TURN OFF YOUR WIFI ROUTER BEFORE BED!
Must See Videos
The videos below are on various subjects, all about saving mankind and making this a better world to live in.
Warning! These videos may be shocking and the information is true and can be very scary. We must all take action to change the way things are headed or perish from this beautiful garden we were set here to protect and preserve.
The 3 min trailer “Take Back Your Power” – A must see!
Cyber Defence Expert- David Chalk – final warning
IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN..YOU MUST WATCH THIS!!! PLEASE!!!
Important Video (below) about how EMF is effecting your Human Body….Yes it is long and well worth the watch and knowing this information.
This is an IMPORTANT VIDEO.. Smart Meter INFO is at: 17:23 through about 23 min into the video. Please watch this and know it is the truth.
The video below is the cold harsh truth about Chem trails.. How it is destroying the PH of our soil and poisoning each and everyone of us on a daily basis.
Chem Trails #2 – the truth and wow you need to know this!
The Video Below is Bob Frank speaking in Las Vegas at the PUCN hearing on Smart Meters June 19, 2012
There were over 20 speakers and all made great, valid and factual speeches. limited to 5 min.
The Video below is about EMF, Radiation from cell phones and the dire results on our children. Again this is the truth..
The video below is about dirty Ele. and smart meters
Below video about loss of bees and bats due to RF smart meters. about 2 min
Below video..Expert on Cancer and Electromagnetic Frequency EMF: EMF as a weapon:
Smart Meter Fires/Maryland hearing on issue
Maryland Hearing to Consider Smart Meter Fires After Pennsylvania Utility PECO Energy Calls a Moratorium
This post came from: stopsmartmeters.org 8/27/2012
As reported in the Baltimore Sun today, the Maryland Public Service Commission may have some tough questions for the state’s utilities tomorrow at an emergency hearing specifically looking at the issue of fires caused by “smart” meters. Or, more likely it will be another dog and pony show assuring the public everything is alright even as people’s homes burn down, thousands are sickened and spied upon and the bottom falls out from under the smart grid. Nevertheless, the pressure is building on regulators to actually do something for once, after a spate of smart meter fires earlier this month in Pennsylvania shut down installations by Peco Energy using Sensus meters- a company that we reported in January as having been responsible for multiple meter fires in Alabama and the object of an employee whistleblower lawsuit alleging fire risk. PECO is a subsidiary of Exelon Corp. a company which was just called out for engaging in “pay to play” politics. You can mostly hide the threat of invisible microwave radiation. A house burning down or a melted smart meter- that’s a little more difficult to sweep under the rug.
This smart meter was photographed after a fire that injured an elderly woman in San Francisco. Where is the California Public Utilities Commission? Or our “representatives”?
The photographs emerging of melted plastic smart meters have become an iconic symbol of a failing technology roll-out. A corporate program that places profit over safety. A symbol of how the utility industry- and the current brand of virtually unregulated capitalism in western countries- is harming people and the environment, not to mention the financial well-being of 99% of us. Why would they build a device -through which all of the electrical current for your house flows- out of plastic that can melt and catch fire? Even a third grader knows that plastic burns and melts while glass resists flame. Back when our government agencies cared about safety, electrical meters were solid state, with a thick glass casing, built to last decades. Now they are built in Mexico and China out of plastic, made only to last a few years. While analog meters were designed to withstand electrical surges, untested ‘smart’ meters allow surges to flow into homes, risking the safety of residents and damaging untold thousands of appliances. Ask the utility to compensate residents for damages? “That’s your wiring ma’am- not our meter.” A meter that happens not to be UL listed we might add. They eat at the banquet and we pick up the tab.
It’s not as if the industry hasn’t been aware of the problem, as documents from Edison Electric Institute in April show. It’s just that profit has taken precedence over precaution. For the last couple of years, as the reports of smart meter fires pile up, the task of tracking and investigating them has fallen to individual volunteers and grassroots community organizations, as agencies whose job it is to ensure public safety bury their heads in the sand. Sadly this has included fire departments, which (to put it delicately) have not been quick to respond to the problem.
