Energy and Climate Change CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Amanda Blay (SMR91)

I am writing to oppose the introduction of smart meters on a compulsory basis.

It appears that in the rush to appear to be doing something for climate change, the statutory undertakers and the Government are ignoring genuine concerns over the risk to health.

The problem is that we are now being exposed to a multitude of frequencies—and even worse, through the night, when the body is needing to repair and is at greater risk of being affected by the various electromagnetic fields. The cumulative effect is being ignored as is relevant research.

Please refer to the submissions by The Healthy House Limited, Stroud.

You are removing an individual’s right to create an environment which they consider safe in their own home. I choose not to some as I wish to stay healthy, and I choose not to use wifi (the EU has previously stated that wifi should not be used in the home, until the health issues have been fully understood. I do not use a mobile phone save for emergencies—and there is growing evidence about the damage done by these phones. So why am I to be compelled to have a smart meter, when I have taken the trouble to understand the health implications and choose to avoid where I can the more intense electro magnetic fields.

What of people living in dense housing accommodation such as flats—what research has been done about where there are clusters of these meters.

Also what contribution is actually going to be made to emissions by the installation of these meters—most people have cut down use simply because of the increase in price of fuels. If people want to monitor consumption then they can buy their own gadgets if they want to—and they can control their exposure to the radiation from the gadgets by their usage if they want to.

The other thing that we are failing to consider is the effect of this additional radiation on our wildlife—has anyone considered that electromagnetic pollution might be one of the factors affecting bees—and we all know that our food chain is affected by other creatures that share this planet with us.

The main benefit of smart meters is convenience to the statutory undertakers—but at what price. How many more children are to suffer from cancer as a result of the irresponsible introduction of technology. There are people working to minimise the effects of electropollution—why don’t we only introduce these technologies when they are safe.

The various frequencies to which we are exposed is like the introduction of tobacco—and the science used to defend it sounds exactly like the science that was used to defend tobacco in the 1950s.

The need and benefit of smart meters is not proven for reducing emissions. This is convenience only for the statutory undertakers, and my Human right to choose what technologies I have in my home are being ignored.

For these reasons I oppose the introduction of smart meters

February 2013

Prepared 26th July 2013