Dear WSSC,
In light of the notes now online by WSSC I have added a few more questions and edited this letter. Please use this letter as my next set of questions.
Scarato Question 1: What does the research show about how many pulses a minute smart meters emit, including mesh network message management [transmissions]? I am not talking about transmissions from meters talking to the cell tower or to the collection meter, but simply the total pulses of radiation each day. Please answer the question as to exactly how many times a smart water meter emits pulses of radiation a day.
-
WSSC heard testimony from their expert, who is a known industry consultant, that “Smart meters emit like a 2 minute cell phone call.” In actuality, Smart water meters, like smart electric meters, are continuously broadcasting RF waves. For example, the smart water meter Neptune E-coder R900i transmits data to the utility every 14 seconds! Neptune has 1 watt pulses (for AMI) every 7 1/2 minutes, and 100 mW pulses (for AMR) every 14 seconds. They are factory set.
-
See the Specsheet for the “smart” water meter Neptune’s R900® System, the R900® meter interface unit (MIU) here clearly showing pulses every 14 seconds
-
As another example, a Department of California study found smart meters had emissions averaging 60 times a minute. That would be about one pulse a minute. PG&E, a California utility, publicly stated in all its materials that its meters transmit only 6 times a day. However, when the court ordered it to submit data on the actual number of transmissions, the utility had to admit that its smart meters transmit 9,600 to 190,000 times per day! See it here https://www.smartmetereducationnetwork.com/uploads/health/PGE%209,600%20bursts.pdf
WSSC Answer: As we are in the early planning phase of this project, we do not yet know the exact type of smart meter we will be installing. While it is true that some smart water meters transmit constantly, our goal is to preserve the life of the battery to maximize the longevity of these meters. We will achieve this goal by requiring the selected vendor to use a system where the meter is inactive until it receives a “wake-up” call to transmit data. The meter will not transmit while in this inactive mode.
Scarato October 12, 2020 Response: All meters are inactive in between pulsed transmissions. I think you are thinking of AMR which wakes up when the truck goes by - not AMI. Please go to your consultant and ask for some examples of what types of meters do this. Regarding the AMI METERS we have technical specs on, they ALL transmit numerous times a day.
I included for you the spec sheet for the Neptune’s R900® System, the R900® meter interface unit (MIU) that states, “Standard mobile message every 14 seconds at 100 mW
Standard fixed network message every 71 ⁄2 minutes at 1 Watt”, so it seems the transmissions will be several times a second, and yes after they transmit, they stop. Then they transmit again. For this water meter it is 250 times an hour minimum.
Standard fixed network message every 71 ⁄2 minutes at 1 Watt”, so it seems the transmissions will be several times a second, and yes after they transmit, they stop. Then they transmit again. For this water meter it is 250 times an hour minimum.
Please note these AMI meters ALL show the same type of transmissions.
WSSC Follow up Question 1.
Please provide us some specific make and model examples of AMI meters that utilize a “wake-up” feature as you described in your letter to me. Otherwise this response from WSSC seems to be a wording choice that downplays the reality that Smart Water AMI Meters transmit hundreds of times an hour in brief and intense pulses.
Scarato Question 2: I am repeatedly reading that the industry says smart meters will be part of the internet of things (IoT) and collaborating with the 5G ecosystem. It is unclear why Leeka Kheifets, WSSC’s health expert, said they are not connected. Is it correct that these smart meters can be used later, whether intended to at this point in time or not, for the 5G “ecosystem”?
Multiple documents talk about smart meters and 5G.
WSSC Answer: It is unlikely that our smart meters will be part of the 5G “ecosystem” for two main reasons. First, 5G devices use more battery power to transmit at higher speeds – raising concerns for us around battery longevity in our meters. Secondly, AMI-equipped meters do not need 5G speeds to transmit data. The 4G Long Term Evolution for Machines platform has more than enough bandwidth to support current and future AMI needs, while still preserving battery life.
