“Smart Meters” – No, they do not make people sick

January 16th, 2013
submit to reddit Share

Much to do has been made of the s0-called “smart meters” – electric meters that monitor the times electricity is used and transmit the data back to the utility company in order to bill customers based on the time they use electricity – charging higher rates for peak demand time and lower rates for electricity used during times of low demand.  The idea is that by doing so, they could encourage customers to better manage their electricity use and schedule energy intensive tasks for times of low demand – for example, washing and drying clothes.  This could help balance demand and lead to less need for more expensive peaking and load-following generation.   It also can supposedly save the customer money, but it often does not.

There are some valid reasons to oppose having a smart meter:

  • They could be considered part of an effort to shift the burden for reliable power and grid stability to the end customer.
  • Depending on your usage, they may not save you money and could result in your costs going up.
  • Life is complicated enough without having to worry about scheduling your tasks around the electric price schedule.
  • Once you get one installed, it’s likely to be impossible to get it removed, so if your electric company is asking for customers to volunteer for the new meters, it might be worth waiting to see if they really do end up saving money before taking the plunge.
  • You can tell a lot about someone from the times they use electricity (what days of the week they work, when they get up, when they leave for work, when they get home, when they go to sleep, when they are away from home etc)  Not all utilities have been very forthcoming about how they treat the information and whether they consider it private.  A telemarketer would definitely like to know what time would be good to call and bother you.   Even if the utility company does not sell the information, the government could certainly get it, and these days, at least in the US, the authorities have been acting like search warrants are obsolete.
  • The utility company may charge you a fee to install or for rental of the unit.  Not all utilities have been forthcoming about this, and it would be especially irritating if it turns out that the meter does not save you any money, AND you had to pay for it.

For all of these reasons, if my utility company were to offer the option of having a smart meter or opting out, I would opt out, at least until the meters had been installed for a few months and it was possible to find out whether other customers really did experience savings and did not end up getting targeted advertisements for insomnia medication or to have pizza delivered right at the time they have dinner.

But there is also a completely bogus reason to oppose smart meters: fears of radiation.   It’s ridiculous, not only unproven but completely out of line with decades of understanding of non-ionizing radiation.   Despite this, claims that smart meters are causing everything from cancer to headaches have become rampant.

The signalling methods of smart meters:

Smart meters communicate with the utility company at regular intervals, updating them on the electricity used by customers.  They do this by one of three methods.

Some of the oldest smart meters (which were generally limited to being installed at some industrial and commercial locations) use a telephone connection and an analog modem.  About once a day, they dial up the utility and transmit metering information.   This, however, is considered obsolete and is rarely seen anymore.

Another method in use is power line communications.  In meters of this type, the information is transmitted back through the power grid itself.  The data is encoded on a carrier wave or as a series of pulses and mixed onto the power line.  A disadvantage of this method is that the power grid often needs to have some modifications in order to allow the signals to bypass transformers, which would otherwise block the higher frequency signals.

Most smart meters, especially those used for residences, transmit the data wirelessly.   They may do so through a dedicated network, run by the utility, or by existing phone/data networks that the utility contracts with to provide the data transmission.  Many systems use what are known as “concentrators.”  These are neighborhood-scaled nodes that relay data between the smart meters and the utility system.   The concentrators are typically mounted on utility poles and serve customers within a small area.

The system deployed in California has received the most attention.   It’s pretty typical of how most smart meter systems in the US operate.

Here California (and many other) Smart Meter communications system works:

Each of the meters contains an RF transceiver and modem which is used for communications.   The system operates in the frequency range of 902-928 MHz, this is known as the “ISM Band,” which is used for short range communication by low power devices.  The band is also used by devices like cordless phones, wireless headphones, baby monitors etc.  The communication system for the meters uses FHSS (Frequency hopping spread spectrum), which helps avoid interference that may be on a particular frequency by distributing the data across the spectrum.   There is built in error correction, so even if some of the data packets are lost, the data can be recovered.

The maximum transmission power of the meters is one watt.   This is not very much, even by consumer device standards.   Most handheld mobile phones transmit up to 500 milliwatts, but the maximum allowable transmission power for mobile phone devices is three watts.  Cell phone booster devices and older phones, such as “bag phones” transmit at the full three watts.   Handheld walkie-talkies may transmit at four or five watts and base-station and vehicle two-way radios can be substantially more.

The reason that the meters only need to transmit at one watt is that they do not have to communicate very far.   Each meter communicates with a data concentrator, which serves the area where the meter is installed.   Each concentrator can only serve 1024 customers, so they are located relatively close together, each one serving a neighborhood or small section of a town or city.   The data concentrators are connected back to the utility company using an IP-based network that works through the local telecommunications infrastructure.  They may be connected to wired data networks or they may use the local wireless phone and data network system, just as a laptop with a wireless modem would.

The image to the right shows one of the local concentrators used in the system deployed in California.  Most systems in the US (and many elsewhere) use a similar system.   The appearance of the concentrators may vary.

The meters are also capable of “mesh networking,” in which communication can be routed between meters, with each meter acting as a relay station.  This is especially useful in an environment where there may be obstructions between a meter and the concentrator.   It also allows the meters to operate reliably at a lower power than would otherwise be possible, since they only need to be able to communicate with another nearby meter to connect to the system.

The communication is two-way, with the concentrators polling the meters at regular intervals.   The meters therefore do not transmit continuously but only when they are pinged by the network.

The electric meters also transmit metering data for water and gas meters.  The water and gas meters communicate with the electric meters using a low power 2.4 ghz radio link.  Water and gas meters are not “smart” in the sense that they do not account for the time when water and gas are used and are not programmable, but the radio link means they can be read automatically without dispatching a meter reader to the residence.  The electric meters are basically a gateway for the water and gas meters to communicate back to the network.

Diagram of how the system used in California (and many others) operates:

A few things to note about the RF radiation given off by such a system:

  • It’s on similar to or less than many consumer devices that have been in use for years.
  • The frequencies used are identical to those used by consumer devices.  They are also very close to (and therefore behave the same as) the frequencies used for mobile phones.  In some countries, these exact frequencies are used for mobile phone networks.
  • Similar local wireless communications systems have been in use for decades for a variety of purposes.
  • As a consequence of the inverse square law, the level of exposure to the RF field from a meter located on the side of a building will be orders of magnitude less than a device kept near one’s body, such as a mobile phone, cordless phone, baby monitor etc.

