by Katherine | 30 Jul, 2014 | 2014 Election Questionnaire, Latest News, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
Given that this is an election year, in May 2014, I prepared a formal Election Questionnaire on behalf of www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz and sent it to all the parties I knew to be contesting the 2014 general election.
For the record, I am neither a member of any political party, nor a donor to any political party.
Below is the response from the Green party (https://www.greens.org.nz/). For a more general discussion of the 2014 Election Questionnaire and links to replies from other parties contesting the 2014 general election, please see this link: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/2014-election-questionnaire-2/
A general discussion of the responses from the political parties may be found at this link: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/2014-election-questionnaire-general-discussion/ (Reading this link is recommended for people who are new to the “smart meter” issue as it helps to put the statements made in some of the party responses into the overall context of the “smart meter” situation in NZ.)
The Green Party did not complete the 2014 Election Questionnaire, but did issue a written statement on the “Smart meter” issue.
Below the response that was received from the Green party on June 15, 2014.
Green Party response to Stop Smart Meters questions:
Smart meters reduce the carbon footprint of electricity reticulation because they do not require vehicular movement to regularly read meters and because they facilitate more efficient use of power stations, lines and sub-stations and thereby reduce the need to build new electricity generation and reticulation infrastructure.
With regard to the safety of smart meters, the Green Party’s position is guided by the evidence available. Research [Website editor’s note: This “research” has been debunked and you can read a critique here: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/report-on-health-and-safety-aspects-of-electricity-smart-meters-debunked/ ] into this issue (to which this questionnaire itself refers at Question 8 below) has been undertaken by the Electric Power Engineering Centre (EPEC) of the University of Canterbury the Smart meters use one or more RF transceiver in the 900MHz, 1.8GHz or 2.4GHz band. The University of Canterbury EPEC research affirms that during transmission (normally limited to a maximum of 50% of the time and in practice usually very much less than this), smart meters radiate RF power.
The research acknowledges that RF radiation causes heating of body tissue. International standards for maximum personal exposure (MPE) to RF radiation for members of the general public, based on reducing the heating effect to 1/50th of the amount shown to cause noticeable effects in laboratory animals, are in force and must be complied with.
In NZ the current standard is NZS2772: Part 1: 1999, which is to all intents and purposes identical to other national and international standards.
In practice they radiate much less power than this allowance and then for only a small fraction of the time, but even if they radiate the maximum amount, on both bands simultaneously, all the time, and the worst case additive reflection occurs, at any distance greater than 1m from the meter, the exposure is less than 35% of the allowable limit.
The text of the 2014 election questionnaire sent to each political party was the following:
www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz
Political Parties’ Questionnaire (2014)
The new “smart meters” being introduced to measure electricity and water consumption use radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in the microwave range to transmit information to electricity and water suppliers. The RFR used has been classified by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a “possible carcinogen” (Type 2b.)
The website www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz provides New Zealanders with a local source of information about “smart meters” in NZ. It covers health, privacy and other “smart-meter”-related issues that are important to families and businesses.
The www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz questionnaire will be sent to all political parties and the results will be posted on www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz and will also be featured in the regular newsletters sent to the email list.
Please reply to this questionnaire by June 15, 2014. Thank you.
Replies may be emailed to [email address was here but has been removed from this online posting to prevent spamming]
Name of political party:
Name of person completing the form:
Position in political party: Email:
Question 1: Does your party have a formal policy on “smart meters”. YES NO [Please circle/highlight]
If YES, is your party’s policy on “smart meters” available online at your party’s website? YES NO
If YES, please put URL where this information may be accessed:
Question 2: Does your party support the introduction of “smart” meters for electricity?
YES NO [Please circle/ highlight]
Why or Why not?
Question 3: The current legislation only stipulates the electricity meters must have a current certificate of accuracy, yet some power companies are using this legislation to force people to have “smart meters”. Does your party support the right of people to retain a functioning analogue (Ferraris) meter if they do not want a microwave-radiation emitting “smart meter” measuring electricity consumption at their home?
YES NO [Please circle/ highlight]
Why or Why not?
Question 4: Some electricity companies are trying to coerce customers into accepting “smart meters” by including in their Terms and Conditions clauses to the effect that the customer must accept a “smart meter” (the inference being that their electricity could be cut off if they do not accept a “smart meter”.) Will your party change the relevant legislation/regulations to make it illegal for companies to try to intimidate customers to accept “smart meters” through such means?
