Energy and Climate Change CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Velma Lyrae (SMR58)

I am an Electrosensitive/Electrohypersensitive person who is extremely affected by pulsed microwave signals which has had a devastating effect on my health and wellbeing. I have been researching the health effects of electromagnetic signals/fields and microwaves for a period of nine years. I have an Honours Degree in Humanities (2.1) from the University of Greenwich.

Smart meter homes could be a revolutionary idea to house prisoners.

Lessons are to work towards a mutually beneficial society.

Smart meters may mean less control for customers.

Vulnerable customers should be allowed to opt out. The meaning of benefit?

Round table discussions for all organisations.

Awareness is increasing whilst support is decreasing.

Health issues are not being addressed. Neither are privacy or data safety issues.

Concerns about Smart meters are increasing.

Smart meter financial benefits—will not benefit the UK.

What are the potential benefits of smart meters for consumers, and what barriers need to be overcome in order for consumers to realise them?

The potential benefits of the SMART meter program has not yet fully been recognised. The vision of this system could revolutionise the current prison system which is vastly outmoded & simply not working by failing in terms of rehabilitation as well as costing the tax payer substantial amounts of money. As yet no-one has recognised the potential to house inmates in their own SMART homes. Offenders would have the means to care for themselves on a limited budget, acquire independence whilst being monitored by the Remote warden. They would have access to the medical health via telemedicine Smart Screen. This set-up would be ideal to either those who were serving long-term sentences or those with conditional bail, or curfews whereby lock-down of doors & windows could be achieved by the touch of a button and all behaviour monitored via the Smart screen. Just as with prison, good behaviour could be rewarded or suspended with access to eg television so that behaviour could be controlled, especially for eg murderers, those with GBH offences. Also good behaviour can be rewarded by access to door mechanism to allow prisoner to leave. This untapped resource could be of huge benefit to the consumer, tax payer and as an integration into society for offenders. Sentencing inmates in this new system could be a new innovative choice and have enormous saving potential for the country.

What lessons can be learned from successful smart meter implementation and usage elsewhere in the world?

“Successful implementation” can be a biased semantic if looking at it from the company’s point of view, whereby to the customer this successful implementation can be the result of an enforced deployment of a meter on their property; detrimental to health; take away liberty to choose, and take away human rights. Case in point—Resident arrested for refusing Smart meters on their property in Naperville USA.(1)

Lessons must be learnt that any terms must be mutually applicable and not to just one party. We need to learn the lesson of balance, intelligence and of a mutually sustaining universe which benefits all parties, the individual, industry, economy and the environment. If we do not learn this lesson we will all suffer the consequences of a ruined existence and ultimately a desecrated planet.

Will smart meters empower customers to take greater control of their energy consumption?

Only if they are mentally willing to change their consumption will customers gain greater control with the meter, or rather greater control of their own appetite for using energy. However, it could conversely mean that customers have less control of energy consumption if the power to remotely control usage is given over to the remote arm. It may be used to restrict supplies, lower temperatures (for a number of reasons eg grid efficiency, grid overload, climate mitigation) whereby customer’s lose their right to control their own energy consumption altogether. The system is unlikely to be able to accommodate special considerations for the old and disabled who might need extra heating for their health.

It’s easy to envisage that customers could find themselves being allocated times of the day whereby they must use or can’t use their appliances eg in a network so that all washing machines aren’t operating at the same time to avoid overloading the Smart system. Therefore the hands-on system customer’s have at present where literally their own hands can control the use of their own energy consumption is by far the one with the greatest power (to them, the customer).

Should vulnerable customers and the fuel-poor be first in line for smart meters so they can get the benefits sooner?

