"Tobacco Science" for Fossil Fuels is Not the Big Problem
It's the tobacco science underlying the supposed solutions to fossil fuels and climate concerns, including smart meters
If you are new to the smart meter issue, please enjoy the short film! 4 1/2 minute video Ever wondered why your energy supplier and governments are so keen to give you a smart meter? We lay out some not-so-good reasons in this animation. Your private data, lifestyle and behavioural choices can be amalgamated into a data-set that is monetised and sold to 3rd party companies. Our usual satire of dark subjects aim to entertain and inform you. Get it from: http://infomaticfilms.com/download.htm (Thank you Flo)
“One of these things is not like the others” is a song from the Children’s television show Sesame Street.
But some of these things are exactly like the others; tobacco science, so-called climate denial science, and the science that justifies the solutions to climate and fossil fuels, (regardless of one’s stance on climate.)
One eloquent solution: Address corrupted sciences and scientists.
Tobacco Tactics
FS-TFI-199-2019-EN.pdf 2019 World Health Organization Publication
See also: WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2023: protect people from tobacco smoke
Wall Street and Big Banking
I met with some close friends/colleagues/activists recently. One is a subject specialist in fluoride, another has been working on GMOs, and I focus on wireless and tech. We keep appraised of what’s happening in one another’s fields. We often make calls and provide testimony for one another’s efforts, but we stay in our own lanes for most of our publishing, investigation and outreach.
Wall Street and Big Banking issues are far beyond my paygrade, but I have relied on Wall Street on Parade (daily news updates) as one of my trusted sources. Although I don’t agree with everything written, I have great respect for the earnest dedication and analysis provided.
Today’s alert is: Wall Street Is Sending the Same Message to Americans on Fossil Fuel Financing that It Sent on Cigarettes: Drop Dead
Wall Street on Parade
Wall Street On Parade is a financial news site created, owned and maintained by Russ and Pam Martens. Since its inception, it has received no outside funding of any nature. [] Ms. Martens worked for two large Wall Street firms for a total of 21 years. She personally managed investment portfolios for individuals for 11 years at Shearson American Express (which became Salomon Smith Barney). She spent the following decade at A.G. Edwards & Sons as Vice President/Investments, also personally managing the life savings of individuals. She retired in 2006 to pursue public interest writing on matters involving Wall Street. The last decade of Ms. Martens career was spent as an outspoken critic of Wall Street’s corrupt practices, its private justice system (mandatory arbitration) and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. (This YouTube video captures Ms. Martens testifying before the Federal Reserve on June 26, 1998 against the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.) Ms. Martens’ earlier career was in publishing, including Editor-in-Chief of a national trade magazine covering the business side of college and university bookstores. Neither Russ Martens nor Pam Martens hold any security position, long or short, in any Wall Street firm or banking institution, including those discussed on this web site.
Mission: Wall Street On Parade hopes to level the playing field between Wall Street and the 99 percent. Wall Street is a jungle of devices to effect an institutionalized wealth transfer system. The goal of this web site is to provide the jungle guide to the 99 percent in the hope of bringing about citizen-inspired change.
Wall Street Banks are Aware That Cigarettes are Deadly; They Have Continued to Finance Cigarette Manufacturers
Wall Street on Parade reported, Wall Street Is Sending the Same Message to Americans on Fossil Fuel Financing that It Sent on Cigarettes: Drop Dead “Despite awareness for decades by Wall Street banks that cigarettes are deadly, they have continued to finance cigarette manufacturers. According to MarketBeat, as of this October, Citigroup had a buy rating on Philip Morris International and JPMorgan Chase rated it “overweight.” Philip Morris International is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol PM. Its cigarette brands include Marlboro, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Lark, Merit, Muratti, Chesterfield and numerous others. In a 2004 paper, two researchers, B. C. Alamar and S. A. Glantz, exposed how two Wall Street analysts became shills for the tobacco industry while representing themselves as independent Wall Street analysts.
Megabanks on Wall Street have taken a similarly reckless and irresponsible attitude toward financing fossil fuel companies that are responsible for deadly climate change. According to the Fossil Fuel Finance Report 2024, the largest bank in the United States, JPMorgan Chase, is the largest lender to fossil fuel projects, with $430.9 billion in financings since 2016. Citigroup is ranked as the number one lender to fossil fuel expansions since 2016, according to the same report, with $396.3 billion in financings.
1994 - Tobacco Company CEOs Testify Before Congress
In 1994, the presidents and CEOs of the seven largest tobacco scientists testified before Congress.
Its No Longer Just ‘the Industry CEOs”….The Clean Energy/ Sustainability Movement Has Continued to Promote and Finance Tobacco Science… and Consequently, Unsafe Technology
In addition to megabanks on Wall Street taking “a reckless and irresponsible attitude toward financing fossil fuel companies,” environmental/sustainability groups, NGOs, industry, regulators and politicians have held “a reckless and irresponsible attitude” towards health harm caused by new ‘sustainable” technologies, including smart meters…(as has the American Cancer Society.)
