Category: Public Health

American Academy of Environmental Medicine calls for a halt to wireless smart meters

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has adopted a resolution calling for a halt to wireless smart meters.
The text of the resolution is below. (link to AAEM Resolution on letterhead)

This represents the first national physician’s group to look in-depth at wireless health risks; and to advise the public and decision-makers about preventative public health actions that are necessary.

Cindy Sage
Sage Associates

January 19, 2012

Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey (Mailed 1/22/2012)                                 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA     On the proposed decision 11-03-014

Dear Commissioners:

The Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine opposes the installation of wireless “smart meters” in homes and schools based on a scientific assessment of the current medical literature (references available on request).  Chronic exposure to wireless radiofrequency radiation is a preventable environmental hazard that is sufficiently well documented to warrant immediate preventative public health action.

As representatives of physician specialists in the field of environmental medicine, we have an obligation to urge precaution when sufficient scientific and medical evidence suggests health risks which can potentially affect large populations.  The literature raises serious concern regarding the levels of radio frequency (RF – 3 KHz – 300 GHz) or extremely low frequency (ELF – o- 300 Hz) exposures produced by “smart meters” to warrant an immediate and complete moratorium on their use and deployment until further study can be performed.  The board of the American Board of Environmental Medicine wishes to point out that existing FCC guidelines for RF safety that have been used to justify installation of “smart meters” only look at thermal tissue damage and are obsolete, since many modern studies show metabolic and genomic damage from RF and ELF exposures below the level of intensity which heats tissues.  The FCC guidelines are therefore inadequate for use in establishing public health standards.  More modern literature shows medically and biologically significant effects of RF and ELF at lower energy densities.  These effects accumulate over time, which is an important consideration given the chronic nature of exposure from “smart meters”. The current medical literature raises credible questions about genetic and cellular effects, hormonal effects, male fertility, blood/brain barrier damage and increased risk of certain types of cancers from RF or ELF levels similar to those emitted from “smart meters”.  Children are placed at particular risk for altered brain development, and impaired learning and behavior.  Further EMF/RF adds synergistic effects to the damage observed from a range of toxic chemicals.  Given the widespread, chronic and essentially inescapable ELF/RF exposure of everyone living near a “smart meter”,  the Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine finds it unacceptable from a public health standpoint to implement this technology until these serious medical concerns are resolved.  We consider a moratorium on installation of wireless “smart meters” to be an issue of the highest importance.

The Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine also wishes to note that the US NIEHS National Toxicology Program in 1999 cited radiofrequency radiation as a potential carcinogen.  Existing safety limits for pulsed RF were termed “not protective of public health” by the Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group (a federal interagency working group including the FDA, FCC, OSHA, the EPA and others).  Emissions given off by “smart meters” have been classified by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Possible Human Carcinogen.

Hence, we call for:

•  An immediate moratorium on “smart meter” installation until these serious public
health issues are resolved.  Continuing with their installation would be extremely
irresponsible.

•  Modify the revised proposed decision to include hearings on health impact in the
second proceedings, along with cost evaluation and community wide opt-out.

•  Provide immediate relief to those requesting it and restore the analog meters.

Members of the Board
American Academy of Environmental Medicine

Admin note:  The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, founded in 1965, is an international association of physicians and other professionals which “provides research and education in the recognition, treatment and prevention of illnesses induced by exposures to biological and chemical agents encountered in air, food and water.”

Top public health official report: Smart Meters DO pose a health risk!

Santa Cruz County, CA Board of Supervisors directed its public health officer to prepare an analysis of the research on the health effects of Smart Meters in December 2011. Poki Stewart Namkung, M.D. M.P.H., prepared this report: Health Risks Associated With SmartMeters which recognizes:

  • Smart Meters transmit pulsed radiation (RF)  24/7
  • There are evidence-based health risks of RF
  • RF exposure can be cumulative and additive
  • The massive increase in RF public exposures since the mid-1990’s
  • The controversy between independent and industry science, including lack of funding for independent research
  • Evidence to support an Electrical Sensitivity (EHS) diagnosis
  • The public health issue is that Smart Meters are involuntary RF exposures
  • FCC thermal guidelines are irrelevant for non-thermal public exposures.
  • The lack of relevant safety standards for chronic pulsed RF

The report summary calls for more government vigilance towards involuntary RF public exposures because, “…governmental agencies are the only defense against such involuntary exposure.”

The report also provides examples of strategies to reduce RF including minimize cell and cordless phone use, use speakerphone when possible, use wired internet connections, avoid setting a laptop on your lap, and more.

Excerpts:  “The public health issue of concern in regard to SmartMeters is the involuntary exposure of individuals and households to electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation.”

