Brothers and Sisters, the Texas legislative session is coming down the home stretch. All bills must get out of committee no later than May 2, 2013, if they are to become law. This means we have a few more valuable days to make phone calls to the Senate Business and Commerce Members. We are requesting that the legislators allow a “no charge opt-out” clause in SB 241. Senate Bill 241, introduced by Senator Carona of Dallas, would allow Texans the choice to opt-out of having a smart meter.  Your Union leadership is asking each member to contact members of the Senate Business and Commerce to ask for the “no charge opt-out”. This could save someone’s job. The following are some talking points upon contacting the representatives. First, the deployment was never mandatory; therefore, paying to opt-out of a non-mandatory action is irrational and illogical.  It is a punitive disincentive to choosing what is best for the individual, whether it relates to health concerns, privacy, or security.

Second, the basis for health concerns is widespread.  There are now over 6,000 peer reviewed submissions that have been published showing the potentially harmful effects of exposure to RF radiation from wireless digital transmission at levels far below the thermal activity.  The so-called standards of safety for the often quoted FCC guidelines date back to 1986 and are “not protective of public health” according to the Radio Frequency Interagency Working Group (FDA, OSHA, EPA and FCC).  The World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) now lists this RF as a possible human carcinogen.  The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has issued warnings about reducing exposure levels of non-thermal RF transmissions in many individual cases and has said, “Adverse health effects from wireless radio frequency fields, such as learning disabilities, altered immune responses and headaches, clearly exist and are well documented in scientific literature.  Safer technology, such as use of hard-wiring, is strongly recommended in schools.”  And finally, in a June 2012 letter, 54 MD’s and PhDs made a compelling case for concern regarding the health risks and effects.  Increasingly, it is only the studies funded by the wireless companies that find the effects relatively benign, much as was the case with cigarettes for many hears.  Yet in the case of cigarettes and with far less data than is available today on RF, no one suggest people should have to pay a fee for NOT smoking.  It is ridiculous for a government to assert people should pay extra to avoid a health hazard with this much evidence behind it.