A fault with the meters themselves, or unprofessional installations (or both) have led to hundreds-probably thousands of fires and electrical problems in the US, Canada, and Australia. People have lost their homes, and some may have lost their lives, because regulatory agencies have ignored growing evidence that there is a substantial fire risk from the new meters. In British Columbia, a rash of recent smart meter fires including a home that suffered two successive smart meter fires has led to renewed calls for a moratorium. In Houston, Texas a woman’s house caught fire from a smart meter, and the Fire Dept. said this was the first such instance. An electrician in the comments says not so. There are countless other examples.
Excuse me sir, you’re going to have to leave our neighborhood.
It turns out that “Smart” Meters are a fire risk, on top of everything else. A risk some of us are being asked to pay to avoid. A risk that is being forced on others. We’ll see how Maryland responds to that dirty reality tomorrow. Whatever the regulators do, it’s become abundantly clear that we must take responsibility for the safety of our families and our neighbourhoods- ourselves.
This is no time to be polite, mind your own business, and draw the curtains. When you see that guy in the truck roll down your street, get together with your neighbors and tell him he’s not welcome. Bring your video camera and send us the footage. We’ll proudly post it here.
Maryland Public Service Commission will hold an emergency hearing on Tues., Aug. 28th at 2pm Eastern (11am Pacific) to hear from the utilities as to their smart meter devices and their malfunctions, power surges, and fires. Anyone concerned should plan to attend: William Donald Schaefer Tower 6 St. Paul St., 16th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 File a dispute (410) 767-8000 MD Toll Free: 1-800-492-0474 TTY Users call via Maryland Relay 1-800-201-7165 Directions to the Commission http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/intranet/AboutUs/directions_new.cfm
The meeting will be streamed live: http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/pscnews/video_new.cfm
Correcting Gross Misinformation
Smart Meters: Correcting the Gross Misinformation
Submitted by Intelligentactile on July 17, 2012 – 4:07 pm
Quebec-based magazine La Maison du 21e siecle asked physician David O. Carpenter, former founding dean of the University at Albany (NY)’s School of Public Health, to comment on a letter published in the Montreal daily Le Devoir last May 24. This letter claimed wireless smart meters pose no risk to public health. Some fourty international experts contributed to the following rebuttal.
We, the undersigned are a group of scientists and health professionals who together have coauthored hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs). We wish to correct some of the gross misinformation found in the letter regarding wireless “smart” meters that was published in the Montreal daily Le Devoir on May 24. Submitted by a group Quebec engineers, physicists and chemists, the letter in question reflects an obvious lack of understanding of the science behind the health impacts of the radio frequency (RF)/microwave EMFs emitted by these meters.
The statement that « Thousands of studies, both epidemiological and experimental in humans, show no increase in cancer cases as a result of exposure to radio waves of low intensity… » is false (1). In fact, only a few such studies — two dozen case-control studies of mobile phone use, certainly not thousands, have reported no elevations of cancer, and most were funded by the wireless industry. In addition, these reassuring studies contained significant experimental design flaws, mainly the fact that the populations followed were too small and were followed for a too short period of time.
Non industry-funded studies have clearly demonstrated a significant increase in cancer cases among individuals who have suffered from prolonged exposure to low-level microwaves, transmitted notably by radio antennas. The effects were best documented in meta-analyses that have been published and that include grouped results from several different studies: these analyses consistently showed an increased risk of brain cancer among regular users of a cell phone who have been exposed to microwaves for at least ten years.
Brain Cancer Rates
Furthermore, the argument that brain cancer rates do not indicate an overall increase in incidence is not evidence that cell phones are safe: the latency for brain cancer in adults after environmental exposure can be long, up to 20-30 years. Most North Americans haven’t used cell phones extensively for that long. The evidence of the link between long-term cell phone use and brain cancer comes primarily from Northern Europe, where cell phones have been commonly used since the 1990s.