Scarato October 12 Response: WSSC’s response of “unlikely” offers nothing to us in the way of facts. As the references I provided state, “5G’s network slicing, compared to the present-day LTE, will allow smart energy use cases to be handled by a single network.” I provided you with numerous citations showing companies that have a business use case to integrate meters into their 5G plans. Once you install these on our houses what recourse do we have if and when WSSC wants to upgrade to 5G? Furthermore, research on 4G shows impacts to the brain, so it is no consolation for WSSC to state that “4G LTE
has more than enough bandwidth.” Read science on 4GLTE HERE. This was an inadequate response and provides no assurances to ratepayers.
has more than enough bandwidth.” Read science on 4GLTE HERE. This was an inadequate response and provides no assurances to ratepayers.
WSSC Follow up Question 2
Once you install these on our houses what recourse do we have if and when WSSC wants to upgrade to 5G?
Scarato Question 3: Is it WSSC’s expert opinion that smart meters are safe for humans after long- term exposure? Is it WSSC’s expert opinion that smart meters are safe for bees, birds and trees after long term exposure? Please answer yes or no. Then provide documentation for both the actual study showing long term safety for humans and for bees, birds and trees.
WSSC Answer: WSSC Water is an expert in the field of water purification and distribution, as well as the safe treatment of wastewater. We are not experts on the topic of radio frequency emissions, which is why we rely on government agencies entrusted to protect the public health and scientific experts who have studied the topic for decades.
To date, there is no consistent scientific evidence of health problems caused by exposure to radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones, smart meters or similar devices. In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for the collection and analysis of scientific information related to the safety of cell phones and other electronic products, states that the current limit on RF energy set by the Federal Communications Commission remains acceptable for protecting public health. Groups that have thoroughly researched this issue and have come to similar conclusions include the World Health Organization, Federal Communications Commission, Food and Drug Administration, American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute and the California Council on Science and Technology.
We respect that there are differing points of view and we remain open to listening and fully support additional research on this topic.
Scarato October 12 Response:
This is not about “differing points of view”, this is about facts. The WSSC must immediately rescind such a statement as it is false. None of the entities the WSSC cites in the above have ever looked at wildlife and plants, nor do they say RF is “safe” after long term exposure, nor do they cite any studies that show long term safety i.e. a study of humans exposed for years.
First, you did not answer my question at all as I asked about birds, bees and trees. Stating you are not experts in health is unacceptable. If WSSC is going to facilitate ratepayer exposures to RF radiation, then you are responsible for knowing what you are doing. If not, then you should not be placing devices on our homes that transmit detrimental/carcinogenic radiation.
Most importantly the references you provide have nothing to do with birds, bees and trees. They are ALL about impacts to humans. Thus, as stewards of the environment, you are displaying that no such protections exist for our flora and fauna. You are also exhibiting that in fact, WSSC is going to effectuate an exposure that NOT a single health and safety agency has ever researched nor set a safe limit for.
In regards to the references you provided:
This is an industry tied group and not to be confused with the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer (Read about that here).They admit they have not even done a research review on RF when it comes to humans since 1993. On this WHO page they state very clearly that they are “undertaking a health risk assessment of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, to be published as a monograph in the Environmental Health Criteria Series. This publication will complement the monographs on static fields (2006) and extremely low frequency fields (2007), and will update the monograph on radiofrequency fields (1993).” Either way, they do not say it is safe and they are only focused on humans.
The FCC is not a health and safety agency as they say themselves, but in fact they are what Harvard University Press calls a “captured agency” due to the fact that the current (and past) leadership is composed of former industry insiders. Read Harvard Book on FCC here. Furthermore, FCC limits have NOTHING to do with impacts to wildlife, plants or trees.
Again, the FDA has no expertise nor have they EVER researched impacts to wildlife birds or trees. Their website content is misinforming the public who might miss that they ONLY have looked at tumors and not other endpoints like brain damage. Scientists have written the FDA about this but they refuse to respond.
-
The FDA scope of authority on this issue has NOTHING to do with impacts to wildlife, plants or trees.
American Cancer Society (ACS)
The American Cancer Society has not done any research reviews on the issue of Radiofrequency. Furthermore, if you read the website pages on the matter it says, “While RF exposure might not cause cancer directly, concern has been voiced that cells in the body that have been damaged by exposure to some other substance might somehow be more likely to become cancerous when exposed to RF waves. In theory, this might be a concern for cancer patients being treated with ionizing radiation and/or medicines that might cause cancer themselves.”