Yet, despite this, people have been going nuts over these “smart meters,” claiming that they produce some kind of magical radiation which causes illness in ways no other device does.

Here’s a typical case of smart meter fears, in this case in Ann Arbor, Michigan:

Without the health testimony on the record and no lawyer to represent them, Kurtz and Edwards fear the heart of their argument to the commission will be lost and they will have to pay for the removal of a device they feel is making them, and a number of others they’ve encountered in the process, sick.

Neither Kurtz nor Edwards have a smart meter installed in their homes, but both feel they are, to varying degrees, hypersensitive to electromagnetic waves.

Kurtz has a master’s degree in anthropological archeology from the University of Michigan, is a biodynamic cranial psychotherapist and a massage therapist. She’s spent hundreds of hours researching electromagnetic studies and the logistics of smart meters — and noted that there are no scientific articles that examine the health effects of smart meters on humans.

“That’s how science works,” Kurtz said. “A lot of people had to get sick before the powers that be decided something needed to be changed.”

Kurtz said the compounded exposure to the electromagnetic waves associated with smart meters, wireless internet networks and cell phones has plagued her with insomnia.

“This is not something I would be doing if it were hypothetical,” Kurtz said. “The people who are becoming involved in this … they are people who have not been politically involved, nor activists in any way. People are getting involved only because they can’t sleep and their ears are ringing 24/7.”

Edwards is a landscape gardener and works in retail. She began noticing she was having difficulty sleeping after coming home from work late at night in the summer. Coupled with a tightness she experienced in her temples and an aggravated heart condition after spending long hours under the fluorescent lights at work and in certain conditions, she said she didn’t start to connect the dots until she was forwarded an article on smart meters from a friend.

Well, damn! If you can’t trust a biodynamic cranial psychotherapist and a massage therapist to give it to you straight, who can you trust?   (Yes, that is sarcasm)

Here, however, is one of my favorites.

Via Patch:

‘Radiation Refugee’ Files $120 Million Suit vs. Calif., SDG&E from W. Virginia

RAMONA, CA—Deborah Cooney was valedictorian at West Boylston High School in Massachusetts, an economics graduate of Brown University and a vice president of Peoples Savings Bank in Worcester, MA, for 10 years.

But after being laid off during an ownership change in the mid-1990s, she decided to pursue her dream of becoming a professional musician.

But in April 2011, she was suddenly pained by a high-pitched ringing in her ears.

“I remember the exact moment the tinnitus started,” Cooney said Friday. “I was just relaxing in my house in between [teaching] sessions. And all of a sudden it was like somebody turned something on.”

She suspects it was triggered by a bank of 100-plus wireless smart meters installed at a nearby apartment complex.

The miseries multiplied, she said via telephone from her home in rural West Virginia.

“I couldn’t stand the house anymore,” Cooney said. “I couldn’t sleep in the house. I couldn’t eat any of the food in the house … it got so radiated it got me sick. … I was eating out. I was trying to sleep on the beach.”

Interesting. So the meters were unbearable but the fields produced by the telephone receiver next to hear ear are no problem?

Her beloved cat died.

Mimi was a purebred Himalayan adopted in 2003, whose “behavior completely flipped,” Cooney said. The feline went from being an indoor “queen of the house” to one who stayed outdoors and eventually ran away, only to return “completely dehydrated, having heart palpitations … the same things I was suffering from.”

“She came back because she realized there was no place to go,” Cooney said. “Our whole neighborhood was radiated.”

I’m sorry to hear about her cat, but cats do die – they do not live nearly as long as humans. It’s also quite common for animals to start behaving very strangely when they are becoming very sick, as is often the case before they die. But then, I’m not a veterinarian, and I have no idea what actually killer her cat.

Finally—on Aug. 24, 2011—Cooney decided she couldn’t sleep, work or live in her own house, so “I think I’d better just leave.”

She piled some dresses into her 2003 Hyundai Accent, left her “significant other” Frisbee champion boyfriend and drove 2,600 miles from Chateau Drive to the National Radio Quiet Zone in West Virginia.

Interesting. So.. apparently, she was just fine living her entire life in a world full of television and radio transmitters, cell phones and towers, CB radios, radar guns, wireless routers and alike, but as soon as they install some one watt transmitters (that are not even on all the time) she has to move to the National Radio Quiet Zone? Hmmm, something here does not make a lot of sense.

Her suit alleges the following:

[Cooney] could feel the immediate effects of radiation when she walked in the front door, experiencing a pins-and-needles feeling all over her skin, muscle contractions, stiffness, and pain, ataxia, dehydration, etc. Plaintiff felt a shock to her heart … at exactly 1:00, 5:00, and 9:00, as if something was being transmitted every four hours, on the hour. The shock would initiate cascading heart attack symptoms: chest pain, shortness of breath, heart palpitations, nausea, circulatory problems, edema, numbness and an impending sense of doom.

Well that’s interesting. These symptoms all sound very generalized and subjective. But then how does one actually know they are experiencing circulatory problems? Did she have a doctor there to evaluate the circulatory problems that suddenly crop up at these times? Also, how does an RF field make you dehydrated? If there’s water in your body before the field occurs then what? Does it make you urinate or does it just cook the water out of you?

Acting as her own attorney, Cooney in her 12,000-word civil suit [attached] blames SDG&E and others for the loss of her ability to live in California and their failure to protect her from harm.

Acting as her own attorney? That’s strange. You would think with millions of dollars to be made lawyers would be lining up to represent her for free in exchange for even a small cut of the settlement.

Cooney is no stranger to legal action. After an August 2008 altercation with a lifeguard at La Jolla Cove, she was sent to the county mental hospital. A staff psychiatrist found nothing wrong with her and granted her release, but Cooney sued over a 20-hour involuntary detention.

I think they might need to hire a new staff psychiatrist.

“The more you let the abusers get away with this stuff, the bigger and badder the abuse becomes,” she told Patch. “The more lawsuits we can hit them with, the less profitable it is to hurt us. … When you are dealing with corporations and the government-industrial complex, the only thing they notice is profit. That’s the only language they speak.”

She readily acknowledges she doesn’t expect to win $120 million, “but the reality is my damages are well beyond [that]. … I’m just conservatively saying $100 million, but really it’s worth billions. It’s worth trillions.”

