I'll mention this again, in the Newsletter click on the number rather than the title to go directly to the comment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: conch1
PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:37 pm 
Re: Privacy issues - Here's a couple of recent links that manifested.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/09/internet-of-things-smart-home-devices-government-surveillance-james-clapper

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/09/internet-of-things-smart-devices-spying-surveillance-us-government

Nice to have transparency!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:33 pm 
conch1, sorry for my confusion here. I understand Trevor Timm didn't frame it this way, but I'm guessing you understand Clapper was talking about how the convergence of home automation and the IoT offer the potential to be abused and that as a result we should be considering better encryption technologies. So could you please explain what that has to do with the new water meters? Thanks lots. - kb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ArturoAnlichi
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:25 pm 
The film "Take Back Your Power" purports to be a documentary, but watching it I could see that it is full of misleading statements and erroneous conclusions.

Let’s be clear -- this entire film is actually oriented toward raising anxiety and fear about so called electric "smart meters" and the associated ideas of having a "smart grid." It mashes together a variety of insinuations and conspiracy theories ranging from fears of privacy invasion, to fires, to suggesting a 1951 law aimed at military applications is holding up alternative energy, to bald mis-statements about research to pseudo-scientific but bogus health tests.

Right up front it should be clear that the entire film is oriented toward raising fear about something that the Town of Silver City IS NOT DOING. The Town is not putting up a smart grid. The Town is installing automated read water meters that will more accurately read water flow, and which can then be read by Town Employees by driving near the meter. There is no relay system associated with the water meters. There is no central hub. There is no smart grid associated with the water meters. There is no electrical socket connection to catch fire down by the water pipes.

And the meters measure only water flow -- they will not be able to tell whether your washing machine is on, or if you are doing dishes, or if you are showering. The flow of water will be all the same to the meters. These water meters offer advantages for water conservation, but they are not "smart" in the way the film depicts. And they are certainly not scary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ArturoAnlichi
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 12:06 pm 
The film "Take Back Your Power" is full of misleading statements, but since the part of the film that supposedly shows level of RF exposure and health effects has been a previous topic on this forum, let's address it.

From previous posts on this forum, and at about 38 minutes into the film, these points were presented. Set to eerie music in the background, the narrator insinuates these are all research-based hazards:

.05 - children report headaches and irritation, and display concentration and behavioral problems
0.1 - Germany's Baubiologie (building biology) guideline for "extreme concern"
1.0 - Lap-tops and wifi operation, and level at which sperm DNA fragments and decreases in viability
1.0 - adults report headaches, digestive problems, irritability, fatigue, weakness, insomnia, chest pain, difficulty breathing, indigestion
2.5 - altered calcium metabolism in heart muscle cells
4.0 - changes in the hippocampus, affecting learning and memory
6.0 - DNA damage in cells
7.93-8.0 - one Smart Meter in the US, one foot away

So as to not overwhelm, let's take them one by one.

.05 - children report headaches and irritation, and display concentration and behavioral problems
Actually, NOT TRUE.
The statement was based on work by Sabine Heinrich, Silke Thomas, Christian Heumann, Rüdiger von Kries, and Katja Radon. "Association between exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields assessed by dosimetry and acute symptoms in children and adolescents: a population based cross-sectional study"
Environ Health. 2010; 9: 75. Published online 2010 November 25

Reading only the title and some of the keywords would be misleading. These researchers selected some
large samples of German children and adolescents, gave them a battery of tests, then had them wear dosimeters to test their exposure to RF. A diary was kept to record any symptoms experienced by the children or adolescents over a period of time. The researchers major concern was cell phone use. Even though the researchers were checking for symptoms like headache, irritation, etc. to coincide or relate to RF use, they concluded from the study there was no association between RF exposure and those symptoms.

From the actual article:
"We observed few statistically significant results which are not consistent over the two time points. Furthermore, when the 10% of the participants with the highest exposure are taken into consideration the significant results of the main analysis could not be confirmed. Based on the pattern of these results, we assume that the few observed significant associations are not causal but rather occurred by chance."

Read the article yourself. Accessible at -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3006375/pdf/1476-069X-9-75.pdf

Reality-check. NO, the research studies by Sabine Heinrich, Silke Thomas, Christian Heumann, Rüdiger von Kries, and Katja Radon showed no connection between health symptoms and RF exposure. Therefore, the film misleads the viewer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ArturoAnlichi
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:14 pm 
Continuing with the statements from "Take Back Your Power" re RF power density and health concerns.

0.1 - Germany's Baubiologie (building biology) guideline for "extreme concern"

Baubiologie is a private German institute that established its own guidelines (which differ from government standards) for what might be termed healthy buildings. See the ever-useful Wikipedia for an overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_biology. Baubiologie provides training, and consulting services.

Baubiologie has set its own guidelines for a variety of electro magnetic fields, including concerns about the steel coils in mattresses, harmonics that occur from railroads vibrating the rail bed, and the fields that are set up by the earth's own geological features (e.g. flowing water, various rock formations).

So in this instance, the film's reporting of the guideline was correct; but then the question of "so what" arises when looking deeper into the variety of types of "extreme concerns" articulated in Baubiologie documents. Reporting this guideline has no meaning unless the viewer does some deeper reading about the entity (Baubiologie) that set the "guideline."

"Take Back Your Power" framed this guideline as being peer-reviewed science. It is not. The film "Take Back Your Power" misleads the viewer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ArturoAnlichi
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 11:24 pm 
Continuing with each claim about RF power density and health effects from "Take Back Your Power" -we come to the only item on the list that is not misleading.

1.0 - Lap-tops and wifi operation, and level at which sperm DNA fragments and decreases in viability

In the Avendaño et al (2010) study noted at this point in the film, the researchers took semen samples from 29 healthy men, and divided each sample into two dishes. One dish from each patient was placed in a room with no electronic devices, while the other was placed under a laptop connected to Wi-Fi and actively surfing the internet. The samples were left there for four hours, and then the researchers returned to analyze the samples. They found 25% of the sperm in the samples placed under the laptop stopped swimming as opposed to 14% from the control group. They also found that 9% of the Wi-Fi exposed sperm showed DNA damage as opposed to 3% from the control. The percentage of dead sperm was similar between the laptop-exposed samples and the non-exposed sample.
Avendaño, C., Mata, A., Juarez Villanueva, A.M., Martínez, V.S. & Sanchez Sarmiento, C. A. (2010). Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. Fertility and Sterility, 94(4), Abstract

This study indicates that to enhance their fertility, men should not be working with laptops directly on their laps. Researchers have also shown that trauma (even tight fitting clothing), some autoimmune actions, alcohol, smoking, and heat (saunas, and even heated car seats) damage sperm motility as well as result in DNA fragmentation. Heat by far has the largest damaging effect on sperm.

H. M. Shen, S. E. Chia, and C. N. Ong, “Evaluation of oxidative DNA damage in human sperm and
its association with male infertility,” Journal of Andrology, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 718–723, 1999.

M. T. Zenzes, “Smoking and reproduction: gene damage to human gametes and embryos,”
Human Reproduction Update, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 122–131, 2000.

Conclusion - The evidence indicates that wi-fi can affect sperm motility and damage the DNA in sperm. In the host of factors that cause sperm damage and DNA fragmentation, however, other factors are bigger culprits. On this one point in the list, "Take Back Your Power" does not mislead the viewer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: gorwest
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:37 am 
I did not follow that last discussion about the laptop experiment demonstrating that RF from WiFi causes any effects on sperm. Unless there was more detail in the report, it would appear that heat from the laptop is a significant variable that was not controlled in the experiment, and could very likely have been the influencing factor.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:36 am 
I'll have to go with Gordon on this one. Back in those days the bottom of a laptop would get very hot. At least the author called it a "preliminary report". The problem with cherry picking studies based on desired results is that there is no evaluation as to quality of the study design. Many of the thousands of studies are considered to be substandard, not up to a rigorous scientific standard. This looks to be one of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:09 am 
I agree with ArturoAnlichi that the video “Take Back Your Power” seems to have some erroneous and misleading statements. That’s why I sought out friends with RF meters, got myself a little introduction to the subject, and borrowed two meters to test my home. But I’m not ready to throw out the entire movie and it’s conclusions.

For those willing to watch another video, check out http://www.activistpost.com/2016/02/ami-smart-meter-testing-video-disputes-safety-claims-for-smart-meter-emfs.html - in which Oklahoman Joe Esposito, in overalls, explains errors in a brochure published by his local electric company, copied from a California publication - beginning with creating consistent and correct numbers comparing square centimeters to square meters - the latter 10,000 times the former, not to be casually confused. After correcting for errors, he compared and videotaped his real-time recordings of seven different common RF appliances (microwave, iPhone, flip-phone, modem, TV, Smart Meter, etc) and found some of them wildly different from what the publications stated.

Perhaps people will find things wrong with this video as well. My main curiosity is the statement (also used in “Take Back Your Power”) that Smart Meters will pulse 14,000 to 190,000 times per day. The number of seconds in a day is 60 (secs) x 60 (mins) x 24 (hours) = 86,400 times per day, which means that 14,000 pulses would happen approximately every six seconds, and 190,000 per day (those that are hubs for a number of homes) would average over 2 per second. Yet, Mr. Esposito’s readings did not happen anywhere near that frequency. So, while it seems that his readings of field strength are correct, I wonder if he accepted the “Take Back Your Power” frequency statistic without checking it, or if there is another explanation, such as that some of the micro-pulses might be clustered.

