Proposition 5 on the Ballot

 

 

 photo-Michael Melford

Here Are a bunch of reasons to vote NO-plus links to many editorials on the subject.

http://www.protectadks.org/2013/10/vote-no-on-proposition-5-on-november-5-2013/

New International Radio Interview with Michael Veitch

Michael Veitch recently appeared on "Up Close and Acoustic: with Charlie Silvestri" that has been distributed throughout the US and Europe. It's a combination interview and performance of Michael's original songs. Here's a link to the show: 
  
http://www.prx.org/pieces/105177-up-close-and-acoustic-with-michael-veitch#.UmW7s7kp0ig.facebook

Kan, Jaczko, Gundersen, Bradford and Nader

Kan, Jaczko, Gundersen, Bradford and Nader — Nuclear Power Through the Fukukshima Perspective

This esteemed group had been holding symposiums around the country on the nuclear power industry's problems, as seen through the Fukushima catastrophe.  Click on this YouTube link here for the whole New York event- http://new.livestream.com/FukushimaLessons/newyork/videos/3

and here's a long printed article about the series of events:

http://enformable.com/2013/10/ralph-nader-questions-necessity-feasibility-nuclear-power/

Tar Sands Update

Published on Tuesday, September 24, 2013 by Common Dreams

75,000 Commit to Civil Disobedience if Obama Cuts Deal on KXL

Leading green groups warn president against deal-making with Canadians on tar sands pipeline

- Jon Queally, staff writer

Amid rumors that the Obama administration might try to cut an emissions deal with Canada in order to justify approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, leaders from 25 US environmental groups—backed by millions of members and at least 75,000 individuals willing to engage incivil disobedience—warned the president on Tuesday that such a deal would be considered nothing less than a bitter betrayal.
In a tersely-worded letter signed by 350.org, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, NRDC, Sierra Club, and twenty other well-known green groups, the signers welcomed the idea of Canada finding new ways to reduce its growing rate of carbon pollution, but were direct in saying that making promises of future reductions the basis of a deal on Keystone would ignite a serious backlash.
"On behalf of our millions of members and supporters nationwide," reads the letter, "we oppose any deal-making in return for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Our rationale is simple. Building Keystone XL will expand production in the tar sands, and that reality is not compatible with serious efforts to battle climate change."
In an interview with the Washington Post, president of the League of Conservation Voters Gene Karpinski—whose group is not often associated with the more activist-oriented groups like Greenpeace or Rainforest Action Network—said that his organization's members are among the tens of thousands who have expressed their willingness to engage in civil disobedience if Obama approves the pipeline.
"The intensity out there has not diminished one bit," he said. "If anything, the willingness of people to go to jail over this is expanding."
Karpinski's reference is to an online pledge of resistance hosted by Credo Action, and supported by many of the groups who signed Tuesday's letter, that asks people who are willing to pledge to "engage in acts of dignified, peaceful civil disobedience that could result in arrest in order to send the message to President Obama and his administration that they must reject the Keystone XL pipeline." As of Tuesday, 75,709 people had signed the pledge.
In a separate letter sent to the White House by the Sierra Club on Tuesday, the group's president Michael Brune directly challenged the idea that the emissions reduction plan reportedly offered by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper could offset the explosion of carbon pollution that would follow if tar sands operations were allowed to expand.
In the letter, Brune begins by applauding Obama for recently announced EPA rules designed to limit future pollution from yet-to-be built coal- and gas-fired plants, but expressed his deep concern that any progress made on this front would be "undermined by a backdoor bilateral agreement on the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that would commit us to transporting the dirtiest of fossil fuels for decades to come."
Brune continued:

Several weeks ago, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper reportedly sent you a letter declaring his willingness to take any climate actions necessary to get a presidential approval of Keystone XL, the $7-billion pipeline that would pump Alberta tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries. While this may seem like a generous offer, Canada simply cannot mitigate the carbon pollution from the pipeline; those emissions would simply be too big. Keystone XL would be directly responsible for the equivalent annual emissions of 51 coal-fired power plants or 37.7 million cars. As a point of comparison, Canada has about 26 million cars on the road.
Along with the pipeline’s direct emissions, the pipeline would be responsible for decades of future emissions from tar sands. The Pembina Institute estimates that Keystone XL would increase tar sands development by 36 percent. The State Department estimates that tar sands oil could be 22 percent more carbon intensive than conventional crude used in the United States. And when the lost carbon sequestration potential of Canada’s 1.2 billion acre boreal forest is also taken into consideration, the climate implications of the pipeline become staggering. The best way to “mitigate” tar sands development is to keep tar sands in the ground.
Promises by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government to reduce the emissions from Canada’s tar sands should be judged against its failure to live up to its climate commitments to date. The government of Canada has consistently missed its own targets to regulate its oil and gas sector and reduce national emissions, and has a history of weakening environmental regulations at the request of the pipeline industry.

