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!

Revised PG&E smart meter opt-out proposal now available

The revised PG&E smart meter opt out proposed decision is now available.  This will come before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to be voted on at their business meeting on Wed. February 1 in San Francisco.

Here’s the highlights:  The opt out choice will only be the analog meter, not a “radio off” meter.  Customers can choose to either have a smart meter or an analog meter. The proposed interim cost is $90 initial fee per customer and $10 a month fee. For low income proposed fees are $10 initial fee and $5 a month.  This revision allows for a second proceeding to further analyze costs and community wide opt out.

For a quick review read the summary at the beginning and/or the Findings of Fact/ Conclusions of Law and the Order at the end of the paper.

Another Commissioner can submit an alternate proposal.  We will support an alternate proposal if it includes hearings on health impacts of smart meters and a no cost interim fee until the second proceeding is complete.  Failing a modification, or alternate proposal that includes these issues we will urge the Commission to reject the proposed decision.

HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Call or email the CPUC:  866-849-8390 or 415-703-2074

Refer to revised proposed decision 11-03-014.  Ask the Commissioners to:

  • Modify the revised proposed decision to include hearings on health impacts in the second proceeding, along with cost evaluation and community wide opt-out.
  • Provide immediate relief to those requesting it and restore the analog meters, however do not charge any interim fees for opting out.

Attend the CPUC meeting on Wed. February 1 at 9 am at the CPUC, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco.  Plan to arrive by 8:45 am to sign up to speak to the Commission.  Prepare a 1-2 minute statement.

International doctors criticize “Economist” article on wireless risks – call for retraction

Experts in public health, oncology, neurosurgery, electronic engineering, toxicology, cardiology and epidemiology from the United Kingdom, USA, Finland, Sweden, Australia, Austria and the Slovak Republic have published a critique of an opinion piece published in The Economist: “Worrying about Wireless”.

In the critique, entitled  The Economist—and the Truth About Microwave Radiation Emitted from Wireless Technologies the experts say the Economist failed to provide critical information about the emerging public health issue related to cell phones and wireless technologies and that it owes its readers a better accounting of the science.

Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Founding Director Emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Chairman of Environmental Health Trust and a distinguished cancer researcher, says of the Economist article,  “The public the world over has been misled by this reporting.” “A disservice has been done in inaccurately depicting the body of science, which actually indicates that there are biological effects from the radiation emitted by wireless devices, including damage to DNA, and evidence for increased risk of cancer and other substantial health consequences.” Dr. Herberman adds, “It would behoove the Economist to publicly correct the errors made in this unsigned opinion piece by publishing a retraction—and investigating how such inaccurate and unbalanced scientific reporting could have occurred in the first place.”

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Professor of Oncology, Orebro Medical Center, Orebro, Sweden, and a widely published, internationally renowned neuro-oncologist, agrees. He says, “The Economist has misrepresented the science indicating biological effects, links to cancers, and damage to DNA and male fertility from exposures to microwave radiation emitted by wireless technologies. Given the wide scale use of cell phones and other wireless devices globally, for the sake of public health I consider it essential that The Economist’s reporting be corrected to adequately advise readers of the risks.”

Dr. Hardell’s research has repeatedly found increased risk of brain cancers in frequent users of cell phones and/or cordless phones for more than a decade. His team’s research was cited in May in the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) landmark decision to classify wireless radiation as a Class 2B ‘Possible Carcinogen’.

Media advisory courtesy Electromagnetic Health.org

EMF Safety Network files lawsuit against Sebastopol 4G cell tower


On January 11, the EMF Safety Network filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against the City of Sebastopol, Verizon, and Crown Castle alleging the City’s decision to approve a 4G cell tower expansion was in violation of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  According to the Sebastopol attorney, the city has a “hold harmless” clause in their contract with Verizon which requires Verizon to pay for all litigation costs related to the cell tower.

Sebastopol is located adjacent to an internationally recognized wetlands preserve, the Laguna De Santa Rosa.  The City filed a CEQA exemption for the project stating there would be “negligible or no expansion of use”, calling it a “minor alteration.”  EMF Safety Network lawyer Rose Zoia argued their exemption claims were false.  The addition of 3 and 4 G panels to the cell tower will add significant radio frequency (RF) exposure to the downtown area and extend nine miles into the Laguna.

Sebastopol’s Telecommunications Ordinance states, “ No telecommunications facility shall be sited such that its presence threatens the health and safety of migratory birds.”

