20,000 signatures reached
To: Theresa May
WE DO NOT CONSENT TO THE ROLL OUT OF SMART METERS IN THE UK
Dear Theresa May, We, the undesigned request that you STOP THE ROLL-OUT OF SMART METERS IN THE UK with immediate effect.
Why is this important?
We are told that 'Smart' Meters will replace our existing water, gas and electricity metering systems and that the UK as a whole could benefit from saving up to 2% of our energy IF we change our behaviour.
What are we NOT being told..
1. There are major health concerns
'Smart' Meters emit a continuous stream of pulsed microwave radiation, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These fields are intensely bio-active and affect the people and natural ecology in and around each home as well nearby. Mechanism for harm to Human Health include activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) and cellular communication interference which leads to the production of free-radicals and DNA damage (Prof. Martin Pall, 2014)
EMF waves are especially dangerous to the cells, DNA and organs of young children, babies and foetuses.
2. There are cheaper, less intrusive, ways of monitoring energy
Germany has rejected 'Smart' Meters, citing a "lack of savings" for customers. In the UK, 'Smart' Meters are being publicised promoted as "putting consumers in control of energy".
If that were true, UK consumers would be given an inexpensive energy monitor - available for just £15 - to assess their own energy/appliance use. Instead, 'Smart' Meters are designed to transmit private data to energy companies and allow them to remotely disconnect supplies and perform "Active Demand Management" - where appliances can be controlled by the energy company (Ofgem 2014). These facts are not being explained to the public.
3. They do NOT reduce energy/utility consumption
Only consumers can save energy - when they chose to change their behaviour. If saving measures are not taken, Smart Meters will actually lead to higher bills to pay for the total programme cost of £12bn - representing a cost to each home and small business of at least £400. Energy bills shot up in December 2013 - as energy companies looked to maximise profits.
4. Security vulnerabilities
The proposed 'Smart' Meter infrastructure is inherently insecure and will leave UK homes, in the words of GCHQ, "open to terrorist [cyber] attack". A plan to place our entire domestic and small business energy and water supply online is at best reckless and at worst openly inviting trouble - whether that threat lies abroad or closer to home. 'Smart' Meters also increase the impacts of grid security threats from electromagnetic pulse attacks (Jamieson 2012)
5. Privacy intrusions and profiling
Smart Meters harvest vast amounts of private data about occupant's lives and behaviours at home - allowing corporations and agencies to analyse our habits, profile our behaviours and monetise our private lives. We are aware that access to our medical data and tax data is already being passed on to third parties - we have no doubt that the valuable data gathered by 'Smart' Meters will follow.
6. They are a poor investment of OUR money
Smart Meters will COST THE PUBLIC AT LEAST £12 BILLION with no guarantee of any savings being returned by Big Energy. And because of the significant project risks and problems, the bills is likely to be far, far higher.
7. They are neither 'green' nor “clean” – and could become the basis for unaffordable remediation costs
Many countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Austria, Russia) have taken great steps to limit or remove sources of RF/MW pollution - especially for children - due to the now 5,000+ studies now showing harm from artificial sources of EMFs. The UK, however, seems oblivious to now established mechanisms for harm and is therefore not taking a precautionary approach in its continued implementation of a wireless "Smart" Grid. While UK standards were overwhelmingly voted "out of date and obsolete" in an EU parliamentary motion in 2008, they remain in place despite PHE's inability to categorically confirm that non-thermal EMF exposure is "safe". Simultaneously, the WHO now categorises RF EMFs as a 2B possible cancer causing agent.
8. They are likely to disappoint and further disenfranchise hard-working consumers
A one year study by Toronto Hydro showed that 84% of people's bills went UP after 'Smart; Meters had been installed - often by more 50%+. There is no guarantee of any savings from 'Smart' Meters. Instead, Ofgem's recent 'Smartgrid Routemap' promotes the introduction of lucrative "Time of Use" tariffs which will require people to take significant steps to avoid being penalised for using appliances at busy times.
Many pilot studies show that Smart Meters do NOT lead to sustained energy savings - ComEd's pilot in the US showing "zero statistical difference" in usage.