“There are numerous situations in which the distance between the SmartMeters and humans is less than three feet on an ongoing basis, e.g. a SmartMeter mounted on the external wall to a bedroom with the bed placed adjacent to that mounting next to the internal wall. ”

“…SmartMeters emit frequencies almost continuously, day and night, seven days a week.”

“… exposure is additive and consumers may have already increased their exposures to radiofrequency radiation in the home through the voluntary use of wireless devices …It would be impossible to know how close a consumer might be to their limit, making uncertainty with the installation of a mandatory SmartMeter. ”

“… all available, peer-reviewed, scientific research data can be extrapolated to apply to SmartMeters, taking into consideration the magnitude and the intensity of the exposure.”

“Since the mid-1990’s the use of cellular and wireless devices has increased exponentially exposing the public to massively increased levels of RF.”

” It must be noted that there is little basic science funding for this type of research and it is largely funded by industry.”

“…most research carried out by independent non-government or non-industry affiliated researchers suggests potentially serious effects from many non-ionizing radiation exposures, research funded by industry and some governments seems to cast doubt on the potential for harm.”

“Despite this controversy, evidence is accumulating on the results of exposure to RF at non-thermal levels including increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier in the head (Eberhardt, 2008), harmful effects on sperm, double strand breaks in DNA which could lead to cancer genesis (Phillips, 2011), stress gene activation indicating an exposure to a toxin (Blank, 2011), and alterations in brain glucose metabolism (Volkow, 2011). ”

“Currently, research has demonstrated objective evidence to support the EHS diagnosis…”

“Meeting the current FCC guidelines only assures that one should not 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, FCC guidelines are irrelevant and cannot be used for any claims of SmartMeter safety unless heat damage is involved (Li, 2011). ”

“There are no current, relevant public safety standards for pulsed RF involving chronic exposure of the public, nor of sensitive populations, nor of people with metal and medical implants that can be affected both by localized heating and by electromagnetic interference (EMI) for medical wireless implanted devices.”

“Many other countries have significantly lower RF/MW exposure standards ranging from 0.001 to 50 ~W/cm2 as compared with the US guideline of 200-1 000 ~W/cm2”

“In summary, there is no scientific data to determine if there is a safe RF exposure level regarding its non-thermal effects.”

This is an excellent report and a must read for all public policy decision makers, and especially utility regulators.  Many thanks to Dr. Stewart Namkung, the Santa Cruz Supervisors and to the EMF educators in their area!  Please circulate!

“Smart Meters should be banned”

On December 7, Josh Hart of StopSmartMeters.org led about a dozen women to return smart meters to the PG&E Capitola office where they told their stories to reporters about why they removed the smart meters and restored analog meters.

One woman spoke on behalf of her family stating, ” We’ve been a guinea pig for a year and a half” and ” I believe from my experience that they should not just have an opt-out, they should be banned.”  Six police officers showed up in response to PG&E’s request and they closed the office.

PG&E is sending letters to people who’ve swapped smart meters for analogs and is threatening to turn off their power, however their letter does not include any legal codes to justify their threats. In a letter dated Dec.2, 2011, PG&E writes, “Given the public safety issues, if we do not hear from you, we will have no choice but to terminate your electric service.” It’s clearly bullying tactics.

EMF Safety Network lawyer who defined tampering for us is drafting a letter to PG&E to inquire about their legal authority to turn off people’s utility service.

Industry safety assurances unwise

Sage Associates recently published “An Assessment of the EPRI Technical Report An Investigation of Radiofrequency Fields Associated With the Itron Smart Meter – Richard Tell Associates, Inc., December, 2010 by Sage Associates, November 11, 2011″

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) commissioned a report by Richard Tell Associates Inc. that has assessed radiofrequency (RF) emissions from an Itron ‘smart meter’.  The Itron meter is being installed in California by two electric utilities (SCE and SDG&E) and is similar to others being installed by other utilities. EPRI bases its report primarily on field measurements at the Itron meter test farms in southern California and South Carolina, two homes in Downey, CA, a drive-around street test in Downey, CA, and test results from two utilities.

The EPRI report concludes that no violations of current FCC public safety limits are predicted to occur. However, our analysis shows that this conclusion is unsupported and in error, according to the FCC OET Bulletin 65 rules for predicting public exposures.

The EPRI report does not address compliance of multiple meters, at 100% duty cycle (which is required under FCC OET 65 formulas), and our calculations show violations at 60% reflection factor (the lowest level the FCC regulations specify). Multiple meters will also violate FCC OET 65 public safety limits for calculations using 50% to 100% duty cycle at 100% reflection factor, which are reasonable, worst-case assumptions.

