Housing Assoc. want to install smart meter 3ft from sons bed.

EachPenny

Houbara wrote: »

There are only reports of electromagnetic radiation fears of smart meters on extremist off the wall loony websites such as Stopsmartmeters.org.uk who are looking for any angle/lie to discredit smart meters. Its total rubbish !
They operate a little like the BBC does with constant negatives on Brexit to suit their own agenda.
Any bad news is good news for Stopsmartmeters.org. Plenty more fairy tales on that website other than EMF.

Here are a couple of other links for you to consider:-
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/sleeping-mobile-phone-cancer-infertility-radiation-health-officials-california-a8116126.html
Both citing research supported by US governmental organisations. You might consider them to be "extremist off the wall loony" as well (I mean the US governmental organisations, not the newspaper websites) but sane rational people would look at the studies and ask whether this is something which needs to be taken into consideration when making life-choices.

The point the OP made is valid:-

meherenow wrote: »

I'm trying not to be all tin foil hat about it as obviously there are a lot of conflicting reports regarding electromagnetic radiation and yes my kids will be exposed to it all day every day from other sources, but there can be no doubt that NOT having this smart meter installed will DEFINITELY not cause any extra risk.

...it is otherwise known as the 'precautionary principle'. If you cannot establish something conclusively as fact, then it is best to proceed on the basis of avoidance of the risk if it is reasonable to do so. Wearing a tin-foil hat is unlikely to be deemed 'reasonable', but asking the supplier/HA why the meter needs to be moved into the loft rather than left where it is seems an entirely rational approach to adopt.

Houbara wrote: »

I have to go in lofts occasionally to read solar panel meters. I m not surprised they want to eliminate me putting my foot through the ceiling.

There are other methods of obviating the possible consequences of your clumsiness. One of which would be to place the meter in a location where nobody needs to go into the loft. What if the smart meter installer puts their foot through the ceiling when installing the meter? Or working in semi-darkenss doesn't quite tighten the terminals sufficiently? Under the CDM regulations a designer would be responsible for designing out such risks, rather than seeking to create new risks by a clumsy attempt to solve one.

I am not an electrical engineer, but working from first principles I would suggest that unnecessarily installing electrical/electronic equipment in a loft (which is not easily accessible for inspection/emergency access) is inferior to installing the equipment in a meter cupboard which can be accessed in emergency and does not require the use of ladders (or torches) in order to gain access. I might go as far as to wonder whether the IEE Regulations have anything to say on the location of such equipment where a choice is available? :think:

If we forget the risks of EMF for a moment, it would be preferable - if the meter is one of the ones which decides to spontaneously combust - for it to be located somewhere in the house where the fireworks will be noticed, rather than having it smouldering away undetected in the loft.

Houbara wrote: »

Are you going to ban your children ever using mobiles half an inch from their brain ?

That would be quite an extreme response, but you might be aware that some manufacturers (I believe Apple are one) do make recommendations about limiting the length of time the phone is in use in close proximity to the body, and suggest the use of speakerphone/earphones/hands free or similar equipment wherever possible.

Of course these manufacturers might be "extremist off the wall loon", but I prefer to believe they have heard of the precautionary principle, and are offering such advice primarily with an eye on [STRIKE]reducing the risk of future lawsuits[/STRIKE] the health and wellbeing of their customers.

meherenow

Raxiel wrote: »

There is overwhelming evidence on one side and no real evidence on the other. RF radiation is carcinogenic to humans, because you can get skin cancer if you spend all day and every day sunbathing. That doesn't mean the wavelengths and power output we're talking about here are carcinogenic.


Relating it to asbestos is a false equivalence too. Once people investigated that substance for harmful effects they were found and it was banned. People have been looking for harmful effects of man-made RF radiation but still haven't found it. Also, there isn't a big ball of asbestos in the sky, blasting us with fibres for an average of 12 hours a day.



I was trying to set your mind at ease, but you seem to have made it up and closed it off before you even got here, so I'm out.

LOL, well thanks for your unwanted advice anyway - I wasn't actually looking to have you put my mind at ease as I already stated in my OP.

I'm not looking for others to tell me what I should and shouldn't spend my time worrying about :think:

meherenow

EachPenny wrote: »

Here are a couple of other links for you to consider:-
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/sleeping-mobile-phone-cancer-infertility-radiation-health-officials-california-a8116126.html
Both citing research supported by US governmental organisations. You might consider them to be "extremist off the wall loony" as well (I mean the US governmental organisations, not the newspaper websites) but sane rational people would look at the studies and ask whether this is something which needs to be taken into consideration when making life-choices.

The point the OP made is valid:-

...it is otherwise known as the 'precautionary principle'. If you cannot establish something conclusively as fact, then it is best to proceed on the basis of avoidance of the risk if it is reasonable to do so. Wearing a tin-foil hat is unlikely to be deemed 'reasonable', but asking the supplier/HA why the meter needs to be moved into the loft rather than left where it is seems an entirely rational approach to adopt.

