Report on Smart Meter Problems

The December 2012 report “Analysis: Smart Meter and Smart Grid Problems – Legislative Proposal” is available to the public. This 173-page report by activist Nina Beety has extensive referenced information about many of the problems and risks of the Smart Meter program, with information from state, national, and international resources. Supplemental documents can be downloaded here.

Originally written for California legislators, this updated report also provides a legislative and regulatory action plan for halting this program, and suggestions for reforming utility regulation so that the public is protected in the future.

Table of Contents

Introduction
What is a Smart Meter?
Smart Grid/Smart Meter problems and issues
– Overview
– Overcharging, accuracy, and the Structure Group report
– Reliability
– Privacy invasion
– Fires and electrical problems
– Health problems Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

International appeal by 191 scientists: Protect the public from non-ionizing radiation exposure, including RF and ELF

From EMF Scientist.org

To: His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations
Honorable Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization
U.N. Member States

   Printable PDF format

International Appeal

Scientists call for Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure

We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include–but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).

Scientific basis for our common concerns

Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

These findings justify our appeal to the United Nations (UN) and, all member States in the world, to encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development. By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency.

Inadequate non-ionizing EMF international guidelines

The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) established in 1998 the “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)”[1]. These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries around the world. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines to encourage international harmonization of standards. In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its 1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time “has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields[2]. ICNIRP continues to the present day to make these assertions, in spite of growing scientific evidence to the contrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health.

The WHO adopted the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF) in 2002[3] and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in 2011[4]. This classification states that EMF is a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B). Despite both IARC findings, the WHO continues to maintain that there is insufficient evidence to justify lowering these quantitative exposure limits.

Since there is controversy about a rationale for setting standards to avoid adverse health effects, we recommend that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) convene and fund an independent multidisciplinary committee to explore the pros and cons of alternatives to current practices that could substantially lower human exposures to RF and ELF fields. The deliberations of this group should be conducted in a transparent and impartial way. Although it is essential that industry be involved and cooperate in this process, industry should not be allowed to bias its processes or conclusions. This group should provide their analysis to the UN and the WHO to guide precautionary action.

Collectively we also request that:

  1. children and pregnant women be protected;
  2. guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened;
  3. manufacturers be encouraged to develop safer technology;
  4. utilities responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution, and monitoring of electricity maintain adequate power quality and ensure proper electrical wiring to minimize harmful ground current;
  5. the public be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy and taught harm reduction strategies;
  6. medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity;
  7. governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that is independent of industry and mandate industry cooperation with researchers;
  8. media disclose experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding health and safety aspects of EMF-emitting technologies; and
  9. white-zones (radiation-free areas) be established.

1) http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
2) http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPStatementEMF.pdf
3) http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol80/
4) http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/

Release date: May 11, 2015.

Inquiries can be made through Elizabeth Kelley, M.A., Director, EMFscientist.org, at info@EMFscientist.org .

Note: the signatories to this appeal have signed as individuals, giving their professional affiliations, but this does not necessarily mean that this represents the views of their employers or the professional organizations they are affiliated with.

Translations of the Appeal

 Arabic

 Chinese

 Farsi

 Finnish

 French

 German

 Greek

 Hebrew

 Italian

 Japanese

 Korean

 Norwegian

 Portuguese

 Spanish

 Swedish

 Turkish

Signatories

Armenia

Prof. Sinerik Ayrapetyan, Ph.D., Life Sciences International Postgraduate Educational Center, UNESCO Chair, Armenia

Australia

Dr. Priyanka Bandara, Ph.D., Independent Environmental Health Educator/Researcher, Australia; Advisor, Environmental Health Trust and Doctors for Safer Schools

Dr. Bruce Hocking, MD, MBBS, FAFOEM (RACP), FRACGP, FARPS, specialist in occupational medicine; Victoria, Australia

Dr. Gautam (Vini) Khurana, Ph.D., F.R.A.C.S., Director, C.N.S. Neurosurgery, Australia

Dr. Don Maisch, Ph.D., Australia

Dr. Elena Pirogova, Ph.D., Biomed Eng., B. Eng (Hon) Chem. Eng., Engineering & Health College; RMIT University, Australia

Dr. Mary Redmayne, Ph.D., Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia

Dr. Charles Teo, BM, BS, MBBS, Member of the Order of Australia,Director, Centre for Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery at Prince of Wales Hospital, NSW, Australia

Austria

Dr. Michael Kundi, MD, University of Vienna, Austria

Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg Government, Austria

Dr. Bernhard Pollner, MD, Pollner Research, Austria

Prof. Dr. Hugo W. Rüdiger, MD, Austria

Bahrain

Dr. Amer Kamal, MD, Physiology Department, College of Medicine, Arabian Gulf University, Bahrain

Belgium

Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Ph.D., Free University of Brussels, Faculty of Science, Brussels, Belgium

Brazil

Vânia Araújo Condessa, MSc., Electrical Engineer, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Prof. Dr. João Eduardo de Araujo, MD, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil

Dr. Francisco de Assis Ferreira Tejo, D. Sc., Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Campina Grande, State of Paraíba, Brazil

Prof. Alvaro deSalles, Ph.D., Federal University of Rio Grande Del Sol, Brazil

Prof. Adilza Dode, Ph.D., MSc. Engineering Sciences, Minas Methodist University, Brazil

Dr. Daiana Condessa Dode, MD, Federal University of Medicine, Brazil

Michael Condessa Dode, Systems Analyst, MRE Engenharia Ltda, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Canada

Dr. Magda Havas, Ph.D., Environmental and Resource Studies, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada

Dr. Paul Héroux, Ph.D., Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University; InvitroPlus Labs, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada

Dr. Tom Hutchinson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada

Prof. Ying Li, Ph.D., InVitroPlus Labs, Dept. of Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada

James McKay M.Sc, Ecologist, City of London; Planning Services, Environmental and Parks Planning, London, Canada

Prof. Anthony B. Miller, MD, FRCP, University of Toronto, Canada

Prof. Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, Ph.D., Department of Psychology (Neuroscience), University of Western Ontario, Canada

Prof. Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D., Behavioural Neuroscience and Biomolecular Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada

China

Prof. Huai Chiang, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China

Prof. Yuqing Duan, Ph.D., Food & Bioengineering, Jiangsu University, China

Dr. Kaijun Liu, Ph.D., Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China

Prof. Xiaodong Liu, Director, Key Lab of Radiation Biology, Ministry of Health of China; Associate Dean, School of Public Health, Jilin University, China

Prof. Wenjun Sun, Ph.D., Bioelectromagnetics Key Lab, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China

Prof. Minglian Wang, Ph.D., College of Life Science & Bioengineering, Beijing University of Technology, China

Prof. Qun Wang, Ph.D., College of Materials Science & Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, China

Prof. Haihiu Zhang, Ph.D., School of Food & BioEngineering, Jiangsu University, China

Prof. Jianbao Zhang, Associate Dean, Life Science and Technology School, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China

Prof. Hui-yan Zhao, Director of STSCRW, College of Plant Protection, Northwest A & F University, Yangling Shaanxi, China

Prof. J. Zhao, Department of Chest Surgery, Cancer Center of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Croatia

Ivancica Trosic, Ph.D., Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Croatia

Egypt

Prof. Dr. Abu Bakr Abdel Fatth El-Bediwi, Ph.D., Physics Dept., Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt

Prof. Dr. Emad Fawzy Eskander, Ph.D., Medical Division, Hormones Department, National Research Center, Egypt

Prof. Dr. Heba Salah El Din Aboul Ezz, Ph.D., Physiology, Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt

Prof. Dr. Nasr Radwan, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt

Estonia

Dr. Hiie Hinrikus, Ph.D., D.Sc, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Finland

Dr. Mikko Ahonen, Ph.D, University of Tampere, Finland

Dr. Marjukka Hagström, LL.M., M.Soc.Sc, Principal Researcher, Radio and EMC Laboratory, Finland

Dariusz Leszczynski, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland; Member of the IARC Working Group that classified cell phone radiation as possible carcinogen

France

Prof. Dr. Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH, Professor in Oncology, Paris V Descartes University, ECERI Executive Director

Dr. Pierre Le Ruz, Ph.D., Criirem, Le Mans, France

Georgia

Prof. Besarion Partsvania, Ph.D., Head of Bio-cybernetics Department of Georgian Technical University, Georgia

Germany

Prof. Dr. Franz Adlkofer, MD, Chairman, Pandora Foundation, Germany

Prof. Dr. Hynek Burda, Ph.D., University of Duisburg-Essen,Germany

Dr. Horst Eger, MD, Electromagnetic Fields in Medicine, Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Ph.D., Head, Institute of Environ. Physics; Ex-Head, Clinical Research, Fribourg Medical University, Germany

Dr.Sc. Florian M. König, Ph.D., Florian König Enterprises (FKE) GmbH, Munich, Germany

Dr. Ulrich Warnke, Ph.D., Bionik-Institut, University of Saarlandes, Germany

Greece

Dr. Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Cell Biology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, University of Athens, Greece

Dr. Christos Georgiou, Ph.D., Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece

Prof. Emeritus Lukas H. Margaritis, Ph.D., Depts. Cell Biology, Radiobiology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, Univ. of Athens, Greece

Dr. Aikaterini Skouroliakou, M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Energy Technology Engineering, Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Greece

Dr. Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society-Kefalonia, Greece

Iceland

Dr. Ceon Ramon, Ph.D., Affiliate Professor, University of Washington, USA; Professor, Reykjavik University, Iceland

India

Prof. Dr. B. D. Banerjee, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Environmental Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry, University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, India

Prof. Jitendra Behari, Ph.D., Ex-Dean, Jawaharlal Nehru University; presently, Emeritus Professor, Amity University, India

Prof. Dr. Madhukar Shivajirao Dama, Institute of Wildlife Veterinary Research, India

Dr. Kavindra K. Kesari, MBA, Ph.D., Resident Environmental Scientist, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Assistant Professor, Jaipur National University, India

Prof. Rashmi Mathur, Ph.D., Head, Department of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Prof. N.N. Sareesh, Ph.D., Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal University, India

Iran

Prof. Dr. Soheila Abdi, Ph.D., Physics, Islamic Azad University of Safadasht, Tehran, Iran

Prof. G.A. Jelodar, D.V.M., Ph.D., Physiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Shiraz University, Iran

Prof. Hamid Mobasheri, Ph.D., Head, BRC; Head, Membrane Biophysics & Macromolecules Lab; Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Tehran, Iran

Prof. S.M.J. Mortazavi, Ph.D., Head, Medical Physics & Engineering; Chair, NIER Protection Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran

Prof. Amirnader Emami Razavi, Ph.D., Clinical Biochem., National Tumor Bank, Cancer Institute, Tehran Univ. Medical Sciences, Iran

Dr. Masood Sepehrimanesh, Ph.D., ​Gastroenterohepatology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran

Prof. Dr. Mohammad Shabani, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Kerman Neuroscience Research Center, Iran

Israel

Dr. Yael Stein, MD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hadassah Medical Center, Israel

Dr. Danny Wolf, MD, Pediatrician and General Practitioner, Sherutey Briut Clalit, Shron Shomron district, Israel

Dr. Ronni Wolf, MD, Assoc. Clinical Professor, Head of Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel

Italy

Prof. Sergio Adamo, Ph.D., La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Prof. Fernanda Amicarelli, Ph.D., Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, Italy

Dr. Pasquale Avino, Ph.D., INAIL Research Section, Rome, Italy

Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Ph.D., FIATP, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Italy

