(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
As a result of the installation of the "smart" AMS power meter that was installed in Norwegian homes last year, as a parent and author I have some things I want to record with both smart meter manufacturer Aidon and Norwegian power companies. After the smart meter was installed with us in 2017, it has brought with it considerable concern and inconvenience for us in the family.
This letter is intended as a complaint to the smart meter manufacturers and all online companies using them, where reference is made to the Constitution's §112, on the "precautionary principle". This is a rights provision that guarantees, among other things, the individual "an environment that ensures health" and section 102 that protects the right to privacy.
Extremely high beam levels
We have measured and registered how this new electricity meter, by the brand Aidon, behaves with us (sends and receives signals), According to the guidelines from the European Academy of Environmental Medicine, EUROPAEM, the recommended radiation limit for such communication is 100µW / m2 and lower. It turns out temporarily that the meter in our house communicates constantly, yes, then it is meant absolutely all the time, several times per. second – non stop, and at very high values. Our meter is frequently up to 60–000 µW / m70 at a distance of 000 meter, and also up to 2 µW / m1 (1 million). The free use regulations state that the maximum power must be 600 watts. Here, the exposure at a distance of one meter is well more than that ..
For me and my family to drop this, you, on behalf of NVE, require a medical certificate. At the same time, the Directorate of Health gives doctors warnings against printing such. This is not related, and it violates the aforementioned section §112.
Missing information and documentation
Prior to the installation, we received only a small info letter (it was not an application for permission to enter our house and private sphere) telling the grid company to come and replace the meter that day, for it to be automatic reading a few times a day.
We were told by the installer who inserted the meter with us, that it should only send signals over the mains – so-called PLC (Power Line Communication) – so that there would be no radiation from the meter at all. This is far from the truth: now it is glowing red in the RF meter, and it shows a constant ground noise with frequent high signals.
Had the house been built at the same time, or after the rollout of the new AMS meters, our security cabinet probably would not have been built where it stands today. The power companies had also had to send us an application to install wireless communication with monitoring our electricity consumption, but I strongly doubt that they had the application granted.
We also did not send any application for such monitoring in our home. It does not help how much you refer to the web rental contract – that we are free to choose measuring equipment – because as we read the contract, it says VERY MEASURING EQUIPMENT and not SENDER EQUIPMENT with MONITORING.
As in all other cases, it is normal to submit an application in advance before starting any installations. As far as we can see, our household has not received such an application. We therefore ask the electricity companies and manufacturers of the measuring devices to send an application with associated documentation on the equipment that is mounted.
The documentation must contain at least the following:
- Equipment specification which clearly states the maximum transmit power stated in W, maximum own consumption stated kWh / year, type of communication and interval for transmissions.
- Documentation on how the communication module communicates with other meters in the immediate area.
- Measurement results showing transmit power and interval for 24 hours, on exactly the meter you want to have installed in our home.
- Reports showing that long-term exposure does not affect people, animals or equipment that is sensitive to noise in the local area. The reports must be published and objective, and it must be clearly stated who has ordered them. (ICNIRP 1998 I do not accept.)
We also refer to newer limit values set in the Bioinitiative report 2012 as a reference, and not ICNIRP 1998 (as revealed on French TV are corrupt).
International guidelines are inadequate
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) published in 1998 "Guidelines to limit exposure from variable electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz)".
These guidelines are followed by WHO and a number of countries around the world. The WHO encourages all nations to follow these international guidelines to promote international harmonization of standards.
In 2009, ICNIRP issued a statement confirming its guidelines from 1998, since the scientific literature published after this date – in their opinion – "has not provided evidence of adverse effects of exposure lower than the lower reference values and therefore does not provide a basis for any immediate revision of the exposure limit policy for high frequency electromagnetic fields. "
It now glows red in the RF meter and shows a constant ground noise with frequent high signals.
ICNIRP continues to defend this claim, although the scientific knowledge base is increasingly refuting it. Since the international guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, it is our opinion that they are insufficient to protect public health.
In 2002, WHO applied the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF EMF). The radio frequency radio frequency (RFR) classification became valid in 2011. The classification says that EMF is possibly carcinogenic to humans (group 2B).
Despite the IARC's conclusions, WHO's small office "The International EMF Project" continues to claim that there is insufficient evidence to justify reducing the aforementioned exposure limits.
International appeal from 220 scientists
Also, many researchers involved in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) are calling for protection against these.
Based on their published research, they are seriously concerned about the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electrical and wireless devices.
These include devices that emit radio frequency (RF) radiation, such as cell phones, cordless phones and their base stations, WiFi, broadcast antennas, automatic power meters, and baby monitors, as well as electrical equipment and infrastructure used to deliver power, and which generates extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF EMF).
A large number of recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels far below most international and national guidelines. The effects include increased cancer risk, cell stress, increase in the amount of harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes in the reproductive system, learning and memory impairment, neurological disorders and negative effects on human general well-being. The damage is also not limited to humans, as our knowledge base increasingly shows damaging effects on plant and animal life as well. Their findings particularly appeal to the UN and all UN Member States to urge the World Health Organization (WHO) to exercise strong leadership to ensure that more protective EMF policies are developed, encourage harm prevention measures, and to teach most people about health risks – particularly risk to children and fetal development.
By failing to act, WHO fails to fulfill its role as the world's leading public health body.
Want to know more about AMS power meters and radiation hazards? See www.einarflydal.com, stoppsmartmaalern.no og smartscandalen.no, for more information.
See http://www.iemfa.org/emf-scientist-appeal-to-the-united-nations/