Interesting that she evaluates herself and her suffering as being worth so much. Perhaps I am just a cheap self-loathing whore, but I can’t imagine any pain I might be subjected to being worth “trillions.” Hell, I’d be willing to live for a year in some pretty miserable conditions, while experiencing chest pain and the other listed symptoms and do it all for less than fifty million dollars. Hell, you could nail me to a cross and then take me down and give me one hundred million dollars and I’d be happy with the deal.

But even though cell phone towers are banned and even the local library lacks Wi-Fi, smart meters have invaded, Cooney says.

“They’ve completely dropped the ball on smart meters,” she says. “I can’t stand it here either.”

She says she visited her father in New Jersey over Christmas—“and there are no smart meters anywhere around them. …. I felt great there—all analog meters.

Wow. Those damn smart meters must really be full of black magic! They produce emissions so low they actually qualify for use around sensitive radio telescopes, but even in such an area, away from much larger sources of RF radiation, those damn meters ruin everything. Yet in an area where there are far more transmitters of all types, she feels better because the magic meters are not installed.

I was thinking: Maybe I should move to New Jersey—of all places. Like who wants to live in New Jersey, right?”

This statement here is really telling. Actually about nine million people live in New Jersey, generally by choice. New Jersey may get a bad rap from shows like Jersey Shore and from the fact that it does indeed have some pretty rough cities, but in general, it’s as nice a place as anywhere else to live. New Jersey is mostly suburbs, but there are even a few rural areas. Some portions of the state are actually very expensive. The median income in New Jersey is $70,378, the second highest in the US and well above the national average.

Joking aside, New Jersey is, in fact, as nice a place to live as any other, but apparently it’s not good enough for Ms. Cooney. This attitude seems to be pervasive amongst the hypochondriac class.  There seems to be an obliviousness to completely insulting others for the place where they live and proclaiming oneself to be some kind of tortured hero who is entitled to the world and too good to live in most of it.

It does not seem to even occur to Ms. Cooney that there are plenty of people who happily live there and actually like the state.  Why would someone so concerned about social justice and equality go around and insult the homes of others? Perhaps it’s okay to insult their home because she considers them to be less important.  Or maybe she is just so wrapped up in herself that it never even entered her mind.

It seems little surprise, really, that the ones getting all hot and bothered about these smart meters seem to be extremely well off Caucasians living in the suburbs of California and other relatively affluent areas.


This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 16th, 2013 at 10:38 am and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Enviornment, inverse square, Just LAME, Misc. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



146 Responses to ““Smart Meters” – No, they do not make people sick”

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

  1. 101
    DV82XL Says:

            x said:

    I suppose the mice’s behaviour and dose response decrease in synaptic efficacy of glutamatergic synapses in this study was a result of broadening of the diagnostic criteria and had nothing to do with in-utero radiofrequency exposure from cellular telephones and is therefore no cause for concern?

    What I see in this paper are claims being made on <3-sigma results which means that the observations cannot be reasonably be said to fall outside normal distribution. 3-sigma represents the boundary point that can be used to signal the difference between events that are ordinary and predictable and those that are unusual and unpredictable. In other words given the way the experiment was done with human observers making judgement calls on the subjects behavior the results do not fall outside what might be expected from any random sample.

    Frankly I cringe whenever I see one of these papers and I read that the subjects were exposed by placing cellphones near them. This is not how it should be done. Exposures from calibrated sources, measured with proper field strength meters would be the only way that any meaningful statements on exposure could be made. And that's just the first indication that this study was done without proper design, in fact it is riddled with uncontrolled sources of potential error and frankly looks like something done by first or second year college students. I see that the comments appended to this paper are also highly critical of both the experimental design and the conclusions that were made in it.

    It would be better if you actually read through these things before you try and hold them up to support your arguments, and read the comments posted below them. As it stands this sort of rubbish backs up what we are saying more than what you are.


    Quote Comment
  2. 102
    DOUBTING THOMAS Says:

    Ditto on DV82XL comments for the Yale mice study. If you can’t spot the fatal flaw on first reading; you don’t know what you’re talking about. Hint: exposure assesment and dosimetry.

    Also, on the Brazil Study mentioned above — Please check out ‘www.EMF&Health.Com’ for a debunking article by Lorne Trottier and Ken Foster. BTW, you don’t have to pay for the Brazil study if you Google a bit more. You can download it for free from some true believer sites.


    Quote Comment
  3. 103
    Toothbrush Knife Says:

    This is the perfect website for everyone who
    hopes to understand this topic. You know a whole lot its
    almost tough to argue with you (not that I really would
    want to…HaHa). You definitely put a fresh spin on a topic which has been written about for ages.
    Great stuff, just great!

    Also visit my webpage … Toothbrush Knife


    Quote Comment
  4. 104
    spray gun Murah Says:

    I know this site presents quality based articles or
    reviews and other information, is there any other web site which gives such
    things in quality?

    Here is my web-site :: spray gun Murah


    Quote Comment
  5. 105
    Mary Mieres Says:

    I would appreciate it more if you really would state the DANGERS of the radio frequencies put out by smart meters AND wi fi. They are ban in Europe and being removed from schools for a reason. To lead the public to believe they don’t get one sick; when in reality they do (I am proof) – is BAD reporting.


    Quote Comment
  6. 106
    Shafe Says:

            Mary Mieres said:

    I would appreciate it more if you really would state the DANGERS of the radio frequencies put out by smart meters AND wi fi. They are ban in Europe and being removed from schools for a reason. To lead the public to believe they don’t get one sick; when in reality they do (I am proof) – is BAD reporting.

    Dangers, dangers….
    Let’s see. They could potentially interfere with homebrewed electronics that are operating on unauthorized frequencies.


    Quote Comment
  7. 107
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Mary Mieres said:

    I would appreciate it more if you really would state the DANGERS of the radio frequencies put out by smart meters AND wi fi. They are ban in Europe and being removed from schools for a reason. To lead the public to believe they don’t get one sick; when in reality they do (I am proof) – is BAD reporting.

    They are certainly not banned in Europe.

    I am aware of circumstances where schools have removed wifi because parents went nuts and insisted it was harming their children. This is not because of any actual danger that has been proven.

            Shafe said:

    Dangers, dangers….
    Let’s see. They could potentially interfere with homebrewed electronics that are operating on unauthorized frequencies.

    Yeah, um… I guess you could also bash someone over the head with a wifi router. Some of those old linksys ones were built like tanks.


