In 1960, Frey, then 25, was working at General Electric's Advanced Electronics Center at Cornell University when he was contacted by a technician whose job was to measure the signals emitted by radar stations. At the time, Frey had taken an interest in the electrical nature of the human body, specifically in how electric fields affect neural functioning. The technician claimed something incredible: He said he could "hear" radar at one of the sites where he worked.

Frey traveled to the facility and stood in the radar field. "And sure enough, I could hear it, too," he said, describing the persistent low-level hum. Frey went on to establish that the effect was real—electromagnetic (EM) radiation from radar could somehow be heard by human beings. The "hearing," however, didn't happen via normal sound waves perceived through the ear. It occurred somewhere in the brain itself, as EM waves interacted with the brain's cells, which generate tiny electrical fields. This idea came to be known as the Frey effect, and it caused an uproar in the neuroscience community.

The waves that Frey was concerned with were those emitted from the nonionizing part of the EM spectrum—the part that scientists always assumed could do no outright biological damage. When Frey began his research, it was assumed that the only way microwaves could have a damaging biological effect was if you increased the power of their signals and concentrated them like sword points—to the level where they could cook flesh. In 1967, this resulted in the first popular microwave oven, which employed microwave frequencies at very high power, concentrated and contained in a metal box. Aside from this engineered thermal effect, the signals were assumed to be safe.

Allan Frey would help pioneer the science that suggested otherwise. At the vanguard of a new field of study that came to be known as bioelectromagnetics, he found what appeared to be grave nonthermal effects from microwave frequencies—the part of the spectrum that belongs not just to radar signals and microwave ovens but also, in the past fifteen years, to cell phones. (The only honest way to think of our cell phones is that they are tiny, low-power microwave ovens, without walls, that we hold against the sides of our heads.) Frey tested microwave radiation on frogs and other lab animals, targeting the eyes, the heart, and the brain, and in each case he found troubling results. In one study, he triggered heart arrhythmias. Then, using the right modulations of the frequency, he even stopped frog hearts with microwaves—stopped the hearts dead.

Frey observed two factors in how microwaves at low power could affect living systems. First, there was the carrier wave: a frequency of 1,900 megahertz, for example, the same frequency of many cell phones today. Then there was the data placed on the carrier wave—in the case of cell phones, this would be the sounds, words, and pictures that travel along it. When you add information to a carrier wave, it embeds a second signal—a second frequency—within the carrier wave. This is known as modulation. A carrier wave can support any number of modulations, even those that match the ­extra-low frequencies at which the brain operates (between eight and twenty hertz). It was modulation, Frey discovered, that induced the widest variety of biological effects. But how this happened, on a neuronal level, he didn't yet understand.

In a study published in 1975 in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Frey reported that microwaves pulsed at certain modulations could induce "leakage" in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain. Breaching the blood-brain barrier is a serious matter: It means the brain's environment, which needs to be extremely stable for nerve cells to function properly, can be perturbed in all kinds of dangerous ways. Frey's method was rather simple: He injected a fluorescent dye into the circulatory system of white rats, then swept the ­microwave frequencies across their bodies. In a matter of minutes, the dye had leached into the confines of the rats' brains.

Frey says his work on radar microwaves and the blood-brain barrier soon came under assault from the government. Scientists hired and funded by the Pentagon claimed they'd failed to replicate his findings, yet they also refused to share the data or methodology behind their research ("a most unusual action in science," Frey wrote at the time). For more than fifteen years, Frey had received almost unrestricted funding from the Office of Naval Research. Now he was told to conceal his blood-brain-barrier work or his contract would be canceled.

Since then, no meaningful research into the effect of microwaves on the blood-brain barrier has been pursued in the United States. But a Swedish neurosurgeon, Leif Salford, recently expanded on Frey's work, confirming much of what Frey revealed decades ago. Salford found that microwave exposure killed rodents' brain cells and stimulated neurons associated with Alzheimer's. "A rat's brain is very much the same as a human's," he said in a 2003 interview with the BBC. "They have the same blood-brain barrier and neurons. We have good reason to believe that what happens in rats' brains also happens in humans'. " His research, he said, suggests that "a whole generation of [cell-phone] users may suffer negative effects in middle age."

Environmental Reviews: "Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays," by B Blake Levitt and Henry Lai, Nov 5, 2010, 18:369–395: http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Blake_Levit-Henry_Lai.pdf

"Recent studies (1995-2000) on the biological effects of radiofrequency and cell phone radiation," by Henry Lai, Ph.D. Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, 97 pages, http://www.emrnetwork.org/pdfs/laisummary.pdf

The Sage Report: "RF Studies on RFR effects at Low-Intensity Exposures," http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page_id=404

Powerwatch list of studies: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp

Read “Research on the Effects of Cell Phone Radiation on Human Sperm,’ by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., March 3, 2011: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_Commissions/Commission_for_Community_Environmental_Advisory/CEAC2011-04-07_1i-Effects_of_CellPhoneRadiation_onHumanSperm-Moskowitz.pdf

Dirty Electricity

Electrical engineer Rob States has studied smart meters in the home environment setting and has found that in addition to RF radiation exposure, the smart meters are generating spikes of EMF fields in our home wiring that is harmful to the human body. He also reports on a study done by two engineers that found “all of the meters measured so far, including ABB, GE, and Landis Gyr, emit noise on the customer’s electric wiring in the form of high frequency voltage spikes…recent scientific papers have increasingly reported that pulsed radiation is significantly worse than continuous radiation.”  This type of electromagnetic radiation problem due to the smart meters SMPS can be documented by using very expensive and higher-end RF detection equipment, such as an oscilloscope. 

Read, “New Critical Problem with ‘Smart’ Meters: The Switching-Mode Power Supply (SMPS),” posted on March 30, 2011 on the eon3EMF blog site: http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=2180

Download: "Power Transient Measurements," by Rob States -- go to bottom of this screen/web page to view and download. 

Meanwhile, in the California desert communities, medical physician Sam Milham, author of the book, “Dirty Electricity,” has found the same SMPS home wiring contamination issue that States reported.  Both States and Dr. Milham believe that smart meters are producing "dirty electricity" that gets into the wiring throughout a residence, emitting frequencies that is a making people sick.  

Read, "Utility Companies are Creating Hostile Environments," http://burbankaction.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/utility-companies-are-going-to-be-sued/

Read, "‘Dirty Electricity’ Ignored in CCST Report – Epidemiologist," eon3EMFblog site: http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=1444

Watch VIDEO of Dr. Sam Milham, "Smart Meters, Dirty Electricity and Disease," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci5GGqEPecE&feature=player_embedded

Watch VIDEO, Rob States, "The Dark Side of Smart Meters," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLeCTaSG2-U

Dr. Milham has also let it be known: What the utility companies and California Public Utilities Commission are doing with their smart meter installations is not only harming humans, but against the law.  As the narrator at the end of this YouTube video concludes, “Utility companies can be sued.”

How our pets and animal companions

suffer from Smart Meters

Our pets and our animal companions are of course proving to be very sensitive and smarter than the smart meters.  They are suffering and are being made sick due to the smart meters, too.  Just more reasons to oppose these at our homes and neighborhoods.  Read more about smart meters affecting them here:

Stop Smart Meters: "And What of the Animals?"  posted August 31, 2011:

http://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/08/31/and-what-of-the-animals/

Also read this consumer complaint in San Diego about cats/kittens dying on UCAN's website, "It is worse than you think," posted February 1, 2011: http://www.ucan.org/forum/forums/energy/sdg_e_disputes/billing_dispute#comment-31923

Feel free to notify the EMF Safety Network if your animals or pet is suffering since the installation of smart meters on your home or neighborhood:  EMFSafe@sonic.net. 

