THIMK

THIMK: There was an expression when we were growing up: "Don't confuse me with the facts." In the age of information, as the gap between belief and veracity widens, it's understandable that the expression has evolved. Nowadays we say, "You're entitled to your own opinion but not entitled to your own facts."

The perfect example of course are the misguided and often downright delusional efforts to spread pseudo-scientific fear and trepidation about so called "smart meters," especially here on Kaua`i where the campaign has reached a disinformational zenith approaching the "Big Lie" on steroids.

The campaign has taken on a life of it's own and there are many who now believe that there is an international conspiracy to use killer radio waves to annihilate us all. And it is being led by those diabolical mad geniuses at Kaua`i Island Utilities Cooperative (KIUC).

"Holy Mindf*ck Batman- It's Commissioner Gordon on the phone... Photovoltaic Man has escaped from jail... again!"

So how did this happen. How did an apparently innocuous device using technology that came in with AM radio grow fearsome tentacles to envelop us all with their evil invisible rays?

News Flash- it didn't... it's a freakin' comic book.

We could blame our educational system. Science curricula in primary school has all but disappeared and students who think science is "toooo haaaard" seemingly having carried the day. In addition while Biology, Chemistry and Physics at least appear on the list of secondary school classes, the Principles of Electricity go generally untaught at the high school level. We admit having had to brush up on on the fundamentals of electro-magnetism, radio frequency and radio waves ourselves when this whole nonsense started- it's probably the least commonly known science out there, probably because it's invisible.

If you ask the average Keone on the street how the sound got into his radio he'd probably look at you like you're crazy... before admitting he'd always assumed something along the lines of "it's magic."

Combine that with the much bemoaned lack of skills involving critical thinking- the act of questioning assumptions- among students today, and it's no wonder that anything that is repeated often enough- especially "on-line"- must be true.

Which is why, although you might hold the people who have been led astray over "smart meters" responsible for their own delusions, we really have to point to KIUC as the source of their own problems.

The powers that be have created KIUC to be a bastion of misinformation and outright lies since it's inception. The very history of the initial pricing scandal convinced people that there were kickbacks and other shenanigans, and the lack of documentation have fanned the flames of mistrust every since. The promise by the original board to operate under the state's open meetings (sunshine) and records (UIPA) laws was thrown under the bus when the original bylaws were drawn up.

The commitment had been elicited by the county council at the time in order to get them to drop efforts to set up a municipal power authority, something which had been approved by voters and is now still a part of the county charter. The promise to maintain a truly democratic co-operative were similarly discarded and substituted for with vague standards of membership participation, all subject to secretive manipulation by the board of directors.

The bylaws- the document that is supposed to give the "members" of a co-op the power over major decision making- allowed the board to institute their own policies that stood the often vague bylaws on its head. One example is the "gag rule" that stopped board members from disagreeing publicly with the policies passed by the majority of the board.

Even now when we brought this up with the new PR guy Jim Kelly we were told that the rule had been eliminated only to find out it had not been ditched but changed, so that now a board member had to clear any public statements he or she planned to make with either the chair or the general manager- giving staff decision-making power over board members in a bass ackward example of who has the power and how KIUC operates.

Through the years the board and the "company" in general has operated with a for-profit business model- "we sell you electricity"- and evolved into bastions of secrecy and manipulation.

The debacle of the membership vote on the federal oversight of local hydro-power epitomized KIUC's methodology of "dealing" with members. Instead of having a fair vote with a straightforward question and legitimate pros and cons sent out to voters, they offer a set of admittedly manipulative and disingenuous "pros" and with exactly zero legitimate "cons. " Also, a massive, expensive PR campaign with full page ads in the local newspaper was purchased turning the vote into the type of thing you'd see in a third world country. People were suggesting we bring in Jimmy Carter to investigate.

These example show why it's been so easy to justifiably demonize KIUC and allow people to use their lack of science training and lack of critical thinking skills to set up false solecisms like:

A) KIUC lies
B) KIUC says "smart meters are safe"
Therefore
C) KIUC is lying about smart meters and smart meters are not safe.

But any student of logic will tell you that part of critical thinking lies in making sure that the assumptions are not misapplied. This example would be like saying in B) that "KIUC says 2 + 2 = 4." Just because KIUC says something is true, doesn't automatically make it lie.

If only life were that easy.

What we've seen is that every time someone tries to bust the myths over health, privacy. cost-benefit and a dozen other supposed "issues" with smart meter opponents they are tagged as being "part of the conspiracy."

One recent attempt to set the record straight comes from the Blue Planet Foundation (BPF) a local non-profit "committed to ending the use of fossil fuels on Earth, starting in Hawai`i."

It's Executive Director is Jeff Mikulina who "served for ten years as the director of the state's largest environmental advocacy organization, the Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter."

In a piece called "Understanding Smart Meters," BPF shreds much of the misinformation spread by smart meter opponents.

For example, it discredits one of the well-publicized claims that "smart meters cause cancer because RF is classified as a “Class 2-B Carcinogen” by the World Health Organization."