Both of Tuesday's letters to President Obama come on the heals of a nationwide day of action organized by 350.org on Saturday in which hundreds of local groups told the White House and State Department that they were "drawing the line" against Keystone XL, dirty tar sands, and other extreme forms of fossil fuel energy.
The full letter (pdf), including the twenty-five listed signatories, follows:

September 24, 2013
President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
President Obama:
We are pleased to hear reports that Canadian officials may be considering new policies to mitigate global warming pollution from the oil and gas sectors. Increased regulation of these sectors is long overdue in both Canada and the U.S. in order to protect our communities and climate.
However, on behalf of our millions of members and supporters nationwide, we oppose any deal-making in return for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Our rationale is simple. Building Keystone XL will expand production in the tar sands, and that reality is not compatible with serious efforts to battle climate change.
While the tar sands industry makes claims of reducing the intensity of their emissions profile, in fact the absolute carbon pollution from the tar sands is rapidly increasing.
The Harper government previously promised to take action to cut pollution across industry, but never followed through with its 2008 plan. Carbon pollution from the tar sands is now projected to be twice as high in 2020 as envisioned under that plan.
Simple arithmetic shows that the only way to reduce emissions from the tar sands is to cap expansion where it is now and reduce production over the coming years.
That means rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, a project that would enable the expansion of tar sands production. The tar sands pipeline and the carbon emissions it would generate are not in the national interest.
After yet another year of record temperatures, terrible drought, dangerous wildfires and worsening storms, the solution must be to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, not to double down on our dependence on the highest carbon fuels.
Signed,
Anna Galland, Executive Director, MoveOn.org Civic Action
Carroll Muffett, President & CEO, Center for International Environmental Law
Catherine Thomasson, MD, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Cindy Shogan, Executive Director, Alaska Wilderness League
Dan Apfel, Executive Director, Responsible Endowments Coalition
Daniel Souweine, Director, CEL Climate Lab
Drew Hudson, Executive Director, Environmental Action
Erich Pica, Executive Director, Friends of the Earth US
Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council
Gene Karpinski, President, League of Conservation Voters
Jane Kleeb, Executive Director, Bold Nebraska
Joe Uehlein, Executive Director, Labor Network for Sustainability
John Sellers, Executive Director, The Other 98%
Kieran Suckling, Executive Director, Center for Biological Diversity
Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Executive Director, Hip Hop Caucus
Lindsey Allen, Executive Director, Rainforest Action Network
Maura Cowley, Executive Director, Energy Action Coalition
May Boeve, Executive Director, 350.org
Michael Hall Kieschnick, CEO CREDO
Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, Executive Director, Green For All
Phil Radford, Executive Director, Greenpeace
Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen
Sarah Shanley Hope, Executive Director, Alliance for Climate Education
Stephen Kretzmann, Executive Director, Oil Change International
Tom B.K. Goldtooth, Executive Director, Indigenous Environmental Network

And the separate letter from Sierra Club president Michael Brune:

September 24, 2013
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,
I applaud your commitment to fighting climate change. Your administration’s new carbon pollution limits for power plants are a giant step in the right direction and demonstrate that America is ready to move forward on climate. In a year of record-breaking wildfires, floods, and other symptoms of a disrupted climate, your leadership on climate change is exactly what our country needs.
I am concerned that this progress may be undermined by a backdoor bilateral agreement on the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that would commit us to transporting the dirtiest of fossil fuels for decades to come. Several weeks ago, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper reportedly sent you a letter declaring his willingness to take any climate actions necessary to get a presidential approval of Keystone XL, the $7-billion pipeline that would pump Alberta tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries. While this may seem like a generous offer, Canada simply cannot mitigate the carbon pollution from the pipeline; those emissions would simply be too big. Keystone XL would be directly responsible for the equivalent annual emissions of 51 coal-fired power plants or 37.7 million cars. As a point of comparison, Canada has about 26 million cars on the road.
Along with the pipeline’s direct emissions, the pipeline would be responsible for decades of future emissions from tar sands. The Pembina Institute estimates that Keystone XL would increase tar sands development by 36 percent. The State Department estimates that tar sands oil could be 22 percent more carbon intensive than conventional crude used in the United States. And when the lost carbon sequestration potential of Canada’s 1.2 billion acre boreal forest is also taken into consideration, the climate implications of the pipeline become staggering. The best way to “mitigate” tar sands development is to keep tar sands in the ground.
Promises by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government to reduce the emissions from Canada’s tar sands should be judged against its failure to live up to its climate commitments to date. The government of Canada has consistently missed its own targets to regulate its oil and gas sector and reduce national emissions, and has a history of weakening environmental regulations at the request of the pipeline industry. The Canadian government eliminated the budget for its National Roundtable on Energy and the Environment after it advocated a carbon tax. In addition, the government of Canada is silencing its scientists, as highlighted in last weekend’s New York Times when the paper noted, “There was trouble of this kind here in the George W. Bush years… But nothing came close to what is being done in Canada.” Even if mitigating carbon pollution from the tar sands pipeline were possible, the Harper administration has shown no signs that it would be willing to do it.
The fact is, tar sands are Canada’s fastest-growing source of carbon pollution. In 2011, the Canadian government’s own peer-reviewed reports forecasted that emissions from tar sands would be triple 2005 levels by 2030. The Canadian government’s promises to offset tar sands carbon pollution are nothing more than a rubber check written against an empty account. That check would bounce, just like all of the Harper government’s other climate promises. The one thing climate scientists and energy experts say we can be sure of, is that the Keystone XL pipeline would deliver a massive new source of carbon pollution.
Mr. President, a national interest determination decision on the Keystone XL pipeline must not be premised on the government of Canada’s mitigation promises. We urge you to reject the pipeline and continue to help build a clean energy future.
Sincerely,
Michael Brune
Executive Director
Sierra Club