YES NO [Please circle/ highlight]
Why or Why not?
Question 5: Members of the public have reported to www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz that once a “smart meter” has been installed it can be very difficult to get it removed, even when it is causing health issues. Will your party make changes to the relevant legislation/regulations so that companies are legally obliged to remove “smart meters” promptly (and replace them with either a modern analogue – Ferraris – meter or another non-smart meter of the customer’s choice) when a customer makes a request for the removal of a “smart meter”?
YES NO [Please circle/highlight]
Why or Why not?
Question 6: In their Terms and Conditions, some electricity companies claim to own all data gathered by “smart meters” and the right to disclose it to other parties. We believe that this is a significant breach of privacy. Will your party change the legislation/regulations governing the electricity industry so that data gathered by “smart meters” may be used only for billing purposes and make it an offence to supply this information to any other party (with the exception of the account holder and the police if there is cause to believe that there is/was criminal activity at a home or other building.)
YES NO [Please circle/highlight]
Why/Why not?
Question 7: Given that the RFR produced by “smart meters” is a possible type 2 carcinogen, does your party support a moratorium on further “smart meter” installations until comprehensive research has been conducted into “smart meter” health effects?
YES NO [Please circle/highlight]
Why/Why not?
Question 8: Given that the EPEC 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,” does your party support a ban on placing “smart meters” on bedroom walls?
YES NO [Please circle/highlight]
Why/Why not?
Question 9: Does your party support the introduction of “smart” meters for water?
YES NO [Please circle/highlight]
Why/Why not?
Thank you for your time.
by Katherine | 30 Jul, 2014 | 2014 Election Questionnaire, Latest News, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
Given that this is an election year, in May 2014, I prepared a formal Election Questionnaire on behalf of www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz and sent it to all the parties I knew to be contesting the 2014 general election.
For the record, I am neither a member of any political party, nor a donor to any political party.
Below is the response from the Democrats for Social Credit Party (http://www.democrats.org.nz/) For a more general discussion of the 2014 Election Questionnaire and links to replies from other parties contesting the 2014 general election, please see this link: [add link]
A general discussion of the responses from the political parties may be found at this link: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/2014-election-questionnaire-general-discussion/ (Reading this link is recommended for people who are new to the “smart meter” issue as it helps to put the statements made in some of the party responses into the overall context of the “smart meter” situation in NZ.)
Links to other parties’ responses are here: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/2014-election-questionnaire-2/
The Democrats for Social Credit did not complete the www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz 2014 Election Questionnaire.
However, the party has issued a press release calling for a moratorium on “smart meter” installations. The press release may be read at this link http://www.democrats.org.nz/News/NewsItem/tabid/119/ArticleId/1218/Stop-Smart-Meters.aspx#.U9hySrG3V4M
Links to other political parties responses to the 2014 Election Questionnaire may be found at this link:
https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/2014-election-questionnaire/
by Katherine | 30 Jul, 2014 | 2014 Election Questionnaire, Latest News, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
Given that this is an election year, in May 2014, I prepared a formal Election Questionnaire on behalf of www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz and sent it to all the parties I knew to be contesting the 2014 general election.
For the record, I am neither a member of any political party, nor a donor to any political party.
Below is the response from the Conservative Party (http://www.conservativeparty.org.nz/) For a more general discussion of the 2014 Election Questionnaire and links to replies from other parties contesting the 2014 general election, please see this link: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/2014-election-questionnaire/
A general discussion of the responses from the political parties may be found at this link: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/2014-election-questionnaire-general-discussion/ (Reading this link is recommended for people who are new to the “smart meter” issue as it helps to put the statements made in some of the party responses into the overall context of the “smart meter” situation in NZ.)
Links to other parties’ responses are here: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/2014-election-questionnaire-2/
Please click on the link below to read the response that was received from the Conservative Party:
Conservative party NZ Political Parties Questionnaire 2014
by Katherine | 30 Jul, 2014 | 2014 Election Questionnaire, Latest News, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
Given that this is an election year, in May 2014, I prepared a formal Election Questionnaire on behalf of www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz and sent it to all the parties I knew to be contesting the 2014 general election.