Vulnerable (as in sick, ill, disabled) customers should be allowed to opt out and preferably be given access to solar/self generating power systems so that their health does not decline from exposure to the meters, on account of the recognition of all emfs being classed as 2B Possible Carcinogens by WHO 2011. The fuel-poor and those who are able-bodied could be offered bicycle-systems to generate electricity as demonstrated at Climate Camp, which would be beneficial to the fitness of the human, money-saving, and of benefit to the environment. Additionally, those opting in to this self sustaining system would take the pressure off the grid. To get benefits sooner: It has been identified by DECC that money saving benefits will not happen automatically but as a result of people watching their energy usage. It appears benefits are only being looked at in terms of monetary gain within most pro-Smart meter pitches. This is a very one-sided view, whereas for the wellbeing and mental health of the human, far from being of benefit, this may well result in obsessional compulsive behaviour where people will be watching the money clock run round much like in a taxi cab. It may well cause excessive worry, stress, family arguments over who is costing the household the most money because now they can see it as £Sd. It is not necessary to know how much usage a kettle is costing every time you boil the kettle, nor other essential items, because once you have noted the cost you can be mindful of this and sometimes you simply have to use them to function in your home. Once you have learnt the cost, you would not need to remind yourself every time you use the appliance, this would inflict excessive worry even set up an obsessional psyche to the user, and especially detrimental to those with mental health conditions or to someone with an existing diagnosis of OCD.

It would be much cheaper to have a paper graph much like a circular guitar guide where you simply spin the top layer to reveal costs printed underneath to get a rough estimate. People should have access to usage charts, whereupon energy companies should make bar graphs available showing divisions throughout the day with the different tariffs and make these accessible for easy understanding. Customers already have a running clock on their meters to keep a check on daily usage which can be viewed at sensible observance periods. Just like the running news, it is not necessary to foster the obsessive watching of energy consumption every moment of the day. This only serves to fester a culture based on personal financial gain instead of trying to create a society with altruistic intentions and a consciousness towards something away and outside of themselves, which could be directed to saving energy for the planet’s sake. Indeed, benefits here could also refer to benefits to the environment. However, this is a misnomer, whereby the colossal amount of computer systems & servers needed to sustain the envisaged Smart system will cost dearly to the demands on the energy grid and environment in terms of electrosmog, so that any benefits in monetary terms to the customer/company will be lost on the real and identified risk of ecocide.

What is the best way of involving third-party trusted messengers, such as charities, consumer groups, community organisations, local authorities and housing associations in roll-out?

Organisations could have their links put onto the Smart Implementation website. Meetings can be organised for discussions between these various groups so that there are round table discussions(2) as described by Darius Leszcynski. Consideration should be given to those with impairments/disabilities so that the consultation process includes them in the method by which they are able to take part. Eg when the issue is identified to effect those with Electrosensitive impairments, act as with Ofcom regulations, to alert those known organisations offering a method which will not put members at a distinct disadvantage by taking part (ie being exposed to pulsed microwaves). Invite discussion and opinion from these organisations and allow them to take part in the democratic process in person and in writing and to have their concerns properly addressed.

Are levels of public awareness of and support for smart meter roll-out increasing?

Public awareness of the smart meter deployment is increasing as citizens get more interested in the political system, especially where it concerns their money and the country’s payment towards wasted investments. Support for these meters is decreasing due to security risks, financial burden on the country and health implications as identified by Smart meter Conferences held to address this problem by key Smart Initiatives within the past few years.

Are consumers’ concerns about privacy and health being addressed adequately?

It is difficult to address consumers’ concerns when customers are aware that a Risk Assessment has not been carried out with regard to Human health, nor an Environmental Impact Assessment with regard to electromagnetic fields, signals, or microwave radiation and certainly none on the Smart meter. The public notices this glaring omission, of which EMFs are central to the working component of the Smart meters. Ie, The functioning Smart meters will emit electromagnetic radiation and WIFI in its working transmitting state. This may be considered as wilfully negligent to omit this under Health & Safety Risk Assessment criteria. Health Risk Assessment should include all the elements of the human being ie the biological & chemical system and the Biofield system (Rubik)(3) (the electromagnetic, vibrationary, frequency aspect) which is inherent in all human life (WHO)(4), and concerns raised of a gender bias should be taken seriously whereby as to date these concerns have not been addressed at all.

