URGENT: Smart water meter alert for Waikato District Council area

September 25, 2014: An update on this issue is at this link:  www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/waikato-district-council-vote-on-water-meters-and-smart-water-meters/

 

URGENT: The Waikato District Council is having an extraordinary meeting on August 19 during which they will decide (among other things) whether to accept a resolution relating to “smart” water meters.

 

The wording of the relevant portion of the item on the agenda is “that the Council continue to monitor the progression of smart water metering technology with a view to implement the technol0gy when it becomes cost effective and proven in NZ.”*

 

Given that there has already been a trial of “smart” water meters in Tauranga (see this link:https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/smart-water-meters-in-nz-the-situation-so-far/

and a trial is ongoing in Tairua (see this link:  https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/tairua-smart-water-meter-update/    ) it may not be long before the Council may consider that the technology is proven for NZ – and the Council may consider it cost effective, given that “smart” water meters can potentially be integrated with the so-called “smart boxes” (actually  Landis+Gyr smart meters) being installed by Waikato  lines company WEL Networks Ltd.

(Please see this link https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/is-the-wel-smart-box-a-way-to-facilitate-smart-water-metering/ for how “smart” water meters may be integrated with “smart boxes”.

The Council will also be discussing whether to pass a resolution regarding the installation of water meters in Ngaruwahia, Huntly and Raglan.

Water meters of any type are controversial because they usually result in an increase in the amount of money home and businesses end up paying to their Council each year.

Charging for water potentially has public health impacts, especially for low income families who may have to cut back on water use and consequently be more vulnerable health problems associated with poorer hygiene such as impetigo, scabies and other communicable conditions that can be spread via towels, clothing and bedding that are not washed sufficiently regularly.

 

If you would like to do something to help:

 

* Please email the mayor and Councillors stating your opposition to “smart” water meters

You can find their emails here  http://www.waikatodistrict.govt.nz/Your-Council/Mayor-and-councillors.aspx and I will be posting template letters to make this easy to do later; please check back at this site later.

 

*  Please alert all your friends and family in the Waikato region to this issue by sharing this post.

 

Please tell all friends and family in the Waikato region that it is NOT compulsory to have a WEL smart box installed and to refuse its installation.  Without WEL smart box installations to collect the data from “smart” water meters, it may not be economically feasible to install “smart” water meters.  (Please see this link for information on  WEL smart boxes and how they are NOT compulsory:  https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/shame-on-you-wel-networks-ltd/

Also please see this link on potential health impacts of the WEL Networks Ltd “smart box”:  https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/is-the-wel-smart-box-a-health-hazard/

(If this link is not working when you click on it, please copy and paste it into your browser. Thank you.)

 

*You can read the full text of the agenda of the meeting at the link below.

 

http://www.waikatodistrict.govt.nz/CMSFiles/cc/cc56a109-0520-4526-b8ce-8b844c31a43d.pdf

 

An update on this issue is at this link:  www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/waikato-district-council-vote-on-water-meters-and-smart-water-meters/

Who controls your heat pump? You? Or your electricity company?

SITE EDITOR’S NOTE August 20: I have received some feedback on this article, which stated, in part, that most “smart” meters in NZ do not contain ZigBee chips. (See below.) The post below in its original version did state that “not all” smart meters in NZ contain ZigBees;  however, for the sake of clarity I have re-edited the post to make it clear that most smart meters in NZ do not contain ZigBees.

I will write a follow-up post in response to other comments as soon as I can.

SITE EDITOR’S NOTE August 28:  I have followed up on other criticisms of this post and found out that it is not mandatory for heat pumps to have ZigBees or “demand response functionality”  in NZ (despite the statements on the website of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment; see below for the reference.)  However, there are heat pumps that are registered as being for suitable for use in NZ and Australia that do have “demand response functionality”.  This “demand response functionality” allows for the heat pumps to be turned down to their lowest setting, rather than be turned off. 

I will be writing a new post that explores these issues and give references so that you can find out whether your heat pump is one that may be able to be controlled remotely by your electricity company in a new post as as soon as I have time.  In the meantime, I have added Editor’s notes to the post below to correct the errors. If you would like to be notified when the new post has been written, please join the email list at www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz.

 

Who controls your heat pump…You?…Or your electricity company?

Do you have a heat pump in your home? I bet you appreciate its reliable warmth, especially when NZ is in the grip of a southerly that has come straight up from the Antarctic.

However, if you have a “smart meter” in or on your home, don’t count on always being able to enjoy that wonderful warmth….even if you always pay your bill on time.

Why not? Because your electricity or lines company may be able to turn off your heat pump remotely. [Ed note:  Actually the electricity or lines company may be able to turn your heat pump down, rather than shut it off altogether.  See Ed note of August 28, above.]

Smart meters which are fitted with a ZigBee communications chip have the ability to “talk” to “smart” appliances – and since 2011, according to a document on the website of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment heat pumps in NZ have been required to be “smart”.* [Ed note:  There is actually no such requirement at this stage, despite the statement on the website of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment; see Ed note of August 28, above].

Not all smart meters in NZ contain ZigBee chips at this point;  in fact, to the best of my knowledge most smart meters that have been installed to date here do not contain ZigBee chips.

However, the “smart boxes” being rolled out by WEL Networks Ltd in the Waikato and the Landis+Gyr E350 series smart meters being rolled out by Network Tasman Ltd, Counties Power and some other companies that are part of the SmartCo consortium do contain ZigBees.  (The ZigBees are part of the Silver Spring model 454 Network Interface Card (NIC) which the meters use to send information back to the lines company and/or electricity retailer. The default setting of the ZigBee part of the Network Interface Card is claimed to be “off”.  However, it may only be a matter of time before the ZigBee is turned on.  I have no information regarding how the ZigBee can be turned on;  it is possible this may be able to be done remotely.)

The Labour party would like to see all smart meters fitted with ZigBees: see https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/labour-party-2014-election-questionnaire/

(Please note that the Labour party is one of many parties that support smart meters in general;  see the 2014 Election Questionnaire from www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz if you want to learn about other parties  that support smart meters https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/category/2014-election-questionnaire/.

If you have a smart meter that contains a ZigBee, your power or lines company may therefore potentially be able to switch off your heat pump remotely. [Ed note:  Actually the electricity or lines company may be able to turn your heat pump down, rather than shut it off altogether. See Ed note of August 28, above.] Of course it’s done in the name of managing energy better, of course; but what may be great for your lines company may not be so wonderful for you. (Goodbye cosy warmth.)

If you do not yet have a smart meter, count yourself lucky;  you control your appliances; your lines or electricity company cannot switch them off  [or otherwise interfere with their operation] when you least expect it – or most need them.

 

 

Please see this link for information on how to keep your home “smart meter”-free.  https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/faqs/how-to-avoid-getting-a-smart-meter/ )

 

PS: Interested in learning how smart meters can affect your electricity bills?  Read this post:

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/faqs/how-to-avoid-getting-a-smart-meter/

 

*According to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s  “Analysis of submissions on Smart meters: How households and the environment can benefit Briefing for Commerce Committee: “From 2011 in New Zealand, all new heat-pumps will be “smart”. New heat pumps will be required by the Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) to have “demand response functionality”. This means they will be able to “talk to” a HAN. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) is looking at extending this requirement to more appliances.”

SOURCE LINK:  http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/Reports/pdf/Smart_meters_submission_web.pdf

(NB: Even if there is no “smart meter” in the home, appliances which contain the ZigBee communications unit may still produce microwave radiation at  in an attempt to communicate with a non-existent “smart meter”, so if buying new appliances, it is prudent to avoid those that are marketed as being “smart” if you do not want to unnecessarily expose yourself to RFR in the microwave range.)

