• 15 MAY 12
    • 0

    Update to last message: Vermont utilities see growing ‘smart meter’ opposition

    From the EMR Policy Institute:

    The following is in response to the AP report on Vermont’s no-fee Opt Out from wireless Smart Meters as published in The Boston Globe on May 14, 2012:

    In response to the AP report’s statement that, “Smart meter supporters say the levels of RFRs emitted by the devices are much lower than those emitted by cell phones, and that governmental agencies have built big safety margins into emissions limits for both,” The EMR Policy Institute directs your attention to documents from the 2011 Smart Meter Report of The California Council on Science and Technology (CCST).

    CCST invited experts to comment on the conclusions of its 2011 Smart Meter Report on wireless Smart Meter radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure and the potential for adverse health effects from this exposure. CCST’s Report is the most extensive effort carried out at the request of state government in the United States to date. However, CCST has been widely criticized for its omission of expert Comments, both those CCST invited and those submitted in the open public comment. Links to all CCST Smart Meter Report Comments are at: http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart2/

    Invited Comment of Daniel Hirsch PhD, UC Santa Cruz lecturer on nuclear policy at: http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart2/documents/letter8hirsch.pdf. Hirsch heads the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a non-profit nuclear policy organization focusing on issues of nuclear safety, waste disposal, proliferation, and disarmament. He has expertise in evaluating long-term, low-intensity radiation exposure.

    Hirsch’s CCST Comment points out that CCST used, “a brief item from an advocacy group that is supported by industry [brochure published by the Energy Power Research Institute” (EPRI)]:

    The EPRI estimates appear incorrect in a number of regards. When two of the most central errors are corrected . . . the cumulative whole body exposure from a Smart Meter at 3 feet appears to be approximately two order of magnitude higher than that of a cell phone, rather than two order of magnitude lower.

    See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsT-pN-5uWQ for Hirsch’s video summary of his CCST Comment.

    The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) states that 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.” See: http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart2/documents/letter3.pdf

    The California Public Utilities Commission’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) questions the CCST Report conclusion that there was “no clear evidence” that additional standards are needed to protect the public from smart meters or other electronic devices. In fact, that DRA states that the CCST should explain more clearly why it concluded that the available evidence does not indicate a need to limit non-thermal impacts of RF emissions. See: http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart2/documents/letter5.pdf

    Invited Comment of De-Kin Li, MD, PhD, Senior Reproductive and Perinatal Epidemiologist at the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, states that:
    “When it comes to non-thermal 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.” See: http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart/documents/li_response.pdf

    The EMR Policy Institute submitted Comment to CCST (See: http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart2/documents/EMR.pdf ) that delineates the findings of the 2008 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report, Identification of Research Needs Relating to Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communication http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12036 Inadequacies in the research underlying US FCC RF safety limits that NAS identifies in its Report are:
    * Exposure of juveniles, children, pregnant women, and fetuses both for personal wireless devices (e.g., cell phones,
    wireless personal computers [PCs] and for RF fields from base station antennas.
    * Variability of exposures to the actual use of the device, the environment in which it is used, and exposures from
    other sources.
    * Multilateral exposures.
    * Multiple frequency exposures.
    * Exposure to pulsed radiofrequency radiation.
    * Location of use (both geographic location and whether a device is primarily used indoors or outdoors).
    * Models for men and women of various heights and for children of various ages.
    * Exposure to others sources of RF radiation such as cordless phones, wireless computer communications, and other
    communications systems.
    * Exposure to the eyes, hand or the human lap or parts of the body close to the device.
    * Exposure in close proximity to metallic adornments and implanted medical devices (IMDs) including metal rim glasses,
    earrings, and various prostheses (e.g., hearing aids, cochlear implants, cardiac pacemakers, insulin pumps, Deep
    Brain Stimulators).
    * Sufficiently long exposure and follow-up to allow for detection of effects that occur with a latency of several
    years.
    * Lack of information concerning the health effects associated with living in close proximity to base stations.
    * Research that includes children, the elderly, and people with underlying diseases.
    * Research on possible adverse RF effects identified by changes in EEG (electroencephalogram) activity.
    * Lack of information on possible neurophysiologic effects developing during long-term exposure to RF fields.
    * Studies focusing on possible adverse RF effects identified by changes in cognitive performance functions.
    * Effects of RF exposure to the sensitive biological targets of neural networks.
    * Possible effects of RF exposure on fetal and neonatal development.
    * Possible influences of exposure on the structure and function of the immune system, including prenatal, neonatal, and
    juvenile exposures.

    Janet Newton, President
    The EMR adiation Policy Institute
    P.O. Box 117
    Marshfield VT 05658
    Tel.& FAX: 802-426-3035
    JNewton@emrpolicy.org
    www.emrpolicy.org

    Leave a reply →