The ACS also says in bold letters here, “The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not have any official position or statement on whether or not radiofrequency radiation from cell phones, cell phones towers, or other sources is a cause of cancer.”
In addition, the ACS has zero expertise in impacts to wildlife and trees.
First, the National Cancer Institute has been very clear that they do NOT make recommendations on radiofrequency radiation. They also are only focused on sharing study results related to cancer, but not brain damage. Furthermore, they do not have any interest in wildlife, trees or plants. Read a 2020 letter from the NCI to New Hampshire 5G Commission HERE that clearly confirms this.
First, the Board Chair is industry connected and the CCST is not an independent public health agency. More importantly their review is from 2011 and thus lacks the key studies of the last near decade. Furthermore, they did not look at impacts to birds, bees and trees.
Thus, none of these entities WSSC cited have ever reviewed all the impacts found in research. The WHO EMF Project has decades of outdated information (according to the website itself) and is industry tied along with the FCC and CCST. Oncology Letters published “Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest” concluding, “There seems to be a cartel of individuals monopolizing evaluation committees, thus reinforcing the no-risk paradigm. We believe that this activity should qualify as scientific misconduct.”
The FDA is only focused on the effects to humans of cancer in their literature review and not DNA damage, brain damage nor damage to reproduction. The NCI and ACS state they are not tasked to issue conclusory statements. No ever looked at impacts to flora and fauna.
Thus, WSSC has not provided answers to my question nor any documentation of safety. If anything the answers reveal a large gaping hole in accountability on the part of our federal regulatory system and WSSC must clarify this honestly.
WSSC Follow up Question 3
Will you be updating your content to ensure it states that NO Health or Environmental Authority has reviewed the impacts to brain development, not to pollinators, trees plants and other wildlife?
Will you be sharing this with the Commission so they are informed?
Scarato Question 4: Have any health studies been done on smart meters that have followed people for over ten years to understand if there are health impacts? If so, please share documentation.
WSSC Answer: On this topic, we would again defer to the experts, who have to date not identified radio frequencies at the level being transmitted by smart meters to be a significant health concern.
Scarato October 12 Response: This is unacceptable. The WSSC says they will defer to experts yet the experts do not provide this information.
WSSC Follow up Question 4
Please cite the health study that shows safety per your “experts” the WSSC refers to. I specifically asked for a health study that looked at people for over ten years. If no such study exists then please confirm no such study exists. The “experts” you referred to have no citations for such a study that I can find. There are, however, numerous studies showing adverse effects from the type of radiation these meters emit.
Scarato Question 5: According to the WSSC Commissioner Meeting on August 19, 2020, at 3:02: 22, “there are some impacts of the RF to humans and what she determined was that they are minimal and low and equivalent to a cup of coffee.” My question related to this statement is: What are the health impacts, specifically, that you are referring to in that sentence?
WSSC Answer: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization (WHO) classifies RF as a Group 2B carcinogen: possibly carcinogenic to humans. Currently, WHO assigns the same classification to caffeic acid, which is found in coffee.
Scarato October 12 Response: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization (WHO) also classifies lead as a Class 2B possible carcinogen. So if the WSSC is going to make such parallels then they should not cherry pick by just saying coffee, but instead they should list the variety of agents and agents that made it to the list of 2B carcinogens which remain the subject of major regulatory attention, including pesticides like DDT and Kepone, industrial materials such as PBBs, carbon black and carbon tetrachloride, jet and diesel fuel, and mercury. The IARC classification is based on weight of evidence, not amount of risk. With any toxic exposure, it takes decades to accumulate enough weight of evidence, meaning enough scientific research and statistics (in human epidemiology this refers to sick people) to show the exposure is toxic. Cell phone and other wireless emissions cannot be compared with coffee.
