@ CIC
Please, if you think someone is "calling you out", don't use your primal monkey urges and throw feces at them. Instead, try using your (I hope) well developed forebrain and try to argue the idea rather than the person.
This way everyone can learn, agree, or agree to disagree.
Personal attacks will get you nothing but ridicule, so save yourself the effort. Also, when arguing please avoid ad hominem attacks, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacyThese arguments have a very weak foundation, will not hold up, and only serve to discredit your point.

anybody actually buy a reader to check the readings?

Of course not, it's far cheaper and easier to pluck random YouTube videos that fit your point while ignoring those that don't.

Youve mistaken me for a scholar and a gentleman :p

A rare moment where CiC speaks the truth.

THIS. Those who are saying "you are crazy, no symptoms can possibly exist" become a barrier to new research which may prove otherwise 10, 20, 50 years down the road. We simply don't know enough right now.

That article you quoted is a bit of a load IMO. If that whole cascade of events is going on, it would not be difficult to prove it definitively. To me it sounds like a reach: "well WiFi may affect this part, which may lead to that over time, which may cause this and that eventually, and if all of that happens then there may be a chance that it is harmful". They are just using smarter bigger words, but they are not actually saying anything new we don't already know, nor are they proving a causation.

Edited: CIC can believe what he wants regardless what my view on his posts are.

Radiofrequency Radiation: The Invisible Hazards of ?Smart? Meters | Global Research

good read, Canada should look at the results from the US since they were first to experience with smart meters

Global Research...

:heckno:

I'm, not a university student any more, so I don't get access to journals; is there any way someone who is can get ahold of the full statement?

Scientific panel on electromagnet... [Rev Environ Health. 2010 Oct-Dec] - PubMed - NCBI

There's nothing more than quotes released, and the abstract is much more vague than the anti-EM people would like to admit: "Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales."



As far as the Radiofrequency [sic] Radiation article, there's so much in there that just makes me cringe, even just from a stylistic point.

First, the title:
Radiofrequency Radiation: The Invisible Hazards of "Smart" Meters
The proper way to use quotes around Smart Meters is around the entire thing--it's the name they've been given. By only putting them around the word "Smart" it leaves an implication that the word smart is undeserved or improperly used. This mistake (or rather, stylistic choice) is repeated throughout.

It then opens with a quote from the Seletun Scientific Statement suggesting that new limits be proposed--though not why nor what research or evidence has caused them to suggest this.

It then goes on to say that:
(Emphases added are mine)

I have bolded the areas in which they have used square-parentheses or quotes in order to slightly change or spin the quotes. In order:

"...as part of the American Recovery[sic] and Reinvestment Act [AARA] of 2009."
For those of you unaware, the sign [sic] in newspapers and other print media sources is used to indicate that this is a direct quote, and that any mistakes within are either intentional or were contained within the original source media. The fact that there is no typo here--which is often the reason [sic] will be used-- would seem to indicate that the author of this particular article doesn't believe that American Recovery is either the intent of this law, or that American Recovery is not necessary. Either way, it is pushing their mentality on an otherwise neutral statement.

"The transmitting meters may not even comply with FCC 'safety' standards..."
and
"Therefore, these 'safety' standards were not designed to protect the public..."
In each of these quotes, the word safety has been put in quotes, without any reason given for it. This simple and small change is used to undermine the idea that existing regulations are there to regulate safety.

"These standards [are totally outdated and] were not designed to protect..."
There is no reason why the words within the square quotes would be added, especially given that this is supposed to be a direct quote; when one is directly quoting someone and using this as evidence for why they are right it's not exactly a good idea to put more words in their mouth.




Then, in the next paragraph, it does absolute wonders. Allow me to post it here:
So we have now gone from 'the dangers of radiation' to a quote from a woman who is the host of TS Radio (I tried to find out what the TS stands for--no joy), and author of the PPJ Gazette (Also no idea what PPJ stands for).

I did read the entire article, and while some of its points may show some validity, the manner in which they're presented stretches reason a fair bit.

To summarize: the author comes across as someone with an agenda of his/her own beyond (or likely completely separate from) mere "safety concerns", who is simply (mis)using others' safety arguments to prop up that agenda.

Why would someone do this? Well, not that THIS is an actual theory, but just an example: who (safety and privacy aside) stands to lose the most from the proliferation of smart meters? Well, meter readers, for starters, who are seeing their jobs outright negated... and the makers and maintainers of the old analog meters, who are watching their market quickly disappear. If either group (or both, together??) were to, say, generate enough FUD around the new technology that they could convince utility companies and regulators to stop or even reverse their adoption... hmmm...

