CCST Report Leaves Smart Meter Health Questions Unanswered

Report Admits that Smart Meter Radiation “Continues to be of Concern”

The New Report Out Yesterday from the California Cheerleaders for 'Smart' Technology

San Francisco- A coalition of health and environmental advocates opposing radiation-emitting ‘smart’ meters today questioned the recommendations of a report released yesterday, calling the installation of 10 million wireless meters throughout California “a giant experiment on the population.” The California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) released a draft of their Smart Meter report yesterday- a response to Assemblymember Jared Huffman’s (D-San Rafael) request and question, “Are the FCC Safety Standards adequate to protect people from harm?”

The CCST report answers that the FCC safety standards are adequate for thermal impacts yet non-thermal impacts from radiation emitting devices like Smart Meters is still unknown.  Despite this uncertainty, the report inexplicably gives the green light for continued installation.

Cindy Sage of Sage Associates, a professional environmental consultant who last week released a study showing that ‘smart’ meters likely exceed already high FCC limits on human exposure to microwaves, said “Installing millions of RF transmitters in peoples’ homes when we already have substantial scientific evidence about the risks of chronic, low-level RF is a risk not worth taking.  Especially without any discussion, or disclosure to the public about trade-offs made without their knowledge or consent.”

The CCST study found that radiation from a ‘Smart’ Meter is forty times as high as a wireless wifi router, contradicting PG&E’s previous claim that the meters emit a minute fraction of the radiation of common household devices.

“Comparing wireless meters to other wireless devices that are voluntary, and which many people choose not to use is not a fair comparison to government-mandated meters that expose people in their homes 24 hours a day.” Sage says.

Stop Smart Meters!, the EMF Safety Network, and other groups opposing ‘smart’ meters continue to receive reports from hundreds of people experiencing health impacts after the wireless meters are installed, including sleep problems, headaches, tinnitus and nausea.  The California Public Utilities Commission has received over 2000 complaints of health impacts.  The CCST report failed to interview anyone reporting health symptoms, and neglected to cite peer-reviewed findings of non-thermal biological damage from low level RF emissions.

“The costs for having guessed wrong is likely to have enormous economic and public health consequences for Californians for decades to come,” Sage concludes.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to CCST Report Leaves Smart Meter Health Questions Unanswered

  1. Susan B says:

    I have just reviewed this deceptive, biased, and reprehensible report. I would like a full accounting of the possible conflicts of interest among all panel members. I note that CCST has, as its affiliate, one of the principals behind the Smart Meter program, the US Dept of Energy. Thus, the nonprofit itself has a conflict of interest not noted on the CCST report. The information reads like a PG&E pamphlet promoting Smart Meters. Some smart meters are placed very close to people’s beds / headboards, about a foot or less. Some people cannot be around RF emitting devices and do not use these. The tables cited are deceptive as they do not compare use at same distances, or at one foot. FCC guidelines, pertaining only to thermal, are used throughout. Further, it is clear that this panel, even admitting that there is no proof that smart meters are safe, and that non-thermal effects of RF radiation require more research, appear to be rubber-stamping Smart Meter deployment on every building in America. In other words, the authors are playing Russian Roulette with America’s health, by so doing. This will go down in history as one of the largest mistakes of all time, and you are contributing to that, all panel members’ names and reputations will be known by these actions.

    Click here: http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smartA.pdf

    • EDP says:

      I for the past 2 weeks have not been sleeping well and waking up every night! I have documented emails in that I have written in the middle of the night to my older friends asking – as we get older are others finding that they cannot sleep well anymore. I have been alalizing my lifestyle trying to figure out what and why a cannot sleep. I have even taken aspirin in the mid of night when I wake from a low level headache? Then today I hear a news cast that the Smart Meters maybe causing sleeping problems for people. Holly Smokes I now realize that the Smart Meeter was installed at the time all this started. My head in my bed is 12 feet away from the SM and my kids bunk bed is right on the wall with the SM on the outside wall with only 8 inches of separation!

      What do I do? Is this the cause? It fits the time frame that all this started to happen!!!