It’s very clear to me that this is a subject beyond the average person, including the average town councilor. What’s most disturbing is that our town is offering ZERO information, opting to stay safer than Oklahoma's electric company, opening itself to criticism for incorrect info. Our town councilor have chosen to be legally safer, but it's not democratic to foist these new technologies on us with absolutely no information about them.

I agree with Crow that some of these studies can be considered substandard, but there are NO studies that prove Smart Meters safe. All we can do is attack the studies (just a few here and there amongst thousands) that seem to show them dangerous.

Would love to hear others’ opinion, science-based, math-based, as well as any response to my question posed a way back: Does anyone know the difference between simple radiation and micro-pulsed radiation? As I wrote, micro-pulses are said to be (on Wikipedia) experimental, so far used only militarily and in medicine to kill cancer cells. It seems insane to use it so indiscriminately all over the town.

I don’t have a microwave, a TV, or wireless modem because I know I’m highly sensitive and I’ve tried to keep obvious radiation out of my home for over a decade. I use my cell phone only for traveling, keep it in “airplane mode,” and keep it far away from me most of the time. When I lived rurally off the grid with only solar power, I turned off the entire system every night.

With the borrowed RF meter, I learned which lights and appliances are the worst offenders of RF energy: florescent lights (which I'm changing out), my computer (which I will try always to use from at least 2' away), my trackpad (which I might exchange), and a few other appliances I already know to keep turned off as much as possible.

Yesterday, I received my letter from the city, ignoring my request to not have a Smart Meter installed at my house. My meter is immediately outside my kitchen wall, about 7 feet from my dining chair and 7 feet from the kitchen sink, and immediately adjacent to my patio. I hope to discover that the Smart Meter doesn’t bother me, but I REALLY do not appreciate learning that the city has decided - and I have no choice in this - that I will soon become a guinea pig for this technology. NOT right.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ArturoAnlichi
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:48 pm 
Continuing with the statements from "Take Back Your Power" re RF power density and health concerns, we come to another misleading statement. Again, starting at about 38 minutes into the film:
1.0 - adults report headaches, digestive problems, irritability, fatigue, weakness, insomnia, chest pain, difficulty breathing, indigestion

The citation for this claim is Simonenko, V. B., et al., 1998.

The actual Simonenko, V. B., et al., 1998 article proved impossible to find. Searching various scientific literature data bases (like Science Direct, and Pub Med) all that could be found was a full title of a likely article that was published in Russian -- with no translation from the Russian, and no abstract.
Simonenko VB, Chernetsov AA, Liutov VV. Influence of electromagnetic radiation in the radio-frequency range on the health condition of an organized collective. Voenno-meditsinskiymzhurnal CCCXIX(5):64-68, 1998. Russian. No abstract available.

Looking up the outlet - Voenno-meditsinskiy zhurnal- there is information that it was a USSR/Russian military medical journal -- the place where Russian military scientists and military medical personnel presented information.

Doing an even more extensive search, one peer-reviewed article turned up that included Simonenko VB (1998) in a side box, but the author noted he could not cite it as a source because he had not been able to locate it.

The article that noted Simonenko et al 1998 was un-findable is Jauchem, J. (2008). Effects of low-level radio-frequency (3kHz to 300 GHz) energy on human cardiovascular, reproductive, immune annd other systems: A review of the recent literature. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 211: 1-29. (BTW, Jauchem's literature review concludes that there are no clear, or consistent, correlations between RF and health hazards).

So tracking down this Simonenko VB et al in the scientific literature proved impossible. Simonenko VB etal (1998) however, appears again and again in documents put forth by opponents of wi-fi, radio waves, so called smart technology, and other wireless technology - and those documents report in almost exactly the same form as in the film. By doing some simple bibliometric history on a variety of documents from groups all self-identified as anti-wi-fi, I finally spotted a reference to Simonenko VB 1998 that was attributed to as being cited by A. Firstenberg. Firstenberg is the founder of the Cellular Telephone Task Force, a virulent anti-wi-fi technology group.

Turns out in the Newsletter of the Cellular Phone Taskforce Inc. Volume 3, Number 1 – Supplement February 2001 there was ostensibly a translated literature review by Kositsky, Nizhelska, Ponezha (all Ukranian) of a set of Russian and Ukraine papers. Translation was attributed to Patricia Ormsby. In this translation of a literature review of papers published in Russia and the Ukraine , there is a single short paragraph mention of a 1998 study by Simonenko et al -- but the information is so sparse that it cannot be evaluated as to how valid, reliable, or repeatable the study might be.

The only info was that a list of symptoms were noted from people (it does not say how many people) who regularly worked daily with EHF EMR, receiving a level of between 1 and 40 µW/cm2 for up to six hours a day over four years. Since the information is so limited, it cannot be evaluated how analyses were done, how many subjects there were, what time frame this was (for all we know it might have been decades earlier than 1998), where the EMR was sourced, what confounding factors there might have been, how stressful the work was, other work factors like working with chemicals, and so on.

Relying on a single translation from the Russian, of a literature review, reporting a string of symptoms with no actual data to view, with no possibility to know how the original article was or was not vetted and peer reviewed, is not good science. In fact, it is the worst kind of "it sounds like science but it's not." Take Back Your Power misleads the viewer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:45 pm 
In our ongoing tests on the water meters we now can correct our earlier statement of one major pulse per second to once every 7 seconds and that those major pulses range between .7 volts/meter and .95 volts/meter. There are an irregular number of lessor strengths in between the base reading at 10 inches of .0019 volts/meter and the major spikes. At 6 or so feet our readings were lost in the much stronger power line harmonics, FM and Television frequences. Interesting that nobody took Community Radio (KURU) and other FM stations to task for their EMF that reach to Lordsburg, Mimbres and Gila and beyond; these pathetic signals from the water meters don't even compare.

Readings in the mW/cm2 and mW/m2 are generally used for Power Density in relation to thermal effects and need a continuos reading over a period of many minutes. These levels of in-home readings are known to not have thermal effects as pointed out in the sperm study above. For in-home testing the easiest and most reliable and understandable are the volt/meter and milli volt/meter and our readings will be reported as such. To be sure there may be other detrimental effects not associated with thermal but studys taken as a whole do not yet prove anything, someday they might, or might not. Jean, please don't compare our in-home readings to military and medical, there is no comparison.

What is very curious is the constantly repeated statement that there are "No studies that prove Smart Meters safe", after cherry picking studies before fact checking as ArturoAnlichi has pointed out; and yet neither are there any studies that "prove smart meters are unsafe". The best that can be said with truth is that the studies are inconclusive. The mantra that "No studies that prove Smart Meters safe" is disingenuous at best and is used as a propaganda tool with NO real meaning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ArturoAnlichi
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:58 pm 
So as to not get too boring, let's address another set of misleading statements from "Take Back Your Power" in one fell swoop.

2.5 - altered calcium metabolism in heart muscle cells cited Wolke (1996) Schwartz (1990)
4.0 - changes in the hippocampus, affecting learning and memory Tattersall (2001)
6.0 - DNA damage in cells Phillips (1998)

Wolke S, Neibig U, Elsner R, Gollnick F, Meyer R.Calcium homeostasis of isolated heart muscle cells exposed to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields.Bioelectromagnetics. 1996;17(2):144-53.
In this lab study of slices of guinea pig hearts, intracellular calcium concentration was measured while either not having any wave pulses, or having high frequency wave fields pulsed at 900, 1,300, and 1,800 MHz modulated at 217Hz. The researchers also did a continuous (not pulsed) wave cycle exposure at 900 MHz: continuous wave, 16 Hz, and 50 Hz modulation with 50 percent duty cycle and 30 kHz modulation with 80 percent duty cycle. Results -- Significant differences between sham exposure and high-frequency field exposure [b]were not found [/b]except when a very small but statistically significant difference was detected in the case of 900 MHz/50 Hz. However, this small difference was not regarded as a relevant effect of the exposure.

Schwartz, J.-L., House, D.E., and Mealing, G.A.R., 1990, Exposure of frog hearts to CW or amplitude-modulated VHF fields: selective efflux of calcium ions at 16 Hz, Bioelectromagnetics 11:349-358. This was a lab study of exposed frog hearts, having a 240-MHz electromagnetic field, either continuous-wave or sinusoidally modulated at 0.5 or 16 Hz. run by them. Calcium ion effluxes increased at 16 Hz.

. The "so what does this mean" should be posed here. Various ions are part of the expansion and contraction mechanisms in hearts -- but since some studies show no difference in calcium in guinea pig hearts, but increased exchange in frog hearts, the over-arching question is "and what, if anything, does this mean to humans?" Knowing there are ionic responses in frog hearts is interesting, but not frightening.

4.0 - changes in the hippocampus, affecting learning and memory Tattersall 2001

Actual source - Tattersall JE, Scott IR, Wood SJ, Nettell JJ, Bevir MK, Wang Z, Somasiri NP, Chen X.Effects of low intensity radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on electrical activity in rat hippocampal slices. Brain Research. 2001 Jun 15;904(1):43-53. In this lab study, slices of rat hippocampus were exposed to 700 MHz continuous wave radiofrequency (RF) fields (25.2-71.0 V m(-1), 5-15 min exposure). Electrical activity responses were measured. The researchers concluded that "...low-intensity RF fields can modulate the excitability of hippocampal tissue in vitro in the absence of gross thermal effects."

The film inferred that hippocampus changes might affect learning and memory in a bad way. However, since much hippocampal research has to do with understanding epilepsy, then modulating excitability might be good -- this sounds like RF fields might be useful.

