THE FOLLOWING CONVERSATION AND ENSUING EDITORIAL IS BOTH A TESTIMONIAL OF SMART METER HARM AS WELL AS AN OPINION PIECE, HAVING TO DO DIRECTLY WITH LONGMONT……WE FEEL THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION IS WORTH HIGHLIGHTING ON THIS PAGE.
The following is a back and forth email conversation as brought to our attention, it having to do with a woman from White Plains, NY, Ruth Moss (currently an EMF activist, having had a rude awakening brought on by a “smart meter”) in an email conversation with Longmont Councilwoman Marcia Martin. Knowing that Longmont was facing a smart meter rollout, Ms. Moss presented our city officials with her testimonial on how she had been damaged by a “smart” electric meter, to which Ms. Martin felt impelled to respond.
Here is Ruth’s email…
“I was permanently injured by a digital AMR meter”
“I didn’t know where my symptoms were coming from. In July, 2015, I was experiencing constant headaches, dizziness, and flu-like symptoms with no apparent cause. A friend suggested that the electric utility meter on my house might be the culprit. That was the craziest thing I ever heard! Nonetheless, I studied my meter up close and while standing there, I felt a thud in my chest. What followed were weeks of extreme muscle weakness, nausea, diarrhea, and the immediate intolerance of cellphones, wi-fi, smart devices, laptops, and artificial lighting. The life I cherished had shrunk to a minimal house-bound existence. Every day I had to deal with the emotional fallout of this injury.
There was no question of the cause… It was the AMR digital meter.
Thankfully that meter is now off my house and replaced by an analog meter. This has enabled me to restore my overall energy — but as of today, March 31, 2023, I remain intolerant to all sources of wireless radiation. This injury has upended my life.
I understand that corporations do not care about people like me. Their job is to increase profits, and that’s as far as it goes. But what about those who are sworn to protect public health and safety? When they don’t care, it’s heartbreaking.
Ruth F. Moss
White Plains, New York”
Here is Ms. Martin’s reply to Ruth…
“Ms Moss, thank you for writing. I am very sorry for your affliction. You omitted to explain the causal relationship between your symptoms and your encounter with the smart meter.
I too have a friend who is afflicted with severe circulatory disease. One day as he was walking across a manhole cover he had an acute cardiac event, and would have died there on the street had it not been for a noble stranger who performed CPR until an ambulance arrived. He was never able to verify the causal link between his heart attack and that manhole cover.
Nevertheless there is no doubt that it was the cause.
I wish you all the best.
Marcia Martin”
This is Ruth Moss’ reply to Ms. Martin…
“Dear Councilmember Martin,
Thank you for your note in reply to my testimony about being injured by a digital AMR meter. I apologize for taking so long to respond.
In a court of law, the concept of cause is a high bar to reach. In fact, most of the environmental pollutants that are regulated by law arrive at that status by association or linkage, e.g.,… xyz pollutant has been linked (statistically) with gliomas of the brain, childhood leukemia, infertility, and so on. As for my personal testimony regarding radiofrequency radiation (RFR), I don’t have the burden of providing cause for an entire category of pollutant. I only have myself and I know precisely what happened. The moment in which I suddenly became sensitized to RFR occurred while I was standing directly in front of the digital AMR meter on my house. After about 15 seconds, I felt a thud in my chest.
It isn’t the “thud in the chest” that is particularly meaningful here. It’s rather the sudden onset of a severe sensitivity to sources of RFR, directly after being exposed to them. I learned later that the AMR meter emits puffs of concentrated radiation into the atmosphere every 25 seconds. This so-called “puff” came right at me while I was searching for the letters FCC… the same FCC that has not changed its radiation emission guidelines since 1996, a year that in technology terms is ancient history…. the same FCC that in August 2021, was ordered by the the second highest court in the land to explain why its quarter-of-a-century old regulations haven’t been updated to protect the public against the ever-mounting harms associated with wireless radiation… the same FCC that to this very day, has refused to comply with that court order. In my book, this deliberate silence is linked with malfeasance. I’m not the only one who thinks so. See attached brief from the Harvard School of Ethics. Additionally, I think you’d be interested in reading a summary of the T-Mobile study, attached. And as a favor, please take time to view Sharon Goldberg, M.D.’s testimony to the Michigan legislature. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK0AliMe-KA
Councilmember Martin, it’s clear to those who suffer invisibly that Big Wireless and Big Government are not on our side. So where is the hope? In my view, it lives in the kernel from which all governments sprout. In the seat of our local town and city councils, we find individuals who lead with honor and integrity. It happened before my eyes in White Plains, NY https://www.theexaminernews.com/white-plains-council-amends-telecommunications-ordinance/ …and it can happen in Longmont, Colorado, too… under your stewardship.
Please do whatever you can legislatively to protect the EMS-disabled. All living things are affected by RFR, some immediately like me and others, slowly over time. The link between RFR and numerous health effects is what won the case against the FCC. The evidence consisted of twenty-seven 400-page volumes of independent, peer-reviewed science that the industry has chosen to ignore in deference to its bottomline.
