WSSC: Water Meters Pulse Radiation Every 14 Seconds!

How often do water meters pulse radiation?

WSSC is putting forward misinformation by stating the water meters only connect to the tower only a few times a day.  


This IS MISINFORMATION. Why? Because "smart" meters pulse radiation not only to the tower. They emit constantly- FAR FAR more than 4 times a day--  and our bodies absorb the radiation.

WSSC hired an "expert" (who actually has received significant funds from companies) who said that smart meters only pulsed a short time. She forgot to mention that smart meters pulse every  14 seconds!!!!!!!!

It is a fact that "smart" meters emit constant pulses of radio frequency radiation

The water meter called a Neptune E-coder R900i emits radio frequency every 14 seconds. This meter has been installed in Romulus and other Michigan cities. 

Neptune AMI meters send 1-watt microwave radiation pulses every 7 ½ minutes, as well as 100 mW pulses every 14 seconds.  

Here is a screensaver from the manual of a Neptune "smart" stupid water meter. 

Neptune water meter Manual 

• Neptune info: https://www.flows.com/residential-water-meters-sub-meters/
• Badger: https://www.badgermeter.com/

See a YouTube video of smart water meter transmissions.

Information curtesy of Smartmeter Education Network and from Smartmeter Harm. 

Showcased in 2018 by Neptune Technology Group, these AMI meters send 1-watt microwave radiation pulses every 7 ½ minutes, as well as 100 mW pulses every 14 seconds. The 1-watt pulses are for fixed network data collectors – eg. “small cell” towers in the public right of way. 

Even if a water company only has an AMR system at present – with drive-by or walking data collection — these meters will automatically transmit 1-watt pulses as if there was “small cell” infrastructure or nodes to receive them, with no need for “any type of MIU reprogramming or reconfiguration” later. 

Neptune describes these 1-watt pulses as “high-power”. Electrical engineers I’ve spoken with confirm these are high power, such as from equipment 2+ miles away. These 1-watt transmitters will be inside homes and in sidewalks, with constant, close public access. 

The meters are also 2-way communicating.

The R900® MIU unit is the RF transmitter unit, and is connected to the battery-powered water meter (eg. T-10), which has its own digital mechanics.

Spec sheet for R900® MIU

From the Neptune website:

“Why the R900® MIU?

A single radio frequency unit, Neptune’s R900® MIU features an interleaved, high-power, 1-watt fixed network message that reduces infrastructure costs while allowing reading in any mode – walk-by, mobile, or fixed network – without separate reading systems, site visits, or any type of MIU reprogramming or reconfiguration. Available in both wall and pit mount configurations, the R900 MIU greatly improves access to meter readings, and delivers detailed consumption information as well as alerts for leak or backflow, helping your utility more proactively identify and resolve customers’ questions. “

R900® RF MIU

“Neptune’s R900® meter interface unit (MIU) works seamlessly with prior generations of equipment and can transmit meter reading data via walk-by, mobile, or fixed network without reprogramming.”

System key features listed on the website include:– 1-watt fixed network message reduces AMI infrastructure costs– Simultaneous mobile and fixed reading capability– Two-way RF transmission– 96 days of hourly data logging capability

Spec sheet R900 MIUneptunetg.com/globalassets/products/literature/18-002039-faq-r900-rf-miu-04.18.pdf

R900 MIU FAQneptunetg.com/globalassets/products/literature/publication_im-r900-miu-10.15.pdf

Other Neptune equipment spec sheets and guides:

neptunetg.com/globalassets/products/literature/18-001848-ps-r900-miu-02.18.pdf

E-Coder spec sheet
neptunetg.com/globalassets/products/literature/18-002719-ps-e-coder-10.18.pdf

Encoder spec sheetneptunetg.com/globalassets/products/literature/17-001109-spec-solid-state-absolute-encoder-register-10.17.pdf

Neptune T-10 water meter spec sheetneptunetg.com/globalassets/products/literature/18-001898-ps-t-10-small-03.18.pdf

Neptune Mach-10 water meterelmhurst.org/DocumentCenter/View/15192/Mach-10-Meters?bidId=

WSSC Harvard Physician Dr. Carpenter talk about Smartmeters.