    Quote Comment
  8. 108
    DV82XL Says:

            Mary Mieres said:

    To lead the public to believe they don’t get one sick; when in reality they do (I am proof) …

    You’re certainly proof of something Mary but it isn’t the dangers of low-level RF….


    Quote Comment
  9. 109
    Cindy Says:

    I have read some of the comments on this site and there seems to be a lot of info on this topic. Recently a smart meter was installed outside my 6 year old daughters bedroom, it is exactly in line with her pillow except outside. Do i need to be concerned about this? Please give me some advice as i am totally confused about this topic. Thanks.


    Quote Comment
  10. 110
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Cindy said:

    I have read some of the comments on this site and there seems to be a lot of info on this topic. Recently a smart meter was installed outside my 6 year old daughters bedroom, it is exactly in line with her pillow except outside. Do i need to be concerned about this? Please give me some advice as i am totally confused about this topic. Thanks.

    no you don’t.


    Quote Comment
  11. 111
    Veronica Says:

    People should be more educated on the effects of radio frequency radiation. There are papers from the Navy and Russia that document–20-30 years ago or more the symptoms people experience from radio frequency radiation. The term ‘radio wave sickness’ was reported in the 60′s and 70′s. These folks suffered the same symptoms that people who report EHS are sufffering from today. There are studies documenting biological effects from nonionizing radiation. Many doctors and researchers are finding that this is an emerging health problem and an emerging health issue. I have had three smart AMR meters installed on my home and have been sick for 7 mothns. The symptoms are exactly the same as the Navy paper, the prior research, and nearly everyone suffering right now. The same constellation of symptoms being reported from the same type of exposure. This is occuring all over the world. Some people have damaged immune systems, chemical sensitivites etc which is seems linked to this. Why do people so vehemently deny that this is the case. Why attack people who are already suffering. People all over the globe, spanning several decades, don’t just develop–out ot he blue–thesame constellation of symptom caused by the same exposures. When researchers started to find that cigarettes were dangerous–the industry stepped in and paid for studies to refute those findings. They did that for years and untold numbers of peopel died. They did it with mercury, lead, asbestos…. The industry doesn’t care if a number of people are immediately affected because they just buy research that says it isn’t so. They buy research that says that it is imagined. They pressure people to stop doing research and attack independant researchers who have findings that they don’t like. It happens all the time in our world and certainly has happened throughout history. There are always people who get tricked into supporting a n industry that is damaging people. Peope are either intentionally stupid or just think they know the truth. For those of us affected by cell phones, cell towers, smart meters, and wifi=–we know the truth. Eventaully we will be vindicated–but at what cost to society? To the woman whose child’s head is next to the smart meter–move the bed or move the bedroom. This is damaging to people. Research shows that cell phones cause increased cancer and that is with occasional use–not 24/7 exposure. Are you willing to risk your daughter health? They had studies showing that cigarette smoking was safe. They had studies showing that second hand smoking was safe. For the love of GOd, doctors use to advertise cigarettes. Times have not changed all that much. Money still talks and the truth is surpressed. With billions and billions of dollars at stake–who will you trust your child’s health to?


    Quote Comment
  12. 112
    DV82XL Says:

            Veronica said:

    People should be more educated on the effects of radio frequency radiation. There are papers from the Navy and Russia that document–20-30 years ago or more the symptoms people experience from radio frequency radiation?

    You do understand that work done on exposure to very high fluxes of microwave radiation do not apply to very low level exposures of the sort that come from cellphones. Look, to put it in perspective radiant heat is a form of non-ionizing radiation. Low to moderate levels of exposure to radiant heat are understood to be harmless, and in some cases may be lifesaving, that does not mean that you can survive in a walk-in oven set at 400F, or that a shot from an industrial IR cutting laser won’t harm you.

    As in everything, dose is the important factor and the only one that counts.


    Quote Comment
  13. 113
    CA Says:

    Although I agree that the level of radiation is small, perhaps even compared to a cell phone, what is different is the signalling. I wish I knew why I now have ringing in the ears. Although your site provides some of the best technical information I’ve seen, you are pretty closed-minded about people complaining of health effects of the meters. It’s not possible because…you say so?
    I wish you were right. After living in the same house for 19 years, a smart-meter was installed and I and my children developed many of the symptoms mentioned in the lists posted on websites worldwide.
    It’s possible that there are wiring or grounding errors in our house, and that a magnetic field is somehow induced into the wiring of the home causing resonance.
    Does that sound plausible to you?
    An expert on EMF suggested I measure the fields in my house. Unfortunately, this is one of the worst experimental designs you could imagine — I have only post-meter-installation data available. What changed? With the system now in place, I’ll never know.
    PhD in Michigan


    Quote Comment
  14. 114
    DV82XL Says:

            CA said:

    Although I agree that the level of radiation is small, perhaps even compared to a cell phone, what is different is the signalling.

    So what? Unless you can show some real proof otherwise, the modulation impressed on such a low level of EMF will have no effect. This particular hypothesis has never been demonstrated valid by anyone, and it simply cannot be invoked out of the blue.

            CA said:

    I wish I knew why I now have ringing in the ears.

    Tinnitus is common: about 20% of people will have symptoms of this condition sometime in their lives. There are more than twenty known causes ranging from nasal congestion through neurologic disorders and metabolic disorders through to psychiatric disorders. For all of these causes there are established links proven through medical research. Why then should anyone accept your explanation when, first you have not eliminated all other possibilities, and second, no link has been found between this condition and smart meters?

            CA said:

    Although your site provides some of the best technical information I’ve seen, you are pretty closed-minded about people complaining of health effects of the meters. It’s not possible because…you say so?

    No, because the science says so. That is to say there is no established link that can be shown.

            CA said:

    I wish you were right. After living in the same house for 19 years, a smart-meter was installed and I and my children developed many of the symptoms mentioned in the lists posted on websites worldwide.

    And we are supposed to believe this without proof? Funny, people come here demanding an absolute level of proof that whatever we assert is so, but expect us to take their anecdotal stories at face value without question.

            CA said:

    It’s possible that there are wiring or grounding errors in our house, and that a magnetic field is somehow induced into the wiring of the home causing resonance.
    Does that sound plausible to you?

    No it is not plausible and only shows that you are someone without any technical background grasping at straws

            CA said:

    An expert on EMF suggested I measure the fields in my house. Unfortunately, this is one of the worst experimental designs you could imagine — I have only post-meter-installation data available. What changed? With the system now in place, I’ll never know.

