Quebec-based magazine La Maison du 21e siecle asked
physician David O. Carpenter, former founding dean of the
University at Albany (NY)’s School of Public Health, to
comment an open letter published in the Montreal daily Le
Devoir last May 24. This letter claimed wireless smart
meters pose no risk to public health. More than fifty
international experts contributed to the following rebuttal.
Dr
David O. Carpenter, founder, University at Albany (NY)
School of Public Health
We, the
undersigned are a group of scientists and health
professionals who together have coauthored hundreds of
peer-reviewed studies on the
health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs). We wish
to correct some of the gross misinformation found in the
letter regarding wireless “smart” meters that was published
in the Montreal daily Le Devoir on May 24. Submitted by a
group Quebec engineers, physicists and chemists, the letter
in question reflects an obvious lack of understanding of the
science behind the health impacts of the radiofrequency (RF)/microwave
EMFs emitted by these meters.
The
statement that « Thousands of studies, both epidemiological
and experimental in humans, show no increase in cancer cases
as a result of exposure to radio waves of low intensity… »
is false (1). In fact, only a few such studies — two dozen
case-control studies of mobile phone use, certainly not
thousands, have reported no elevations of cancer, and most
were funded by the wireless industry. In addition, these
reassuring studies contained significant experimental design
flaws, mainly the fact that the populations followed were
too small and were followed for a too short period of time.
Non industry-funded studies have clearly demonstrated a
significant increase in cancer cases among individuals who
have suffered from prolonged exposure to low-level
microwaves, transmitted notably by radio antennas. The
effects were best documented in meta-analyses that have been
published and that include grouped results from several
different studies: these analyses consistently showed an
increased risk of brain cancer among regular users of a cell
phone who have been exposed to microwaves for at least ten
years.
Brain
Cancer Rates
Furthermore, the argument that brain cancer rates do not
indicate an overall increase in incidence is not evidence
that cell phones are safe: the latency for brain cancer in
adults after environmental exposure can be long, up to 20-30
years. Most North Americans haven’t used cell phones
extensively for that long. The evidence of the link between
long-term cell phone use and brain cancer comes primarily
from Northern Europe, where cell phones have been commonly
used since the 1990s. Nevertheless, the most recent
collection of primary brain tumors mined from pathology
units in Australia showed brain cancer incidence rose by
about 35% between 2000 and 2008 in the Australian Capital
Territory and New South Wales (total population : more than
7 million).
Children are especially at risk. In May 2012, the U.K.’s
Office of National Statistics reported a 50 percent increase
in incidence of frontal and temporal lobe tumors in children
between 1999 and 2009. This statistic is especially
disturbing since in May 2011, after reviewing the published
scientific literature regarding cancers affecting cell phone
users, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
classified radiofrequency radiation as a 2B, possible human
carcinogen. Despite the absence of scientific consensus, the
evidence is sufficiently compelling for any cautious parent
to want to reduce their loved one’s exposure to RF/microwave
emissions as much as possible, as recommended by various
countries such as Austria, Belgium, Germany, Russia and the
United Kingdom.
Electrosensitivity
Public
fears about wireless smart meters are well-founded. They are
backed by various medical authorities such as those of the
Santa Cruz County(California) Public Health Department.
These authorities are worried about the growing number of
citizens who say they have developed electrohypersensitivity
(EHS), especially since for many of them, the symptoms
developed after the installation of such meters (it takes
some time for most people to link the two events).
Since
the turn of the millennium, people are increasingly affected
by ambient microwaves due to the growing popularity of
wireless devices such as cell phones and Wi-Fi Internet.
Therefore, the mass deployment of smart grids could expose
large chunks of the general population to alarming risk
scenarios without their consent. According to seven surveys
done in six European countries between 2002 and 2004, about
10% of Europeans have become electrosensitive. The most
famous person to publicly reveal her electrosensitivity is
Gro Harlem Brundtland, formerly Prime Minister of Norway and
retired Director of the World Health Organization (WHO).