It's a half truth- a misrepresentation that leaves out vital information at best. In actuality:

The World Health Organization (WHO) has worked to identify environmental factors that can increase the risk of human cancer. With that goal, WHO has researched hundreds of possible carcinogenic agents, and categorized them into groups:

Group 1 Carcinogenic to humans 107 agents

Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans 63 agents

Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans 271 agents

Group 4 Probably not carcinogenic to humans 1 agents

Group 3 refers to agents that are “not classifiable.”]

To date, only one agent is classified as “probably not carcinogenic.” RF is classified in the next lowest group (2B), “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Many other common agents are also listed in group 2B, including examples like caffeine, carpentry, and coconut oil DEA (an ingredient frequently found in lotions and shampoos). WHO defines “possibly” carcinogenic to mean that there is: (i) “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans” and “less than sufficient” evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals”; or (ii) “inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans” but “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

According to the U.S. National Institute of Health, “there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk.”

Another recently stressed issue- especially among those who, while not opponents, have questioned the need and wisdom of purchasing smart meters- is whether a cost-benefit analysis has been done and if so, does it show smart meters to be a good investment. The answer is a resounding "yes" according to BPF.

In answer to the question "Will smart meters be cost-effective?" the essay states:

The numbers show that smart meters are a good investment. For approximately 33,000 households on Kaua`i, KIUC plans to invest about 11 million dollars in the smart meter project (with 5.5 million dollars of that coming from federal funding). So, KIUC can expect that updating the meter on each household will cost approximately $333. Each meter is expected to last 20 years or more, so the cost per year is about $16 per smart meter. That small investment is easy to recover from the benefits of smart meters.

For example, at current electricity prices, $16 translates into 46 kWh of energy per year, or about 4 kWh per month. In 2010, the average Kaua`i household used over 400 kWh per month. In other words, if in-home displays or other advantages of smart meters allow Kaua`i households to become just 1% more efficient, then from the consumer’s perspective, the smart meters will more than pay for themselves. And this calculation assumes that energy prices don’t rise at all for the next 20 years. More likely, as the price of energy rises, the smart meter investment will get better and better.

We can also see this smart investment by looking at the ability of smart meters to help us integrate more renewable energy resources onto a smarter grid. In 2010, KIUC imported over 675,000 barrels of diesel, at a cost of approximately $70 million. Meanwhile, only 1.4% of KIUC’s fuel mix was photovoltaic power produced from the sun. Even if smart meters only enable us to increase that photovoltaic contribution by a modest 2%, Kauai would save on nearly 15,000 barrels of diesel. At today’s oil prices, that would stop more than $2 million dollars per year from leaving the island each year. In five years, the smart meter investment would pay for itself. And again, as the price of oil rises in the future, this investment only gets better.

Other analyses have reached the same conclusion looking at the various ways that smart meters will save money. For example, a 2011 report on the Costs and Benefits of Smart Meters for Residential Consumers tallied up the smart meter savings and concluded that “even with conservative assumptions regarding consumer engagement in technologies, programs, and rate plans, utilities and their customers can expect positive net benefits from [smart meter] investments over the next 20 years.”

The piece also explains how "grid modernization starts with smart meters" and addresses all the other supposed horrors of smart meters.

Here are some of the questions and somewhat truncated answers (read the entire essay for full answers and links to definitions of scientific terms as well as background studies and articles on the subject)

Do smart meters emit hazardous levels of “RF,” “EMF,” and “radiation”?

“RF” (radio frequencies), “EMF” (electromagnetic fields) and “radiation” (energy traveling in waves) are scientific terms referring to electromagnetic energy. “Radiation” does not mean the same thing as “radioactive.”

Electromagnetic radiation surrounds us all the time; the most familiar example is ordinary visible light. Many common devices emit or receive electromagnetic energy. These include things like light bulbs, hot plates, remote controls, computer screens, cordless telephones, cellular telephones, metal detectors, wireless computer networks, and baby monitors. Wireless communication devices, from AM radios, to cell phones, to satellites, all use low-energy electromagnetic radio waves to transfer information. Smart meters also use the same “non-ionizing” low-energy radio waves to transmit information about the electricity grid.

Are smart meters hazardous to health?

According to the World Health Organization, a “number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency fields on brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep, heart rate and blood pressure in volunteers. To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms, or “electromagnetic hypersensitivity.”

Also answered are the questions

Do smart meters pose a security threat?

Do smart meters cause fires?

Is it true that smart Meters don’t emit radio waves, they emit dangerous microwaves?

Will smart meters give accurate readings?

Are smart meters a violation of privacy?

It hard to blame misguided people who have been whipped into a frenzy by a handful of people who don't have a good understanding of the underlying science and/or. in many cases. aren't commonly engaged in the critical thinking scientific examination requires.

Many tell people to " just Google it" and yes, if you Google it you will find dozens of anti-smart meter posts from blogs and other sources. And yes, you have to go pretty far down the list for find anything supporting their use. But all that shows is the echo chamber of the claims and the fact that if you keep repeating them and forwarding them and reporting them people are going to start believing them no matter what the truth is.

