<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Glitches hamper radiation warning system in California<br> By Jack Dolan and Rong-Gong Lin II | Los Angeles Times<br><br> The federal<br>government’s radiation alert network in California is not fully<br>functional, leaving the stretch of coast between Los Angeles and San<br>Francisco without the crucial real-time warning system in the event of<br>a nuclear emergency.Six of the Environmental Protection Agency’s<br>12 California sensors — including the three closest to the Diablo<br>Canyon nuclear power plant — are sending data with "anomalies" to the<br>agency’s laboratory in Montgomery, Ala., said Mike Bandrowski, manager<br>of the EPA’s radiation program. <br><br>Similar stories:<br><br> Feds deploy more radiation monitors in western US <br><br> <br> Feds deploy more radiation monitors in western US <br> Growing concern by Americans over exposure from<br>damaged nuclear plants in Japan has prompted officials to deploy more<br>radiation monitors in the western United States and Pacific<br>territories, federal environmental regulators say. <br><br> Feds deploy more radiation monitors in western US <br><br> <br> Feds deploy more radiation monitors in western US <br> Growing concern by Americans over exposure from<br>damaged nuclear plants in Japan has prompted officials to deploy more<br>radiation monitors in the western United States and Pacific<br>territories, federal environmental regulators say. <br><br> EPA deploys more radiation monitors to the West Coast <br><br> <br> EPA deploys more radiation monitors to the West Coast <br> As public concern grows about radiation from Japan<br>possibly drifting to the West Coast of the United States, the U.S.<br>Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday announced that it will<br>deploy more electronic monitors that measure radiation levels in the<br>air. <br><br> Testing finds no health threat along West Coast <br><br> <br> Testing finds no health threat along West Coast <br> Minuscule amounts of radiation from Japan's stricken<br>nuclear plant have reached the west coast but federal and state<br>officials say it poses no health risk. <br><br> Testing finds no health threat along West Coast <br><br> <br> Testing finds no health threat along West Coast <br> Minuscule amounts of radiation from Japan's stricken<br>nuclear plant have reached the west coast but federal and state<br>officials say it poses no health risk. <br> <br> The<br>problem delays from 30 minutes to several hours the updating of a<br>database that would be critical for warning the public in case of a<br>sudden radiation danger from air wafting to the United States from a<br>foreign country, for example, or from a radiation leak at a domestic<br>nuclear facility.The lag has not been a concern during the<br>Japanese nuclear crisis because the minuscule amounts of radiation that<br>have reached California have posed no threat to human health, and the<br>plume of irradiated air from Japan is so widespread that other<br>equipment from Washington to Los Angeles has been able to monitor it in<br>real time, Bandrowski said.The agency’s critics, however, say the weakness in the EPA system could pose a public health concern."The<br>unreliability of the EPA monitoring effort revealed by this event<br>raises troubling questions about whether Californians would receive<br>timely warning to evacuate, or take other protective actions, in case<br>of a nuclear accident here," said Dan Hirsch, a nuclear policy lecturer<br>at UC Santa Cruz and president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, an<br>anti-nuclear group.The troubled transmissions are part of the<br>federal RadNet system, which is "designed to protect the public by<br>notifying scientists, in near real time, of elevated levels of<br>radiation so they can determine whether protective action is required,"<br>according to a recent press release from the agency.Without<br>immediate information from RadNet, state and local emergency managers<br>would be dependent on the private owners of nuclear power facilities to<br>alert them in the first hours of a dangerous radiation leak from a domestic source.<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2011/03/25/1535784/california-radiation-warning.html#ixzz1HdRsmPi7%20">http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2011/03/25/1535784/california-radiation-warning.html#ixzz1HdRsmPi7 </a><br><br><br>Read more of this story at latimes.com »<br> <br> <br>Read more: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2011/03/25/1535784/california-radiation-warning.html#ixzz1HdRsmPi7 <br><br><br> <br><br><br><br>Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:03:44 -0700<br>From: brookse32@aim.com<br>CC: sustainability@sfgreens.org; active@sfgreens.org<br>Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters<br><br><br><br> <br><br><br> <br> Message body<br> <br> <br> Not if it gives people<br> higher cancer risk and raises their bills because PG&E as a<br> private corporation is gaming the meters to jack up rates.<br> PG&E has no intention whatsoever of using these meters to<br> lower electricity use; and it will do everything in its power to<br> obfuscate their use for that purpose (making them bad for<br> conservation goals).