Answers to questions from Network Tasman Ltd…Part 2

by Katherine | 2 Jun, 2014 | Government and Electricity Industry Positions, Latest News, Users Feedback

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://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://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://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://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://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://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://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://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://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://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/

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

Answers to questions from Network Tasman Ltd …Part 1

by Katherine | 2 Jun, 2014 | Government and Electricity Industry Positions, Latest News, Users Feedback

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.)

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.)

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.)

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://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://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://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/health-issues/     and https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/what-is-it-like-to-live-with-electrohypersensitivity-ehs-one-womans-story/

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

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

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/

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

Company tries to bully chronically ill woman

by Katherine | 23 May, 2014 | Government and Electricity Industry Positions, Latest News, Users Feedback

Site editor’s note: Further to the report at this link https://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://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://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/contact-us/. Thank you.

Persistence furthers…”smart meter” removed from child’s bedroom wall

by Katherine | 23 May, 2014 | Government and Electricity Industry Positions, Latest News, Users Feedback

Late in 2013, I received the following email:

Hi Katherine,

A friend suggested I email you as I am having problems with getting Genesis to remove my “not” Smart Meter.

I have had it installed for two or three years and have experienced significant behavioural issues with my son and since talking to my friend several weeks ago I just clicked that there is probably a connection here to this meter being on the same wall that his bed is on!

I contacted Genesis and asked when they could remove it and they said they can’t.

I have replied that I have checked, and they can – so when will they do this as I want it removed asap.

What more can I do to expedite this?

I have also phoned TrustPower to see about connecting with them but they said they are very black and white on this issue that they are not able to remove a “smart meter” that does not belong to them. This has to be done by the company that it belongs to.  They were helpful and said they don’t actually own many themselves because of all the “issues” with them. I said good – don’t!

I realise you are busy. Look forward to hearing from you when you have time.

Thanks heaps,

[Name withheld]

Site editor’s note:  After writing this email, this mother persisted in phoning Genesis until she reached an employee who took her concerns seriously and arranged for the “smart meter” to be removed. (Before she reached a helpful employee she had to put up with some disrespectful treatment from another staff member.)

In her own words, it was this mother’s persistence and refusal to take “no” for an answer that resulted in the removal of the “smart meter”:

“I got the meter removed with lots of hassling – or maybe it was harassing – they would have got sick of my phone calls!  They tried to deter me as a last resort by saying ” we have to let you know that there may be a charge in the future for a meter reader…….” I just said fine – money cost is nothing compared to a health cost.”

She offers this advice for other people who want to get rid of a “smart meter”:

“So be PERSISTENT and don’t be bullied into giving the “specific health problems” that were asked for the first few times I rang. I said it was irrelevant and not his concern – I just wanted to know WHEN it could be removed not IF. Also, do not accept the concession to just remove the modem – insist on the entire meter going. (I can’t remember but I think the meter is still doing something even if the chip or modem is out?)

[Ed note: Replacement of a “smart meter”  with a non-smart meter also protects your privacy; see this link: www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz/government-and-electricity-industry-positions/network-tasman-there-are-no-privacy-concerns-with-smart-meters-yeah-right/ ]

“And also, do not threaten to, or change power suppliers. If you do then you are really stuck with the smart meter as Genesis or whoever owns it is not going to come and take it out for you (at least not for free) if you are another company’s customer.”

Concluding comments from website editor: This is one of the very few cases of which I am aware in which Genesis has removed a “smart meter”.  In general Genesis has been one of the worst companies in terms of rolling out “smart meters”, and it has been reported to me that in some cases the company has not informed customers in advance that their analogue (electromechanical) meter would be replaced with a “smart meter”.

If you are a Genesis customer (or a customer of its subsidiary EnergyOnline) please note that the Terms and Conditions (see links below) for both these companies assume that you agree to the installation of a “smart meter”  and that you agree to do nothing to prevent the installation of a “smart meter”. The Terms and Conditions may be modified by an agreement in writing, so if you are with either of these companies and are otherwise happy with the company’s service, and do not want a “smart meter” you may wish to consider writing to the company and negotiating an agreement that allows you to retain an existing electromechanical meter, such as by having it recertified.

NB: If you try this approach, please email through the Contact form at this link  https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/contact-us/ to let us know whether or not it was successful for you.  Thank you.

 https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/latest-news/smart-meter-installed-without-permission-headaches-result-smart-meter-removed-headaches-disappear/

Is your electricity company bullying you?

by Katherine | 19 May, 2014 | Government and Electricity Industry Positions, Latest News, Users Feedback

If your electricity company is trying to bully you into accepting a “smart meter”, you are not alone.

Below is one of several reports I have received within the last week or so concerning bullying by companies that want to install “smart meters”.

If your company is bullying you, remember that there is no law that says you have to accept a “smart meter” and stand your ground.  Once a “smart meter” has been installed it can be very difficult to get it removed – even if it is causing health problems. Please report bullying via the Contact form at this link https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/contact-us/.  (Your report will be treated in confidence and posted on the site only if you give permission for this to be done.)

If your company persists in trying to make you accept a “smart meter”, you may want to consider changing companies and there is information at this link to help you do this https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/how-to-get-rid-of-a-smart-meter/  Please also see the comments after the report below.

From a health professional:

Hi Katherine,

The following is an approximate quote of a phone conversation between one of my clients who has a significant auto-immune disease (that necessitates her leaving the country for five months during the winter season). She has given me permission to mention her and her condition although I will not use her name at present.

One to two years ago she asked Mercury Energy if she could avoid a smart meter. They said yes. However, they turned up recently to install & were sent away before installation.

Mercury staff: ” We can come onto your property at any time and do what we want & there is nothing that you can do about it”

This was part of an abusive phone conversation, denying my patient’s rights.