Watch Harvard Physician Dr. Carpenter talk about Smartmeters. He states that it is false that there is "no evidence" of harm. He says we have evidence that demonstrates convincingly that exposure to radio frequency has adverse health effect.

WSSC: Use Analog, not AMI meters

August 19, 2020

Dear WSSC Corporate Secretary and Commissioners of Montgomery County and Prince George’s County, Montgomery County Council Members, and Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich,

     In my first testimony to you in February 2020, opposing AMI “Smart” Water Meters I told my story of my beloved pet cat who developed extremely high blood pressure 3 weeks after a Pepco Smart Meter was installed on my house. During the afternoons my cat laid approximately 2.5 yards from the smart meter that was on the outside of the house much of the time.  Because of the extremely high blood pressure, she had a detached retina and lost her vision permanently in one eye.  She was extremely lucky that I had gotten her to the vet as quickly as I did before she lost her vision in both eyes or had a serious stroke. The vet put her on blood pressure medication.  After having the smart meter removed and replaced with an analog electric meter, her blood pressure quickly returned to just a little over normal and she could greatly reduce her blood pressure medication.  That was my first understanding of the harms of smart meters.  My vet had heard of other pets having varying serious health problems after a smart meter was installed on their home.  There are many reports of people and animals experiencing serious health effects from the installation of Smart Meters on their homes. Please see www.stopsmartmeters.org.uk (see articles at bottom of the page in the link on Smart Meters).

    But today I would like to address some other concerns I have about placing a Smart Meter on my or anyone else’s home.

1.       AMI Smart Meters are not cost effective.  There is not a common consensus among water utility companies that AMI smart meters are cost effective.  At least five state regulatory commissions have rejected utility Smart Meters because they are not cost effective: Virginia, California, New Mexico, Indiana, and Massachusetts.  Fairfax Water, in Virginia has rejected smart meters because they are not cost effective. The AARP has warned its members for years about the huge cost of utility smart meters.  As a consumer, I would like you to use the safest, most cost effective approach to monitor water usage. I feel that Smart Meters are expensive, unnecessary, and harmful.

   

2.     Smart meters take away jobs from the employees who come to our homes to record our water usage.  Especially at this time everyone who has a job, desperately needs to keep their job. Maintaining the employment of your water meter reading employees will save them and their families from terrible consequences by taking away the money they need to provide for their families.

3.      An opt-out, even a “no-cost” opt out is not a good solution to this dilemma for two reasons. 

A.    Because most people do not know that these smart meters are harmful and will not know to request an opt-out.  Meanwhile they, their families and pets may develop health problems and they will not know why, and 

B.     Because we can still be negatively affected by our neighbors’ smart meters. 

·      However, if you do proceed with the installation of Smart Meters, please provide a “no-cost” opt-out option. 

4.    In my opinion, the installation of Smart Meters is not the best solution to this problem.  Wireless communications are more and more becoming recognized as harmful.  Thousands of peer-reviewed studies done by our best scientists have shown this. The microwave radiation electromagnetic pulsed frequencies used are unnatural to our bodies and the bodies of animals, birds and insects, and are harmful to nature.  We have come to a point where we have learned to develop these technologies, but in the words of Dr. Devra Davis, the founder of the Environmental Health Trust, “Just because we can do something doesn’t mean weshould do something.” We need to be very responsible with how we use technology and not let it take away our common sense as to what is best for the greater good.  Please use new analog meters to replace old worn out meters and keep everyone safe from harm and save money.