Children are especially at risk. In May 2012, the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics reported a 50 percent increase in incidence of frontal and temporal lobe tumors in children between 1999 and 2009. This statistic is especially disturbing since in May 2011, after reviewing the published scientific literature regarding cancers affecting cell phone users, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency radiation as a 2B, possible human carcinogen. Despite the absence of scientific consensus, the evidence is sufficiently compelling for any cautious parent to want to reduce their loved one’s exposure to RF/microwave emissions as much as possible, as recommended by various countries such as Austria, Belgium, Germany,Russia and the United Kingdom.
Electrosensitivity
Public fears about wireless smart meters are well-founded. They are backed by various medical authorities such as those of the Santa Cruz County(California) Public Health Department. These authorities are worried about the growing number of citizens who say they have developed electro hypersensitivity (EHS), especially since for many of them, the symptoms developed after the installation of such meters (it takes some time for most people to link the two events).
Since the turn of the millennium, people are increasingly affected by ambient microwaves due to the growing popularity of wireless devices such as cell phones and Wi-Fi Internet. Therefore, the mass deployment of smart grids could expose large chunks of the general population to alarming risk scenarios without their consent. According to seven surveys done in six European countries between 2002 and 2004, about 10% of Europeans have become electrosensitive, and experts fear that percentage could reach 50% by 2017. The most famous person to publicly reveal her electrosensitivity is Gro Harlem Brundtland, formerly Prime Minister of Norway and retired Director of the World Health Organization (WHO).
While there is no consensus on the origins and mechanisms of EHS, many physicians and other specialists around the world have become aware that EHS symptoms (neurological dermatological, acoustical, etc.) seem to be triggered by exposure to EMF levels well below current international exposure limits, which are established solely on short-term thermal effects (2). Organizations such as the Austrian Medical Associationand the American Academy of Environmental Medicine have recognized that the ideal way to treat of EHS is to reduce EMF exposure.
Therefore, caution is warranted because the growing variety of RF/microwave emissions produced by many wireless devices such as smart meters have never been tested for their potential biological effects.
Well-known bioeffects
While the specific pathways to cancer are not fully understood, it is scientifically unacceptable to deny the weight of the evidence regarding the increase in cancer cases in humans that are exposed to high levels of RF/microwave radiation.
The statement that « there is no established mechanism by which a radio wave could induce an adverse effect on human tissue other than by heating » is incorrect, and reflects a lack of awareness and understanding of the scientific literature on the subject. In fact, more than a thousand studies done on low intensity, high frequency, non-ionizing radiation, going back at least fifty years, show that some biological mechanisms of effect do not involve heat. This radiation sends signals to living tissue that stimulate biochemical changes, which can generate various symptoms and may lead to diseases such as cancer.
Even though RF/microwaves don’t have the energy to directly break chemical bonds, unlike ionizing radiation such as X-rays, there is scientific evidence that this energy can cause DNA damage indirectly leading to cancer by a combination of biological effects. Recent publications have documented the generation of free radicals, increased permeability of the blood brain barrier allowing potentially toxic chemicals to enter the brain, induction of genes, as well as altered electrical and metabolic activity in human brains upon application of cell phone RF/microwaves similar to those produced by smart meters.
These effects are cumulative and depend on many factors including RF/microwave levels, frequency, waveform, exposure time, biovariability between individuals and combination with other toxic agents. Clear evidence that these microwaves are indeed bioactive has been shown by the fact that low-intensity EMFs have proven clinically useful in some circumstances. Pulsed EMFs have long been used to successfully treat bone fractures that are resistant to other forms of therapy. More recently, frequency-specific, amplitude-modulated EMFs have been found useful to treat advanced carcinoma and chronic pain.
High frequency EMFs such as the microwaves used in cell phones, smart meters, Wi-Fi and cordless ‘‘DECT’’ phones, appear to be the most damaging when used commonly. Most of their biological effects, including symptoms of electrohypersensitivity, can be seen in the damage done to cellular membranes by the loss of structurally-important calcium ions. Prolonged exposure to these high frequencies may eventually lead to cellular malfunction and death.
Furthermore, malfunction of the parathyroid gland, located in the neck just inches from where one holds a cell phone, may actually cause electrohypersensitivity in some people by reducing the background level of calcium ions in the blood. RF/microwave radiation is also known to decrease the production of melatonin, which protects against cancer, and to promote the growth of existing cancer cells.
