Thursday, August 20, 2020

Take Action on WSSC's $200 MILLION Dollar AMI "Smart" Meter Fiasco!

The Problem with WSSC's $100 MILLION Dollar AMI "Smart" Meter Fiasco!

Ratepayers beware- the WSSC is about to charge us $ 200 Million dollars to put in stupid "smart" meters that are CHEAP, Emit RADIATION and line the pockets of industry. 

 
Sign up to testify at the Montgomery County and Prince George's County budget hearings. 

WSSC's capital improvement program is now before the Montgomery and Prince George's County councils and county executives. Now is a great time to make your views known to your county officials. Besides email messages and letters to officials, there are opportunities to testify and better educate county officials and the public about WSSC's AMI plan at upcoming Montgomery county CIP budget forums scheduled for October:

The FY22 Budget forums are scheduled as follows


And in February 2021, there will be formal public hearings on WSSC's CIP in Montgomery County. 


 Scroll Down: See Draft Text for An Email 

PG residents send to:  

budgetgroup@wsscwater.com, 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,  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, anne.healey@house.state.md.us. joseline.pena.melnyk@house.state.md.us, mary.lehman@house.state.md.us, ben.barnes@house.state.md.us, alonzo.washington@house.state.md.us, nicole.williams@house.state.md.us, geraldine.valentino@house.state.md.us, marvin.holmes@house.state.md.us, ron.watson@house.state.md.us, erek.barron@house.state.md.us, andreafletcher.harrison@house.state.md.us, jazz.lewis@house.state.md.us, darryl.barnes@house.state.md.us, nick.charles@house.state.md.us, dereck.davis@house.state.md.us, veronica.turner@house.state.md.us, kris.valderrama@house.state.md.us, jay.walker@house.state.md.us, susie.proctor@house.state.md.us, michael.jackson@house.state.md.us

MoCo residents send to: 

budgetgroup@wsscwater.com, 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,  countyexecutive@co.pg.md.us, 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, anne.kaiser@house.state.md.us, eric.luedtke@house.state.md.us, pam.queen@house.state.md.us, kathleen.dumais@house.state.md.us, david.fraser.hidalgo@house.state.md.us, lily.qi@house.state.md.us, ariana.kelly@house.state.md.us, marc.korman@house.state.md.us, sara.love@house.state.md.us, kumar.barve@house.state.md.us, kumarbarve@gmail.com, jim.gilchrist@house.state.md.us, julie.palakovichcarr@house.state.md.us, alfred.carr@house.state.md.us, emily.shetty@house.state.md.us, jared.solomon@house.state.md.us, charlotte.crutchfield@house.state.md.us, bonnie.cullison@house.state.md.us, vaughn.stewart@house.state.md.us, lorig.charkoudian@house.state.md.us, david.moon@house.state.md.us, jheanelle.wilkins@house.state.md.us


Want Ideas on what to say in your email?

Subject line: I Oppose WSSC Water's AMI Smart Meter Project

Body (option #1): Remove the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) smart meter project from the CIP budget. There are other alternatives available that are more cost effective and won't impose huge rate increases on WSSC Water's customers. More than $100 million has been budgeted for AMI in fiscal year 2022. Since 2018, four states have rejected AMI proposals for exorbitant costs and lack of customer benefit. Specifically, Virginia's Fairfax Water also determined that it was more cost effective not to implement AMI. As a result, Fairfax Water has kept their customer rates low. Additionally, a 2015 research study concluded that the average life of AMR/AMI water meters is 8.2 years. WSSC Water presented in August 2020 that the average life of analog meters is 17.03 years - that's more than double of the proposed smart meter. I am opposed to having my rates increase to pay back an estimated $100 million, plus interest for a substandard infrastructure.