Prof. Emanuele Calabro, Department of Physics and Earth Sciences, University of Messina, Italy

Prof. Franco Cervellati, Ph.D., Department of Life Science and Biotechnology, Section of General Physiology, University of Ferrara, Italy

Prof. Stefano Falone, Ph.D., Researcher in Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, Italy

Prof. Dr. Speridione Garbisa, ret. Senior Scholar, Dept. Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Italy

Dr. Settimio Grimaldi, Ph.D., Associate Scientist, National Research Council, Italy

Prof. Livio Giuliani, Ph.D., Director of Research, Italian Health National Service, Rome-Florence-Bozen; Spokesman, ICEMS – International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, Italy

Prof. Dr. Angelo Levis, MD, Dept. Medical Sciences, Padua University, Italy

Prof. Salvatore Magazù, Ph.D., Department of Physics and Science, Messina University, Italy

Dr. Fiorenzo Marinelli, Ph.D., Researcher, Molecular Genetic Institute of the National Research Council, Italy

Claudio Poggi, Electronics Engineer, Research Director, Sistemi s.r.l., (TN), Genoa, Italy

Prof. Raoul Saggini, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti, Italy

Dr. Morando Soffritti, MD, Honorary President, National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases B. Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy

Prof. Massimo Sperini, Ph.D., Center for Inter-University Research on Sustainable Development, Rome, Italy

Japan

Prof. Tsuyoshi Hondou, Ph.D., Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Japan

Prof. Hidetake Miyata, Ph.D., Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Japan

Kazakhstan

Dr. Timur Saliev, MD, Ph.D., Life Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan; Institute Medical Science/Technology, University of Dundee, UK

New Zealand

Dr. Bruce Rapley, BSc, MPhil, Ph.D., Principal Consulting Scientist, Atkinson & Rapley Consulting Ltd., New Zealand

Nigeria

Dr. Idowu Ayisat Obe, Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria

Oman

Prof. Najam Siddiqi, MBBS, Ph.D., Human Structure, Oman Medical College, Oman

Poland

Dr. Pawel Bodera, Pharm. D., Department of Microwave Safety, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland

Prof. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski, MD, Ph.D., Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland

Republic of China

Prof. Dr. Tsun-Jen Cheng, MD, Sc.D., National Taiwan University, Republic of China

Russian Federation

Dr. Oleg Grigoriev, DSc., Ph.D., Deputy Chairman, The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation

Prof. Yury Grigoryev, MD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation

Dr. Anton Merkulov, Ph.D., Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russian Federation

Serbia

Dr. Snezana Raus Balind, Ph.D., Research Associate, Institute for Biological Research “Sinisa Stankovic”, Belgrade, Serbia

Prof. Danica Dimitrijevic, Ph.D., Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Dr. Sladjana Spasic, Ph.D., Institute for Multidisciplinary Research, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Slovak Republic

Dr. Igor Belyaev, Ph.D., Dr.Sc., Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science, Bratislava, Slovak Republic 

South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Young Hwan Ahn, MD, Ph.D, Ajou University Medical School, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Kwon-Seok Chae, Ph.D., Molecular-ElectroMagnetic Biology Lab, Kyungpook National University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Dr. Myung Chan Gye, Ph.D., Hanyang University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Dr. Yoon-Myoung Gimm, Ph.D., School of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Dankook University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Dr. Mina Ha, MD, Dankook University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Seung-Cheol Hong, MD, Inje University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Dong Hyun Kim, Ph.D., Dept. of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Ha-Rim Kim, Dept.of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Dankook University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Myeung Ju Kim, MD, Ph.D., Department of Anatomy, Dankook University College of Medicine, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Nam Kim, Ph.D., School of Information and Communications Engineering, Chungbuk National University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Yun-Sil Lee, Ph.D., Ewha Womans University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Dr. Yoon-Wong Kim, MD, Ph.D., Hallym University School of Medicine, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Jung Keog Park, Ph.D., Life Science & Biotech; Dir., Research Instit.of Biotechnology, Dongguk University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Sungman Park, Ph.D., Institute of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Hallym University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Kiwon Song, Ph.D., Dept. of Chemistry, Yonsei University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Spain

Prof. Dr. Miguel Alcaraz, MD, Ph.D., Radiology and Physical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Spain

Dr. Alfonso Balmori, Ph.D., Biologist, Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y León, Spain

Prof. J.L. Bardasano, D.Sc, University of Alcalá, Department of Medical Specialties, Madrid, Spain

Dr. Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, Ph.D., La Fe University Hospital, Valencia, Spain

Prof. Dr. Elena Lopez Martin, Ph.D., Human Anatomy, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Prof. Enrique A. Navarro, Ph.D., Department of Applied Physics and Electromagnetics, University of Valencia, Spain

Sweden

Dr. Michael Carlberg, MSc, Örebro University Hospital, Sweden

Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D., University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden

Prof. Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Experimental Dermatology Unit, Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Dr. Bertil R. Persson, Ph.D., MD, Lund University, Sweden

Senior Prof. Dr. Leif Salford, MD. Department of Neurosurgery, Director, Rausing Laboratory, Lund University, Sweden

Dr. Fredrik Söderqvist, Ph.D., Ctr. for Clinical Research, Uppsala University, Västerås, Sweden

Switzerland

Dr. nat. phil. Daniel Favre, Association Romande Alert, Switzerland

Turkey

Prof. Dr. Mehmet Zülküf Akdağ, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey

Prof. Dr. Halil Ibrahim Atasoy MD, Faculty of Medicine, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Turkey

Prof. Ayse G. Canseven (Kursun), Ph.D., Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Biophysics, Turkey

Prof. Dr. Mustafa Salih Celik, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Turkish Biophysical Society; Head, Biophysics Dept; Medical Faculty, Dicle Univ., Turkey