Many have warned that the ubiquitous nature of the internet and the fact that just anyone can post whatever they want to (whether it is true or not) will lead- or some say has already led- to chaos. They usually end up using this to advocate for what amounts to some form censorship so that "trustworthy" sources are what people will read.

But other like us have advocated for a more informed readership- one that is educated in the sciences and has the ability to use critical thinking to examine the underlying principles involved.

To do this each and every reader must ask themselves some questions.

Is there just a single person or a couple of people making claims, maybe even with one claiming a title before their name such as "Doctor?"... doctor of what? and what is their reputation in the field?

Or is the information peer-reviewed and published in a well established and generally trusted science based publication. Is the article based on an actual scientific study?

Is it not just replicable but has it been replicated? Or is it a series of anecdotes and unverifiable claims based on testimonials?

Are those who are trying to convince you trying to tar information by saying that some disreputable person or organization also said it? Is it using "guilt by association" or an ad hominem attack- one that attacks the person, not the idea or claims?

And finally when people start to claim vast worldwide conspiracies involving all the universities, the government and even organization like Blue Planet Foundation (not to mention Parx News Net) ask yourself if this makes sense.

We could "blame" KIUC for being so consistently disreputable that people are willing to believe that anything they say must be a lie. But even so, each of us is responsible for our own actions and just because your cousin got an email saying the sky is falling doesn't mean it's time to sign up for the Chicken Little Newsletter.

RELATIVITY MADE EASY

RELATIVITY MADE EASY: Iconic "Renaissance man" and father of late night television Steve Allen used to don a fedora and read the angriest of the Letters to the Editor culled from various New York City newspapers, adding that "the names have been changed to avoid a punch in the nose."

It was one of the first things we thought of when we read a certain paragraph regarding the always annoying topic of "smart meters" in the LTE section of Sunday's local newspaper

We'll follow suit, calling the writer "Einstein." He wrote:

"Here’s a novel suggestion from a customer/owner of KIUC. Instead of spending tens of millions of dollars or more for smart meters, let’s spend that money to purchase a new, modern grid for our island."

Although it was April 1 it was apparently meant seriously.

For those who don't get it, smart meters are the central element of "a new modern grid," aka- the "smart grid." Whatever people may think about safety or "violations of privacy," by definition, this is what smart meters are and do.

We shouldn't really pick on poor Einstein but his letter does show the schizophrenia that exists over the modernization of the electrical grid as typified by the opposition to these devices.

The fact is that, alleged issues of health, privacy and the rest aside, those who want to see Kaua`i participate or even lead the way in alternative, non-carbon, non-fossil fuel energy had better just give it up if the smart grid- and so smart meters- is not part of our energy future.

People can forget about lower electric bills too because we will always be dependent on expensive fossil (and other carbon-generating) fuels for energy generation without the smart grid.

Let's see if we can make this as simple as possible.

Anyone who spends more than thirty seconds thinking about alternative sources of energy will realize that the most abundant and least environmentally disruptive sources here in the islands- solar and wind- are what they call "intermittent." The sun doesn't shine at night and is severely diminished when there are clouds or even rain storms. And the wind doesn't always blow.

It cannot be counted on unless we want to be without electricity at different times. And few will disagree that they want enough electricity to make sure it's there when they flip the switch.

That is why there are limits on how much of this alternative, "free" energy the system can use- because the other side of the equation is how much electricity people want or need.

That's where the "smart grid"- and so smart meters- comes in.

We've finally reached the technological sophistication to allow a computerized system to maximize the amount of intermittent electricity that the grid can handle. With the increasing sophistication of storage mediums, while we may not fully eliminate the burning of fossil and other carbon-waste fuels including bio-fuels, we can reduce them significantly.

But in order to do that, the computer needs to know up-to-the-second supply and demand for electricity.

And yes, that means that we need to know what the demand is from each user, which is where the smart meter comes in.

The other side of this is that if we don't install smart meters for just about every user, we will be limited in the amount of alternative sources we can integrate into the system. That's why there is no more "net metering" available for those who install photovoltaic systems, forcing them to sell back their excess electricity at lower prices than they pay when they take back from the grid, as happens when their intermittent source is not generating anything and they need electricity.

People make a big deal about the money we are spending on these smart meters . But the $11 million that is being spent on them is chump change because without smart meters to integrate all the various "supplies" with known, specific up-to-the-minute demands, it will mean is that we will need to build a new generation facility to meet future demand.

That means not only higher bills due to rate increases related to the investment in the new facility (whether it is "privatized" or not) as happened with the Kapaia plant, but a higher "energy adjustment" on your bill representing the ever increasing cost of a barrel of oil.

Those who go back a decade or so will remember local talk of building a new power plant. It wasn’t a matter of whether to build one but a matter of where and what kind we needed to keep up with future demand- regardless of any controls over our rate of growth or conservation measures.

Only with the advent of viable alternative technologies- not just dreams of the future but actual realities- did talk of building that new power plant cease.

