Letter to Smart Meter Pushers.
Further to your communication in which your purpose is to encourage Smart meter acceptance, I would like to decline on the following grounds.
There are numerous studies that show us that wireless signals emitted from ‘smart’ meters are a possible human carcinogen and that similar radiofrequency signals have been reported to have adverse health effects in a large number of scientific studies, including damage to fertility, foetal development, brain development and increased cell death. Possible adverse health effects ought to be mentioned in all ‘smart’ meter adverts.
An expert in smart meter microwave transmission power has published new research showing that, contrary to the official government narrative, the radiation emitted from smart meters directly interferes with normal heart function.
Cordless phones, Wi-fi and Smart meters operate on the 2.4GHz frequency which is the frequency that water molecules vibrate on their axis and of course our bodies are 70% water.
According to studies, 3% of the population are severely sensitive to EMF, 35% are moderately sensitive and 80% are suffering health problems which has been magnified greatly with the introduction of Smart meters.
Smart meters produce 140 to 800 times more radiation than a mobile phone and they are on constantly.
They also emit 14,000 short bursts of intense microwave radiation a day causing health problems.
We are electromagnetic beings, and we are affected by electricity in our environment. The increasing saturation of wireless radiation (cell towers, cell and cordless phones, wi-fi and smart meters) pollutes our air and living environments. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/safety-precautions/electrical-sensitivity/
So I refuse on health grounds.
There are also concerns about smart meter safety, as there have been reports of the devices suddenly exploding and catching on fire.
This is why groups like the American Academy of Environmental Medicine are calling on a total recall of all smart meters until their true effects have been properly studied. The public needs to know the risks before smart meters become so ubiquitous that turning back is no longer and option.
The EMF Safety Network this year reported fires, explosions and burned-out appliances due to ‘Smart’ Meter installations in Australia, Canada and the US.
But with the fact that the UK’s 53mn electricity and gas meters are usually located indoors rather than on exterior walls, the risks with fires here are far more serious.
They also enable hackers to be able to find out when a home is empty and what appliances they have, making theft easier. Also enabling them to switch devices off and on which is a danger.
So I refuse on safety grounds
Another study out of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences has identified some other serious problems with smart meters – mainly that many of them overcharge customers.
More than half of the smart meters tested as part of an experiment were found to be riddled with computational and energy use errors. In some cases, false readings clocked in as high as 582 percent beyond actual usage. Right behind this were meters that had false readings of 581, 566, and 475 percent higher than the amount of energy that was actually used.
In theory, such figures could lead to some customers being charged as much as six times more than they should be for electricity usage – meaning massive profits for the utility companies pushing these things.Smart meters enable the company to monitor consumers daily lives and have access to private and personal behaviour which could be sold onto third parties for commercial gain.
So I refuse on extortion grounds
Estimated cost of rolling out smart meters has gone from £11bn to nearer £20bn
This would wipe out all the savings households were promised they would make
If the £9bn cost is passed on in full, it would add £300 on to every bill by 2030http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-5442371/The-9bn-extra-cost-smart-meters.html
Smart Meters read ‘Apparent’ power, they can be remotely stopped from reading real power to read apparent power, which means you could be charged for 8-9 watts when you have used only 1.8 watts, real power is the energy used by equipment whilst apparent power is the energy used by internal transformers etc
So I refuse on extra financial cost grounds
As for Smart meters being the first time put consumers in control of their energy use, helping them to adopt energy efficiency measures that can help save money.
There are already Energy Monitoring devices that can be purchased, some for as little as £25 which can be attached to wiring to monitor your energy use.
In fact they will have the opposite effect
According to researchers,the communications industry could use 20% of all the world’s electricity by 2025, hampering attempts to meet climate change targets and straining grids as demand by power-hungry server farms storing digital data from billions of smartphones, tablets and internet-connected devices grows exponentially.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320225452_Total_Consumer_Power_Consumption_Forecast
So I refuse on energy saving grounds.
Has `Public Health England’ conducted `any’ trials re the safety of the smart system when we already know about the health effects of smart meters from International `Health Experts’, disregarded by PHE? Given PHE’s stance on Wi-Fi in school there is little hope that PHE is in any position to conduct proper safety trials.
- I trust this explains my full reasons for refusing your ‘Not so Smart’ meter