 

Exposure Standards: “Out of Date and Inapplicable” – and allowing harm to wildlife

US Department of Interior has attacked the Ferderal Telecommunications Commission (FCC) because of problems that radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from cell phone towers and other sources is causing to wildlife.
The Director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance of the United States Department of the Interior sent a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce that addresses the Interior Department’s concern that cell tower radiation has had negative impacts on the health of migratory birds and other wildlife.
The Interior Department accused the Federal government of employing outdated radiation standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a Federal agency with no expertise in health.  The standards are no longer applicable because they control only for overheating and do not protect organisms from the adverse effects of exposure to the low-intensity radiation produced by cell phones and cell towers:
“Study results have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death (e.g., Balmori 2005, Balmori and Hallberg 2007, and Everaert and Bauwens 2007). Nesting migratory birds and their offspring have apparently been affected by the radiation from cellular phone towers in the 900 and 1800 MHz frequency ranges – 915 MHz is the standard cellular phone frequency used in the United States. [Website editors note:  These frequencies are used by many “smart meters” in NZ and the 915 MHz band is also used for cell phones.]
However, the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today. [Website editor’s note:  NZ standards for RFR are similar designed to protect against thermal injury and shocks, not other adverse effects, despite voluminous evidence of harm at non-thermal levels: see www.bioinitiative.org for more information on RFR.]
The Department  criticized the Federal government’s proposed procedures for placement and operation of communication towers, and called for “independent, third-party peer-reviewed studies” in the U.S. to examine the effects of cell tower radiation on “migratory birds and other trust species.”
“The problem, however, appears to focus on very low levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. For example, in laboratory studies, T. Litovitz (personal communication) and DiCarlo et al. (2002) raised concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos – with some lethal results (Manville 2009, 2013a). Radiation at extremely low levels (0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone) caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to hypoxic conditions in the laboratory while controls subjected to hypoxia were unaffected (DiCarlo et al. 2002).
The full text of the letter, the addendum and citations are available at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf
Al Manville PhD, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, gives a presentation to Congress on radiation impacts on wildlife (2007):
[2 min 33 sec video at webpage]
Sources & more information:
http://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept-of-interior-attacks-fcc-regarding.html
http://smartgridawareness.org/2014/03/23/can-we-protect-birds-and-people/

 

Adapted from: http://www.takebackyourpower.net/news/2014/03/27/us-department-of-interior-attacks-fccs-exposure-standards-out-of-date-and-inapplicable/

Shame on you, WEL Networks Ltd

Shame on you, WEL Networks Ltd

Waikato lines company WEL Networks Ltd. should be ashamed of itself for including a statement on its website that appears to be designed to mislead its customers into believing that it is compulsory to  accept the installation of a microwave radiation-emitting “smart meter” that the company has chosen to call a “smart box”.

The statement is “This requirement  for meter replacement is regulated by the NZ government and must be completed nationally by 2015”

In fact there is no law or regulation that requires any company to install “smart meters” or any person to accept a “smart meter”.

You can read the claim by WEL Networks Ltd in the screen shot from the company’s website pasted below. (You can click on the image to make it larger.)

If you have had a “smart box” installed because you believed that it was compulsory, you can contact www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz through this link:   https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/contact-us/ 

 

More information on  the WEL “smart box” installation programme may be found at the links below the image.

 

WEL Network screen grab showing claim that there is a government requirement for meter replacement June 17 2014

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/wel-smart-box-installation-prevented/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/you-do-not-have-to-accept-a-wel-smart-box-if-you-do-not-want-one/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/is-the-wel-smart-box-a-way-to-facilitate-smart-water-metering/

Is this the reason Network Tasman Ltd has been reluctant to answer the questions about the radiofrequency radiation produced by its “smart meters”?

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:  https://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:

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/answers-to-questions-from-network-tasman-ltd-part-1/

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/answers-to-questions-from-network-tasman-ltd-part-2/

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:

RF fields from a WEL Networks Smart Meter with comments by PW.

*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:

www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/answers-to-questions-from-network-tasman-ltd-part-1/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/answers-to-questions-from-network-tasman-ltd-part-2/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/does-network-tasman-ltd-hope-to-profit-from-smart-water-meters-in-the-nelsontasman-region/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/will-network-tasman-ltd-do-the-right-thing-by-its-community/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/

 

www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/the-advantages-of-smart-meters/

 

WEL “smart box” links

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/is-the-wel-smart-box-a-health-hazard/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/wel-smart-box-installation-prevented/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/is-the-wel-smart-box-a-way-to-facilitate-smart-water-metering/

 

 

 

Is the WEL “smart box” a health hazard?

If you live in Hamilton or elsewhere in the Waikato you may be offered a “smart box” by WEL.

This so-called “smart box” is actually a Landis+Gyr E350 “smart meter”, which like all the “smart meters” in use in NZ, produces radio frequency radiation (RFR) in the microwave range which has been classified as a type 2B possible carcinogen.

A document from WEL’s website purporting to show that the WEL “smart box” is safe because its emissions are lower than the  NZ government standard for radiofrequency radiation has now been de-bunked by electropollution consultant Paul Waddell from www.safespace.net.nz.

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 NZS 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 NZS2772.1 : 1999 is  designed to prevent shocks and 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.

Paul Waddell 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 values were lower.

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 document may be downloaded here:

RF fields from a WEL Networks Smart Meter with comments by PW.

NB: Although WEL’s website suggest that there is a government requirement to have a “smart box” there is no law or regulation which forces you to accept a “smart box” if you do not want one.  Other people have successfully refused a WEL “smart box” and you can, too.

Please see this link for more information:  https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/wel-smart-box-installation-prevented/

 

*Building Biology is a discipline which aims to create homes and other buildings that foster good health, through the use of non-toxic building materials, design that minimises occupants’ exposure to EMF/EMF levels etc.

You do not have to accept a WEL “smart box” if you do not want one

If you live in Hamilton or elsewhere in the Waikato you may be offered a “smart box” by WEL.

This so-called “smart box” is actually a Landis+Gyr “smart meter”, which like all the “smart meters” in use in NZ, produces radiofrequency radiation classified as a type 2B possible carcinogen.

Although WEL’s website suggest that there is a government requirement to have a “smart box” there is no law or regulation which forces you to accept a “smart box” if you do not want one.  Other people have successfully refused a WEL :”smart box” and you can, too.

Please see this link for more information:  https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/wel-smart-box-installation-prevented/

Please also note that a WEL “smart box” may also be able to be used to collect data from a “smart” water meter.  If you do not want a  “smart” water meter (or any other type of water meter), please see this link:  https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/is-the-wel-smart-box-a-way-to-facilitate-smart-water-metering/

A WEL “smart box” is a “smart meter”

If you live in Hamilton or elsewhere in the Waikato you may be offered a “smart box” by WEL.

This is actually a Landis+Gyr “smart meter”.

Like the other “smart meters” in use in NZ, the WEL “smart box” produces radio frequency radiation which is a type 2B possible carcinogen.

Although the WEL’s website suggest that there is a government requirement to have a “smart box” there is no law or regulation which forces you to accept a ‘smart box” if you do not want one.  Other people have successfully refused a WEL :”smart box” and you can, too.

Please see this link for more information:  https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/wel-smart-box-installation-prevented/

Please also note that a WEL “smart box” may also be able to be used to collect data from a “smart” water meter.  If you do not want a  “smart” water meter (or any other type of water meter), please see this link:  https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/is-the-wel-smart-box-a-way-to-facilitate-smart-water-metering/

 

British children to be used as cell phone and Wi-Fi guinea pigs

The British Daily Telegraph has reported that British children will be the subject of an experiment in which a special app will be loaded into their mobile phone to record the duration of calls, texts and internet use.

You can read the full story here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10842271/Wifi-fears-three-year-
study-into-health-risks-of-mobiles-to-childrens-brains.html

 

NB:  Research into the use of cordless home phones and mobile phones by NZ childrenby Dr. Mary Redmayne has shown that many young NZers are making such frequent use of these devices  that they are at risk of developing a brain tumour later in life. 

See this study for details:

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/12/1/5

Special notes to parents:

One of the best things parents can do to reduce the risks to their chilldren from cordless and mobile phone exposure is to make sure the home phone is the variety that has a cord (NOT a cordless phone – as cordless phones have similar risks to cell phones.)  It is also important to give careful thought to whether or not a child should have a cell phone – and to enforce sensible rules (such as that cell phones go in a basket in the hall at night and are not kept in bedrooms) if it is considered necessary for a child or teenager to have a cell phone available.

For the latest news on cell phones and brain tumours see this link www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/cell-phone-use-may-triple-brain-tumour-risk/

Slide show that accompanied talk by Network Tasman Ltd representative

Slide show that accompanied talk by Network Tasman Ltd representative

Thanks to a local resident taking photographs of the Powerpoint slide that Mr. Andrew Stanton used to illustrate the talk that he gave to the Golden Bay Community Board and members of the public on May 13, 2014, people who could not attend the event can now see the slides below. (If you would like to hear the presentation and the questions asked, please see this link: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/hear-network-tasman-ltds-presentation-to-the-golden-bay-community-board/

You can click on any of the slides below to enlarge them.