Signed, 

[your name]
[your address]
[your county]

Body (option #2, pick whichever points you like. Make sure to include at least 1 opening, financial & closing):

Opening
  • Remove the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) smart meter project from the CIP budget.
  • There are more cost effective alternatives available than AMI smart meters that won't impose huge rate increases on WSSC customers.
Financial
  • The economics of WSSC's AMI smart meter proposal is based on a 2011 study that has not been updated. There is a risk that the cost will be greater than the estimated $100M.
  • Implementation of AMI will grossly increase water rates, making it less affordable for many of WSSC Water's customers. 
  • Since 2018, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Kentucky and Virginia have listed that their official reasons for rejecting smart meter proposals has been a) exorbitant costs; and b) lack of customer benefit.
  • Virginia's Fairfax Water also determined in 2018 that it was more cost effective not to implement AMI.
  • WSSC Water's current meters last more than twice as long, compared to the proposed AMI smart meters.
Environment
  • RF radiation effects the health of all living things on our planet.
  • As proposed, WSSC's AMI smart meter deployment is bad for the environment. It will result in tens of thousands of working meters entering the waste stream.
  • AMI meters are powered by lithium batteries that when disposed of leach into the soil and make their way into our water supply.
Health
  • RF radiation is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
  • It is stated on the American Cancer Society's website, "Because RF radiation is a possible carcinogen, and smart meters give off RF radiation, it is possible that smart meters could increase cancer risk."
  • Many water meters are located inside our homes, exposing us to RF radiation several times a day, all day. 
Privacy
  • Smart meters will put WSSC into the business of collecting massive amounts of customer data, thereby invading our privacy.
  • Under the guise of "early leak detection"  WSSC Water will be able to deduce the routine habits of each household. 
  • It's stated on WSSC's "History of Meter Reading" video that our data leaving the meter is not encrypted. Encryption occurs halfway through the data transmission process. 
  • This proposal jeopardizes the rights of property owners to control which equipment is installed on or in their property.
Closing
  • I am opposed to having my rates increase to pay back approximately $100 million plus interest for a substandard infrastructure.
  • I am opposed to paying for AMI smart meters that harms people, pollutes the environment and invades customer's privacy.
Signed, 

[your name]
[your address]
[your county]

 

Spread the word to your family and friends and have them TAKE ACTION to Stop this insanity!
Many hands make light work.
Lets go.

YES, our rates will go up from this insanity. 

10 Reasons WSSC $10 Million AMI "Smart" Meters Are A BAD IDEA.
  • The "expert witness" hired by WSSC staff is an industry shill who lacks credibility- after all she has defended companies that pollute the air with electromagnetic radiation for YEARS. She has a long history of being paid by companies to do "science' and that "science" always downplays harm- even when it FINDS and effect. Go figure. 
and yes- THEY WILL NEED TO BE CHANGED EVERY 8 YEARS OR LESS BECAUSE these meters do not last that long!!!!!!! 
 

  • There is no consensus that AMI smart meters make economic sense. Fairfax Water has rejected AMI smart meters as too costly (as of December 2018). Their rates are half of WSSC's rates
  • Deployment of AMI smart meters is a risky proposition. WSSC has a poor record of containing costs of IT projects. Smart meters will put WSSC into the business of collecting massive amounts of customer data. This is not WSSC's core competency.
  • There is no evidence that implementation of AMI smart meters will reduce water rates. In fact the opposite is true, they will increase water rates.
  • The Maryland Public Service Commission has established a statewide policy that customers may opt out of AMI smart meters. So it is outrageous that WSSC seems hell bent on REMOVING our right to OPT Out. 
  • We depend on WSSC staff to provide unbiased information so commissioners can make fair decisions. Staff has instead provided misleading information about AMI smart meters. 
  • The economics of WSSC's AMI smart meter proposal is based on a 2011 study that has not been updated. There is a risk that the cost will be much greater than the estimated $100M. Beware ratepayers cause we are PAYING and will PAY PAY PAY! 
  • As proposed, WSSC's AMI smart meter deployment is bad for the environment. It will result in tens of thousands or working meters entering the waste stream. In addition, digital meters do not last as long as the mechanical ones that lasted decades. AMI is an E-WASTE nightmare. 
  • WSSC's AMI smart meters will kill jobs. Meter reader positions will be eliminated. WSSC says they will be put into new positions BUT WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. 
  • Why is staff presenting AMI smart meters as the only solution to improve WSSC's meter reading operations? There are alternatives available that are more cost effective and avoid the health and privacy concerns of AMI smart meters.
STOP WSSC SMARTMETERS! 

 


Posted by at No comments:

"Will You Feel Safe?" A Mother in Gaithersburg Writes the WSSC



August 15, 2020

Dear Commissioners,

As a ratepayer and stakeholder of the proposed Advanced Meter Infrastructure project, I am incited by the partial picture painted by the AMI project team in their latest presentation. It is incomplete, biased and makes a sham of WSSCWater’s mission statement.