In this vein, I had previously submitted a paged document of my own initiation to have my concerns addressed as part of the Consultation process by DECC and Ofcom in 2011* with regard to Smart meters but I have not had a reply from either Authority. Further, there are major omissions, inconsistencies, unethical policies, in submission statements by Smart operatives which may be interpreted by some as “cooking the books” so to speak, eg with using “averaging out” and “mean” figures to avoid giving the true impact of the meters, much like you could average out a hammer blow, along with using vague semantics which only seek to attempt to confuse the issue and distort the true picture, and which could be seen as attempting to deceive the public.

Customers feel they are being misled by being told the meters only give out one pulse of microwave radiation transmission per day, when in fact they have seen testimonies alongside video evidence of the meter’s transmission from EMF meter readings, which demonstrate the meters are transmitting much more frequently than Smart operatives state. Meters also show dangerous spiking levels of emf/emr (which are the type to be averaged out in final calculations). Multiple meter scenarios and the situation of being the carrier for neighbours’ Smart meter transmissions which result in substantially higher transmissions and emissions have not been revealed to the public. Notwithstanding the amount of transmissions per day/hour, it is widely recognised that medical treatments may be given via pulsing magnetic signals using just one single pulse.

Authorities seek to address concerns by referring to ICNIRP policies which have not included Smart meters on the list of their “New and Emerging Technologies” Report(5) which states all emf emitting devices including those under development, soon to be or recently deployed need to be mentioned.

Further, ICNIRP only refer to those established effects which are known, of which there are no established effects from the meters as they are new to the market and no clinical tests with regard to health & safety have been undertaken. ICNIRP decisions & regulations do not include “Members of the public”, and only includes the “general public”, so that consumers would need clarification as to whether they would be included under the “general” protective banner, eg vulnerable sick people, those who are electrosensitive are not included in the classification of “general public”. Even then, the limit for exposure to time-varying emf fields (ie not a stable constant field) is 6 minutes (IEEE) (5a).

In seeking to address concerns, Authorities may then refer to WHO for legislation (who cover only the precautionary aspect). WHO have classified this type of electromagnetic radiation as a 2B Possible Carcinogen thereby exposing the general public to Risk of Cancer. The Smart meter program then seeks to “reassure” the public all will be well, whereas it is not sufficient to just work at addressing consumers’ concerns (as in worries), but must address the physical entity of their concern. Consumers’ concerns should have been addressed by the WHO Model Legislation Act,(6) but this has not been updated since 2006, being written before a vast amount of the new technologies emerged and certainly does not include Smart meters. Therefore legislation for emf emission protection is out of date and woefully lacking.

Privacy issues have not been addressed whereby customers’ movement records ie when they go in and out of their homes by warrant of electrical usage, will be left wide open for view, when they go to work, return home and go on holiday, leaving their property vulnerable to burglary, and even their personal safety at risk of attack, allowing others to know the moment they appear out of their property or return home.(7)

Is there any evidence that consumers’ concerns about smart meters are declining or growing?

Consumers’ concerns are growing due to the fact that people are becoming more informed, more aware of the process by which the governing system operates and generally discussing issues of trust in Authorities’ ability to look after their health and the health of the environment. Evidence can be heard on the ground, so to speak, from local word of mouth. People are wanting more “say” in their world and so willing to be more active in contemplating that which is being decided for them, which they see as a “nanny state” or “Big Brother”.

Will the commercial benefits of smart meter roll-out be captured within the UK?

I am concerned that the meters would not be manufactured in Great Britain and therefore not carry the British Standard kitemark to verify their safety standards and would mean profits would go abroad and not to the UK.

What criteria should DECC use to measure the ongoing success of roll-out?

