Page 1 of 1
Posted on March 6 at 10 a.m.
Including a long quote from Cindy Sage does not help your argument, Susan - her writings on this are no more informed by scientific findings than yours. She cherry picks results here and there, largely out of context, but does not listen to other scientific results that do not fit into her narrative.
The SDG&E respose to Judge Yip-Kikugawa that you refer to in your article does not make the "large duty cycle" point that you think it does. In fact, the summary of that report says that the radios in these meters (both of them combined, including the network infrastructure) will transmit RF about one minute a day (for a duty cycle of less than 0.07%), and that they are tested and validated to be FCC compliant. Only by misinterpreting this report can it be described as providing "continuous, pulsed RFR."
Anyway, thanks for motivating me to look into the facts and make an informed decision about this. Time for me to move on now.
On Smart Meters Can Be Postponed If Homeowners Act Today
Posted on March 5 at 2:22 p.m.
Nockamixon, you're right that privacy concerns should be openly discussed. I would certainly not want a device that spies on me or makes it easy for those with ill intent to learn about my private matters. Your specific questions are important, and I'm not sure why those responsible haven't addressed these issues, and communicated to the public, adequately.
However, the fact is that the technology used for these meters cannot do any of the nefarious things that are being claimed. They just do what the analog meters do, but record the information more frequently and make it available for the energy companies (and for us, the consumers) to view.
If anyone has a pointer to a factual account of the technology that addresses in detail the privacy issues that Nockamixon summarizes, will you please post it here?
EastBeach's comments on this are also quite apropos.
The WHO report that No2SmartMeters refers to is exactly the kind of careful study that we need to inform this debate, although it doesn't make the point the No2SmartMeters seems to think it does. The report is focused on the effects of RF fields emitted by various kinds of devices; it reviews the literature and concludes that there is "limited" evidence of detrimental effect with cell phone usage and "inadequate" evidence for other sources. Their conclusion is essentially "more study is needed." I agree. One can infer from this that sources like smart meters, which provide far less RF exposure to people, are relatively quite safe.
Posted on March 5 at 8:42 a.m.
The post above by No2SmartMeters is a great example of the hysteria and misinformation this debate engenders.
"Don't be fooled by these liars.... utility company shills" - calling people names instead of rationally addressing the issues. Calling someone a shill is what you resort to when you don't have a factual case. (I wish the utility company were paying me to help my neighbors understand this issue!)
Daniel Hirsch - Every misinformation campaign has some supposed experts, usually with some loose university connection, to add credence to their message. Hirsch has taught a course on nuclear policy at UCSC. Compared to the list of scientists and UC professors (not lecturers) associated with the CCST report, Hirsch's comments are just not credible.The scientific community does not agree with him on this.
"In fact, the technology is used in military weapons." This is misleading on so many levels, I don't know where to start.
"Say no to smart meters, join my cause, etc." - Once people become convinced of something, for whatever reasons, and jump on a bandwagon, it's very difficult for them to reexamine the facts and think through the issue logically. So people with other views must be shills for the opponent.
I do completely agree with one comment of No2SmartMeters: "Citizens, read up on this topic." Just don't limit your reading to one side, and constantly ask yourselves: How trustworthy is this source? How precise are the arguments made and the information presented? Are the claims independently verified?
Posted on March 4 at 2:38 p.m.
A lot of science and policy information related to smart meters can be found at the web site of the California Council on Science and Technology:http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart/
Posted on March 4 at 10:34 a.m.
Binky is correct - the smart meter hysteria is unfounded. The decision process has not been communicated well to the public, and there are legitimate issues about that, but these meters are not the cancer-causing surveillance devices that many claim them to me.
The link to the health impacts report didn't show up right for me, so here is a different link to the same report: http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/...