1.    Public Input.Not onepublic comment from dozens of ratepayers opposing the project is represented in the August 19, 2020 AMI Project Update. Many traveled great distances and took time off from work and family to invest in this process. Yet there is no mention — not even on the Lessons Learned slide — of the educated testimony about the possible health1effects and data privacy2infringements AMI presents. 

This failure makes a farce of the emails I receive stating, “Public Input Welcome.” In fact, it is not.

This action nullifies the sincerity of your Mission Statement,3which promises: 

• “…employees who act ethically, are accountable, and conduct ourselves with integrity and transparency.” These attributes are falsified by the lack of incorporating public comments.

• “We achieve the highest level of quality, safety, productivity, and cost-effectiveness, demonstrating world class service to everyone.” Safety and cost-effectiveness (see below) will notbe upheld with a shift to AMI. You should also strike “everyone.” Thousands of your customers oppose AMI.

2.    Costs.As a ratepayer, I insist on seeing a cost comparison: replacing handheld meter reading devices and training staff VS. scrapping everything and building a new platform (AMI). This calculation is conspicuously absent in the narrative. As per the Dominion case in Virginia,4we know that smart meters are not cost effective and exploit the “captive” ratepayer.

Then there are the environmental costs. A conversion to smart meters produces an avoidable waste steam of junked, yet operational, analog meters. This will necessitate the removal of your “Environmental Stewardship” claim in the Mission Statement: “We continuously enhance and protect natural resources and the environment for the health of future generations.”
3.    Job loss. As you know, the state of Maryland and the global workforce struggle with sudden, unexpected unemployment due to pandemic-related layoffs. The AMI project will dismiss WSSC workers in droves. This is more than unfortunate. It sends a message to the people of Maryland that WSSC values automation over job protection and creation.

I now realize that the hours I have spent researching and writing this testimony is time wasted. You are not listening. At least I know I tried, and that I spoke up for thousands of residents and over 1,800 employees, including those out of the road this very day who are supporting their families, while you work safely from the comfort of your homes. Will you feel as safe there with a smart meter pulsing all day long just outside your, or your child’s bedroom window? Listen to yourself, if not me.


- A Mother in Gaithersburg  


1 https://www.sej.org/publications/tipsheet/many-are-claiming-health-problems-caused-smart-meters
2“Are Smart Meters A Waste of Money?” KCET.ORG, December, 2012— “Data to be collected by the smart meters, including intimate personal details of citizens' lives, is not necessary to the basic purpose of the smart grid -- supply/demand balancing, demand response (DR), dynamic pricing, renewable integration, or local generation and storage -- as promoters of the meters, and uninformed parties, routinely claim. Instead, the meter data is serving to create an extraneous market for consumer data mining and advertising (i.e., "big data" analytics). Even those critical of smart meter deployments often seem to uncritically accept the myth that the meters somehow help manage electricity supply and demand.”
“In April 2013 the first reports were issued: the most striking fact to emerge, was that the San Diego Gas & Electric company had disclosed, pursuant to legal process, the records of 4,062 customers. It's not clear, from the report, who asked for and received those records, and why. Aside from governmental monitoring, energy data harvesting, or hacking by third parties could also be possible,” https://www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/2014/06/01/smart-meters-friends-or-foes-between-economic-benefits-and-privacy-concerns/#1ea2c79563a6
3https://www.wsscwater.com/about-us/overview.html

 

4https://www.nbc12.com/2020/05/04/regulators-refuse-reconsider-denial-dominions-smart-meter-plan/

 

 



Posted by at No comments:

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


 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

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 

,  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

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, July 19, 2020

Montgomery County Council Should Halt 5G and Protect The People



Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, July 16, 2020

Corruption and Astroturfing ALERT Councilman Hans Riemer Promotes Industry Funded 5G Coalition

ALERT: Councilman Hans Riemer is featured in a new Maryland State Coalition to Promote 5G and most likely strip local authority! 

 The MD5G Coalition is Astroturfing! They say they are a Movement"? When they are surely an industry funded campaign to promote 5G at ANY Cost. 

 SHAME on any elected official supporting a cell tower in our front yard! 

 We are appalled to see that a government offcial  is lending his name and time to a group filled with industry. We would like to know WHO is funding this Public relations effort? 

 Please see a letter sent to the entire County Council last week below. 
Dear Councilman Hans Riemer, 

I saw an industry tied press release for 5G that quoted you. I am concerned about a Montgomery County Councilman involved in a commercial venture. 