More importantly and to the point, the IARC classification is not about how carcinogenic the exposure is but rather it is about the body of evidence that exists. So you simply cannot make such a statement. The advisory group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of World Health Organization advisory group has released new recommendations to reassess as a “high priority” the cancer risks of radiofrequency (RF) radiation between 2020–2024. The recommendations were published in The Lancet Oncology on April 18, 2019. The classification was in 2011 and the body of evidence has increased significantly by the way, which is why scientists state it is a carcinogen.
-
Miller et. al (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102) “Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC's current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).
This statement by the WSSC is an inaccurate depiction of scientific facts and the WSSC must issue a retraction of such a statement. Radiofrequency is not like coffee. Even if it were (which it is not), would you make your child or baby drink cups of coffee hundreds of times an hour as smart meters do transmit intense pulses hundreds of times an hour.
WSSC Follow up Question 5
Will you be retracting this inaccurate depiction of the scientific classification of RF?
Scarato Question 6: Regarding the word “minimal” stated at 2:58:30, “According to the expert, there seem to be minimal impacts on health.” What do you mean by “minimal”? Please specify the percentage of exact numbers that leads you to say this word so it is clear what you mean. Do you mean 1% or 2% or more?
WSSC Answer: Dr. Leeka Kheifets, professor of epidemiology at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, found negligible health impacts from non-ionizing RF used by smart meters. Her report, which can be found here, concludes that “because smart meters are not used in close proximity to the human body (unlike cell phones, tablets, computers and even Wi-Fi) and because they transmit relatively infrequently, their exposure levels are very low and far below U.S. and international exposure limits.” She further states: “The exposures to RF from smart meters are neither long enough nor strong enough to approach the safety standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other bodies.”
Scarato October 12 Response:
-
This is an inaccurate description of where smart meters may be in the home. My meter is in my house RIGHT under my picnic table and right next to my laundry room and where my children watch TV. Furthermore its location is in a place where I will be literally touching it.
-
To state they” transmit relatively infrequently” is a stretch as my research shows they transmit every 14 seconds (See spec sheet for the Neptune’s R900® System )
I suggest WSSC go back to the expert and ask her for factual information regarding the words she used such as “low”, “infrequent”, “long enough”, “strong enough.” That said, of course smart meters are “low” compared to FCC limits but that is simply because FCC limits allow outrageously high levels of RF. Several countries have RF radiation limits 100 times less than the US. The important issue is understanding the RF limits in terms of biological effects, not regulatory limits that are decades outdated.
-
“Assessment of Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Emissions from Smart Meters”by Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
WSSC should not be allowed to use the words “low” or “infrequent” without proper qualification. It used to be that a blood lead of 10 was no problem for kids. Now we know better. There is no safe level of brain damage for children. Even low levels of lead are harmful. Plus these pulses clearly are “long” and “strong” enough to reach the collector meter. If you want actual numbers please see this chart from the Bioinitiative which shows published studies and the level of exposure used in the research. This way you can see how actual levels of exposure are linked to effects.
WSSC Follow up Question 6: What do you mean by “low” and “infrequent”? Please define this with numbers. The consultant who charged $20,000 surely can answer this question. If you are unable to get a response then please retract such a sentence. No professional would use such terms with clarification as to what numbers are involved. WSSC deserves actual data, not meaningless adjectives that downplay the situation for those who are not experts.
Scarato Question 7: At the last Commission meeting in August, the WSSC stated that, “Experts have weighed in on the health impacts.” What experts are you referring to? I only have heard from one. Please share the names of the others.
WSSC Answer: As noted above in response to Question 3, to date, there is no consistent scientific evidence of health problems caused by exposure to radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones, smart meters or similar devices. In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for the collection and analysis of scientific information related to the safety of cell phones and other electronic products, states that the current limit on RF energy set by the Federal Communications Commission remains acceptable for protecting public health.
Scarato October 12 Response: It seems that again you are putting forward agencies that have not investigated impacts to the brain and reproduction, nor impacts to trees, plants and wildlife. As noted earlier the FDA has NOT looked at these issues and the FCC only cites the FDA. Thus the experts you cite have NOT reviewed the totality of the research. Furthermore, many experts who have published studies on radiofrequency are calling to reduce public exposure. Read the EMF Scientific appeal of experts here. Why is the WSSC cherry picking which experts to showcase? The FDA has never even done research on health effects yet the EMF scientists all have.
