Critics Take on California Council on Science and Technology Smart Meter Report 5


Comments on the California Council on Science and Technology’s Smart Meter Report accepted through January 31 include several from researchers who have studied the effects of constant exposure to low-level microwave radiation.

Full links and selected excerpts:

Comments of David O. Carpenter, M.D.
Director, Institute for Health and the Environment
University at Albany – Excerpt:

The statement “There currently is no conclusive scientific evidence pointing to a non-thermal cause-and-effect between human exposure to RF emissions and negative health impacts is inaccurate, and depends totally on what one defines as “conclusive”. In biology and medicine there is nothing that is 100% proven. We rely on statistical significance and weight of evidence when drawing conclusions about health effects. When one uses these definitions there is conclusive scientific evidence for adverse health effects in humans.

Comments of Magda Havas BSc, PhD
Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies at Trent University, Canada – Excerpts:

Our exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) is increasing exponentially as we design more equipment that relies on higher frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum. Prior to World War II, this type of radiation was negligible. Today we have radar (military, marine, aviation, and weather), we have cell phone antennas, radio and TV broadcast antennas, and a growing number of WiFi hotspots, citywide WiFi and Wi-Max antennas. Inside buildings we have cordless phones, many of which emit microwave radiation even when they are not being used; wireless alarm systems; wireless baby monitors, wireless computers, iPads, and Smart Phones that can connect to wireless internet or WiFi. More children are playing wireless video games than ever before and radio frequency identification devices (RFID) are placed into merchandise to provide information to the manufacturer about consumer habits. The “smart meter” is just another source of exposure that will be placed on every home and in every apartment. Smart meters are being used to monitor use of electricity, gas and water. As part of this system, appliances are being designed to communicate directly with smart meters, all in a wireless mode, which will ultimately increase levels of radiation in the home.

…I have great concern regarding the current levels of microwave radiation in North America. Instead of promoting wireless technology, we should be promoting wired technology and reserving wireless for situations where wired in not possible (while one is traveling for example). Shortly after X-rays were discovered, they were used in shoe stores to determine shoe-size for young children. Fortunately, we recognized that X-rays were harmful and we restricted their use to essential medical diagnoses. We need to recognize that microwaves are also harmful and we cannot use this technology in a frivolous manner. With more frequencies being used, with the levels of radiation increasing, and with so little research on the long-term, low-level effects of this technology we are creating a potential time bomb. If smart meters are placed on every home, they will contribute significantly to our exposure and this is both unwise and unsafe.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Havas maintains a fascinating website with lots of current news about health concerns and wireless devices, including the fact that the Swiss government is now recommending its schools install wired fiber-optic networks instead of wireless networks.

Comments of Cindy Sage, MA
Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, California
Co-Editor, BioInitiative Report
Research Fellow, Department of Oncology
Orebro University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden – Excerpts:

Conclusions of the report are inconsistent with the report’s more balanced warnings about possible risks to health. The overall legitimacy of the report is cast into doubt as a result. CCST’s report could equally well have concluded ‘there is ample evidence to advise the California Legislature that, based on multiple studies of radiofrequency radiation below current FCC safety limits, it is advisable to issue a cautionary warning on the wireless component of smart meters until a full assessment of their effects is completed by independent experts. Further, it can be concluded that the continued rollout of wireless smart meters may increase public health risks on a widespread basis and should be reconsidered in light of the existing scientific evidence and public health warnings for such chronic exposures to pulsed RF.

By ignoring evidence for low-intensity RF adverse health effects, the Report essentially then dismissed the need for changes in public safety standards for pulsed RF. This conclusion simply cannot be reconciled with the evidence presented in the report (thin as it is), nor with the larger body of evidence known to experts in this field. That evidence is now widely discussed by international health and safety experts who find the existing thermal standards inadequate to protect public health.

…CCST’s report makes misleading comparisons of RF exposures from cell phone use and from smart meters, an apparent effort to minimize public health concern. If the FCC had thought smart meters would be held to the head in normal operation, they would have required smart meters to be tested for SAR compliance, not power density. These are not the same, and to compare them is wrong. Cell phones produce a high, localized RF exposure at the head. They are presumed to be used within 20 centimeters (8”) of the body. Smart meters, like cell towers, create whole body exposure rather than localized exposure in most circumstances, and specific FCC compliance depends on keeping a 20 cm or greater distance from the meter. Cell phone use is voluntary; smart meter exposure is involuntary. Cell phone use is sporadic or intermittent, but smart meter exposure estimates are ‘all over the map’. There is great uncertainty on this point, and as such, the outcome cannot be known; therefore, no assertion of safety or compliance can be given.

Comments of L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust – Excerpts:

There has NEVER been a scientific study of a specific modulation technique on living organisms, whether humans, animals, or cells. Therefore, to blindly assert that, “scientific studies have not identified or confirmed negative health effects from potential non—thermal impacts of RF emissions,” is specious.

In the absence of information, and in the presence of a multitude of reports of ill health, incorrect meter readings, electromagnetic interference (EMI) to other electrical equipment (and possibly EMI from other equipment to the smart meter itself), there is a serious dereliction of duty by the government of California to protects its citizens’ health and well being. Yet this report makes no recommendation, as it should, to thoroughly investigate each of these problems.

…What matters is the peak power, not the average, power. The average power may cause little or no effect, while the peak power could be very dangerous.

…Because the exposure limit was based on heating effects, and because it takes time for a human body to increase its temperature, the FCC’s power density exposure limit is averaged over 6 minutes.