Who will benefit when users make no energy savings, but Big Energy and the Government has the means to exploit private data and take control of our appliances? Whoever it may be, it will not be the UK public.
We therefore want this £12bn programme STOPPED.
What are we NOT being told..
1. There are major health concerns
'Smart' Meters emit a continuous stream of pulsed microwave radiation, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These fields are intensely bio-active and affect the people and natural ecology in and around each home as well nearby. Mechanism for harm to Human Health include activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) and cellular communication interference which leads to the production of free-radicals and DNA damage (Prof. Martin Pall, 2014)
EMF waves are especially dangerous to the cells, DNA and organs of young children, babies and foetuses.
2. There are cheaper, less intrusive, ways of monitoring energy
Germany has rejected 'Smart' Meters, citing a "lack of savings" for customers. In the UK, 'Smart' Meters are being publicised promoted as "putting consumers in control of energy".
If that were true, UK consumers would be given an inexpensive energy monitor - available for just £15 - to assess their own energy/appliance use. Instead, 'Smart' Meters are designed to transmit private data to energy companies and allow them to remotely disconnect supplies and perform "Active Demand Management" - where appliances can be controlled by the energy company (Ofgem 2014). These facts are not being explained to the public.
3. They do NOT reduce energy/utility consumption
Only consumers can save energy - when they chose to change their behaviour. If saving measures are not taken, Smart Meters will actually lead to higher bills to pay for the total programme cost of £12bn - representing a cost to each home and small business of at least £400. Energy bills shot up in December 2013 - as energy companies looked to maximise profits.
4. Security vulnerabilities
The proposed 'Smart' Meter infrastructure is inherently insecure and will leave UK homes, in the words of GCHQ, "open to terrorist [cyber] attack". A plan to place our entire domestic and small business energy and water supply online is at best reckless and at worst openly inviting trouble - whether that threat lies abroad or closer to home. 'Smart' Meters also increase the impacts of grid security threats from electromagnetic pulse attacks (Jamieson 2012)
5. Privacy intrusions and profiling
Smart Meters harvest vast amounts of private data about occupant's lives and behaviours at home - allowing corporations and agencies to analyse our habits, profile our behaviours and monetise our private lives. We are aware that access to our medical data and tax data is already being passed on to third parties - we have no doubt that the valuable data gathered by 'Smart' Meters will follow.
6. They are a poor investment of OUR money
Smart Meters will COST THE PUBLIC AT LEAST £12 BILLION with no guarantee of any savings being returned by Big Energy. And because of the significant project risks and problems, the bills is likely to be far, far higher.
7. They are neither 'green' nor “clean” – and could become the basis for unaffordable remediation costs
Many countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Austria, Russia) have taken great steps to limit or remove sources of RF/MW pollution - especially for children - due to the now 5,000+ studies now showing harm from artificial sources of EMFs. The UK, however, seems oblivious to now established mechanisms for harm and is therefore not taking a precautionary approach in its continued implementation of a wireless "Smart" Grid. While UK standards were overwhelmingly voted "out of date and obsolete" in an EU parliamentary motion in 2008, they remain in place despite PHE's inability to categorically confirm that non-thermal EMF exposure is "safe". Simultaneously, the WHO now categorises RF EMFs as a 2B possible cancer causing agent.
8. They are likely to disappoint and further disenfranchise hard-working consumers
A one year study by Toronto Hydro showed that 84% of people's bills went UP after 'Smart; Meters had been installed - often by more 50%+. There is no guarantee of any savings from 'Smart' Meters. Instead, Ofgem's recent 'Smartgrid Routemap' promotes the introduction of lucrative "Time of Use" tariffs which will require people to take significant steps to avoid being penalised for using appliances at busy times.
Many pilot studies show that Smart Meters do NOT lead to sustained energy savings - ComEd's pilot in the US showing "zero statistical difference" in usage.
Who will benefit when users make no energy savings, but Big Energy and the Government has the means to exploit private data and take control of our appliances? Whoever it may be, it will not be the UK public.
We therefore want this £12bn programme STOPPED.
How it will be delivered
Via 38 Degrees with luck ..