5.     I feel that the best choice is to use updated analog meters because they are less expensive, it serves your purposes of replacing worn out meters that are not giving accurate readings, and will not cause harm to people, children, pregnant women, or babies.  If Smart Meters wind up costing the public more, that is unacceptable, especially at this time during the pandemic when many people have lost their jobs or their businesses, are on the brink of being evicted, and are sometimes, very sadly, becoming homeless, or worse, dying of the coronavirus and leaving their family without a breadwinner. 

6.      My present water meter is inside my house just a couple of yards from where I am in the kitchen a lot of the time.  I am very concerned that a new Smart Meter installed in or on my home may harm my health. Please use new analog meters and do no harm to life. 

                   I am very grateful, every day, to everyone at WSSC involved with providing us with a reliable source of clean water, a necessity of life.  Thank  

                   you so very much for what you do to make that possible. 

Sincerely,

Anna R. Pritchard, Doctor of Naturopathy, CNC., Certified Nutritional Consultant, RN., Registered Nurse, BSN., Bachelor of Science in Nursing.

Dear WSSC "AMI is a financially unsound investment"

To: WSSC Commissioners and AMI Project Team                                                    BY EMAIL          

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

Do not move forward with the proposal to procure AMI smart meter contracts or projects.

Before I address the reasons why I’ll share a recent experience. While shopping for toilet paper, I came across flushable wipes. I quite enjoyed using flushable wipes; the packaging is nice, they’re portable, they work well, they’re convenient and some brands are advertised as “Totally Flushable. Totally Innocent.” They even explain that they use a patented SafeFlush Technology® so that wipes start to break down immediately after flushing. Yet, I did not purchase the wipes. Why? Because I’m aware of the damage they cause thanks to your information campaign, “Keep The Wipes Out of The Pipes!”

My two take-a-ways are these:

   1) Newer is not synonymous with better. Old-fashioned toilet paper gets the job done just fine.

2) Marketing gimmicks and false advertising are the name of the industry game. Wipes marketed as “flushable” technically pass requirements to be safe for sewage or septic systems yet water utilities around the world are dealing with the costly burdens of fatbergs.      

The flushable wipe campaign is akin to that of smart meters—inflated assurances of efficiency, reliability and safety that technically could be true, but in actuality are not -- I implore you not to buy the hype.

The states of New Mexico (2018), Massachusetts (2018), Kentucky (2018) and Virginia (2019) have all listed that their official reasons for rejecting smart meter proposals has been a) exorbitant costs; and b) lack of customer benefit. Unofficially, health effects from radiation emissions fueled much of their customer’s opposition. According to Nekabari Goka, as one public utility commissioner put it, “I hear a lot about enablement and potential in grid modernization proposals…however potential is not a benefit.”

A common argument promoting smart meters is the aging infrastructure. The current meters have lasted decades and are still operating well, whereas the life span of smart meters is a fraction of its analog counterpart. A research study sponsored by Badger Meter, referenced in the article, “Water Utilities Change AMR/AMI Systems More Frequently than Previously Thought” showed water utilities change their smart meter reading systems at an average age of 8.2 years. This 8.2-year average is far more frequent than the commonly referred to 20-year life expectancy for the meters themselves. John Fillinger, Badger Meter’s director of utility marketing states, “The study findings highlight the factors water utilities should consider and why it is important to plan for the true expected life of a new meter reading system.”  This is common industry knowledge as the frequent need to upgrade the AMI meters was also addressed in your former RFQ 16215.

As I previously testified in February 2020, I want to remind the commission that the current FCC approved safety standards are being challenged by lawsuits* and the potential non-compliance issues. Additionally, by the former RFQs own admission, should the possibility of reallocated FCC licensed frequencies go into effect, the entire AMI would be rendered inoperable. The current meter system does not pose such a catastrophic risk to the utility company or to the customer. It is extremely bizarre that with the current challenges of maintaining the existing infrastructure, you are willing to compound those challenges with in an inferior, risker product and spent approximately $100 million to do so. Furthermore, since WSSC operates as an enterprise fund, more rate increases will be imposed on customers to pay for something that we keep telling you we don’t want.