Success should be based on benefits to the health of the individual, not a pseudo benefit as stated by DECC eg it will provide telemedicine and keep the person in the warm to save them visiting the Doctor. This is insulting the public’s intelligence. The meters themselves are not compatible with the human biofield or the environment, both of which are electromagnetic in nature.(3) The whole aim of the Smart meter initiative is stated to be endeavouring to mitigate climate change via CO2 emissions. Discussion about the environment is sadly missing from this consultation, especially when it is proported to be the main criteria aim of introducing the Smart meter agenda. Ironically these meters will most definitely add to the electromagnetic smog in our environment by way of the emfs, as noted by Swisscom(8) this electrosmog will alter the Schumann Resonance as recognised by NASA(9), this in turn is tied into the effects of our global temperature via sunspots and lightning as discovered by Dr Neil Cherry (10) and thereby will effect climate change. So in effect Smart meters will speed up climate change. Swisscom also acknowledge the geotoxic effect of the emfs.(8)

The ideal criteria should be measured in terms of sustainability, ie to sustain all life in its’ natural form, and to sustain our natural world. The Smart system will do exactly the opposite by creating a “centre park” environment whereby there will be no natural world left by warrant of an artificial electromagnetic atmosphere surrounding us all and replacing the natural Schumann Resonance which determines our brainwaves. Artificial fields are billions of times stronger in the near field than far field Schumann Resonance (4) . The electromagnetic environment is essential to the continuing evolution of sustaining life in its natural form, which works in a symbiotic relationship to all life forms. If this loop is challenged by artificial dominating fields, it will in turn produce a bio-experiment of Frankenstein proportion whereupon there will be no going back and our natural world will cease to exist forever.

“A key element in meeting this unprecedented challenge is ‘to see ourselves as utterly embedded in Nature and not somehow separate from those precious systems that sustain all life’, writes England’s Prince Charles commenting on the Ehrlich’s paper. ‘To continue with “business as usual” is an act of suicide on a gargantuan scale’ Prince Charles concluded”(11) January 2013.

This submission has been made by Velma Lyrae on 7 February 2013.

It is made from my own independent thought and creation and thereby I wish to retain copyright. However, I do consent to the Parliamentary Committee distributing my submission and give the right to publish this as they see fit. However, I do not consent to waiving my copyright as I wish to make this available to the public, because I believe the Smart meter deployment is a monumental risk to our health and the environment and for that reason I feel that for the purposes of the collective good, the general public have a right to see my submission and therefore in the interests of the public I intend to make this submission available after the publication of the Consultation Report. I have spoken to IPO regarding this which they deem reasonable. Finally, it is my considered opinion that Smart meters with emf and WIFI emissions will be the final nail in the coffin for humanity and the eco-system.

Notes

*this technical submission paper to DECC/Ofcom is available on request

(1) http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/24/woman-arrested-while-refusing-smart-meter-installation-on-her-property-tells-us-her-story/

(2) http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/between-rock-and-hard-place/2013/feb/6/round-table-initiative-classify-cell-phone-radiati/

(3) http://ijssst.info/Vol-12/No-1/paper5.pdf

(4) http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ehc/WHO_EHC_137_chap3_eng.pdf

(5) http://www.icnirp.de/documents/NewTech.pdf

(5a) Page 16 http://www.euitt.upm.es/estaticos/catedra-coitt/web_salud_medioamb/normativas/ieee/C95.1.pdf

(6) http://www.who.int/peh-emf/standards/EMF_model_legislation_2007.pdf

(7) http://www.c4-security.com/The%20Dark%20Side%20of%20the%20Smart%20Grid%20-%20Smart%20Meters%20%28in%29Security.pdf

(8) http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WiFi_Supporting_Material.pdf

(9) http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/q768.html

(10)http://www.neilcherry.com/documents/90_n1_EMR_Schumann_Resonance_paper_1.pdf

(11) http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/01/experts-fear-collapse-of-global-civilisation/

February 2013

Prepared 26th July 2013