____________________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

New Video from Munich Germany Songwriter Jens Wernick

Here's a timely new video from my friend Jens Wernick in Munich called:

Villain State & The Weapons of Massdestruction - Hello Mr. Agentman

Jens is a fellow songwriter and healthcare lawyer- advocate. Please feel free to share this with your friends . Needless to say, this is a very big issue in Germany, maybe more so than here (unfortunately)

Fukushima Update

 11 Facts About Fukushima-and it's not good news, folks.


http://intellihub.com/2013/08/20/11-facts-about-the-ongoing-fukushima-nuclear-holocaust-that-are-almost-too-horrifying-to-believe/

Solar Canopy in Bridgewater

Here's a short clip of a fairly new solar installation in Bridgewater at the minor league baseball stadium. Looks great, provides lots of free renewable energy, shade for cars on sunny days, and the potential for charging stations ( for at least municipal electric vehicles which are surely coming). Now, is there a company willing to partner with Woodstock on such a venture? That should be what the RFP asks for, one would think- a company who will build the project in exchange for the land and a percentage (half?) of the net metering electric revenue for X number of years. And of course, a buyout for the town after X number of years. Solar panels are especially effective these days, and no trees would be cut down for this project. Win, Win, Win.

XKeyscore

"A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The NSA boasts in training materials that the program, called XKeyscore, is its "widest-reaching" system for developing intelligence from the internet."

Here's the whole article:


The Guardian/XKeyscore Article

This is on top of the phone record sweeps and the photo taken of every piece of mail, domestic and foreign. Plus the plate scanners on the police cars...I think they have us totally covered.

Zoe on Her Wheels

Zoe had just gotten her wheels from England while we were first in Germany-she took to them like an old pro. She died July 23, 2013 from a progressive nerve disorder in dogs called myelopathy or DM. There is no cure, and we were told by the vets Zoe had outlasted most dogs who have the disease-nearly three years. RIP Zoe. 

Woodstock Shade Trees in Trouble

A quick look around just the area of the Green and up Rock City Road finds some serious decline for Woodstock's shade tree population. Maples are dying back-the large Birch behind the Chamber Building looks like it won't be around much longer, ash are all goners, and the center of town area is littered with the stumps of large town owned trees that were taken down and never replaced. Future generations may find themselves hunting for shade in a very hot downtown Woodstock as air conditioners use vast amount of carbon based electricity to keep cool. . The town needs not only a replanting program, but a maintenance program to keep trees healthy and long lived. They also need sufficient open soil at their base which is severely lacking on many of the trees pictured in the video. May be why they are hurting.

Jerry Flynn, Canadian Electronic Military on Smart meters

This is an amazing and virtually complete description of what Smart Meters  bring to communities and neighborhoods. It's two years of research into smart meters by someone who ran Canada's "Electronic Warfare" Dept for a couple dozen years. See for yourselves. Compelling. 87 minutes long but worth watching. Lot's about cell phones, cordless phones, wifi and other devices in our homes that may be causing us damage. Smart Meters are going to increase RF exposure significantly over what we are already getting daily.

SAGE Report

SAGE Report makes Smart Meter Health and Safety Issues Easy to Understand


We all don't need to drop everything and become experts on RF exposure-real scientists from the USA have done it for us while reviewing a California roll-out of Smart Meters. They applied the FCC's own safety levels and found numerous violations. They conducted real tests under real conditions and came up with much different conclusions than smart meter industry studies ( done in laboratory conditions). Here's the full report summary: You can download the whole report from the link:

Download this entire report as a DOC file

This Report has been prepared to document radiofrequency radiation (RF) levels associated with wireless smart meters in various scenarios depicting common ways in which they are installed and operated.
The Report includes computer modeling of the range of possible smart meter RF levels that are occurring in the typical installation and operation of a single smart meter, and also multiple meters in California. It includes analysis of both two-antenna smart meters (the typical installation) and of three-antenna meters (the collector meters that relay RF signals from another 500 to 5000 homes in the area).
RF levels from the various scenarios depicting normal installation and operation, and possible FCC violations have been determined based on both time-averaged and peak power limits (Tables 1 – 14).
Potential violations of current FCC public safety standards for smart meters and/or collector meters in the manner installed and operated in California are predicted in this Report, based on computer modeling (Tables 10 – 17).
Tables 1 – 17 show power density data and possible conditions of violation of the FCC public safety limits, and Tables 18 – 33 show comparisons to health studies reporting adverse health impacts.
FCC compliance violations are likely to occur under normal conditions of installation and operation of smart meters and collector meters in California. Violations of FCC safety limits for uncontrolled public access are identified at distances within 6” of the meter. Exposure to the face is possible at this distance, in violation of the time-weighted average safety limits (Tables 10-11). FCC violations are predicted to occur at 60% reflection (OET Equation 10 and 100% reflection (OET Equation 6) factors*, both used in FCC OET 65 formulas for such calculations for time-weighted average limits. Peak power limits are not violated at the 6” distance (looking at the meter) but can be at 3” from the meter, if it is touched.
This report has also assessed the potential for FCC violations based on two examples of RF exposures in a typical residence. RF levels have been calculated at distances of 11” (to represent a nursery or bedroom with a crib or bed against a wall opposite one or more meters); and at 28” (to represent a kitchen work space with one or more meters installed on the kitchen wall).
FCC compliance violations are identified at 11” in a nursery or bedroom setting using Equation 10* of the FCC OET 65 regulations (Tables 12-13). These violations are predicted to occur where there are multiple smart meters, or one collector meter, or one collector meter mounted together with several smart meters.
FCC compliance violations are not predicted at 28” in the kitchen work space for 60% or for 100% reflection calculations. Violations of FCC public safety limits are predicted for higher reflection factors of 1000% and 2000%, which are not a part of FCC OET 65 formulas, but are included here to allow for situations where site-specific conditions (highly reflective environments, for example, galley-type kitchens with many highly reflective stainless steel or other metallic surfaces) may be warranted.*
In addition to exceeding FCC public safety limits under some conditions of installation and operation, smart meters can produce excessively elevated RF exposures, depending on where they are installed. With respect to absolute RF exposure levels predicted for occupied space within dwellings, or outside areas like patios, gardens and walk-ways, RF levels are predicted to be substantially elevated within a few feet to within a few tens of feet from the meter(s).
For example, one smart meter at 11” from occupied space produces somewhere between 1.4 and 140 microwatts per centimeter squared (uW/cm2) depending on the duty cycle modeled (Table 12). Since FCC OET 65 specifies that continuous exposure be assumed where the public cannot be excluded (such as is applicable to one’s home), this calculation produces an RF level of 140 uW/cm2 at 11” using the FCCs lowest reflection factor of 60%. Using the FCC’s reflection factor of 100%, the figures rise to 2.2 uW/cm2 – 218 uW/cm2, where the continuous exposure calculation is 218 uW/cm2 (Table 12). These are very significantly elevated RF exposures in comparison to typical individual exposures in daily life.
Multiple smart meters in the nursery/bedroom example at 11” are predicted to generate RF levels from about 5 to 481 uW/cm2 at the lowest (60%) reflection factor; and 7.5 to 751 uW/cm2 using the FCCs 100% reflection factor (Table 13). Such levels are far above typical public exposures.
RF levels at 28” in the kitchen work space are also predicted to be significantly elevated with one or more smart meters (or a collector meter alone or in combination with multiple smart meters). At 28” distance, RF levels are predicted in the kitchen example to be as high as 21 uW/cm2 from a single meter and as high as 54.5 uW/cm2 with multiple smart meters using the lower of the FCCs reflection factor of 60% (Table 14). Using the FCCs higher reflection factor of 100%, the RF levels are predicted to be as high as 33.8 uW/cm2 for a single meter and as high as 85.8 uW/cm2 for multiple smart meters (Table 14). For a single collector meter, the range is 60.9 to 95.2 uW/cm2 (at 60% and 100% reflection factors, respectively) (from Table 15).
Table 16 illustrates predicted violations of peak power limit (4000 uW/cm2) at 3” from the surface of a meter. FCC violations of peak power limit are predicted to occur for a single collector meter at both 60% and 100% reflection factors. This situation might occur if someone touches a smart meter or stands directly in front.
Consumers may also have already increased their exposures to radiofrequency radiation in the home through the voluntary use of wireless devices (cell and cordless phones), PDAs like BlackBerry and iPhones, wireless routers for wireless internet access, wireless home security systems, wireless baby surveillance (baby monitors), and other emerging wireless applications.
Neither the FCC, the CPUC, the utility nor the consumer know what portion of the allowable public safety limit is already being used up or pre-empted by RF from other sources already present in the particular location a smart meter may be installed and operated.
Consumers, for whatever personal reason, choice or necessity who have already eliminated all possible wireless exposures from their property and lives, may now face excessively high RF exposures in their homes from smart meters on a 24-hour basis. This may force limitations on use of their otherwise occupied space, depending on how the meter is located, building materials in the structure, and how it is furnished.
People who are afforded special protection under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act are not sufficiently acknowledged nor protected. People who have medical and/or metal implants or other conditions rendering them vulnerable to health risks at lower levels than FCC RF limits may be particularly at risk (Tables 30-31). This is also likely to hold true for other subgroups, like children and people who are ill or taking medications, or are elderly, for they have different reactions to pulsed RF. Childrens’ tissues absorb RF differently and can absorb more RF than adults (Christ et al, 2010; Wiart et al, 2008). The elderly and those on some medications respond more acutely to some RF exposures.
Safety standards for peak exposure limits to radiofrequency have not been developed to take into account the particular sensitivity of the eyes, testes and other ball shaped organs. There are no peak power limits defined for the eyes and testes, and it is not unreasonable to imagine situations where either of these organs comes into close contact with smart meters and/or collector meters, particularly where they are installed in multiples (on walls of multi-family dwellings that are accessible as common areas).
In summary, no positive assertion of safety can be made by the FCC, nor relied upon by the CPUC, with respect to pulsed RF when exposures are chronic and occur in the general population. Indiscriminate exposure to environmentally ubiquitous pulsed RF from the rollout of millions of new RF sources (smart meters) will mean far greater general population exposures, and potential health consequences. Uncertainties about the existing RF environment (how much RF exposure already exists), what kind of interior reflective environments exist (reflection factor), how interior space is utilized near walls), and other characteristics of residents (age, medical condition, medical implants, relative health, reliance on critical care equipment that may be subject to electronic interference, etc) and unrestrained access to areas of property where meter is located all argue for caution.

