note to eweb: 1

after a careful seven-year process, evaluating pros and cons of smart meters, my utility reached a sane decision. five years later, a new general manager ignored all that. these three letters give a sense of my experience with them and what the stakes have been for others turned on to electrosentience.

Dear Commissioners,

I have spent the last 20 years dealing with damage and sensitization I received from living in a small apartment building with a bank of smart meters. I hope to help you understand how your current opt-out program fails in two ways so that you can update it to protect human health and EWEB and yourselves from legal liability for the harm installation and use of these devices cause.

To do that I will discuss the two kinds of radiation emitted (radio frequency radiation or RFR and electromagnetic frequency radiation EMF or EMR), how these relate to installation scenarios (particularly in multi-unit dwellings), how your mitigation plan fails to address either one, how you can expand your plan to more successfully address both, and what some real life examples tell us. 

Firstly, the meters emit RFR when they are transmitting data about user consumption. You know the cycles these broadcast on and the relative strength of these. You have either carefully researched the dangers of RFR emissions at these levels or not. 

Secondly, they emit EMR due to the Switching Mode Power Supply (SMPS) in the meter that steps down electricity from AC to DC (required to operate the meter but not to deliver power to the residence or business). This power supply emits high-powered spikes throughout the wiring of the building, 24-7. It affects building users whether or not data is being transmitted to the utility.

For all the information you need to understand both of these problems please read Dr.Sam Milham’s Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization and the short document on Smart Meter SMDS EMR emissions attached to this email. Milham is an MD with a Masters in Public Health and his book has been out since 2012.The book covers the mechanisms by which a wide range of diseases, including cancer and diabetes, are caused by RFR and EMR. You are on notice. This information is available to inform your decisions.

Your current policy of allowing customers to opt out of transmitting data only addresses one of the two problems, RFR radiation, and only in single-family residences. In multi-unit residences or businesses, people will still be irradiated by the RFR broadcasts from other residents’ meters. 

This is a known problem. Those whose residence or business is located nearest to the bank of meters are most heavily affected by the RFR of the whole cluster, even if their own meter is not transmitting. They are the most likely to suffer from strokes and other neurological damage. So being able to opt out of transmission does nothing to protect anyone in a multi-unit building from the RFR from their neighbors’ meters, especially if they are positioned close to them.

The situation with EMR is similar. The dirty electricity generated by the meter travels and pulses throughout the building. Everyone in the building is affected by it. This is true whether one is in a single-family home, a free-standing business, or in a multi-unit building. Turning off data transmission does nothing to mitigate this problem, which Milham points out may be the more dangerous of the two in common scenarios.

So, as far as RFR goes, the only true opt-out for a person in a multi-unit residence or business is to have their opt-out count for all the units in that building, because if their neighbors are emitting they are still irradiated, especially if they are positioned near a meter bank. Similarly, for EMR, only if no meters are installed are the users of the building protected from this damaging and disruptive radiation. Residents and businesses need to be able to say no to the new meters entirely. The older, analog meters do not emit either RFR or EMR.

If residents already know they are adversely affected by RFR or EMR, letting them keep their old meters and not be forced to install RFR- and EMR-emitting technology is both respectful of their health and a wise reduction in your liability. In multi-unit buildings, letting a single opt out from meter installation–not just transmission–count for the whole is the only way to protect residents’ health and to protect yourselves from legal liability.

A single damage suit can produce rewards in the millions and a class action suit can produce rewards in the billions. For whatever reason, you are choosing to ignore the mounting health evidence on this topic and to force your customers to be exposed to harm. Know that a tipping point will be reached, where health disruption data is overwhelming and where juries begin to find in the favor of injured plaintiffs. It may come soon, and when it does, you may be sued for ignoring the data available. 

Having a liberal opt-out policy will at least give you legal positioning, as an organization and as individual decision-makers, that show that you tried to give customers the chance to avoid exposure to radiation and the damage it is known to cause. Let people opt-out, both of transmission and installation, and let their opt out count for the whole building they live or work in.

To personalize this: I once lived in a multi-unit building where smart meters were installed half-way through my tenancy; my sleep was disrupted and my health was radically harmed. I have since lived in single-family homes with a single smart meter and my sleep and health were disrupted, even though I slept at the opposite end of the house, over fifty feet from the meter. I have since lived in a duplex with a non-broadcasting smart meters and my sleep and health were still disrupted, even though I slept over fifty feet from those two meters. The proposal I am presenting here take all these scenarios into account. A true opt-out from installation is the only solution that works.

I currently live in a multi-unit building in West Eugene. It has analog meters. This is the first place I have lived in the last 20 years where I can sleep through the night and have no neurological or metabolic symptoms from energy delivery. I would appreciate keeping that. It seems like a basic human right. If you extend your opt out policy, I can.

Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate a response demonstrating that you have received and understood my input.