Prof. Dr. Suleyman Dasdag, Ph.D., Dept. of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Turkey

Prof. Omar Elmas, MD, Ph.D., Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology, Turkey

Dr. Arzu Firlarer, M.Sc. Ph.D., Occupational Health & Safety Department, Baskent University, Turkey

Prof. Suleyman Kaplan, Ph.D., Deputy Chancellor; Dir. Health Services; Head, Dept. Histology & Embryology, Turkey

Dr. Mustafa Nazıroğlu, Ph.D., Biophysics Dept, Medical Faculty, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey

Prof. Dr. Ersan Odacı, MD, Ph.D., Karadeniz Technical University, Medical Faculty, Trabzon, Turkey

Dr. Elcin Ozgur, Ph.D., Biophysics Department, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Turkey

Dr. Cemil Sert, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics of Medicine Faculty, Harran University, Turkey

Prof. Dr. Nesrin Seyhan, B.Sc., Ph.D., Medical Faculty of Gazi University; Chair, Biophysics Dept; Director GNRK Ctr.; Panel Mbr, NATO STO HFM; Scientific Secretariat Member, ICEMS; Advisory Committee Member, WHO EMF, Turkey

Dr. Bahriye Sirav (Aral), ABD, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Dept of Biophysics, Turkey

United Kingdom

David Gee, Associate Fellow, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University, UK

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D., Institute of Science in Society, UK

Dr. Isaac Jamieson, Ph.D., Biosustainable Design, UK

Alasdair Phillips, Electrical Engineer, UK

Dr. Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, M.Sc., Ph.D., Public Health Consultant, Honorary Research Fellow, Brunel University London, UK

Dr. Sarah Starkey, Ph.D., UK

Ukraine

Dr. Oleg Banyra, MD, 2nd Municipal Polyclinic, St. Paraskeva Medical Centre, Ukraine

Prof. Igor Yakymenko, Ph.D., D.Sc., Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology & Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

USA

Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., Columbia University, USA

Prof. Jim Burch, MS, Ph.D., Dept.of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, USA

Prof. David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of New York at Albany, USA

Prof. Simona Carrubba, Ph.D., Biophysics, Daemen College, Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo Neurology Dept., USA

Dr. Zoreh Davanipour, D.V.M., Ph.D., Friends Research Institute, USA

Dr. Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA

Prof. Om P. Gandhi, Ph.D., Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, USA

Prof. Beatrice Golomb, MD, Ph.D., University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, USA

Dr. Martha R. Herbert, MD, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, USA

Dr. Donald Hillman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University, USA

Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Fmr. Managing Secretariat, ICEMS, Italy; Director, EMFscientist.org, USA

Dr. Henry Lai, Ph.D., University of Washington, USA

Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor, EMF researcher and author, USA

Dr. Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D. and C.W.B., Adj. Professor, Johns Hopkins University’s Krieger Graduate School of Arts & Sciences; Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, USA

Dr. Andrew Marino, J.D., Ph.D., Retired Professor, LSU Health Sciences Center, USA

Dr. Marko Markov, Ph.D., President, Research International, Buffalo, New York, USA

Jeffrey L. Marrongelle, DC, CCN, President/Managing Partner of BioEnergiMed LLC, USA

Dr. Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, USA

Lloyd Morgan, Environmental Health Trust, USA

Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Dr. Martin L. Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry & Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA

Dr. Jerry L. Phillips, Ph.D. University of Colorado, USA

Dr. William J. Rea, M.D., Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Texas, USA

Camilla Rees, CEO, Electromagnetichealth.org; CEO, Wide Angle Health, LLC, USA

Prof. Narenda P. Singh, MD, University of Washington, USA

Prof. Eugene Sobel, Ph.D., Retired, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, USA

David Stetzer, Stetzer Electric, Inc., Blair, Wisconsin, USA

Dr. Lisa Tully, Ph.D., Energy Medicine Research Institute, Boulder, CO, USA

http://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , ,

Architect Rem Koolhaas on smart cities

From Metalocus.es
By Rem Koolhaas, architect and professor

Edited English transcript of a talk given by architect Rem Koolhaas at the High Level Group meeting on Smart Cities, Brussels, 24 September 2014.

The rhetoric of smart cities would be more persuasive if the environment that the technology companies create was actually a compelling one that offered models for what the city can be. But if you look at Silicon Valley you see that the greatest innovators in the digital field have created a bland suburban environment that is becoming increasingly exclusive.

I had a sinking feeling as I was listening to the talks by these prominent figures in the field of smart cities because the city used to be the domain of the architect, and now, frankly, they have made it their domain. This transfer of authority has been achieved in a clever way by calling their city smart – and by calling it smart, our city is condemned to being stupid. Here are some thoughts on the smart city, some of which are critical; but in the end, it is clear that those in the digital realm and architects will have to work together.

¥€$ REGIME

Architecture used to be about the creation of community, and making the best effort at symbolizing that community. Since the triumph of the market economy in the late 1970s, architecture no longer expresses public values but instead the values of the private sector. It is in fact a regime – the ¥€$ regime – and it has invaded every domain, whether we want it or not. This regime has had a very big impact on cities and the way we understand cities. With safety and security as selling points, the city has become vastly less adventurous and more predictable. To compound the situation, when the market economy took hold at the end of the 1970s, architects stopped writing manifestos. We stopped thinking about the city at the exact moment of the explosion in urban substance in the developing world. The city triumphed at the very moment that thinking about the city stopped. The “smart” city has stepped into that vacuum. But being commercial corporations, your work is changing the notion of the city itself. Maybe it is no coincidence that “liveable” – flat – cities like Vancouver, Melbourne and even Perth are replacing traditional metropolises in our imaginary.