WSSC is innovative. You are leaders in the water utility industry -- out of state water utilities come here to learn from your expertise -- yet this insistence on following the herd and gambling close to $100 million on the problematic infrastructure of smart meters is frankly, dumbfounding.

There are alternatives available to accomplish the same goals without the health, cost and privacy risks. You already have technology for early leak detection that works effectively and is safe. Acoustic fiber optic (AFO) monitors PCCP 24/7 and warns of imminent pipe failures; Sahara, another acoustic based system, identifies real time leaks and pin points their locations. Continue being the visionary leaders that you already are. Perhaps consider downscaling the AFO or engineering a creative combination of fiber-acoustic robotics to install at the premises instead of smart meters.

Overall, AMI is a financially unsound investment. I oppose the implementation of AMI or any exorbitantly priced metering system that transmits radiofrequency microwave radiation.

I have presented no matter of mere 'concern' or any other non-substantive matter, but solely matters of substance, of fact and law.

 

 - A Montgomery County Resident

 

Halt "Smart" Water Meter Rollout U.S. Government Scientist to WSSC

August 17, 2020

TO:  WSSC Commissioners

Chris Lawson - Chair and Prince George's County Representative
T. Eloise Foster - Vice Chair and Montgomery County Representative
Fausto R. Bayonet - Montgomery County Representative
Howard A. Denis  - Montgomery County Representative
Keith E. Bell - Prince George's County Representative
Sandra L. Thompson - Prince George's County Representative

From:  Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.

Retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D., Applied Physics, Harvard University)
(Short biography at the end of this message.)

As a retired U.S. Government scientist, I urge you to stop WSSC from making its biggest mistake ever:  the conversion of its metering system to wireless smart meters.  They will increase the exposure of the public to harmful radiofrequency radiation every day and every night for the indefinite future.

In this era of COVID-19, we do not need another assault on the health of the public, especially in the two counties served by WSSC.  They have the highest cumulative numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths of any counties in Maryland.

My understanding of WSSC's Plan, in Brief

WSSC plans to provide wireless smart meters for all of its customer accounts, which number 475,000 in the two Maryland counties that WSSC serves:  Montgomery County and Prince George's County.  If I understand correctly, each of these smart meters will likely have a peak radiofrequency (RF) power output between 1 and 2 watts.  Thus, altogether, WSSC is planning to add 475,000 to 950,000 watts of peak RF power output capability, distributed throughout the two counties.  And WSSC apparently wants us to believe that this capability will have no adverse health effects on any county residents.

The Health Argument Against Wireless Smart Meters

To be judged "safe", those wireless smart meters must cause NO HARM TO ANYONE, even though these meters will be communicating with WSSC every day and every night, indefinitely.  However, to date, WSSC seems to be showing very limited interest in safety.  In fact, to those of us outside of WSSC, even that limited interest seems to have surfaced only AFTER WSSC Management had already decided to implement wireless smart meters.  That limited interest took the form of a presentation, and a related document, from a consultant hired by WSSC Management to speak to the WSSC Commission at its meeting on February 19, 2020.  That consultant made an earnest effort to make the case for safety, but had insufficient evidence to assure NO HARM TO ANYONE.  That is not surprising because evidence of the harm caused by radiofrequency radiation continues to accumulate and is overwhelming.  To date, thousands of peer-reviewed biomedical research publications have examined and highlighted the many adverse health effects of radiofrequency radiation.

For an overview of the harm caused by radiofrequency radiation, including the radiation emitted by wireless smart meters specifically, please see the first attached document, entitled "Wireless smart meters harm human health."  This document was first presented to WSSC Management on January 19, 2020 and has been updated today.  To date, no response has been received from WSSC.  This document cites many references and is further supported by five additional attached documents.