(Many of you who have already researched the peer-reviewed studies examining the effects of popular wireless device and cell tower radiation on biology, already know about the documented non-thermal adverse effects on cellular, plant, animal and human health, many of them cited above; others can be found on our Burbank ACTION cell tower pages on health studies: https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/science-research-health-effects)

^{Problems with the FCC RF standard}

As smart meter proponents will point out: the FCC sets the RF radiation public exposure standards in the U.S.  However, doe they tell you that his standard is outdated, and it does not take into account the growing number of studies that show harmful effects on human health and biology from low-level non-thermal RF radiation?  

Dig a little further to find the source of the problem:  the FCC has a major conflict of interest because it's in the billion-dollar business of selling wireless spectrum to the industry. 

Do you think the FCC will bite the hand that feeds it? 

Follow the money....

Read Broadcasting & Cable, "CEA/CTIA: Broadcast Spectrum Auctions Could Clear $33 Billion or More," February 15, 2011, http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/463971-CEA_CTIA_Broadcast_Spectrum_Auctions_Could_Clear_33_Billion_or_More.php

Electronista News: "FCC: Spectrum auction could be worth $120 billion due to ‘iPad boom’," Friday, October 22, 2010, http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/10/22/fcc.says.ipad.helping.spark.wireless.spectrum.rush/

The Street, "FCC Spectrum Auction Nears $20 Billion," March 19, 2008, http://www.thestreet.com/story/10408536/fcc-spectrum-auction-nears-20-billion.html

Urgent Communications, "FCC spectrum auction raises $13.7 billion Oct 1, 2006, http://urgentcomm.com/mag/radio_fcc_spectrum_auction/

Federal Communications Commission Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: "THE FCC REPORT
TO CONGRESS ON SPECTRUM AUCTIONS," Adopted: September 30, 1997, Released: October 9, 1997, http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/papersAndStudies/fc970353.pdf

The EPA, which participated in FCC's exposure standard setting, explains the  limitations and uncertainty of the FCC's adopted standard in protecting human health.  In a July 16, 2002 letter, EPA's Norbert Hankin, Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division explains to Ms. Janet Newton, President of the EMR Network:

• I believe it is correct to say that there is uncertainty about whether or not current guidelines adequately treat nonthermal, prolonged exposures (exposures that may continue on an intermittent basis for many years).  The explanation that follows is basically a summary of statements that have been made in other EPA documents and correspondence….

  The FCC’s current exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and  Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations….The FCC’s exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms.  Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified.

  …The exposure guidelines did not consider information that addresses nonthermal, prolonged exposures, i.e., from research showing effects with implications for possible adversity in situations involving chronic/prolonged, low-level (nonthermal) exposures.  Relatively few chronic, low-level exposure studies of human populations have been reported and the majority of these studies do not show obvious adverse health effects.  However, there are reports that suggest that potentially adverse health effects, such as cancer, may occur.  Since EPA’s comments were submitted to the FCC in 1993, the number of studies reporting effects associated with both acute and chronic low-level exposure to RF radiation has increased.

  …The FCC does not claim that their exposure guidelines provide protection for exposures to which the 4 W/kg SAR basis does not apply, i.e., exposures below the 4W/kg threshold level that are chronic/prolonged and nonthermal…there is uncertainty about possible risk from nonthermal, intermittent exposures that may continue for years.

  ….Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, nonthermal exposures.

(Source: 2002 EPA letter re: limitations of FCC RF radiation exposure guidelines: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf)

Read and watch these reports about the flaws with FCC Guidelines and how they were developed:

• Read: "The procrustean approach: setting exposure standards for telecommunications frequency electromagnetic radiation," by Donald Raymond Maisch, University of Wallagong, Australia, 2009.  This is  a large file and may take several seconds to download:  http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=4148&context=theses&type=additional&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddwyer%2520carcinogenic%2520properties%2520of%2520non-ionizing%2520radiation%253B%2520volume%2520h%2520-%2520microwave%2520and%2520radiofrequency%2520radiation%2520pdf%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D14%26ved%3D0CDAQFjADOAo%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fro.uow.edu.au%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Ffilename%253D0%2526article%253D4148%2526context%253Dtheses%2526type%253Dadditional%26ei%3DDtfdTtesOcmwiQKC4Py8CA%26usg%3DAFQjCNHdAEuP2E-swyN5_yfvIsOarTbOKw#search=%22dwyer%20carcinogenic%20properties%20non-ionizing%20radiation%3B%20volume%20h%20-%20microwave%20radiofrequency%20radiation%20pdf%22

• Read: "Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Harcourt Brace" (1995) by B. Blake Levitt: http://www.emrpolicy.org/faq/fcc_flaws.pdf

• VIDEO - Watch this enlightening and disturbing clip from the "Radiant Day" documentary by Norwegian (NRK) television (with English subtitles) about the harmful effects of cell towers; this particular clip reveals the conflict of interest in the membership of the engineering association that sets our RF safety standards -- many of its members are from the telecom industry: http://www.youtube.com/user/BurbankACTION#p/f/1/AHhfjQ1_JVw .   To watch the complete original documentary (with English subtitles), go here: http://www.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/428197/ (video will take some time to load, so please be patient, this documentary is definitely a must watch).

• VIDEO: Interview (40 minutes) with Environmental Consultant Cindy Sage regarding Bioinitiative Report and non-ionizing radiation, including warnings about cell towers and how our standards of safe levels need to be changed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tZDor-_co0 or  http://videos.next-up.org/BioInitiative/InterviewCindySage/012008.html

World Health Organization classifies
wireless device radiation as Class 2B Carcinogen

The FCC standard was established in 1996 and does not take into account the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classifying non-ionizing wireless radiation as a Class 2B carcinogen, on par with DDT. 

The World Health Organization issued this classification on May 31, 2011, due to studies showing increased risk of brain cancer in long-term cell phone users.  

Read WHO Press release, "IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS, May 31, 2011: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

Read Stop Smart Meters: "WHO's Statement is a Game Changer," June 2, 2011, http://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/06/02/whos-statement-is-a-game-changer/

In addition, Cindy Sage of Sage Associates on August 29, 2011, shared an e-mail from Robert Baan, the author of the above IARC statement finding radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation as a ClassB possible human carcinogen.  Dr. Baan wrote to clarify that the WHO/IARC statement would apply not just to cell phones but include smart meters:

Thank you for your message, which was forwarded to me, and to which I would like to respond as follows.

The IARC Working Group classified "Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" (RF-EMF) as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).

The information that formed the main basis for this evaluation was found in epidemiological studies on cell-phone use, where a slightly increased risk for glioma (a malignant form of brain cancer) and acoustic neuroma (a non-cancerous type) was reported among heavy users.

There were some indications of increased cancer among radar-maintenance workers (occupational exposure), but no reliable data from studies among, e.g., people living close to base-station antennas, radio/TV towers, etc (environmental exposure).

Although the key information came from mobile telephone use, the Working Group considered that the three types of exposure entail basically the same type of radiation, and decided to make an overall evaluation on RF-EMF, covering the whole radiofrequency region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

In support of this, information from studies with experimental animals showed that effects on cancer incidence and cancer latency were seen with exposures to different frequencies within the RF region.

So the classification 2B, possibly carcinogenic, holds for all types of radiation within the radiofrequency part of the electromagnetic spectrum, including the radiation emitted by base-station antennas, radio/TV towers, radar, Wi-Fi, smart meters, etc.

An important point is the radiation level. The exposure from cellular phones (personal exposure) is substantially higher and much more focused (usually on the brain) than exposures from radio/tv towers, antennas, or Wi-Fi.

I hope this is useful.

Thank you for your interest in our work.