*FCC OET 65 Equation 10 assumes 60% reflection and Equation 6 assumes 100% reflection. RF levels are also calculated in this report to account for some situations where interior environments have highly reflective surfaces as might be found in a small kitchen with stainless steel or other metal counters, appliances and furnishings. This report includes the FCC’s reflection factors of 60% and 100%, and also reflection factors of1000% and 2000% that are more in line with those reported in Hondou, 2001; Hondou, 2006 and Vermeeren et al, 2010. The use of a 1000% reflection factor is still conservative in comparison to Hondou, 2006. A 1000% reflection factor is 12% (or 121 times as high) a factor for power density compared to Hondou et al, 2006 prediction of 1000 times higher power densities due to reflection. A 2000% reflection factor is only 22% (or 441 times) that of Hondou’s finding that power density can be as high as 2000 times higher.

NEXT PAGE

Search for:

Table of Contents

Smart Meter RF Radiation Assessment
   Summary of Findings
   Introduction
   How They Work
   Methodology
   Public Safety Limits
   Results, Findings and Conclusions
   Appendix A
   Appendix B
   Appendix C

About this Report

Addendum OWS-NIC514

Expert Letters to CCST

Seletun Scientific Statement

RF Studies

Response to EPRI, February 2011

Response to EPRI, November 2011

Copyright © 2010-2011 Sage Report Smart Meter RF | Home | About | Contact

Here is the truth

http://www.bioinitiative.org/

Please take a look at this- full of useful science with regards to EMF radiation. Co-authored by 21 Phd's, 10 doctors contributed to this report. 

And, to make it easier to understand, here are the conclusions of the report:

http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

Would like to thank Ken Panza for listening and for including this study in his final report to the Town Board on RF. 

Video of Smart Meter Testing

This was taken today and raises many questions about these newly installed Central Hudson smart meters. If Europe has an exposure standard of 10 microwatts per cubic meter deemed to be safe, and the US standard, set in the early 1970's, has an exposure standard of 600 microwatts per cubic meter as being safe, it would appear from this clip the radiation coming off this bank of Smart Meters in Woodstock is not safe, even by US's out of date standards. At three feet the EMF testmeter was overwhelmed. Just think if there is a child's bedroom behind the wall of one of these banks of meters. A lot of research has been done in Europe and the UK on "electrosmog" and the health effects and they have scaled back exposure levels accordingly. There is also a growing industry of products designed to protect you from EMF exposure. Woodstock, and every town who's power company is installing these things, needs to get serious about the public health and safety as it relates to EMF exposure. And see the earlier post about the fires these things can cause.

Video about Smart Metering and privacy

Check this out. Not only is it a health issue but a stealth issue.

And here is a report from the UK Health Dept. Standards for exposure and the health affects of exposure to even low doses - 50Hz to 300 GHz.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733805036?p=115893460769

Smart Meters Continued-Dr. David Carpenter weighs in

Here is the link to a very interesting response from Dr. David O. Carpenter to an article printed in Canada  about Smart Meters. Note that it is co-signed by over 50 of his peers from around the world.

http://maisonsaine.ca/smart-meters-correcting-the-gross-misinformation/#comment-120283


Dr. David O. Carpenter is the former founding Dean of University at Albany NY School of Health.