APOCALYPTIC RHETORIC

The smart city movement today is a very crowded field, and therefore its protagonists are identifying a multiplicity of disasters which they can avert. The effects of climate change, an ageing population and infrastructure, water and energy provision are all presented as problems for which smart cities have an answer. Apocalyptic scenarios are managed and mitigated by sensor-based solutions. Smart cities rhetoric relies on slogans – ‘fix leaky pipes, save millions’. Everything saves millions, no matter how negligible the problem, simply because of the scale of the system that will be monitored. The commercial motivation corrupts the very entity it is supposed to serve… To save the city, we may have to destroy it…

When we look at the visual language through which the smart city is represented, it is typically with simplistic, child-like rounded edges and bright colours. The citizens the smart city claims to serve are treated like infants. We are fed cute icons of urban life, integrated with harmless devices, cohering into pleasant diagrams in which citizens and business are surrounded by more and more circles of service that create bubbles of control. Why do smart cities offer only improvement? Where is the possibility of transgression? And rather than discarding urban intelligence accumulated over centuries, we must explore how to what is today considered “smart” with previous eras of knowledge.

IF MAYORS RULED THE WORLD

The smart city movement is focusing on the recent phenomenon that more than 50 percent of the world’s population lives in cities. Therefore mayors have been targeted as the clients or the initiators of smart cities. Mayors are particularly susceptible to the rhetoric of the smart city: it is very attractive to be a smart mayor. The book If Mayors Rules the World proposes a global parliament of mayors.

This confluence of rhetoric – the “smart city”, the “creative class”, and “innovation” – is creating a stronger and stronger argument for consolidation. If you look in a smart city control room, like the one in Rio de Janeiro by IBM, you start to wonder about the extent of what is actually being controlled.

COMFORT, SECURITY, SUSTAINABILITY

Because the smart city movement has been apolitical in its declarations, we also have to ask about the politics behind the improvements on offer. A new trinity is at work: traditional European values of liberty, equality, and fraternity have been replaced in the 21st century by comfort, security, and sustainability. They are now the dominant values of our culture, a revolution that has barely been registered.

COURTROOM

The car is a key element in the smart city. It is now being equipped with increasingly complex monitoring devices. On the one hand, the devices improve the driver’s behaviour, but on the other hand they create a high degree of surveillance. I’m not convinced that the public will welcome this degree of monitoring. I prefer the car not to be a courtroom.

FARADAY CAGE

In the past two years we have, with the Harvard Graduate School of Design, looked at the architectural elements – like the wall, the floor, the door, the ceiling, the stair – and seen how they are evolving in the current moment. If the city is increasingly a comprehensive surveillance system, the house is turning into an automated, responsive cell, replete with devices like automated windows that you can open but only at certain times of the day; floors embedded with sensors so that the change in a person’s position from the vertical to the horizontal, for whatever reason, will be recorded; spaces which will not be warmed in their entirety, but instead will track their inhabitants with sensors and cloak them in heat shields. Soon a Faraday Cage will be a necessary component of any home – a safe room in which to retreat from digital sensing and pre-emption.

POLITICS

The rhetoric of smart cities would be more persuasive if the environment that the technology companies create was actually a compelling one that offered models for what the city can be. But if you look at Silicon Valley you see that the greatest innovators in the digital field have created a bland suburban environment that is becoming increasingly exclusive, its tech bubbles insulated from the public sphere. There is surprise that the digital movement is encountering opposition on its own doorstep. Smart cities and politics have been diverging, growing in separate worlds. It is absolutely critical that the two converge again.

http://www.metalocus.es/content/en/blog/smart-cities-called-smart-condemned-being-stupid

Reprinted under Fair Use Rules.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , ,

Utilities’ profit recipe: spend more / Wall Street Journal

So long as electricity consumption is growing, utilities can spread hefty costs across their customers without increasing rates. But since 2008, power sales haven’t been growing fast enough to absorb the impact of all the added spending.

To expand regulator-imposed earnings caps, electricity producers splurge on new equipment, boosting customers’ bills

By Rebecca Smith
April 20, 2015

Families in New York are paying 40% more for electricity than they were a decade ago. Meanwhile, the cost of the main fuel used to generate electricity in the state—natural gas—has plunged 39%.

Why haven’t consumers felt the benefit of falling natural-gas prices, especially since fuel accounts for at least a quarter of a typical electric bill?

One big reason: utilities’ heavy capital spending. New York power companies poured $17 billion into new equipment—from power plants to pollution-control devices—in the past decade, a spending surge that customers have paid for.

New York utilities’ spending plans could push electricity prices up an additional 63% in the next decade, said Richard Kauffman, the former chairman of Levi Strauss & Co. who became New York’s energy czar in It’s “not a sustainable path for New York,” he said.

New York is no outlier. Capital spending has climbed at utilities nationwide—and so have their customers’ bills.

The average price of a kilowatt-hour of electricity rose 3.1% last year to12.5 cents a kilowatt-hour, far above the rate of inflation. Since 2004, U.S. residential electricity prices have jumped 39%, according to federal statistics.

Over that same period, annual capital expenditures by investor owned utility companies more than doubled—jumping to $103 billion in 2014 from $41 billion in 2004, according to the Edison Electric Institute, a trade association. The group expects total capital spending from 2003 through 2016 to top $1 trillion.

“This is the biggest splurge in capital spending we’ve seen in at least 30 years—it’s the reason rates have been going up,” said Bob Burns, an independent consultant and former energy researcher at Ohio State University.

The biggest chunk of that spending— 38% in 2013 —went into new power lines and other delivery systems, the Edison Electric Institute said. Almost as much went to generation, often for new gas-fired plants to replace coal-fired ones that don’t meet new environmental rules.

Experts say there are several reasons for soaring spending, including environmental mandates, and the need to harden the grid to protect it from storms, physical attacks and cyber hacking.

But utilities have another incentive for heavy spending: It actually boosts their bottom lines—the result of a regulatory system that turns corporate accounting on its head.