Sincerely yours,

Robert A Baan PhD

The IARC Monographs

IARC, Lyon, FRANCE

EPRI and Maine CDC's Exponent Studies
on RF Exposure from Wireless Smart Meters

Proponents of the utility industry say they are safe, operating within FCC public safety standards.  PG&E contracted out Richard Tell Associates to prepare its RF analysis report:

Richard Tell Associates: "Supplemental Report on An Analysis of Radiofrequency Fields Associated with Operation of the PG&E SmartMeter Program Upgrade System," by Richard Tell for PG&E, October 27, 2008:  www.ci.sausalito.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=6742

The Electric Power Institute (EPRI),  meanwhile, issued its RF reports, often referenced by smart meter advocates:

“An Investigation of Radio frequency Fields Associated with the Itron Smart Meter,” EPRI report number 1021126, December 22, 2010, https://www.cityofmadison.com/water/documents/EPRIsmartmeterstudy.pdf

EPRI Study: "A Perspective on Radio-Frequency Exposure Associated With Residential Automatic Meter Reading Technology," February 22, 2010, https://www.nvenergy.com/NVEnergize/documents/EPRI_ExposureAMI.pdf

However, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and its staff have ties to and are funded by the energy and electric industry, so their opinions and studies about the safety of wireless smart meters are often regarded as suspect or biased by those concerned about those concerned about the environmental health effects from wireless smart meters.

You can read more about the EPRI ("About us") on  its website: http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=200&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true

From its own website: "EPRI's members represent more than 90 percent of the electricity generated and delivered in the United States..."

Read about its Company Officers and their backgrounds here: http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=200&&PageID=202&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true

And its technology strategic vision here: http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?space=Opener&parentname=CommunityPage&control=OpenObject&in_hi_OpenerMode=2&in_hi_ClassID=514&in_hi_ObjectID=324

And a related article it posted on the Energy, Utility and Environment Conference blog: "Health Fears and ‘Smart Meters,'” by Rob Kavet, Electric Power Research Institute, September 26, 2010: http://blog.euec.com/?p=123

In Maine, the state’s CDC hired experts from Exponent to assist its study and report about the health effects from wireless smart meters.  The Maine CDC is yet another report that is often referenced by smart meter advocates.  Exponent, by the way, is also a consultant to company that has defended the tobacco and asbestos industries in cancer cases.

Maine Pubic Health: “Update on Smart Meters,” November 29, 2010: http://mainepublichealth.blogspot.com/2010/11/update-on-smart-meters.html

Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention issued its report to the Maine Office of the Public Advocate, "Executive Summary of Review of Health Issues Related to Smart Meters," November 8, 2010, https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/boh/documents/Smart_Meters_Maine_CDC_Executive_Summary_11_08_10.pdf, or, go to the Maine CDC website for a copy of the report and related documents: https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/boh/smart_meters.shtml

Smart Meter Safety, “‘Doubt’ Surrounds CMP’s Hired Science,” December 1, 2010: http://smartmetersafety.org/2010/12/01/doubt-surrounds-cmps-hired-science/

Los Angeles Times, "Toyota calls in Exponent as hired gun," February 18, 2010, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/18/business/la-fi-toyota-exponent18-2010feb18

CCST Health Report on Wireless Smart Meters

In California, at the request of Assembly Members Jared Huffman (Marin) and Bill Monning (Santa Cruz), the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST), prepared a health report on wireless smart meters. The CCST issued its controversial results in January 11, 2011. On the one hand, the CCST project team says that given the current FCC standard of acceptable public exposure to RF radiation emitted from devices such as smart meters, the smart meters are safe and should proceed with their rollout.

However, the report authors also acknowledge that the FCC public exposure standard address do not address non-thermal health effects. 

In addition, on page 4, following its Key Findings, the CCST recommends that options should be explored for those who have concerns about wireless smart meters.

CCST: “Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters,” January 11, 2011: http://ccst.us/news/2011/20110111smart.php

Power Pulse: “CCST Report on RF Health Impacts from Smart Meters Available for Comment,” January 19, 2011: http://www.powerpulse.net/story.php?storyID=23441

The CCST report also states that health concerns of RF from smart meters are similar to those from cordless or mobile phone, microwave oven, wireless router or hair dryers. However, the CCST report failed to then follow these examples by stating the obvious: these personal appliances involve consumer options and/or choice.

Today’s consumers, thank goodness, still have the liberty, freedom, and right of choice whether they want to own and use (or not) these appliances in the privacy and sanctity of their homes, or how often they want to use them, or when they want to shut them off. They also have that same right, choice and freedom to decrease or reduce or limit their usage, in order to reduce their exposure to the non-thermal RF radiation these devices emit.

However, wireless smart meters will be operating 24/7, and most utility companies are not allowing consumers to turn them off whenever they want.

The CCST report also failed to report how most consumers lack a choice of competing utility companies – so if one of them offered a wired smart meter, another utility allowed you to keep your old analog meter and use non-wireless technologies and rate programs that would reduce energy usage and promote energy efficiency, and a third utility company offered a wired smart meter, then that would be closer to offering consumers choice and options. But right now, most utilities are monopolies -- consumers only have one utility to provide them with power, or water or gas.

Pointing out the problem with only having one utility company, family physician Steven J. Kirsch, of Maine Medical Partners in Scarborough recently wrote a letter to the Public Utilities Commission in Maine, where growing numbers of doctors are asking the PUC to intervene and protect residents from forced wireless exposure in their private homes. Here is an excerpt:

We in American hold our personal liberties dear. One such liberty is to create a personal living space that is safe, healthy and free from potentially dangerous exposures. I would expect the same for my patient who has required a hospitalization for her symptoms. Central Maine Power is our only electricity supplier locally. If there was an alternative electricity provider, this letter would not be as urgent. I would suggest switching to the new carrier. However, we do not have that choice here in Maine. As a result of not having this option, Central Maine Power must provide its customer with an opt-out provision with regard to Smart Meter installation.

Source: Letter dated February 2, 2011 from family physician Stephen J Kirsch, MD, to Karen Geraghty, Administration Director, Maine Public Utilities Commission, can be found on-line at: http://smartmetersafety.com/2011/02/05/prominent-m-d-links-patients-hospitalization-to-smart-meter-installation-urges-opt-outs/, and read in full on-line here: http://smartmetersafetydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/kirsch-letter.pdf

Response to CCST Health Report

Public comments to the CCST health report were due January 31, 2010. Meanwhile, Assembly Members Jared Huffman and Bill Monning, in response, continued to advocate an opt out for consumers who want it (update: Huffman pulled AB37 and put it aside when the CPUC asked PG&E to submit an opt-out plan, and consumers statewide believe that they will have to ask their area legislators to take up where Huffman started).

Good Times: “Town Hall with Assemblymember Bill Monning,” January 25, 2011: http://www.goodtimessantacruz.com/santa-cruz-news/santa-cruz-town-hall/2105-town-hall-with-assemblymember-bill-monning.html

Smart Metering News: CCST Report Says SmartMeters Are Safe, But The Debate Continues, January 12, 2011: http://smartmeteringnews.com/ccst-report-says-smartmeters-are-safe-but-the-debate-continues/

Assemblyman Jared Huffman: Joint Statement of Assemblymembers Huffman and Monning on Release of Smart Meter Report by the California Council on Science and Technology, January 11, 2011: http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a06/newsroom/20110111AD06PR01.htm

Stop Smart Meters Now Blog: “CCST STUDY LEAVES SMART METER HEALTH QUESTIONS UNANSWERED: Report Admits that Smart Meter Radiation “Continues to be of Concern,” January 12, 2011: http://stopsmartmeters.wordpress.com/press-releases/jan-12th-2011-ccst-study-leaves-smart-meter-health-questions-unanswered/

Mercury News: “Opponents vow to continue fight against PG&E's SmartMeters,” January 12, 2011: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_17079860?nclick_check=1

When the CCST was preparing its report on smart meters,  De-Kun Li, M.D. and Ph.D., submitted his letter outlining the problems with the FCC standard and radiation like that emitted from smart meters.   Dr. Li is the Senior Reproductive and Perinatal Epidemiologist, Division of Research, Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, of Kaiser Permanente.  Excerpts from his letter to the CCST:

While the underlying mechanisms of the potential EMF health effect are not totally
understood at present, skeptics have been focused on the EMF thermal effect, especially
those who are NOT in the profession of biomedical research, such as physicists. It is
now known that EMFs can interfere with the human body through multiple mechanisms.
For example, it has been demonstrated that communication between cells depends on
EMF signals, likely in a very low level. External EMFs could conceivably interfere with
normal cell communication, thus disrupting normal cell differentiation and proliferation.
Such disturbance could lead to miscarriage, birth defects, and cancer...