WSSC Follow up Question 7
The WSSC should retract that sentence and clarify that, “The FDA has weighed in on cancer only, but only ooked at cancer and has not investigated the effects to birds, bees and trees.” Will you be updating your content so it is correct?
Scarato Question 8: How much money was spent on the consultant brought in to talk about health? Is there an ongoing contract?
WSSC Answer: The contract cost was $20,000. The contract is not ongoing.
Scarato Question 9: Please attach scope of work for the consultant.
WSSC Answer: Per our correspondence, the request for quote was provided to you on September 15, 2020.
WSSC paid her 20,000.
Note Leeka Khefits, PhD is an industry consultant and has received funds from organizations funded by companies that use smart meters and companies that have a conflict of interest.
Scarato Question 10. To date, $1.1 million towards the AMI project has been spent. Would you detail that $1.1 million expenditure?
WSSC Answer: Response: The $1.1M expenditure on the AMI project is broken down in the table below:
Scarato Question 11: As I understand it, there was 8.6 million dollars awarded to a consulting firm to guide WSSC through the AMI process. What is the name of the consulting firm? What is the scope of work for the awarded contract?
WSSC Answer: The consulting firm is Arcadis. Again, per our correspondence, the request for the quote was provided to you on September 15, 2020.
Download the contract with Arcadis HERE. WSSC plans to pay over 8 Million dollars to this company!
Scarato Question 12. How are you publicizing the virtual public hearings for AMI smart meters? In addition to social media, which gets little attention from ratepayers, will you be informing ratepayers with a notice of the 100 million dollar project hearing?
WSSC Answer: Our outreach efforts for the AMI Public Hearings were detailed at the start of each meeting by Communications and Community Relations Director Chuck Brown. We are pleased to highlight those efforts here:
-
An advertisement was published in The Washington Post on September 10, 2020.
-
We promoted both hearings heavily on Facebook and Twitter for the past several weeks – including paid posts on Facebook.
-
We issued news releases on September 21 and September 29 announcing both public hearings. This release was posted to the home page of WSSC Water’s website: wsscwater.com. Additionally, both releases were also sent to out on the 21st and 29th to our 1,380 Constant Contact subscribers.
-
We also purchased radio time to promote these hearings on WTOP, WMMJ (Majic FM), WHUR, WLZL and Pandora. The ads ran between September 21 and September 30.
-
Additionally, information about both hearings was posted on the Events section of our homepage, as well as on the AMI webpage on our website.
-
Finally, we emailed information about both hearings directly to those customers who have contacted us via our email address: AMIproject@wsscwater.com, as well as to our online customer feedback community.
Scarato October 12 Response: Great. We appreciate that you are doing outreach. Now WSSC should also clarify what you actually know and do not know about the health and environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation in this outreach. Otherwise WSSC is not being fully transparent.
WSSC Follow up Question 12
Will WSSC be sharing research on impacts to pollinators and trees?
Scarato Question 13: There seems to be some confusion regarding if the Commission or WSSC ever did vote for AMI or not. A WSSC Commissioner stated at 3:39:40, “It is my understanding that this was put in the budget in 2011... And it has been carried forward in the budget...” However I do not see a vote by Commissioners with an understanding of the details of AMI, for example with information shared with the Commission that smart meters would emit radiation? Am I correct that Commissioners never actually voted on implementation of “smart” radiofrequency emitting meters?
WSSC Answer: At their June 17, 2020 meeting, WSSC Water Commissioners unanimously approved the Fiscal Year 2021 Operating and Capital Budgets and the Fiscal Years 2021 – 2026 Adopted Capital Improvements Program (CIP). At their September 16, 2020, meeting, WSSC Water Commissioners unanimously approved and transmitted our Proposed CIP for Fiscal Years 2022 – 2027 to Prince George’s and Montgomery counties. This document included $102.6 million budgeted for AMI. This includes money spent to date, what we expect to spend this fiscal year and an estimate on future year spending. It is important to note that this is an estimate for planning purposes only and is expected to change when a vendor is selected, and the project moves through future phases. As noted on the CIP project description form - Schedule and expenditure estimates are Order of Magnitude estimates originating from the March 2011 study. These estimates are expected to change based upon the latest technology available at the time the project is bid.