6.0 - DNA damage in cells - Phillips
From Phillips, J., Ivaschuk, O., Ishida-Jones, T., Jones, R., Campbell-Beachler, M., Haggren, W. DNA damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid cells exposed to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro. Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics 45 1998 103–110.
From the abstract of this article: In summary, our data indicate that exposure of Molt-4T-lymphoblastoid cells in vitro to two different RF signals under a thermal conditions altered the
amount of DNA single-strand breaks detected by the alkaline comet assay. Depending
on the signal and the time of exposure, DNA damage was observed to both increase and decrease.


So sounds to me this study shows RF might sometimes be related to more DNA damage, or sometimes repair, DNA damage.

Reality check -- these studies, which the film made sound ominous, are interesting, but hardly frightening. In fact, some results seem positive.

"Take Back Your Power" misleads the viewer.

Given that contributors on this forum (n2ic on Feb 04, 2016) posted corrections to the misleading information about "legal standards" that are the final scare tactics in this part of the film, other posts from me will address other areas of "Take Back Your Power."


Last edited by ArturoAnlichi on Mon Feb 15, 2016 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ArturoAnlichi
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 1:05 am 
In this post I want to address a portion of the film "Take Back Your Power' that seemed to particularly impress and frighten other people who watched the film. This is the section beginning much further in the film, about 54 minutes in, with Frank Springob, a chiropractor who showed what he claimed were comparative dark field microscopy of three subjects' blood who had stood in front of analog meters, and
three subjects' blood after standing one (1) foot away from an electric smart meter for two (2) minutes.

In the film, the slides from the patients who had been in front of electric smart meters seemed to show degradation, one showing rouleaux.

The term Springob uses in this portion of the film is "dark field microscopy" which is a form of microscopy using side lighting, rather than background lighting. But what he is actually showing is called "live blood" analysis.

Dark field microscopy is useful to enhance contrast in unstained samples. On the other hand, live blood analysis is not a laboratory or medically accepted procedure, and has been criticized for being a pseudo-scientific technique that can be easily manipulated to deceive patients. For example, rouleaux (the stacking effect) always occurs near the edge of the slide where the sample is beginning to dry. By showing different parts of the same slide, the cells can look nice and healthy, or damaged.

See the ever helpful Wikipedia, a good place to start further research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_blood_analysis

Andrew Weil, who is definitely in the alternative medicine camp, dismissed live blood analysis as "completely bogus", writing - "Dark-field microscopy combined with live blood analysis may sound like cutting-edge science, but it's old-fashioned hokum. Don't buy into it."
See http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA400117

So this dramatic moment, that convinced many of the other watchers of this film that it was a medical demonstration of harmful effects, is not. It is actually a bogus technique meant to frighten.

"Take Back Your Power" misleads the viewer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: gorwest
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:55 am 
I'd like to respond to a couple of things that were raised in earlier posts:

First is the idea that the Town needs to prove that the smart water meters will not harm anyone. I have seen some of the research that was done by Town representatives about that - it was pretty thorough in my opinion, and no credible scientifically documented evidence was uncovered to suggest that the meters pose any danger. And by comparison to other known and widespread radio technologies in use all around us, the power and output are so extremely low as to be virtually nonexistent. A number of double-blind studies were cited that were designed to test the effects on people who consider themselves sensitive to RF radiation, and there was no evidence produced that sensitive people could detect the radiation at all.

Second is that a number of folks are making noises about suing the Town over this. Once the lawsuit specter is raised, it is common policy to shut down further official public discussion except what has been cleared by the legal folks. If I thought the Town was negligent and simply stonewalling us citizens, I would be all for a lawsuit. But as it is, I think a lawsuit would be frivolous and detrimental to the community as a whole.

I suggest that anyone who feels strongly that these smart meters will affect their health should participate in a double-blind experiment and prove their claim. My opinion would change if credible evidence was presented.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:58 am 
My town councilor, at my request, gave me a bunch of background information that was examined before this decision was made. I'm completely satisfied that the town staff and councilors did their homework and have no concerns about the meters.

As has been pointed out previously in this thread, it's not possible to prove a negative. As far as I know, water has never been scientifically proven to be safe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ArturoAnlichi
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:52 pm 
In the last few weeks in a store in Silver City the showing place and time of the film "Take Back Your Power" was posted, encouraging people to go. Last week I casually noted to a store employee that I had seen the film. When asked my opinion, I responded honestly that so much of it was misleading, with statements that "sound like science but they're not" that I found it very disappointing. This employee seemed amazed. The employee then remarked that having so many states and countries ban smart meters should convince me.

When I asked what states and countries, the employee referred me back to the beginning of the film, asking if I didn't remember that the Supreme Court banned meters in that state; and then confidently told me that they knew that Italy and other European countries had banned smart meters.

Reality check -- Not true.

The opening scenes of "Take Back Your Power" do indeed contain video of the careful questioning of a Maine Public Utility Commission attorney about health and safety of smart meters. And it is true that the court charged the PUC to come back with convincing data about health and safety issues.

There has been an update since then.

In January 2016, The Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Maine Public Utilities Commission properly concluded that the public’s health is not at risk from the smart meters in use across the state. The state’s highest court said the commission’s decision was based on a “wealth of evidence,” including more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The approach of smart meter foes “would require an impractically high threshold for ensuring safety, and as a result would render nearly all utilities unsafe,” Justice Andrew Mead wrote. Read the Associated Press article for yourself:
http://www.pressherald.com/2016/01/26/maines-high-court-sides-with-smart-meter-proponents/

Truth -- smart meters are not banned in Maine.

What about smart meters being banned in Italy? Answer - Not true
Actually - the development of a smart grid has been deployed in Italy since 2001. As noted in a 2009 article, Italy is the "...world leader in the development of a smarter electrical grid. Some 85% of Italian homes are now outfitted with smart meters..."
Scott, M. (2009, Nov16). Bloomberg Business online
Accessible at
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2009/gb20091116_319929.htm

You can read about such projects in other European countries in:
Smart Grid projects in Europe: lessons learned and current developments. A Reference Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission 2011
http://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/ses/files/documents/smart_grid_projects_in_europe.pdf

Writing this makes me think that a good explanation of what a smart grid is, what a smart meter is, and how the automated read water meters being installed in Silver City are not really "smart" is in order.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kyle
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:44 am 
ArturoAnlichi, thank you for providing the in-depth assesment of the film, “Take Back Your Power”. As I watched it, I found it alarming, yet felt a slimy undercurrent of psuedo science and questionable citations. I read every word of your discussion and am very appreciative that you did the research I probably couldn't have accomplished myself. Too often our direction as a society is guided by hysteria and allegations instead of reason and research. Thanks for showing me how a truly inquiring mind works.
And thanks to the other contributors to this discussion who have presented their calm, measured perspectives that I could not have expressed so eloquently.
KVM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:53 am 
ArturoAnlichi,

Thank you very much for your thorough research! It is far more than I have the time and patience for, so I'm grateful to have someone do the research and post it here. Of course, I'm trusting you, and won't check your research, but I hope that others who might be better researchers than me, and possibly who have more at stake, will.

Tim, I'm glad you got info from your town councilor. I wrote my councilor, via the town website, a simple request for any info there might be to share with me, and got no reply.

I'm still waiting to learn about micro-pulsed electricity, which someone (I forget who now) asserts is a whole different animal from all the other RF in discussion - but I don't know.

So, is the assumption then that all the people who claim to be harmed by Smart Meters just imagining it, hypochondria running rampant, making people's noses bleed, autism and Parkinson's go south, etc? Or is there something about Smart Meters (micro-pulses or something else) that might be a problem for some folks and just isn't covered in the research we're discussing? It's possible. I'm still open to new information.

So, while the pro-Meters folks have derided the anti's a fair amount here (tin foil hats, etc), I want to point out that we're still talking about a new technology, and the research MAY not be all in.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: JE1947
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:37 am 
I agree with the information provided by Bruce and Tim Mathes. The proposed use of these meters which won't likely be in our homes, makes the amount of RFF signal exposure I get "in the weeds." If there is a concern I have related to such devices, it would be with cell phone use.But am I
ready to chuck my cell phone? Not in any stretch of my imagination. The sense that our local environment is saturated with harmful electronic waves doesn't resonate with me.

We're surrounded by all kinds of external dangers that I have no control over. If I have any control over the use of these smart meters on my PROPERTY (but not in my house), then I am interested in that, of course. If these meters give the community an "edge" on our water consumption reduction, and fit in with a greater approach to standing against a possible billion $$$$ boondoggle to "divert the Gila River," then I owe my energy to preserving this river that has flowed for millions of years. I'll take my chances with this smart meter. It's interesting to me that the discussion re: these smart meters seems to dwarf any I've seen lately on the Gila River issues.

I never believed much in the "X" Files stuff and at times, this seems leaning in that direction. But, we're all different. The amount of exposure to these signals just isn't significant enough to spend any more time on this issue. Let the smart meters be installed. I want to see the City move forward with this, and support Howie Morales' attempt to wrest $15 million from the Arizona Water Project funds out there, to significantly try harvesting and conservation of water that is connected with the Gila River. Anything that could help us harvest water on a larger scale; reduce agricultural contamination of the river in our counties; see that any damaging chemicals, animal waste, human waste, is reduced as much as possible; seeding the Gila from the headwaters with various native fish species, that might allow sports fishers to come here; doing whatever we can to restore San Vincente Creek, perhaps working with the City if one neighborhood agreed to maximize water harvesting features, as a kind of showcase, as I've seen in Tuscon ... those tower over the water meter dangers.

