Advertisement
What People are Reading
Recent
Popular Alltime
Recent Comments
- It's hard to argue for the
5 hours 27 min ago - Sorry, EA. I don't dispute
5 hours 56 min ago - Au contraire, my column keeps
7 hours 43 min ago - Mushroom Media is still
12 hours 46 min ago - The only distinctions I make
2 days 15 hours ago - Romney's wealth is an issue
2 days 15 hours ago - What!? We haven't quite
4 days 13 hours ago - Yes, from a Maryland
5 days 12 hours ago - Well said...and the Only
5 days 13 hours ago - The public needs to
5 days 13 hours ago
Advertisement
'Smart' meter opponents take case to Maine's highest court
Jan 12, 2012 1:30 pm
PORTLAND — Opponents of Central Maine Power Co.'s "smart" electrical meters have appealed of the Maine Public Utility Commission's dismissal of their complaint.
The group filed with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in Portland on Jan. 10 to overturn the PUC's decision not to investigate claims that the wireless meters have health, safety and privacy issues, and are an invasion of privacy.
Last year, the PUC ruled that CMP must offer customers the ability to opt out of having the meters installed on their homes or businesses if they pay an initial opt-out fee, followed by a monthly charge to have CMP read the meter manually.
However, some opponents of the meters have said the opt-out decision does not go far enough because the PUC has a legislative mandate to "ensure safe, reasonable and adequate service," and that requiring people to pay to opt out is equivalent to blackmail.
The Maine Center for Disease Control previously said it did not find "any consistent or convincing evidence to support a concern for health effects related to the use of radio frequency in the range of frequencies and power used by smart meters."
That was before the World Health Organization last year listed radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices, such as smart meters, as a possible carcinogen.
CMP has repeatedly said it is not the company's job to determine whether the meters are safe. The installation of the meters was paid for by federal grants from the Department of Energy.
The company is scheduled to complete the installation of 620,000 meters throughout the state in the first quarter of this year.
Emily Parkhurst can be reached at 781-3661 ext. 125 or eparkhurst@theforecaster.net. Follow her on Twitter: @emilyparkhurst.
Comments
METreeHugger says:
RobertWilliams says:
SMART METER PRIVACY VIOLATIONS.
1. Must-See 4-minute youtube video on Smart meters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8JNFr_j6kdI
SMART METER HEALTH PROBLEMS AND CANCER.
2. The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION May 31 2011 placed the Non-ionizing radiation coming from Wireless smart meters (& some other wireless devices) on the Class 2-B Carcinogen List.
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
3. The NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH Feb 2011 found biological changes in the brain after only minutes of exposure to non-ionizing radiation.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/8/808.abstract
4. LABORATORY SCIENTISTS have observed
(1) Human Cell Damage
(2) DNA Chain Breaks
(3) Breaches in the Blood-Brain Barrier
from levels of non-ionizing radiation lower than emitted by WIRELESS Smart meters.
http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/cc-video/
5. INSURANCE COMPANIES Hired Independent Laboratory Scientists and they also observed Cell Damage and DNA Chain Breaks. Now Insurance Companies will NOT Insure Liability damage from Wireless Smart meters and other wireless devices.
TV Video (3 minutes)
http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=382
Cell Phone use and other devices are Voluntary and can be shut off at the user’s discretion, but Smart meters mounted on homes are emitting radiation 24/7 and can not be shut off.
6. WIRELESS SMART METERS – 100 TIMES MORE RADIATION THAN CELL PHONES.
Video Interview: Nuclear Scientist, Daniel Hirsch, (5 minutes)
http://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/04/20/daniel-hirsch-on-ccsts-fuzzy-math/
7. WIRELESS SMART METERS – CANCER, NERVOUS SYSTEM DAMAGE, ADVERSE REPRODUCTION AFFECTS.
Video Interview: Dr. Carpenter, New York Public Health Department, Dean of Public Health, (2 minutes)
http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=3946
8. THE KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE IN STOCKHOLM (the University that gives the Nobel Prizes) ISSUES GLOBAL HEALTH WARNING AGAINST WIRELESS SMART METERS.
2-page Press Release
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48148346/Karolinska-Institute-Press-Release
9. RADIATION MEASURED FROM SMART METER MOUNTED ON A HOME (once active in the utility system) SHOWS RADIATION TRANSMISSION PULSES APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY FOUR SECONDS 24 HOURS PER DAY traveling through the bodies and brains of the inhabitants of that home.
Youtube Video (6 minutes, 1st minute is sufficient)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRejDxBE6OE
PG$E, California’s Utility Monopoly, recently admitted that each smart meter mounted on a home transmits radiation between 10,000 and 190,000 times each day.
This admission corrected previous false statements repeated often by many utility companies across the country.
NOTE: many of the tests on non-ionizing radiation (the type of radiation emitted by smart meters) have been done using devices other than smart meters because smart meters have only been in people’s homes for a very short time.
But as a Wireless smart meter emits 100 times more radiation than a cell phone, it is not difficult to project. If a machine gun (smart meter) fires 100 bullets in the same time that a pistol (cell phone) fires one bullet, it is not difficult to project the harm that the machine gun can do, even if the tests were done with the pistol.
CUSTOMER UTILITY BILLS AFTER SMART METERS INSTALLED.
10. Skyrocketing Utility Bills after installation
TV News Video (3 minutes)
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/63581287.html?tab=video
11. Systemic Smart Meter Billing Errors Over 200% Uncovered in Australia
TV News Video (7 minutes)
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/money/article/-/10241945/power-sc... - video
NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS DUE TO SMART METERS.
