DSC_0003_2

Scientists Challenge CCST Conclusions

The California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) Smart Meter Report, Health Impacts of Radio Frequency From Smart Meters was released in April, 2011. This report was produced in response to California Assembly members Jared Huffman (Marin) and Bill Monning (Santa Cruz) inquiry into the safety of smart meter wireless technology and the possible inadequacy of the federal radio frequency radiation (RF) safety standards.

International science and medical experts from Israel, Sweden, Canada, Greece and the US criticize the CCST findings. Although previous headlines varied about the results of the study, these experts agree, the study fails to protect public health.

Elihu D Richter MD, MPH from Israel is “a medical epidemiologist who has assessed source-exposure-effect relationships for many chemical and physical agents over the past 40 years.” Dr. Richter writes, “ It is fair to say that we are no longer talking about mere precaution of uncertain risk, but about prevention of highly probable and known risks. Based on the accumulating evidence, it is now fairly certain that there will be widespread adverse public health impacts.”
Dr. David Carpenter, public health physician and former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany, New York writes, “This document is not an accurate description of the state of the science on the issue of radiofrequency fields, and is full of inaccuracies.” He calls the report “faulty” and states, “The evidence for adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation is currently strong and grows stronger with each new study.”
Olle Johansson, PhD, Swedish Professor from the Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute writes, “Many smart meters are close to beds, kitchens, playrooms, and similar locations. These wireless systems are never off, and the exposure is not voluntary. The smart meters are being forced on citizens everywhere. Based on this, the inauguration of smart meters with grudging and involuntary exposure of millions to billions of human beings to pulsed microwave radiation should immediately be prohibited…”
Lukas H. Margaritis, Professor of Cell Biology and Electron Microscopy and Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, Biologist and Researcher from the University of Athens, Greece, comment, “The California Council of Science and Technology has released a report on WIRELESS SMART METERS, in which any relation with health hazards has been bypassed. It is however ‘common secret’ between the researchers in the field of electromagnetic biology that such a statement has absolutely no scientific validity…”
Raymond Richard Neutra MD, DrPH, (CA EMF program) concludes his comments by stating, “This is not the way I would like to see public policy pursued. Unfortunately you are not alone in this pattern of language use, hidden assumptions and making the uncertain seem certain so a to provide cover for policy.”

California Department of Public Health commented on the CCST study stating, “CDPH suggests further review of the literature on non-thermal effects, which is complicated and controversial, but does not support a claim of no non-thermal health effects from radio frequency electromagnetic fields.”

Dr. Carl Maret

The CCST has now posted all comments online http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart2/

2 thoughts on “Scientists Challenge CCST Conclusions”

  1. Also the CCST is nothing more than a front non-profit – set up by the wireless industry. How do I know? After reading a few pages into their so-called independent report – One of the names I recognized from my Telecom. Commission work in Oceanside, CA. when looking over cell tower permits – companies like AT&T, Verizon, Cricket all use the same Dr. to write the “worst-case-scenarios” – and upon reading CCST Study – I saw a Dr.s name I will never forget due to the influx of reports he wrote for show the RF would be safe – and He is Jerrold Bushberg – he was a PAID EXPERT by the WIRELESS COMPANIES. I think if you do a full depth research report on this whole CCST – you might find the same scenario throughout – perhaps 30-50% of them are the same (paid experts for the wireless companies). I think his name caught my memory because there were a few times the power of RF was over the 5% grace the FCC allows.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

So we know you\'re not a machine * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.