Early warning scientists attacked
In recommending that the Precautionary Principle be applied in EMF matters, the European Environment Agency’s Director Jacqueline McGlade wrote in 2009: “We have noted from previous health hazard histories such as that of lead in petrol, and methyl mercury, that ‘early warning’ scientists frequently suffer from discrimination, from loss of research funds, and from unduly personal attacks on their scientific integrity. It would be surprising if this is not already a feature of the present EMF controversy… » Such unfortunate consequences have indeed occurred.
The statement in the Le Devoir letter that « if we consider that a debate should take place, it should focus exclusively on the effects of cell phones on health » is basically an acknowledgement that there is at least some reason to be concerned about cell phones. However, while the immediate exposure from a cell phone is of much greater intensity than the exposure from smart meters, cell phone use is temporary.
Smart meters
Wireless smart meters typically produce atypical, relatively potent and very short pulsed RF/microwaves whose biological effects have never been fully tested. They emit these millisecond-long RF bursts on average 9,600 times a day with a maximum of 190,000 daily transmissions and a peak level emission two and a half times higher than the stated safety signal, as the California utility Pacific Gas & Electric recognized before that State’s Public Utilities Commission. Thus people in proximity to a smart meter are at risk of significantly greater aggregate exposure than with a cell phone, not to mention the cumulative levels of RF/microwaves that people living near several meters are exposed to.
People are exposed to cell phone microwaves primarily in the head and neck, and only when they use their device. With smart meters, the entire body is exposed to the microwaves, which increases the risk of overexposure to many organs.
In addition to these erratic bursts of modulated microwaves coming from smart meters that are transferring usage data to electric, gas and water utilities, wireless and wired smart (powerline communication) meters are also a major source of ‘’dirty electricity’’ (electrical interference of high frequency voltage transients typically of kilohertz frequencies). Indeed, some scientists, such as American epidemiologist Sam Milham, believe that many of the health complaints about smart meters may also be caused by dirty electricity generated by the « switching » power supply activating all smart meters. Since the installation of filters to reduce dirty electricity circulating on house wiring has been found to relieve symptoms of EHS in some people, this method should be considered among the priorities aimed at reducing potential adverse impacts. Indeed, the Salzburg State (Austria) Public Health Department confirms its concern about the potential public health risk when in coming years almost every electric wire and device will emit such transient electric fields in the kilohertz-range due to wired smart meters.
Rather be safe than sorry
The apparent adverse health effects noted with smart meter exposure are likely to be further exacerbated if smart appliances that use wireless communications become the norm and further increase unwarranted exposure.
To date, there have been few independent studies of the health effects of such sources of more continuous but lower intensity microwaves. However, we know after decades of studies of hazardous chemical substances, that chronic exposure to low concentrations of microwaves can cause equal or even greater harm than an acute exposure to high concentrations of the same microwaves.
This is why so many scientists and medical experts urgently recommend that measures following the Precautionary Principle be applied immediately — such as using wired meters — to reduce biologically inappropriate microwave exposure. We are not advocating the abolishment of RF technologies, only the use of common sense and the development and implementation of best practices in using these technologies in order to reduce exposure and risk of health hazards.