Slide 1:  In the slide below you will see the  Network Tasman Ltd’s stated reasons for wanting to install “smart meters” and a “smart grid” in the Nelson-Tasman area.

Please note that the claim that smart meters will “reduce energy costs” is highly dubious.  “Smart meters” allow for the introduction of “time-of-use” pricing which makes electricity more expensive at peak times and therefore can increase power bills.  See this link for details:

www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/the-advantages-of-smart-meters/

Network Tasman Ltd smart meter presentation Why electronic meters.

 

 Slide 2: This is pretty straightforward…and you can see why an electricity company would prefer to get an automated alarm, rather than phone calls from customers after the power goes off unexpectedly…on the other hand…the potential price customers may pay for their electricity company’s convenience could be adverse health effects from “smart meters”. (See this link: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/survey-of-people-adversely-affected-by-smart-meters/.)

Network Tasman Ltd smart meter presentation Outage notification

 Slide 3: Again, this slide shows how Network Tasman Ltd hopes “smart meters” and  a “smart network” will make it easier to manage the electricity supply.  It sounds great, if you ignore the potential effects on  health (and privacy) posed by “smart meters”.  (See this page for information on privacy:  https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/

Network Tasman Ltd smart meter presentation Operational improvements

 

 Slide 4: Below you can see the Network Tasman Ltd claims the one of the benefits of “smart meters” is “privacy”. (Yeah right!)  Please read this link  https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/ if you haven’t already and then decide for yourself what impacts more on your privacy..

Is it

1) Having a meter reader come to your home once a month (or less frequently in some areas) ?

OR

2) Having detailed data about your electricity use transmitted to your electricity company who may supply it (perhaps sell it?) to third parties?*

Bear in mind, the data can be so detailed that whoever has access to it will be able to know when you boil the kettle to make tea/coffee, use your toaster, take a shower, cook, use a computer, TV or any other piece of mains-powered electrical equipment…they will know what you do when in the privacy of your own home…

* https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/is-your-smart-meter-spying-on-you/

As for Network Tasman Ltd’s claim that “nothing gets reduced unless it is measured”…

Well, if that isn’t industry spin, I don;t know what is.  Most people who want to reduce their power bill reduce their use of appliances that use a lot of electricity, for example they boil vegetables instead of baking them if they have an electric stove and hang washing out to dry outside whenever possible, rather than using a tumble dryer, if they have one.  No one needs a “smart meter” to save electricity and reduce their electricity bill.

Network Tasman Ltd smart meter presentationBenfits (direct)

 

Slide 5: More advantages, again mostly for Network Tasman Ltd.  (When did you last have a fuse blow?  I don’t remember ever having to deal with this and I have managed a household and paid electricity bills for 25 years.)

 

Network Tasman Ltd smart meter presentation Benefits (shared)

 

 

Slide 6: A claim that a “smart meter” is “safer than an electric blanket” is not terribly credible. For a start, electric blankets in poor condition can cause fires and electrocution, but over and above that, sleeping on an electric blanket is a potential health hazard  because of the electromagnetic fields (EMF)  created by the wiring.  By contrast “smart meters” create electromagnetic radiation, specifically radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in the microwave spectrum.  So, we are talking about products that have two different types of health risk, one from EMF and one from EMR.

Lest you think an electric blanket is completely safe, at the very end of this post is some info about a possible link between electric blankets and breast cancer. (Not all studies have found a link; but some have.) If you must use an electric blanket, turn it off and unplug it before you get into bed to minimise the exposure to EMF.

The potential health risks from “‘smart meters” are summarised at this link: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/health-issues/

Please note that these do potentially include an increase in the risk of cancer because radiofrquency radiation produced by “smart meters’ is considered a possible carinogen (class 2B by the International Agency for Research on Cancer;  see the link above for details.)

Mr. Stanton also discusses “smart meters” as a possible cause of fires.  There have been some “smart meter”-related fires in NZ as this link shows; however it is not clear if the fires reported in 2010 were an isolated incident or whether this is an ongoing issue. Se this link for a TV3 story about fires:  http://www.3news.co.nz/Fire-prone-meter-boxes-causing-concern/tabid/423/articleID/159133/Default.aspx

Network Tasman Ltd smart meter presentation Is the technology safe

 

Slides 7 and 8: These feature a graph.  The accuracy of this graph has been disputed in a critique of the document from which the graph was sourced.  You can read the critique at this link: https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Hirsch-comments-on-Health-Impacts-of-Radio-Frequency-from-Smart-Meters-California-Council-Science-Technology.pdf

The critique has graphs that you can compare with the one used by Network Tasman Ltd.

For other examples of how Network Tasman Ltd. appears to be trying to “manufacture consent” for “smart meters” with a variety of materials on its website purporting to show that “smart meters” do not cause adverse health effects, please see this link:  www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/

Network Tasman Ltd smart meter presentation RF emissions graphNetwork Tasman Ltd smart meter presentation graph close up

 

Slide 9: To their credit, Network Tasman Ltd has stated that people can “opt out” of having a “smart meter” and there will be “no cost” for this.

As you can see at the slide below, if you are in this area and you don’t want a “smart meter” you will need to inform Network Tasman Ltd and/or your retailer. (It is probably best to do both and also put a lock and sign on your meter box in case your name is not removed from list given to the local  “smart meter” installer. ) See this link for more details:  https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/how-to-avoid-getting-a-smart-meter/

The safest sort of meter, health-wise is an analogue (Ferraris) meter* so you may wish to state a preference to maintain your current meter, if it is in good working order or for a new analogue (Ferraris) meter to be installed.  A “smart meter” that has had it transmission modem removed may stil pose risks to your privacy, as explained at this link: https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/

Please note that if you are with Genesis or EnergyOnline the Terms and Conditions on these companies’ websites state you must accept a “smart meter”; while Mercury Energy’s Terms and Conditions state that customers must allow meter replacements.   (For details on this issue, and suggestions how to handle it, please see these links: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/smart-meter-installed-without-permission-headaches-result-smart-meter-removed-headaches-disappear/

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/customer-tells-company-smart-meter-not-wanted-company-sends-technician-anyway/

 

*Please note that quite strong magnetic fields can be produced by a Ferraris meter so bed or work desks where people spend a lot of time should not be situated within one metre of a Ferrais meter.  The magnetic field declines rapidly with distance.

 

Network Tasman Ltd smart meter presentation What if you don't want an advanced meter

 

More information about Network Tasman Ltd may be found at these links:

 

www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/answers-to-questions-from-network-tasman-ltd-part-1/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/does-network-tasman-ltd-hope-to-profit-from-smart-water-meters-in-the-nelsontasman-region/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/will-network-tasman-ltd-do-the-right-thing-by-its-community/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/

 

www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/the-advantages-of-smart-meters/

 

Electric blankets as a possible cause of breast cancer:

New Zealand scientist Dr Neil Cherry  (sadly deceased) reported in detail on the of electromagnetic fields and cancer in a paper titled “Electromagnetic Radiation Causes Cancer: The Implications for Breast Cancer” at the World Conference on Breast Cancer in Canada in 1999.  The PDF may be downloaded at this link:
http://www.neilcherry.com/documents/90_s3_EMR-EMF_and_BREAST_Cancer.pdf

The following two links are to studies that show an association between electric blanket use and increased breast cancer risk.  (There are also studies that do not show a link.)

http://www.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/158/8/798.abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1862801

Answers to questions from Network Tasman Ltd…Part 2

Site editor’s introduction: Prior to addressing the Golden Bay Community Board and members of the public on May 13, 2014, Network Tasman Ltd’s employee Andrew Stanton was asked to supply answers to 32 written questions. (The initial 32 questions may be read at the bottom of this post https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/answer-the-questions-network-tasman-ltd/.) Mr. Stanton initially chose to respond to only 16 of the 32 questions.

These replies (which he re-numbered 1- 16, which does not reflect the original numbering) are at this link https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/answers-to-questions-from-network-tasman-ltd-part-1/

On the same that I published this post www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/answer-the-questions-network-tasman-ltd/ Mr. Stanton provided more answers, and these will be the subject of this post.