Environmental Defense Fund 2011: (not accurate)
Health and the Smart Grid Message from EDF President Fred Krupp July 20, 2011 (nothing to see here)
“Given smart meters also emit RFs, some have worried if cell phones may pose a health risk, smart meters might as well. As with cell phones, a person's exposure depends on the signal strength and distance: a report published by the California Council of Science and Technology (CCST) in 2010 included findings from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) that a person 10 feet from a smart meter would experience very low levels of RF exposure—250 to 1,250 times less than exposure from using a cell phone. A more recent report from 2012 by the Public Utility Commission of Texas investigated a large body of research on the effects of low-level RFs. The commission corroborated the CCST findings, and further concluded there was no credible evidence to confirm the concern that advanced meters cause harmful EMF exposure.” [] Our meeting with Dr. Kheifets helped inform our position that the limited RF exposure levels associated with smart meters should not result in reduced support for the smart grid. Whether or not future studies find the overall RF problem to be significant, smart meters are a very small part of that problem. At the same time, the smart grid brings great environmental benefits: reduced greenhouse gases, reduced burning of fossil fuels and enhanced integration of solar and wind power. []Even though we have very strong evidence that the use of smart meters and the smart grid can make a substantial contribution to protecting and enhancing human health, EDF would certainly change its position if strong enough evidence surfaced concluding that RFs emitted by smart meters — the wireless ones, at least were doing substantial health damage.
National Resources Defense Council 2012: (not accurate)
Sierra Club (Ridicule of CA Direct Experience and Informed, Engaged Activism): (not accurate)
SMART-METER BACKLASH Tea Partiers see a U.N. plot; in Marin, they fear radiation
And while most of us get far more exposure from our cellphones and wi-fi networks than we would from smart meters, they do emit radio frequency radiation in short, powerful bursts. In addition, for the network to work, a few meters must act as relays, sending data from as many as a thousand others and using a more powerful signal to do so.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine opposes them on the grounds that "chronic exposure to wireless radio frequency radiation is a preventable environmental hazard that is sufficiently well documented to warrant immediate preventative public health action." (The group, it should be noted, also opposes fluoridated water.) David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany's School of Public Health, says that the health risk from a smart meter probably depends on how close it is to your bed or your easy chair. But he also suggests weighing that risk against those from dirty energy, an archaic grid, and climate change: infectious disease, lung damage, famine, heatstroke, fire, and flood. "In terms of a body count," Carpenter says, "that's orders of magnitude more significant." —Dashka Slater
Here is what David Carpenter said about what he said, courtesy Stop Smart Meters. Sierra Club ‘Grapples’ with an Untenable Pro-Smart Grid Policy; Misrepresents Expert’s Opinion
National Wildlife Federation (not accurate)
Report: More Smart Meters in Clean Energy Economy NWF Staff | Last Updated: January 5, 2016 In addition to changing the way we use energy, the Electric Power Research Institute says the implementation of these and other changes could reduce overall usage 4 percent over the next two decades and mean annual utility bill savings of $20.4 billion for businesses and consumers around the country. Biden said the Recovery Act's $23 billion for renewable power generation will likely create 253,000 jobs and double energy production from solar, wind and geothermal sources by 2012.
National Audubon Society 2021(not accurate)
Conservation and Energy Groups Unite as Federal Government Re-envisions Power Policy A diverse coalition draws attention to siting issues and advanced transmission technologies in a filing before the federal regulatory commission.
WASHINGTON (October 13, 2021) -- Conservation groups want a seat at the table as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission begins the largest rewrite of grid policy in a decade. []The groups’ first goal is to have FERC incorporate siting – the planning of the actual locations of power lines, substations, and transmission towers – as part of the approval process for power projects. [] n addition to siting issues, the filing also drew attention to the advanced transmission technologies that can, and should, help form the backbone of a 21st century electric grid. These include both “grid-enhancing technologies” that help existing power lines run more efficiently and “distributed energy resources” like rooftop solar panels, home batteries and smart meters that take some of the burden off those lines. An approach that incorporates both traditional transmission lines and these modern technologies will help the nation hit 100% clean energy faster, cheaper and more efficiently. Reaching 100% renewable energy using transmission lines alone could require as much as $700 billion. This cost could be significantly reduced by smartly deploying advanced transmission technologies, according to “Beyond Wires,” a report released earlier this year by coalition members ELPC and CRI.
American Cancer Society: What are smart meters? (not accurate)
To use (and be billed for) utilities such as electricity, natural gas, or water, the amount you use must be measured. This is generally done with a meter. In the past, the data from the meters had to be read by a person. More recently, meters that automatically send usage information back to the product supplier have been used. These are called smart meters. Smart meters have been used for a number of years in some developed countries, especially in parts of Europe. In recent years, they have been installed in some areas of the United States as well.
