I have read with some dismay the articles on the smart meter controversy. My first concern is with the image of our state that the actions and claims of the opponents have presented.

It is unfortunate that we still have citizens who are ruled by such misguided fallacies and anti-science bias. But the biggest tragedy would be for CMP or the Public Utilities Commission to allow this group to determine public policy on this matter.

To these people the symptoms they claim are just as real as if they were real. No amount of evidence will shake their delusion. The only solution I can see would be to allow such people to opt out and then charge them for the extra cost incurred in manual meter reading. There is no reason why the rest of us should bear any part of this cost.

My involvement with microwave effects dates back to post-World War II experiments on the physiological effects of microwaves. Since then I have tried to keep current on peer-reviewed publications on the subject.

So far I have not read of any reproducible effects being observed at power levels much higher than those produced by smart meters. Nevertheless, disproving something is very difficult. When asked “Is it possible?” few responsible scientists would say “no.” When asked if anyone had ever confirmed it happening, it would be equally difficult to find a responsible scientist who would say “yes.”

With the background radiation that we are all receiving from other sources being so much higher than one could receive from smart meters, I, for one, will assume this inconsequential risk for the small benefit that goes with the smart meters. I would be very disappointed if a few misguided and delusional individuals were allowed to set public policy.

Edmond R. Pelta


Harmful radio waves in Earth’s atmosphere are affecting every aspect of our environment, including our health and the health of most other living things.

I could go into great detail explaining all the technical aspects of radio waves, but understand this: These radio waves, from sources such as cell phones, electrical transmission systems, microwave ovens, televisions, video cameras, radar systems, etc., are causing physiological and psychological disturbances in humans and animals, and the long-term effects on our health are unknown.

The short-term effects include a rise in cell temperature, altered heart rate and brain-wave activity, and interference in every cell and cell function in our bodies. These waves can also cause many diseases and disorders, including cancer, brain tumors, muscular and respiratory problems, obesity, etc. These dangerous waves can be as harmful as a biological or chemical toxin but thus far have not been treated as such by our government!

In short, we are living in an “electro-toxic environment” and this “electro-toxicity” isn’t going away. As a matter of fact, it is getting worse every day. Furthermore, I believe that there exist “electro-toxic vortices” that increase this danger.

Exposure to a vortex can be extremely dangerous, even deadly. These vortices exist where radio waves react with other radio waves (natural and manmade) in such a way as to intensify their effect and their danger.

Some people are hyper-sensitive to these dangerous radio waves, but all are affected and there is no protection.

I call this condition “radio affective disorder.” I believe many people suffer from this condition and we shouldn’t make things worse by adding smart meters!

John Wallace


Need for government relief in the eyes of the beholder

I heat my well-insulated home with a new, energy-efficient furnace. I eat nutritious, local food. Last fall, I joined my daughter for a week of vacation in Italy.

The governor’s proposed budget would lower my income taxes while cutting welfare benefits for people who cannot afford to heat their homes or feed their families. Some of them can’t even afford a place to live.

Taking from the poor and giving to those who live comfortably is morally wrong. And it goes against the community spirit that is alive and well in the Maine that I know and love.

If Maine cannot afford our current welfare benefits, here is a solution: Raise state income taxes for the upper-income brackets. Take the money from those who can afford it and spend it on a safety net for those whose health and lives hang in the balance.

Shoshana Hoose


I want to start by stating that I’m far, very far, from wealthy. So, I’ve listened quietly all these months as “the rich” have been demonized by politicians.

They have, at every chance, declared that “the rich” should pay their fair share, pay more in taxes, pay more for what they purchase, etc., etc. I now hear this demonizing of “the rich” coming from the average person on the street.

I started wondering: What defines rich? How is one’s wealth determined? Sure, millionaires or billionaires are considered, by most, to be rich. But with the economy the way it is, are they the only ones?

What about those with a job, are they considered rich by the unemployed? Should they be forced to pay more? Among the unemployed, are those who put money away during the good times considered rich by those who did not? In these cases, should the have-nots be entitled to take from the haves? I could go on, but where does it stop?

It appears to me that politicians, especially those in the national eye, should choose their words very carefully lest they lead others down a path to folly. They must try to predict where their actions might lead, for in the end they will be responsible for what their words produce.

Robert W. Brandenstein


Paper’s delivery person does great in all weather

I think with all this snow and cold weather we’ve had lately, we’ve overlooked one very hard-working person.

Our newspapers are here on time and in good shape. When I look out my window and wonder how I’m going to get out of my driveway, I go to the front door and my newspaper is there!

I would like to commend my delivery guy, Steve Flint, on a job well done.

Dick Reid