For the record, I am neither a member of any political party, nor a donor to any political party.
Below is the response from the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party (http://www.alcp.org.nz/) For a more general discussion of the 2014 Election Questionnaire and links to replies from other parties contesting the 2014 general election, please see this link: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/2014-election-questionnaire-2/
A general discussion of the responses from some political parties may be found at this link: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/2014-election-questionnaire-general-discussion/ (Reading this link is recommended for people who are new to the “smart meter” issue as it helps to put the statements made in some of the party responses into the overall context of the “smart meter” situation in NZ.)
Links to other political parties responses to the 2014 Election Questionnaire may be found at this link:
https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/2014-election-questionnaire-2/
The response from the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is below:
www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz
Political Parties’ Questionnaire (2014)
The new “smart meters” being introduced to measure electricity and water consumption use radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in the microwave range to transmit information to electricity and water suppliers. The RFR used has been classified by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a “possible carcinogen” (Type 2b.)
The website www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz provides New Zealanders with a local source of information about “smart meters” in NZ. It covers health, privacy and other “smart-meter”-related issues that are important to families and businesses.
The www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz questionnaire will be sent to all political parties and the results will be posted on www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz and will also be featured in the regular newsletters sent to the email list.
Please reply to this questionnaire by June 15, 2014. Thank you.
Replies may be emailed to [removed to prevent spamming]
Name of political party: Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
Name of person completing the form: Julian Crawford
Position in political party: Leader Email: [removed to prevent spamming]
Question 1: Does your party have a formal policy on “smart meters”. YES
If YES, is your party’s policy on “smart meters” available online at your party’s website? NO
If YES, please put URL where this information may be accessed: It will be announced during the election campaign.
Question 2: Does your party support the introduction of “smart” meters for electricity?
NO
Why or Why not?
Our main concern is the lack of choice given to consumers about adopting smart meters and the potential privacy risks.
Question 3: The current legislation only stipulates the electricity meters must have a current certificate of accuracy, yet some power companies are using this legislation to force people to have “smart meters”. Does your party support the right of people to retain a functioning analogue (Ferraris) meter if they do not want a microwave-radiation emitting “smart meter” measuring electricity consumption at their home?
YES
Why or Why not?
Our party is fundamentally based on principles of personal responsibility and freedom of choice. No one should be forced to use certain technology against their will.
Question 4: Some electricity companies are trying to coerce customers into accepting “smart meters” by including in their Terms and Conditions clauses to the effect that the customer must accept a “smart meter” (the inference being that their electricity could be cut off if they do not accept a “smart meter”.) Will your party change the relevant legislation/regulations to make it illegal for companies to try to intimidate customers to accept “smart meters” through such means?
YES
Why or Why not?
It should be made illegal for power companies to force smart meters onto customers because that violates their human rights and freedoms. Only people who consent should be allowed to use smart meters.
Question 5: Members of the public have reported to www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz that once a “smart meter” has been installed it can be very difficult to get it removed, even when it is causing health issues. Will your party make changes to the relevant legislation/regulations so that companies are legally obliged to remove “smart meters” promptly (and replace them with either a modern analogue – Ferraris – meter or another non-smart meter of the customer’s choice) when a customer makes a request for the removal of a “smart meter”?
YES
Why or Why not?
If a customer has concerns about their smart meter for health or any other grounds then the power company should be obliged to remove them and replace them with a traditional meter. They should be able to withdraw their consent for the smart meter at any time, for any reason.
Question 6: In their Terms and Conditions, some electricity companies claim to own all data gathered by “smart meters” and the right to disclose it to other parties. We believe that this is a significant breach of privacy. Will your party change the legislation/regulations governing the electricity industry so that data gathered by “smart meters” may be used only for billing purposes and make it an offence to supply this information to any other party (with the exception of the account holder and the police if there is cause to believe that there is/was criminal activity at a home or other building.)
YES
Why/Why not?
There are significant privacy concerns around smart meters because they record a precise signal from each individual electronic appliance. This means that the power company can pie together what you are doing at any given point in time. It would be reckless to allow this data to be sold to third parties. Not only is this a gross violation of privacy it is also a means for mass surveillance of the population. We would have reservations about police accessing the data unless they have just cause to obtain a search warrent for a specific crime.