First, FCC currently has only “guidelines”, not standards as explained above. Second, as
described in the background information above, the current FCC guidelines only deal
with thermal effect which was also based on animal studies only. Meeting the current
FCC guidelines, in the best case scenario, only means that one won’t have heat damage
from SmartMeter exposure. It says nothing about safety from the risk of many chronic
diseases that the public is most concerned about such as cancer, miscarriage, birth
defects, semen quality, autoimmune diseases, etc. Therefore, when it comes to nonthermal
effects of RF, which is the most relevant effect for public concerns, FCC
guidelines are irrelevant and can not be used for any claims of SmartMeter safety unless
we are addressing heat damage...

The bottom line is that the safety level for RF exposure related to non-thermal effect is
unknown at present and whoever claims that their device is safe regarding non-thermal
effect is either ignorant or misleading.

In summary, we do not currently have scientific data to determine where the safe
RF exposure level is regarding the non-thermal effect. Therefore, it should be recognized
that we are dealing with uncertainty now and most likely for the foreseeable future. The
question for governmental agencies, especially those concerned with public health and
safety, is that given the uncertainty, should we err on the side of safety and take the
precautionary avoidance measures? Unknown does not mean safe. There are two unique
features regarding SmartMeter exposure. First, because of mandatory installation, it is a
universal exposure. Virtually every household is exposed. Second, it is an involuntary
exposure. The public that are exposed to SmartMeters do not have any input in deciding
whether they would like to have the SmartMeter installed. The installation is imposed
upon the public. Governmental agencies for protecting public health and safety should be
much more vigilant towards involuntary environmental exposures because governmental
agencies are the only defense against such involuntary exposure. Given the uncertainty
of the SmartMeter safety, one rational first step of public policy could be to require
household consent before installation of SmartMeters. Finally, because of the nature of
universal exposure, many susceptible and vulnerable populations including pregnant
women and young children are unknowingly exposed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Usually, the threshold of harmful level is much lower for susceptible populations.

Read more: http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart/documents/li_response.pdf

Dr. Li's peer-reviewed studies include:

1.  Li DK, Odouli R, Wi S et al. "A population-based prospective cohort study of personal
exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage," published in Epidemiology, 2002;13(1):9-20.

2. Li DK, Yan B, Li Z et al. "Exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of poor sperm quality," published in Reproductive Toxicology, 2010;29(1):86-92.

3. Li DK, Checkoway H, Mueller BA. "Electric blanket use during pregnancy in relation to the risk of congenital urinary tract anomalies among women with a history of subfertility," published in Epidemiology, 1995;6:485-489.

From Rick Kreutzer, M.D., California Department of Public Health, to the CCST, March 10, 2011:

Using scientific evidence to shape public policy is always challenging. The standards
for declaring certainty within a scientific discipline, which are often based on the
results of statistical testing, may be unrealistic or inappropriate for making public
policy decisions, particularly those with potential impacts on population health...

Nonthermal-Effects
Evidence from studies on non‐thermal health effects of RF EMF is confusing. A
review of the literature demonstrated inconsistent associations with health
outcomes and provided some suggestions of new causal mechanisms for disease.
There is legitimate scientific controversy over whether the current body of evidence
is best described as “evidence of absence” of health effects or “absence of evidence”
of health effects for Smart Meter levels of radio frequency EMF exposures. Few
studies have rigorously measured long‐term RF exposure or examined potential
non‐thermal health effects from such exposure. Recently, some studies have
suggested that RF absorption from mobile phones may disrupt communication
between human cells, which may lead to other negative impacts on human biology.
Additionally, some studies of long‐term cell phone users suggest an association with
brain cancer on the same side of the head that the cell phone was used. Most studies
of cell phones and cancer risk do not include many long‐term users, and therefore
cannot realistically assess potential impacts of long‐term RF exposure to the head.
“Electromagnetic stress,” which includes symptoms of fatigue, headache and
irritability has been reported in less rigorous studies. The strength of this evidence
is not such that it would be warranted to say with high certainty that long‐term EMF
exposure causes significant health effects. However, there is enough suggestive
evidence to warrant precaution and further study.

Exposure Pathways
Of equal importance, is the current dearth of information about potential exposures
to Smart Meter emissions. There is no information on the performance of Smart
Meters in the field after installation and the amount of variability in their RF
emissions. There also is no information on the percent of people who will spend
time closer than three feet (for this example the distance is arbitrary but might be
more scientifically approximated) to a Smart Meter and the percent of their time
within that radius. 

Read more: http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart/documents/kreutzer_submission.pdf

Dr. Kreutzer, and Linda Rudolph, M.D., MPH, of the California Dept. of Public Health, also submitted these responses to the CCST report:

The [CCST] report states on page 4, point 3 under Other Considerations, “The

California Public Utilities Commission should consider doing an independent
review of the deployment of smart meters to determine if they are installed
and operating consistent with the information provided to the consumer.”
This is an important finding, and raises doubt about the strong reassurances
provided in Key Findings in the absence of independent review of installed
meters in the field.

CDPH suggests further review of the literature on non-thermal effects, which
is complicated and controversial, but does not support a claim of no nonthermal
health effects from radio frequency electromagnetic fields. We offer
three citations below as examples of the controversies over non-thermal
effects:

Electromagnetic Fields and DNA Damage: Phillips, J.L.; Singh, N.P.; Lai, H.;
Pathophysiology 16(2009) 79-88

Electromagnetic Fields and the Induction of DNA Strand Breaks: Ruiz-
Gomez, M.J.; Martinez-Morillo, M.; Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine
28:201-214, 2009

Radiofrequency and Extremely Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Effects
on the Blood-Brain Barrier: Nittby, H.; Grafstrom, G.; Eberhardt, J.L.;
Malmgren, L.; Brun, A.; Persson, B.R.R.; Salford, L.; Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine 27:103-126, 2008

Another public health expert, David Carpenter, M.D., also submitted Comments to the CCST pointing out flaws with its report and conclusions.  Dr. Carpenter is the Director for the Institute for Health and the Environment, and a Professor of environmental health and biomedical sciences, at the School of Public Health, University of Albany, New York.  He received his medical degree from Harvard Medical School.  Here is an excerpt of his Comments to the CCST and its smart meter report:

This document is not an accurate description of the state of the science on the issue of radiofrequency
fields, and is full of inaccuracies. My specific concerns are as follows:
1. The benefit of the smart meters is entirely to the utilities, and is economic in nature. If they install
smart meters they can fire those individuals who at present are employed to go around reading
meters. Thus this is a job-killing proposal, and will increase unemployment in a state that already
has too much.

2. When a smart meter is installed residents have no choice in the matter nor ability to avoid
exposure. But every individual has the option to use or not use other personal wireless devices,
until more is know about health consequences of chronic RF exposure. There is a major different
between an exposure which an individual chooses to accept and one that is forces on individuals
who can do nothing about it.