But unless we can figure out a way to integrate all of the various sources of energy- solar, hydro, wind, perhaps waves and, most importantly, storage mediums like batteries, heat-retaining devices and others that are on the horizon- with the demand of the end users, we might as well forget a future of lower bills and higher use of non-carbon, alternative electrical sources.

A smart meter is simply that device that measures demand on a continual basis. Without them we guarantee a future of burning fossil or bio fuels and limited "clean" energy.

People can understand what science shows to be an innocuous use of RF signals, especially as compared with cell and cordless phones as well as countless other devices we use every day. Or they can rely on what they "read on the internet" and make a decision based on that.

Either way even if you "believe" whatever it is you believe about smart meters you'd better ask yourself if that is worth a future where the dream of non-fossil, non-carbon, alternative energy has gone to die.

CHARGE

CHARGE: Once again less than a third of Kaua`i Island Utility Co-op (KIUC) members voted in the recent board of directors' election. And we think we've discovered at least one reason why.

Although almost a thousand more ballots were cast in this year's election than last, it was not a record number of participants, according to statistics provided by Jonathan Jay, founder of the "P2P" group that organized a huge get-out-the-vote effort.

And despite the campaign that resulted in three new faces on the board, "voter turnout" remained dismally low.

But that may be because not all members are receiving ballots to vote, as one Lawai woman learned last Thursday.

Because of the campaign, Larissa Varaday had heard about the election this time and decided that, because her family's electric bill is in her name, she was going to vote this time. So she want to the KIUC web site, watched the videos of all the candidates, read up on their positions on the issues and chose the three she wanted to vote for.

But Varaday had never received a ballot from KIUC and when she tried to vote on-line she found that she couldn't because she didn't have her "authorization code" number.

After an email and a series of phone calls, she finally reached someone live at KIUC where she was told that it was "too late" for her to vote this time because the Saturday deadline was "too close" and that she could not get her "code" at that late date.

But what she found out next may go a long way to explaining why voter turnout is so low, assuming there are many others out there like her.

Varaday was told that the reason she had never received any ballots for KIUC elections is that five years ago, when she signed up for service, she either did or didn't check a box on her application that apparently determined whether or not she would receive election ballots from KIUC in perpetuity.

"I don't remember whether I checked or didn't check a box- it was five years ago," she said. "I didn't even know there was anything to vote for at the time."

She said she was unclear on Thursday after talking to KIUC whether she had checked or not checked the box but one thing was clear- whatever she had done on her original application had put her on a permanent list of people who never receive ballots or even apparently any notification that there are elections... elections in which they are not currently permitted to participate.

"It's ridiculous," she said on Sunday after the results were in. "I don't think you should have to sign up to vote. Everyone who gets a bill should automatically be able to vote."

Varaday said that she was not even offered the opportunity to come down to the KIUC offices to vote in person. She was just told that with three days left in the election it was too late to give her an authorization code or reverse whatever it was that she did way back when she applied for service.

After spending days doing the research, Varaday felt cheated out of her voice in the co-op's future.

"There are some important issues with energy and all members should get a ballot," she said adding that "it's just not fair" that after doing all that work and finally calling with three days still left she was essentially blown off by KIUC. Rather than having them figure out a way that she could vote- no matter what box she did or didn’t check on her original application- it was apparently too much trouble for KIUC to accommodate a member who wanted to participate in her co-op.

Varaday said she was also told that when people sign up for service, if they want to vote, they are charged a penny- one cent- on their first bill.

We couldn't reach a person at KIUC apparently because it is a holiday weekend.

The question is of course how many more "members" are out there like Varaday who, unbeknownst to them, somehow wound up on the "no ballot sent" list. But even more distressing is the fact that KIUC has kept what amounts to a voter suppression measure a secret.

If KIUC and its board members really wanted to increase participation, doesn't it seem like they would try to make sure that those who filled out their applications really meant to disenfranchise themselves when they failed to correctly read the fine print on their applications?

We're sure that Jay and the others who worked diligently to get people to vote would have liked to know that there was a cap on the number of members who received ballots.

Not for nothing but that fine print on the original application signed by the "member" is also the reason why KIUC can be so cavalier about entering people's properties and installing so-called "smart meters."

While working on another story years ago we discovered that when you sign up for electric service you also sign a form that gives your permission for KIUC- or Citizen's Utilities before them- not only to enter your property, but to install and maintain the wires and meter. "Their" property is defined as all their equipment from the pole to where the wiring in your house begins, "after" the meter.

And if you have electric service you've already given your permission for them to enter your property to install and maintain it all.

The recent federal lawsuit filed by Adam Asquith of Hanalei appears to be based on a misunderstanding of that part of the "contract" between KIUC and the user/member.

After KIUC put out a press release branding him a "smart meter opponent" and characterizing the suit as being part of the movement against smart meters Asquith spoke to Joan Conrow to clear up why he filed the suit.

According to a post Conrow wrote at KauaiEclectic,

Adam said the press release, which brands him a “local smart meter opponent,” is “a total mis- characterization of my stance on smart meters. This is entirely an issue of the sanctity of my home and my right to deny installation of a very new and novel device at my home. I'm a strong proponent of smart technology and smart meters in certain applications. I really would like to be a voluntary participant in this federal project.”