The text supplied by Mr. Stanton is in standard font. I have made comments in response to some of the answers to the questions and these are in italics to distinguish them from the answers supplied by Mr. Stanton.

 

Questions for Network Tasman Ltd (2)

 

1)      If individual “smart meters” will act as a local hub, what is the number of other “smart meters” from which each hub meter will be receiving and transmitting data?*

 

Please give an estimate of the number of other meters with which each meter will communicate.

 

  1. Yes most meters will act as relay points ( or hubs) for other meters and the very nature of the mesh network makes it difficult to state exactly how many meters each meter will communicate with. Terrain, weather, vegetation and environment all impact on the mesh and meter hops change on a daily basis. Studies from other operational networks in NZ show most meters communicate with either 1 or 2 other meters and that 90% of meters communicate with 3 meters or less.

 

This suggests that 10% of “smart meters” in the type of network proposed by Network Tasman Ltd will be more active than most.

 

2)      How often are non-data-transmission signals (time synchronisation signals, network admin or local communication checks etc.) sent from the “smart meters” (for example, between the “smart meters” themselves if they are part of a mesh network or between individual meters and another network (such as cellular phone network or other network?)*

 

  1. I don’t have any information on the split between ‘data’ and ‘non-data’ transmissions, all of our information is on total transmission time rather than summarised by data type. Test results from operational meter systems show that the median transmission duration for a meter is 45 seconds per day and that includes all data, time sync, admin etc transmissions.

 

This sounds reassuring enough but you will see from this post

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/answers-to-questions-from-network-tasman-ltd-part-1/

that even in cases where the median transmission time for a “smart meter” is about 45 seconds per 24 hours, this still exposes occupants of a home or business to more than 9,000 brief pulses of radiofrequency radiation over than 24 hour period, which works out to be about one pulse every eight and a half seconds, or so.

 

3)      What is the duration of any non-data transmission signals sent by these meters?*

 

  1. See answer above

 

4)      Will NTL re-certify existing analogue meters which are in good working condition?* (This questions requires a YES or NO answer so that people know where they stand with the company.)

 

  1. Both NTL and the customer would miss out on benefits with a recertified analogue meter so at this stage we are not looking at recertifying old meters.

In his presentation to the Golden Bay Community Board and members of the public on May 13, 2014, Mr. Stanton stated the it was electricity retailers that were pushing Network Tasman Ltd to move to “smart meters”. It would be a shame if electricity retailers’ interests trumped those of the general public and this is the reason that Network Tasman Ltd has stated that they are “not looking at recertifying old [analogue] meters. Removing meters that are in still in good condition is very wasteful.

 

5)      Will NTL remove “smart meters” promptly on request if a customer changes his/her mind and decides the health, privacy etc. risks from a “smart meter” is not acceptable?

 

  1. We would work with the customer to investigate their concerns and find an agreeable solution as both NTL and the customer would miss out on benefits with the removal of a meter.

 

As per my comments at this link: https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/answers-to-questions-from-network-tasman-ltd-part-1/

It does not give customers much confidence if Network Tasman Ltd will not give a firm undertaking to remove “smart meters” promptly if occupants of the home or business where they have been installed decide they do not want to to be exposed to the potentially carcinogenic RFR produced by the meters, or they are unhappy with the risks to their privacy (and potential home security) posed by the “smart meters”.   (See this link for a discussion of “smart meters” and privacy: https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/ Information about “smart meters” and health may be found at this link www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/health-issues/.

 

6)      In microwatts per square metre, how much RFR would someone be exposed to: (NB: Please specify the measurement of the actual pulse, not time averaged data.)

i)                    10 cm from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

ii)                   30 cm from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

iii)                 50cm from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

iv)                 1 metre from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

v)                  5 metres from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission

vi)                 10 metres from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

vii)               20 metres from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

 

  1. See below

 

7)      In microwatts per square metre, please state the RFR exposure from the Landis+Gyr “smart meter” for someone during time synchronisation signals, network admin or local communication checks etc. at the distances as specified above. (NB: Please specify actual measurements of each pulse, not time averaged data.)

 

  1. See below

 

8)      In microwatts per square metre, how much RFR would someone be exposed to: (NB: Please specify the actual pulse, not time average data.)

i)                    10 cm from a relay during a data package transmission

ii)                   30 cm from a relay during a data package transmission

iii)                 50cm from a relay during a data package transmission

iv)                 1 metre from a relay during a data package transmission

v)                  5 metres from a relay during a data package transmission

vi)                 10 metres from a relay during a data package transmission

vii)               20 metres from a relay during a data package transmission

viii)              50 metres from a relay during a data package transmission

ix)                 100 metres from a relay during a data package transmission

 

  1. See below

 

9)      In microwatts per square metre, how much RFR would someone be exposed to: (NB: Please specify the actual pulse, not time average data.)

 

x)                  10 cm from an access point during a data package transmission

xi)                 30 cm from an access point during a data package transmission

xii)               50cm from an access point during a data package transmission

xiii)              1 metre from an access point during a data package transmission

xiv)             5 metres from an access point during a data package transmission

xv)               10 metres from an access point during a data package transmission

xvi)             20 metres from an access point during a data package transmission

xvii)            50 metres from an access point during a data package transmission

xviii)          100 metres from an access point during a data package transmission

 

  1. See below

 

10)   In microwatts per square metre, please supply the RF that someone would be exposed to at the distances specified above from i) a relay and ii) an access point

a)      during time synchronisation signals,

b)      network admin

c)       or local communication checks

d)      any other RF pulse produced by either a relay or access point

(NB: Please specify actual measurements of each pulse, not time averaged data.)

 

  1. The Hawaii Natural Energy Institute has just provided a report that has a lot of detail on actual measurements taken from in service meters and Access Points at various distances. The report can be found via a link on our website to the SSN resource centre for anyone interested in the detailed responses requested in Q6-10.In summary the report shows that when standing directly in front of a meter while it was transmitting on peak power a person would be exposed to 0.00004% of the RF limits in the NZ standard. Standing at the base of a pole with an AP transmitting would expose a person to the same peak level, 0.00004% of the NZ limits.

 

Mr. Stanton refused to answer questions relating to the amount of radiofrequency radiation in the first list of 32 questions were sent to him, so the same questions were included in the second list of questions. Interestingly enough, he has not answered them again.

I have looked at the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute’s website and I have not found the document to which Mr. Stanton refers, above. (Perhaps I missed something? I can’t spend all day reading “smart meter”-related websites.) If any readers find the URL, please email it to me through the Contact form at this link: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/contact-us/ Thank you.

However, given his obviously reluctance to give people information in actual units (rather than as a percentage of the NZ standard), perhaps Mr. Stanton’s omission of a URL to the appropriate page on the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute’s website was intentional.

In any event, it seems curious that Mr. Stanton should state that “when standing directly in front of a meter while it was transmitting on peak power a person would be exposed to 0.00004% of the RF limits in the NZ standard” when according to a document which may be downloaded from this link http://www.networktasman.co.nz/Advanced_Meters/Radio%20Frequency%20Safety.pdf of Network Tasman Ltd’s website, someone standing one foot away from a Silver Springs enabled “smart meter” is exposed to 8.8 microwatts per square centimetre – which works out to be 88,000 microwatts per square meter. 88,000 microwatts per square metre is 1.95% of the national standard for RFR of the frequency used by the meters. 1.95% (of NS2772.1:1999 – see below) is a lot higher than 0.00004% – which equates to 180 microwatts per square metre.

According to another document on Network Tasman’s Ltd’s website the national standard (NS2772.1:1999) is 4,500,000 microwatts per square metre. However, in most respects, NS2772.1:1999 is irrelevant, because it is designed to protect against only thermal effects from microwave radiation, not other possible adverse biological effects such as DNA damage and cancer. Thus, any exposure to even a low percentage of NS2772.1:1999 needs to be assessed on the basis of what is known about the potential risks to health with the particular level of RFR – and not assumed to be safe simply because it is a lot lower than the national standard.

