How radiation emissions of cell phone, microwave compare to ‘Smart’Meter

Amy O’Hair measures the radiation emitted by a cell phone, a microwave oven and two ‘Smart’ Meters in use. The results? The radiation pulses from the meters were stronger than both the microwave and the cell phone.

Here’s what PG&E claimed:
In response to the EMF Safety Network request for safety hearings, PG&E stated,

” Exposure to radio frequency energy from SmartMeter™ technology isconsiderably less than the exposure from other radio devices in widespread use.”

PG&E then listed many sources including cell phones, cordless phones, microwave ovens as examples of other radio devices in widespread use. Following this list they claim,

“These devices often involve more frequent radio transmission, emit radio frequency energy for longer periods of time and operate in closer proximity to humans, than PG&E SmartMeter™ devices.”

You can turn off the cell phone, and choose whether or not to use a microwave oven, but the meter is on all the time. Even if you turn off the power to your home, the meter will still be on. Thanks again Amy for this illustration.

5 thoughts on “How radiation emissions of cell phone, microwave compare to ‘Smart’Meter”

  1. Just had “smart meter” put on house. Am I more susceptible if I live in a house structured of wood opposed to brick and is the smart meter powered by the sun? I don’t want the thing and I cannot get most people to back me as I know it is dangerous..

  2. Response from Amy O’Hair:

    Wifi units put out a lot of RF, but sitting 8-10 feet away from it
    cuts exposure down considerably. For most people, this is enough; for
    others who are sensitive, this is not enough distance.

    From measuring, I find that most of the time in a cafe or library,
    unless you sit directly adjacent to the transmitting unit (ask where
    its located), you are not in a strong field.

    However, the real exposure comes for those people who are using a
    wifi-active laptop or other wireless device–those levels are very
    high, especially for the person with this device on lap or directly
    before the chest, and especially during transmission of data.

    Schools that can’t bear to part with wifi can help children by placing
    the units at the maximum possible distance from humans—like high
    above their heads on a high ceiling, or in a closet. Units are often
    so strong that connectivity does not suffer. Another measure would be
    a shield (foil on cardboard, eg) directly in front of the unit, which
    blocks the strongest field, but usually doesn’t interfere with

    Mostly, as I’ve said, it is the *user’s device* that gives the
    greatest exposure. So if the kids still have a laptop on their lap,
    they are still exposed to a very strong field.

  3. Amy, if you see this, have you measured Wi-Fi at a library or school yet? I just had a letter to the editor here protesting the installation of Wi-Fi in our area schools, but someone called me and left a message that Wi-Fi is less than you get from your microwave (I don’t use a microwave, by the way).

    I would respond to this person by saying are two doses of poison better than one, or none? But it would be interesting to see your measurement and assessment of Wi-Fi in public areas, too, sometime.


    Even if there is morality in the PG&E workers, the PG$E Corporate Organization does NOT allow any of that morality to surface in the business of PG$E Corporate.

Comments are closed.