In addition, the AMI project has been included in the Adopted WSSC Water six-year CIP since FY2013. See page 7-19 in this link for the first time AMI was included in the CIP approved by both Counties and adopted by the Commission. https://www.wsscwater.com/files/live/sites/wssc/files/Financial/FY13TBACIProllup.pdf
Scarato October 12 Response: So from this response it is clear that approvals for the budget were in 2020 and years ago in 2013, the AMI project was included in the Adopted WSSC Water six-year CIP. So there has not been a proper vote on the issue itself.
WSSC Follow up Question 13
How can ratepayers best effectively stop something they never wanted when WSSC is not allowing a proper vote on the allocation of funds? Please list the opportunities for decision makers to fully stop AMI.
Scarato Question 14: WSSC has been putting videos on their social media promoting the AMI program. See it here https://twitter.com/WSSCWaterNews/status/1296537604184301569. I cannot believe it is legal or ethical for the WSSC - paid for with my tax dollars - to promote a project that customers have not been a part of deciding. Why is only one side of the story showcased, as several customers testified against AMI meters in this meeting? If public input is welcomed, why not share the inclusive events of the meeting? Please explain why testimony against AMI meters from ratepayers was not posted on your social media.
WSSC Answer: WSSC Water has engaged in extensive customer outreach efforts to educate, inform, encourage participation and promote transparency on a wide range of issues and initiatives. Our social media channels are an important tool in these ongoing efforts. Through social media, we have been able promote the AMI project and inform customers on the details of how to participate in the public hearings. Because we value public feedback and complete transparency, we have devoted an entire webpage to the public feedback we’ve received on AMI. This page can be found here.
Additionally, it is important to note that WSSC Water’s budget is not supported by any tax dollars and we receive no funding from either Prince George’s or Montgomery County. All of our operating programs and capital projects are paid through water and sewer related fees and charges.
Scarato October 12 Response: This does not answer my question because I was pointing out the WSSC is putting forward comments on social media that are pro-AMI rather than sharing what actual ratepayers are stating. See it here https://twitter.com/WSSCWaterNews/status/1296537604184301569
.
WSSC Follow up Question 14
1. Will the WSSC tweet and share on social media voices of ratepayers who might be opposed to AMI? 2. How about sharing that no research has been done on long term exposure as well? 3. What is the decision making process on what material to present?
Scarato Question 15: At 3:37:40 the issue of the county council and their opinion was raised in the August 19, 2020 meeting. It seemed there was an assumption that the Council approved this in some way. Can you specify when there was a discussion on smart meters with the Council?
WSSC Answer: Both County Councils have been briefed on the AMI project. As noted above in Question 11, AMI was first approved by both councils and Commissioners in WSSC Water’s Adopted Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Improvements Program. Most recently, both County Councils approved WSSC Water’s Fiscal Year 2021 Operating and Capital Budget on May 7, 2020, which included $20.7 million to advance the AMI project.
Scarato Question 16. Residential meters are located on or in our property. In my case, I have the meter in my basement and the place where the “smart” meter would be is directly outside my basement door. This is where my family congregates outside. Once a transmitting meter is set up, WSSC cannot control how it is used. Is it your opinion that smart meters are safe? I am not asking if you think harm is established, but rather if you are sure it is safe for my children who will be standing near the meter and having outdoor meals near the meter.
WSSC Answer: We would defer to the scientific and public health research on this topic, as stated above.
Scarato October 12 Response: As stated earlier, “The FDA has weighed in on cancer only but has not looked at other effects (sperm damage, brain damage, oxidative stress etc) and has not investigated the effects to birds, bees and trees. There are zero studies that have followed people exposed to smart meters for at least a decade.
Here is some research however that the WSSC should reflect on and “defer to”:
-
Abstract: In 2006, the government in the state of Victoria, Australia, mandated the rollout of smart meters in Victoria, which effectively removed a whole population's ability to avoid exposure to human-made, high-frequency, non-ionizing radiation. This issue appears to constitute an unprecedented public health challenge for Victoria. By August 2013, 142 people had reported adverse health effects from wireless smart meters by submitting information on an Australian public web site using its health and legal registers.