The operative word here is voluntary. “If they would seek consent, they'd find it, but if they seek to force this, they'll find resistance,” he said.

Asquith can't be blamed for not knowing that he had signed away his right to be asked to "opt in" rather than having to "opt out." He's certainly not alone. And to make things worse, obviously KIUC is not exactly forthcoming with this fact even after months of controversy where others have essentially said what Asquith has said but without doing so in a lawsuit.

Just like the fine print KIUC is using to suppress the vote of co-op members like Varaday, the fine print that allows them to control their wires and meter- and "trespass" to do so- is apparently being treated as "proprietary information"--just like just about everything at KIUC.

It makes any notion of transparency and open governance a complete joke.

Yes, apparently KIUC is "fulfilling their legal obligations." But more and more these days, doesn't it seem like that phrase is becoming the last refuge of a scoundrel?

We're pretty sure Varaday and Asquith would agree.

Just because KIUC has the right to do things doesn't mean it's the right thing to do- especially given that it is alleged to be a "co-op," governed and run, by and for, the benefit of the members.

DELIRIOUS

DELIRIOUS: We're convinced that somewhere in the bowels of the offices of Kaua`i Island Utilities Coop (KIUC) there exists a manual detailing how to make sure that every single action they take will be done in the most arrogant, nose-thumbing way possible.

Either that or CEO David Bissell has some diabolical plan based on reversing the public's long held beliefs regarding flies, honey and vinegar.

We suspect it must be the former because it's not easy to get people to rise up in opposition to innocuous and even beneficial actions and go against their own self-interest.

Yesterday's KIUC press release on the heels of a federal lawsuit against so-called "smart meters" filed by North Shore taro farmer Adam Asquith- the one who led the effort to put the kibosh on federal control over hydroelectric projects- is nothing if not designed to piss off even those of us who can find no validity to the claims of long-term, cumulative health effects of smart meters' use of low-level "radio frequency" signals.


Apparently Asquith is avoiding the health issue though, with the suit citing only "serious security and privacy concerns."

But Bissell, ever tone deaf and oblivious to controversies of his own creation, flipping off the community at every juncture so far, continues on his merry way in the release. He starts by saying he is:

"disappointed that a local smart meter opponent felt the need to resort to the filing of a complaint with the federal court in Honolulu on Friday requesting an injunction to prevent KIUC from moving forward with its rollout of smart meters."

Disappointed? What did he expect after- as has been the case with KIUC since inception- telling opponents to shut up and go away, using incremental changes in policy and claiming that the new policy was always the policy.

While the battle over "opting out" of smart meter programs is not new- with California recently implementing a program where consumers can pay to do so- Bissell's original position was essentially that "we're going to install the meters so shut up and sit down."

Then it was approximately "well if you're home when we come to do it and you can catch us doing it, and you insist,we won't install it that day. But we will come back when you're not there and do it anyway."

Now all of a sudden the release says that:

Under the deferred installation plan, each member will receive two weeks' notice prior to installation, and will be given clear instructions for notifying KIUC if they would like to defer. KIUC will take time to assess the situation with the few who defer and determine the most appropriate long-term solution without delaying the efficiency and cost control benefits of this technology to the majority of members

In other words, more "screw you- we're going to do it anyway," but we have developed this fake "deferred installation program"and we're counting on you being too stupid to read critically.

But the sheer arrogance veritably reeks off the page with this statement:

While KIUC is committed to the smart meter technology, the cooperative has said it will indefinitely defer installation of smart meters for the small number of members who are opposed to the technology and submit a formal request," Bissell said. "We hoped this deferral program and our many conversations with the community about smart meters would relieve the concerns raised by the plaintiff and prevent this issue from ending up in the courts.

The "small number" contention is galling enough since the number is growing, mostly based on the thought that ""if KIUC is for it, it must be bad- so I'm against it." But the claim that there were "many conversations with the community about smart meters" is yet another of KIUC's signature whole-cloth-fabrications... apparently part of the aforementioned manual.

But wait- there's more.

KIUC understands the importance of protecting our members' privacy and security," said Bissell. "It is important for our members to remember that KIUC has been responsible for protecting critical information and systems for years. Smart meters are new, but the duty to protect member privacy and ensure the integrity of our electrical grid is not. The storage, protection and sharing of members' private information is strictly governed by co-op bylaws and policies.

Are you serious? Bissell is actually saying "trust us." And to mention the "co-op by-laws and policies"- which violate the very core principles of co-ops by stripping members of their right to democratically decide all major issues- has to be a joke.

The current election for the board of director has been held out as a chance for a "new majority" to take control, although, as we said earlier this month, we haven't heard anything from candidates about returning control of co-op decision making to the members- or expanding membership to every user on the island- and don't expect a total reorganization to meet the standards of a consumer cop-op, even if the miraculous occurs and that majority come to be.


In the "song" Alice's Restaurant, the sheriff has prepared "twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us."