The EPRI report provides a generic, best-case assessment of RF emissions since it focuses on ‘typical’ meters rather than a broad range of conditions of location, installation and operation of Itron meters under real-world conditions.  It does not provide a reasonable, worst-case analysis, nor take into account the way in which utilities are actually locating meters in neighborhoods, nor address that the public cannot be excluded from very close proximity to meters on their own homes.

The author says that only approximations of RF exposures for ‘typical’ meters, in ‘common’ installations applying to ‘common’ exposures of individuals, are ‘likely’ to comply with FCC exposure limits. This report ignores meters that are being installed outside these highly limiting parameters, where duty cycles may be far higher, installations within or very close to occupied spaces of a home, and where there may be less shielding and more reflection of building materials that amplify exposures rather than reduce them. Tell discusses many problems with predicting RF emissions and the need for long-term statistical monitoring of matured (read fully deployed and operational) smart meter networks across regions. He says this testing cannot be done today.

Utilities are hoping for the best, and deploying at full speed, regardless of the clear ‘between-the-lines’ warnings, from their own highly regarded expert.

Deploying millions of wireless utility meters on such limited testing and questionable assertions of safety is unwise. Given that RF has recently been classified as a Possible Human Carcinogen, and this wireless utility meter initiative imposes the most extensive RF blanket yet created over every living resident that is electrified, ratepayers and the decision-makers will not know what irretrievable commitments of health and resources have been made until it is too late. Where even the best industry study cannot give more reliable and defensible evidence of compliance with FCC safety limits, public utility commissions should halt the rollout, pending demonstration that RF emissions meet FCC public safety limits under a reasonable worst-case assessment as determined by FCC OET 65 formulas. As a consequence, no positive assertion of safety can be made by the parties involved in this issue, nor are any solid answers provided by this EPRI report.

Opt-out OUTRAGE!

Today the President of the California the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Michael Peevey issued a Proposed Decision on what to do with the thousands of complaints against the (dumb, too smart, not smart, spy, murder, dirty, hazardous, merd, smeter)  microwave computer utility meters that companies are stealthily installing with support from government and environmentalists.

The CPUC, whose mission is to provide safe and reliable utility service at reasonable rates, and regulate the utilities has once again rubber stamped PG&E’s demands. Peevey’s proposed decision says we must pay $90 upfront and $15 a month for a “radio off” meter. Analog meters are not included.  The fees are an obvious punishment, and likely illegal.

What can we do about this outrage in California?  Here’s an idea: We can REFUSE to pay. Deduct it from the utility bill in protest.

Here’s what others think about the concept of opt-out:

“We should not have to pay for NO CHANGE in electric service. We don’t pay for not getting cable. We don’t pay for not getting satellite. We don’t pay for gas if we don’t use gas appliances. What the heck is going on when we have to pay MORE for something we don’t want, don’t need, won’t use and can’t get out of. When the vacuum salesman comes to the door, and I don’t want to buy a vacuum, I don’t buy it and he doesn’t get into my wallet.” Anonymous survey comment

Just removing the meter from our home I don’t think will restore the peace and freedom from harm. As you know with all the homes having the meters on them, the amount of radiation is substantial. I don’t think I am overstating this. I am beginning to think they are trying to do a slow kill, so we don’t wake up to it. It is interesting that some of us have a super sensitivity to the radiation while others no less being slowly harmed by it are clueless because they don’t sense anything. CMC, Riverside County CA

“These folks are way better organized than the power industry, they are creating converts every day and they’re not going to stop with a puny opt-out option.” Phil Carson, Editor-in-chief, Intelligent Utility Daily

CEO Brian Stein, “I am EMF sensitive”

 

Brian Stein is a CEO of a UK company and is speaking about his EMF sensitivity, also known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). His video is a warning to others about the risks of cell phone use, the signs to watch for and how governments and industry have covered up the health and safety risks.

Do your ears get hot when you use a cell or cordless phone? Do you experience discomfort or pain? These are the early warning signs he ignored and although tests revealed he did not have a brain tumor he’s been left with EHS, which he calls a nightmare. He must avoid many modern conveniences including computers and TV. Travel and vacations have become very difficult.

PG&E’s Big Confession

In April of 2010 the EMF Safety Network filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) asking for hearings on health impacts, including “Smart” Meter radio frequency (RF) emissions data. We wrote:

“PG&E’s paltry, inconsistent and contradictory information on RF emissions from Smart Meters is unbelievable and at odds with other RF expert findings.  Several PG&E bulletins and spokespersons make varying claims on how often the Smart Meter electric meters transmit RF, anywhere from every hour to every 4 to 6 hours to 2% or 4% of the time.