3. The statement “The potential for behavioral disruption from increase body tissue temperatures is
the only biological health impact that has been consistently demonstrated and scientifically proven
to result from absorbing RF within the band of the electromagnetic spectrum that smart meters
use” is totally wrong. In the first place there are many adverse health effects other than
“behavioral disruption” demonstrated as a result of tissue heating. The evidence for increased risk
of brain tumors, acoustic neuromas and parotid gland tumors in individuals who have used a cell
phone for 10 years or more is consistent, and the tumors occur only on the side of the head where
the phone is used. There is also strong and consistent evidence for increased risk of leukemia in
individuals who live near to high power AM radio transmission towers, even though this report
characterizes such exposures as being “quite low” and show in Figure 7 that they are lower than
the RF fields from smart meters.
4. The statement “The scientific consensus is that body temperatures must increase at least 1oC to
lead to potential biological impacts from the heat” is totally wrong, and makes it obvious that no

persons with medical or biological expertise participated in this report. Every enzyme system in
the body is exquisitely sensitive to temperature, and increases activity by even a fraction of a
degree increase in temperature. In fact all RF generates heat, and what is defined as “nonthermal”
is only a function of our ability to measure the temperature increase.
5. The statement “While concerns of brain cancer associated with mobile phone usage persist, there
is currently no definitive evidence linking cell phone usage with increased incidence of cancer” is
incorrect. The evidence is strong and consistent among studies looking at long-term and intensive
use of cell phones. The AM radio studies mentioned above are also relevant, particularly because
like smart phones radio transmission towers give whole body radiation, not just to the head.
6. 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.

Read Dr. Carpenter's full letter here: http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart2/documents/letter16carpenter.pdf  

Also watch this video of Dr. Carpenter advising the public to keep their analog meters as there have not been any  human health studies done with smart meters (as the California Public Health department pointed out) showing they are safe:

Other environmental health experts and scientists also found major problems, errors and omissions within the report. The Eon3EMFblog website pages below provide links to copies of other original comment letters submitted by these experts to the CCST:

• Eon3EMFblog: “CCST Report ‘Full of Inaccuracies’ Say Scientists,” January 18, 20111: http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=1293

• Eon3EMFblog: “Unsupported Conclusions – Magda Havas on CCST Report,” January 20, 2011, http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=1337

• Eon3EMFblog: “FCC Violations Ignored – Cindy Sage on CCST Report,” January 20, 2011: http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=1348

• Eon3EMFblog: “‘Dirty Electricity’ Ignored in CCST Report – Epidemiologist,” January 25, 2011: http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=1444

• Also see the list of Comments to the CCST report compiled by SmartMeterDangers.org:
   http://www.smartmeterdangers.org/index.php/position-statements/176-ccst-sm-criticisms

The California Division of Ratepayer Advocates is also critical of the CCST Health Report on Smart Meters, stating "DRA believes that the Report does not fully explore issues related to additional factors that can impact RF exposure from Smart  Meters; exposure from multiple co-located meters; or the basis for the Report's conclusion that 'there is no clear evidence that additional standards are needed to protect the public from smart meters or other common household electronic devices.'" 

Read story: http://www.dra.ca.gov/DRA/hot/110203_smartmeters.htm

Also read DRA Comments to CCST Report: http://www.dra.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C5CBD825-1698-45DA-BFF8-7EF4E0251EDE/0/DRACommentsonCCSTReportJan302011.pdf

Committee to Bridge the Gap's Dan Hirsch also did a study that discovered under-estimation errors in the CCST report, and he submitted comments to correct and point this out.  His new calculations suggest that continuous whole-body exposure to electro-magnetic radiation from  smart meters – which operate around the clock – may be between 50 and 160 times worse that from cell phones.

A recent report from the California Council on Science and Technology, requested by state legislators to assess potential risks from RF radiation from "SmartMeters" (new electric meters being installed on homes to broadcast energy usage), largely just cut and pasted claims from a recent brochure from the electric power industry, a CBG review discloses. Furthermore, because of two errors, the report appears to underestimate relative RF cumulative whole body exposures by a factor of approximately ten thousand, the CBG analysis indicates.

Read: "Comments on the Draft Report by the California Council on Science and Technology, 'Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters'," by Daniel Hirsch, 31 January 2011: http://www.committeetobridgethegap.org/pdf/110212_RFrad_comments.pdf

Also read: eon3EMFblog,"SMs Worse Than Cell Phones – Two Orders of Magnitude," February 21, 2011, http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=1724

Now watch this eye-opening video (field survey) by Amy O'Hair showing what happens when you compare smart meter RF emission to cell phone RF emissions (whole-body exposure). 

Comparing "Smart" Meter RF Emissions to Cell Phones ‎(Whole Body Exposure)‎

Sage Associates RF Study Finds
Wireless Smart Meters Exceed FCC Compliance Standards

In addition, environmental consultant Cindy Sage's field study found smart meters in excess and in violation of the FCC's acceptable level of exposure.

Opponents of the devices have questioned their accuracy and their potential health effects, particularly for children, elderly and those predisposed to be sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) establishes standards for the health and safety for such devices, while the Califoria Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates Pacific Gas & Electric's installation and use of them in the Bay Area and beyond.

The study found that “no positive assertion of safety can be made by the FCC, nor relied upon by the CPUC, with respect to pulsed RF when exposures are chronic and occur in the general population. Indiscriminate exposure to environmentally ubiquitous pulsed RF from the rollout of millions of new RF sources (smart meters) will mean far greater general population exposures, and potential health consequences.”

The study found FCC public safety limit violations could be possible within six inches of the meter, said Barry Smith, a spokesman for the Environmental Health Coalition of West Marin.

"PG&E is misleading the public with false assurances of safety,” Smith said in a statement. “SmartMeter radiation will be a permanent part of the home, and people have no idea how high their chronic RF exposure might be."

The location of the Smart Meter could also lead to heightened RF exposure, the report concluded.

“In addition to exceeding FCC public safety limits under some conditions of installation and operation, smart meters can produce excessively elevated RF exposures, depending on where they are installed,” the report stated. “With respect to absolute RF exposure levels predicted for occupied space within dwellings, or outside areas like patios, gardens and walk-ways, RF levels are predicted to be substantially elevated within a few feet to within a few tens of feet from the meter.”

The report concluded that there were a number of additional factors at each individual installation that needed to be taken into account when evaluating RF impacts. Those factors include how much wireless activity already exists within a house hold or building, including wireless phones, wireless Internet routers, wireless security systems and wireless baby monitors, among others.

The age and medical condition of the residents of the house also affect the potential impact of RF exposure, as does the exact location of the Smart Meter and how close residents are able to get to it.

The California Council on Science and Technology released a report in early January on the health effects of the wireless meters. The conclusion was that the meters emit lower levels of radio frequencies than many household products, are well below federal standards even under worst-case scenarios and that FCC standards are adequately safe for possible thermal health effects.

However, the report also concluded that not enough is known about the non-thermal health effects from radio frequencies and that more information should be provided to consumers about emissions of all devices, including SmartMeters.

Source: Novato Patch: "Report: SmartMeters Could Exceed FCC's Radiation Limits; Environmental consultants find FCC public safety limit violations could be possible within six inches of meters," February 21, 2011: http://novato.patch.com/articles/report-smartmeters-could-exceed-fccs-radiation-limits

Also read: KGO-TV ABC San Francisco: "Study: SmartMeters more powerful than thought," February 21, 2011: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/north_bay&id=7971215&rss=rss-ipad-kgo-article-7971215

Metering.com: “Smart meters in California likely to exceed FCC safety limits according to environmental consultants,” January 12, 2011: http://www.metering.com/Smart/meters/California/likely/exceed/FCC/safety/limits/according/environmental/consultants

You can also read Cindy Sage's full report, as well as her Comments to the CCST report, and Comments submitted by other leading health, medical, and engineering experts from around the world; there is also a list of health studies on RF radiation:

• Sage Associates, “Assessment of Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Emissions from Smart Meters,” January 1, 2011: http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/
• About this report: http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page_id=154
• Expert Letters (health and environmental experts) responding to CCST Health Report on smart meters, who have found serious errors and omissions in the CCST report: http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page_id=282
• New/latest scientific statement: http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page_id=382
• List of RF Studies: http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page_id=404

The EPRI, which was mentioned previously regarding its ties to the energy industry and promoting smart grid technologies, came out with this report in February 2011, criticizing the Sage Report:

