Responding to requests for analog electric meters, our PUD recently adopted an opt-out policy providing non-RF-transmitting options. A Leader article announcing this new policy stated that the FCC says there are no negative health effects from low-level RF transmissions.
The FCC?
Safety guidelines used by the FCC are as much as a million times higher than those set by independent scientific bodies like the Austrian Medical Association and the BioInitiative Working Group. Why would that be?
A Harvard University investigation found the FCC so corrupted by industry capture that it doesn’t enforce even its own inflated standards. Since 1997 its position has been: “Study health effects all you want ... The build-out of wireless cannot be blocked or slowed by health issues.”
Tom Engel’s letter, “RF Exposure is Everywhere,” claims that “If you use a cell phone, ‘opting-out’ of a PUD meter that uses RF ... will not reduce your exposure to low-energy, non-ionizing radiation.”
That statement not only flies in the face of logic—EMF exposures are additive and cumulative—Engel also employs the industry narrative of only considering the broadcasts from RF meters. He ignores their relentless pulsing.
The meters currently installed by our PUD pulse every few seconds, 20,000-30,000 times/day.
They are smart meters with only one of the transmitters turned on. Dr. Martin Pall’s research shows that pulsations “make these EMFs much more biologically active.”
That may explain why in his clinical practice Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt has found that smart meters surpass cell phones and other wireless devices in elevating patients’ inflammatory markers, hormone imbalances and neurotransmitter imbalances. He recommends analog meters that do not pulse, emit radiation or produce dirty electricity.
Yes, there are many sources of EMFs in today’s world. Thank you PUD commissioners for giving us the choice to eliminate one of those.
Ana Wolpin
Port Townsend