More to come...

Smart Meters!!

 Woodstock starts to look at Smart Meters!

Glad to see some attention finally being paid to Smart Meters, apparently installed without owner consent by Central Hudson. 
In addition to the concerns about magnetic radiation, which we will be reporting on in the near future, it appears these new meters sometimes cause house fires. Watch this-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBDgZjR4qHQ 

If your meter is not UL approved and certified, it may not be covered by your homeowner's insurance if it starts a fire or fries your appliances. Progressive Issues has written to Central Hudson asking about the UL certified meters and if they use them. We will report back soon!

Meanwhile, here's that Beaver video from this week's show-

http://youtu.be/KUpVJ_cOXUk


 

Solar Parking Lot Canopy and More!

Woodstock could save a lot of trees and generate a lot of electricity by erecting a solar canopy at the Rock City Road Pay Parking Lot. In addition to all that renewable energy, cars would be shaded and the heat sink asphalt would not be soaking up as much heat. And as more and more electric cars hit the streets, what a great place for a charging station! Solar powered! Win, win, win. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuN0eAG8yy0 

Another option for generating renewable energy- hydro power from water mains-taking advantage of the gravity feed of Woodstock's water system with these small turbines inside the pipes.





http://www.lucidenergytech.com/lucid-pipe/ 

or, for smaller pipes-


http://news.cnet.com/Pint-size-hydro-power-on-tap/2100-11392_3-6215142.html 

Note the payback for a municipality on one of these  projects is only 3 (three)! years. And it looks like this company-and maybe others-will custom fit to order based on each towns' needs. 

Jeremy Announces Run for Re-Election

Jeremy Wilber Announces'  

He Will Run for Re-election!!

(Watch for upcoming Hulu Hoop contests!)

Updates on the Boston Bombing(with links)

Craft International Services hired guns at the Boston Marathon:

Why Such Secrecy about Private Military Contractor’s Men Working the Event?

Thu, 04/25/2013 

by

 

 Dave Lindorff

http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/1718 

Speaking as an investigative reporter with almost 40 years’s experience, I can say that when government officials won’t talk, they’re generally hiding something embarrassing or worse.

I tried, and nobody will talk about those Craft International Services private security personnel who were widely observed and photographed near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, wearing security ear-pieces, hats and T-shirts bearing the company’s skull logo, and all wearing the same dark coats, khaki pants and combat boots, some carrying what appear to have been radiation detectors. (I got no hard answers, though there were some inadvertent hints given.)

I first contacted a man identifying himself as Jack Fleming, a public affairs person with the Boston Athletic Assn., sponsor of the marathon. Fleming advised me that “If you want to ask about that you should contact the Commonwealth (of Massachusetts) Executive Office of Public Safety.”

I called that agency and spoke with the public information office there, a man named Terrell. He first said, "Did you call the Marathon organizers?" When I replied that I had, and that they had said to call his office, he replied, "They did?" Then he said, “You should call the City of Boston Police Department. They released a security plan to some media organizations.”

Indeed they had released that plan to the Boston Globe. Based upon the information it got from the police the article the Globe ran, did report that the Police had deployed “air patrols, K9 units, and more than 1,000 uniformed officers and soldiers along the 26-mile course and the finish line,” but it made no mention of the private contracting of soldiers-for-hire, which is what Craft International does (see the Craft website). News agency Reuters reported, meanwhile, that a top official for the Massachusetts state Homeland Security Department, Undersecretary Kurt Schwartz, told a group at Harvard U. that his agency had “planned” for a possible bombing attack on the marathon, even running a “table-top” exercise about such an event a week before the race.

I called the Boston Police to ask if they had hired the Craft International personnel who were observed at the scene just before and after the bombing, and was told by the public affairs office there that “Anything having to do with the investigation of the bombing would have to be referred to the FBI Boston Division office.” When I pointed out that I wasn’t asking anything about the investigation, but was simply asking who had hired the security personnel from Craft International, the answer was simply repeated: “You’ll have to ask the FBI.”

So I called the FBI, and got a public affairs person there named Amanda Cox. Her initial response to my question was, “I do not have any information on that.”

Seven apparent Craft International rent-a-soldiers behind and departing (top rt. with backpack) a communications van

 

I then said I had been referred to her by the Boston Police Department, and said that photos of the scene after the bombing had shown Craft International personnel conversing with FBI agents. She then put down the phone, and I could hear her turn to a supervisor and ask, her voice muffled, “This guy’s asking about the Craft Security Consultants -- who hired them and what they were doing.”

I next overheard the muffled voice of another woman to whom she had been speaking reply, “I think you could safely say, ‘I do know we worked with a lot of people who worked on security at the marathon...’” After that I couldn’t make out what was being said.

