A few weeks ago I went out to get a slice of pizza and a beer with a friend. There, I spotted another friend sitting at the bar on his smart phone, nursing a drink. We joined him and began catching up. He mentioned he was having a horrible time sleeping and it was making him feel very run down during the day. Immediately, I asked him if he had allowed Green Mountain Power to install a smart meter on his home. He looked at me for a second, then answer, "Yes, why?"
After walking him through every issue related to smart meters, he replied, "Well, you've presented me with a lot of information, but I'm not convinced." As I finished my beer and got up to go, I replied, "I hope you'll consider opting out" (which is a free option, thanks to the VT Legislature). I didn't take his lack of conviction personally because he happens to be a member of the local "energy committee" that promotes similar technologies, like CFL light bulbs. I knew his stance on risky, technological solutions to our serious energy dilemma might already be solidified.
What I told him was this: the problem with smart meters is that the already lax safety standards set by the FCC are designed in a way that makes their RF emissions look minuscule. By time averaging emissions, it is possible to say, as many utilities and Smart Grid shills do, "smart meters emit a tiny fraction of the RF compared to cell phones and it would take years of smart meter exposure to equal a few minutes on a cell phone." The fact is, constant emissions from Wifi routers, cordless phone base stations, baby monitors, and even cell towers do affect people's health, but to some degree, our bodies can adapt and protect us from these steadier fields. I like to compare these kinds of emissions to waves hitting a beach. Smart meters, on the other hand, transmit impulsively. Think of a tsunami where one second the ocean is calm and the next it is rushing inland, destroying everything in its path. Wireless smart meters emit radio tsunamis every few seconds, in some cases.
Another analogy I like to use is driving. When "professional" RF measurements are made near a cell tower, they are time averaged over a period of time. This is no different than reporting an average speed while driving on the highway. While you may very well average 65 MPH over a 30 minute drive, in all likelihood, your speed will vary somewhat (assuming you don't use cruise control). Although unrealistic, what if you were to drive 90 MPH for a minute, then stop for 3 minutes, then go 120 MPH for another minute, then stop. Over those 5 minutes you would have travelled 3.5 miles and can claim to have averaged 42 MPH over than time and distance. But if you happened to be clocked during the first or last minute, you'd have a very difficult time explaining yourself to any enforcer of the law. Not only that, but in a hypothetical situation of instantaneous starting and stopping, the force on your body would be so great that you would likely be hurt.
Maybe neither of these are the best analogies. Regardless, the problem with smart meters is the impulsivity of their signals. Our government is not protecting us from the harm the meters cause because the FCC standards of measuring ignore those pulses. This is one of the reasons I am such a big fan of the Cornet RF meters. Not only can you see the current field strength, but the histograph displays the previous 20 seconds allowing you to visualize how your environment is changing over time. See those little spikes? That's what you want to avoid.
Not surprisingly, the same goes for magnetic fields as well. Here's an example of a grocery store freezer that is designed to cycle in order to save energy. The problem is that it creates a pulsed magnetic field that (in my opinion) renders the entire freezer isle unsafe.
No comments:
Post a Comment