An environmental study by A. Balmori, Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. states,

“Electromagnetic radiation is a form of environmental pollution which may hurt wildlife.”

“Phone masts located in their living areas are irradiating continuously some species that could suffer long-term effects, like reduction of their natural defenses, deterioration of their health, problems in reproduction and reduction of their useful territory through habitat deterioration.  Electromagnetic radiation can exert an aversive behavioral response in rats, bats and birds such as sparrows. Therefore microwave and radiofrequency pollution constitutes a potential cause for the decline of animal populations and deterioration of health of plants living near phone masts.”

A second study, Bioassay for assessing cell stress in the vicinity of radio-frequency irradiating antennas. assesses cell stress in water plants from RF. Conclusion excerpt: “The present work makes a unique biological connection between exposure to RF-EMF and real biological stress in living cells.”

Verizon reps swagger into town with their cookie cutter safety data, and hired guns making broad claims of FCC safety.  Cities are caught in a legal trap between mega-rich wireless industry, educated residents armed with evidence of environmental harm and the city’s local ordinances which call for protecting the public and environmental health.  The 1996  Telecommunications Act makes it illegal to deny a cell tower based on health impacts!

The Sebastopol City Council voted 2-2 to deny the cell tower expansion, however because it was a tie, the original planning commission decision to approve the 4G network was upheld.  Faced with the cost of a lawsuit from Verizon for denying the tower- or a lawsuit from local citizens which Verizon has to pay, the vote was likely  financially driven.

Smart Meter SCAM

PG&E’s recent comments to the  California Public Utility Commission that customers could have an analog meter option is a ‘better late than never’ concession, but we still have a long way to go to ensure public safety and restore consumer rights.

There has been no cost evaluation, no hearings, no fact finding and no cross examination by anyone on PG&E’s proposed fees to opt out.

The fees are ARBITRARY and intentionally PUNITIVE to discourage customers from opting out.

Considering customers were not provided full disclosure about the RF technology (which is an FCC rule) and the meters were forced upon consumers without consent or choice, there should be NO CHARGE to have the smart meters replaced with analogs.

The utilities removed perfectly functional equipment with an inferior product with a shorter expected “usefulness” and charged every customer through rate hikes.

If you have managed to fend off installation and kept your analog meter now they are trying to charge you again, $90 more, to keep what you already have!

This is a SCAM and a SCANDAL!  

They also want to charge a monthly fee of $11-15 ($5 CARE customers) to cover the costs of a meter reader.   In town it takes a meter reader a couple of minutes to read a meter per house per month.  It outlying areas, people have self read their own meters for years.   These fees are UNREALISTIC, ARBITRARY, AND INTENTIONALLY PUNITIVE!

PG&E supports analog meter option

In Reply Comments sent to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today PG&E declared its support of an analog meter option.  “PG&E supports approval of an analog meter option, in addition to the non-communicating radio-off option, in response to customers’ and parties’ continued requests for an analog meter alternative in Opening Comments, as well as in customers’ direct communications to PG&E and the Commission.”

“PG&E has received the very clear message that some customers will only be satisfied with an analog meter option.”

This is a major concession from PG&E.  However, we still need the CPUC to hear loud and clear that we need:

  • a no cost analog opt-out, no initial or monthly fees
  • meters co-located in banks banned and restored to analogs
  • immediate restoration of analog meters for people suffering  health impacts
  • evidentiary hearings and investigation into RF health impacts
  • Community wide opt-outs and safe zones

It will be up to the Commission to decide what they do with PG&E’s concession and whether or not they will include an analog option, and whether or not that will apply to utilities statewide.

Listen to a short radio interview with Sandi Maurer from KSRO news.

PG&E backs down

PG&E restores power to customers refusing smart meter

Today PG&E restored power to customers who removed the smart meter and restored the analog meter on their homes.  They removed the meters because they or their children were suffering health problems since the new meters were installed.

Earlier today Diane from Calaveras County said PG&E contacted her and said they will “jump” her meter to deliver her electricity (till they can find an analog).  She said they’d estimate her bills and they will do the same for others.

Diane confirmed PG&E has now restored her electricity.  News from Santa Cruz County also confirms PG&E has backed down:  “Santa Cruz Smart Meter Rebels 1, PG&E 0”

They did not install the analog meter, instead they used this device (see photo below) which does not measure electricity.   SF Chronicle reports: “Moving to end an embarrassing standoff, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. on Friday said it would restore power to a small group of customers… and  that PG&E spokesman Greg Snapper said, “This is a temporary solution for a very unique circumstance”.