It is also curious that Mr Stanton states that the amount of radiofrequency radiation that people are exposed to from a relay (if they are standing at the bottom of a pole on which the relay is mounted) is also 0.00004% of the NZ standard. The document at this link http://www.networktasman.co.nz/Advanced_Meters/Report%20on%20Generic%20EMF%20for%20SmartCo%20v%201.1.pdf suggests that exposure may be significantly higher but it is hard to know for sure, because the document at the link above includes only calculated values, not actual values. (Also: The relay will no doubt be designed to broadcast outwards to communicate with “smart meters” rather than at the ground, which is another factor which may influence exposure.)

(For a more in depth discussion of the emissions from the “smart grid” that Network Tasman Ltd wants to build, please see this link: https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/)

Really, it would be much simpler if Mr. Stanton just fronted with the answers to the actual questions asked of Network Tasman Ltd.

 

11)   Please supply a map showing proposed (and any existing) relay and/or access points.

 

  1. These are available at our office

Why not supply a copy, as requested? (Failure to do so may lead some people to suspect that Network Tasman Ltd may not want this information to be made public.)

12)   Will NTL act as an MEP and install certified analogue meters for people for whom a “smart” meter (even with the transmission modem removed) is not an acceptable option?

 

  1. Our preference is to install electronic meters for all customers as it greatly reduces the number of meters in service.

 

13)   Will NTL remove “smart meters” promptly on request if a customer develops new symptoms after a “smart meter” installation?

 

  1. The RF emissions from any meter are very, very low and only for a few seconds per day. If anyone does believe they are being affected by a meter we would work with them to investigate their concerns and find an agreeable solution.

 

As I wrote at this link

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/answers-to-questions-from-network-tasman-ltd-part-1/

people would have more confidence in Network Tasman Ltd if it did give a firm undertaking to remove “smart meters” if customers developed new symptoms after a “smart meter” installation. As the coordinator for www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz I know of cases in which people have been made seriously ill by RFR from a “smart meter” at their home and have had to suffer for literally months because their electricity company has been reluctant to remove the “smart meter” – despite the customers disclosing serious symptoms to the company.

 

It is also important to realise that Mr. Stanton’s apparent belief that emissions from a “smart meter” are “very very low” is mistaken. As I explain at this link: https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/

 

“[According to a document on the Network Tasman Ltd website] At one foot away from a “silver spring”-enabled “smart meter” (such as may occur in the case of a meter mounted on a bedroom wall*) someone is exposed to  8.8 microwatts per square cm (or 88,000 microwatts per square metre).  While “smart meters” are designed to produce RFR intermittently, rather than constantly, this is not a trivial level of radiation. The authors of the BioInitiative report (www.bioinitiative.org) have recommended a precautionary level of exposure of 1,000 microwatts per square metre.”  

 

 

14)   Will NTL remove “relays” or “access points” if people living or working or spending time in the vicinity object to being exposed to the RFR from this infrastructure?

 

  1. As with meters the RF emissions from any relay and access points are very, very low. They are easily shifted and if anyone does believe they are being affected we would work with them to investigate their concerns and find an agreeable solution.

 

This is a good undertaking – assuming that Network Tasman Ltd were to take people’s concerns seriously in the event of a complaint.

 

 

15)   Will NTL remove “smart meters” promptly on request if a customer changes his/her mind and decides the health, privacy etc. risks from a “smart meter” is not acceptable?

 

  1. We would work with the customer to investigate their concerns and find an agreeable solution as both NTL and the customer would miss out on benefits with the removal of a meter.

See comments relating to question 5.

 

16)   Given that the FRF produced by the “smart meters” is classified by the WHO’s International agency for Research on Cancer as a “possible carcinogen” (Type 2B, the same as lead) has NTL obtained legal advice should customers with exposure to this radiation via a “smart meter” or smart network equipment develop cancer and decide to seek legal redress for pain, suffering, loss of income, loss of life etc?

 

  1. Not specifically in regard to this subject. It is important to first understand that the classification 2B means that there is “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals” and indeed has the same classification as coffee and bracken. It is also interesting to see what is included under Classification 1 to fully appreciate risk (alcohol, PM10, sunlight). Also to note is that WHO statements suggest that on the balance of evidence to date the exposure to low level RF fields does not cause adverse health effects. Also note comments below.

 

People can choose to avoid many possible or probable carcinogens such as coffee, bracken and alcohol, if they choose. I know of no case in which any person or company has forced anyone to consume any of these substances against their will (and in the unlikely event that this occurred, the perpetrator could well face assault charges.)

To its credit, Network Tasman Ltd has stated that they will not force people to accept “smart meters” if they do not want one.  However, people may still be adversely affected by emissions from their neighbours’ “smart meters” and the “smart grid” that Network Tasman Ltd wants to establish would expose everyone in the vicinity to increased levels of potentially carcinogenic radiofrequency radiation.

 

Some researchers consider radiofrequency radiation in the microwave range may in the future be revised to the status of a probable carcinogen, if research like the paper below.

 

http://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Review-Davis-Kesari-Pathophysiology-proof-2013.pdf

 

17)   Does NTL’s liability insurance also provide cover for third party (customer) claims for pain, suffering, loss of income, loss of life etc. resulting from exposure to RFR from their network and owned devices?

 

  1. NTL’s public liability insurance applies only if it is proven to be negligent. As with EMF’s generated from our electrical distribution network and household appliances, RF generated from “smart meters” are well below international standards and guidelines. Also note comments above.

 

The answer to this question is interesting, given that in her meeting with Network Tasman Ltd, lawyer Sue Grey was told by a staff member that she should not have stated/implied that the company was hiding behind New Zealand’s NS2772.1:1999, which like most international standards is designed to protect only against thermal (tissue heating, burns) effects from radiofrequency radiation, not other possible effects, such as DNA damage and cancer. Unfortunately, from Mr. Stanton’s statement above it appears that “hiding behind” this is exactly what the company wants to do. (See this link for details of Sue Grey’s meeting with representatives of Network Tasman Ltd: https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/will-network-tasman-ltd-do-the-right-thing-by-its-community/

 

 For more information about Network Tasman Ltd please see the following:

www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/answers-to-questions-from-network-tasman-ltd-part-1/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/does-network-tasman-ltd-hope-to-profit-from-smart-water-meters-in-the-nelsontasman-region/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/will-network-tasman-ltd-do-the-right-thing-by-its-community/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/

 

www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/the-advantages-of-smart-meters/

 

 

Answers to questions from Network Tasman Ltd …Part 1

Answers to questions from Network Tasman Ltd …Part 1

Site editor’s introduction: Prior to addressing the Golden Bay Community Board and members of the public on May 13, 2014, Network Tasman Ltd’s employee Andrew Stanton was asked to supply answers to 32 written questions. (The initial 32 questions may be read at the bottom of this post.) Mr. Stanton initially chose to respond to only 16 of the 32 questions.

These replies (which he re-numbered 1- 16, which does not reflect the original numbering) are below. The text supplied by Mr. Stanton is in standard font. I have made comments in response to some of the questions and these are in italics to distinguish them from the answers supplied by Mr. Stanton.

On the same day that I published this post www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/answer-the-questions-network-tasman-ltd/ Mr. Stanton provided more answers, and these will be the subject of a subsequent post.

 

Questions for Network Tasman Ltd

 

1)      How frequently will the “smart meters” transmit data about electricity use?

  1. 4 hourly

 

I suspect that even if data about electricity use (rather than time synchronisation checks and other transmissions) occurs only every four hours, this will only be for a relatively short time as in Auckland at least one company advertises that their customers can check their electricity use every half hour, which means the “smart meters” for these customers must be transmitting at least every 30 minutes.

 

2)      What is the duration of each transmission (of data about electricity use)?

  1. 1-2 secs

 

3)      Will the meters be organised as a mesh network?

  1. Yes

 

NB: When “smart meters” are organised in a mesh network, each “smart meter” communicates with at least one other “smart meter”, which can be expected to increase the number of times ach “smart meter” produces bursts of radiofrequency radiation (RFR).

 

For example, below is an example of transmissions from a document from Pacific Gas and Electric Co (in North America). The table in the data may be from a different manufacturer’s “smart meter” but you can see that even if the average transmission per “smart meter” is only 45.3 seconds per 24 hours, this still exposes anyone in the vicinity to thousands of pulses of radiofrequency radiation over the 24 hours period. In some cases, “smart meters” are active more than the median figure cited, which potentially means that some people’s exposure to RFR from a “smart meter” is significantly increased as shown in the second column.  (Click on the image to enlarge it.)

