Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2014, 11:31 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
 
n/a posts

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
The concerns over smart meters may all be hype that comes to nothing but in the article it says a group of 50 prominent scientists felt concerned enough about the meters radio frequency transmission of data to write a letter stating the smart meters need more study.They are not yet fully convinced that they are safe.
Who are these "50 prominent scientists" and what are their qualifications? Unless they have relevant physics knowledge, why should I care about their opinion?

The anti-science crowd routinely pulls this. Unnamed "experts" who have no actual qualifications are used as an authority on some matter they don't actually know anything about.

The anti-green crowd pulls the same stunt with their 30,000 scientist anti-AGW petition. Turns out nearly all those scientists are not qualified in any way to speak on the matter and the vast majority shouldn't even be considered scientists at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2014, 12:18 PM
 
7,280 posts, read 10,954,215 times
Reputation: 11491
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Who are these "50 prominent scientists" and what are their qualifications? Unless they have relevant physics knowledge, why should I care about their opinion?

The anti-science crowd routinely pulls this. Unnamed "experts" who have no actual qualifications are used as an authority on some matter they don't actually know anything about.

The anti-green crowd pulls the same stunt with their 30,000 scientist anti-AGW petition. Turns out nearly all those scientists are not qualified in any way to speak on the matter and the vast majority shouldn't even be considered scientists at all.
I don't think the OP is asking anyone else to care, rather the OP cares and has what to them is a valid concern.

There are enough "experts" on all sides of any question to make a lot of what goes around seem questionable, if not in the methods of discovery then in the conclusions which are often subjective. It isn't anti-science to understand that scientists have been found to have outright fabricated data, filled gaps in data with interpretation based on little more than a say so and then held up as conclusive only to be invalidated much later on. This wouldn't be minor issues either, but rather significant issues that get explained away and quietly hidden.

Scientists can make mistakes and are loathe to admit so. When a "consensus" is reached any scientist even suggesting a different interpretation of the conclusion is in jeopardy of having their careers damaged, their integrity challenged and funding attacked. Lets not pretend this doesn't happen, it does.

Scientists are not above using dramatics to prove their points either. The lone polar bear trudging along an ice floe and described as being stranded because of melting ice then actually found to have merely been hunting and not really in danger at all. Does this mean polar bears aren't in danger of some sort because of melting ice? Hardly, but just how does that convince anyone the next time they see some visual of a polar bear swimming or looking for food?

Just the other day I watched a broadcast study where social "scientists" with verified degrees in their field conducted an experiment where they displayed rapidly changing pictures of mens faces on a video screen. The pictured changed between white men and black men. Then the viewer was shown a faint outline of an object. The object was in black outline and white background. As the picture resolved it was clear that the image was an outline of a weapon; a firearm, knife, or other tool associated with violence. Of the viewers, the white people identified the objects faster than black people. The conclusion was that this experiment was conclusive evidence that racial divides exist and that there is a propensity among whites to not see gray areas but rather jumped to conclusions about blacks faster than the other viewers.

This was put up as science. What is was, was nothing more than using pseudo science to make it appear that there was some actual science behind the experiment and that relying on the educational bonafides of the "scientists" that this was all fact and a reason to act upon and fund certain programs.

The point is that this isn't unique and happens all the time and isn't relegated to anti-anything.

So the OP has a concern. Perhaps they believe the science but question the scientists. The fact is that the smart meters aren't being installed by scientists, they are used by utility companies out to make money.

Put money into any cause and see how fast it becomes corrupted and a tool of agendas rather than science.

So back to the meters and radio waves. It is reasonable for someone to question what anyone sells (the meter service is being sold) and claimed to be perfectly safe according to what scientists say. While we might not agree with the concern, so what, they have it and to them it is valid.

I joked that they shouldn't go outside because of arsenic and asbestos out in the environment. There isn't much they can do about that but they can do something about the meter they have installed and go about making sure it isn't one of those smart meters.

That doesn't make then anti-anything. The practice of calling anyone or any group anti-(fill i the black) works both ways. That is a manipulation tactic often used when one group just wants to dismiss another because they don't like it. That is hardly a scientific approach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,062 posts, read 2,550,100 times
Reputation: 1939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
If you have a concern about the radio emissions to the degree you express, then regardless of what anyone else says, the concern is valid. .
Thank you I appreciate that. I know I probably speak for others who are not on here to express their views as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,062 posts, read 2,550,100 times
Reputation: 1939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
I don't think the OP is asking anyone else to care, rather the OP cares and has what to them is a valid concern.

