THE TECHNOLOGY IS UNTESTED. IT IS BREACH OF THE NUREMBURG CODE.
THE FULL SITE HAS MANY ASPECTS. Lessons LEARNED IN THE USA.
Smart meter deployments are equivalent to experimenting on humans without their consent, and if an application for such an experiment were to be submitted to an Institutional Review Board (which is the requirement prior to experimenting on humans) it would be rejected outright. Smart meter deployment is in violation of all ten points of the Nuremberg Code, a set of ethical research principles to be fulfilled in any human experimentation, laid down at the end of World War II. (See the end of this letter for the ten points of the Nuremberg Code).
The Nuremberg Code (From the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services website http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html )
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an apriori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
Smart Meter Oral Arguments Heard (again) in Maine Supreme Judicial Court
On November 3, 2015 in Portland, attorneys on both sides of Maine’s ongoing smart meter case presented their oral arguments to Maine’s highest court. Each side had 15 minutes in which to make arguments supporting written briefs submitted in the first months of this year. Theoretically there is time to make the arguments but in reality attorneys are constantly interrupted with questions from the justices. While our attorney did very well, appealing any agency final decision is an uphill battle against reluctance on the part of courts to overturn or vacate decisions made by lower bodies. Approximately 20 supporters from as far as Camden, ME and Worcester, MA came to show support in the courtroom. Some rallied outside the court afterwards where they were photographed (see below). It will probably be several months before a decision is issued.
Comments