      EDP Corte Madera CA

  2. Susan B says:

    http://www.nelco-usa.com offers leadlined sheetrock and other lead-based shielding products (sealed in neoprin), that may be considered for use in protecting oneself from radiation sources. These are used in dental offices, etc. One 4’X8′ sheet of lead-lined sheetrock (gypsum) costs around $140. These installations require special handling. Nelco’s phone number is 510-357-9940, they have a CA office based in San Leandro.

  3. RobertWilliams says:

    HUMANS ARE NOT RATS, BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE.

    Smart meter signal radiation has been shown in laboratories to cause damage to rat brains. But I guess people are not rats (though some are) and so the political group disguised as a science body, can still say there is no ultimate proof that the signal radiation will also damage human brains.

    If you feed something to rats and they die, most rational people won’t want to eat any, but you can still say there is no proof that it hurts humans.

    Up is becoming down and down up in this place where money and power dominate and lower level managers do whatever it takes to follow that lead to keep their jobs and salaries and stay in good graces.

    Even insurance companies, based on what they know about smart meter signal radiation will NOT insure health risks from Wireless devices – The rats and even the sheep will have a hard time rationalizing that.

    VIDEO: Insurance Companies Won’t Insure Wireless Device Health Risks (3 minutes, 13 seconds)
    http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=382

  4. The authors all well know that practically nothing gets to the level of causation, even lung cancer cannot be said to be caused by smoking, to this date. The whole report was written in the manner of those used for defense ie. tobacco science, mold science, and chemical science. It is always said, for the benefit of non-scientists like judges, juries, and the general public, that something widely reported to be harmful, with numerous studies showing an association with that agent, has not been absolutely proven to the level of causation and is not accepted by the majority of scientists so therefore it is not a problem. In reality, this level of acceptance takes more than half a century and still then may not be so. The precautionary principle would tell us that to avoid harm we protect against those agents that are associated with harmful effects, shown by some researchers to be harmful, or widely reported to be so, anecdotally. We see this in evidence in many situations, as with Chinese drywall. However, where millions of people stand to be harmed by government action or when a well-heeled corporation stands to loose billions, we are not protected. This report will be used in court by those who defend against the harm that may be alleged. The fact that CCST has, as its affiliate US Dept of Energy is enough to tell us that asking this body to do the study was a huge error. That conflict of interest was not reported by CCST and should have been in its intro. All support by industry and major donors should be requested from this nonprofit, it is public information. Therein you may see additional conflicts of interest that could be considered to bias this report in the manner we have seen. We cannot expect to have the fox guard the chickenhouse. Reports like this have a template that goes back to tobacco science.

    • Susan B says:

      Go to https://www.schoolmoldhelp.org/content/view/2145/65/ to view David O. Carpenter’s critical review of the CCST report. He is the type of individual who should have been consulted by CCST if they wanted the truth.

      David O. Carpenter: Report on CCST Review of Health Effects of Smart Meters

      Dr. David O. Carpenter, expert in public health and wireless technologies, reports negatively on the review of the California Council for Science and Technology’s “Health Impacts of Radiofrequency from Smart Meters”. Dr. Carpenter provides his expert opinion, “This document is not an accurate description of the state of the science on the issue of radiofrequency fields, and is full of inaccuracies”, further noting it “is obvious that no persons with medical or biological expertise participated in this report.” Dr. Carpenter’s expert comments on the extensive dangers of smart meters are backed up with his specific concerns about the CCST report, with scientific realities and facts apparently not taken into consideration by the CCST. This confirms SMH comments on the CCST report. (SMH)

      Institute for Health and the Environment
      and Department of Environmental Health Sciences
      School of Public Health
      University at Albany, State University of New York

      This is a report on the review of the California Council on Science and Technology document, “Health Impacts of Radiofrequency from Smart Meters”. I am a public health physician and former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany. I have been involved in review and analysis of studies on electromagnetic fields, including radiofrequency fields, for many years. I served as the Executive Secretary to the New York State Powerlines Project in the 1980s, and have published several reviews on the subject and have edited two books. In addition I was invited to present to the recent President’s Cancer Panel on the subject of powerline and radiofrequency fields and cancer.

      This document is not an accurate description of the state of the science on the issue of radiofrequency fields, and is full of inaccuracies. My specific concerns are as follows:

      1. The benefit of the smart meters is entirely to the utilities, and is economic in nature. If they install smart meters they can fire those individuals who at present are employed to go around reading meters. Thus this is a job-killing proposal, and will increase unemployment in a state that already has too much.