There are other methods of obviating the possible consequences of your clumsiness. One of which would be to place the meter in a location where nobody needs to go into the loft. What if the smart meter installer puts their foot through the ceiling when installing the meter? Or working in semi-darkenss doesn't quite tighten the terminals sufficiently? Under the CDM regulations a designer would be responsible for designing out such risks, rather than seeking to create new risks by a clumsy attempt to solve one.

I am not an electrical engineer, but working from first principles I would suggest that unnecessarily installing electrical/electronic equipment in a loft (which is not easily accessible for inspection/emergency access) is inferior to installing the equipment in a meter cupboard which can be accessed in emergency and does not require the use of ladders (or torches) in order to gain access. I might go as far as to wonder whether the IEE Regulations have anything to say on the location of such equipment where a choice is available? :think:

If we forget the risks of EMF for a moment, it would be preferable - if the meter is one of the ones which decides to spontaneously combust - for it to be located somewhere in the house where the fireworks will be noticed, rather than having it smouldering away undetected in the loft.

That would be quite an extreme response, but you might be aware that some manufacturers (I believe Apple are one) do make recommendations about limiting the length of time the phone is in use in close proximity to the body, and suggest the use of speakerphone/earphones/hands free or similar equipment wherever possible.

Of course these manufacturers might be "extremist off the wall loon", but I prefer to believe they have heard of the precautionary principle, and are offering such advice primarily with an eye on [STRIKE]reducing the risk of future lawsuits[/STRIKE] the health and wellbeing of their customers.

Thanks for the reasoned response there.

I am not actually demented as others appear to think, just concerned (and some, not me, would probably regard The Indy and Grauniad websites - of those reports I have also seen - to be up there with the loony stopsmartmeters.org and those Brexit bashers at the BBC...).

Not concerned enough to live on some remote croft with no wifi or mobile phones, but still sane, rational and logical enough to question this need to have this device so close to where my children sleep.

As you have managed to note, I did more or less say this in my OP

EachPenny

Raxiel wrote: »

Relating it to asbestos is a false equivalence too. Once people investigated that substance for harmful effects they were found and it was banned.

Although there was a very significant delay (decades) between the effects of asbestos becoming a concern and the final ban on the production and installation of new asbestos materials actually being implemented. (continued use and some re-use of asbestos materials is still not banned).

Likewise the health risks (including cancer) of smoking are well known, yet a total ban on the production and sale of cigarettes is still awaited.

I'm not a subscriber to the 'smart meters give you cancer' lobby, but the precautionary principle is one we should observe in many aspects of life, not just when it comes to man-made global warming.

But the RF issue is really an aside in the OP's situation. My question is why on earth does the meter need to be moved from a perfectly suitable meter cupboard into the loft?

Raxiel

Ok, I know I said I was out, but I want to make one more post.

You're concerned about a smart meter being placed above your sons bed and want to know how to avoid it.

Obviously, as you say, the most direct way is to not have the meter there at all. As discussed elsewhere that depends on your tenancy agreement with the HA.

If you can't avoid it, and you still want to mitigate it, st999's tongue in cheek suggestion of putting foil on the top of the ceiling would actually be effective. For a meter 1ft above the ceiling you'd need about 4ft² of foil. It would need to be grounded to work effectively, an earth strap to any plumbing up there would do, and silver HVAC tape between any individual sheets. That should shield the whole house below without affecting the meters ability to talk to the nearest tower. In fact, doing it that way would result in less radiation than putting a smart meter under the stairs in the middle of the house.

If the loft is boarded, you could put carpet over the foil to prevent it getting damaged without reducing its effectiveness.

Lagamorph

Do you/your children sleep with an actual Mobile phone quite close to your bed?
Plenty of people do.

meherenow

Lagamorph wrote: »

Do you/your children sleep with an actual Mobile phone quite close to your bed?
Plenty of people do.

No, we don't.

meherenow

So, told them I didn't want a smart meter.

Got an email back to say it wasn't a smart meter but "a telemetry device (with a GSM component) that allows them to monitor the feed in tariff".

Sounds like a smart meter to me... and an unwanted intrusion into our privacy.

System

meherenow wrote: »

Sounds like a smart meter to me... and an unwanted intrusion into our privacy.

I do not see how anyone could regard a meter that sends out export readings as an intrusion of privacy. It is less of an intrusion than someone knocking at your door asking to read the meter. What exactly are you going to do if the Landlord insists that it is has a legal right to change the metering on a PV array that it has installed?

meherenow

Hengus wrote: »

I do not see how anyone could regard a meter that sends out export readings as an intrusion of privacy. It is less of an intrusion than someone knocking at your door asking to read the meter. What exactly are you going to do if the Landlord insists that it is has a legal right to change the metering on a PV array that it has installed?

Then my hands will be tied won't they?

This is exactly my query - DO they have the legal right?

Although you may not see how any personal information can be gathered from such a meter I disagree. The very fact that it is monitoring how much is generated and how much is being exported means they can easily ascertain our own usage pattern. Why should I grant anyone this?

You may say why SHOULDN'T I...

Some people are too eager to accept a "Big Brother" mentality further impinge into our lives in the name of progress, but that arguement is for another day.

I just don't want a "smart" meter - that is the bottom line, again I say, never minding the whys and wherefores...