There are enough "experts" on all sides of any question to make a lot of what goes around seem questionable, if not in the methods of discovery then in the conclusions which are often subjective. It isn't anti-science to understand that scientists have been found to have outright fabricated data, filled gaps in data with interpretation based on little more than a say so and then held up as conclusive only to be invalidated much later on. This wouldn't be minor issues either, but rather significant issues that get explained away and quietly hidden.

Scientists can make mistakes and are loathe to admit so. When a "consensus" is reached any scientist even suggesting a different interpretation of the conclusion is in jeopardy of having their careers damaged, their integrity challenged and funding attacked. Lets not pretend this doesn't happen, it does.

Scientists are not above using dramatics to prove their points either. The lone polar bear trudging along an ice floe and described as being stranded because of melting ice then actually found to have merely been hunting and not really in danger at all. Does this mean polar bears aren't in danger of some sort because of melting ice? Hardly, but just how does that convince anyone the next time they see some visual of a polar bear swimming or looking for food?

Just the other day I watched a broadcast study where social "scientists" with verified degrees in their field conducted an experiment where they displayed rapidly changing pictures of mens faces on a video screen. The pictured changed between white men and black men. Then the viewer was shown a faint outline of an object. The object was in black outline and white background. As the picture resolved it was clear that the image was an outline of a weapon; a firearm, knife, or other tool associated with violence. Of the viewers, the white people identified the objects faster than black people. The conclusion was that this experiment was conclusive evidence that racial divides exist and that there is a propensity among whites to not see gray areas but rather jumped to conclusions about blacks faster than the other viewers.

This was put up as science. What is was, was nothing more than using pseudo science to make it appear that there was some actual science behind the experiment and that relying on the educational bonafides of the "scientists" that this was all fact and a reason to act upon and fund certain programs.

The point is that this isn't unique and happens all the time and isn't relegated to anti-anything.

So the OP has a concern. Perhaps they believe the science but question the scientists. The fact is that the smart meters aren't being installed by scientists, they are used by utility companies out to make money.

Put money into any cause and see how fast it becomes corrupted and a tool of agendas rather than science.

So back to the meters and radio waves. It is reasonable for someone to question what anyone sells (the meter service is being sold) and claimed to be perfectly safe according to what scientists say. While we might not agree with the concern, so what, they have it and to them it is valid.

I joked that they shouldn't go outside because of arsenic and asbestos out in the environment. There isn't much they can do about that but they can do something about the meter they have installed and go about making sure it isn't one of those smart meters.

That doesn't make then anti-anything. The practice of calling anyone or any group anti-(fill i the black) works both ways. That is a manipulation tactic often used when one group just wants to dismiss another because they don't like it. That is hardly a scientific approach.

I agree many scientists have been proven wrong and many that come out with new ideas and theories are ridiculed. By the way I noticed you refer to me as "they" or "them" I bet it's because you are not sure of my gender, lol I will clear it up the "they" is a she.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 02:48 PM
 
4,715 posts, read 10,521,443 times
Reputation: 2186
Expert - an 'Ex' is a has been and a spurt is a drip under pressure... Just like I don't believe everything the Army Corp of engineers tells me, especially about dams and dikes. They made some pretty big blunders there. So I trust but verify.

Just like the perception of crime is typically worse than the actual crime. If you are the one that gets burglarized, you think crime is out of control. (and I agree with that feeling). I've had my cars and my friend's boat broken into in my yard a couple of time over the 15 years I lived at house. So I feel that there is a problem, but the crime stats prove otherwise (as compared to other areas around me). If you don't feel safe it stinks. Like I said in my post - FPL lets you have a "dumb" meter - get it and don't worry about it. Seems like you have one. If you still can't sleep at night, lead line the wall the meter is on. (assuming it is on a wall to the house), mine at my previous house was at the very front of the garage and was far away from the living areas of the house.

Anyways, get it scanned too, assuming it really concerns you and then go from there. We can posture all we want on the internet, but until you get it done, that is all it is.