While
there is no consensus on the origins and mechanisms of EHS,
many physicians and other specialists around the world have
become aware that EHS symptoms (neurological dermatological,
acoustical, etc.) seem to be triggered by exposure to EMF
levels well below current international exposure limits,
which are established solely on short-term thermal effects
(2). Organizations such as the Austrian Medical Association
and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine have
recognized that the ideal way to treat of EHS is to reduce
EMF exposure.
Therefore, caution is warranted because the growing variety
of RF/microwave emissions produced by many wireless devices
such as smart meters have never been tested for their
potential biological effects.
Well-known bioeffects
While the specific pathways to cancer are not fully
understood, it is scientifically unacceptable to deny the
weight of the evidence regarding the increase in cancer
cases in humans that are exposed to high levels of RF/microwave
radiation.
The statement that « there is no established mechanism by
which a radio wave could induce an adverse effect on human
tissue other than by heating » is incorrect, and reflects a
lack of awareness and understanding of the scientific
literature on the subject. In fact, more than a thousand
studies done on low intensity, high frequency, non-ionizing
radiation, going back at least fifty years, show that some
biological mechanisms of effect do not involve heat. This
radiation sends signals to living tissue that stimulate
biochemical changes, which can generate various symptoms and
may lead to diseases such as cancer.
Even though RF/microwaves don’t have the energy to directly
break chemical bonds, unlike ionizing radiation such as
X-rays, there is scientific evidence that this energy can
cause DNA damage indirectly leading to cancer by a
combination of biological effects. Recent publications have
documented the generation of free radicals, increased
permeability of the blood brain barrier allowing potentially
toxic chemicals to enter the brain, induction of genes, as
well as altered electrical and metabolic activity in human
brains upon application of cell phone RF/microwaves similar
to those produced by smart meters.
These effects are cumulative and depend on many factors
including RF/microwave levels, frequency, waveform, exposure
time, biovariability between individuals and combination
with other toxic agents. Clear evidence that these
microwaves are indeed bioactive has been shown by the fact
that low-intensity EMFs have proven clinically useful in
some circumstances. Pulsed EMFs have long been used to
successfully treat bone fractures that are resistant to
other forms of therapy. More recently, frequency-specific,
amplitude-modulated EMFs have been found useful to treat
advanced carcinoma and chronic pain.
High frequency EMFs such as the microwaves used in cell
phones, smart meters, Wi-Fi and cordless ‘‘DECT’’ phones,
appear to be the most damaging when used commonly. Most of
their biological effects, including symptoms of
electrohypersensitivity, can be seen in the damage done to
cellular membranes by the loss of structurally-important
calcium ions. Prolonged exposure to these high frequencies
may eventually lead to cellular malfunction and death.
Furthermore, malfunction of the parathyroid gland, located
in the neck just inches from where one holds a cell phone,
may actually cause electrohypersensitivity in some people by
reducing the background level of calcium ions in the blood.
RF/microwave radiation is also known to decrease the
production of melatonin, which protects against cancer, and
to promote the growth of existing cancer cells.
Early warning scientists attacked
In recommending that the Precautionary Principle be applied
in EMF matters, the European Environment Agency’s Director
Jacqueline McGlade wrote in 2009: “We have noted from
previous health hazard histories such as that of lead in
petrol, and methyl mercury, that ‘early warning’ scientists
frequently suffer from discrimination, from loss of research
funds, and from unduly personal attacks on their scientific
integrity. It would be surprising if this is not already a
feature of the present EMF controversy… » Such unfortunate
consequences have indeed occurred.
The statement in the Le Devoir letter that « if we consider
that a debate should take place, it should focus exclusively
on the effects of cell phones on health » is basically an
acknowledgement that there is at least some reason to be
concerned about cell phones. However, while the immediate
exposure from a cell phone is of much greater intensity than
the exposure from smart meters, cell phone use is temporary.
Smart meters
As Australian Associate Professor of neurosurgery Vini G.
Khurana reports, adverse neurological effects have been
reported in people who sustain close proximity to wireless
meters, especially under 10 feet (3 metres).