For example people growing cannabis indoors for medical or recreational reasons could be identified and arrested on a mass scale.
Question 7: Given that the RFR produced by “smart meters” is a possible type 2 carcinogen, does your party support a moratorium on further “smart meter” installations until comprehensive research has been conducted into “smart meter” health effects?
YES
Why/Why not?
More research is needed into the harms of RFR and other electromagnetic radiation caused by wireless devices.
Question 8: Given that the EPEC 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,” does your party support a ban on placing “smart meters” on bedroom walls?
YES
Why/Why not?
If people want to use smart meters they should be placed as far as possible from bedrooms and other area where people are present.
Question 9: Does your party support the introduction of “smart” meters for water?
NO
Why/Why not?
Metered water is just another unnecessary financial burden on the taxpayers or ratepayers.
Thank you for your time.
Postscript:
In 2013 Beth Karlin from the Center for Unconventional Security Affairs was invited to speak at a small marketing department seminar at the University of Otago. She was speaking about how smart meters had met a lot of resistance in the US and she was working on communicating about smart meters in a way that would make their roll-out smoother in New Zealand.
She dismissed the health concerns as essentially conspiracy theories but failed to address the privacy concerns. She promoted smart meters as a way for people to monitor their own usage and see which appliances are using the most power. It’s based on an environmental angle of reducing power consumption.
Beth spoke about how Mercury Energy was rolling outsmart meters to all homes regardless of whether the customer wanted them. This would be followed by the larger power companies. They aim to bring them in quietly with as little resistance as possible.
http://socialecology.uci.edu/students/grad/bkarlin
Regards,
Julian Crawford
ALCP Leader
by Katherine | 30 Jul, 2014 | 2014 Election Questionnaire, Latest News, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
Given that this is an election year, in May 2014, I prepared a formal Election Questionnaire on behalf of www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz and sent it to all the parties I knew to be contesting the 2014 general election.
For the record, I am neither a member of any political party, nor a donor to any political party.
Below is the response from the Act Party (http://www.act.org.nz/) For a more general discussion of the 2014 Election Questionnaire and links to replies from other parties contesting the 2014 general election, please see this link: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/2014-election-questionnaire-2/
A general discussion of the responses from some political parties may be found at this link: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/2014-election-questionnaire-general-discussion/ (Reading this link is recommended for people who are new to the “smart meter” issue as it helps to put the statements made in some of the party responses into the overall context of the “smart meter” situation in NZ.)
The Act Party did not respond to www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz 2014 Election Questionnaire.
I am not aware of any publicly-available information on the party’s position on “smart meters”. If anyone is aware of information regarding the party’s position, please email me through the Contact form at this link https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/contact-us/
Special note to any representatives of the Act party reading this post: If you would like to complete the questionnaire, please email me through https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/contact-us/ and I will send the questionnaire to you. Thank you.
Links to other political parties responses to the 2014 Election Questionnaire may be found at this link:
https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/2014-election-questionnaire-2/
The text of the questionnaire is below:
www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz
Political Parties’ Questionnaire (2014)
The new “smart meters” being introduced to measure electricity and water consumption use radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in the microwave range to transmit information to electricity and water suppliers. The RFR used has been classified by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a “possible carcinogen” (Type 2b.)
The website www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz provides New Zealanders with a local source of information about “smart meters” in NZ. It covers health, privacy and other “smart-meter”-related issues that are important to families and businesses.
The www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz questionnaire will be sent to all political parties and the results will be posted on www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz and will also be featured in the regular newsletters sent to the email list.
Please reply to this questionnaire by June 15, 2014. Thank you.
Replies may be emailed to [email address was here but has been removed from this online posting to prevent spamming]
Name of political party:
Name of person completing the form:
Position in political party: Email:
Question 1: Does your party have a formal policy on “smart meters”. YES NO [Please circle/highlight]
If YES, is your party’s policy on “smart meters” available online at your party’s website? YES NO
If YES, please put URL where this information may be accessed:
Question 2: Does your party support the introduction of “smart” meters for electricity?
YES NO [Please circle/ highlight]
Why or Why not?
