KIUC needs to address the concerns of membership NO SMART METERS I agree with the following: I do not want a "smart meter" smart meters have been shown to INCREASE electrical bills Dr. Jane Ely P. O. Box 151, Waimea, HI. 96796 March 8, 2012 Mr. Michael Yamane Chief of Operations, KIUC 4463 Pahe’e St., Suite 1 Lihue, HI. 96766 Regarding Smart Meters and KIUC Elections Dear Mr. Yamane: The Board of Directors, elected by the membership and KIUC staff are in serious violation of appropriating millions of dollars of membership funds in a unilateral decision to ‘deploy’ smart meters, without consulting the membership. The dictatorial tone of your letter in January states that you are “aggressively communicating…regarding the next step to successfully deploying the smart grid.” The militaristic use of words is highly inflammatory. The way the letter dictates to the membership is from an adversarial position. The attending information in the glossy brochure that promised ‘transparent and responsive two-way communication’ has proven in public research to be inaccurate and in some cases blatantly untrue. For example: The research and public action taken in Santa Cruz, CA. is full of information that KIUC has ignored. Subject: Santa Cruz – Public Health Division affirms Dangers of Smart meters County of Santa Cruz – Public Health Division, January 13, 2012 SmartMeter Moratorium – extended for another year! “The Health Officer, Dr. Poki Stewart Namkung, M.D., M.P.H. issued these finding when asked by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to review the “Health Risks Associated With SmartMeters”. It is an eye opening report on the true dangers of Smart Meters and the misleading information on their safety as advertised by the utilities. Here are just a few bullet points from this report: A SmartMeter contains two antennas whose combined time averaged public safety limit of exposure is 655¡.W/cm2 (Sage, 2011). According to the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) Report (2011), within distances of three to ten feet, SmartMeters would not exceed this limit. However, CCST did not account for the frequency of transmissions, reflection factors, banks of SmartMeters firing simultaneously, and distances closer than three feet. The CCST Report also states that SmartMeters will generally transmit data once every four hours, and once the grid is fully functional, may transmit “more frequently.” It has been aptly demonstrated by computer modeling and real measurement of existing meters that SmartMeters emit frequencies almost continuously, day and night, seven days a week. Furthermore, it is not possible to program them to not operate at 100% of a duty cycle (continuously) and therefore it should not be possible to state that SmartMeters do not exceed the time-averaged exposure limit. Exposure is additive and consumers may have already increased their exposures to radiofrequency radiation in the home through the voluntary use of wireless devices. The guidelines currently used by the FCC were adopted in 1996, are thermally based, and are believed to protect against injury that may be caused by acute exposures that result in tissue heating or electric shock. FCC guidelines have a much lower certainty of safety than standards. Meeting the current FCC guidelines only assures that one should not have heat damage from SmartMeter exposure. It says nothing about safety from the risk of many chronic diseases that the public is most concerned about such as cancer, miscarriage, birth defects, semen quality, autoimmune diseases, etc. Therefore, when it comes to non-thermal effects of RF, FCC guidelines are irrelevant and cannot be used for any claims of SmartMeter safety unless heat damage is involved (Li, 2011). Evidence is accumulating on the results of exposure to RF at non-thermal levels including increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier in the head (Eberhardt, 2008), harmful effects on sperm, double strand breaks in DNA which could lead to cancer genesis (Phillips, 2011), stress gene activation indicating an exposure to a toxin (Blank, 2011), and alterations in brain glucose metabolism (Volkow, 2011). The two unique features of SmartMeter exposure are: 1) universal exposure thus far because of mandatory installation ensuring that virtually every household is exposed; 2) involuntary exposure whether one has a SmartMeter on their home or not due to the already ubiquitous saturation of installation in Santa Cruz County. Governmental agencies for protecting public health and safety should be much more vigilant towards involuntary environmental exposures because governmental agencies are the only defense against such involuntary exposure. To read the report in its entirety, just click here (Santa-Cruz-Public-Health-Official-Smart-Meter-report.pdf). With the evidence as presented to the Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Cruz by the Public Health Division, the extension of the ordinance for an additional year on the moratorium for SmartMeters was granted and passed”. KIUC officers and Staff have failed to report accurately on hazardous health issues; privacy issues, which the software technology cannot guarantee, nor KIUC Board Members; as well as rate increases. On the mainland for example; all smart meter territories report increased utility bills. As recently as May, 2011, The World Health Organization declared Radio Frequency transmissions [which the smart meter will send out] to increase incidences of cancer. Note: The report did not say ‘risk’, it stated incidences. Former Director of the CIA, James Woolsey was quoted about the risk to privacy, “ A so called smart grid that’s as vulnerable as what we’ve got is not smart at all. It’s a really, really stupid grid.” So along with inaccurate information put out by KIUC, our Constitutional rights of privacy are being infringed—yet again. Due process of consulting the membership with a multimillion-dollar investment has been ignored. In the Charter #2 of KIUC we are promised cooperative and democratic rights. “Cooperatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting policies and making decisions. The elected representatives are accountable to the membership.” The individual Board Members of KIUC are in direct danger of a class action suit by the Coop Members. The Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii will continue to be updated on the infringement of members’ rights and the inappropriate actions of KIUC Board Members. Finally, in full disclosure and transparency of communication, why has my Feb. 5th email to KIUC expressing concerns on due process not been responded to? Here is my communication to KIUC Board of Directors and Staff. You will not be allowed to install your smart meter on my home. I will petition my neighbors to stop you in my neighborhood. I will keep the Public Utilities Commission informed of all your actions. I am giving you notification that you do not have permission to trespass on my property, [This applies to renters and property owners, anyone who pays KIUC is a member of the Coop] and, illegally install the smart meter. I will not pay an opt-out fee. I will vote and encourage every contact I have on the island to vote in March 2012. Dr. Jane Ely, Waimea c.c. Mayor of Kauai; Public Utilities Commission of Hawaii; United Press International; Garden Island Editor.