EPRI, "EPRI Comment: Sage Report on Radio-Frequency (RF) Exposures from Smart Meters," EPRI Report No. 1022639, February 2011, http://www.sdge.com/documents/smartmeter/epri_sagereport.pdf

In response to this EPRI report, Sage and Associates did a follow-up study and again found the wireless smart meters again far exceeding FCC compliance standards:

See: Sage Associates, "Addendum: Assessment of Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Emissions from Silver Springs OWS-NIC514, Model Wireless Electric Meter, February 18, 2011: http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page_id=429

Levitt/Lai Study

Environmental researcher Blake Levitt and Henry Lai, Ph.D., Dept. of Bioengineering,  University of Washington, recently reviewed and cited the long list of studies and research that have been done on the effects of low-level radiation on human health and biology.  In their peer-reviewed study, they included a discussion about smart grid technologies and human health, and the failure of the outdated FCC's public exposure standard for acceptable RF radiation:

It remains to be seen what additional exposures “smart grid” or “smart meter” technology proposals to upgrade the electrical powerline transmission systems will entail regarding total ambient RFR increases, but it will add another ubiquitous low-level layer. Some of the largest corporations on earth, notably Siemens and General Electric, are involved. Smart grids are being built out in some areas of the U.S. and in Canada and throughout Europe. That technology plans to alter certain aspects of powerline utility metering from a wired system to a partially wireless one. The systems require a combination of wireless transmitters attached to homes and businesses that will send radio signals of approximately 1 W output in the 2.4000–2.4835 GHz range to local “access point” transceivers, which will then relay the signal to a further distant information center (Tell 2008). Access point antennas will require additional power density and will be capable of interfacing with frequencies between 900 MHz and 1.9 GHz. Most signals will be intermittent, operating between 2 to 33 seconds per hour. Access points will be mounted on utility poles as well as on free-standing towers. The systems will form wide area networks (WANs), capable of covering whole towns and counties through a combination of “mesh-like” networks from house to house. Some meters installed on private homes will also act as transmission relays, boosting signals from more distant buildings in a neighborhood. Eventually, WANs will be completely linked.

Smart grid technology also proposes to allow homeowners to attach additional RFR devices to existing indoor appliances, to track power use, with the intention of reducing usage during peak hours. Manufacturers like General Electric are already making appliances with transmitters embedded in them. Many new appliances will be incapable of having transmitters deactivated without disabling the appliance and the warranty. People will be able to access their home appliances remotely by cell phone. The WANs smart grids described earlier in the text differ significantly from the current upgrades that many utility companies have initiated within recent years that already use low-power RFR meters attached to homes and businesses. Those first generation RFR meters transmit to a mobile van that travels through an area and “collects” the information on a regular billing cycle. Smart grids do away with the van and the meter reader and work off of a centralized RFR antenna system capable of blanketing whole regions with RFR.

...It makes little sense to keep denying health symptoms that are being reported in good faith. Though the prevalence of such exposures is relatively new to a widespread population, we, nevertheless, have a 50 year observation period to draw from. The primary questions now involve specific exposure parameters, not the reality of the complaints or attempts to attribute such complaints to psychosomatic causes, malingering, or beliefs in paranormal phenomenon. That line of argument is insulting to regulators, citizens, and their physicians. Serious mitigation efforts are overdue.

...It might be more realistic to consider ambient outdoor and indoor RFR exposures in the same way we consider other environmental hazards such as chemicals from building materials that cause sick building syndrome. In considering public health, we should concentrate on aggregate exposures from multiple sources, rather than continuing to focus on individual source points like cell and broadcast base stations. In addition, whole categorically excluded technologies must be included for systems like Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, smart grids, and smart metering as these can greatly increase ambient radiation levels. Only in that way will low-level electromagnetic energy exposures be understood as the broad environmental factor it is. Radiofrequency radiation is a form of energetic air pollution and it should be controlled as such. Our current predilection to take this one product or service at a time does not encompass what we already know beyond reasonable doubt. Only when aggregate exposures are better understood by consumers will disproportionate resistance to base station siting bring more intelligent debate into the public arena and help create safer infrastructure. That can also benefit the industries trying to satisfy customers who want such services. Safety to populations living or working near communications infrastructure has not been given the kind of attention it deserves. Aggregate ambient outdoor and indoor exposures should be emphasized by summing up levels from different generating source points in the vicinity. Radiofrequency radiation should be treated and regulated like radon and toxic chemicals, as aggregate exposures, with appropriate recommendations made to the public including for consumer products that may produce significant RFR levels indoors.

...The present U.S. guidelines for RFR exposure are not up to date. The most recent IEEE and NCRP guidelines used by the U.S. FCC have not taken many pertinent recent studies into consideration because, they argue, the results of many of those studies have not been replicated and thus are not valid for standards setting.That is a specious argument. It implies that someone tried to replicate certain works but failed to do so, indicating the studies in question are unreliable. However, in most cases, no one has tried to exactly replicate the works at all. It must be pointed out that the 4 W/kg SAR threshold based on the de Lorge studies have also not been replicated independently. In addition, effects of long-term exposure, modulation, and other propagation characteristics are not considered. Therefore, the current guidelines are questionable in protecting the public from possible harmful effects of RFR exposure and the U.S. FCC should take steps to update their regulations by taking all recent research into consideration without waiting for replication that may never come because of the scarcity of research funding. The ICNIRP standards are more lenient in key exposures to the population than current U.S. FCC regulations. The U.S. standards should not be “harmonized” toward more lenient allowances. The ICNIRP should become more protective instead. All standards should be biologically based, not dosimetry based as is the case today.

Exposure Standards Table: From the Prove-It website; read more about the FCC standard, http://www.justproveit.net/content/safety-standards

Nation	Exposure Limits from Wireless Transmitters
USA standard	580 microwatts
Russia	10 microwatts
China	6 microwatts
Italy	5 microwatts
Switzerland	4.2 microwatts
Salzburg, Austria	.1 microwatt
Lichtenstein	.1 microwatt

...In general, the lowest regulatory standards currently in place aim to accomplish a maximum exposure of 0.02 V/m, equal to a power density of 0.0001 μW/cm2, which is in line with Salzburg, Austria’s indoor exposure value for GSM cell base stations. Other precautionary target levels aim for an outdoor cumulative exposure of 0.1 μW/cm2 for pulsed RF exposures where they affect the general population and an indoor exposure as low as 0.01 μW/cm2 ( Sage and Carpenter 2009). In 2007, The BioInitiative Report, A rationale for a biologically based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF), also made this recommendation, based on the precautionary principle (Bioinitiative Report 2007).

Source: NRC Research Press, "Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays," published in Environmental Reviews, Vol. 18: 369–395 (2010): http://rparticle.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/rparticle/RpArticleViewer?_handler_=HandleInitialGet&journal=er&volume=18&calyLang=eng&media=html&articleFile=a10-018.pdf

Options and Solutions?

You've already read about the options being provided to electro-hyper-sensitive persons in Sweden, above.

In Arizona, residents are complaining about getting sick from the newly installed wireless smart  meters.  A a resident in Mesa complained about getting ill from hers, and the utility came out and replaced it with a non-RF one. It's an Empower "pay-as-you-go" meter, which does not transmit wireless signals, and she said it doesn't make her sick!  Now that's an option, and two thumbs up to the local utility company that was able to come up with that win-win solution!

Read and watch the TV story here: KPHO-TV Channel 5 News, "Smart Meter Made Me Sick, Mesa Woman Claims; Loni Rosser Says Symptoms Cleared Up With Different Device," posted Feb. 21, 2011 and updated February 22, 2011: http://www.kpho.com/story/14816096/smart-meter-made-me-sick-mesa-woman-claims-2-21-2011

For more information on the Empower meter, see http://www.geus.org/empower.htm

Meanwhile, in New Mexico, until the state public utility commission decides how it wants to proceed with options, it is allowing residents to file Medical Waivers so they don't want have to have wireless smart meters on their home.   That's another humane and healthy option.