Question 3: The current legislation only stipulates the electricity meters must have a current certificate of accuracy, yet some power companies are using this legislation to force people to have “smart meters”. Does your party support the right of people to retain a functioning analogue (Ferraris) meter if they do not want a microwave-radiation emitting “smart meter” measuring electricity consumption at their home?
YES NO [Please circle/ highlight]
Why or Why not?
Question 4: Some electricity companies are trying to coerce customers into accepting “smart meters” by including in their Terms and Conditions clauses to the effect that the customer must accept a “smart meter” (the inference being that their electricity could be cut off if they do not accept a “smart meter”.) Will your party change the relevant legislation/regulations to make it illegal for companies to try to intimidate customers to accept “smart meters” through such means?
YES NO [Please circle/ highlight]
Why or Why not?
Question 5: Members of the public have reported to www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz that once a “smart meter” has been installed it can be very difficult to get it removed, even when it is causing health issues. Will your party make changes to the relevant legislation/regulations so that companies are legally obliged to remove “smart meters” promptly (and replace them with either a modern analogue – Ferraris – meter or another non-smart meter of the customer’s choice) when a customer makes a request for the removal of a “smart meter”?
YES NO [Please circle/highlight]
Why or Why not?
Question 6: In their Terms and Conditions, some electricity companies claim to own all data gathered by “smart meters” and the right to disclose it to other parties. We believe that this is a significant breach of privacy. Will your party change the legislation/regulations governing the electricity industry so that data gathered by “smart meters” may be used only for billing purposes and make it an offence to supply this information to any other party (with the exception of the account holder and the police if there is cause to believe that there is/was criminal activity at a home or other building.)
YES NO [Please circle/highlight]
Why/Why not?
Question 7: Given that the RFR produced by “smart meters” is a possible type 2 carcinogen, does your party support a moratorium on further “smart meter” installations until comprehensive research has been conducted into “smart meter” health effects?
YES NO [Please circle/highlight]
Why/Why not?
Question 8: Given that the EPEC 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,” does your party support a ban on placing “smart meters” on bedroom walls?
YES NO [Please circle/highlight]
Why/Why not?
Question 9: Does your party support the introduction of “smart” meters for water?
YES NO [Please circle/highlight]
Why/Why not?
by Katherine | 30 Jul, 2014 | Latest News, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
The purpose of this post is to discuss some of the issues raised in the responses to the 2014 Election Questionnaire.
It is intended to give an overview of the issues with “smart meters” for readers who are new to this subject and/or this website. (Please note that if you would like updates on the “smart meter” issue you are welcome to sign up for the free email newsletter at www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz.)
The list of questions in the www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz Election Questionnaire were designed to help educate politicians about the “smart meter” issue, including the fact that the meters produce radiofrequency radiation in the microwave range which is considered a possible carcinogen (class 2B) to transmit information about electricity use (see: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/health-issues/ ) and also have adverse effects on people’s privacy, for example: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/ .
Another important issue is that electricity companies have reportedly been bullying customers to try to make people who do not want “smart meters” to accept them (see: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/is-your-electricity-company-bullying-you/ . Moreover some companies are trying to use Terms and Conditions to try to intimidate customers into accepting “smart meters” – with the stated or implied threat that their power could be cut off if they do not agree to a “smart meter” installation. (See:www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/smart-meter-installed-without-permission-headaches-result-smart-meter-removed-headaches-disappear/ )
It is also of concern that it can be a very difficult and time consuming process for customers to get rid of “smart meters” once they have been installed, even if they are causing health problems. (Personal communications.) A lot of meters in NZ are on bedroom walls and this site has potential to cause substantial exposure to EMR from a “smart meter”.