Thank you for engaging on this topic, Councilmember Martin. I appreciate your good wishes and send the same back to you.
Sincerely,
Ruth”
When this ‘on the public record’ conversation was brought to the attention of Longmont’s mayor, Ms. Martin did indeed apologize to Ms. Moss in a follow-up email. As well she ought.
* * * * * * *
We include here a description of Ms. Martin’s professional background as extracted from the public record, followed by our opinion of all this:
Systems engineer, product architect, inventor, development manager (internationally distributed teams), and full lifecycle product manager. Patents in multiple fields: storage, communications-enabled business processes, and smart grid communications. Software engineering, with a recent emphasis on digital signal processing, and the smart grid. Multiple patents in the smart grid, smart meter, and electric vehicle industry. At the top of the list, she acknowledged her specialties: Smart Grid Communications and Applications. Ms. Martin has publicly acknowledged the above-mentioned patents but also claims that she does not benefit from them financially and states that she does not have a conflict of interest.
We couldn’t help highlighting “smart grid and meter, electric vehicle” above. Does this councilwoman have a vested interest in rolling out smart meters in Longmont (or for that matter, getting rid of gas guzzling vehicles in favor of all electric?)? What do you think?
While it seems the collective these days universally agree that some “things” have got to give, for the “benefit of all sentient beings” as the Buddhists would put it, sentient beings including humans, flora and fauna, and the planet itself; if you go deeper into the related issues to do with this “green revolution” foisted upon us by city governments and many other entities (as Katie Singer does, including electrification as is being pushed in Longmont and elsewhere with the problems in sourcing/mining and responsible disposing of materials to do with electric vehicles and wind turbines) you will find a plethora of niggling problems, with many, many unresolved, as yet, hurdles to overcome. And it’s not with just the above-named technologies, but those are specifically relevant to what is currently happening in Longmont, where Ms. Martin is a city council member.
You can read for yourself two short articles published this year in the Longmont Leader on the topic of ethics and conflicts of interest. The point is made, if there is even an apparent conflict of interest present, that council person “should” recuse themself from whatever issue and/or vote that is involved. After you read the first, above, here is the second follow-on article.
We note, having had a career in the smart meter, smart grid industry – on the surface, it sure looks like she could have a conflict of interest, and even if no financial conflict of interest is present, as she states, the mere “appearance thereof which would affect public confidence in any matter to be voted upon or otherwise officially considered” (quoted directly from the article linked to above) should cause her to recuse herself!
Here is the full quote from Ruby Bowman’s article: “As it stands now, boards and commissions are instructed to follow Rule 7 of city council’s rules of procedure (Abstaining from Vote), according to the city’s planning director. Rule 7 is a two-sentence statement which requires abstention from a vote regarding a matter before council if a council member (and by extension, a board member or planning and zoning commissioner) has a “personal, financial or other conflict of interest, or appearance thereof which would affect public confidence in any matter to be voted upon or otherwise officially considered.”
The caveat here is, unfortunately, the person responsible for making sure (in such a case) that the individual council person in question recuses them-self is……wait for it…..the city council person him or herself, with the appearance of a conflict of interest!!! Well, well, well……how do we like THEM apples?
In our opinion…
We don’t really think we need to say any more about this particular member of the Longmont City Council and the role she is playing to push and influence both City Council members and the Sustainability Advisory Board, for which she also serves as Council Liaison, in the misguided and ill-thought-out City Council agenda, whose inception is “somewhere else” (think large NGO, non-governmental agencies and un-elected officials, some with an awful lot of money), whose “bent” is on achieving 100% renewable energy by 2030 or (what is being “languaged” as) “net zero”, where human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are balanced by the amount absorbed by plants (think carbon), or removed from the atmosphere by other means, all by the year 2030! How this is to be achieved, or even measured, is yet to be revealed, but smart meters, apparently, with all the good, bad, and the ugly (the good being alleged by Ms. Martin and the City, the bad and the ugly being touted by other members of the public speaking out) have a critical, #1 role to play (see page 3, top) although we have never been shown the “how” of this, even when a CORA (Colorado Open Records Act) request was given for the report on the “how” (and none was produced!). We still want to know, inquiring minds want to know (We want to know!)
If you read our page on “toxic EMF” and delve further into the authentic science of EMF harms, you will see that Councilwoman Martin’s response to Ms. Moss (as seen above) clearly represents this council member’s ignorance, apparent unwillingness to examine the existing mountains of science of emf harm, and shows a disregard for the health problems smart meters cause to an increasing number of people. Ms. Martin’s cynicism towards members of the public who dare to criticize her pet project, and putting her own personal interests and ego (and perhaps profit, although we may never know) before the legitimate interests of Longmont residents is, unfortunately, a blight on, and a disgrace to our city.