Anyway, that's it. I think I'm going to try giving up any further comment on this for Lent. BUT ... thank you for all who have graver concerns, who've posted the technical data, pro or con, and gone to that work. Our community has so many intelligent folks who can investigate just about anything that comes our way. The synergistic effect is: we can't say we're not informed, and given alternative options. With this forum, we certainly are. Thank you for your work, those who have concerns about these smart meters. Silver City has some fine people!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:59 pm 
Jean, I got my information from my town councilor well before the decision was made to install the meters and, more importantly, before there were any threats of litigation made. As Gorwest pointed out, the town has no doubt hunkered down and won't be discussing this issue any more. I should have made that clear, but didn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ArturoAnlichi
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:19 pm 
In graduate school, I took an overview course on Technology and Society, from a professor whose field was the history and philosophy of science. Some of the readings from the course still stick with me -- Karl Popper, Michael Kuhn, Loren Eisely, Edward Tenner, Stephen Jay Gould. A highlight was while we were reading Gould, he was invited for a special lecture at the University that our whole class attended.

This background leads me to respond briefly about some of the statements that have occurred in this forum thread. Let me say just a few things about the aspects of good science.

First, one of the best summaries of what makes good science comes from Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science who testified in a creationism case from Alabama. Ruse summarized aspects of good science as:
(1) guided by natural law,
(2) explanatory by reference to natural law,
(3) testable against the empirical world,
(4) reaching conclusions that are tentative, and
(5) falsifiable

You can read the transcription from that case here. BTW, Ruse's testimony is regularly used as a standard in legal cases.
http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt_p_ruse.html

The last two points (conclusions are tentative and falsifiable) are why peer-reviewed scientific publications won't say things like "This proves definitely" -- all scientists must assume the work they report is another step in a chain of evidence. They will always use equivocal language. Hence, if 99 articles out of a 100 show the same outcome, a scientist doing the 100th article will say "a majority of the research to date indicates.." Even if EVERY study in a hundred studies shows the same result, the scientist publishing the 100th study will still frame the finding as if it may be disproved.

Good science is based on a process of rigorous research methods (how the research is done should meet a set of meticulous standards), peer review (the results of research are subjected to intense scrutiny), publication (there is a hierarchy in any field of what are the "best" journals -- and self-publishing is considered a clear sign that no one else believed the work), and replicability (other investigators must be able to duplicate the original investigator's findings).

Most scientists will state that a hypothesis cannot ever be proven, only disproven. Einstein supposedly
stated that a hundred experiments could not prove him right. Therefore, a challenge to "prove smart meters are safe" won't make sense to scientists.

A fine example of how scientists talk is in this statement from the World Health Organization:

"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.”

From World Health Organization What are Electromagnetic Fields Summary of Health Effects
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:45 am 
There has been some speculation that ArturoAnlichi is an industry plant, I don't think so, but what is important is that somebody rebut his analysis if there are questions of accuracy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mabaraba
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:55 am 
I am not a scientist and am not personally qualified to refute Arturo's statements but here is a link that addresses some of the issues. https://www.emfscientist.org/

If you scroll down there is a video--only 3 minutes long--by Martin Blank from Columbia University. He has a pHD in physical chemistry, and colloid science from the University of Cambridge. He has written a book on the health effects EMR. He worked at the US Office of Navel Research, among multiple other credentials.

Scrolling further down you will find an appeal to the UN by 190 scientists from 39 nations regarding this issue.

We should not be arguing about whether there are potential health effects. If there is any possibility that we can be harmed by this technology, we should be proceeding with caution before foisting this on the entire population.

I also want to say that by focusing only on the health effects of this technology we are losing sight of some of the other issues involving invasion of privacy and personal rights.

The link below pertains to electric smart meters which are coming next. This company is bragging about the ability of it's technology to mine personal data from the smart meters.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 36871.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: timmatthes
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:43 pm 
ArturoInichi appears to be well versed on this subject. That, by itself, is probably cause for suspicion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: susport
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:45 pm 
Arturo,
First I would like to thank you for the considerable time you have invested in this topic. You have made some interesting and probably valid points about the information in the movie “Take Back Your Power”. Most of us are not scientists, however we are all interested in learning the truth (in so far as it is possible to know the truth) about the effects of electromagnetic radiation including different forms of RF on human health. As you have clearly pointed out, in order to do that we have to also consider the source of the information we are receiving. So, I would like to know more about who you are, what your scientific training is that you refer to in your post, and whether or not you are a resident of Silver City or its surrounding communities. I have come to the conclusion that you are using a pseudonym, since I was unable to find you when I did a name search of public documents in New Mexico, Colorado, California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. While lots of folks posting on this forum use nicknames or screen names, most of us know each other or at least know who the others are. Many of us sign our posts with our real names and contact information. On issues like this “incognito” posts don’t hold much gravitas for me and many others. Please take a moment to enlighten us.
Thank you,
Susan Porter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:30 pm 
I'll attempt to set the record straight. I know for a fact that Arturo is a resident of Grant County, and am more than reasonably sure he is not an industry plant. Arturo is not a scientist and has not claimed to be a scientist anywhere in his posts, but he is well educated as so many are in our little area. I'm always impressed with the level of intelligence of so many of our readers and contributors.

When Arturo first approached me about doing an in-depth analysis of the movie he wished to be an "anonymous and confidential source" and after much conversation I agreed with certain conditions (and I reserve the right to have and protect that confidential source that any investigative reporter reserves and protects). I feel satisfied with placing my trust and as many long term readers know I can be a stickler for facts and accuracy to put it nicely.

My conditions were that he stay on topic of analyzing only the referenced studies cited in the movie and that he give links to those studies so that all of us non-scientists (and scientists) can verify for ourselves that those studies really say what he claims they say.

The volume and depth of work he produced was a great surprise to me and I've not had time to check them all but am impressed with what I have checked. I, and Arturo encourage readers to check his research and if there are questions or challenges to please post them.

Though there are more developments with this whole issue and process of the meters I'll reserve them for later and just stay on topic with who the hell is ArturoAnlichi.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: susport
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:31 am 
thank you Crow for verifying that Arturo is indeed a pseudonym and that (he/she) is a resident of Grant County. Several people are checking his research, so I also thank you for insisting that Arturo post his sources. In the end I believe that we all want what real facts we can get, and we all hate being manipulated and lied to. I respect that there are times when a source needs to remain anonymous, but it would have been helpful to have that stated and verified by you at the beginning of Arturo's posts.
Thanks!
Susan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: conch1
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:01 am 
Crow, thanks much for your clarification. Yes, Arturo seems to have spent a lot of time on this topic - thanks for that, Arturo. And Mabaraba, thanks for the link above. In the "GO TO THE APPEAL PAGE " it's interesting to see who has already signed, & notice they now have 220 signatures - might be a good area to data mine some more of the literature in the EMF arena for those who want to get into the literature more intensely.

Arturo, re:The paper (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/40881681/the-impact-of-exposure-to-radio-frequency-electromagnetic-fields-on-chronic-well-being-in-young) it is stated:

Our results do not indicate an association between measured exposure to RF EMF and chronic well-being in children and adolescents. Prospective studies investigating potential long-term effects of RF EMF are necessary to confirm our results. (My emphasis)

So, maybe this is what you meant, but it is not that there was definitely no connection, it's that they just couldn't have a solid conclusion as noted in the bold sentence above - & yes, not the best paper to use for that reference it would appear.

Re: Building Biology, info from the site http://www.baubiologie.de/international/institute/

The Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines (PDF) are based on the precautionary principle. Re: "Building Biology" this link has a short description as to its origins:
http://www.rentpuntadeleste.com/bau-biologie/

Arturo, you made some good points about this reference below (I put in the text so the readers can know what the article addressed).

Re:     Simonenko,V.B, Chernetsov AA & Lyutov VV (1998) Influence of electromagnetic radiation in the radio-frequency range on the health condition of an organized collective, Voenno-med-itsinskiy zhurnal CCCXIX(5):64-68 -  presented data from an investigation over a span of four years of groups of workers having contact in the course of their work with low-power EHF EMR. The first group received irradiation at a level of 30-40 μW/cm2 for up to six hours a day. The second group received irradiation at a level of 10-30 μW/cm2for from two minutes to 2-4 hours a day. The third group received irradiation at a level of 1 μW/cm2.All other conditions among the groups were identical. In the first group, the most frequent illnesses proved to be neurotic syndrome with vegetative dysfunction and astheno-vegetative syndrome. There was a high frequency of hypertension, early development of ischemic heart disease, and bronchospasms. Nearly all the persons studied complained of: headache and dizziness; irritability; fatigability; general weakness; sleep disturbance; daytime sleepiness; pain in the region of the heart; difficulty breathing; and stomach pains and indigestion. The frequency and nature of the complaints were identical for men and women, and the nature of the complaints were identical for all groups, but quantitatively they increased depending on age and number of years on the job. (ussr)

You indicated: "Relying on a single translation from the Russian, of a literature review, reporting a string of symptoms with no actual data to view, with no possibility to know how the original article was or was not vetted and peer reviewed, is not good science. In fact, it is the worst kind of "it sounds like science but it's not." Take Back Your Power misleads the viewer. ",

My question to you is: Did you check to see IF actually that paper had been reviewed, perhaps in Russia, by someone connected with the film? That would seem to be the appropriate action instead of presuming that in fact it had not been reviewed for sure - maybe you did follow-up? I have not contacted him myself regarding this. It would be good to know the scientific design, date etc. Any friends in Russia? :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:53 am 
Thanks Susan for your constructive criticism, I sure coulda shoulda done a more proper intro. Thanks in advance for those who are fact checking the fact checker.