In most industries, companies generate revenue, deduct their costs, and are left with profits, which can be expressed as a percentage of revenues—the profit margin. Regulated utilities work differently.

State regulators usually set an acceptable profit margin for utilities, and then set electric rates at levels that generate enough revenue to cover their expenses and allow them to make a profit.

At the moment, it is common for utilities’ allowable profit to be capped at 10% or so of the shareholders’ equity that they have tied up in transmission lines, power plants and other assets. So the more they spend, the more profits they earn.

Critics say this can prompt utilities to spend on projects that may not be necessary, like electric-car charging stations, or to choose high cost alternatives over lower-cost ones.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , ,

Smart cities the world over ripe for hacking, expert says

“The current attack surface for cities is huge and wide open to attack”
“This is a real and immediate danger.”
Canberra Times

“It’s a matter of time until someone launches an attack over some city infrastructure or system.”
Motherboard

This isn’t just about turning off electricity, etc. as catastrophic as that could be. Powerful wireless transmitters (Smart Meters) are on every house and can be wirelessly reprogrammed. Wireless antennas and cell towers are throughout most towns and cities, with emission capabilities above what’s normally used.

If this type of system is hacked and the radiation level turned up, the effects could be lethal. Smart city becomes dead city. How long before that happens? Do you live near a cell tower?

From Canberra Times, April 23, 2015

So-called smart cities, with wireless sensors controlling everything from traffic lights to water management, may be vulnerable to cyberattacks, according to a computer security expert.

Last year, Cesar Cerrudo, an Argentine security researcher and chief
technology officer at IOActive Labs, demonstrated how 200,000 traffic
control sensors installed in major hubs like Washington, New York, Melbourne and Lyon were vulnerable to attack.
<http://blog.ioactive.com/2014/04/hacking-us-and-uk-australia-france-etc.htm
l> Mr. Cerrudo showed how information coming from these sensors could be intercepted from 1500 feet away — or even by drone — because one company had failed to encrypt its traffic.

Just last Saturday, Mr. Cerrudo tested the same traffic sensors in San
Francisco and found that, one year later, they were still not encrypted.

Mr. Cerrudo said he was increasingly uncovering similar problems in other products and systems incorporated into smart cities. He has discovered simple software bugs, poorly installed encryption or even no encryption at all in these systems. And he has found that many are wide open to a fairly common attack, known as a distributed denial of service, or DDoS, in which hackers overwhelm a network with requests until it collapses under the load.

Mr. Cerrudo has found ways to make red or green traffic lights stay red or green, tweak electronic speed limit signs, or mess with ramp meters to send cars onto the freeway all at once.

Security researchers say that the opportunities for a maliciously minded hacker or government abound. Last year, security researchers at the Black Hat Europe conference in Amsterdam demonstrated how to black out parts of cites simply by manipulating smart meters and exploiting encryption problems in power line communication technology.

Increasingly, cities are automating systems and services. Saudi Arabia, for example, is investing $90 million to build four new smart cities. In South Africa, a $12.3 billion smart city project is already underway. By 2020, the market for smart cities is predicted to reach $US1 trillion, according to Frost & Sullivan, a consulting firm.

“The current attack surface for cities is huge and wide open to attack,” Mr. Cerrudo writes in a report he plans to present this week in San Francisco at the annual RSA Conference on security. “This is a real and immediate danger.”

The threat is not just hypothetical. Last year, security companies
discovered a hacking group, known both as Dragonfly and Energetic Bear, that was actively targeting power networks across the United States and Europe.

Last year, the US Department of Homeland Security acknowledged in a report that “a sophisticated threat actor” had broken into the control system network at a public utility, simply by guessing a password on an internet-connected system.

And in 2012, Chinese military hackers successfully breached the Canadian arm of Telvent. The company, now owned by Schneider Electric, produces software that allows oil and gas pipeline companies and power grid operators to gain access to valves, switches and security systems remotely. It also keeps detailed blueprints on more than half the oil and gas pipelines in North America.

In 2013, the energy industry became the most-targeted sector for hackers in the United States, accounting for 56 per cent of the 257 attacks reported to the Department of Homeland Security that year.

Some scientists are trying to redesign the smart grid to make it less
vulnerable. Currently, the smart grid is centralised, controlled by the energy suppliers, which makes utility companies a juicy target for hackers.

But this year, Science Daily reported that Benjamin Schäfer, a physicist from the Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self-Organization; his colleagues Marc Timme and Dirk Witthaut; and a master’s student, Moritz Matthiae, developed a model that showed, in theory, that smart meters could be monitored directly at customer sites, and decentralised in such a way that would make them much less vulnerable to attack.

For now, their research only works in principle. So Mr. Cerrudo said
municipal leaders had to start thinking of their cities as vast attack
surfaces that require security protection just as a corporate network might.

He encourages municipalities to adopt basic security measures like
encryption, passwords and other authentication schemes and an easy mechanism for patching security holes.

He suggests that cities create their own computer emergency response teams, or CERTs, to address security incidents, coordinate responses and share threat information with other cities.

He also suggests that cities restrict access to their data; track and
monitor those who do have access; and run so-called penetration tests, in which hackers try to break into cities so that municipalities can learn where they are most exposed.

Finally, he suggests that cities prepare for the worst, as they would for a natural disaster.

When we see that the data that feeds smart city systems is blindly trusted and can be easily manipulated — that the systems can be easily hacked and there are security problems everywhere — that is when smart cities become dumb cities,” Mr. Cerrudo said.

Also, see:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-the-ways-to-hack-a-smart-city
The New York Times
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/it-pro/security-it/smart-cities-the-world-over-ripe-for-hacking-expert-says-20150422-1mr8m1.html

Reprinted under Fair Use Rules.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Project Censored Radio interview with Smart Meter experts

Project Censored Radio, April 17, 2015:
https://kpfa.org/episode/project-censored-april-17-2015/

Join hosts Mickey Huff and Peter Phillips as they discuss Smart Meters, Mass Surveillance, and Public Health Concerns.