Table of emissions cited from A critique of the New Zealand Report Health and safety Aspects of Electricity Meters by Don Maisch 

 

 

 

With a median exposure of 9,981 pulses of RFR per 24 hours, as above, this means that people in the vicinity of this type of meter are exposed to a median exposure of 6.93 pulses per minute. Or to put it another way, they are exposed to pulse of RFR from the “smart meter” every eight and a half seconds, or so.

 

The source for the table is “A critique of the New Zealand Report ‘Health and Safety Aspects of Electricity Smart Meters” by Don Maisch, Ph.D. which may be downloaded from this link: www.emfacts.com/download/New_Zealand_critique3.pdf

 

As you can see from the first of the graphics below (also sourced from Dr. Maisch’s critique, as above), which shows actual in-use emissions one metre away from a “smart meter” in Melbourne (probably a different brand of meter from the one for which the data is supplied in the table above) not all RFR pulses from “smart meters” may be of the same intensity. (Click on the image to enlarge it.)

 Melbourne smart meter RFR profile  

 

 

However, they are frequent – about 10 per minute as you can see in the graphic “Table 2” (below).  (Click on the image to enlarge it.)

 

 Transmission profile from smart meter in Melbourne home

 

 

Even though the strength of the RF pulses varies, even the lowest of the RF pulses detected in this case are all in the range higher than the Building Biology Guidelines classifies as cause for “severe concern”. See: http://www.emfacts.com/2008/07/910-building-biology-evaluation-guidelines/

 

4)      If individual “smart meters” will act as a local hub, what is the number of other “smart meters” from which each hub meter will be receiving and transmitting data?

  1. This is difficult to predict due to the very nature of the mesh – but tests from operational meter systems in Australia show that over 99% of meters are transmitting for less that 1% of the time.

 

While this may be true, this still means that people can be exposed to thousands of pulses of RFR every 24 hours, as shown in the table above.

 

5)      How often are non-data-transmission signals (time synchronisation signals, network admin or local communication checks etc.) sent from the “smart meters” (for example, between the “smart meters” themselves if they are part of a mesh network or between individual meters and another network (such as cellular phone network or other network?)

  1. Tests from operational meter systems show that the median transmission duration for a meter is 45 seconds per day

 

Please see the comments and the table and graphics below Mr. Stanton’s answer to Question 3 for a discussion of the significance of the median 45 seconds per day transmission time.

 

 

6)      What is the duration of any non-data transmission signals sent by these meters?

  1. The median transmission duration that can be expected is 45 seconds per day, and this includes all meter data, time sync and network management transmissions.

 

Please see the comments and the table and graphics below Mr. Stanton’s answer to Question 3 for a discussion of the significance of the median 45 second per day transmission time.

 

 

7)      Regarding the “Smartco Relay and Access points” what independent testing has NTL commissioned regarding the RFR emissions from this infrastructure? If testing has been commissioned, please supply a copy of the report.

 

  1. Independent tests were carried out in 2013, there is a copy of the test report on our website.

 

The link https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/ discusses the documents on the Network Tasman Ltd website. (Specifically, the document relating to the “Smartco Relay and Access points” showed that emissions close to this infrastructure (at 0.15-0.4 metres away) could be as high as 25% of New Zealand’s National Standard (NS 2772.1:1999) for RFR in the relevant frequency range. The document on Network Tasman Ltd’s website states the NS2772.1:1999 is 4,500,000 microwatts per square metre – which means close range exposure is up to 1,125,000 microwatts per square metre.)

 

8)      Has NTL applied for resource consent for the relay and access points? If so, please supply a copy of the resource consent application and approval, if approved.

 

  1. Both the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils have provided Certificates of Compliance as our activities are covered under a National Environmental Standard, these certificates can be sighted at our offices.

 

Why not simply supply a copy of these certificates rather than requiring people to drive to Network Tasman Ltd’s Nelson offices to be able to view these documents?

 

9)      Do the Landis meters contain a ZigBee chip/unit?

  1. Yes but it is not enabled.

 

My understanding is that for the type of “smart meters” Network Tasman Ltd wants to install, the default setting for the ZigBee chip is that it is not enabled.

 

However I do not know how the ZigBee chip is “enabled”.

 

Perhaps this could be done at the time of installation, or through the optical port on the “smart meter” or possibly it could even be done remotely. In any of these cases, if the customer were not informed that Network Tasman Ltd had “enabled” the ZigBee chip, the exposure of people in that home or business to RFR from the “smart meter” could significantly increase without their realising that this has occurred.

 

10)   If so, how often will this ZigBee chip/unit produce RFR?

  1. It is not enabled.

This answer does not answer the question.  This  is interesting given that on the FAQs page of Network Tasman Ltd’s website (as of May 31, 2014) it states:         


“Consumers can set energy efficient appliances to interact with their advanced meter to alter usage to suit their lifestyle and manage electricity costs”.

To the best of my knowledge a functioning ZigBee chip is necessary for the “smart meter” to be able to communicate with any “smart” appliances in the home.

Clearly in the future, Network Tasman Ltd intends to enable the ZigBee chips – buit it doesn’t want customers to know how much additional RFR these chips will produce.

 

11)   If the “smart meters” contain a ZigBee chip/unit will this continue to operate if the main transmission modem is removed?

 

  1. No the ZigBee unit is contained within the transmission module

To the best of my knowledge, this is true.

 

12)   Given that the EPEC report states that report states that “a sensible approach” is to site “smart meters” somewhere where people are “unlikely to spend longer than a few minutes per day at a distance of less than 1 metre from them” will NTL avoid placing “smart meters” on bedroom walls or other locations where people spend large amounts of time (such as on walls adjacent to work desks, for example.)

  1. Meters will be located on meter boards, eternal antenna are available if a meter board is in close proximity to a space where people spend a lot of time, and for context it may be useful to quote the full section of the EPEC report:

 

“It is much more likely that we would spend an hour or so a day talking on the mobile phone or working within 1 metre of our wireless router or laptop than standing within 1 meter of our Smart Meter. However, taking the advice from NZS2772:Part 1:1999 to minimise unnecessary or incidental RF exposure, a sensible approach is to locate Smart Meters in positions where the general public will be at least 1 metre away from them for all but a few minutes per day. This will ensure that mobile phone use remains, by far, the most significant RF source to which any member of the public is likely to be exposed.”

 

Many people choose not the use wireless internet and to keep their use of a cell phone to an absolute minimum, or not even use a cell phone.

 

13)   Will NTL re-certify existing analogue meters which are in good working condition?

  1. Both NTL and the customer would miss out on benefits with a recertified analogue meter.

 

This does not answer the question. Moreover, It is wasteful to discard meters that are in good working condition.

 

14)   Will NTL [Network Tasman Ltd.] act as an MEP [Meter Equipment Provider] and install certified analogue meters for people for whom a “smart” meter (even with the transmission modem removed) is not an acceptable option?

  1. Our preference is to install electronic meters for all customers as it reduces the number of meters in service.

 

This answer does not really answer the question. However, “smart meters” are considerably more expensive than new analogue (ferraris) meters so Network Tasman Ltd could easily a afford to buy a few more new analogue meters and spare its customers the risk from the additional RFR and possibly “dirty electricity” produced by “smart meters”.

 

 

15)   Will NTL remove “smart meters” promptly on request if a customer develops new symptoms after a “smart meter” installation?

  1. The RF emissions from any meter are very,very low and only for a few seconds per day. If anyone does believe they are being affected by a meter we would work with them to investigate there concerns and find an agreeable solution.

 

People would have more confidence in Network Tasman Ltd if it did give a firm undertaking to remove “smart meters” if customers developed new symptoms after a “smart meter” installation. As the coordinator for www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz I know of cases in which people have been made seriously ill by RFR from a “smart meter” at their home and have had to suffer for literally months because their electricity company has been reluctant to remove the “smart meter” – despite the customers disclosing serious symptoms to the company.

 

It is also important to realise that Mr. Stanton’s apparent belief that emissions from a “smart meter” are “very very low” is mistaken. As I explain at this link: https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/

 

“[According to data on the Network Tasman Ltd website] At one foot away from a “silver spring”-enabled “smart meter” (such as may occur in the case of a meter mounted on a bedroom wall*) someone is exposed to  8.8 microwatts per square cm (or 88,000 microwatts per square metre).  While “smart meters” are designed to produce RFR intermittently, rather than constantly, this is not a trivial level of radiation. The authors of the BioInitiative report (www.bioinitiative.org) have recommended a precautionary level of exposure as 1,000 microwatts per square metre.”  