But to the lawman's chagrin, the judge is blind and isn't going to look at the twenty-seven photos.

And like that judge the people of Kaua`i are simply not going to look at the science behind the safety of smart meters or, for that matter, take any claims of adequate security and privacy seriously.

It's too late for Bissell's bluster. We don't want a new board- we want membership control of major decision-making. And nothing less is likely to do.

ME OR YOUR LYIN' EYES

ME OR YOUR LYIN' EYES: We've made no secret regarding our take on any purported health issues with so called "smart meters." As we wrote on December 1, 2011, when it comes to the science behind claims of cumulative health problems caused by "non-ionizing 'radiation'"- "radiation" being a sort of misnomer since it is not in any way, shape or form the same as the "ionizing" radiation in radioactive substances- there really is no "there there."

Despite almost a century and a half of man-made RF beginning with the telegraph, although it can burn the crap out of you if the waves are long enough and it's placed right next to human tissue, studies have failed to find any accumulation of these waves that are generated by everything from cell and cordless phones to remote controls to radio and television broadcasts.

And, even if somehow it could be shown that there was a "cumulative effect," the amount and proximity to people of the signals in smart meters pales in comparison to placing a cell or cordless phone next to your brain.

It is certainly not "a hundred times worse" as the self-proclaimed "biggest smart meter activist in the state" told the county council on Wednesday.

So why then are so many otherwise rational people on Kaua`i going nuts over the Kaua`i Island Utilities Co-op (KIUC) purchase and imminent installation of these new wireless meters which should be welcomed as a way to increase the amount of "intermittent" energy generation (such as wind and photovoltaic) we can reliably accommodate?

Opponents have been successful by basically telling others that any information on health effects or other issues such as "privacy" are all generated by "the industry" and "the government"- even though that is patently false- asking "how can you trust the 'electric companies'" or the "'big brother' of government" to tell you the truth.

Of course that is what's called an "ad hominem" attack which, according to Wikipedia, "is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy."

But the fallaciousness of an ad hominem argument is dependent on how much the source is worthy of trust. If the track record of an individual or organization for truthfulness, honesty and open, transparent dealings with controversies is that they have never been truthful, open, honest or transparent in the past, people tend to take the old "how do you know if KIUC is lying?- because their lips are moving" joke as gospel.

Well we're pretty sure you can see this one coming up Rice St. because when it comes to a track record for deceit and opaque decision-making, KIUC is very model of modern major mismanagement.

We don't really have to go through the liturgy do we? Whether the bungling of the roll-out of proposed hydroelectric power projects by imposing the potential for federal meddling in local state environmental protections or the lack of any membership consultation- supposedly the hallmark of cooperatives- in the decision-making that preceded the underhanded manipulation of the petition-driven ballot effort to overturn the board's decision, KIUC has been exemplary in how not to gain the trust of the people of Kaua`i.

Even KIUC's inception was fraught with controversy with a group of hand-picked members of the "good old boys and girls" political elite offering an absurdly high- and later to be rejected by the PUC- original bid and eventually paying former owners Citizen's Electric of Connecticut what many say was up to twice what was shown to be the "book value," of Kaua`i Electric... as our "highest in the nation" electricity rates can attest.

Is it any wonder that, no matter how silly, no matter how unscientifically-based, no matter how self-defeating the rush to ban smart meters is, it has gained the support of so many otherwise rational people?

The reason is clear. It's because KIUC is a cooperative in name only when it comes to governance.

KIUC is what's called a "Consumers' Cooperative" in which, according again to Wikipedia, "(m)embers vote on major decisions and elect the board of directors from amongst their own number."

A normal cooperative board simply oversees the day-to-day operations but any major decision- such as strategic planning or even the decision to sign a power purchase agreement with a news solar or wind farm- is supposed to be made by the members.

How hard is that concept to understand? Apparently it's like reading hieroglyphics for the majority of the board of directors which has yet to consult the membership on any decision much less ones of great magnitude, in direct violation of the precepts of a co-op.

According to the same article:

Cooperatives are based on the cooperative values of "self-help, self-responsibility, democracy and equality, equity and solidarity" and the seven cooperative principles:
-Voluntary and Open Membership
-Democratic Member Control
-Member Economic Participation
-Autonomy and Independence
-Education, Training and Information
-Cooperation among Cooperatives
-Concern for Community

Does that sound like KIUC? Just ask yourself if there is true "Democratic Member Control" or is the nature of board decision-making that it's done behind closed doors often citing "proprietary" information- a concept directly in opposition to the basics of co-op decision-making principles.

Education, Training and Information? Information is anything but free-flowing at KIUC and, as a matter of fact, the flow of information from individual board members is tightly controlled through a gag rule preventing them from speaking publicly unless the content is approved by the board's chair or- get this- the CEO, meaning that the employees are telling the employers what they can and can't say.