<br><br> <br><br> If the meters were hooked into a more environmentally and health<br> safe fiber optic system and run by the city instead of the<br> corporation, -then- smart meters would be good and effective.<br> Until we get PG&E out of the picture, its smart meters will be<br> a bad thing.<br><br> <br><br> And the best way to reduce electricity use,<br><br> <br><br> is to use less electricity...<br><br> <br><br> On 3/25/2011 8:17 AM, Martin Zehr wrote:<br> <br> <br> This is such nonsense. We need to support measures for accurate<br> and timely monitoring and measurement if we really want to reduce<br> electricity use. <br><br> <br><br> <br> <br><br> <br><br> <br><br> <br> <br><br> <br> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:18:29 -0700<br><br> From: brookse32@aim.com<br><br> To: active@sfgreens.org; sustainability@sfgreens.org<br><br> Subject: [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To<br> Opt Out Of Smart Meters<br><br> <br><br> http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pges-plan-smartmeters-opt-out-pay/<br><br> Thursday, March 24, 2011<br> PG&E's SmartMeter Plan: Opt Out, Pay a Premium<br> Customers who choose to turn off radio signals could pay as much<br> as $270 up front plus $14 a month<br><br> By: John Upton<br><br> <br><br> Pacific Gas and Electric Company plans to charge customers<br> hundreds of dollars on top of their regular gas and electricity<br> bills if they choose to switch off radio signals emitted by<br> SmartMeters, which are being installed in businesses and homes<br> throughout Northern California.<br><br> SmartMeters are being installed by PG&E as part of an<br> industry-led effort to replace the nation's aging electrical<br> infrastructure with digital equipment that can track and manage<br> customers' energy consumption. Already, PG&E has replaced 7.7<br> million analog electricity and gas meters with the new devices.<br><br> Following years of public outcry about rollout of the meters,<br> which some customers say have caused serious illnesses and<br> incorrect energy consumption readings, the California Public<br> Utilities Commission earlier this month ordered<br> PG&E to allow customers to opt out of using the<br> technology. <br><br> PG&E submitted a proposal to the CPUC Thursday that, instead<br> of allowing customers to continue using analog meters, would see<br> radio signals switched off from their SmartMeters. The SmartMeters<br> would continue to monitor a customers' energy use, but they would<br> not transmit the results to PG&E through radio signals.<br> Instead, a PG&E official would visit the customers' home to<br> manually read the meter for billing purposes.<br><br> Customers who select the “radio-off” option would pay a $135<br> up-front fee followed by a $20 monthly charge, or a $270 up-front<br> fee followed by a $14 monthly charge, PG&E proposed.<br> Low-income customers would pay 20 percent less.<br><br> Instead of the fixed monthly fee, customers could choose to pay a<br> monthly rate that varies with the amount of gas and electricity<br> that they use. That option could be less expensive for customers<br> who use little electricity or gas.<br><br> PG&E justified the seemingly high rates by saying that its<br> anticipated costs in deploying the “radio-off” option for an<br> expected 146,000 opt-out customers would exceed $80 million over<br> two years.<br><br> "We wanted to make sure that those who elected that option would<br> bear the costs associated with that option, as opposed to the rest<br> of our customers," PG&E spokesman Jeff Smith said.<br><br> The opt-out program costs will include expenses associated with<br> turning customers’ SmartMeter radios off; switching radios back on<br> if customers change their mind or new tenants move into the<br> premises; modifying PG&E’s existing<br> SmartMeter-related information technology programs and radio<br> networks; and communicating with customers about alternatives to<br> the opt-out option, PG&E told the CPUC in the proposal.<br><br> Consumer advocates, meanwhile, characterized the rates as just<br> another cash grab by a malevolent corporate monopoly.<br><br> “I’m definitely going to ask for the data to support their<br> forecasts for how much it’s going to cost to do all this stuff,”<br> said Marcel Hawiger, energy attorney for The Utility Reform<br> Network, a consumer watchdog.<br><br> Hawiger said that PG&E should give its customers the option of<br> reading their own meters instead of paying PG&E a monthly fee.<br> Some customers with dogs and fences already read their own meters,<br> he said, suggesting that program be expanded.<br><br> Public hearings will be held in the coming months to discuss the<br> proposal, and a CPUC ruling on PG&E's proposed opt-out pricing<br> system is expected by mid-September.<br><br> <br><br> <br><br> _______________________________________________ San Francisco<br> Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your<br> options, go here:<br> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active =<br> <br> <br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Sustainability mailing list<br>Sustainability@sfgreens.org<br>https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability </body>
</html>