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:
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?
Recent Comments