-
“It is a well documented 92 case series that is scientifically valid. It clearly demonstrates adverse health effects in the human population from smart meter emissions. The symptoms reported in this case series closely correlate not only with the clinical findings of environmental physicians, but also with the scientific literature. Many of the symptoms reported including fatigue, headaches, heart palpitations, dizziness and other symptoms have been shown to be triggered by electromagnetic field exposure under double blind, placebo controlled conditions. Symptoms in this case series also correlate with the Austrian Medical Association’s Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF Related Health Problems.” - American Academy of Environmental Medicine Letter
See also these experts:
-
International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space, Scientists (4,503), Engineers (8,036), Medical Doctors (2,593), Nurses (4,177),Psychologists, Psychotherapists and Social Workers(9,663)
WSSC Follow up Question 16
The health expert did not speak to the issue of birds, bees, trees and wildlife. Please see these experts calling to reduce RF. Will you be updating your content so it is correct?
Scarato Question 17: What is the process by which ratepayers will file their need for medical accommodations related to radio frequency emitting devices? My daughter has a letter from her doctor stating that electromagnetic fields should be reduced. Clearly, we should not have to pay for not having a device we cannot have. Who do we send these to?
WSSC Answer: We are not aware of a process for customers to file medical accommodations related to radio frequency emitting devices. We are, however, exploring various opt-out alternatives, including opt-out through a meter relocation to the outside of the home and into the public right-of-way. We have not yet made a decision on an opt-out alternative as we continue to carefully evaluate all options.
Scarato Follow up question 12
Again this creates a rather complicated and unacceptable situation for people. If you are going to create an exposure that doctors warn against then we expect that there is a process moving forward to file such human rights and American for Disabilities complaints. Furthermore, how will you handle people who are renters and have no say in the matter? What if the owner of the property says they must have a smarter but the renter does not want one? What if the owner does not want a meter relocation to the outside of the home? From the WSSC presentation at the hearing the movement of the meter would come at a cost. This is not fair to those on a fixed income. Plus, if we do get the meter moved then how do we ensure it will not impact our property landscape and property values?
WSSC Follow up Question 13 through 23
My additional follow up questions are:
-
Will WSSC be creating a process for filing for medical reasons and ADA compliance? We certainly hope one should not pay to get an opt out. Plus what about the signal intrusion from the neighbor’s meters?
-
Will WSSC be considering the issue of renters and landlords?
-
Will WSSC be considering the issue of apartments and condos where there are 4 to 20 meters all on one wall and one family living adjacent to the meter bank?. How will they get the opt out? Will they have to pay all the opt out fees?
-
Why is there a vote on an opt out when commissioners have not even approved the AMI program itself?
-
How much did WSSC spend on the MMS poll of WSSC customers on AMI?
-
Can you please share the scope of work for MMS poll on AMI?
-
At least one of the witnesses testifying in favor of AMI at the public hearing on 9/30 failed to disclose his business relationship with WSSC and AMI vendors. Other witnesses testifying in favor of AMI seemed to be echoing industry talking points. Did WSSC staff personally recruit or provide suggested testimony to any of the AMI public hearing witnesses? Please confirm this with a written confirmation from WSSSC staff involved in AMI.
-
Is there any reason why WSSC omitted written testimony from reports to commissioners such as the letter dated 9/29/20 from AFSCME?
-
Can you please share your assumptions and work papers showing how you calculated the net present value and payback period for AMI and various opt out scenarios?
-
Is it accurate for staff to summarize public hearing testimony as solely concerned with RF/Health and Safety when witness testimony also expressed concerns about cost, privacy, jobs and environmental impacts?
We appreciate you taking the time to provide such extensive feedback and information. WSSC Water is committed to protecting the health and privacy of our customers and communities. At our core, we are an agency dedicated to public health. The AMI project goals are to improve and enhance the essential services that we provide to you, while reducing our overall carbon footprint and reducing our operational costs. For more information on AMI please visit wsscwater.com/AMI.
Regards,
Damion
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.