Voluntary and Open Membership? People are automatically members as soon as they sign up for electric service and, although there is a way to "opt out," users are told they will pay more if they do so because they will not receive the "patronage capital"- a sort of rebate that represents the "profit" that would be there if it was an investor owned company. And there certainly isn't an "open membership." The majority of electricity consumers are not members because membership is reserved for those who pay the electric bill. Assuming the average household is between two and three people that means that most people cannot become members.

Concern for Community? The concern seems to be for the company rather than the community with the community being kept in the dark about major decisions and even routine matters through the gag rule and a general attitude of paternalism left over from the plantation days that is at the very root of the origins of KIUC.

Is it any wonder that when KIUC says "white" people assume "black?" When they say "up" can't we say with some certainty that the likelihood is that the real answer is "down?"

And when KIUC tells us "smart meters are safe," even if they are, it's no wonder more and more people are willing to believe that they are not.

METERING MR. SMARTY PANTS

METERING MR. SMARTY PANTS: We've spent a goodly part of the last decade predictably disappointed after Kaua`i was able to purchase its electric utility under the rubric of a "co-op."

Despite efforts to ensure things like democracy and open governance, right off the bat we could see the handwriting on the wall- the lack of adherence to those tenets has been all we thought it wouldn't be.

Kaua`i Island Utilities Co-op's (KIUC) opaqueness and manipulation of recent ballot issues has left most "members" disillusioned if not downright pissed off. And who can blame them.

That has also made every single thing they do subject to not just legitimate scrutiny but every wacko conspiracy theory that is even remotely related to providing the public with electricity.

So enter the latest paranoia-based plot to supposedly do us harm- "smart meters."

According to Wikipedia:

A smart meter is usually an electrical meter that records consumption of electric energy in intervals of an hour or less and communicates that information at least daily back to the utility for monitoring and billing purposes. Smart meters enable two-way communication between the meter and the central system.

Some have questioned the safety of smart meters because they "communicate" using electromagnetic signals. That is true- they use much the same low-level radio frequency (RF) signals and pulsed signal structure as wi-fi, modern cordless phones, garage door openers, baby monitors and similar devices.

But because any electromagnetic force (EMF) is defined as "radiation" there is concern among those who aren't privy to the science behind low, as opposed to high, level RF.

For an excellent detailed discussion on the subject of the health effects of smart meters we turned to an article by Bob Spofford the Energy Chair of Sustainable San Rafael, an independent, Marin County, CA, umbrella non-profit "dedicated to advocacy and community education (of) residents and business people organized around the idea that we can-and must-do more in our own community to fight global warming and encourage more sustainable living."

The article was published at the web site of "Open4Energy" an independent, consumer non-profit that evaluates energy technology devices.

An EMF creates electromagnetic waves (EMW). Spofford writes that it

pours out of every star - - not just as visible light, but in a very wide range from radio frequencies (thus radio astronomy) and all the way up beyond visible light to X-rays and gamma rays. This is important, because it means that humans evolved in an environment that included a lot of electromagnetic radiation (from the sun) and that we are adapted to certain kinds of radiation hitting us and passing through us with no harm.

There are two potentially harmful types of EMF, ionizing radiation and dielectric heating which have been extensively studied since the 1930's.

Spofford describes the ionizing radiation (IR) saying that that

is where very short wavelength waves are able to knock electrons off of molecules creating ions (charged molecules.) These in turn can cause all sorts of nasty biological effects. The lowest frequency that can cause ionization is ultraviolet, which can result in sunburn and skin cancer. They go up from there through X-rays, gamma rays and the particles from radioactive decay, all of which can cause burns, radiation sickness, cancer and more.

As we all know, this is the kind of radiation that can have a cumulative effect.

The second health issue is dielectric heating (DH) which includes things like microwave ovens, cell phones and yes, smart meters.

The potential harm in DH is related to the amount of power and the proximity to the source. While there is anecdotal evidence that long term exposure to a cell phone placed right beside the brain could cause cancer, it's important to note that despite 20 years of study no one has been able to show any spike in health issues for cell phone users in legitimate, published, peer-reviewed studies.

But it's also important to note that the dielectric heating in cell phones- and smart meters- is not the kind of radiation that is cumulative and is generally, as noted, all over the place in the atmosphere. And, of course, no one is sticking their head next to their smart meter for hours on end. As a matter of fact, the signal from a smart meter is emitted in short bursts, at most a few times a day.

As Spofford notes:

The reason for the focus on cell phones is that the radio transmitter in a smart meter is quite similar to a cell phone. It operates on 900 MHz at a power of 1 watt or less. On the other hand, it is usually much, much farther away from your brain. A 1-watt cell phone 1 inch from your brain would is 1,296 times stronger than a 1 watt smart meter 3 feet away (and it’s 14,400 times stronger than one 10 feet away and 57,600 time stronger than one 20 feet away.) This is the inverse square law in action.

The thing is that if you get burned or even "fried" by DH- as happened when a worker stood right in front of an extremely powerful microwave transmitter, Spofford notes- you'll know it. But it's a one time event, unlike the ionizing radiation that radioactive materials emit.

This is a vast oversimplification of the science. If you want a whole lot more than you probably ever wanted to know- or if you've actually studied this stuff and want the full low-down- we suggest you read Spofford's essay in full.

