Beware of smart meters
I urge our state legislators to co-sponsor the bill introduced by Rep. Mike Reese, R-Mt. Pleasant, regarding smart meter installation in Pennsylvania.
The smart meter debacle is a huge threat to our health, safety, privacy and wallet. The dangers of wireless technology, corporate control and false solutions to climate problems threaten everyone. Reese's legislation helps us toward a sustainable and democratic energy system and new wireless standards that put human and environmental health before profit.
Safety standards on wireless exposure are based on decades of scientific research, but science missed the link of how various frequencies adversely affect health. While the specific absorption rate (SAR) sets limits for human exposure, the SAR test didn't consider the smart meter routers, relays, collectors and antennas.
Because of this missing science, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission only addressed the smart meter as an end-use device, and the commission states in its safety sheet that a short distance from the meter keeps you safe. But the average smart meter router coverage area is 5 square miles and one collector is 125 square miles. So everyone in those coverage areas is affected.
Once wireless blankets the state, it will create problems with literally everything the frequencies touch, including our health and ecosystems. The meter program is well-intended, but it will not address Pennsylvania's energy problems.
The original legislation mandating smart meters is seriously inadequate. Reese's legislation will fix that.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- On right track
- Not ‘too stupid’
- Quarantine quandary
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- Ford City police
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- Something special
- Thanks, Vikings!
- Working hard in fast food
- Intelligent discussion overdue
- Know when to yield