Cox later returned to the phone, and instead told me, “I’d refer you to the company on any information about who hired them.” (Taken together the overheard conversation and the official answer from Cox would at least seem to confirm that Craft's people were hired for the event, and that the FBI knows a lot more than it is willing to say about them.)

My next step was to call Craft International. The company has no phone number listed on its website -- just a general email address of info@thecraft.com (to which I wrote to asking for information, but which elicited no response)--but I found one listed for their headquarters office at 2101 Cedar Springs Rd., Suite 1400, Dallas, TX, in a listing on the company published in a directory in Bloomberg Businessweek, This entry noted that the company, in addition to “providing security, defense, and combat weapons training services for military, police, corporate and civilian clients in the US and internationally,” also “offers corporate and private and civilian training services...” The number, published in a business magazine, was clearly meant as a contact for potential customers to call.

A woman answered the phone brightly with the company's name. However, when I identified myself as a reporter, and said I was wondering if someone could tell me who had hired personnel from the firm to work at the Boston Marathon, she responded with a flummoxed: “Um, I um, don’t really have any information on that. I’m just an answering service.”

I replied, “Look, the number I called is listed as the number of the company’s corporate headquarters at 2101 Cedar Springs Road. You’re not an answering service.”

At that point she said, “Let me see who I can transfer you to.”

However, after a long pause, she was back, and said, “The answer I’ve been given is that you should go to the website, where there’s an email address you can write to with your question.”

I had already done that, I told her. She then said she couldn’t help me and hung up.

I also called the US Department of Homeland Security, but a women named Angela who answered the press office number for this public government agency (she refused to provide her last name despite being the public information office) said the DHS media office was “only taking inquiries sent in by email.” I sent in an inquiry asking if any unit of the DHS had hired Craft International to provide security at the Boston Marathon, but so far (note: two days later!) have received no response.

As things stand, since it's highly unlikely that Craft International, a private for-profit enterprise founded by the late ace Navy Seal sniper Chris Kyle, would have "hired" itself to police the Marathon gratis, it seems pretty clear that we had rent-a-special forces-soldier people, hired by some agency, at the scene of the bombing ahead of the bombing.

And we have no reporting on this in the mainstream corporate media.

Why? I have no answer to that.

I did write to Andrea Estes, the lead writer of the Globe’s piece on police security planning mentioned above, who is described in her bio on the Globe’s website staff page as an “investigative reporter specializing in government accountability.”

I called and left a message on her phone, and sent her an email, asking if she had looked into the Craft Security personnel, to see who hired them, what they were doing at the race finish line, and why they appeared be carrying radiation detectors. She has so far not responded to my request for information and assistance concerning anything she had done or learned about this, or whether she had looked into it at all.

Certainly there is a big accountability question. A bunch of them actually. Here are a few:

* If Craft International people were hired, who hired them and why?

* If it was the Boston Police or the FBI that hired them, why won’t they just say so? Simply hiring outside security help should not be a secret, and could in no way affect the investigation into the bombing and the captured suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, so why the secrecy about that? Given all the police presence, and the size of the FBI's Boston division, why did they need those extra guys from a private rent-a-soldier firm?

* If it was not the Boston Police or the FBI, what agency did hire the company, and why?

* If it was the state’s Homeland Security Dept. or or the state Executive Office of Public Safety, or perhaps more likely, the US Department of Homeland Security, did they notify the FBI that they had done so, and tell the agency what had prompted them to do this? 


* The big overarching question when it comes to who hired Craft International is, what possible gain in security could have been achieved by adding what appears to be seven guys (or perhaps a few more who didn’t appear in photos) from a private security firm when the Boston Police had in place over 1000 armed security people from their office and the National Guard, and when, as became evident immediately after the bombs went off, a large number of FBI personnel were also on hand?

Unless, of course, the Craft Security people were aware of something that we, the public, including the race participants and spectators, and perhaps even the police and FBI, were not aware of.

Transparency is critical to accountability. At this point, it is clear that we have had a massive failure of the national security state. Despite the fact that the FBI was aware of concerns about Tarmelan Tsarnaev, and the fact that the CIA had him on a watch list, he appears to have been able to work on line to learn how to build a powerful homemade bomb, to obtain the materials, including a substantial quantity of black powder, to build a number of them, and, allegedly with the help of his younger brother Dzhokhar, to place them near the finish line and detonate two of them, killing three people and injuring as many as 200. That’s a huge intelligence fail.

It would be an even bigger fail if it turns out that some agency had awareness of a credible threat and that it hired Craft International personnel to prevent it. We clearly need to know, and have a right to demand to know, who hired those men and why. After all, at a minimum, on the face of things, they did an abysmal job of preventing a bombing right in front of their supposedly well-trained noses.