    So what? If the EMF was really high enough to cause real health effects it would be so absolutely. Furthermore, even if there was a difference, it would still prove nothing: correlation is not proof of causation.

            CA said:

    PhD in Michigan

    No PhD in any technical field, and therefore irrelevant.


    Quote Comment
  15. 115
    drbuzz0 Says:

            CA said:

    I wish I knew why I now have ringing in the ears.n

    The medical term for it is tinnitus. It’s very common, one of the most common hearing problems. It is especially common in those over 40 and more common in men than women.

    It has many causes. Some are easily treated and some are not. You should see a doctor who specializes in it. It can be very annoying and sometimes even debilitating.

            CA said:

    It’s possible that there are wiring or grounding errors in our house, and that a magnetic field is somehow induced into the wiring of the home causing resonance.
    Does that sound plausible to you?

    That does not really make a lot of sense from an electrical standpoint. Grounding is pretty simple. I am assuming you mean of the homes mains electrical system? There should not be much return on the main ground but on the neutral leg of the wiring, which is basically the same, there will be a return path, but it’s pretty much just 60 hz ac balanced with the hot.

    There could be an RF ground problem causing leakage from an RF device, but again, that sounds pretty unlikely. It would more likely show up as bad reception than as anything else.

    Can you give some more info on what these symptoms are?


    Quote Comment
  16. 116
    Jeff Benoit Says:

    Hi,

    I believe what is being missed is the aggregate effect of 1,000 smart meters functioning at the same time. I am all for getting rid of the microwave aspect and going to the grid fed method. Seems reasonable to me.

    I have also suffered from some of the symptons since getting the meters. I thought it was from wine….LOL. My 17 year old daughter is also waking up at around 3:00 AM everyone morning, along with my wife and I. Weird……A 17 year old should not be waking up that early on a regular basis.

    Something seems a bit strange and further analysis needs to occur. Is that an unreasonalbe request?


    Quote Comment
  17. 117
    DV82XL Says:

            Jeff Benoit said:

    Something seems a bit strange and further analysis needs to occur. Is that an unreasonalbe request?

    The thing is the research has been done, over and over again with absolutely no indication that any effect is present and the believers just don’t want to accept it, so yes demanding that it be done yet again is unreasonable.


    Quote Comment
  18. 118
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Jeff Benoit said:

    Hi,

    I believe what is being missed is the aggregate effect of 1,000 smart meters functioning at the same time. I am all for getting rid of the microwave aspect and going to the grid fed method. Seems reasonable to me.

    I have also suffered from some of the symptons since getting the meters. I thought it was from wine….LOL. My 17 year old daughter is also waking up at around 3:00 AM everyone morning, along with my wife and I. Weird……A 17 year old should not be waking up that early on a regular basis.

    Something seems a bit strange and further analysis needs to occur. Is that an unreasonalbe request?

    They are UHF-based radios which are of low power and transmit in relatively brief periods using a simple encoding method. They’re less powerful than cell phones.

    This is not some new kind of technology. These frequencies have been in use since the 1930′s and the power is actually pretty low.

    It’s amazing – for decades people used garage door openers, cordless phones, walkie-talkies and had police driving around with 2-way radios, huge tv transmitters in operation and no problems were reported. Then the same frequencies at the same or lower power on utility meters make everyone sick?

    Also… I was a restless sleeper my whole life, even as a teen. Your daughter is not alone.


    Quote Comment
  19. 119
    Derek Says:

    This guy is a moron , there is no evidence of health effects ? What science do you refer to? Bias reports from the very companies putting the product out? Why would anybody come on here and say they were having heaklth effects if they weren’t ? Then to make an idiotic statement that there is no evidence in what the person is saying , like a person can’t figure out hey nevrer had this symptom before now having it yet get away from the house it abates … I suffer from Electricalk sensitivity had a guy move in next door put up a flagpole The day the pole went up I started getting severe headaches then body aches was hospitalized they could not figure out why I had the highest sed rate(inflammation of blood ) they ever saw but I knew it was something with my house staying out of house a few days at a relatives the pains and headaches went away only to return when coming back home finally found out this so flagpole had a hidden stealth antenna a very sophisticated antenna which put out extrememely high microwave frequencies …Will can’t be a placebo effect since i had no idea the flagpole was an antenna …Discredit me all you want but the facts are undisputable …So spew your rhetoric with unfpounded facts that it is not a risk but do your research read Dr Carlo’s research …The fact is more and more people are feeling these effects so while it worked saying the 3% oif people feeling the effects are crazy, is discrediting us calling us crazy going to hyold water when it’s 10% 15% feeling this …Do I believe these people saying they are feeling ill from these meters yes not only cause I feel it but what is their agenda to do so? Motive ? There is none but the people like the one writing this have an obvious agenda for doing so


    Quote Comment
  20. 120
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Derek said:

    This guy is a moron , there is no evidence of health effects ? What science do you refer to? Bias reports from the very companies putting the product out?

    Roughly 70 years of studies on non-ionizing radiation.

            Derek said:

    Why would anybody come on here and say they were having heaklth effects if they weren’t ? Then to make an idiotic statement that there is no evidence in what the person is saying , like a person can’t figure out hey nevrer had this symptom before now having it yet get away from the house it abates

    Humans are poor observers, prone to suggestion. This is why we have double-blind studies.

            Derek said:

    There is none but the people like the one writing this have an obvious agenda for doing so

    I still have not gotten my check from the big corporations. Must be lost in the mail.


    Quote Comment
  21. 121
    Derek Says:

    Dr.Idontknow

    Roughly 70 years of studies on non-ionizing radiation.

