To the Editor:
I want to thank you for your continuing series of articles concerning the health dangers and accounting opacity inherent to so-called Smart Meters, in addition to your instructions on how to refuse their installation. [April (Pgs. 9, 11-13), May (Pg. 6), June (Pg. 14).] The ability to opt-out (with a penalty) is not enough. As your articles make clear, the issue of Smart Meters falls under the umbrella of health dangers related to ALL cellular technologies. This includes Cell Phones, WiFi, Wireless Antennas, Smart Cities, the so-called “Internet-of-Things (IoT)” and believe it or not, the “Internet of [Human] Bodies (IoB),” an idea celebrated by the World Economic Forum in their promotional literature. In all cases, any hope of liberation that remote digital tech promises, entirely neglects their inherent externalities and potentials to be used as Trojan Horses. Not only do the inherent risks of these technologies have potential for ‘unintended consequences’ effecting a person’s biological health, which is what most people legitimately focus on. But they also pose a clear and present danger to the fabric of society on other fronts. Unchecked, these instruments offer irresistible temptation to would-be authoritarian tyrants and technocrats seeking omniscience and omnipotence over a population with maximum plausible deniability. A Smart City without a robust Bill of Rights is inherently a dystopian prison city. This is perhaps why the Smart City concept is so enthusiastically championed by the oil-rich monarchs. “Sustainability” for them clearly equates to an anti-human enterprise. A March 29, 2018 article published by The Nation magazine investigated the health risks related to cell phones focusing on the history of Big Wireless lobbying, research, and public relations. It is subtitled “The Disinformation Campaign – and Massive Radiation Increase – Behind the 5G Rollout.” This was a rare example of mainstream media ‘where the light gets through,’ when intrepid publishers and editors resist the temptation to protect advertiser funding through self-censorship. Remarkably, it remains accessible and has not yet been memory-holed. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/ Firstly, the article makes clear that the industry’s blanket strategy for legally insulating its investment in cellular technology was adopted wholesale from the Big Tobacco and Big Oil playbook. These trade association lobbies and their PR apparatii steer scientific research with the goal of maintaining an ‘atmosphere of ‘unsettled science,’ so that the court of public opinion remains ignorant of scientifically demonstrable dangers, while good-faith scientists (uncorrupted by conflicts of interest) remain mired in futile, endless debate. Unmentioned in the article is the common practice educated Americans have come to take for granted: the standard operating procedure of all Big Business to capture regulatory agencies meant to police them, in this case the FCC, which is in cahoots with Big Tech, Big Telcom, Big Data and the public/private total-surveillance industry, in order to instrumentalize communication technology exclusively for a digital Great Leap Forward, a.k.a. the Great Reset, the 4th Industrial Revolution, the Singularity, and so forth. This is a progressive theme that exploits folks’ good intention, their love of the environment, their fear of climate collapse, and their desire for social justice by disingenuously claiming the mantel of Sustainability, really a euphemism for its opposite. In reality it is truly geared toward centralized control and the total disruption of representative governance. Secondly, the authors, Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie, performed their own casual survey to determine the insurance industry’s disposition toward risks to the human body posed by cell phone radiation. They found “not… a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation.” This includes Smart Meters, which are vastly more powerful if instrumentalized with malicious intent. Anyone familiar with the architecture, engineering and/or product development professions will be familiar with Underwriter’s Laboratory, which tests consumer products, building products, appliances and equipment for liability protection and issues each qualifying product a ;”UL listing.” This certification protects manufacturers from lawsuit and underwrites consumer protection for products used in or installed in the home or office.
Most, if not all, building codes require certification from UL for every product or system installed in a building. Turn over any mass-produced lamp or kitchen appliance and you will see the UL-mark adjacent to the serial number. As with every cell-phone product and every WiFi router, there is not a single Smart Meter on the market that has ever received a UL-listing. This is a logical proof that this tech is inherently dangerous; the science should be assumed “settled” until proven otherwise.
I encourage anyone who doubts this to seek their own product-liability insurance covering cell-phone and smart meter radiation effects on human health for themselves. I’d be happy to stand corrected.
In related news: just last week, cell-phone manufacturer, Samsung, has taken a cue from Big Pharma and declared total immunity against all liability in their user agreements. By inserting a forced arbitration clause into their software update, you consent never to sue them for any reason. [You can visit the youtube channel @rossmanngroup for Louis Rossmann’s analysis of these disturbing trends. Louis is a “Right to Repair” advocate who recently moved his brick and mortar repair shop from Chelsea to Austin, Texas in response to campaigns of harassment by city agencies and the decreasing quality of life—actual sustainability-in NYC.]
In other words, the liability against acute or chronic illness, death, and fire damage caused by your Smart Meter, sits squarely between Con-Edison, Building Owners, and you. Can you afford lawsuits against them? I can’t. It seems to me like a perfectly healthy, self-preservative paranoia that ought to inspire each of us to wonder: what worst-case scenarios could such a legal atmosphere enable? What about during times of national emergency, when checks and balances are all suspended, when the executive branch assumes autocratic power?
The last thing any sane person should tolerate is being forced to consent to retool one’s own home into a mortal weapon that can be used against them, whether such instrumentality were achieved by intention, by negligence, or, most treacherous of all: by banal automation triggered by the mad-scientists at central planning. A different kind of technological innovation can be possible without accepting this version of “progress” as inevitable.