New Mexico - Medical Waiver Instructions:http://whyfry.org/how-to-file-a-medical-waiver-now-to-keep-smart-meter-from-your-home/

As for California residents, what happens if these ill health and symptoms from wireless smart meters becomes so severe that they become disabled?  Or what if a growing number of residents become electro-sensitive because of the 24/7 wireless radiation exposure they will have after the meter is installed?  Who is assuming liability?  Our cities or our utilities or the California State Utilities Commission or the manufacturers of the equipment? 

The California Public Utilities Commission has organized proceedings to consider smart meter options proposed by the utilities, consumer groups and organizations who are parties to those proceedings.  They are currently considering a wireless smart meters with the wireless function turned off, wired smart meters, and keeping the analog meter with fees involved.  The first two options do not address the privacy, security, time of use, and remote shut-off concerns of ratepayers (in addition to the health concerns due to the switching-power-mode supply or dirty electricity and the radiation from the surrounding mesh network, relay antennas and other smart meters).  The last one is tainted with the fees or higher rates that the utilities may impose for people who want to keep their analog meters, which critics call extortion. 

You can read about the latest developments on the smart meter options front in California by visiting these websites:

    www.stopsmartmeters.org
        Update on Sept. 14th CPUC Opt Out workshop:

Read more and watch related VIDEO clips here: http://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/09/15/utility-and-smart-meter-tech-company-executives-get-grilled-by-the-public/

Also read, “More Thoughts on Wednesday’s CPUC “Opt-Out” Workshop, posted September 16, 2011, which features Comments by environmental health expert Cindy Sage and Steve Martinot, who represents Alameda County Residents opposed to smart meters (which is a party in the CPUC Smart Meter Opt Out proceeding): http://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/09/16/more-thoughts-on-wednesdays-cpuc-opt-out-workshop/

    www.emfsafetynetwork.org
        Update on Sept. 14 CPUC Opt Out workshop:  http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=5850

    www.electrosmogprevention.org

Update on Sept. 14 CPUC Opt Out workshop: http://lamesa.patch.com/blog_posts/the-great-cpuc-dog-and-pony-show-aka-smart-meter-opt-out-workshop

Video of the opt-out proceedings can also be viewed here, including the utilities and manufacturers finally admitting that the electrical smart meters are constantly emitting microbursts  -- due to the meters need to "chat" with neighboring meters in the mesh network to stay in synch:

Sept. 14, opt out workshop, 6 parts: http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=3520
July 27, 2011 opt out meeting, 2 parts: http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=3349

Keep in mind that municipal water and power departments are telling their ratepayers that they don't have to offer options or abide by CPUC's regulations.   This is a half-truth.  The full-truth?  ALL utilities would have to abide by CPUC regulations if the CPUC makes a decision and issues new regulations that concern matters of public safety.  If enough residents throughout California (including those serviced by municipal water and power departments) make this a public safety and public safety hazard issue with the CPUC, then the CPUC can issue a decision on smart meter options that would affect ALL utilities. 

Read more about how all utilities would have to abide by CPUC regulations when it comes to matters of public safety, especially at the end of this article on our Burbank ACTION blog, "Burbank resident informs California PUC Judge on how BWP Smart Meters are making her sick," posted August 29, 2011: http://burbankaction.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/bwp-burbank-resident-made-sick-from-smart-meters/

As you know, many municipal water and power departments (and the CPUC) are telling California residents this is not an issue of public safety.  This is their tactic or strategy.  So what should be ours?  In communities serviced by municipal water and power companies, complaints have to be sent to the utility and also the City Council.  The next step would be the courts, if the CPUC decides it will not examine or decide upon the smart meter public safety complaints and protests it is receiving.

If the CPUC does this, and if at the end of the CPUC opt out workshops the CPUC fails to protect the public, then the courts or a legislative bill, as a result, may be the only viable solutions for the California public to address the smart meter problems faced by ALL Californians.

Some consumers are so upset about these smart meters making them sick and disabling them that they are threatening lawsuits:

On Thursday, January 6th, I called Southern California Edison to inform you I do not want a Smart Meter installed at my residence.

I am disabled with several health conditions that will be adversely affected by the installation of the Smart Meter.

I have very weak adrenal glands that don’t produce enough Cortisol. The combination of EMF/RF in the Smart Meters is known to be very damaging to the adrenal glands. The stress from this type of exposure could push me into Addison’s disease and possibly result in death.

I have chronic migraines, which could be magnified with the EMF/FM exposure.

I also have EMF sensitivity. EMF sensitivity is an illness caused by exposure to radiation that is discharged from a variety of sources like cell phones, microwaves, cell phone towers, etc. When I am exposed to certain levels of EMF, I experience migraines, heart palpitations, trembling, weakness, hot flashes, increased pulse, pain in my gastrointestinal system, dizziness, inability to concentrate, impaired cognitive functioning and hyper-arousal. I do not even own a cell phone, because I’m incapable of using one.

When I called your office, I was met with hostility, confrontation, intimidation and a complete lack of regard for my position. I was told that I had no choice in the matter and if I do not comply my electricity will be shut off.

Therefore, if a Smart Meter is installed at my home, I will hold you, Corix and the CPUC legally responsible for any and all impairments in my health and consider the following possible charges:

Assault
I have informed you that installation of a Smart Meter will cause me bodily harm and puts my life at risk. If you install a Smart Meter, I will consider this assault and will file charges accordingly.

Manslaughter or Wrongful Death
If I die, then we’re talking about manslaughter or wrongful death.

Medical Expenses
If you install a Smart Meter, I will hold you legally responsible for all medical expenses incurred by the Smart Meter to my health.

Trespassing
If you, Corix or anyone on your behalf comes on my property to install a Smart Meter, I will have you arrested for trespassing.

Invasion and Violation of Rights Last, but not least. This entire procedure is unconstitutional. It is an invasion and violation of my rights. You should not have the right to bathe me with environmental toxins without my permission. You should not have the right to alter my home in any manner without my permission.

I am not willing to play Russian roulette with my life and you should not be permitted to do so either. As someone who lives with five disabling chronic health conditions, there is not room in my life for more suffering that may result from the Smart Meter. You should not have the right to violate and intrude upon what I must do to protect my health.

I should have the right to have electricity service without being forced to put my life and health in danger. I will take any and all measures available to me to be heard on this issue in my community and across the country including the media and the Internet.

For starters, I am using my website which gets more than 70,000 visitors a month, to broadcast all that transpires between me, the CPUC, Corix and Southern California Edison, including your threat to turn off my electricity and your hostile and lackadaisical attitude towards the concerns and rights of the citizens. I will also use Facebook and Twitter. You may want to take a look at the following page on my blog, which I will be updating throughout this process:

http://www.holistichelp.net/blog/smart-meters-are-hazardous-to-your-health-and-violate-your-rights/

I am in the process of contacting ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, all the local newspapers, the Internet Radio shows, legislators, City Council, President Obama and anyone else who is willing to listen about your lack of concern for our rights and the threat to turn off my electricity — a woman who is disabled with five chronic health conditions. The lack of electricity would leave me without heat in the middle of winter, not to mention the inability to cook etc.

So, once again, this letter is to inform you that I oppose the installation of a wireless SmartGrid meter at my home. I do not want to be exposed to the wireless radiofrequency/microwave radiation from the meter, the security and hacking risks, the potential fire hazard from the meter, or the electromagnetic interference with electronics and medical devices, the invasion of privacy – nor do I want any more cell antennas in my neighborhood.

I will not opt-in to the Southern California Edison Company program by installing power transmitters inside my home on my home appliances, to report energy usage to SCE. The California Public Utilities Commission should require SCE to conduct additional economic studies that take into account various percentages of people who will NOT join this program. SCE has stated that its current ‘base case’ requires compliance by the public in placing radiofrequency radiation transmitters inside their homes. SCE says the SmartGrid project will cost $1.6 billion dollars of ratepayer money (for 5 million new wireless meters). This is a waste of ratepayer money if people decline to participate due to health and safety or trespass reasons.