As to the actual arguments from those who claim there might be a scientific basis for the health danger of smart meters he says:

That’s pretty much where established science leaves off and speculative theories begin. The people opposed to smart meters haven’t been arguing that the danger is recognized things like ionizing radiation or tissue heating. Rather, a lot of them express a sort of generalized fear that there’s just “too much radiation” in our environment, and the smart meter is one more log - - perhaps one log too many - - on the fire. They fear that some day we’ll discover a health problem from the cumulative affect of all this low level radiation around us.

I have several problems with this line of thinking:

1. If there is something going on, the big culprit will have to be the cell phone, since the radiation exposure there is so much higher than all the other sources. Compared to cell phones, the smart meter isn’t a “log” on the fire, it’s more like a broom straw. So we should keep looking at the cell phone research, but in 20+ years, not much to be worried about has emerged.

2. They don’t really propose a mechanism by which this unspecified damage might occur, so they can’t tell us what facts would change their mind. This makes it well-neigh impossible for the PUC or any other fact-based body to say “here’s the proof you want that these things are safe.”

3. They keep coming back to the possibility of cumulative exposure to a number of low level radiation sources, and drawing parallels to things like cigarettes, which people once were told were safe. However, cigarettes and other cumulative risks are like ionizing radiation. There are chemicals in cigarette smoke that damage cells from the first exposure, and that damage then accumulates with repeated exposure until symptoms appear. Plus, the epidemiological connection between smoking and cancer was crystal-clear as soon as people started looking at the statistics.

We’ve been working with radio waves for over 100 years, and we’ve been walking around in them since the dawn of time, and we haven’t discovered any such pernicious effect from the kind of waves coming off the smart meters.

As to the rest of the health-based arguments against smart meters:

Beyond the cumulative exposure worries, there are people advancing a bunch of ideas that are just pure speculation (to use the polite word.) Their common thread is that there is something unique about the radiation from a smart meter – because it is attached to house wiring or transmits in pulses – that makes it a much greater health threat than other devices radiating at the same frequency and power. (Fact check: computer WiFi, garage door openers and modern cordless phones all use the same frequencies and pulsed signal structure.)

These claims of unique dangers are posited in very sketchy terms by writers who seem to have little understanding of the underlying science, so I have to guess at the supposed basis for them. As best I can determine, they seem to be borrowing – and misunderstanding – little snippets from ionizing radiation, the propagation of electrical noise and the mathematics of square waves. Until I see a more complete explanation for one of these theories that makes sense in terms of known science, I have to treat them as wishful thinking. However, the proponents are quite certain that their wishful “theory” alone is grounds to reject smart meters entirely.

One more item. Many argue that the Precautionary Principle- which, according to Wikipedia, says that "if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action,"- should be operative here as it is with, for instance, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

With GMOs the possible disastrous scenarios in changing the genetic material in organisms and releasing them into nature and in fact ingesting them, is well established and even proponents don't argue there are dangerous scenarios, only that they haven't found anything... yet.

But with smart meters, Spofford concludes by saying that:

My understanding of the Precautionary Principle is different. We can’t “prove” that anything is absolutely safe. That would require certainty of an absence of something, which no one can deliver. (There’s probably a long word for that in Philosophy courses.) The precautionary principle requires that if someone can advance plausible, specific reasons why a product might be harmful, we should hold back until we meet some reasonable level of proof that this isn’t the case. My interpretation of “plausible” in this context means that the feared threat, even if highly improbable, is at least consistent with known science. Otherwise, I could propose banning cotton clothing based on my personal theory that wearing cotton for 40 to 50 years makes your gut grow, your hair turn gray and your eyes go bad. (After all, there’s certainly a correlation.)

So far, the claims I’ve seen that the radiation from a smart meter is somehow “special” do not pass this test.

So, my net takeaway on the health issue is, yes, there’s always the distant possibility that some solid evidence connecting cell phones and health risks will emerge even after all these years. However, even if that happened, we’d have to question whether devices like smart meters, with thousands of times less radiation exposure than phones, are a danger.

We're sure that those that are convinced that smart meters are a monstrous plot to kill us all are sincere. Some cite reasons other than health-related reasons for banning them or at least allowing people to opt out of installing them and we won't deal with them here. But none have addressed the science and instead have used innuendo and "you don't trust the government/big corporations/etc. do you?" arguments which, on Kaua`i, given the history of KIUC is an effective, if fallacious, argument.

So what's the harm in letting people do the Chicken Little routine? The problem is that while they and those they convince are busy tilting at windmills, there are real energy-related issues that demand attention like fracking, Canadian sand-oil and the proposed pipeline, and off-shore drilling... as well as peak oil.

It wastes the precious energy of the small pool of apparently dedicated activist on something for which there just isn't any "there there."

Don't be fooled by pseudo-science or ad hominem and straw man arguments. There are bigger fish to fry than smart meters and indeed, if we are ever to end our dependency on fossil fuels and integrate carbon-free alternative energy into our grids, smart meters are going to be an essential element of that effort.