And of course, as I wrote earlier, there is also another question, which is really disturbing: The image of the exploded backpack released by the FBI and identified as the remains of the pack that was carrying one of the two pressure-cooker bombs, prominently displays a white square on a black background. This is not a doctored photograph; it’s the photograph that was released by the FBI. There are also at least two photos depicting one of the Craft International men who is wearing a black backpack identical to several of the other Craft International personnel. The same white square is also visible on the top of his pack.

There does not appear to be any such white marking -- square or otherwise -- on the top of the black backpack worn by Tarmelan Tsarnaev, as observed in several security photos taken of him (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was shown carrying a smaller white or light-colored pack, slung over one shoulder). Check out the images below of Tarmelan, the exploded bag and the Craft International character:

FBI image of exploded pack with white square, white square on Craft guy's pack, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev (left.) with pack but clearly no white square marking
 

I am not drawing any conclusions from any of this, but I will say that when government agencies at all levels and a private contracting firm are all this obtuse and secretive (and in some cases even deceptive) about what should be a simple question -- who hired these men? -- my suspicions are aroused.

Somebody’s clearly hiding something.

And by the way, why aren't the mainstream media asking about this? Are corporate media journalists so intimidated about being labeled “conspiracy nuts” that they can't do their jobs? At a minimum, this goes to the question of accountability. It also goes to the question of inter-agency communication or lack of it. And given what we know about how many times the FBI has been an active encourager and enabler of terror plots which it later thwarts and claims credit for preventing, there’s the question, too of potential official culpability. Furthermore, when an horrific incident like this is used to justify such new threats to our Constitutional freedom as an unprecedented martial law-style lockdown of an entire 1-million-person metropolitan area and a precedent-setting deliberately Miranda-free, attorney-free interrogation of a hospitalized, gravely wounded and sedated suspect, it is critical that the whole story be told, not just the official one.

• Printer-friendly version  
• Send by email

***

Checking in with the Cell Tower

Cell Tower Pine Tree Appears to be Dying


Recent visit to the Woodstock Cell Tower-lots of downed "plastic branches"  and little green plastic "pine needle things" littering the landscape. What a waste the "frankentree" has been-at a cost of $250,000 to the town in lost revenue. Should also note that there is still no cell service to the west of Woodstock-5 years down the road. Going to be hard for candidates Wilber, McKenna and Magerelli to explain this away-all on their watch. In Jeremy's case, he signed the original agreement for the cell tower.

And Here Comes The Push For Gambling!

There is a lot of talk in the papers from State Senators and other officials about the move forward with gambling in Ulster County and New York State!

 Here are a few links to a website from State Senator Jamie Eldridge from Middlesex/Worcester Mass District on the negative effects of gambling on the local economy: Lots of pressure in Mass for gambling too!

http://www.senatoreldridge.com/issues/expanded-gambling-casinos-and-slots/expanded-gambling-is-bad-for-local-businesses

And check this out:

http://www.senatoreldridge.com/issues/expanded-gambling-casinos-and-slots/the-house-always-wins-how-the-gambling-industry-preys-on-addiction


Will a casino in Ellenville "help" the local economy?

http://www.senatoreldridge.com/issues/expanded-gambling-casinos-and-slots/predatory-slots-hurt-families-and-local-communities

Doesn't look like this is a win for locals at all. 

Biking in Our Nation's Capital

Washington, DC. Bike lanes heading north and south. Streets clearly marked. Both lanes on one side of the street. Parking moved out away from curb so bikes are not mingling with the traffic.

 

A sign for the Capital Bike Share Program. These stations are all over the city and are very popular. Note there are only two bikes left to share from a stand of about thirty.

 
Here's the pay station. Cost is $7 per day to rent the bike. 

 The bike locks into the stand. I think the way it works is they have your credit card in case the bike gets stolen and you use the locking stands (which are placed all over the city) to leave your bike for work or shopping.

 This was taken early in the morning, before the rush. 

 Here's how the DC meter maids get around.

Woodstock NY Solar Farming

With the town of Woodstock backing off a big solar farm at the waste water treatment plant and looking into alternatives, here's one that would be a win win win for the town and solar advocates.

Put it up over the Rock City Road Parking lot, provide tons of electricity, shade, and a big political statement that Woodstock is big on solar.

Since the town Supervisor had those grand shade trees cut down a few years back, it get's mighty hot in that space. Plus, drivers would get some shelter from rain and snow as they get to their cars.

Panels would be high off the ground and discourage vandalism and theft.

A thing of beauty!

News of the Day Feb. 27, 2013

Very powerful investigation into health care costs by Steven Brill, founder of Court TV.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/

News of the Day Feb.13,2013

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2013/feb/13/did-the-police-start-fire-that-killed-christopher-dorner

From today's Guardian

Channel 23 is back streaming live!

Great news for all you folks who live outside Woodstock cable TV's limited reach. Channel 23 has resumed streaming live via www.woodstocktv.org - You can now catch our weekly show at 9pm Thursdays and again throughout the week on replays-plus you can watch Town Board Meetings from afar-Oh Joy!