Therefore, I am requesting that you do not shut off my electricity and continue to provide me service with the meter that is currently installed at my residence.

If you do not want to send out a meter reader to read my meter, I will be happy to take a picture of my meter every month and send it to you.

I repeat, I do not consent to the installation of a Smart Meter at the address listed below. Corix, or anyone acting on your behalf does not have my permission to install a Smart Meter at the address listed below.

I would appreciate hearing from you on this matter promptly, as deployment begins on January 18th in my neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Perkins, M.Ed.

Read Cynthia Perkins, M. Ed., “Open Letter to Southern California Edison and CPUC,” January 2011: http://smartmeters.transbay.net/doku.php?id=cp

Susan Foster, an SDG&E customer, may be the only exception in SDG&E territory or all of California without a smart meter on her home due to her medical request:

I am writing regarding health concerns surrounding Smart Meters. Smart Meters operate on pulsed microwave signals throughout our homes. It is the same RF (microwave) radiation as emitted by cell towers, cell phones, and Wi-Fi. This radiation does not just operate outside your home. It runs along electrical wires and has a "hand-shake" relationship with your indoor appliances, enabling an almost constant reading of how much electricity is being used.

I blocked SDG&E from installing a Smart Meter on my home. To my knowledge, that "pass" has not been given to anyone else, and I was quite stunned to have senior SDG&E personnel ask me (a medical writer) to explain the health concerns, as the woman from SDG&E had been told to tell any concerned consumer that Smart Meters are perfectly safe. They are NOT safe when one has a pacemaker or certain cardiac arrhythmias. It has long been accepted in the medical literature that RF (microwave) radiation can interfere with the heart's natural rhythm and/or the rhythm sustained by a pacemaker. It was unconscionable to give false reassurances that could quite literally cost someone their life.

I organized a brain study of firefighters living in the shadow of a large cell tower for over 5 years in 2003 and 2004. Dr. Gunnar Heuser of Los Angeles, neurologist and neurotoxicologist, led the medical study in which we found abnormalities in the "strongest of the strong" following their frequent exposure to the same microwave radiation that is pulsed throughout the consumers homes by the wireless smart meters on the exterior of their homes. Obviously the exposure levels are different, but the constant frequency of the pulsed signals running along the wires throughout the consumers homes has caused some significant health problems to people who have been living with the smart meters for a period of time.

The brain is the first organ of the body to be affected by microwave radiation. Neurological symptoms include headache, forgetfulness, anxiety, attention deficit, sleep disruptions, and there can be an overlay with immunological problems. I attended an international conference on EMFs at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco two weeks ago, and came away more concerned about Smart Meters than ever before. Our level of ambient exposure to RF Radiation is increasing often beyond what the FCC has set as a regulatory standard (as opposed to safety standard). There has never been ANY pre-market safety testing on cell phones or smart meters. We are a living experiment.

PG&E, serving northern California, is considering an "opt out" for people who are sensitive, but many who are concerned about electrosensitivity insist the 40' radiation range of some smart meters means they would still be affected adversely by their neighbor's smart meters. That has been the case for me, even though I have no smart meter on my home.

It really is imperative that UCAN becomes aware of the health concerns surrounding these wireless appliance-monitors that are being installed without ever having been testing on humans. Cell phones by-passed pre-market testing by the FDA, so it is truly industry spin for electric companies to piggy-back on the cell phone deception of presumed safety and declare these wireless applications to our existing meters "safe."

I will help direct materials and facts to UCAN if you are interested in advocating for consumers' health concerns.

Susan Foster, MSW
Organizer, Health Study of Firefighters exposed to 5 years of steady RF (microwave) radiation
Co-Author, Resolution 15 passed by International Association of Firefighters August 2004 calling for spirit of a moratorium on placing cell towers on firestations in U.S. and Canada
Member, Cell Tower Ordinance Committee, San Diego County

Read “Health Concerns re Smart Meters,” by Susan Foster, MSW, November 29, 2010:
http://www.ucan.org/forum/forums/energy/sdg_e_disputes/billing_dispute#comment-30645

There are several other options (wired, fiberoptics, etc.) that are reviewed in Discussion Item #11. Options: https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/wireless-smart-meter-concerns/options.

However, opponents of wireless smart meters point out that due to the wireless smart meter mesh-network infrastructure, wireless smart meters are on every home -- which means that a resident without a wireless smart meter will still be receiving the RF radiation transmissions from their next door neighbor's wireless smart meter.   In fact, electro-sensitive individuals who have been put on the "last-to-install" list and do not  yet have a wireless smart meter on their home, are reporting ill health effects from their neighbor's wireless smart meters.  As a result, they want communities to have the right to opt out as well individuals, and a statewide moratorium.  Thus, because the California Public Utilities Commission has failed to adopt a moratorium, cities and counties are adopting measures and moratoriums in an effort to oppose the installation throughout their communities and protect their residents.

The "wired" smart meter option would also still present problems with privacy, security, and time of use rates causing higher bills.  Wired smart meters have also not been tested for public safety hazards, including the "dirty electricity" contamination problems in the household wiring due to the smart meter Switching-Mode Power Supply (SMPS), mentioned earlier on this page.

Important: If you are experiencing any health problems from the smart meter installed on your home,

• Please fill out this Health Impacts Testimonial form and e-mail it to the EMF Safety Network: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Smart-Meter-Health-Impacts-Testimonial.pdf

• Those suffering health problems due to Smart Meters should document their problems, make copies of their medical bills, and wages lost, and share them with the EMF Safety Network.  Their e-mail is: info@emfsafetynetwork.org

• Those who are electro-sensitive and already suffer from RF radiation related illnesses and do not want a Smart Meter installed, should also contact the EMF Safety Network, and read its "Action Alert" page to find out what actions you can take: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?page_id=649

• If you live in New Mexico, visit Discussion Item #10: "Resident Campaigns In Other States" and follow the WhyFry instructions for submitting a Medical Waiver to request a wireless smart meter not be installed on your home: https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/wireless-smart-meter-concerns/resident-campaigns-in-other-states

• Go to our Discussion Item #14 below,  Actions You Can Take & Other Helpful Organizations and Websites found here: https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/wireless-smart-meter-concerns/actions-you-can-take-other-helpful-organizations-and-websites.
  

===================================================================================

DISCUSSION OF MAIN CONCERNS: Read these and helpful information about the wireless smart meter issue -- click each of the discussion items below. 

1.  First and Foremost: Are Wireless Meters Mandatory?

2.  Smart Meters Unite Consumers, Citizens and Residents from Opposite Backgrounds and Political Affiliations

3.  Actions Being Taken: What Are Consumers Doing To Protect Their Civil Liberties and Affirm Their Rights to Refuse or Opt Out?

4.  Going Deep: Understanding the Big Picture and Real Costs and Concerns, Helpful News Reports and Consumer Advocacy Reports and Analysis

5.  Smart Meter Consumers Anger Grows Over Higher Utility Bills

6.  Privacy and Security Concerns Still Unresolved

7.  Health Concerns Grow: Consumers Are Getting Sick From Wireless Smart Meters

8.  Consumers Report Public Safety Hazards and Interference Problems

9. Cities and States Outside of California Pull Back

10. Resident Campaigns In Other States

11. Options

12. Lessons Learned: What's Happened in Australia

13. Lessons Learned: Major Problems for Canada

14. Actions You Can Take & Other Helpful Organizations and Websites

15. City and County Documents including Agendas, Minutes, Video Meeting links, Staff Reports, Proposed and Approved Ordinances,  Resolutions, Correspondence, etc.

16. Wireless Smart Meter Background Information for Burbank/Glendale

Or: Return to Wireless Smart Meter Concerns home page