Santa Cruz Good Times

Friday
Sep 19th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Meter Moratorium Continues

news smartmeterBoard of Supervisors votes to continue opposition of SmartMeter installations

Late last year, the already loud local outcry over SmartMeters rang out even louder, as some residents took matters into their own hands and removed meters from their homes. The action led to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) shutting off several of these residents’ power. Following a flood of public concern at its Dec. 13 meeting, the County Board of Supervisors directed the county’s public health officer, Poki Stewart Namkung, to return on Jan. 24 with an analysis of one month’s research on the health effects of the wireless meters.

The health officer’s report played a large part in the Board of Supervisor’s adoption of an ordinance to extend the temporary moratorium on the installation of SmartMeters at their Tuesday, Jan. 24 meeting.

While some supervisors had expressed concern in December over whether to continue what they called an unenforceable moratorium, the four board members present on Jan. 24 voted unanimously to continue the ban.

Supervisor Ellen Pirie says the health officer’s report, entitled “Health Risks Associated With SmartMeters,” which details the risks and potential public safety hazards of SmartMeters, solidified her vote to reinstate the moratorium.

“I think it’s the right decision by the Board of Supervisors,” she says. “And with the report from the public health officer saying that there could be health impacts from sustained exposure to SmartMeters, the board really needs to take this seriously.”

In her 37-page report, Namkung details both long and short-term health effects of the electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) that SmartMeters emit. Long-term effects include cancer and brain damage, and short-term effects include EMF hypersensitivity.

While Namkung’s report notes that there is no scientific literature on the health risks of SmartMeters in particular, as they are a new technology, she cites a large body of research on the health risks of EMFs in general.

The report’s conclusion poses the following: “The question for governmental agencies is that given the uncertainty of safety, the evidence of existing and potential harm, should we err on the side of safety and take the precautionary avoidance measures?”

While the report cites the ways in which SmartMeter exposure is similar to other forms of wireless radiation, such as cell phones and wireless Internet connections, her report’s conclusion also summarizes two unique features of SmartMeter exposure:

“[One] Universal exposure thus far because of mandatory installation ensuring that virtually every household is exposed; [Two] Involuntary exposure whether one has a SmartMeter on their home or not due to the already ubiquitous saturation of installation in Santa Cruz County.”

Jeff Nordahl, a concerned Santa Cruz resident and member of the organization StopSmartMeters!, finds Namkung’s report encouraging.

“It completely confirms every single health risk and potential health risk that all of us concerned citizens have been talking about for well over a year,” he says. “Now we have our top health official in Santa Cruz confirming these exact same health concerns after a month’s research on this topic.”

Nordahl thinks if people read the Santa Cruz health report, as well as a few of the scientific studies the report references, they will reach the same conclusion as the health officer.  

“Installing wireless SmartMeters on our homes, which saturate our neighborhoods with 24/7 pulsed radiation, is a very bad idea, which could lead to serious health repercussions for our community,” he says. “The SmartMeter program needs to be halted in our community immediately, and customers need to be able to opt out [of SmartMeter installations] for free.”

At their recent meeting, the Board of Supervisors also signed a petition addressed to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) asking them to delay consideration of PG&E president Michael Peevey’s preliminary decision to charge a fee to customers who elect to opt out of the SmartMeter program.

The petition urges the CPUC to wait “until further public hearings are completed to ensure the due process rights of all stakeholders.”

Unlike previous Board of Supervisors meetings on the topic, no one spoke out directly against reinstating the moratorium against SmartMeter installations. Instead, the tone of both supervisors and attendees was supportive.

“There was lots of discussion, and lots of people talking and we’ll see where we go,” says Pirie. She adds that the next step is for the Board of Supervisors to put pressure on the CPUC.

“[The Board of Supervisors should] ask the CPUC, which is really the entity that gets to make most of these decisions, to take another look at this and consider that there may be either people who are unusually sensitive to electromagnetic radiation or people getting an unusual amount of exposure,” she says.

Photo: Jesse Clark

Comments (3)Add Comment
...
written by Drew InThe [DeadOak] Woods , February 19, 2012
the Board's Fake protection via moratorium isn't required AFTER every home has a smartmeter. I wonder how many of the sup's have smartmeters. the board's Going along with the request to reduce the Opt Out fees causes acceptance of a fraud - why don't they reject the fee entirely? Politicians and corporations are harmful.
...
written by Packet Guy, February 11, 2012
Where's the report? I can't find it on any city web site..
...
written by Bill Smallman, February 06, 2012
My position on this is to include with the "pressure" on the CPUC is to insist PGE to design a meter, and meter system which uses existing land lines to send meter read signals. It would eliminate this issue and be win-win. I'm not an electronic engineer or builder, but I think they would actually be work better and be more reliable. You don't need to go wireless when you have wires.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

Share this on your social networks

Bookmark and Share

Share this

Bookmark and Share

 

Catwalk on the Wild Side

Meet the artists and designers behind this year’s edition of FashionART, SantaCruz’s most outrageous fashion show

 

The New Tech Nexus

Community leaders in science and technology unite to form web-based networking program

 

Feeding Frenzy

Culinary journey ‘The Trip to Italy’ isn’t the foodie film you’d expect 

 

Watch List

From Google to the government to data brokers, why your privacy is now a thing of the past
Sign up for Good Times weekly newsletter
Get the latest news, events

RSS Feed Burner

 Subscribe in a reader

Latest Comments

 

Sweet Treats

Local cannabis bakers win award for cookies

 

What fashion trends do you want to see, or not see?

Santa Cruz  |  High School Guidance Counselor

 

Best of Santa Cruz County

The 2013 Santa Cruz County Readers' Poll and Critics’ Picks It’s our biggest issue of the year, and in it, your votes—more than 6,500 of them—determined the winners of The Best of Santa Cruz County Readers’ Poll. New to the long list of local restaurants, shops and other notables that captured your interest: Best Beer Selection, Best Locally Owned Business, Best Customer Service and Best Marijuana Dispensary. In the meantime, many readers were ever so chatty online about potential new categories. Some of the suggestions that stood out: Best Teen Program and Best Web Design/Designer. But what about: Dog Park, Church, Hotel, Local Farm, Therapist (I second that!) or Sports Bar—not to be confused with Bra. Our favorite suggestion: Best Act of Kindness—one reader noted Café Gratitude and the free meals it offered to the Santa Cruz Police Department in the aftermath of recent crimes. Perhaps some of these can be woven into next year’s ballot, so stay tuned. In the meantime, enjoy the following pages and take note of our Critics’ Picks, too, beginning on page 91. A big thanks for voting—and for reading—and an even bigger congratulations to all of the winners. Enjoy.  -Greg Archer, EditorBest of Santa Cruz County Readers’ Poll INDEX

 

Santa Clara Wine Trail

My memories of growing up in England include my mother pouring port after Sunday dinner—and sometimes a glass of sherry before dinner. My family didn’t drink much wine back then, but we certainly made up for it with the port and sherry.