For a quick look at what is covered in the first attached document, here are several of the section titles:

o  Personal stories of those harmed by radiofrequency radiation from wireless utility meters and other wireless devices continue to accumulate.

o  Three surveys link health problems to exposure from wireless utility meters.
o  Individuals harmed by exposure to radiofrequency radiation tell their stories in videos.

o  Scientific evidence of harm from radiofrequency radiation has been growing for decades and has become overwhelming.

o  The NIH National Toxicology Program finds "clear evidence" that radiofrequency radiation causes cancer.
o  The World Health Organization classifies radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B human carcinogen.
o  253 of the world's EMF scientists appeal to the UN and the WHO to protect the public from harm from radiofrequency radiation, including the radiation from smart meters.
o  Review papers document the scientific evidence of harm from radiofrequency radiation.
o  Books document the harm from radiofrequency radiation.

o  Public awareness of harm from radiofrequency radiation is growing and is finding expression at local, state, national, and international levels.

o  40,369 Maryland ratepayers have "opted out" of wireless smart meters for electricity.
o  297,823 individuals and organizations have signed the "International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space".
o  217,000 individuals have signed up for the "5G Summit".
o  Public Television programs raise public awareness about the risks of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
o  Video documentaries bring discussions of the risks of radiofrequency radiation to the public.
o  U.S. Supreme Court upholds "Right to Know" ordinance about cellular radiation risk.
o  Children's Advisory Council to the Governor of Maryland recommends phasing Wi-Fi out of Maryland's schools.

Other Concerns that WSSC's Plan Raises

While this message focuses on health concerns, there are other important concerns that are stated below but that are not further elaborated in this message or in the attached documents:

o  Privacy concerns arise from the daily monitoring of customers' behavior through their water consumption (such as when their homes are occupied and when they are not, and when their children arrive home from school).

o  Security concerns arise from the need to keep secure an immense database of largely unnecessary information about WSSC's customers, since no organization, not even the Department of Defense, has succeeded in protecting its data from unwanted intrusion.

o  Economic concerns arise from the immense cost ($100 million, estimated by WSSC) for the conversion to wireless smart meters, at a time of extreme fiscal stringency.  Also of concern is the high uncertainty that these costs can ever be fully recovered without rate increases, as WSSC attempts to maintain technically complex wireless smart meters that will likely have shorter lifetimes than current metering technology.

o  Employment concerns arise from the fact that cost recovery is likely based on firing nearly all WSSC staff who read meters, at a time of dramatically high unemployment.  And most of these staff do outdoor jobs that are much safer in the current COVID-19 era than most indoor jobs.

o  The MANDATED installation of wireless smart meters, as currently contemplated by WSSC, would ignore the rights of property owners to control which equipment is installed on their property, especially in the absence of an unpaid opt-out option.  A paid opt-out option, though better than no option, would smack of extortion ("pay or we will irradiate you, forever").  And neither an unpaid, nor a paid, opt-out option would protect the public from the radiation from their neighbors' wireless smart meters.

Who am I?

I am a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D., Applied Physics, Harvard University, 1975).  During my Government career, I worked for the Executive Office of the President of the United States, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  For those organizations, respectively, I addressed Federal research and development program evaluation, energy policy research, and measurement development in support of the electronics and electrical-equipment industries and the biomedical research community.  I currently interact with other scientists, with physicians, and with other informed individuals around the world about the impact of electromagnetic fields, including radiofrequency radiation, on human health.

I have been a resident of Montgomery County since 1979.

Thank you for your attention.

Regards,

Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D. 

ALERT 

WSSC is planning on rolling out harmful toxic Smartmeters and spending 99 million taxpayer funds to do so. PLEASE write your elected officials and the WSSC to stop this insanity. 

