Rebuttal to Texas Smart Meter Health Report

The smart meter health report released by the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) is nothing more than a propaganda document that parrots the sentiment of the smart grid industry.  It is not a peer-reviewed paper and merely reflects a compilation of biased commentary and quotations extracted from other industry prepared documents.  The author has no subject matter technical expertise, plus the document preparation was financially supported by a Department of Energy smart grid grant award.

What follows is a “re-blog” of a posting by “Texans Against Smart Meters,” dated January 15, 2014:

To Texas’ shame, a smart meter report entitled, Health and RF EMF from Advanced Meters, has been put out by Alan Rivaldo, an unqualified former Xerox employee turned Cybersecurity Analyst, who has absolutely no medical expertise on the damaging bioeffects of EMFs to human tissue.  Incredibly, the Texas PUC sponsored report has been used across the nation as an authentic verification of smart meter safety, and, sadly it has been allowed to stand as the hallmark of public utilities and other collaborators of smart meter deployment.

How can a report put out by Alan Rivaldo be taken seriously given that he has no medical expertise and has obviously done no research in this direction; yet, electric utilities across the country are collaborating with one another.  The public utility commissions, the DOE, the wireless industry and others who stand to gain financially from the deployment of smart meters are pushing this report as the final word with cherry-picked studies and analyses that deny the real bio-effects of wireless RF and EMF.  These entities share with one another and distribute this propaganda to the public as part of a coordinated strategy to convince the public that smart meters are safe.  It is vital that the fallacies in these shared and widely distributed documents be debunked.

Texas is contributing to reckless endangerment of American citizens and negligence by the industry because the Texas PUC report is inaccurate, outdated and exhibits bias regarding the adverse effects of radio frequency exposure.  If unresolved health and safety issues are addressed with inaccurate information, our nation will be investing in dangerous technologies in the short run, and creating exorbitant and unnecessary costs in the long run when the whole system has to be replaced.

American Academy of Environmental Medicine experts confirm that the onset of EHS (electro hypersensitivity) has coincided with exposure to pulsed RF (radiofrequency) which is emitted by the smart meters, and they have recommended a moratorium on automatic metering installation.  India has lowered its RF exposure limits, measures and monitors its telecommunications infrastructure, and has recognized biological impacts far lower than the thermal threshold.

How can our Texas leaders fail to reconcile the disparity between the Texas PUC document and the growing number of residents who recognize the onset of ill health due to RF exposure?  How can they ignore the expert diagnoses and demands for standard reviews by health experts, and the emerging international view of the science?

Many nations are advancing their science and technology using radio frequency exposure limits that are far more conservative than those supported by the Texas PUC report.  Texans Against Smart Meters feel that the federal, state, and local governments are ignoring this international science and technology study and instead are basing their decision-making on information that is not science or evidence-based, and which has been heavily supported by a HUGE telecommunications and utility lobby that has been around for several decades.

The Texas Legislature owes the people of Texas an explanation as to why an individual working in the area of cybersecurity rather than the field of health created a comprehensive health document regarding smart meters.  We are concerned that the state’s resources and employees may have been directed to work on behalf of the industry that it is supposed to be regulating.  This sounds like the fox guarding the hen house!

It is disconcerting that a report which is being distributed throughout the nation was written in such a personal manner that it belittles persons who stand in opposition to Mr. Rivaldo’s findings.  He cites that the opposition lacks scientific support, and yet, he is unqualified to voice an opinion on anything medical when his expertise lies in technology and security.  Maybe the question should be asked, “Who really wrote the Texas PUC report?”  It is obvious Mr. Rivaldo is not qualified in any manner to address medical issues connected with RF which have come to the forefront all over the world.  Perhaps Mr. Rivaldo would like to disclose the qualifications of his “staff” who is referenced numerous times within the report.

Does the state of Texas really want to stand responsible for putting its stamp of approval on a device which may ultimately become the Big Tobacco issue of this generation?  We are already seeing devastating results from exposure to pulsed RF from smart meters.

The Texas report puts great emphasis on sources promoting the smart grid and smart meters, but not on sources concerning public health.  Very little space is given to the scientific background for concerns about wireless devices such as smart meters or cell towers.  Much of the information in the Texas report is based on smart meters radiating less than FCC limits; however, FCC limits were set in 1996 and are based on an outdated thermal model.  In fact, there was strong evidence then that RF was carcinogenic and harmful to humans and other biological beings when the standard was set.

Why would a leading nation such as the United States be less concerned about the public health of its citizens, especially children, than authorities in Europe, Russia, India, and other parts of the world?

The preceding information does not even address the fact that smart meters are two-way communicating devices that can monitor the activity inside your home by communicating with any appliance or device that contains Zigbee technology, putting at risk our security, privacy, and personal safety.  There are definitely Fourth Amendment violations at play with these devices.

A formal rebuttal [is] being prepared by Texans Against Smart Meters networking with key Anti-Smart Meter leaders around the United States.

Texans Against Smart Meters Leadership

About SkyVision Solutions

Raising public awareness and finding solutions for smart grid issues related to invasions of privacy, data security, cyber threats, health and societal impacts, as well as hazards related to radiofrequency (RF) radiation emissions from all wireless devices, including smart meters.
This entry was posted in Smart Grid, Smart Meters, and RF Emissions and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Rebuttal to Texas Smart Meter Health Report

  1. Our utility company in MA has posted the Texas PUC document on its website as evidence of the safety of smart meters.

    Furthermore, they recruited a local college engineering professor to speak in public to invalidate health critics. He has $500,000 in smart grid funding.

    We have a very comprehensive rebuttal posted on our website at, and also posted a much shorter one from Arizona activists. We have been informing the Texas group whenever we see the document referenced. We need to knock it out of circulation. See link at

    • To Patricia Burke,
      Thanks for your excellent expose on this local college engineering professor who was so corrupt as to take the $500,000 BRIBE and sell his Immortal Soul… Such traitorous people as he this college engineering professor and his ilk will have to pay for their SINS if not in this world, well certainly in the next world to come.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.