Avoiding
Smart Meter’s in Victoria
(A
Manual of facts to help you)
The
aim of this web page is to provide you with some little known facts
to assist you in your fight to protect your health, privacy and
democratic right to say ‘NO’. It has been compiled from personal
experience and many hours of research.
Limits
for Ultra High Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Exposure
Smart
meter radiation must be within limits specified by AS 2772 RADIATION
PROTECTION STANDARD Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields
— 3 kHz to 300 GHz. This Standard was created by AUSTRALIAN
RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY AGENCY (ARPANSA).
As I understand soon it will be updated:http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L00960
As I understand soon it will be updated:
But
I don’t see that there will be much change here which will benefit
the people of Victoria. Also, the ‘compatibility statement’ for
this piece of legislation ignores the fact that Victorians are
unknowingly being subjected to an experiment. (There has been no
meaningful research into nonionizing radiation).
If we look at the history of the ARPANSA standard written in 2002, there was a prior standard of 1985. In the late 1990s it was time to update it, but it was not that simple:
If we look at the history of the ARPANSA standard written in 2002, there was a prior standard of 1985. In the late 1990s it was time to update it, but it was not that simple:
The
technical committee did not reach agreement on the last revision of
the Standard in 1999, which sought to introduce the more lenient
ICNIRP Guidelines.
Also,
in the conclusions in this document, para 4.240, the committee chair
did not support the decision to transfer the responsibility for
setting a new standard to ARPANSA. Despite this, the job of creating
new standards; was passed on to ARPANSA. What did ARPANSA use as a
base for the 2002 standard? See page ii
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/publications/codes/rps3.cfm
Standard are based on the published 1998 Guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
So I get the impression that the 1985 standards had stricter limits than the current standards. If so, this does not sound very promising!
Standard are based on the published 1998 Guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
So I get the impression that the 1985 standards had stricter limits than the current standards. If so, this does not sound very promising!
International
approach to UHF radiation.
In
many countries, standards are based on ICNIRP guidelines, but not
everywhere.
This
site lists many countries/regions where standards are stricter. And
it is a shame our Victorian government did not try to find out why:
Italy:
The basic limits for magnetic flux density are identical with the
reference levels in the Recommendation. A 10 times lower 'attention
value' applies to existing situations with exposure for more than 4
hours in homes, playgrounds and schools. A 'quality goal' of 3% of
the reference level applies to new construction of homes, playgrounds
or schools near power lines, substations or transformers (or vice
versa). An even stricter limit for magnetic flux density (0.2% of
the reference level) was adopted in three regions before the
federal law came into force. This too applies to power lines near
homes, schools and other places where people may stay for more than 4
hours per day.
In Switzerland, an Ordinance on Non-ionising Radiation has been in force since 1999. Exposure limits identical to the reference levels in the European Recommendation apply to all areas accessible to the public. A stricter, precautionary limit on magnetic flux density of 1% of the reference level applies to new installations...
In Switzerland, an Ordinance on Non-ionising Radiation has been in force since 1999. Exposure limits identical to the reference levels in the European Recommendation apply to all areas accessible to the public. A stricter, precautionary limit on magnetic flux density of 1% of the reference level applies to new installations...
Technical terms for measuring UHF radiation.
The
rate at which radiofrequency radiation is absorbed in the body is
measured in watts per kilogram (W/kg).
The
Australian limits are determined by AS 2772 which has Whole-body
average (W/kg) 0.08 with allowed maximums of up 2-4 W/kg (see page 7,
table 2).
The
European Unions’ main standard is the same as Australia, from 0.08
up to 4 W/kg, see Table 1 page 64:
Our smart meters emit up to 2.5% of Recommendations:
so
their usage in Switzerland or some parts of Italy would be
questionable.
Notice
that in tests of a bunch of Smart meters which are installed together the
radiation reached 31% (Table 10).
In
multistorey buildings, the situation may become really bad. We can
only guess the amount of radiation people living close to bunch of
then on their floor and also exposed to Smart meters above
and below.
There
are reports that radiation in areas of multistorey flats which are
next to Smart meter locations is well beyond ARPANSA limits, but
these reports are ‘not official’.
Department
of Housing, owner of some buildings with possible over-the-limit
levels of radiation is not in any rush to check this out. They settle
aged and fragile people next to the source of powerful radiation and
‘forget’ about any Duty of Care.
In Russia, general rules for the protection are set in a 1999 framework law. Exposure limits for specific frequency ranges are set in so-called 'Hygienic epidemiological requirements'. The public exposure limit for electric and magnetic fields of 50 hertz is 10% of the reference level in the European Recommendation. The motivation for this is to prevent biological effects that are not seen as health risks in Western countries.
Russia found some "biological effects" in UHF radiation! And cut the limits by 10 times. The USSR had stricter rules than USA, and more, in USSR there was a belief that UHF radiation has "bio effects", this is something that ARPANSA does not want to hear! For example, the Soviet limits for occupational exposure were just 0.4 W/kg per hour, while ARPANSA "generously" give us up to 4 W/kg in our homes, 24/7! This sounds alarming to me. May be it would be worthwhile our Government asking Russia for more information on this subject?
jmpee.org/JMPEE_PDFs/21-1_bl/Vol21-1-Pg9-Czersk.pdf