There are a lot of myths being promulgated about “smart meters” by the electricity industry. These include claims that “smart meters” help people save money. While this may be true in some cases, many people have higher bills after a “smart meter” installations (see: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/huge-bill-increase-after-smart-meter-installed/ ) and if time-of-use pricing is widely introduced higher bills are likely to become a fact of life for everyone – see: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/how-smart-meters-can-lead-to-higher-bills/ and www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/the-advantages-of-smart-meters/ )
Another myth been pushed by the electricity industry is that “smart meters” are a safe technology even though they produce non-ionising radiation which has been classed as a possible carcinogen. The electricity industry frequently refers customers who express concern about the safety of “smart meters” to a document produced by the Electrical Power Engineering Centre (EPEC) at the University of Canterbury. You can read a critique of this document at this link: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/report-on-health-and-safety-aspects-of-electricity-smart-meters-debunked/
Some political parties also support the introduction of “smart” water meters which i a concern given that the “smart” water meters which are being trialled in NZ produce a radiofrequency radiation pulse every eight seconds. See https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/smart-water-meters-in-nz-the-situation-so-far/
The answers (or public statements) made by the representatives of some political parties suggest that some politicians have bought the corporate line that “smart meters” will help people save money and are somehow a safe technology – even though they produce possibly carcinogenic radiation, and all over the world where wireless “smart meters” have been installed, people have been reporting a variety of adverse health effects. (For some examples of common “smart meter”-associated symptoms please see: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/survey-of-people-adversely-affected-by-smart-meters/ )
Please bear these thoughts in mind when you read the responses from the different political parties to the www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz Election Questionnaire. Thank you.
The text of the 2014 Election Questionnaire and links to all political parties’ replies may be found at this link:
https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/2014-election-questionnaire-2/
by Katherine | 29 Jul, 2014 | Events, Latest News, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
Taikura Rudolf Steiner School is hosting a presentation, in conjunction with concerned parents, on
Wi-Fi in schools: the science, legal position, policy, and health and safety obligations
Thursday 7th August, 7pm at the Taikura School Hall, Nelson St, Hastings.
Guest Speaker: Expert Environmental Lawyer, Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc (Microbiology & Biochemistry), RSHDipPHI,
An examination of international responses to Wi-Fi technology both at governmental and medical levels as well as current NZ government standards will also be covered . Q & A is scheduled at end of evening.
You are warmly invited to attend this talk if you are in Hastings at this time.
by Katherine | 17 Jul, 2014 | Events, Latest News, Take Back Your Power, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
Just a reminder to people who live in or around Motueka that the “smart meter” documentary Take Back Your Power will screen at Motueka’s State Cinema on Monday July 21 at 6.30 PM.
The screening is free so please tell everyone you know in this area so they can make plans to attend.
If you are not in this area, you can buy a DVD or stream the documentary via www.takebackyourpower.net
by Katherine | 11 Jul, 2014 | Government and Electricity Industry Positions, Latest News, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
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://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/contact-us/
More information on the WEL “smart box” installation programme may be found at the links below the image.
https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/wel-smart-box-installation-prevented/
https://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://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/is-the-wel-smart-box-a-way-to-facilitate-smart-water-metering/
by Katherine | 5 Jul, 2014 | Events, Latest News, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
The Green Living Sow is on in Auckland this weekend (July 5-6) and local electromagnetic radiation and health expert Paul Waddell will be giving a talk at the expo at 3.30 on Sunday July 6.
For more info on The Green Living Show which is always an enjoyable event and features many other great speakers, please see this link:
http://www.thegreenlivingshow.co.nz/
Speakers and seminar details here:
http://www.organicexpo.co.nz/seminars-demos/
by Katherine | 3 Jun, 2014 | Latest News, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
If you live in Auckland you can hardly fail to have noticed the visually-arresting ads in the bus shelters for EnergyOnline. The company (or its PR agency certainly has a great designer.) But even if you haven’t noticed the ads on the bus shelters, over the last two or three years you may regularly have had sales people coming to your door to try to persuade you to change from your current electricity company to the one that they are promoting.
A major hook for all these sales pitches is that you will be able to save money on your electricity bill (and who doesn’t want to save money on their electricity bill?).
However, in many cases, changing electricity companies may come at a hidden price.
EnergyOnline (and its parent company, Genesis) for example, have statements in their Terms and Conditions that you must allow the installation of a “smart meter”. (See this link for details: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/smart-meter-installed-without-permission-headaches-result-smart-meter-removed-headaches-disappear/ )
If you don’t want to risk the potential health effects from a “smart meter” (see these links: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/health-issues/ and https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/survey-of-people-adversely-affected-by-smart-meters/ the promise of “cheaper energy” by EnergyOnline may not be worth it and Genesis may not be the best option for you, either.
Moreover, these two companies also have statements in their terms and conditions to the effect that they own all the data accumulated by your “smart meter” and reserve the right to supply it to “third parties”. See this link for more details:
https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/
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…a bit creepy, really.