They’ll look at some of the controversies surrounding Smart Meters, including those revealed in emails between California utility company PG&E and the California PUC, among these are spying on customer use and sharing private information with third parties, which has been confirmed by the Northern California ACLU.

They’ll get analysis from Cindy Sage of Sage Associates, an international environmental sciences consulting firm in Santa Barbara, and Sandi Maurer with the EMF Safety Network. They’ll close the program in discussion with Kenn Burrows, longtime lecturer and director of the Holistic Health Leaning Center at San Francisco State University, where they address the precautionary principle and the broader and increasingly relevant public health risks associated with EMFs and WiFi technologies that are being recognized both in the scientific community and by governments around the world.

The Project Censored Show airs live on KPFA 94.1 FM and online http://www.kpfa.org from 1-2 P.M. Pacific time on Friday afternoons and is rebroadcast on over 20 stations around the US.

To learn more:

Project Censored  http://www.projectcensored.org
EMF Safety Network  http://www.emfsafetynetwork.org
Sage Associates  http://www.silcom.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

40 NGOs lodge complaint over pro-industry bias in European Commission assessment of EMF

From Strålskyddsstiftelsen / Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation
March 15, 2015
shutterstock_54123526

 
Over 40 NGOs lodge a complaint to the European Ombudsman

The recent assessment of Electromagnetic Field health risks by a European Commission expert group1 is largely biased towards a pro-industrial scientific viewpoint, according to over 40 NGOs. The organisations claim that the SCENIHR experts omitted the contradictory conclusions of a substantial part of the scientific community, and that some of the experts have close links to the telecom or electrical industry. – This might explain why they discarded all alarming studies on brain tumours and other diseases, says Mona Nilsson, chair of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation. A new balanced assessment is urgently needed if we don’t want to risk Public Health by policies based on incomplete and biased data.

An unbalanced expert group

In a field where alarming scientific evidence is accumulating and the scientific controversy is sharp, the European Commission has appointed an expert group dominated by scientists who are well known for their disbelief in EMF health risks. (See Encl. 3) Many of them have links to the controversial organisation ICNIRP.2 The SCENIHR sub-group on epidemiology offers a striking example of the lack of impartiality and pluralism. Headed by the notorious no-risk profile Joachim Schüz, it discarded or excluded all studies linking mobile phone use to head tumours (see encl. 1). This was done despite the objections from a group member (see Encl.4), and in complete contradiction to the conclusion of many fellow scientists, some expressing deep concern for Public Health as the Bioinitiative Group for instance. The unbalanced group was appointed without regard to earlier calls for transparent, impartial and pluralist expert assessment from different stakeholders. (See ex. in Encl. 5)

In addition there are noteworthy conflicts of interest in the SCENHIR EMF expert group. Several members have intimate relations to the concerned industry like Theodoros Samaras (ex-consultant, Vodafone), Mats-Olof Mattsson, ICNIRP (Telia Sonera‘s scientific council), Kjell Hansson-Mild (Telia Sonera‘s scientific council), Zenon Sienkiewicz, ICNIRP (consultant, Japan EMF Information Center emanating from Japan Electrical Safety & Environment Technology Laboratories and the Japan Electric Association) and Anssi Auvinen, ICNIRP (repeatedly funded by MMF, the Mobile Manufacturers’ Forum)3. The industry benefits tremendously from the no-risk conclusion as it postpones costly regulations and lowers the risks of liability claims.

NGO demands and suggestions

Considering the decisive impact the SCENIHR assessment will have on Public Health policies and standards, and the recent recommendations4 of the European Ombudsman to obtain more balanced expert groups with less conflicts of interests, concerned NGOs will lodge a complaint to the Ombudsman and address a petition to the European Commission. EU citizens and decision-makers will not receive correct information about EMF health risks unless expert assessments are impartial and made in the general interest. The NGOs therefore demand:

  1.  An investigation by the European Ombudsman of the appointment and composition of the SCENIHR EMF steering and working groups, including questions of pluralism, transparency, corporate influence, NGO participation, and the integration of suggestions from the public consultation.
  2.  An annulment of the SCENIHR report on EMF health risks.
  3. The appointment of a new balanced, transparent and contradictory expert group without conflicts of interest by an unbiased steering group.
  4. A new balanced and independent assessment.
  5.  The establishment of a permanent stakeholder committee at DG SANCO, where NGO viewpoints can be truly pronounced and considered in the decision process on EMF policy, legislation, research and expert assessment.  

Contact persons: Mona Nilsson, Swedish radiation protection foundation mona@stralskyddsstiftelsen.se +468-560 512 13

Alasdair Philips, Powerwatch, UK. SKYPE: amphil

REFERENCES

1 The report Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) was adopted January 27, 2015 by the EC Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) It assessed the recent research (2009-2013) on EMF health risks related to radiofrequency fields from wireless technologies and low frequency fields.

2 ICNIRP is the association that formulated the guidelines behind most current EMF exposure standards. It exclusively takes thermal effects into consideration (warming of tissue) and explicitly excludes exposure to wireless devices exceeding 6 minutes as well as possible long-term effects like cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. Its non-protective approach and closed structure give ICNIRP features of a front group for corporate and military interests, according to EMF related NGOs. ICNIRP experts have a huge influence in international and national standard setting committees, including the WHO EMF-Project. See e.g. Critic of ICNIRP http://www.chronicexposure.org/limitsICNIRP.html and
The Procrustean Approach http://www.emfacts.com/papers/

3 Samaras: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/doi_scenihr_samaras_en.pdf

Mattsson: Declaration of interests

Hansson-Mild: Declaration of interests

Sienkiewicz: Declaration of interests

Auvinen: Declaration of interests

4 The recommandations following the European Ombudsman’s own-initiative inquiry concerning the composition of EC expert groups. 