Personally I feel that the jury is still out on the whole subject of RF/EMF in general, but I also know the detrimental effects that fear and fear mongering have on the human mind and body to the point where fearful anticipation and facts become indistinguishable from each other.

I also feel that the Town has taken a cavalier attitude towards the whole subject and thrown caution to the wind and did not create an atmosphere of open and clear communication in ways they coulda shoulda and are as guilty of cherry picking their research to fit their program, but that is another subject coming soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: gorwest
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:15 pm 
I don't want to be dismissive, but the study cited above contains nothing but vague assertions and conditions. I attempted to look up the various syndromes and their descriptions are just as vague, referring to subjective conditions that could be caused by practically anything, including bad diet, lack of exercise, or imagination. "...the most frequent illnesses proved to be neurotic syndrome with vegetative dysfunction and astheno-vegetative syndrome". No mention of the control group for comparison. Were these people drone pilots? Nuclear power plant operators? Medical center radiologists? Meter readers? Bloggers? Teenagers with cell phones?

The claimed exposure rates are also without any verifiable consistency - we don't know how these people maintained the claimed exposure levels in the course of their work, or even how the exposures were measured or what were the sources.

I doubt that this study could be construed as scientific no matter what the translation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mabaraba
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:27 pm 
Below is a quote from an article titled: "There Is Plenty of Evidence Showing Harm from Radiofrequency Radiation!"

In case the embedded links in the quote don't work, here is the link to the original article where you will be able to click on the embedded links.

"A big problem even from people who believe RFR causes health effects is common use of the phrase ‘no evidence of health risk is not the same as saying they are safe [whether smart meters or cell phones].’ While the phrase on its face is obviously true, in the case and context of RFR exposure there is plenty of evidence of health risk. Using this pat phrase buys into the industry cover-up [or at least denial]. Today Kevin Mottus in California sent out a new compilation of over 900 published peer-reviewed studies showing adverse effects from RFR exposure. The studies are organized in three categories and linked here. There are 700 Cell Phone Studies, 78 Cell Tower Studies and 136 WiFi & Device Studies listed. The listings contain an index by health effect type, and for each article the legal journal citation and an abstract with adverse health effects highlighted.

http://www.mainecoalitiontostopsmartmeters.org/?p=1469

The next time someone on the street, in a regulatory body or in court tells you there is a lack of evidence, let them know they are sadly misinformed, in denial or outright lying. And then provide them with these lists."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:38 pm 
I've recently been speaking with someone who expresses great concern over these water meters consequent to her particular sensitive to RF and her water meter's installation directly on the exterior face of her bedroom wall. It occurs to me that the transmitters are omnidirectional in nature when in fact they really only need to communication with the City's meter reader on the street and could theoretically then work just fine if made to be suitably directional. In that regard, shouldn't it be possible to reflect and focus that transmission away from a given direction, or attenuate it entirely, perhaps with the use of some type of parabolic shield? I'm picturing an old DISH antenna placed between the meter and the wall in the case described above. It seems like there should be a means by which to control the transmission field that both preserves the meter's functionality and offers peace of mind to those in its proximity. N2IC, Ynot, and those others posting here with hands-on transmitter/antenna experience please share your thoughts on this. Thanks - kb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: gorwest
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 5:08 pm 
I'm wondering if that's even a water meter on her bedroom wall. I do believe they need some freeze protection, which wouldn't be the case above ground.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:47 pm 
My guess is that it is an electrical meter, water pipes leading to and from a water meter and the water meter itself would all freeze hence water meters are not installed in the middle of outside walls. Case in point of irrational fear leading to inability to make rational observations. I am very, extremely, sensitive to the projection of fear from other human beings and the very atmosphere of Silver City is as thick as refried beans with fear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:02 pm 
Indeed I've not actually seen it and suppose the possibility exists that she's incorrect about the meter type, or that it's contained in some sort of thermally protected enclosure. I've encountered cases where a meter has been installed prior to a room addition resulting in the meter ending up in what appears to be an unconventional location or orientation. Perhaps this is such a case. In any event the basic idea of erecting some sort of reflector or attenuator remains along with the question of feasibility. It's since come to my attention that somebody else in the area concocted the same idea using an old DISH antenna. No word yet on its effectiveness. Still looking forward to Ynot or N2IC's thoughts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:19 pm 
mabaraba, thanks for this very interesting link, did you review the list of studies for the 136 wi-fi studies? Besides many being admittedly inconclusive and the one that used hundreds and another that used thousands of times the power density of anything we will ever own or be exposed to. What I did find interesting was the prevalence of studies that showed that normal nutrients may protect against possible, but uncertain ill effects, like melatonin, garlic, certain vitamins etc.

Most used rat live or dead brain cells, dubious at best and a snail nerve these don't relate well to humans but that is another issue. I don't know who compiled this list but it seems to be for the purpose of overwhelming those who won't look too closely.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:30 pm 
John, the links mabaraba pointed us to are all subpages at http://www.mainecoalitiontostopsmartmeters.org, so I'm guessing the Maine Coalition to Stop Smart Meters compiled them. The shear quantity of abstracts cited is impressive though and in each case it's fairly easy to track down the source paper. These are indeed legitimate studies, now causing me to take a whole new look at the wireless modem I've got sitting on the table next to me. As you say none of these have anything to do with the new water meters, very different signal levels and much lower frequencies, we are NOT CONTENDING WITH SMART METERS. In that respect this all amounts to more confusion, but, what a truly fascinating set of papers where wireless telecommunications are concerned, and in that regard I'm thinking this does deserve our attention.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:49 pm 
Yes they are interesting just beware, I didn't mention that some used pulses of 100 and 500 per second, others don't specify, just say pulsed. I would say as a rule of thumb, don't sleep on or next to your modem/router or these water meters. What is of greater concern is the potential of PNM converting their growing number of digital meters to a "Smart" system of a wide area network though I could find no evidence that PNM has approached the PRC yet. PNM's digital meters at this time are AMR requiring the meter reader to drive up and point his receiver but they seem to be the on demand reading as opposed to the "bubble up" water meter being installed that is always sending, well every 7 seconds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:02 pm 
Five issues:

My Smart Meter was installed last Thursday morning after I left on a trip out of town. Since the guy arrived as I was leaving, I told him he’d find a note on my meter saying I didn’t want it, but I wasn’t going to stop him. He was very friendly and told me it would only transmit once per day. I knew this was not what we’ve been hearing, and if it was true, it seems the company or the City or someone would have said it already somewhere, so I didn’t believe it.

What concerns me is 1) the lack of communication from the city (no response to my certified letter after many weeks - or to any of the good questions on this thread) and 2) the readiness with which “comforting” statements (lies?) like “one transmission per day” are dispersed by City contractors verbally, so that no one will ever be held accountable for them.

Home now, I’m feeling road-weary, so can’t make any judgement regarding any effects to my own health. But I did notice: 3) all the tips on my rosemary plant that face the meter (to the NE, 1-2 feet away) - have died; tips facing S and W are fine; perhaps there’s another cause for that though. (It did remind me of a climbing vine around an electric meter in the TBYP video that appeared to be dying nearest the meter and fine elsewhere. I'll report if my rosemary recovers. But it's a creepy portent, which I'll confess even though Crow hates "fear.")

4) When I tried to look at the new meter, I discovered that I could not remove the new plastic cover! So I called the City, and Chris Neil said he’d come right over. I said I just wanted to know if I should keep trying or if there was a trick to it, and commented that it seemed a huge waste of his time to drive over, which he agreed with but dismissed and asked for my address. When he and another worker arrived, the younger guy removed the cover with his big steel key/tool and showed me how to flip the cap on the meter itself to read my usage, then told me that I’ll have to purchase my own special tool at the hardware store ($7-8, he said, for a small one, more for a larger one). So what’s the point of the locking cover if anyone can just buy a key to it? To help the hardware stores, and the company which makes them, sell hundreds or thousands of keys? Or to make it more difficult for us to monitor our water use? Making that more difficult certainly doesn’t help the community save water. I told Chris I thought the City should provide us all keys. He smiled and indicated that wouldn't happen. We must buy a key (which makes the lock a useless but expensive, income-producing feature for someone) (and certainly made the covers more expensive too), or not ever be able to monitor our water use in the summer. If we'd known what was coming, perhaps we (the City) could have negotiated with the company to provide us lids that would allow us access to monitor our water use - which would far-better serve the goal that supposedly is the whole point.

5) After the two City employees left (just 5 minutes here or less), I wondered how much it was costing the city for two employees to drive to every home to respond to our questions this way. Seems ANOTHER waste of taxpayer dollars. Hopefully, by posting this here, others can save the City a few trips.

Instead of calling, we just need to spend a bit of money, assuming the hardware stores have them in stock, to buy our very own keys for our new Smart Meters.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: factoted
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:00 pm 
Jean et al:
Speaking of the city spending money - they said the new meters would pay for themselves - right ? So, take the overall cost of installing the new water meters and subtract the amount of the two bonds that were raised to pay for part of the project (one being a "Green Community" taxable bond of $3.9 million) and subtract whatever other funding the city got from the Fed (undisclosed ?) and the remainder, and I'm sure there is a remainder, has to be funded somehow. The only ways I know of covering that cost is via property taxes or upping the water bills - both of which are a cost to the taxpayer. So there's another issue with this whole thing. Watch your water bills and property taxes, folks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:46 pm 
Jean, the fact that Chris, wether alone or not (usually I see him by himself) visited you, it is called "Customer Service" and wouldn't we bitch if we didn't get it. It cost us and the town no extra money because they were already on the job, and really 5 minutes gonna break whose bank?