HMMMMMM.

I wonder if Vivan Krause has looked into this at all?

Okay, I'll respond a little more than how I originally did.

I'll admit I didn't read the whole thing, though I did skim from paragraph to paragraph and a few things stood out for me.

Smart meters aren't CSA approved because they aren't consumer products. They are, however, IEEE, IEC, and ANSI approved.

Wrong. They operate in the 900MHz range.

Plus what's so dangerous in the 2.4-5.8Ghz range? Funny, I've got routers that run in that range and I've yet to grow a third eye or an elephant tail.

Read the fine print of the contract you signed. I'll guarantee there's a section in there that allows your service provider to upgrade existing units without having to inform you.

So much facepalm but I'm going to focus on just the pacemaker one...

Actually, no. I'm going to let the AARL speak for me:
Pacemaker

Basically as long as you aren't standing inches directly away from the meter, you're fine.

Etc, etc.

You'll also dig up some interesting information when you start researching the different names involved in that article (and those of that website). I know everyone has a bias of some kind, but it's hard to take certain articles seriously when they have a history of harsh line towing.

thanks Lomac, just trying to be more informed

Radio Frequency and BC Hydro's Smart Meters

Smart meters communicate using very low power signals.

Unlike other wireless infrastructure, smart meters use very low power signals – about one watt. This is less than 2 microwatts per square centimetre (μW/cm2) when standing adjacent to the meter. A microwatt is one millionth of a watt.

BC Hydro's smart meter signals are far lower than some of the strictest thresholds in the world.

Europe has some of the world’s strictest radiofrequency regulations. Switzerland, for example, has a precautionary limit of 4.5 μW/cm2 for highly sensitive areas like schools and hospitals. In comparison, BC Hydro smart meter signals – at the same distance of 20 centimetres (8 inches) – are less than 2 μW/cm2.

Oh, look what I found in BC Hydro's TOS:
Also:
:derp:

In short: if we're providing you power, then we have the right to dictate how it's delivered. You signed on the dotted line, therefore you will abide by this, or you don't get our power.

"Oh well, I didn't actually read the fine print" has NEVER stood up in court as a valid excuse, especially when it's not something unreasonable.

And again: nobody has the RIGHT to electric power, and nobody is REQUIRED to use BC Hydro's service. Put up your own windmill, or burn candles - there's always a choice.

^^ It's what happens when you have only 1 corporation supplying power. Working in the high-voltage power business, we've gotten used to:

Whatever BC Hydro wants, you give it to them. Or else you're SOL.

How many jurisdictions in the developed world have competing electric companies? Look what happened when we let the chains off of BC/Terasen Gas. Lots of people got duped into signing bad deals for gas. But, I guess allowing bad choices is better than no choice?

There are many reasons why a government allows a monopoly for electricity.
Posted via RS Mobile

If you don't like it run your house on propane like a lot of places up north

Isn't this a pretty open and shut case? How is it that a judge hasn't thrown it out yet? It's in the TOS.

Due process is, unfortunately, process. Can't just look at a case and go "HAH!" in a Krebapple way and then throw it out. As much as they may be inclined to.

Lol. Traum and cic rambling bs in the same thread

Thank you for your incredibly detailed and informative post. It's rare that people take so much time out of their day on Revscene to elaborate on their points of view in such precise detail and with such gusto as you.


I tip my hat to you, good sir.

Like I've said before, I have a friend lives up behind Boston Bar that's running his place completely off-the-grid, yet has internet access from no fewer than three different providers (local WiFi service, satellite, and Bell 4G) so he can view his home cameras remotely... runs his own power generation off a local stream (including some really brilliant engineering) and solar with a shitload of batteries for storage and some big-ass inverters... yeah, it took some time and money to set up, but he pays no electric bills, doesn't have or need an electric meter of ANY kind, and doesn't have to worry about anyone's TOS.

And to once again quote a famous TV character, "There is always choice. We say that there is no choice only to comfort ourselves with a decision we have already made."

People want their utilities spoon-fed to them, don't want to have to put in any effort... then complain when the people who DO put in the time and the effort and front all the money for the service, want to do something to make THEIR lives easier and more efficient. Well sorry, fucktards - suck it up, or ship out. Nobody fucking OWES you anything, least of all BC Hydro. You DO NOT have a Constitutional fucking right to electricity, you ARE NOT fucking REQUIRED to use BC Hydro's service, and you ARE FUCKING REQUIRED to abide by the TOS of any service provider you CHOOSE to use... be it for power, or cable, or internet, or phone service, or satellite TV, or...

anytime my friend. I didn't get to my post count doing it paragraph by paragraph.