Email your opposition to WSSC proposed AMI "Smart" Water Meters to 

chris.lawson@wsscwater.com, eloise.foster@wsscwater.com, fausto.bayonet@wsscwater.com
howard.denis@wsscwater.com, keith.bell@wsscwater.com, sandra.thompson@wsscwater.com

,  marc.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov,  Councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Friedson@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Glass@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Jawando@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Katz@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Rice@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov, countyexecutive@co.pg.md.us, BLLaster@co.pg.md.us , CouncilDistrict1@co.pg.md.us, councildistrict5@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict6@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict7@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict8@co.pg.md.us, ouncilDistrict9@co.pg.md.us, District4@co.pg.md.us, DLTaveras@co.pg.md.us, dmglaros@co.pg.md.us>, GPKonohia@co.pg.md.us

Take Action: Contact the WSSC to Halt AMI Toxic Smartmeters

Take Action to Contact the WSSC 

Tell Them:  NO SMARTMETERS

Email your opposition to WSSC proposed AMI "Smart" Water Meters to 

 

chris.lawson@wsscwater.com, eloise.foster@wsscwater.com, fausto.bayonet@wsscwater.com
howard.denis@wsscwater.com, keith.bell@wsscwater.com, sandra.thompson@wsscwater.com

, marc.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov,  Councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Friedson@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Glass@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Jawando@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Katz@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Rice@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov, countyexecutive@co.pg.md.us, BLLaster@co.pg.md.us , CouncilDistrict1@co.pg.md.us, councildistrict5@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict6@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict7@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict8@co.pg.md.us, ouncilDistrict9@co.pg.md.us, District4@co.pg.md.us, DLTaveras@co.pg.md.us, dmglaros@co.pg.md.us>, GPKonohia@co.pg.md.us, news@wamu.org, newsdesk@wjla.com, newstips@cbs17.com, news4pr@nbcuni.com, desk@wusa9.com, jnorwood@dcw50.com, darcy.spencer@nbcuni.com , Erika.Gonzalez@nbcuni.com,, klewis@sbgtv.com, kojo@wamu.org, news@wamu.org, iflatow@sciencefriday.com, newsroom@wtop.com, Maggie.Fox@nbcuni.com, tara.bahrampour@washpost.com, ariana.cha@washpost.com, Lena.Sun@washpost.com 

Please find below an expanded list of officials at the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) to whom you may wish to express concerns about WSSC's plan to impose wireless smart meters on it all of its customers.  This list now includes the individual addresses of the six "WSSC Commissioners".  The USPS address for the main individual, Carla T. Reid, is also provided.

Carla A. Reid
General Manager and CEO
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
14501 Sweitzer Lane
Laurel, MD 20707
Email: carla.reid@wsscwater.com
Website:  https://www.wsscwater.com

Names, positions, and email addresses:

Carla A. Reid - General Manager and CEO - WSSC  <carla.reid@wsscwater.com>
Sheila Finlayson, Esq. - Corporate Secretary - WSSC  <sheila.finlayson@wsscwater.com>
Amanda Stakem Conn, Esq. - Legal Counsel - WSSC <amanda.conn@wsscwater.com>
Latonya Allen - Administrative Assistant - Board of Ethics - WSSC <latonya.allen@wsscwater.com>
Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., J.D. - Office of the Inspector General - WSSC <arthur.elkins@wsscwater.com>

Chris Lawson - Chair and Prince George's County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <chris.lawson@wsscwater.com>
T. Eloise Foster - Vice Chair and Montgomery County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <eloise.foster@wsscwater.com>
Fausto R. Bayonet - Montgomery County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <fausto.bayonet@wsscwater.com>
Howard A. Denis  - Montgomery County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <howard.denis@wsscwater.com>
Keith E. Bell - Prince George's County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <keith.bell@wsscwater.com>
Sandra L. Thompson - Prince George's County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <sandra.thompson@wsscwater.com>

Email addresses alone (for easier copying/pasting into email messages):

carla.reid@wsscwater.com
sheila.finlayson@wsscwater.com
amanda.conn@wsscwater.com
latonya.allen@wsscwater.com
arthur.elkins@wsscwater.com

chris.lawson@wsscwater.com
eloise.foster@wsscwater.com
fausto.bayonet@wsscwater.com
howard.denis@wsscwater.com
keith.bell@wsscwater.com