    This is comical, that was vague and broad, not one site of a study listed but ill just have to take your word for it

    Dr.I dontknow
    Humans are poor observers, prone to suggestion. This is why we have double-blind studies

    Most people sensitive to radiation had no clue like me I had no clue why certain things were bothering me so there was no suggestion there and like i cited with the hidden stealth antenna next door I had no clue I just knew suddenly when home I was getting severe headaches which turned into severe body aches as time went on was hospitalized had 2 Drs say they never saw sed rate that high I didn’t find out for a few months there was an antenna in that flagpole kind of bites that placebo thing in the ass. no ? Then you read about others across the country and world having these problems around similar things like these smart meters , why would we lie ..I know I’m not getting a dime saying its effected me but Its all non harmful radiation somehow landed me in the hospital and kept me in severe pain for months

    Dr Idont know
    I still have not gotten my check from the big corporations. Must be lost in the mail

    Ill play you now..How do I know you didn’t get any check endorsing this or you work for them , Do you have any proof

    It is what it is, you like this technology and radiation , I say fine player play on, you can have it in your house, you can bathe in it, you can do all you want with it you can have your plan to radiate the heck out of you and your family and home, but you got your plan if you don’t mind I’ll stay with my plan … Knowing these things have had effects on me ill choose to stay away from it I believe my forefathers fought for my right to do so ,,Just as many people said back in the day smoking had no health effects I chose not to smoke
    I still have not gotten my check from the big corporations. Must be lost in the mail


    Quote Comment
  22. 122
    DV82XL Says:

    Say Derek, I was talking to your parents – they want their basement back. And while we are at it, your forefathers wouldn’t be able to stop throwing up if they could see the pathetic looser they sacrificed for.


    Quote Comment
  23. 123
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Derek said:

    Ill play you now..How do I know you didn’t get any check endorsing this or you work for them , Do you have any proof

    If i was really financed by the big tech firms, do you honestly think I would have a blog as infrequently updated as it is recently? Or that I’d have so many typographical errors embarrassingly pointed out here?

            Derek said:

    It is what it is, you like this technology and radiation , I say fine player play on, you can have it in your house, you can bathe in it, you can do all you want with it you can have your plan to radiate the heck out of you and your family and home, but you got your plan if you don’t mind

    I’m sitting infront of my computer, with a wifi router about three feet away. I have a mobile phone in my pocket. My car stereo is bluetooth enabled. I often wear a bluetooth earpiece.

    Yes, I am doing just fine.

            Derek said:

    I’ll stay with my plan … Knowing these things have had effects on me ill choose to stay away from it I believe my forefathers fought for my right to do so ,,Just as many people said back in the day smoking had no health effects I chose not to smoke

    And amazingly you are on the internet.

    I assume you are typing on a computer that is encased in many layers of shielding?


    Quote Comment
  24. 124
    Derrek Says:

    As I said I was pathetic yrs ago could barely use a computer had to by extension cords for the mouse and keyboard so I could sit back 4 ft from the monitor and tower I’ve come along way with what I am able to tolerate, Funny thing I had an ex girlfriend she was allergic to dogs she came to my house all the time I have a dog she said she felt ok most of the time at my house but sometimes on very rare occasions she would feel a bit crappy ok but take her to a kennel for an hr or so she looked as if she was going to die …Ya know your ignorance is incredible Point is she tolerated one dog as if she had no allergy take her around 50 she felt and looked like she was gonna die You like chocolate cake you could probably eat it a few times a week be ok stay trim in good health start eating it everyday morning noon and night bet you get fat and are in ill health If you can’t get the accumulative scenario your an idiot. I broke it down as simple as it goes

    When I boxed in the amateur’s there was this one dude used to smoke he fought yet he said that’s garbage smoking doesn’t effect me at all …Funny thing he never would spar more then 3 rds I would always say cmon lets do another on the rare occasion I could get him to do another rd he would be gasping for air I barbequed him …He choose to smoke I didn’t .He swore it didn’t effect him Enough said

    There’s a cumulative effect with everything I just broke it down for you as simple as it goes if you can’t get that no sense in going on any further but once again I don’t care if your sucking up radiation day and night I rather stick with my plan not to


    Quote Comment
  25. 125
    Derrek Says:

    Oh by the way this argument is over The web site is deleted . When one has to resort to name calling they have run out of argument …But your right I’m a looser I’m still trying to figure out what a looser is ..lol


    Quote Comment
  26. 126
    DV82XL Says:

            Derrek said:

    Oh by the way this argument is over

    There was an argument? All I saw was some ignorant little peckerwood repeating some rubbish he found on the net that he obviously hasn’t got the smarts to comprehend.


    Quote Comment
  27. 127
    Soapbox Jill Says:

    The health effects are real, and have historical, not hysterical, basis. See U.S. military compilation of studies from 1971 already showing biological effects and harm at Magda Havas site. For more recent studies showing harm of radiofrequency such as we now have, and is unprecedented in the history of the planet, and with levels hundreds of times higher than the 1980 garage door openers and microwave ovens….For over 1800 recent studies see 2012 BioInitiative Reports. This is tip of the iceberg of proof that very low non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation is biologically active and harmful. Tip of the iceberg. The degeneration of health will top that of exposures to asbestos, tobacco and lead paint. Big wireless uses the same industry tactics as those other toxic products industries. People will pay. Nature will pay. It is truly the makings of an atrocity, since one cannot avoid exposure even if one is aware of the risks. The Nuremberg Code states people should not be experimented upon without their informed consent. The Nuremberg Code is trashed. Bye bye, human rights.


    Quote Comment
  28. 128
    DV82XL Says:

            Soapbox Jill said:

    The health effects are real, and have historical, not hysterical, basis. See U.S. military compilation of studies from 1971 already showing biological effects and harm at Magda Havas site.

    Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University, Ontario Canada has been one of the leading proponents of the health effect of EMF. She has done a number of flawed studies on EHS (electrohypersensitivity). A group of 6 scientists from the physics and astronomy department at Trent University have issued a public statement affirming that the alarmist views of Dr. Havas to not conform to the mainstream scientific consensus.

    Furthermore, again for the umteeth time studies done on high flux and high field strength exposures done by the U.S. military cannot be extrapolated back to low level exposure. There are no scientific justifications for this, no mechanism by which this might be true, and no evidence that has survived even the most cursory examination have ever been tabled. Havas’ own work has been roundly criticized for using incredibly small populations, which self-report, and lacking double-blind controls. Havas also makes liberal use of studies published in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe on the subject of EMF and health in the 50′s and 60′s by researchers who were simultaneously investigating extrasensory perception and other parapsychology phenomena. All of these studies are notable for a total lack of pertinent exposure data and subject background checks among other glaring flaws that render any conclusions invalid.


    Quote Comment
  29. 129
    Soapbox Jill Says:

    The studies referred to were not done using high military RF levels. They were a survey of studies COMPILED by military. Did you even look at the studies? There was no extrapolation. Where did you get that idea from that high military levels were extrapolated? It does not do that anywhere I cited. And the studies often used lower levels than allowed by FCC, which only regulates thermal effects.