The CCST Report is patently wrong when it states, “scientific studies have not identified or confirmed negative health effects from potential non—thermal impacts of RF emissions.”

The CCST Report requires substantial revision to reflect what scientific studies have found concerning negative human health effects and/or DNA damage to animal and cells, or if not revised, should be withdrawn and all monies returned to the government of California.

Comments of Raymond Richard Neutra, M.D., Dr. PH
Albany, California – Excerpt:

On page 24 [the CCST report says] “.. retrofitting millions of smart meters with hard wired technology could be difficult and costly. Perhaps more importantly, retrofitting smart meters would not address the significantly greater challenge presented by the billions of mobile phones in use globally.”

This sentence also includes important unstated assumptions:
a) If other actors are exposing you to harm more intensely than I, then I have no moral duty to remove my less intense harm until he removes his.
b) It would not be cost beneficial to switch to wired smart meters.
c) It would raise utility rates substantially to switch to wired smart meters.
d) I have no moral duty to switch to a lower exposure meter, even if the impact on utility bills are minimal.

Comments of David L. Wilner
Wilner & Associates – Excerpts:

The report goes on to state: “While the FCC guidelines appear to provide a large factor of safety against known thermal effects of exposure to radiofrequency, they do not necessarily protect against potential non-thermal effects, nor do they claim to [emphasis added]. Without additional understanding of these effects, there is inadequate basis to develop additional guidelines at this time” (p15).
These are scary statements because all the frequencies involved in this report are in the non-thermal portion of the spectrum, and the FCC does have guidelines that govern them. How could CCST miss this important fact, and then conclude there is no health problem associated with the SmartMeters?

…The people of California should get a refund for any costs that were involved in preparing the study because they didn’t get what they paid for. This is much like the tobacco industry studies going back over the years where we were told that smoking wasn’t harmful to our health. Obviously, that was not true.

Comments of Olle Johansson, Professor
Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden – excerpts follow:

The body of evidence on electromagnetic fields requires a new approach to protection of public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative actions. These conclusions are built upon prior scientific and public health reports documenting the following:
1) Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing exposure standards.
2) ICNIRP/WHO and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequate and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures.
3) New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health world-wide.
4) It is not in the public interest to wait.

…You often hear about “safe levels” of exposure and that there is “no proof of health effects”, but my personal response to these seemingly reassuring statements is that it is very important to realize, from a consumer’s point of view, that “no accepted proof for health effects” is not the same as “no risk”. Too many times, ‘experts’ have claimed to be experts in fields where actually the only expert comment should have been: “I/we just do not know”. Such fields were e.g. the DDT, X-ray, radioactivity, smoking, asbestos, BSE, heavy metal exposure, depleted uranium, etc., etc., etc., where the “no risk”-flag was raised before true knowledge came around.

Comments of Sam Milham, MD, PhD
Indio, California – Excerpts:

I am a physician /epidemiologist, specializing in occupational medicine and in the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF). I was the first to document the link between occupational electromagnetic field exposure and cancer. My website www.sammilham.com has links to my recent papers, to my CV and to my new book, Dirty Electricity which presents evidence that most of the so-called diseases of civilization are due to EMF exposure not lifestyle.

…the only way to avoid a public health catastrophe is to send the smart meter information over existing telephone land lines or go back to the analog meters.


5 thoughts on “Critics Take on California Council on Science and Technology Smart Meter Report

  • RobertWilliams

    GET USED TO IT.

    PG&E has already killed people in Hinkley, California and San Bruno California and other places less well known.

    Why are you people complaining about Wireless smart meters? Do you think you and your children deserve better than those adults and children that have already been killed by PG&E?

    PG&E Corporate has a record of lying, covering up, killing and sickening people throughout the state and that’s not going to change.

    I don’t understand you people trying to protect yourselves and your children. Why don’t you people just accept it, like the rest of us.

    It is obvious that PG&E lies for money. But PG&E is the official word so even if something happens to my wife or children, no one can blame me.

    Stop the dam scientists from reporting cell damage and breaks in DNA chains in human cells and breaches in the blood/brain barrier of lab rats from the Wireless smart meter type of radiation and stop talking about it.

    Just accept it, like the rest of us.

  • DJ

    Smart Meters need to be WIRED, Electricity will always be wired, so what is the problem with running a phone line or cable connection to the internet router that sends the data for internet already? A full data report can be sent by phone or internet at hours where the lines are not in use. If there is an issue, phone lines still work when power is down, so phone lines are capable of sending a message that the power is out to the electric company… something a smart meter without power can not do

  • Felicia N. Trujillo, ND

    To GET USED TO IT
    In your post I hear the voice of utter despair that you cannot protect your own family. Neither can we–NOW.

    But, if this were hostile forces dragging in cell towers and forcing your community to buckle, I think you’d be there fighting. This is harder.

    However, the more you learn, the more you can protect yourself to some extent–maybe enough to survive this.

  • Joan carles López

    Good morning from Reus Catalonia Spain, congrats on the above terms in the article, here in Spain are the old counters CANBIO wheel by these electrons, but although they can work with wifi, Eston operate via PLC, data transmission in same electrical cables, but I do not trust that they can use the wireless technology, but can be neutralized easily covering the counter with a fabric shield. type cotton with silver thread, and aborts the transmission and eliminated the problem, do not let use our health for profit, oh and I invite you to visit my page as a reference in Spain and Latin America in the fight against pollution electromagnetic, and also publishes, with permission article for information of users, Greetings

Comments are closed.