1. Scientific papers on EMF health effects
2. Explanation and studies on electrosensitivity
3. Governments and organizations that ban or warn against wireless technology
• David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health & the Environment, University at Albany, USA
• Jennifer Armstrong, MD, Past President, Canadian Society of Environmental Medicine, Founder, Ottawa Environmental Health Clinic, Ontario, Canada
• Pierre L. Auger, M. D., FRCPC, Occupational medicine, Multiclinique des accidentés 1464, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
• Fiorella Belpoggi, Director Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna, Italy
• Martin Blank, PhD, former President, Bioelectromagnetics Society, Special Lecturer, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, USA
• Barry Breger, MD, Centre d’intégration somatosophique (orthomolecular medicine), Montreal, Quebec
• John Cline, MD, Professor, Institute for Functional Medicine, Federal Way, WA, USA, Medical Director, Cline Medical Centre, Nanaimo, BC, Canada
• Alvaro Augusto de Salles, PhD, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
• Christos Georgiou, Prof. Biochemistry, Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece
• Andrew Goldsworthy, PhD, Honorary lecturer in Biology, Imperial College, London, UK
• Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, PhD, Director, Centro de Investigación, Hospital Universitario LA Fe, Valencia, Spain
• Livio Giuliani, PhD, Senior Researcher, National Insurance Institute (INAIL), Chief of Radiation and Ultrasounds Research Unit, Rome, Italy
• Yury Grigoriev, PhD, Chair Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russia
• Settimio Grimaldi, PhD, Director, Institute of Translational Pharmacology (Neurobiology and molecular medicine), National Research Council, Rome, Italy
• Magda Havas, PhD, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada
• Lennart Hardell, MD, Professor of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden
• Denis L. Henshaw, PhD, Professor of Physics, Head of The Human Radiation Effects Group, University of Bristol, UK
• Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Chairman of Board, Environmental Health Trust, and Founding Director emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, USA
• Isaac Jamieson, PhD Environmental Science (electromagnetic phenomena in the built environment), independent architect, scientist and environmental consultant, Hertfordshire, UK
• Olle Johansson, PhD, Professor of Neuroscience (Experimental Dermatology Unit), Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
• Yury Kronn, PhD, Soviet authority on physics of nonlinear vibrations and high frequency electromagnetic vibrations, founder of Energy Tools International, Oregon, USA
• Henry Lai, PhD, Professor of Bioengineering, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
• Abraham R. Liboff, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA
• Don Maisch, PhD, Researcher on radiation exposure standards for telecommunications frequency, EMFacts Consultancy, Tasmania, Australia
• Andrew A. Marino, MD, PhD, JD, Professor of Neurology, LSU Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA
• Karl Maret, MD, M.Eng., President, Dove Health Alliance, Aptos, CA, USA
• Sam Milham, MD, former chief epidemiologist, Washington State Department of Health, USA
• Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
• Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg State Government, Austria
• Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Director, Center for Excellence in Science, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Colorado, USA
• John Podd, PhD, Professor of Psychology (experimental neuropsychology), Massey University, New-Zeland
• William J. Rea, MD, thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon, founder of the Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Tx, USA
• Elihu D. Richter, MD, Professor, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel
• Leif G. Salford, MD, Senior Professor of Neurosurgery, Lund University, Sweden
• Nesrin Seyhan, MD, Founder and Chair of Biophysics, Medical Faculty of Gazi University, Turkey
• Cyril W. Smith, PhD, lead author of “Electromagnetic Man”, retired from Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Salford, UK
• Morando Soffritti, MD,
Scientific Director of the European Foundation for Oncology and Environmental Sciences “B. Ramazzini” in Bologna, Italy
• Antoinette “Toni” Stein, PhD, Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE-EMF Working Group), Co-Coordinator, Berkeley, CA, USA
• Stanislaw Szmigielski, MD, PhD Professor of Pathophysiology, Consulting Expert, former director of Microwave Safety, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland
• Bradford S. Weeks, MD, Director, The Weeks Clinic, Clinton, WA, USA
• Stelios A. Zinelis, MD, Vice-President, Hellenic Cancer Society, Cefallonia, Greece
Good News in Maine & Florida
PORTLAND — The Maine Public Utilities Commission failed to resolve health and safety issues related to Central Maine Power Co.’s installation of smart meters and should now do so, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has ruled.
A worker wearing a safety mask installs “smart meters” for Central Maine Power in Portland.
2010 Press Herald file
Select images available for purchase in the
Maine Today Photo Store
In a decision released today, the court sided with smart-meter opponents, who argued that utility regulators ignored their legal mandate to ensure the delivery of safe and reasonable utility services.
At the same time, though, the court didn’t agree with the view of opponents that the meters violated constitutional issues related to privacy and trespass.
Following a PUC order in 2010, CMP began switching out its 600,000 analog meters with new-technology digital meters. The $200 million project, which received half its funds from federal stimulus dollars, is now largely complete.
Because the meters already are installed, it’s not clear what the practical effect of the court’s decision may be.