12. CIA Director James Woolsey calls Smart grid “Stupid” due to National Security problems caused by so-called smart meters.
News Video (1 minute)
http://www.energynow.com/video/2011/08/10/preview-mix-james-woolsey
ttK says:
In my opinion CMP has at least one arrogant nerve. First, there was no inquiry as to whether we, its customers wanted the so called 'SMART' meter. And the backwards way it was done is dispicable way. The meters were put in without notification or initially recourse. The only clue we had was our timers were blinking one day when wen returned home. Later we found out the meter had been installed and then because of public outcry we were given the option of having the meter removed and a mechanical one, like we had had replaced. This cost us $40. It would have cost us $40 even if CMP had not installed the meter and we had opted out of taking the SMART meter. Then because we had opted out we now must pay a $12.50 per month fee to keep the meter type we had in the first place. How come it now costs $12.50 per month to read what was read without additional fees before the SMART meter came along. And this is not monthly, but bi-monthly (six times a year for $150 dollars).
I could read the meter myself and call or send in the information monthly and reduce CMP's carbon footprint along with saving us all money.
This money that was granted to CMP, by our Federal Legislators, to purchase and install these meters makes me upset also. With all the paper work these legislators push daily and hot air many of them expell, it makes me wonder who is working for whom?
As far as danger is concerned, I continue to hear this SMART meter being compared to cell phones, which seem to be more dangerous than initially thought as more research is conducted and time goes on. Meanwhile instead of erring on the side of caution, our Legislators and PUC seem to be erring on the side of business. Why? Who is representing whom, I ask again? Remember DDT, who would think of spraying it around today the way it was done during the late 40's and for a few decades, before the dangers were exposed and it doing so became illegal for reasons of health.
Back to the cell phones. When one uses a cell phone the signal goes fromt the cell phone to a cell tower and from tower so its signal can be received and sent out. If I do not have or use a cell phone, my exposure to the radio ways seems to be minimal or non existant. The SMART meters as I understand their operation send signals to other smart meters and back and forth many times a day in the journey to CMP. Even if I do not have a SMART meter, but a conventional mechanical meter I am still exposed to the potentially dangeroust radio waves and so is everyone else walking around, man and beast.
If it was so smart it would be saving us time and money and not potentially endangering us all.
I have a suggestion for CMP. Wait ten years before putting this plan into action.
By then we will know more about cell phone and radio waves effects on us and the invironment without making us laboratory rats, as is being done with the present plan.
Finally, give the Federal Gov't back its money (our money) and let it be used to keep people healthy instead of exposing them to potentially more sickness. Isn't there enough cancer now?
Under fire in Camden, send help.
Peace,
Theodore Kanellakis
Camden, Resident
FrankVerdin86 says:
I’d have to check with you here. Which is not something I usually do! I enjoy reading a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for allowing me to comment!
_______
Name:lynettapineda
Website:nespresso
Laurels says:
I find it so ironic that the smart meter opponents ignore all the research on this issue, but they cite as significant the World Health Organization (WHO) classifying the meters as having the probability of being carcinogens akin to that of coffee, yet they totally ignore the fact the WHO has considered people who believe they are electrohypersensitive as having a psychological illness because there is absolutely no quantitative proof that these folks can even detect when they are actually being exposed to EMFs! They selectively choose the facts that benefit them, ignore the ones that don't, even when they are coming from the same source. How hypocritical is that?
Each day, more studies are completed that show that the frequencies from cell phones, which emit way more frequencies than meters, pose no risk. Why get so paranoid about smart meters? There are so many health risks facing us. You would think people who care about their health would focus on the real risks, and not the imaginary or unlikely ones.
Dianne Wilkins says:
First of all the customers that should be charged are the ones that
are receiving the so called benefits of the smart meter system NOT the customers that are not receiving the service or benefits (backwards logic). Second, the customers that choose NOT to receive the service have already paid through their federal tax dollars that funded the U.S. Department of Energy Grants which paid half the cost of the smart meter system. Third the federal enabling act for the smart meter system, the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005, specifically requires that each state must "offer" the smart meter services to customers not "mandate" their use, so if state PUCs were adhering to FEDERAL LAW they would not be forcing customers to have a smart meter and then extorting fees from those chosing not to participate. And finally, wireless smart meters are designed to store the
host customer's usage data AND to store and transmit other peoples usage data, so essentially taking the host customers private property to be used by the utility as a their own business relay station in violation of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution i.e. taking private property for public use without owner consent, just compensation, or due process of law! And what about the 4th and 14th amendments to the US constitution i.e. our right to privacy in our own homes and to protect our family from what we precieve to be dangerous? Every US citizen has these rights and better start
defending them rigourously because not doing so is the same as giving your
consent to these violations. PUC/State is violating the laws, hurting people and should not get away with it! Fighting back is the only way to change this injustice...write your state Reps and the Attorney General!
This isn't news. This appeal was filed months ago.
I also think your reporting is biased. It is obvious that the Forecaster, and Ms. Parkhurst in particular, have long been under Elisa Boxer-Cook's thumb, and therefore don't print unbiased articles about smart meters. The truth is, as Laurels noted above, WHO doesn't recognize as a real physical illness electrohypersensitivity. It is considered psychosomatic. Also, WHO's classification is not an indication that the meters cause cancer. Furthermore, since the WHO report, there have been new long-term studies, including a recent Danish one, that have shown that cell phone use doesn't cause cancer, and cell phones emit far more radiation than smart meters (contrary to Mr. Williams' allegations, which have absolutely no basis in scientific fact). Of course, you left all of that out of the article. Are you trying to scare people for no reason, like Boxer-Cook?