Ted interesting you should bring this up, when I visited Alex Brown today he was reviewing new billing software, he told me that not only is the cost of installation, meters, readers, and training covered but that he would be able to upgrade the billing software after 18 + years. The new software will include online payments, review of past bills, graphs of water use over time etc, etc. For those of us who always read our bills this is a good thing.

When I busted the University in 2011 for their 800,000 gals per month swimming pool water use and got it shut down (adjusted to 500,000 gals per month after the pool was shut down), they nor the town had any idea, good software could remedy a situation like that. BTW, I found out by requesting the top 40 or so water bills, water bills, like just about everything are publicly available, no need to hack the meters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mabaraba
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:59 am 
Many in town already have digital electric meters that can be converted to a Smart Meter. Below is the meter we have. I am dismayed to learn that it is already (without the conversion) almost as bad as a Smart Meter. And I am experiencing several of the health effects listed that are attributed to these meters.

As I stated earlier, the health issues (although very important to anyone that is experiencing them) are only one of several reasons to be concerned about Smart Meters. Instead of spending time arguing about whether these meters can have health effects, I hope we can join together as a community to protect our town from all the the issues connected to Smart Meters.

Here is a link you can use to determine what meter you have.
http://www.smartmetereducationnetwork.c ... -meter.php

This is the meter that we have:
DTE’s Digital Meter That Can Be Converted to a Smart Meter

The Itron CL200 C1S meter is not a meter you want! This meter has been installed on homes for some time. Supposedly DTE is “upgrading” these to the Itron OpenWay meter, but we know of instances where DTE has installed this meter as the opt-out meter, despite DTE's contention that it is converting all meters to “one meter type.”

To know whether you have this meter, look at the picture. On the meter you will see: CL200 240V 3W TYPE C1S 30TA 1.0Kh. This meter is a digital meter that is capable of being converted to a smart meter by the addition of a "personality" module. We have measured the voltage transients and harmonics (dirty electricity / line noise) and magnetic fields generated by this meter. This meter is almost as bad as the smart meter. A woman who lives in a home with this meter has had her health severely affected by it, nearly as severely as by the smart meter that was previously installed on her home. Two other electrosensitive people who have gone to this home have also experienced severe problems. For a list of the health effects experienced by people when exposed to this meter, click here. Also read Rebecca’s story, Cynthia’s story, and Linda’s story for more detailed information. The woman who (tries) to live in this home spends most of her time travelling in order to avoid the degrading effects of this meter on her body. The digital meter (see previous entry) that looks similar to the CL200 C1S does not seem to generate the dirty electricity that the CL200 C1S does, probably because it is not measuring electricity usage in detail.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: n2ic
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:44 pm 
This discussion has reached an impasse. We have two groups:

- Those that accept that the RF emitted by smart meters and other common devices, such as cell phones, is well within safe limits. Those safe limits are within United States and international regulatory standards and present no verifiable harm.

- Those that believe that RF emitted by smart meters and other common devices, such as cell phones, causes physical and mental symptoms.

What surprises me is that the 2nd group is convinced that the introduction of smart water meters in Silver City was foisted upon them without adequate notice and process. Why did this happen ? Amongst the ~1000 people who signed the petition, not one of them was astute enough to be reading the agenda for upcoming town council meetings ? You folks in the 2nd group are now in a position that you are not supported by any of the mayoral candidates, or the current town councilors. What are you going to do about that ? Have any of you looked ahead to the procedures for recalling or electing a mayor or councilor ? Have you organized yourselves to provide alternative candidates that support your positions ? Geesh, with ~1000 petition-signing supporters, you would be a major political force in Silver City.

Imagine what you could do if your people were elected:
- Remove the smart water meters.
- Ensure that all new and existing electric, gas and water meters meet your standards.
- Ban the use of wireless routers within Silver City.
- Remove large RF transmitters, such as KURU radio and Grant County Regional Dispatch (i.e. 911) from Silver City.
- Ban the use of radio by Silver City police and fire.
- Ban the use of radio by Grant Count Sheriff, while within the town limits.
- Ban the use of cell phones.

Just like our dark skies are considered a draw for amateur astronomers, Silver City would be a draw for electrosensitive people and others that wish to return to a pre-radio lifestyle. A good analogy would be the Amish areas of Pennsylvania, which have become a major tourist draw for the "English".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:22 pm 
The two categories presented by n2ic are not exactly correct. I believe that I and many others fall into a third category:

- Those who don't know whether RF emitted by cell phones, radios, wireless devices, and so on might have some harmful effects, but who are certain that the tiny amount of RF emitted by digital meters is so minuscule compared to other sources (thousands of times smaller) that it can be disregarded.

I agree with the rest of the message. This issue came up just before the election season, giving opponents of digital meters plenty of time to organize and find candidates that support their position. But these are the same people who don't normally follow civic affairs and did not hear any of the extensive public information about the meters long before the decision to purchase was made.

Their opposition has been loud, but ineffective. They need to understand how Town politics works to be able to affect it. The concepts of science and evidence are relatively simple compared to the much more difficult problem of politics.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:22 pm 
Agreed, too little, too late. These meters were first mentioned here in 2011 in an article by Joanie, then in June 2014 in my article on water infrastructure Pt 2, then again in July 2015 in "One Step Closer To "Smart" Water Meters & More" with never a peep from the opposition until this article in Nov 2015 with this resulting discussion and it came up a few times at Town Council. Perhaps, as I've heard, this is just a warm-up for if or when PNM introduces networked smart meters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: delafrance
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:48 am 
I don't think it is correct to put all of us who signed the "petition against Smart Meters" into categories. Perhaps of the 1,000 people who signed there were some like me. I am in the County, on a well, no city water in the foreseeable future, so will not be impacted one way or another by smart meters. But I know people who are, or believe they are, negatively impacted by these kinds of emissions, so I signed mainly so these folks could get a hearing and be sure the Town had done its due diligence in this regard. And certainly the discussion here would not have taken place if only 100 people signed that petition. And maybe, because I am outside of Town, probably should not have signed the petition?

Interesting question about Town issues.

Sadly cannot vote in the municipal elections, even though those of us in the County are likely as impacted by Town laws and decisions, other than these meters, as those within the City limits.

Diane


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: JE1947
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:47 am 
As digital devices begin to serve in more and more ways, I have no objections to having this martian devices installed. Remember the TV series, "My Favorite Martian?" Again: when we know more about cell phones, I wonder if everyone won't have exposed themselves to brain cancer in doses far more than anything a smart meter can. If I'm willing to take that risk, because I like what smart phones do for me ... I will take the risk with little martian meters. Meanwhile, the struggle to prevent diversion of the Gila River and preserve it's beauty, marches on with diversionistas showing no sign of abating their plans. That is the Higher Calling I am focused on. I'll likely not know when the smart meter is installed, but will keep my focus on the Big Little River as vita; to our health as a broader community. I wonder total % of those signed up for the Network have chimed in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: susport
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:59 am 
When we pick up our cell phone and plaster it to our ear, we have the choice to do that or not. Someone who has health concerns can choose not to use a cell phone, or only use it on speaker mode. When the electric company hangs a meter on our home that effects the wiring throughout the house the element of choice has been taken away from us.
I totally agree with you that we need to also focus on the Gila River diversion. The importance of that issue does not reduce the importance of the "smart meter" issue. It's just a lot that we have to pay attention to both at once.
Susan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:47 pm 
You have a choice about whether to hold a cell phone next to your ear, but in most cases you don't have a choice to put your ear next to a digital meter because the meter is about ten inches underground with a plastic cover over it. Furthermore, the meters put out a lot less radiation than a cell phone and they put it out as a tiny slice of data once every seven seconds while the cell phone data is continuous. A cell phone is usually closer to you than a digital meter even if you use speaker mode or a headset. Furthermore, you continuously have cell phone radiation (along with FM radio and other radiation) passing through you even if you aren't using a cell phone or radio. Digital meters don't affect the wiring in your house any more than cell phone or radio waves affect your wiring. Radio waves travel through the air. Furthermore, your house wiring already has alternating current (a form of radiation) running through it.

You do have some choices. You can choose not to have electricity or running water in your house. You can choose to live out of range of any cell towers or radio/TV stations (although you'll have to get way out there). Or you have the choice to examine the evidence and weigh the risk of different forms of technology. There are lots of things we don't know to worry about, but digital meters should be among the least of our concerns.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Marsh
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:38 pm 
I always like your calm thinking Bruce.
I am not environmentally sensitive as some people are, and not worried about smart meter effects. I willingly use my cell phone as my primary phone, even though I fear indeed it's long term use. I do believe however, that there are our friends that will be affected, and I don't know the answer. A friend lives off grid to avoid many sensitivities, and rations out her few needed cell calls to taking and leaving voice mails. She knows that to much time on one effects her immediate health greatly. In this situation, as in many environmental sensitivities, I fear our friends are our "Canaries in the coal mind." If things are truly toxic, they will feel it before us, or any broad testing results.
On another note you touched upon, the freedom to live off grid; it's eroding! In Florida, it's no longer legal to live off grid, even if you have solar power, composting toilets, and water catchment. This is whole another topic, but one that that is alarming. Of course cities and townships must have codes, but if you buy acreage in the wild, I don't think anyone should tell you how to live on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: susport
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:05 pm 
Bruce,
My last post was a response to JE1947’s post about his/her willingness to accept the risk of using a cell phone because he/she likes what cell phones do. When I wrote about lacking personal choice with meters I was referring to electrical meters (both smart and digital). While I don't like the water meters currently being installed, I am less concerned about direct effects from that on me (because my meter is a long way from my home) than I am of the digital meter on the side of my house. Actually, the digital electrical meter on a home does effect the power running throughout the wiring of your home. If you google "switched mode power supply" you can read more about how digital meters step down the voltage from the power line. The result has been called "dirty electricity" and there is quite a bit of information on it if you choose to look for it.

