Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Integrated MSMA Rebuttal Comments Final 1

Integrated MSMA Rebuttal Comments Final 1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2|Likes:
Published by msmaorg

More info:

Published by: msmaorg on Jul 04, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Health and Safety Issues 2Cost Savings and Energy Conservation Claims 12Privacy Issues 14Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks and the Practical 16Aspects of an Opt Out Program
 
2
Health and Safety Issues
BGE admits on page 5 of its April 6, 2012 comments that there have been no safetystudies conducted on smart meters.
This is the crux of the problem, and BGE admits to it. Dr. David O. Carpenter, Directorof the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany, StateUniversity of New York, as well as Dr. Karl Maret, physician, bioengineer and smartmeter authority, and a large body of scientific and medical authorities are all inconcurrence on the point that quite simply,
there are no studies on the health effects of smart meters, particularly once the home area mesh network and routers are fullyfunctional.
In view of this, it is clear that as far as public health and safety are concerned,the precautionary principle must prevail. The burden of proof is on the utilities to proveto the public, through independent, long-term studies that the smart grid is safe forhumans and the environment. In the words of Cindy Sage, internationally renownedenvironmental consultant:
 No positive assertion of safety can be made by the parties involved in this issuewithout better, independent information. Currently the data made available bythe utilities that are installing smart meters is non-existent, piecemeal and without sufficient basis to verify.
 
BGE cites on Page 5 of its comments the report of the California Council on Scienceand Technology in claiming that when properly installed and maintained, wirelesssmart meters result in less RF exposure than cell phones.
Dr. Daniel Hirsch, Radiation Scientist and Nuclear Policy Expert at the University of California, Santa Cruz, did an extensive critique of this report. He stated:
The draft report by the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST)does not appear to answer the questions asked of it by the requesting elected officials. Furthermore, rather than being an independent, science-based study,the CCST largely cuts and pastes estimates from a brochure by the ElectricPower Research Institute, an industry group, issued some weeks earlier. The
 EPRI estimates appear incorrect in a number of regards…. When two of the most 
central errors are corrected 
 – 
the failure to take into account duty cycles of cell phones and microwave ovens and the failure to utilize the same units (they should compare everything in terms of average whole body exposure) the cumulativewhole body exposure from a Smart Meter at 3 feet appears to be approximatelytwo orders of magnitude higher than that of a cell phone, rather than two ordersof magnitude lower.
 
Following are two charts that compare microwave radiation from smart meters to cellphones, microwaves and other devices. The first is from the CCST report-the second is from Dr.
Hirsch’s
study corrected for whole body, cumulative exposure.
 
3
The CCST report mixed units and published this highly misleading chart. When the chart isproperly corrected, one sees that the smart meter exposure far exceeds that of cell phoneexposure.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->