A wireless smart meter produces radiofrequency microwave
radiation with two antennas in approximately the same
frequency range (900 MHz to 2.4 GHz) as a typical cell
tower. But, depending on how close it is to occupied space
within a home, a smart meter can cause much higher RF
exposures than cell towers commonly do. If a smart meter is
located on a common wall with a bedroom or kitchen rather
than a garage wall, for example, the RF exposure can be the
same as being within 200 to 600 feet distance of a cell
tower with multiple carriers. With both cell towers and
smart meters, the entire body is immersed by microwaves that
go out in all directions, which increases the risk of
overexposure to many sensitive organs such as the eyes and
testicles. With a cell phone, people are exposed to
microwaves primarily in the head and neck (unless using
speaker mode), and only when they use their device.
Wireless smart meters typically produce atypical, relatively
potent and very short pulsed RF/microwaves whose biological
effects have never been fully tested. They emit these
millisecond-long RF bursts on average 9,600 times a day with
a maximum of 190,000 daily transmissions and a peak level
emission two and a half times higher than the stated safety
signal, as the California utility Pacific Gas & Electric
recognized before that State’s Public Utilities Commission.
Thus people in proximity to a smart meter are at risk of
significantly greater aggregate of RF/microwave exposure
than with a cell phone, not to mention the cumulative
exposure received by people living near multiple meters
mounted together, pole-mounted routers or utility collector
meters using a third antenna to relay RF signals from 500 to
5,000 homes.
A technical study performed by Sage Associates in California
indicates that RF levels from various scenarios depicting
normal smart meter installation and operation may violate
even the out-of-date US public safety standards which only
consider acute thermal effects. This can happen when a
person stands close to the meter to read the power
consumption, or touches it, or shades the meter face with a
hand to better read it. Emissions are also increased by
reflective materials, such as stainless steel, other metals
and mirrors, which can re-radiate stronger that the
otherwise unaltered background. Microwaves are absorbed and
dissipated by partially conductive materials, such as cement
and special RF shielding paints and fabrics.
In addition to the erratic bursts of modulated microwaves
emitted by wireless smart meters transferring usage data to
electric, gas and water utilities, wireless as well as wired
smart (powerline communication) meters are also a major
source of ‘’dirty electricity’’ (electrical interference of
high frequency voltage transients typically of kilohertz
frequencies). Some scientists, such as American
epidemiologist Sam Milham, believe that many of the health
complaints about smart meters may also be caused by dirty
electricity generated by the « switching » power supply
activating all smart meters. Since the installation of
filters to reduce dirty electricity circulating on house
wiring has been found to relieve symptoms of EHS in some
people, this method should be considered among the
priorities aimed at reducing potential adverse impacts.
Indeed, the Salzburg State (Austria) Public Health
Department confirms its concern about the potential public
health risk when in coming years almost every electric wire
and device will emit such transient electric fields in the
kilohertz-range due to wired smart meters.
Rather be safe than sorry
The apparent adverse health effects noted with smart meter
exposure are likely to be further exacerbated if smart
appliances that use wireless communications become the norm
and further increase unwarranted exposure.
To date, there have been few independent studies of the
health effects of such sources of more continuous but lower
intensity microwaves. However, we know after decades of
studies of hazardous chemical substances, that chronic
exposure to low concentrations of microwaves can cause equal
or even greater harm than an acute exposure to high
concentrations of the same microwaves.
This is why so many scientists and medical experts urgently
recommend that measures following the Precautionary
Principle be applied immediately — such as using wired
meters — to reduce biologically inappropriate microwave
exposure. We are not advocating the abolishment of RF
technologies, only the use of common sense and the
development and implementation of best practices in using
these technologies in order to reduce exposure and risk of
health hazards.
Try any
Q-Link or
cell chip
for 3 months, absolutely
RISK-FREE If you do not feel Q-Link improves your
focus, energy, or well-being, simply return it for a full
refund.
Airtube headsets have
30 a day refund.