You are absolutely correct that we are already being bombarded by RF and microwave radiation and have no choice about it. Personally I believe this is a health hazard. There are a lot of studies that have been done, some showing no negative health effects and others showing dire health consequences. What this tells me is that the jury is still out. We don't know conclusively that we're not harmed by it. The amount of RF and microwave radiation surrounding us is constantly increasing as we add more and more cell towers, cellular devices, and radio read meters. The technology hasn't been around long enough at the current levels to conclusively prove that humans and animals aren't harmed by it, especially at the ever increasing levels we are exposed to. Wouldn't it be prudent to slow down and see what happens with the current levels before adding more? Time will tell. Personally, I would prefer not to be a human guinea pig in this grand experiment. I don't know about you.
Susan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: n2ic
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2016 6:27 am 
Susan,

As to your comment on switched mode power supplies....

Virtually every one of the "wall wart" AC adapters that are ubiquitous now are switched mode power supplies. If you have any low voltage lighting in your house, it probably uses a switched mode power supply. Newer fluorescent lights also use switched mode power supplies.

They are used because they are energy efficient, inexpensive, and light weight compared with the older power supplies.

Steve


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: gorwest
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:06 am 
I had been wondering what some people meant by the term "dirty electricity". I had been assuming that it referred to the "noise" caused by interfering electromagnetic fields on radio signals, which it does and is where the basic term comes from.

But it happens that it is also a generic reference to a supposedly dangerous "pollution" in the lexicon of folks who suffer from sensitivities to such things, real or imagined. It carries the same implications as pcb's in the water or radioactive fallout or lead based paint does to us a larger group of people.

http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/07/06/dirty-dirty-electricity/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: susport
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2016 12:50 pm 
Thank you Gowest and Steve for the information. I found the article very interesting, and yes, I am aware that all those little converters attached to all of our electronics are used to step down current, and they emit what is being called “dirty electricity”.
The point I was attempting to make in my last post (apparently unsuccessfully) is that we should have a choice when it comes to devices which are attached to our homes or are buried on our property. That choice should not be whether or not we receive public utilities upon which we are all dependent. When there are less controversial metering options available, we should be allowed to request that those be used in lieu of metering devices that some of us believe to be potentially harmful.
I am not a scientist, my BA is in Philosophy. For most of my working life I was a professional massage therapist working with people trying to manage stress in their lives, and with those with repetitive motion injuries or occupational injuries. I have seen people become extremely ill due to stress. Believing that the meter on your home or 10” underground near your house is causing you to be ill is very stressful and can cause a plethora of physical symptoms that can have long term health consequences. This is especially true for those who already have compromised health and are the most vulnerable among us.
I have no way of knowing how many of those posting on this forum have more scientific education than I do. What I do know is that there is broad disagreement among scientists and health professionals on the issue of environmental pollution caused by RF and microwave technology. I also know that studies with “cooked” results are not uncommon, especially in cases where there is the potential to make lots of money from a given technology, drug, etc. I believe both sides of the issue are capable of selective research.
I freely admit that I don’t have the training to evaluate all of the studies done on this issue. However, I do sit up and take notice when 220 highly educated and respected scientists from all over the world feel ethically compelled to sign an appeal to the UN “to encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development.” The petition, signatures, and a short video by Dr. Martin Blank can be found here: https://www.emfscientist.org/ Dr. Blank’s credentials can be found here: http://www.physiology.columbia.edu/MartinBlank.html
I also take notice of the report by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine Recommendations Regarding Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Exposure which can be found here: https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/AAEMEMFm ... itions.pdf.
It would be interesting to see a list of studies done by organizations who do not stand to profit in any way by the conclusions reached.
Susan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:29 pm 
To answer the question about an unbiased opinion I found the article blow to be the most comprehensive and understandable paper on the current issue. This Australian scientist was ask by Canada to review the research and standards for smart meters. He covers, in general, the studies done and how the standards were set for human exposure, what standards committees are industry influenced and which are not.

Like myself he doesn't have much faith in animal studies, especially dead rat brains but has some excellent suggestions as to how to design human studies. He does believe that there are sub-thermal affects from emf/mw frequencies and recommends safer standards. Well worth the read, not too long.

https://www.google.com/search?client=sa ... 8&oe=UTF-8


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:14 pm 
Check out this video by Nick Begich, a doctor trained in "complementary medicine" talking about the positive and negative aspects of electromagnetic radiation on the human brain. Fascinating:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1_XUdQo2AU

The first quarter of the video, beginning about 1:43, is most interesting. After that, he demonstrates various tools people use for healing and measuring electricity and energy points on the body.

(This person posting put "mind control" in the title, but this only touches on MK a little. But "mind control" shouldn't turn anyone off, as it's documented science also.)

Peace.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:32 pm 
"The Federal Communication Commission has ruled that smart meters are safe based on their studies of “thermal” exposure. However, smart meters emit “non-thermal” radiation which is much higher in power density and more harmful than thermal emissions. Because of the risks they pose, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has called for a “…moratorium on smart meter installation until the serious public health issues can be resolved.”

This is from http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/02/vic ... rself.html.

Anyone learn anything yet about micro-pulsed EMF?

Contrary to others on this thread, I do not think we've "fully covered" this subject. Electricity is not as simple as some would like to think. Besides micro-pulses, which no one has responded about, now we also have non-thermal exposures which apparently have slipped by everyone as well....

Thanks for the info, everyone ~

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: frances
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:28 am 
Was up late last night and decided to check back in on this very long very entertaining very interesting chat. John, make a small book of this one; not kidding. A fly on the wall, an in a nutshell capture shot of how a certain generation cloaks their frets of deteriorating health without ever mentioning the word or acknowledging aging.

If there are any MD's dropping in on this maybe one could confirm what a veterinarian once told me when I worried about my dogs and cats (in the 80's mind you..pre-9/11) remaining in their carriers while being scanned, presumably with some sort of x-ray (?). You can't leave them in the carrier now but I traveled with them enough to be concerned about this exposure during the years when you could. She told me that the small amount of exposure would not affect them, that they don't live long enough to develop a cumulative effect. The animals would die from age related issues based on their expected lifespans. One cat lived to be 19, the other died at 13 from a virus contracted as a kitten, one dog lived to be 15 (old) and the other died in a freak accident at 13. We are not the canary in the coal mine, we are old shep sleeping on the front porch, or young shep being hit by a car.

I admire folks who urge us to attend meetings to stay abreast of our fair city's activities, IF one has the need to control their environment in any capacity. It's a shot anyway. Giving up many of the accoutrements of 2016 reminds me of Downton Abbey's titled characters lamenting the automobile and mixing of the classes. In truth if one even wants to live off grid today how does one get to that far flung place? With vehicles, fuel (the petroleum problem) and yes, extra time- all products of what the 20th century ushered in.

One more comment. I do think there is a kind of wishful thinking that scare tactic films play to, that creating fear has become a profitable industry in just about any fearful corner a buck can be made. We live...a lot longer than those in poor distraught countries...and we die...which is not protected by wherever we were cast on this earth. Catching glimpses of what awaits and projecting it to "out there" can be tended to in the most ignored, controllable region; within ourselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:18 pm 
I have no problem whatsoever with dying, frances. It's living with illness that's no fun.

Glad you find this effort to learn entertaining. I think it's the wrong place to learn.

_________________
jean7eisenhower@gmail.com
www.jeaneisenhower.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: frances
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:38 pm 
There is plenty of illness to go around.
I have been living with degenerative chronic hip pain for 4 years, and who da thunk it was caused by all that healthy running and racing I did for over twenty years on a hard (urban) surface. I agree it is tiresome/ life altering to not feel well ..it messes with one's soul as well as one's body. I hope you, Jeanne, find relief from whatever is the cause of your distress, I really do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:33 pm 
Ya Frances, its been quite a ride, even Mind Control was brought up with a link to an infomercial; I'm glad it was brought up because we have some of the most insidious methods of mind control active right here in Silver City. One is the repetitious showing of "Take Back Your Power" with all the tricks in the books, fast cuts, incomplete sentences etc; a lie told so many times becomes excepted as truth is mind control. Dozens of internet links to articles that many times say nothing but give a huge list of more links that anybody with a half a life could never follow nor analyze, but hey, somebody collected them or passed them on so they must be true so pass them on again; another form of mind control by those who wish to instill fear, even hysteria until what is real becomes indistinguishable from nay not be real.

Case in point, a woman recounted to me that as soon as the water meter was installed her blood pressure went sky high and blamed it on the meter. Maybe true but maybe not. I ask hhere is she was sensitive to her computer and wireless network, cordless phone etc. She said no. I ask her if she had seem the movie, "yes, more than once and read a couple of articles". She admitted to great fear of the meters and just knew it was the cause. So, what was happening? I'll only say that it makes me suspicious, but not of the meter.