    An excellent book for anyone trying to understand what can be done to science is DOUBT IS THEIR PRODUCT by David Michaels. Tobacco, asbestos and lead paint industries helped to hone the techniques to an art. Big Wireless and its defenders know the ropes.


    Quote Comment
  30. 130
    DV82XL Says:

            Soapbox Jill said:

    The studies referred to were not done using high military RF levels. They were a survey of studies COMPILED by military. Did you even look at the studies? There was no extrapolation. Where did you get that idea from that high military levels were extrapolated? It does not do that anywhere I cited. And the studies often used lower levels than allowed by FCC, which only regulates thermal effects.

    I’m more familiar with these studies than you will ever be, and unlike you I can read for comprehension as well. The only studies that have ever been done on RF exposure that have found any effect at all at any meaningful level of significance, were done at high levels. These were done by the military who were concerned with soldiers and staff working with high powered radar and microwaves. The rest of the material that was gathered in that document ether showed no significant effect or were those same discredited papers from the USSR and Eastern Europe that I wrote of above.

    I did not write that any of the legitimate high level research extrapolated back; this is what Havas and others are doing and it is wrong – flat out wrong.

            Soapbox Jill said:

    An excellent book for anyone trying to understand what can be done to science is DOUBT IS THEIR PRODUCT by David Michaels. Tobacco, asbestos and lead paint industries helped to hone the techniques to an art. Big Wireless and its defenders know the ropes.

    When you can, or won’t understand the facts, and they are not to your liking, invoke a conspiracy because innuendo and revisionism are so much easier than working to really understand a subject. The fact is that not only are you an idiot, you’re a lazy idiot.


    Quote Comment
  31. 131
    Soapbox Jill Says:

    Name calling is so juvenile.
    Your opinion is, well, your opinion.
    Other reputable, experienced experts and scientists do not agree with your opinion.
    Are you a scientist?
    I am not.
    But the biological effects of non-thermal radiofrequency radiation are not a conspiracy.
    Your opinion is not the last word, but your opinion IS supported by a very rich industry.

    Here is one independent voice not tainted by industry.
    http://www.wirelesswatchblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/11/20-Amended-Declaration-of-Barry-Trower.pdf

    See also 2012 BioInitiative Report for a couple thousand RECENT, reputable studies showing biological damage from non-thermal exposures.

    cheers.


    Quote Comment
  32. 132
    DV82XL Says:

            Soapbox Jill said:

    Name calling is so juvenile.

    Calling you and idiot is a simple statement of fact. As you point out, you are not equipped ether by education or experience to understand any of the work done in this area, I am. Furthermore, I am not, nor have I ever been employed by any of these industries, I have, however being tasked at one point to examine the evidence as a member of a working group that had no ax to grind other than the protection of our employees. There were a number of people in that committee that had qualifications in engineering, health and safety, and allied fields. We carefully went through all of the available literature on the subject and came to the conclusion that there was nothing there at all that could not be dismissed as experimental error because of poor design, lack of controls, or very bad statistical analysis.

    All of the work done that purports to show some effect are simple correlation studies that largely depended on self reporting among very small sample. Larger, long-baseline cohort studies (most of which were NOT done by industry) showed no measurable effect. This is not unusual. In most scientific domains initial simple correlation studies are designed to produce false positives to demonstrate that the detection protocols work. This is why confidence levels are (or should be) calculated and reported and any result that falls below two-sigma (which is the case with almost all of these studies on EMF) show only statistical noise. One needs at least five-sigma results to demonstrate that anything at all is there, and none of these have, nor have the more detailed studies.

            Soapbox Jill said:

    Your opinion is, well, your opinion.

    No, it is the general scientific consensus, backed up by real research.

            Soapbox Jill said:

    Other reputable, experienced experts and scientists do not agree with your opinion.

    None of the people backing this notion are reputable. They are infact the very sellouts you accuse the rest of us of being. They make their livings selling fear to the ignorant leveraging the fact that you are unwilling or unable to look behind the curtain by drilling down into the facts to see there is nothing to support what they say. They are parasites of the worse sort and have earned nothing but the contempt of their peers.

    Did you ever stop to wonder how it is that this rich and evil industry has managed to corrupt all of the legitimate researchers that worked on the big studies, which number in the hundreds, but have left those that have done the small ones at liberty to run off at the mouth. Ask yourself why they haven’t managed to suppress people like Havas and Trower In fact none of the people pushing this woo have claimed attempts to buy them out.

    In fact Barrie Trower is not a scientist; he claims to have taught high school level physics yet no independent record of him having done so seem to exist. He also claims to have been an expert in “microwave stealth warfare,” claiming to have worked for the “Government Microwave Warfare Establishment,” a department apparently so secretive that the only person ever to acknowledge its existence is Trower himself. As well this so-called ‘Dr.’ appears to have no published papers whatsoever, very strange for someone claiming expertise in any subject. The fact is he is an outright fraud and as such his opinions are of questionable value.

    You have been sucked in by mountebanks taking advantage of your ignorance and your prejudice. And yes that makes you an idiot.


    Quote Comment
  33. 133
    DV82XL Says:

            Soapbox Jill said:

    See also 2012 BioInitiative Report for a couple thousand RECENT, reputable studies showing biological damage from non-thermal exposures.

    I don’t know what your standard for reputable is but if you think the studies cherry-picked for this document are, you should rethink your position. To guard against confirmation bias, good expert reviews incorporate safeguards to ensure that all relevant data, supportive or not of the hypothesis being tested is included. A review that focuses only on studies that report positive results for the hypothesis and ignores no-effect studies would surely have to be considered biased and delivering unreliable conclusions. Rather than taking a “weight-of-evidence approach” to put all the studies together in a coherent picture, the BioInitiative Report only considered studies reporting effects, including, I might add, a paper by David de Pomerai of the University of Nottingham that de Pomerai himself retracted in 2006 (well ahead of the 2012 BioInitiative Report) after he had discovered that the earlier results were an artifact due to inadequately controlled temperature.

    The BIR has long been criticized by health agencies for slant. In its devastating review of the original 2007 version, the Health Council of the Netherlands concluded:

    “In view of the way the BioInitiative report was compiled, the selective use of scientific data and the other shortcomings mentioned above, the Committee concludes that the BioInitiative report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the report does not provide any grounds for revising the current views as to the risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields.”

    The same weaknesses are still present in the 2012 version, which moreover does not address the criticisms many expert groups that have had issues with previous versions.