Is your privacy (and potentially home security) worth a few dollars a month on your electricity bills?
Mercury Energy similarly has statements in its Terms and Conditions to the effect that customers must allow existing meters to be replaced.
(See: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/customer-tells-company-smart-meter-not-wanted-company-sends-technician-anyway/ )
Other companies may have similar terms and conditions…I haven’t had time to read through every company’s website.
Given that once a “smart meter” has been installed, companies can be very reluctant to remove them (even when customers have reported significant “smart meter”-related illness), it is prudent to check companies’ terms and conditions concerning “smart meters” before changing companies, in my opinion.
When it comes to electricity companies these days, it is very much a case of caveat emptor – buyer beware.
by Katherine | 28 May, 2014 | Government and Electricity Industry Positions, Latest News, Uncategorized
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://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://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/does-network-tasman-ltd-hope-to-profit-from-smart-water-meters-in-the-nelsontasman-region/
https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/is-network-tasman-ltd-using-bad-science-to-justify-bad-decisions/
https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/will-network-tasman-ltd-do-the-right-thing-by-its-community/
https://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?
by Katherine | 23 May, 2014 | Government and Electricity Industry Positions, Latest News, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
The CEO of Network Tasman Ltd, Mr Wayne Makey, has written an article in the Nelson Mail titled: “Fears regarding smart meters not warranted”. (You can read the article at this link http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/opinion/10072263/Fears-regarding-smart-meters-not-warranted .)
In this article, Mr Mackey writes:
“We understand that some people in the community are worried about this new technology and are looking to us to provide answers.”
This statement may be intentionally or unintentionally ironic, since Network Tasman employee Andrew Stanton undertook to provide answers to written questions about the planned “smart meter” roll out, and has at the time of this writing, replied to only 16 questions of 32 questions.
Many of the questions that he has so far refused to answer (or chosen not to answer) are those that related to the amount of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) produced by the “smart meters” that Network Tasman Ltd plans to roll out and how often the brand of “smart meter” selected by Network Tasman Ltd produce pulses of radiofrequency radiation. (More on this issue will follow in a later post.)
But back to Mr Mackey, CEO of Network Tasman Ltd, and his piece in the Nelson Mail:
“The issue of radio frequency fields associated with advanced meters and other appliances has been the subject of intense debate. We have uploaded a number of scientific, peer-reviewed international research articles on our website that conclude there are no proven adverse health effects from any of those common appliances. I encourage anyone seeking information to read these reports, and a Q and A section, at www.networktasman.co.nz.”
Mr Mackey’s choice of wording is important here: he claims that the documents state there are “no proven adverse health effects from any of these common appliances”. However, if you take cell phones as one of these “other appliances” there is strong scientific evidence, tantamount in most people’s opinion to scientific proof, that the radiofrequency radiation that they produce can have harmful effects. In this regard, there is the evidence relating to microwave radiation and cancer that was considered by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) when it made its determination that radiofrequency radiation in the microwave range was a possible carcinogen (type 2B). (See: http://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/iarc-publishes-rf-cancer-review )
There is also other evidence of health effects, such as adverse effects on male fertility from cell phones (see: http://www.ewg.org/cell-phone-radiation-damages-sperm-studies-find) for example. Given the importance of healthy, genetically-normal sperm in producing healthy, happy babies, this research is frankly alarming.
Back to Mr Mackey’s article and his suggestion that people “seeking information” read the reports on Network Tasmajn Ltd’s website.
One of these, the report by EPEC at this link http://www.networktasman.co.nz/Advanced_Meters/Health%20&%20Safety%20of%20Smart%20Meters.pdf, has already been de-bunked by Dr. Don Maisch, Ph.D. (You can access Dr. Maisch’s critique of the EPEC report at this link https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/report-on-health-and-safety-aspects-of-electricity-smart-meters-debunked/.)
I might add that the EPEC, while based at the University of Canterbury, is hardly a disinterested party when it comes to “smart meters”. EPEC’s website shows that it is sponsored by major players in the NZ electricity industry – an apparent conflict of interest at the very least.
And what of the information presented at this link: http://www.networktasman.co.nz/Advanced_Meters/Radio%20Frequency%20Safety.pdf ?