Ed Friedman, the lead plaintiff in the court suit against the PUC, said at mid-day that he hadn’t had time to study the decision. He was pleased that the health and safety issues were upheld, but disappointed to see the constitutional concerns dismissed.
Friedman called on the PUC to conduct full hearings in which experts could be called to testify on the health and safety matters.
“I don’t think there’s any way they (the PUC) can assure safety,” he said.
Many utilities around the world are moving to smart meters, which can give customers more information about their energy use patters and allow power companies to pinpoint problems during outages.
But opponents say the radio-frequency radiation emitted by the wireless meters can cause health problems, and are an invasion of privacy because of the information they collect. (True EMF Solutions Agrees!)
In an effort to address those concerns, the PUC allows customers to opt out of having the meters, if they pay a $12 per-month fee to cover the cost of alternative equipment and meter readers.
Following the court decision, the PUC released the following statement:
“The Law Court upheld the commission’s decision in every regard except with respect to the health effects issue. We will comply with the court’s decision on remand.”
_______________________________________________
Good News in Florida:
Imagine that, Port Orange may ask a customer to give consent before a smart meter is installed.
My goodness, doesn’t this sound like what you would expect from anyone who conducts business in America!
Florida gets to look humane and thoughtful because the rest of the country is behaving so badly.
Especially at the PUC NV!
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/east-volusia/2012/08/30/port-orange-considers-consent-issue-for-smart-meter-installations.html
Port Orange considers consent issue for ‘smart meter’ installations
By RAY WEISS, Staff writer
August 30, 2012 12:25 AM
PORT ORANGE — Electric company “smart meters” are viewed as either super technology or a super threat.
And after hearing both sides of the argument, city leaders are looking into requiring Florida Power & Light to obtain the consent from individual electric customers in Port Orange before installing one of the controversial meters at their place.
So far, FPL already has hooked up about 25 percent of the city, and expects to be finished by October. But the meters that proponents say will make electrical distribution and system repairs more streamlined and efficient won’t be activated in Port Orange until next March.
“There are enough seeds of doubt that people want a choice,” City Councilman Don Burnette said, pointing to health, privacy and safety concerns that were raised at City Hall on Tuesday night, and being echoed throughout the nation.
The City Council is planning to vote on a resolution as early as next Tuesday that would require FPL to obtain a customer’s approval before installation. The opposite policy now exists, where a customer must call FPL to “opt out” of switching from a traditional meter that must be read by an employee each month.
Steve Anderson, FPL’s Smart Meter Deployment and Operations Project Manager, said 3.7 million smart meters are currently in the state, with 3 million activated. He said installation in Florida has been going on since 2009 and is expected to conclude in 2013.
In Port Orange, Anderson said about 7,000 meters already are installed — about 25 percent of customers — and that a contractor hired by the power company will finish the job in October.
Anderson said smart meters automatically monitor electric usage and provide customers immediate billing information online, as well as offer FPL the ability to pinpoint faulty equipment in advance that could lead to a power outage.
“One of the bigger benefits we’re all going to see is enhanced reliability,” he said. “… Just like the old meters, we’re measuring how much and not how you’re using (electricity). The meter is idle 99 percent of the time. On average, our meters transmit two minutes a day and send data four times a day.”
But 10 opponents of the meter installation Tuesday night said they were worried about possible breaches of privacy, the risks of low-level radiation and someone hacking into the computer files.
Peggy Black, a Port Orange resident, said the decision to switch to a smart meter should be the customer’s.
“Ninety-nine percent of people don’t know smart meters are in existence,” she said of the current installation policy. “We’re looking for an opt-in (homeowner permission) because no one knows they’re coming.”
Florida’s Public Service Commission is having a workshop Sept. 20 to discuss smart meters. Volusia County already has passed a resolution requesting the PSC adopt an “opt-in” provision for customers, which Port Orange also is expected to adopt.
“There’s a certain level of discomfort that comes from new, unknown technologies until they’re proven, until there’s a decent track record,” Burnette said. “Because of that, a lot of people won’t accept it. They haven’t seen it in action.”
He added: “It’s hard to say to people, ‘You don’t have a choice.’ This is America. I’d like to give people a choice.”
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next Page »