By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
I intend to exercise my right to fight the forced installation on my house of a “smart meter” by my utility companies by performing an act of civil disobedience. The Pennsylvania Legislature made a big mistake by forcing me to have a device that endangers my health and my personal security.
The microwaves a “smart meter” continuously emits and receives are weapons-grade radiation, dangerous if not lethal to living things. The information a smart meter continuously broadcasts can be easily hacked by anyone driving by my house, so that all my personal habits of electrical use can be tracked and used against me by the wrong person.
My act of civil disobedience will be to chain and padlock my current gas and electric meters. I will not permit a smart meter to be installed on my house.
Not surprisingly, the state Public Utility Commission is on board with the industry line that smart meters are good, safe and green and that they save money. They are the opposite of these things.
The federal mandate for smart meters states a ratepayer is to be asked if he wants one. But our beneficent legislators left the choice part out of the law they passed. We are being ordered around like subjects — as usual.
There is a ship of hope sailing over the horizon. State Rep. Mike Reese, R-Westmoreland, is sponsoring legislation to allow people to opt out of smart meter installation. We need to inundate the Legislature and the governor with phone calls, faxes, letters, emails, tweets and in-person visits demanding that Reese's bills be passed without amendments or delay.
Show our civil servants who's boss. Stand up for your rights to good health and personal privacy.
Go to stopsmartmeters.org for more information.
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.
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Proven success
- Funding priorities questioned
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Ukraine & history
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’