Yes, it shows that “smart meter” emissions can be lower than some other sources of radiofrequency radiation. However, that does not mean the exposure is trivial. 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. (See http://healthybuildingscience.com/2013/02/18/emf-and-emr-conversion-formulas/)
Then we have the document at this link: http://www.networktasman.co.nz/Advanced_Meters/Report%20on%20Generic%20EMF%20for%20SmartCo%20v%201.1.pdf …
The document at the link above is likely to be essentially meaningless to most people who do not already have a significant knowledge base concerning “smart meters” and “smart grids” because of the way that Network Tasman Ltd have chosen to present the information. The actual measurements of RFR produced by the “relays” and access p0ints” are not specified.
Instead the document claims to show the “minimum safe distance to ensure the EMF does not exceed 25% of the limit specified in NZS2772”.
The “relays” use the 915-921 MHz band and “access points” use the 915-921 MHz and 900-915 MHz band, for which the NZ national standard (NS: 2772.1:1999) is an appalling 450 microwatts per square cm (4,500,000 microwatts per square metre). (That’s right 4.5 million microwatts per square metre which is 4,500 time higher than the 1,000 microwatts per square metre suggested as a precautionary level by the scientists who created the BioInitiative Report.)
National standard (NS: 2772.1:1999) can be described as a safety standard only in regard to the fact that it is designed to prevent thermal injury. It is not designed to prevent other types of harm from exposure from RFR – such as damage to DNA, for example.)
If the relay and access points that Network Tasman Ltd want to install expose people to 25% of the the RFR limit allowed under NS: 2772.1:1999 if they stand 0.15 – 0.4 metres away from this infrastructure, that is cause for concern, in my opinion, even if this infrastructure is not constantly producing EMR .
Network Tasman Ltd also has a graph at this link http://www.networktasman.co.nz/Advanced_Meters/Radio_Frequency_Fields.asp of its website. The graph gives the impression that “smart meters” expose people to less RFR than do cell phones, and other devices. The document from which this graph has been reproduced has been the subject of a detailed critique, which features its own graphs which tell a different story. You can read the critique by downloading the PDF from the link below.
Hirsch comments on Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters California Council Science & Technology
Last but not least, Mr Mackey states that “Another concern raised is that advanced meters will result in breaches in individuals’ privacy.” This is true – and it is a valid concern. See this link for details: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/
Will Network Tasman ltd do the right thing by its community? The CEO seems happy to expose the community to radiofrequency radiation that he has been informed is considered by the International Agency for Research on Cancer to be a possible carcinogen. (See: https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/will-network-tasman-ltd-do-the-right-thing-by-its-community/ )
Perhaps other staff within the organisation will put people’s health above profits and facilitate either the re-certification of analogue (Ferraris) meters which are still in good working order, or install new analogue (Ferraris) meters for people whose current meters have reached the end of their useful lifespan.
*Network Tasman Ltd has not ruled out installing “smart meters” on bedroom walls.
by Katherine | 12 May, 2014 | Latest News, Uncategorized, Users Feedback
This has come in from a Whangarei resident:
“If you have Just Energy in your neighborhood, I recommend you give them a ring. We were with Contact and Mercury then went to Just – it is signficantly cheaper. Our bills were around $90-100 and now they are around $70-80. Plus there is no contract and I asked about smart meters and was told they will not be installing one.”
(According to this correspondent, Genesis* has been rolling out “smart meters” to its customers in Whangarei so the fact that there is a competitor in the area that is not installing “smart meters” which is also offering a good value for is great for customer choice.)
*If you are a Genesis customer (or a customer of its subsidiary EnergyOnline) you may want to read these links:
https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/smart-meter-installed-without-permission-headaches-result-smart-meter-removed-headaches-disappear/
https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/is-your-smart-meter-spying-on-you/
by Katherine | 6 May, 2014 | Uncategorized
The video below gives a great overview of the “smart meter” issue.
It is an Australian video so mentions Australian agency ARPANSA – which regulates ionising and non-ionising radiation-producing technologies in Australia. However, the the video explains how smart meters work and how the standards regulating “smart meters” are designed to protect against thermal injury such as burns – and are not designed to protect against other possible health effects – and this information is relevant to the NZ situation.
If you like the video, please recommend it to friends and family who are not yet informed about the “smart meter” issue.
Recent Comments