 

At 25 feet [about 8 metres] away from the “smart meter” the exposure [according to data on the Network Tasman Ltd website] has dropped to 500 microwatts per square metre, which is safer, but is still at a level that many people with electrohypersensitivity (EHS) will not be able to tolerate.  (For information on EHS please see this link: https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/health-issues/     and https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/what-is-it-like-to-live-with-electrohypersensitivity-ehs-one-womans-story/

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/electrohypersensitivity-a-short-film-by-time-magazine-free-to-watch-online/

For information about how “smart meters” may trigger the development of electrosensitivity  some people, please see this link: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/survey-of-people-adversely-affected-by-smart-meters/ 

 

 

16)   Will NTL remove “smart meters” promptly on request if a customer changes his/her mind and decides the health, privacy etc. risks from a “smart meter” is not acceptable?

  1. We would work with the customer to investigate their concerns and find an agreeable solution as both NTL and the customer would miss out on benefits with the removal of a meter.

Electricity companies frequently state that “smart meters” have “benefits” for customers. However, a major US utility recently admitted that the “benefits” of “smart meters” are for the electricity company, not consumers who are exposed to increased levels of RFR from these meters, and for whom the introduction of time-of-use pricing after a “smart meter” roll out may significantly increase electricity bills .

See these links for details of how “smart meter” benefit electricity companies, not ordinary people or businesses:

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/major-us-utility-says-no-rational-basis-for-smart-meters/

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/the-advantages-of-smart-meters/

 

For more information about Network Tasman Ltd please see the following links: 

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/answers-to-questions-from-network-tasman-ltd-part-2/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/does-network-tasman-ltd-hope-to-profit-from-smart-water-meters-in-the-nelsontasman-region/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/will-network-tasman-ltd-do-the-right-thing-by-its-community/

 

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/

 

www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/the-advantages-of-smart-meters/

 

 

 

Answer the questions, Network Tasman Ltd

Site editor’s note:  Since this post was published online at about 1.30 pm Wednesday May 28, 2014, Mr Andrew Stanton has produced some more answers to the list of questions asked of him over two weeks ago.  A post detailing the responses to the questions will be written and published on this website when I have time. 

It is interesting to note, that the request made to supply a map of where the “relays” and “access points”  for the local “smart grid” that Network Tasman Ltd wants to put up (see below) was answered with the statement that the map was at Network Tasman Ltd’s offices.  The map itself has not been supplied.

 

As of this writing (May 27, 2014) despite having had more than two weeks to answer 32 questions about the “smart meters” Network Tasman Ltd plans to install in homes and business in the Nelson-Tasman region (and the “smart grid” infrastructure it want to create to support the operation of the “smart meters”) Network Tasman Ltd has not answered all of the questions.

NB: The original list of questions may be read at the end of this post.

Network Tasman Ltd employee Mr Stanton has provided answers to some of the questions [1], but not others,  so a second list of questions, (comprising those questions that Mr Stanton had either failed to answer, or those for which his answer was insufficient) was sent to Mr Stanton.  As of this writing, these questions are still unanswered.

Tellingly, perhaps, the questions that Mr Stanton has not answered related to the following areas of enquiry:

* The amount of radiofrequency radiation (RFR), in microwatts per square metre, that will be produced by the “smart” meters that Network Tasman Ltd wants to install in people’s homes.

* How often the “smart” meters that Network Tasman Ltd wants to install in people’s homes will produce radiofrequency radiation.

*  The amount of radiofrequency radiation (in microwatts per square metre) that will be produced by the “relays” and “access points” that Newtwork Tasman Ltd wants to instal as part of a local  “smart grid”.

* How often  radiofrequency radiation (RFR) will be produced by the “relays” and “access points” that Network Tasman Ltd wants to install as part of a local “smart grid”.

*The planned locations for the “relays” and “access points” that Network Tasman Ltd wants to install as part of a local  “smart grid”.  (A request for a map of these locations, a document which is known to be in existence, has been ignored.)

*  A question as to whether Network Tasman Ltd would remove these “relays” and “access points” if they were not acceptable to people who live, work or otherwise spend time in the vicinity of this infrastructure was likewise ignored.

 

A number of questions were not answered with sufficient clarify, for example,  questions relating to the following topics:

* Whether or not Network Tasman Ltd will undertake to remove “smart meters”  when people report adverse effects on their health?

Rather than give a simple “yes” or “no” answer, (which would let people know where they stand with the company in the event that they allow a “smart meter” installation),  the response to this query was:

“The RF emissions from any meter are very,very low and only for a few seconds per day. If anyone does believe they are being affected by a meter we would work with them to investigate there [sic] concerns and find an agreeable solution.”

Given that a document* on Network Tasman Ltd’s website shows that someone one foot way from one of its “smart meters” is exposed to 88,000 microwatts per square metre when the “smart meter” is transmitting, not a trivial amount of RFR by any means, Mr Stanton’s claim that the “RF emissions from any meter as very,very low” seems ignorant at best, disingenuous at worst.  (*See this link https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/ for a discussion of the  the documents on Network Tasman Ltd’s website.)

* A question asking if NTL  would re-certify existing analogue meters which are in good working condition, which simply required a “yes” or “no” answer received this response: “Both NTL and the customer would miss out on benefits with a recertified analogue meter.”

New Zealanders are unfortunately used to dissembling or spinning of important issues by politicians and by people who work for large corporations.  However, it s a sad day for the country when a community-owned company like Network Tasman Ltd doesn’t have the courtesy to answer basic questions about the new, potentially hazardous technology it wants to introduce into people’s living and working environments.

 

[1]  A list of the answers provided to date by Mr Stanton, with editorial comments, will be included on this website in a subsequent post.

 

NB: Other links on this site relating to Network Tasman Ltd  are below:

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/does-network-tasman-ltd-hope-to-profit-from-smart-water-meters-in-the-nelsontasman-region/

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/will-network-tasman-ltd-do-the-right-thing-by-its-community/

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/

 

 

The original list of questions, sent to Network  Tasman Ltd employe Mr Andrew Stanton over two weeks ago, is below.

Questions for Network Tasman Ltd

 

1)      What is the make and model of the Landis+Gyr meters selected by NTL? (Please supply a copy of the manufacturer’s specifications for the meters.)

2)      What frequency range do the Landis+Gyr “smart meters” selected by NTL use to transmit data about electricity use?

3)      How frequently will the “smart meters” transmit data about electricity use?

4)      What is the duration of each transmission (of data about electricity use)?

5)      Will the meters be organised as a mesh network?

6)      If the meters are part of a mesh network, what proportion of meters will act as local “hubs”?

7)      Will customers be informed that their “smart meter” will be the local “hub” for their neighbourhood?

8)      If individual “smart meters” will act as a local hub, what is the number of other “smart meters” from which each hub meter will be receiving and transmitting data?

9)      How often are non-data-transmission signals (time synchronisation signals, network admin or local communication checks etc.) sent from the “smart meters” (for example, between the “smart meters” themselves if they are part of a mesh network or between individual meters and another network (such as cellular phone network or other network?)

10)   What is the duration of any non-data transmission signals sent by these meters?

11)   What independent testing has NTL commissioned regarding the RFR emissions from the Landis+Gyr “smart meters”? If testing has been commissioned, please supply a copy of the report.

12)   In microwatts per square metre, how much RFR would someone be exposed to: (NB: Please specify the measurement of the actual pulse, not time averaged data.)

i)                    10 cm from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

ii)                   30 cm from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

iii)                 50cm from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

iv)                 1 metre from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

v)                  5 metres from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

vi)                 10 metres from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

vii)               20 metres from the “smart meter” (during a data package transmission)

 

 

 

 

13)   In microwatts per square metre, please state the RFR exposure from the Landis+Gyr “smart meter” for someone during time synchronisation signals, network admin or local communication checks etc. at the distances as specified above. (NB: Please specify actual measurements of each pulse, not time averaged data.)

14)   Regarding the “Smartco Relay and Access points” what independent testing has NTL commissioned regarding the RFR emissions from this infrastructure? If testing has been commissioned, please supply a copy of the report.