Concerns have been raised about the safety of smart meters, mainly because they give off the same kinds of radiofrequency (RF) waves as cell phones and Wi-Fi devices. [] How are people exposed? Smart meters are typically installed outside the home, either in place of or as part of existing meters. How much RF energy that people are exposed to from the smart meter depends on how far they are from the smart meter antenna and how the smart meter sends its signal. The frequency and power of the RF waves given off by a smart meter are similar to that of a typical cell phone, cordless phone, or residential Wi-Fi router. Smart meters typically send and receive short messages about 1% of the time. Because the smart meter antenna usually is located outside the home, people are much farther away from the source of RF waves than some other possible sources of exposure to RF radiation, such as personal cell phones and cordless phones. In addition, walls between the person and the smart meter’s antenna further reduce the amount of RF energy exposure. This means that the amount of RF radiation that someone would be exposed to from a smart meter is probably much lower than the amount that they would be exposed to from other sources.
Can smart meters cause cancer? Smart meters give off RF radiation. RF radiation is low-energy radiation. RF radiation doesn’t have enough energy to remove charged particles such as electrons (ionize), and so is called non-ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing radiation has enough energy to move atoms in a molecule around or cause them to vibrate, which can lead to heat but it can’t damage DNA directly. RF radiation is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” This is based on the finding of a possible link in at least one study between cell phone use and a specific type of brain tumor. Because RF radiation is a possible carcinogen, and smart meters give off RF radiation, it is possible that smart meters could increase cancer risk. Still, it isn’t clear what risk, if any there might be from living in a home with a smart meter.
It would be nearly impossible to conduct a study to prove or disprove a link between living in a house with smart meters and cancer because people have so many sources of exposure to RF and the level of exposure from this source is so small. Because, the amount of RF radiation you could be exposed to from a smart meter is much less than what you could be exposed to from a cell phone, it is very unlikely that living in a house with a smart meter increases risk of cancer. The World Health Organization has promised to conduct a formal assessment of the risks from RF exposure but this report is not yet available. See Microwaves, Radio Waves, and Other Types of Radiofrequency Radiation and Cellular Phones for more information about the link between RF radiation and cancer risk.
Do smart meters cause any other health problems? Smart meters have not been studied to see if they cause health problems. Studies have looked at RF radiation from other sources. Exposure to large amounts of RF radiation, as from accidents involving radar, has resulted in severe burns. No other serious health problems have been reported. One concern expressed is that the RF waves produced by smart meters might interfere with electronic medical devices such as a heart pacemaker. A study that examined the effect of smart meters on pacemakers and implantable defibrillators found that the smart meters did not interfere with these devices.
Could smart meters cause health problems in cancer survivors? While RF exposure might not cause cancer directly, concern has been voiced that cells in the body that have been damaged by exposure to some other substance might somehow be more likely to become cancerous when exposed to RF waves. In theory, this might be a concern for cancer patients being treated with ionizing radiation and/or medicines that might cause cancer themselves. Animal studies have not shown evidence of this and this effect has not been studied in people.
How can I reduce my exposure to RF radiation from smart meters? There isn’t much you can do to lower your exposure to RF radiation from smart meters. In some places where smart meters are being installed, people have the choice to opt in or opt out of having them, but this isn’t an option everywhere. It may be possible to lower exposure from cell phones and other sources of RF radiation. See Microwaves, Radio Waves, and Other Types of Radiofrequency Radiation and Cellular Phones. Because the low levels of energy from RF radiation have not been clearly shown to cause problems even at close range, it isn’t clear that lowering exposure to RF radiation has health benefits.
Note to Self: Neurological Harm, not just Cancer.
Hopefully, even those who are too young to remember the tobacco wars know that the industry delayed regulations for decades by focusing on lung cancer, an illness that can take years to develop, with the blame shifted to other exposures, while ignoring and denying other adverse health effects.
This is the path that science is traversing regarding cell phones and brain cancer.
Historically, the World Health Organization had to clear its ranks of the infiltration by the tobacco industry; unfortunately, WHO gave the highly paid corrupted scientists a seat at the table for wireless industries.
See More:
Phonegate Alert criticizes WHO study on mobile phone risks
Why the World Health Organization’s EMF Project is a Captured Agency
"World Health Organization’s EMF Project’s Systemic Reviews on the Association Between RF Exposure and Health Effects Encounter Challenges" In a newly-published paper, one of the world's most renowned scientists who has studied the effects of radio frequency (RF) radiation, Dr. James C. Lin, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois, Chicago and a former ICNIRP Commissioner, attacks the World Health Organization's systematic reviews of the research on RF radiation that dismiss the substantial evidence for adverse biological and health effects.