Jean, next to answer your question about pulsating frequencies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:08 pm 
I don't think a release of a tiny amount of data every seven seconds qualifies as micro-pulsed EMF. The strobe effect of light happens with very fast pulses multiple times per second. Perhaps once a second might be considered micro-pulsed, although even that is long. If there are bad effects of micro pulsing (which there may not be), they probably wouldn't happen at this slow rate. I would be much more concerned about walking down Bullard where you would be passing 30 or more continuous WiFi signals at a power level able to reach 50 feet or so rather than five feet. This would give you thousands of times more EMF than a digital meter. And of course you would get a lot more EMF if you were foolish enough to sit down in a coffee shop.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: gorwest
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:06 am 
Or is pulsed EMF a good thing?

"Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT), also called pulsed magnetic therapy, pulse magnetotherapy, or PEMF, is a reparative technique most commonly used in the field of orthopedics for the treatment of non-union fractures, failed fusions, congenital pseudarthrosis and depression. In the case of bone healing, PEMF uses directed pulsed magnetic fields through injured tissue. This is believed to stimulate cellular repair. The FDA has approved several such stimulation devices. These devices provide a complementary solution that may aid in bone repair."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_electromagnetic_field_therapy

"Transcranial magnetic stimulation is FDA approved since 2011 for use on patients that failed to respond to antidepressants. Weak magnetic stimulation of the brain is often called transcranial pulsed electromagnetic field (tPEMF) therapy. Early hints of efficacy of tPEMF as antidepressant came from observations that bipolar patients improved their mood after a magnetic resonance spectrogram, an approach which has been labeled LFMS. Studies in rodents have shown behavioural effects of tPEMF that are consistent with antidepressant effects. In humans, the treatment is usually given once or twice daily for two or more weeks."

http://www.doctoroz.com/article/pulsed-electromagnetic-fields-how-they-heal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: frances
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:58 am 
Here are a few paragraphs commenting on Jonathan Kay's book, Among the Truthers. Conspiracy theory literature goes quite deep and wide. Kay is a Canadian; I think this "otherness" places him at a unique vantage point. He posits that America is the global leader in conspiracy thought. Below from Wikipedia.

Kay also writes about psychological factors. He argues that many people prefer explanations for disasters which feature expansive conspiracies because it is more difficult to cope with the underlying incompetence or vulnerability at the root of such events.[2]

Kay classifies promoters of conspiracy theories into different groups, including those he refers to as "cranks" and "firebrands". He defines a "crank" as a person who seeks to expose conspiracies as an engrossing mission to fill one's life. He claims this type of person is usually drawn to conspiracy theories after a mid-life crisis.[1] He defines a "firebrand" as a person who uses conspiracy theories to promote radical political views and thus gain public attention. He claims this type of person is usually university-age when they begin promoting conspiracies.

I think there is something to this....others may not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: JE1947
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 11:23 am 
As this goes on, I haven't been notified if my water meter has been tweaked or not.
I think my brain may have turned to mush because I like my cell phone, which, as I recall, was a sure fire way to give me brain cancer.
I don't want brain cancer, but I am all for a device that doesn't emit much EMP or radiation enough that concerns me when I think of the number of MRIs and x-rays I've had since getting very sick in 2012.
So, I may be too far gone to give a rat's pitootee about the meters.
Having been near death twice, and living through Vietnam, wife's cancer and death, hiking accidents, I'm glad I've adopted an approach that has taken me put into the wild and allowed me to see water running in cañons at a rate of cfs I can't calculate, but supplies three ranches with a source of spring fed waters that has never dried up. Not far from here. The beauty of our Gila River is a major concern, when one knows severe water shortages are coming in another ten or twenty years.
Harvesting our water is one way Silver City& Grant County could become a "jewel in the crown" of how communities show love and respect for water.
Soooo, the water meters ... if they prevent significant water loss due to leaks ... I'm o.k. with it.
Again, the information that shows the dangers isn't something I spend a lot of time on because in addition to the crap the diversionistas are up to re: the Gila & San Francisco, we also have an authoritarian absolute bat shit kook trying to deport millions; demean Muslims; make disparaging remarks about Jews; handicapped individuals; women; and who knows what else. Wait a day ... he'll find someone else to scape goat.
I flat out do not oppose these meters. Anyway, it's a free country and we can all prioritize. Remember the Gila though. At 68, my energy isn't what it used to be ... I guess I have to pick my fights. This one belongs to some others.
In David Soderburgh's "Ocean's 12" I think of how one of the characters (Don Cheattle) protects his private parts when he sets of a huge EMP device to shut down, for a few seconds, the electric grid in Las Vegas. Now THAT looked serious. I'd be worried if the City hauled one of those babies into town and began driving it around at night.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jean Eisenhower
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 11:57 am 
So much to reply to…

Frances, I didn’t say I was living with distress (though we all do, now and then). I was speaking theoretically, in the event that these energy-emitting devices do cause anyone distress, trying to encourage writers here to respect the possibility.

As Gordon has provided us the first nuggets of researchable material on pulsed EMF (Thank you, Gordon), I’m interested to read that these frequencies are supposedly being used for medicine in a positive way. I’d love to think that my meter would be showering my home with healing energies. But my earlier Wikipedia post said that pulsed EMF were used for warfare and in medicine for destroying nerve cells in those with chronic pain. So it seems they can both heal and destroy - depending on how they modulate the frequencies and the pulses.

Which leads us to question: Are we confident the frequencies and pulse rates of the Smart Meters are good or safe for the general public? We barely have the concept of “pulsed EMF,” with lots of speculation and dismissals on this thread, but virtually nothing substantial yet in terms of truly understanding this technology.

We all certainly feel the need to solve mysteries and eliminate controversies in our lives, but I don’t understand the hostility toward those who innocently put credence in scientific-sounding reports, videos, etc, even if those are eventually found to be lacking. What is needed is correction, not sarcasm and dismissal.

(Mainstream science has often been found lacking too. Recently a scandal arose that near half of “peer-reviewed” scientific publishing is not reviewed and that portion was found highly suspect, with the science not testing out. So there are crackpots and liars on both sides of this, some inside the system, and some outside. And the lies in Western Medicine run especially deep.)

Therefore, I’m trying to keep a level head, accuse no one of anything, but still ask questions and assert the right of respect to those who want to question the party line and bring alternative viewpoints.

Next issue: Do we care about effects of EMF or anything else on “highly sensitive” folks? Maybe some people don’t. The tone of the discussion here among some writers makes me wonder if they think all the HSPs (highly-sensitive people) can just die off, as they’re not destined to survive and evolve in our brave new world. Or maybe they deserve to die for not thinking positively enough and disabusing themselves of the idea that EMFs are bothering them. Maybe we could extend that also to people who are allergic to peanuts or wheat.

The level of scorn directed to those who claim to be highly sensitive, and to myself for standing up for those people, is really surprising, and disappointing, on a site supposedly serving the Community.

On a personal note: In 1993, I was in a highly stressed situation, with my 17-year old son diagnosed with a stage 3 cancer (he survived), a divorce, needing to make a traumatic move with two teenagers, health insurance company just that week gone bankrupt - and suddenly I was highly sensitive to noise, so much that within the year, I moved out to the country and lived off the grid. During that time, exposed to very little man-made EMF, with the energies of sun and wind my major energy inputs, I experienced, literally, a new way of being in my body. I became so highly sensitive that I began having experiences some might call shamanic or might equate with those of St. Francis. I was contacted by two acquaintances at the moments of their deaths - both accidents, totally unexpected by anyone - and they were only acquaintances, but I think they contacted me because I was the only person in their entire network whose sensitivity wasn’t compromised. (Just my theory, but no one has come up with a better one. And I’m open to other theories.)

Friends at the time shared with me some “alternative” ideas about energy, such as turning off my entire solar energy system each night or whenever I wasn’t using my very few electric appliances, which I did. And perhaps during that time I might have re-set my body’s energy standard somehow. I know that every time I drove to Tucson, I could only stand a few days there and couldn’t wait to leave; and when I did drive out of town, the relief I felt was palpable, wave after wave of stress flowing away.

How many other factors could be called on to explain my personal experience? For sure: too many to control for. So I can’t do a scientific study, and therefore I assert nothing, but have compassion for all who respect the invisible and often mysterious effects of energy and want to practice caution in certain situations that feel threatening and for which there might actually be evidence that it could be. And I appreciate our opportunity to keep asking questions, trying to learn.

Last note: My new Smart Meter, as I said, is located so close to my house (my kitchen) that it’s frame is underneath the house siding. And it’s smack in the middle of my oddly-shaped yard, shaped like a big, bent 8 or infinity sign, with the crossing point - and only pathway - right at the corner of the house, within a few feet of the main outdoor sitting area, very near my planting sink, my outdoor tub, and work area - not to mention it’s 7 feet from the kitchen sink and my dining table chair. I might have the one meter in town that affects me more than they’ll affect anyone else. Therefore, I have it shielded somewhat now with corrugated steel between it and the house, and I have another piece of steel to move around when I spend time in the yard. I have no idea whether the shields are needed or effective. I’m just waiting to learn more, and thinking about this as little as I can, so that I don’t skew my own experience, especially toward the negative.

But even though I don’t want to spend my days thinking about this, and frankly don’t have the time to do the research necessary to answer my own questions, especially as someone without an electricity background, I still assert my right to politely ask questions, for which I don’t think I should be responded to with ridicule and dismissals. If this is truly a Community Forum, I’d hope our questions would be answered respectfully. We seem to be finally getting a few movements toward answers here, and I hope it continues in this positive direction.


Respectfully,

_________________
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 Previous  1, 2

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