15)   In microwatts per square metre, how much RFR would someone be exposed to: (NB: Please specify the actual pulse, not time average data.)

i)                    10 cm from a relay during a data package transmission

ii)                   30 cm from a relay during a data package transmission

iii)                 50cm from a relay during a data package transmission

iv)                 1 metre from a relay during a data package transmission

v)                  5 metres from a relay during a data package transmission

vi)                 10 metres from a relay during a data package transmission

vii)               20 metres from a relay during a data package transmission

viii)              50 metres from a relay during a data package transmission

ix)                 100 metres from a relay during a data package transmission

 

 

16)   In microwatts per square metre, how much RFR would someone be exposed to: (NB: Please specify the actual pulse, not time average data.)

 

x)                  10 cm from an access point during a data package transmission

xi)                 30 cm from an access point during a data package transmission

xii)               50cm from an access point during a data package transmission

xiii)              1 metre from an access point during a data package transmission

xiv)             5 metres from an access point during a data package transmission

xv)               10 metres from an access point during a data package transmission

xvi)             20 metres from an access point during a data package transmission

xvii)            50 metres from an access point during a data package transmission

xviii)          100 metres from an access point during a data package transmission

 

17)   In microwatts per square metre, please supply the RF that someone would be exposed to at the distances specified above from i) a relay and ii) an access point

a)      during time synchronisation signals,

b)      network admin

c)       or local communication checks

d)      any other RF pulse produced by either a relay or access point

(NB: Please specify actual measurements of each pulse, not time averaged data.)

 

18)   Has NTL applied for resource consent for the relay and access points? If so, please supply a copy of the resource consent application and approval, if approved.

19)   If resource consent has not yet been sought, why has resource consent not been sought?

20)   Please supply a map showing proposed (and any existing) relay and/or access points.

21)   Do the Landis meters contain a ZigBee chip/unit?

22)   If so, how often will this ZigBee chip/unit produce RFR?

23)   If the “smart meters” contain a ZigBee chip/unit will this continue to operate if the main transmission modem is removed?

24)   Given that the EPEC report states that report states that “a sensible approach” is to site “smart meters” somewhere where people are “unlikely to spend longer than a few minutes per day at a distance of less than 1 metre from them” will NTL avoid placing “smart meters” on bedroom walls or other locations where people spend large amounts of time (such as on walls adjacent to work desks, for example.)

25)   Will NTL re-certify existing analogue meters which are in good working condition?

26)   Will NTL act as an MEP and install certified analogue meters for people for whom a “smart” meter (even with the transmission modem removed) is not an acceptable option?

27)   Will NTL remove “smart meters” promptly on request if a customer develops new symptoms after a “smart meter” installation?

28)   Will NTL remove “relays” or “access points” if people living or working or spending time in the vicinity object to being exposed to the RFR from this infrastructure?

29)   Will NTL remove a “smart meter” promptly if it installed despite a customer notifying NTL that s/he does not want a “smart meter”?

30)   Will NTL remove “smart meters” promptly on request if a customer changes his/her mind and decides the health, privacy etc. risks from a “smart meter” is not acceptable?

31)   Given that the RFR produced by the “smart meters” is classified by the WHO’s International agency for Research on Cancer as a “possible carcinogen” (Type 2B the same as lead) has NTL obtained legal advice should customers with exposure to this radiation via a “smart meter” or smart network equipment develop cancer and decide to seek legal redress for pain, suffering, loss of income, loss of life etc?

32)   Does NTL’s liability insurance also provide cover for third party (customer) claims for pain, suffering, loss of income, loss of life etc. resulting from exposure to RFR from their network and owned devices?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Network Tasman Ltd hope to profit from “smart” water meters in the Nelson/Tasman region?

A story in last year’s Nelson Mail  begins like this:

“Network Tasman will invest $15 million installing electronic meters to homes and businesses.

“It will allow the company to better manage its load, and will enable consumers to not only see how much electricity they are using but potentially also use them to provide information on their electric car, rooftop solar power system or check their water consumption.” [emphasis added]

The article further states:

“Because the electronic meters would be read by radio signal or wireless system they might have other uses, such as remote reading of water meters.” [emphasis added]

It also quotes Network Tasman Ltd’s chairman Ian Kearney as saying;

“If the council wanted to have their water meters read they could use our wireless system to do that and have some benefits from a council point of view, and from the consumer’s point would be able to look at their water consumption.”

There is no by-line for the article which suggests it may be a press release from Network Tasman Ltd.

The full article may be read here:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/8972010/Meters-offer-energy-use-insight

It is salutary to note that the types of “smart” water meters which have been installed in limited numbers in NZ produce pulses of radiofrequency radiation capable of traveling for half a kilometre – and that each “smart” water meter produces these pulse every eight seconds.   These so-called “smart” water meters have the potential to add to the electromagnetic pollution in the communities where they are installed and are likely to cause problems for people who suffer from electrohypersensitivity

If Network Tasman Ltd’s planned roll out of  “smart” (or “advanced” meters) and the local “smart grid” goes ahead, this will mean that the infrastructure to receive the signals from “smart” water meters is already in place, ready and waiting for “smart” water meters. Contracts to collect the data from such “smart” water meters and supply it to Councils (or possibly even other parties) could be one way that Network Tasman Ltd plans to recoup the 15 millions dollars it plans to spend establishing a network of “smart” meters and a “smart grid”.  A “smart grid” may potentially also be able to supply the data from “smart” water meters in real time which raises privacy concerns.

It appears that Network Tasman Ltd is as keen on “smart” water meters as it is on “smart meters” for electricity.  That’s understandable given that there is potentially lots of money in contracts for providing remote “smart”  water meter “reading” services.  However, just because Network Tasman Ltd thinks it can make money from a technology, that does not mean the company has the right to foist that technology on its community.  Especially not a technology like “smart” metering which poses risks to  health.

 

For more information on “smart” water meters in NZ and on Network Tasman Ltd, please see these links:

“Smart” water metering

www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/smart-water-meters-in-nz-the-situation-so-far/

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/is-the-wel-smart-box-a-way-to-facilitate-smart-water-metering/

www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/smart-water-meters-being-considered-for-tauranga/

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/live-in-tairua-if-you-dont-want-a-smart-water-meter-read-this-post/

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/tairua-smart-water-meter-update/

Network Tasman Ltd

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/will-network-tasman-ltd-do-the-right-thing-by-its-community/

https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/

 

 

Company tries to bully chronically ill woman

Site editor’s note: Further to the report at this link https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/is-your-electricity-company-bullying-you/, with the permission of his patient, the health professional treating her for her chronic, severe autoimmune problem has typed up his patient’s recollection of her recent dealings with her electricity company, and it is presented below.

Please note this is not necessarily word-for-word but communicates the tone and content of the conversation between his patient and a representative of her electricity company:

 

 

Customer [who has autoimmune condition] “I do not want a smart meter. You promised twice, a year or two ago, that you would not install because of my health problems.

 

Mercury: We have now changed the policy & what you say no longer counts. The new policy is to have meters in every house.

 

Customer:  But it affects my health (Auto-immune disorder).

 

Mercury: That’s our policy.

 

Customer: I have a contract for the “safe” delivery of electricity & you have now changed this to “unsafe.”

 

Mercury: It IS safe. It has been proven to be safe, Madam.

 

Customer: To my belief & knowledge it is harmful to my health and therefore you need my permission to install a smart meter.

 

Mercury: We can come onto your property at anytime and do what we want and there is not a thing that you can do about it.

 

Customer: That’s obscene, to have no rights whatsoever.

 

Site editor’s note:  Given the arrogant attitude of the staff as demonstrated above, this chronically ill lady changed electricity companies as she felt she had no other option as she was not prepared to accept a “smart meter” given that her health was already fragile and she was not prepared to accept the risk that a “smart meter” might cause further damage to her health. She suffered a financial loss of $250 as she had to break the contract early.

For an example of another customer’s recent experiences with Mercury Energy, please see this link: https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/customer-tells-company-smart-meter-not-wanted-company-sends-technician-anyway/

 

Note to any representative of Mercury Energy who may read this post: If the Mercury staff member who spoke with this customer was not representing Mercury Energy’s policy vis-a-vis “smart meters” accurately, please email through the contact form at this link https://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/contact-us/. Thank you.