      2. When a smart meter is installed residents have no choice in the matter nor ability to avoid exposure. But every individual has the option to use or not use other personal wireless devices, until more is know about health consequences of chronic RF exposure. There is a major different between an exposure which an individual chooses to accept and one that is forces on individuals who can do nothing about it.

      3. The statement “The potential for behavioral disruption from increase body tissue temperatures is the only biological health impact that has been consistently demonstrated and scientifically proven to result from absorbing RF within the band of the electromagnetic spectrum that smart meters use” is totally wrong. In the first place there are many adverse health effects other than “behavioral disruption” demonstrated as a result of tissue heating. The evidence for increased risk of brain tumors, acoustic neuromas and parotid gland tumors in individuals who have used a cell phone for 10 years or more is consistent, and the tumors occur only on the side of the head where the phone is used. There is also strong and consistent evidence for increased risk of leukemia in individuals who live near to high power AM radio transmission towers, even though this report characterizes such exposures as being “quite low” and show in Figure 7 that they are lower than the RF fields from smart meters.

      4. The statement “The scientific consensus is that body temperatures must increase at least 1oC to lead to potential biological impacts from the heat” is totally wrong, and makes it obvious that no persons with medical or biological expertise participated in this report. Every enzyme system in the body is exquisitely sensitive to temperature, and increases activity by even a fraction of a degree increase in temperature. In fact all RF generates heat, and what is defined as “nonthermal” is only a function of our ability to measure the temperature increase.

      5. The statement “While concerns of brain cancer associated with mobile phone usage persist, there is currently no definitive evidence linking cell phone usage with increased incidence of cancer” is incorrect. The evidence is strong and consistent among studies looking at long-term and intensive use of cell phones. The AM radio studies mentioned above are also relevant, particularly because like smart phones radio transmission towers give whole body radiation, not just to the head.

      6. The statement “There currently is no conclusive scientific evidence pointing to a non-thermal cause-and-effect between human exposure to RF emissions and negative health impacts is inaccurate, and depends totally on what one defines as “conclusive”. In biology and medicine there is nothing that is 100% proven. We rely on statistical significance and weight of evidence when drawing conclusions about health effects. When one uses these definitions there is conclusive scientific evidence for adverse health effects in humans.

      7. The evidence for adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation is currently strong and grows stronger with each new study. Wired meters with shielded cable do not increase exposure. The report clearly indicates that “smart meters could conceivably be adapted to non-wireless transmission of data. However, retrofitting millions of smart meters with hard-wired technology could be difficult and costly.” Clearly the answer to this dilemma is not to install wireless smart meters to begin with.

      Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this faulty report, and on the general issue of smart meters. Their use is unwise from both a public health point of view, which is where my expertise lies, but and also from a purely short and long-term economic point of view.

      Yours sincerely,
      David O. Carpenter, M.D.
      Director, Institute for Health and the Environment
      University at Albany

      East Campus, 5 University Place, Room A217, Rensselaer, NY 12144-3429
      PH:
      518-525-2660
      FX: 518-525-2665

  5. Pingback: CCST Report Leaves Smart Meter Health Questions Unanswered | Stop … | The Cancer Site

  6. Paul H says:

    I have always been able to sleep sound and well. My naps during the day, especially a Sunday afternoon, would range from 3 to 4 hours. I then experienced waking up at 3 A.M. every day. It felt as though my body was telling me it had enough sleep and it was time to start the day. This all started the day SRP in Phoenix installed a Smart Meter on my bedroom wall. I put the two together and knew right away this was my problem, especially after doing a little research on the net. My ears now ring and I get headaches on top of my sleep being disrupted. It has changed my life and now have to drive up north, to the hills, to get a good night rest. It’s amazing how so many people have the same problem. Now when having a conversation I always ask how have they been resting or if their spouse has had any trouble. Most times one or the other has been having difficulty sleeping.
    I have done quite a bit of research since this all has happened and have found that the RF waves actually harm the cell. If you do a search in Yahoo video looking for the video title, Dangers of the wireless cell phone, wi-fi and emf age Part 1, I think you might find alot of answers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s