Kind Regards,

[Name supplied]

For more information o Mercury Energy, Genesis and EnergyOnline, all companies that are aggressively rolling out “smart meters’, please see these links:

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

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?

by Katherine | 18 May, 2014 | Government and Electricity Industry Positions, Latest News, Users Feedback

NETWORK TASMAN LTD PROMOTES “SMART METERS” TO THE LOCAL BOARD IN TAKAKA

On Tuesday May 13, 2014, Andrew Stanton, a representative of Network Tasman Ltd gave a presentation to the local board at the Takaka Fire Station.  The reason for the  presentation was that this lines company, owned by a community trust, plans to install “smart meters” (the company uses the term “advanced meters”, rather than “smart meters”) in homes and business in the Nelson and Tasman areas.  In addition, the company has announced the intention to develop a “region wide communications network (‘smart grid’)” through which information is relayed.

The one hour presentation was accompanied by a Powerpoint slide show and was described as “slick and quick” by a local resident who attended the meeting.  Members of the public were able to ask questions at the presentation and were told that they would be given answers to written questions at a later date.

Further information about this meeting will be posted when it is available.

SUE GREY MEETS WITH NETWORK TASMAN LTD

Lawyer Sue Grey* also met with Network  Tasman staff during the same week. This was a private meeting.

At the meeting she presented her own Powerpoint slide show which can be downloaded at the link below.

Sue Grey’s Powershop Presentation on Smartmeters for Network Tasman

Sue Grey’s own account of the meeting is below:

I was invited to my own private meeting with the CEO and two senior employees of Network Tasman yesterday following my objection to having a smart meter and my explanation why I did not want one.

I prepared a power point summary which I presented at the meeting (I’m happy to share it if you want it). I also left them with a copy of Dr Sophie Walker (of Crown Research Institute ESR)’s most recent (Aug 2013) biannual review of recent EMR research, key points of which I had summarised during my presentation.

“They listened and even asked some questions, however I fear that they will default back to the status quo of money before health.

Crux of key comments/conversations (not necessarily exactly word for word):

NT: If we don’t install smart meters then the power companies will.

SG: What if you go public and state that you have decided not to install them due to public health concerns? You are a community-owned company, you have a great opportunity to make an important stand.

NT:  CEO looking absolutely terrified: “The power companies will install them anyway.”

SG: Make them tell the  public why they are putting money ahead of public health. Well, let them, and let them explain.

NT: We appreciated your presentation but you should not have said we are hiding behind NZS2772:1 1999.

SG : Well, you are. It is an outdated and unsafe standard

NT: Are you also worried about safety risks from electrical supply?

SG: Yes I am, and I am aware of people who suffer greatly within their own homes already, and that NZ regulation is very lax about how wiring is set up. However I am here today to try to prevent new sources of harm that will add to any existing problems

NT: We only will transmit every 4 hours (house smart meter to relay or/and house to local network.)

SG: You only send power bills once a month- so why do you need to transmit any more often than that?

NT: Our clients  consumers want it

SG: By consumers do you mean the public or the power companies

NT: No clear response

SG: (they clearly mean the power companies).

NT: In Christchurch most of Meridian’s customers who have smart meters check the computer feedback regularly during the day.

SG: Are you telling me that people’s lives have become so boring that they have nothing better to do than check their smart meter feedback? Are you talking about private consumers or corporate users?

NT: Everyone … we think

NT: We are not aware of anyone who has suffered health effects from smart meters since they have been rolled out in Christchurch

SG: How hard have you looked? Perhaps I can help you with that.

Site editor’s comments:  Personally I find it difficult to believe the claim by Network Tasman Ltd that the “smart meters” that they want to install in people’s home will transmit only every four hours.The company’s website states that “future benefits” of having a “smart meter” include “real-time information to drive smarter electricity choices.”.

I doubt that “real time information” in this context means that the “smart meters” will be transmitting data about electricity use only once every four hours, or if they are, this will only be for a short time, after which they will transmit much more frequently.  In Auckland, some electricity companies (such as Mercury Energy) have advertised one of the benefits of having a ‘smart meter” as being able to check on electricity use every 30 minutes, which suggest the meters must transmit every half hour (if not more frequently.)

However, Network Tasman Ltd’s website already includes statements of dubious veracity*, so it appears that either some of its staff are not well-informed about the “smart meter” issue – or the company may perhaps be trying to conceal unpalatable facts about “smart meters” from the public.

So, the question remains…will Network Tasman persist in its plan to roll out “smart meters” and the “smart grid” despite the potential threat to people’s health posed by the exposure to additional electromagnetic radiation?  Or will it do the right thing by its community and re-certify analogue meters that are in good working order – or install brand new analogue (Ferraris) meters?

*See these links for discussion of information about Network Tasman Ltd

https://stopsmartmeters.org.nz/uncategorized/in-the-nelson-or-tasman-area-smart-meters-are-not-a-government-requirement/

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

*Here in Sue Grey’s own words is how she came to be interested in the EMR issue:

I live in Network Tasman area but only became aware of their intention to force smart meters on their customers by a story in the Nelson Mail.

I wrote expressing my concerns and NT eventually responded by inviting me to meet with them.

My interest in EMR issues arose in 2008 after I was asked to assist my local community to investigate and then help the community oppose a proposal by Telecom to put a new cell tower approximately 5m from the sandpit at Atawhai Playcentre. This led to a petition by Sarah Allan and 3100 others to parliament and a response in November 2009 by the Local Government and Environment Committee recommending a review of NZS2772:1 1999 and of the composition of the Government’s Interagency Advisory Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation to remove vested interests from the Committee (eg the Telcos and other economic interests who are currently on it) and to add community and health advisors.

The then Minister Nick Smith and his Cabinet rejected these proposals.