In Mid-May 2014, Network Tasman Ltd was given a list of 32 questions relating to the “smart meters” it has now begun to install in the Golden Bay area and the “smart grid” infrastructure it plans to install to support the “smart meters”.
The original list of questions may be read at this link: http://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/answer-the-questions-network-tasman-ltd/
Network Tasman’s representative Andrew Stanton eventually answered most of the list of the 32 questions (and you can read the answers at these links:
However, he did not answer the questions relating to how much radiofreqency radiation (in microwatts per square metre) is produced by the “smart meters” that Network Tasman Ltd wants to install. (In the case of the radiofrequency radiation produced by the “access points” and “relays” that will form the “smart grid” Mr Stanton referred to a document without giving a link to it, making it impossible to verify what he said.)
But back to the “smart meters”. Network Tasman Ltd is part of a group of companies call “Smart Co” http://smartco.co.nz/.
Another company in “Smart Co” group WEL Networks Ltd commissioned testing of what WEL is marketing to consumers as a WEL “smart box”.* This “smart box” is actually a Landis+Gyr E350 model “smart meter” with a Silver Spring model 454 Network Interface Card (NIC). (The “Network Interface Card” produces the radiofrequency radiation.)
Network Tasman Ltd is also installing Landis+Gyr E350 “smart meters”, and given that Network Tasman Ltd has a document from Silver Spring Ltd on its website, it seems likely that the two companies are using the same “smart meter”. Therefore the results of that testing should be of interest to anyone in Nelson-Tasman area where Network Tasman plans to install these meters.
The document which reports on testing of the WEL “smart box” uses two techniques commonly used by industry to make “smart meter” emissions seem lower than they actually are.
The first technique used involves averaging of the brief pulses of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) over a longer time period, rather than reporting the strength of each pulse in real time.
The second technique used in the document is to report on the strength of the RFR as a percentage of New Zealand’s National Standard for RFR, rather than using the actual figure for RFR in standard units (such as microwatts per square metre or microwatts per square centimetre, for example.)
NZ’s national standard NS 2772.1:1999 is designed to protect against thermal injury caused by RFR in the microwave range, not any other possible adverse effects. Thus, a report that presents data about “smart meter” emissions as percentage of this standard, without disclosing that the NS2772.1 : 1999 is designed to prevent thermal injury rather than assure protection from other adverse effects, may be interpreted by readers to mean that emission from the “smart meter” do not pose any risk to health.
The document may be downloaded from the link below. You will notice notes in red on the document. These have been added by electropollution consultant Paul Waddell from www.safespace.net.nz who has used the information provided by the person who tested the WEL “smart box” and annotated the document with the actual values of the RFR pulses produced by this device.
You will notice that the non time-averaged values for the pulses of RFR produced by the WEL “smart box” are very high; up to 599,950 microwatts per square metre in a worst case scenario*, although other exposures were lower.
Could this test data be the reason why Network Tasman Ltd refused to supply answers to the questions about how much radiofrequency radiation (in microwatts per square metre) that its “smart meters” produce?
To put this into context, the upper limit for exposure to RFR suggested by the scientists who collaborated on the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinititative.org) is 1,000 microwatts per square metre.
The guidelines used by people trained in Building Biology* considers any exposure to RFR over 1,000 microwatts per square meter to be of “extreme concern”. (See http://www.emfacts.com/2008/07/910-building-biology-evaluation-guidelines/)
*The highest risk form this type of “smart meter” would probably for someone who spent a lot of time close to a “smart meter” mounted to an interior wall, such as if it were near their workstation or on a bedroom wall.
The document may be downloaded here:
*See the links at the end of this post for links to more information on WEL’s “smart box” and for more information about Network Tasman Ltd.
Network Tasman Ltd links:
WEL “smart box” links