Since we don't have the engineer(s) that made the device, it's hard to ask detailed questions as to what is really going on with the unit. IIRC, the problem with the first smart meters was that the tongs that connect to the meter box were slightly off and could arc weld themselves together... And then of course, the meter box explodes and the wiring to the house catches fire. I had my meter box explode due to the neutral line insulation rubbing off in the pipe coming to the house and combining with one of the 110V legs coming in. It vaporized the aluminum nuetral line and a new one had to be run. That was with an old gear driven meter too...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Billings, MT
9,884 posts, read 10,977,958 times
Reputation: 14180
Those who are frightened of radio waves, how far away is the nearest radio station transmitting tower?
How about a television transmitting tower?
How about an amateur radio (ham) operator?
How about a CB operator?
You do realize that the transmitting power of a smart meter is measured in milliwatts, but the commercial radio transmitter may be 50,000 watts, the television transmitter may be 100,000 watts, the ham operator may be anywhere from 5 to 2000 watts, and the CB operator will be 4 to 12 watts if legal, up to 2000 watts if running illegally!
You are bathed in RF radiation constantly, from many sources, of many types. It could be AM or FM or SSB or one of many subcategories.
Of course, a cell phone is a radio transmitter/receiver. But are you aware that your cordless telephone in your house is also a radio transmitter/receiver in the gigahertz band?
The radiation generated by that smart meter is such a miniscule part of the radiation we all get every day that it isn't even worth considering!
However, if that is what worries you, then you must do what is right for you. It doesn't have to be logical, if it is what you want!
Good luck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Billings, MT
9,884 posts, read 10,977,958 times
Reputation: 14180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
Those who are frightened of radio waves, how far away is the nearest radio station transmitting tower?
How about a television transmitting tower?
How about an amateur radio (ham) operator?
How about a CB operator?
You do realize that the transmitting power of a smart meter is measured in milliwatts, but the commercial radio transmitter may be 50,000 watts, the television transmitter may be 100,000 watts, the ham operator may be anywhere from 5 to 2000 watts, and the CB operator will be 4 to 12 watts if legal, up to 2000 watts if running illegally!
You are bathed in RF radiation constantly, from many sources, of many types. It could be AM or FM or SSB or one of many subcategories.
Of course, a cell phone is a radio transmitter/receiver. But are you aware that your cordless telephone in your house is also a radio transmitter/receiver in the gigahertz band?
The radiation generated by that smart meter is such a miniscule part of the radiation we all get every day that it isn't even worth considering!
However, if that is what worries you, then you must do what is right for you. It doesn't have to be logical, if it is what you want!
Good luck.
EDIT: Thinking about this while eating supper, it occurred to me; do you have TPMS (Tire Pressure Monitoring System) on your car? If so, you are driving around with FIVE low power high frequency radio transmitters bathing you in RF radiation!
Do you go to restaurants or motels that have WiFi, or do you have it, or does any of your neighbors have it? Another low power high frequency radio transmitter.
Do you live in an area where it is recommended that your house or apartment building basement be tested regularly for Radon? More radiation.
Do any of your children, or your neighbors's children, play with remote controlled cars or other such toys?? More RF (27 megahertz) radiation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 06:30 PM
 
Location: Volcano
12,969 posts, read 28,443,557 times
Reputation: 10759
Again, because the noise of ignorance overwhelms a lot of the common sense that experts share with us...

1) Radiation follows the inverse square law, meaning that as distance from the source of the radiation increases, the strength of the radiation decreases as a square of the distance. So when you move 2X the distance from the source, the strength of the radiation decreases by 1/2X2 or 1/4X. A simple defense against radiation is to get further from the source. The amount of radiation you receive from your computer monitor or TV is many times stronger than what you receive from a smart meter... and you're closer to it, to boot.

2) The so-called "internet of things" that has everyday appliances and such transmitting occasional microbursts of data, like tire pressure gauges and "smart" utility meters do, produce minute but measurable bits of radiation, but for such short intervals and at such low power levels and at such distances that they are measurable with extremely sensitive instruments, but are essentially inconsequential.

No joking here... if the extremely tiny, tiny amounts of intermittent radiation from smart meters has you worried, you really should immediately get rid of your computer, which not only emits more radiation, but it does it for much longer periods of time, and is far, far closer to your body.

That's a simple fact, widely agreed on by scientists, and easily confirmed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2014, 02:49 PM
 
7,280 posts, read 10,954,215 times
Reputation: 11491
Just in case everyone forgot.

"How do I know if they put in a non standard non communicating digital meter or if they actually lied to me and put in some sort of smart meter? And if they did lie to me what can I do ?"

That was what the OP asked about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2014, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Arizona
6,131 posts, read 7,988,699 times
Reputation: 8272
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
I respect all of your opinions who disagree and have come out against me on this but I remain convinced that smart meters are something to be concerned about. I think you may all be too quick to make fun of serious concerns and valid complaints from a lot of intelligent people. This many people coming out against it has to be for a reason.

A second concern even if you do not believe they are harmful to your health is what a hacker might do with the information including knowing when you are home, when you leave, and when you are on vacation. Hackers have gotten into banks these days. Nothing is safe.

Fighting The Switch? The Smart Meter Controversy « CBS Miami
Somebody sitting in a car down the block can know the same things, with no computer required. And with a lot more accuracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top