"5G is an exciting opportunity for Montgomery County and for Maryland. We must get the right infrastructure in place to pave the way for innovative technologies,” said Montgomery County Councilman Hans Riemer. “We are all relying on our networks more than ever and we need to open the door for private sector investment to build and expand those networks. Stronger networks, for example, will improve access to distance learning and virtual healthcare, let alone make it easier for all of us to conduct business in an increasingly distanced or telecommuting environment.”

Current members of the MD5G Partnership include: Maryland Tech Council, Greater Baltimore Committee, Northeast Maryland Tech Council, Greater Washington Board of Trade, Verizon, Ports America Chesapeake, Ports America, Crown Castle, Junior Achievement of Central Maryland, T-Mobile, The Children’s Guild Alliance, TranZed Academy for Working Students, KCI Technologies, Education Networks of America, BaltiVirtual, Maryland Chamber of Commerce and Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Montgomery County.

I had a few questions I thought you could answer for us. 

  1. Is it ethical for an elected official to be a part of this commercial venture? 
  2. Were you approached by this group to offer a quote? 
  3. Do you receive money from any of the companies funding this PR machine? Please provide me a list of monies you have received. Please also provide a list of meetings you have held with Verizon, Crown Castle or commercial entities. 
  4. How much money does Crown Castle and Verizon put into this partnership? The website and materials look very professional so clearly deep pockets are involved. 
  5. Did Montgomery County fund any of this partnership? 
  6. Has Hans Riemer used time that could be spent on health and safety community matters in this partnership? meetings etc? If so please provide me a list of the meetings or phone calls you have had relate to this matter? 
  7. You say in the release that "Stronger networks will improve access to distance learning" . Please explain how 5G will improve access to distance learning in detail. The website insinuates that low-income families will benefit from this "modern network that can handle large amounts of data quickly" Which schools are getting a 5G upgrade? Does this mean all the devices an technology will be upgraded to 5G? Has the Council and School Board approved? What will the cost be? Which schools?  Please clarify. 
  8. You say in the release that "Stronger networks will improve access to virtual healthcare".  Please explain how 5G will improve access to  healthcare in detail. The website talks about " remote medicine solutions through wearable devices that gather and monitor a person’s vitals such as blood pressure and pulse and Extending physical therapy and remote surgery through the world of VR."  For whom, what areas how? What exactly do you mean? which  hospitals? Please provide full details. 
  9. I saw on your website it states that 5G will "Allow police body cams and security cameras to provide clearer resolutions, accurate locations, and real-time data" So is 5G planned to be in Mo Co police officers body cams? If so please provide details on that. What is the cost to taxpayers? Has it been show to impact responsiveness over the current body cams or current technology ?
  10. I have been trying to set  up a meeting with you and your staff but you never have responded. I would like to ask again. If not then why not? 

As I am a Montgomery County resident and you are one of my elected officials I think it is critical there is transparency and communication on these relationships. 
Thank you in advance for answering these questions one by one. Please respond in a numbered fashion to be clear we are clearly communicating

Signed XXX a Montgomery County resident

Details here https://md5gpartnership.com/how-5g-affects-you/Press Release here  https://i95business.com/releases/1919

“As America’s first and only nationwide 5G network, T-Mobile is proud to partner with MD5G for a better-connected Maryland. With education and planning, we can ensure everyone in the community benefits from the innovations and opportunities that 5G will bring,” said Brendan Bellotte, senior manager of engineering development at T-Mobile.

 Think 5G is safe? Think again. 

 The Insurance authority Swiss Re released a white paper classifying 5G as a “high” emerging risk cautioning that “potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency.” If insurance companies won’t take the risk why should we? 

 Over 500 cities in Italy have passed resolutions to halt 5G until safety research has been completed.  Entire countries like France, Switzerland, and Nigeria are having a national conversation on the safety of 5G and they are launching major investigations to research the issue of safety. (Details HERE)

Studies show property values drop up to 20% on homes near cell towers. Would you buy a home with a mini cell tower in the yard? 

Crown Castle (a company building small cell infrastructure throughout the USA) has a statement in their 2016 10-K Annual Report that says: 
“If radio frequency emissions from wireless handsets or equipment on our wireless infrastructure are demonstrated to cause negative health effects, potential future claims could adversely affect our operations, costs, or revenues… We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.” 




Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)