ENCLOSURES

Enclosure 1: SCENIHR: a biased assessment of EMF health risks – the example of head tumours

Enclosure 2: SCENIHR: a biased assessment of EMF health risks – the example of EHS soon available

Enclosure 3: SCENIHR members’ history (intellectual and financial bias).

Enclosure 4: Letter from SCENIHR member Kjell Hansson-Mild on assessment bias.

Enclosure 5: IEMFA’s letter to DG Sanco,”Call for Transparent, Impartial and Pluralist Expert Assessment on health risks of non‐ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF), Nov 14, 2011

http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2015/03/bias-in-the-assessment-of-electromagnetic-fields-emf/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , ,

German govt. expert warns Smart Meters are access points to electricity grid, hacking the grid from private homes possible

“Introducing smart meters means you install access points to the electricity grid in private homes,” said Reinhard Gruenwald, an energy expert at the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag, a scientific institution advising German lawmakers. “You can’t physically protect those. If criminals are smart enough, they may be able to manipulate them.”

Attacks on grids could cause major catastrophes globally, according to Nicholas Hanlon, project manager for critical infrastructure security at the Center for Security Policy.

“Clean water, hospitals, transportation, communications, and food storage, all depend on the electrical grid,” he said. “If the grid is down for a few days it’s no big deal. But imagine social order after two weeks.”

Imagine one or more nuclear power plant catastrophes if back-up generators don’t immediately operate at full power following a grid shutdown.

Analog electromechanical meters are not access points to the electricity grid . Why are political leaders endangering our entire society?

From Bloomberg, April 1, 2015

Turkey’s 10-Hour Blackout Shows Threat to World Power Grids

by , , and

A massive power failure that crippled life in Turkey for almost 10 hours on Tuesday highlights the threats facing electricity grids worldwide.

Turkey’s most extensive power failure in 15 years, which left people stranded in elevators and traffic snarled, wasn’t the result of a lack of electricity. The prime minister said all possible causes — including a cyber-attack — were being investigated.

While the source of the problem is still unknown, recent revelations that a 2008 oil pipeline explosion in Turkey was orchestrated via computer and the high-profile hacking last year on Sony Pictures Entertainment demonstrate the increasing ability to penetrate systems. For power grids, technology being added to make them more reliable and productive is also giving attackers an entry point into vital infrastructure.

“Every country, including the U.S., will be looking at it to see what the vulnerabilities were and learn some lessons about protection,” said Kit Konolige, a New York-based utility analyst for Bloomberg. “An electric grid is a complex system and it’s hard to ensure that it’s defended everywhere.”

Several foreign governments have hacked into U.S. energy, water and fuel distribution systems and might damage essential services, the National Security Agency said in November. A report by California-based cybersecurity company SentinelOne predicts that such attacks will disrupt U.S. electricity in 2015.

Targeting Industry

“More and more attacks are targeting the industrial control systems that run the production networks of critical infrastructure, stealing data and causing damage,” said David Emm, a principal researcher at Moscow-based security company Kaspersky Lab Inc., which advises governments and businesses.

All power use was previously measured by mechanical meters, which were inspected and read by a utility worker. Now, utilities are turning to smart meters, which communicate live data to customers and the utility company. This opens up the systems to hackers.

Turkey’s regional power grids have been investing to transform substations, transformers and circuit-breakers to smart devices since they were privatized starting in 2008, said Ugur Yuksel, coordinator of the nation’s Electricity Distributors’ Association, which governs all 21 grids in Turkey.

Plant Failures

“The more you use telecommunication systems and Internet, the more exposed you are to cyber-attack,” Yuksel said by phone from Ankara on Wednesday, without speculating on the cause of the Turkish blackout. “The best way to minimize the threat of cyber-attacks on grids is to start using closed networks that employ Internet-based communication selectively.”

A domino effect of power plant failures that began on western Turkey’s Aegean coast caused blackouts all the way to the eastern part of the country, Energy Minister Taner Yildiz said at a conference in Istanbul on Thursday, according to state-run news Anadolu Agency. “We cannot say the reason why there were failures and a cyber-attack is not ruled out.”

Turkey’s national grid operated by the state power transmission company Turkiye Elektrik Iletim AS could be vulnerable to “decoding of encrypted information,” Yildiz said, without elaborating.

Data Transmission

Supervisory systems used by operators are open to threats of cyber-attacks because they employ telecommunication systems, Yuksel said. In Turkey, like in many other countries, grid operators use fiber optic cabling networks and mobile services for data transmission, he said.

It is not only hostile states that target these critical infrastructures at the heart of the economy, but also “hacktivists, hooligans and criminals,” according to Kaspersky Lab. Research shows that most companies don’t invest enough in security technology — systems are often outdated and only a third of the employees pay attention to cybersafety, said Kaspersky Lab’s Vyacheslav Borilin.

Germany, Europe’s biggest energy market, is in the midst of a push to expand and modernize its grid to integrate more renewable power. Smart meters installed in homes across Europe can communicate with a power supplier or the grid operator.

Protecting Meters

“Introducing smart meters means you install access points to the electricity grid in private homes,” said Reinhard Gruenwald, an energy expert at the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag, a scientific institution advising German lawmakers. “You can’t physically protect those. If criminals are smart enough, they may be able to manipulate them.”

Attacks on grids could cause major catastrophes globally, according to Nicholas Hanlon, project manager for critical infrastructure security at the Center for Security Policy.

“Clean water, hospitals, transportation, communications, and food storage, all depend on the electrical grid,” he said. “If the grid is down for a few days it’s no big deal. But imagine social order after two weeks.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-01/turkish-blackout-shows-world-power-grids-under-threat

Reprinted under Fair Use Rules.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,