We just wanted the facts, but the CPUC rubber stamped PG&E’s claims of RF safety and dismissed our application stating:

” All radio devices in PG&E’s Smart Meters are licensed or certified by the FCC and comply with all FCC requirements.”

“Smart Meters produce RF emissions far below the levels of many commonly used devices.”

PG&E provides information from Richard Tell Associates on their website titled, “Supplemental Report on An Analysis of Radiofrequency Fields Associated with Operation of the PG&E SmartMeter Program Upgrade System”  This report states Smart Meters transmit at 1 watt with 0 antennae gain. It claims:

The 1 watt transmitter is configured to transmit data approximately once every four hours back to the company so its duty cycle is very small (the actual data transmission duration during any four hour period will vary, however, depending on how often a particular meter transmitter acts as a repeater for other nearby meters).

From PG&E’s Smart Meter FAQ: SmartMeters™ utilize a low power (1 watt) wireless radio to send customer energy-usage information wirelessly to PG&E for data collection.….Do electric SmartMeters™ constantly emit RF? PG&E answers:

No. SmartMeters™ communicate intermittently, with each RF-signal typically lasting from 2 to 20 milliseconds. These intermittent signals total, on average, 45 seconds per day. For the other 23 hours and 59 minutes of the day, the meter is not transmitting any RF.

In a letter to Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, the FCC writes, “the devices [Smart Meters] normally transmit for less than one second a few times a day and consumers are normally tens of feet or more from the meter face…”

All right, enough with the false claims! Just give us some real facts!  Recently CPUC administrative law judge Amy Yip-Kikugawa ordered all investor owned utilities (IOU’s ) to answer Smart Meter radio frequency (RF) questions. PG&E’s answers are an astounding confession!  Question 2: How many times in total (average and maximum) is a smart meter scheduled to transmit during a 24-hour period?

PG&E says the average number of RF pulses for the electric meter would be about 10,000, per meter, per day and the maximum number over 190,000.

90% of these pulses are for the mesh network maintenance (signals bouncing from homes) and only 6 pulses are for reading the meter data. This doesn’t include Home Area Network transmissions.

How about peak power figures?  The PG&E electric meter transmits at 900MHz with 1 watt of transmit power. It has an antennae gain 4.0 dBi for a peak level power of 2.5 watts.  That’s two and a half times more than their safety data stated.

The wireless gas meters transmit between 4 and 5 times a day at 132-794 mW.

Answers provided by San Diego Gas and Electric and So Cal Gas were similar, although PG&E electric meters appear to be five times stronger, just like Sage Associates found in their study.

How to remove the dumb meter


Dumb Meters are costing us money, privacy and our health and safety.  People are getting sick from exposure to the microwave pulses dumb meters transmit.  Experts are warning against them.

Many people have asked how to get rid of one, once it’s on their house. Some people took matters in their own hands, including Caitlyn Phillips. Caitlyn Phillips, a Santa Cruz resident recently had an analog meter successfully restored by PG&E. Caitlyn complained in person to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). She told them how she was deceived, threatened, had anxiety and headaches from the new meter and had subsequently changed back to the analog meter herself. Within a week PG&E made the switch to their own analog.

“The CPUC announced at its last public meeting that PG&E would provide an analog meter to this customer and we have worked closely with the customer to address their concerns,” said PG&E’s Greg Snapper.

If you want a dumb meter removed and your requests to the utility have failed, you may need to purchase an analog (707) 472-2407, hire an electrician and restore the meter, then follow up by attending a CPUC meeting. Here’s another source for analog meters: http://www.hialeahmeter.com/siphwame.html

The next CPUC meetings are scheduled for November 10, December 1 and December 15. Unless otherwise noted, meetings begin at 9 a.m. and are held in the CPUC Auditorium at 505 Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco. Arrive by 8:45 to sign up to speak to the Commission, or sign up online before the meeting.  You will be given between 1-3 minutes depending on how many people want to speak. Public comments start at the beginning of each meeting.  Request the return of the analog meter, do not accept the “radio off” meter.  Check the CPUC calendar for possible meeting changes.

For people outside of the bay area call the Public Advisor’s office at 866-849-8390 or 415-703-2074 and ask for accommodations to participate in the CPUC meeting by phone during public comments. Call at least three days prior to the meeting.

More on Caitlyn’s story from Stop Smart Meters!

Update: In the City of Glendale CA persistence pays off for a customer who was suffering heart palpitations and headaches after a “smart”meter was installed. Complaints to the local Glendale Water and Power Company brought relief as they restored the analog meter on her home.