A MUST READ – JAN. 18TH, 2012
FIRST LETTER FROM A COUNTY HEALTH DEPT IN THE NATION, EXPRESSING GRAVE CONCERNS OVER HEALTH COMPLAINTS AND ASKING COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO TAKE ACTION.
Letter to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors by an administrative officer of the Santa Cruz County Health Dept., in support of a smart meter moratorium due to health complaints. Brief summary at http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=6959.
SEE ATTACHMENT B AT ABOVE LINK, PAGES 9-18 ARE VITAL TO READ
Excerpt from page 11 of 20 :
"Evidence-based Health Risks of EMFs
There is no scientific literature on the health risks of SmartMeters in particular as they are a new technology. However, there is a large body of research on the health risks of EMFs. Much of the data is concentrated on cell phone usage and as SmartMeters occupy the same energy spectrum as cell phones and depending on conditions, can exceed the whole body radiation exposure of cell phones phones (see Attachment B1, Figure 4). In terms of health risks, the causal factor under study is RF radiation whether it be from cell phones,
Wi-Fi routers, cordless phones, or SmartMeters. Therefore all available, peer-reviewed, scientific research data can be extrapolated to apply to SmartMeters, taking into consideration the magnitude and the intensity of the exposure."
"In summary, there is no scientific data to determine if there is a safe RF exposure level regarding its non-thermal effects. 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? The two unique features of SmartMeter exposure are: 1) universal exposure thus far because of mandatory installation ensuring that virtually every household is exposed; 2) involuntary exposure whether one has a SmartMeter on their home or not due to the already ubiquitous saturation of installation in Santa Cruz County. Governmental agencies for protecting public health and safety should be much more vigilant towards involuntary environmental exposures because governmental agencies are the only defense against such involuntary exposure. Examples of actions that the public might take to limit exposure to electromagnetic radiation can be found in Attachment B2."
(Santa Cruz, CA Health Dept.)
January 18, 2012
AGENDA: January 24, 2012
Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Cruz
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
Dear Members of the Board:
On December 13,2011, your Board directed this office to return today with a report on issues associated with the current SmartMeter moratorium ordinance, and information on the possible extension of the moratorium for an additional year. Your Board also directed the Public Health Offcer to return with an analysis of the research on the health effects of SmartMeters, and
directed County Counsel to return with a report regarding the legality of a public utility refusing service to customers who are willing to pay for service and are willing to have an analog meter.
As your Board is aware, the California Public Utility Commission is considering PG&E's application for modification to PG&E's SmartMeter proposal to include an option for residential customers who do not wish to have a wireless SmartMeter. The item was scheduled on the January 12, 2012 agenda, but the commission anticipates that a vote on the proposal will not happen prior to February 1,2012.
Your Board has heard significant amounts of testimony regarding SmartMeters and concerns about their possible impact on health, questions about their accuracy, their inability to recover real-time data, privacy concerns, and the lack of safety standards for chronic long-term exposure to electromagnetic frequency radiation. In addition, PG&E has not presented studies to support their primary justification that the SmartMeter program will encourage customers to more effectively manage their utilization of electricity.
Given the broad concern about SmartMeter technology and your Board's desire to go on record, this offce and County Counsel believe that notwithstanding the enforcement challenges, that it is in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare for your Board to adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A) implementing a temporary moratorium on the installation of SmartMeters in or on any home, apartment, condominium or business within the unincorporated area of the County. The purpose of the moratorium is to allow additional time to educate the CPUC about these concerns and allow time for adequate study of the impacts resulting from the SmartMeter technology.
SERVING THE COMMUNITY – WORKING FOR THE FUTURE "'l1
Ordinance Imposing Temporary Moratorium on Installation of SmartMeters
Agenda: January 24, 200 i 2P ¡) g (' 12 0250
PG&E, asserting that local governments do not have jurisdiction on the installation of the meters, has ignored the previous Santa Cruz County ordinance as well as similar ordinances adopted in other jurisdictions. PG&E believes that only the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has the authority to stop installation of the meters. Elected representatives, including the Board of Supervisors of Marin County, have acknowledged the limits of their ordinances to actually stop the installation of the meters. However, jurisdictions have adopted their ordinances with statements that such ordinances play an important role by informing the CPUC of significant
Health Offcer Report
The Public Health Offcer's report is provided as Attachment B. The report discusses the health risks associated with SmartMeters, the scientific reports and actions the public might take to mitigate potential harm.
PG&E Shutoff Update
At the December 13, 201 i, meeting, your Board questioned the PG&E representative about the utility company's decision to shut off power to the homes of residents who removed their SmartMeters. Subsequent to that meeting, PG&E restored power to those residences with the intent of charging them based on past electrical bills.
At your January 10, 2012 meeting, your Board was presented with a petition to the California Public Utilities Commission regarding PG&E SmartMeter Opt-out Application, (Petition A.ll-03-014). The petition provides the opportunity for local elected offcials to urge the Commission to continue Petition A.II-03-0 14 for further public hearings. The petition is provided as Attachment C. It is recommended that your Board direct the Chair to sign the petition on behalf
of the Board and submit it to the PUC.
IT is THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD:
(1) Direct the Chair to send a letter to the PUC calling for independent testing and monitoring of SmartMeters in place to determine duty cycles and frequency, especially in the following circumstances
. Where both gas and electric meters are located closely together
. Where there is a bank of SmartMeters such as on a multi-family residential
building or apartment building
. Where there is a collector meter on a home that serves the home, plus as many as 5000 other residential units in the area
. Where a SmartMeter on a home acts as a relay for other local neighborhood
Ordinance Imposing Temporary Moratorium on Installation of Smart Meters
Agenda: January 24, 20012
P a g C' 13 0251
(2) Direct the Chair to send a letter to the PUC and PG&E allowing any Santa Cruz County resident to request removal of a previously installed SmartMeter and the replacement with an analog meter
(3) Accept and file the report from the Public Health Officer
(4) Direct the Chair to sign the petition to the California Public Utilities Commission on behalf of the Board urging the Commission to delay consideration of a preliminary decision on PG&E's SmartMeter application until further public hearing and input are completed, and
(5) Adopt the attached ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on the installation of SmartMeters within the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz Comity and direct the Clerk of the Board to place the ordinance on the February 7, 2012 agenda for final consideration.
Very truly yours,
Susan Mauriello, County Administrative Officer
A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Report from Public Health Offcer
C. Petition to CPUC
California Public Utilities Commission
(see link above for important attachments and original copy in pdf of this communication)