    Quote Comment
  34. 134
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Soapbox Jill said:

    The studies referred to were not done using high military RF levels. They were a survey of studies COMPILED by military. Did you even look at the studies? There was no extrapolation. Where did you get that idea from that high military levels were extrapolated? It does not do that anywhere I cited. And the studies often used lower levels than allowed by FCC, which only regulates thermal effects.

    The reason I bring up military studies is they were some of the first to look at the issue of RF exposure in a thorough manner.

    If you want the entire history, I will tell you that scientific investigation of electromagnetic and RF fields and their effect on biology goes back until at least the late 1800′s. The study of RF radiation as a potential hazard to health was studied by the BBC and RCA as early as the 1920′s.

    The military became interested in the issue, in part out of desires to develop directed energy weapons. But serious scientific study on microwave exposure was conducted starting during World War II, much of it done at the MIT radiation laboratories.

    The studies became important after a number of sailors and airmen were injured while repairing or diagnosing radar equipment while under power. The adoption of the cavity magnetron was the catalyst for this. The magnetron produced powerful, directional microwaves. The British were the first to employ the magnetron. Obviously injuring your own soldiers and sailors during wartime is a bad thing for your battlereadiness.

    But this was only the very beginning. There were many many studies, literally thousands of them, that were conducted between the 1940′s and modern times. They were done on en vitro tissue samples, on animals, on humans. They were done by intentional exposure and by looking at those who were exposed on the job.

    These studies have been reviewed by numerous well respected organizations: The Royal Society, the Health Physics Society, the American Academy Of Sciences, the FCC, International Electrical and Electronic Engineers.

            Soapbox Jill said:

    An excellent book for anyone trying to understand what can be done to science is DOUBT IS THEIR PRODUCT by David Michaels. Tobacco, asbestos and lead paint industries helped to hone the techniques to an art. Big Wireless and its defenders know the ropes.

    It’s really not a parallel. In fact, I have written about Tobacco. It was well known, quite early on, that smoking was generally unhealthy and caused respiratory disease. The association with cancer was noted by doctors in the 1800′s. It was published in a studies in the 1920′s. By the 1930′s, governments had accepted it, including the German government, who were one of the earliest to recognize the extent of the issue. By the 1950′s it was beyond dispute.

    But there is this fallacy that the medical world ever accepted smoking as healthy or said it was definitely not associated with cancer. That’s just not true. Even in the 1930′s, doctors recognized it was not optimal to smoke, but seemed to accept that it was common practice anyway.

    Asbestos exposure was known to be hazardous for decades. Arguably it was more an issue of not properly implementing the proper levels of protection for workers.

    It was also known for centuries that lead is toxic. The issue with lead paint has mostly to do with the fact that for a long time few substitutes existed and it was regarded as a manageable risk. But even decades ago, everyone knew not to lick lead paint.


    Quote Comment
  35. 135
    Anon Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    It was also known for centuries that lead is toxic. The issue with lead paint has mostly to do with the fact that for a long time few substitutes existed and it was regarded as a manageable risk. But even decades ago, everyone knew not to lick lead paint.

    Everyone except little kids, all they knew was that it tasted sweet.


    Quote Comment
  36. 136
    Richard Says:

    I do not believe in taking freedom of speech from anyone, even if they are completely wrong. I think everyon has the right to make their statement, even if they have a lot of money at stake and we can all choose for ourselves what the truth is.

    The problem is we can’t evaluate the validity of that message without knowing who it is coming from or who is the puppetmaster.

    When I read something like this, which has pretty obvious undertones ad interests to it, that is what I want to know.

    If you believe this is true you will see no problem in being honest and telling the world. Who is paying for all of this and who is the author and blog working for? Power company, technology company, government, military or whatever. I don’t care who it is, I just want honesty and I want to know. I don’t want to hear that it is just someone doing this because of their view on the science. That is not true and that much is pretty clear to everyone who reads this.


    Quote Comment
  37. 137
    Anon Says:

            Richard said:

    The problem is we can’t evaluate the validity of that message without knowing who it is coming from or who is the puppetmaster.

    Maybe for you but not for those of us who have a basic understanding of science.

            Richard said:

    I don’t want to hear that it is just someone doing this because of their view on the science. That is not true and that much is pretty clear to everyone who reads this.

    So you’ve already made up your mind but want people to think you’re actually open minded about the whole thing?


    Quote Comment
  38. 138
    DV82XL Says:

            Richard said:

    I don’t want to hear that it is just someone doing this because of their view on the science. That is not true and that much is pretty clear to everyone who reads this.

    What is clear to everyone that reads what you wrote is that you are off your meds. How can you be so stupid? It is a matter of public record that the owner of this blog is running as a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives; who he is, and who supports him is also a matter of public record. Maybe you should take the time to look before jumping to conclusions and running off at the mouth with wild accusations regardless of what you want or don’t want to hear.


    Quote Comment
  39. 139
    Marius Says:

    The person who wrote this article cannot be any further away from the thruth !

    Microwaves from cell phone/tower, smart meter, wifi does ionize tissue ! If not true, then FCC would not require SAR testing !

    Read work of following so you can get informed :
    Dr. Jack kruse
    Dr. Andrew Marino
    Dr. Robert Becker

    Becker nad Marino worked together and were funded by US government until the reproted facts that EMFs from military antennas were causing major biologic side effects (cellular chaos).
    You are basing yourself on “Garbage Bad Science”. Why don’t you sleep with the wifi router next to your head for a few weeks and see what will happen ! The difference between wifi and draconic meters is that power spike of these meters is much greater !


    Quote Comment
  40. 140
    Anon Says:

            Marius said:

    The person who wrote this article cannot be any further away from the thruth !

    Hardly, you’ve managed to be further away from the truth.

            Marius said:

    Microwaves from cell phone/tower, smart meter, wifi does ionize tissue !

    A guy called Albert Einstein won a Nobel Prize proving they can’t (he did the work in 1905 so we’ve known that smart meters don’t cause the health effects you think they do before they were invented).

            Marius said:

    If not true, then FCC would not require SAR testing !

    Because thermal effects could exist, no mobile phones come even close to transmitting at high enough power to do that but they’d test it anyway.

    Oh and they may want to appease idiots who don’t understand the photoelectric effect.


    Quote Comment
  41. 141
    soapbox jill Says:

    It would be interesting to see how you, the devil’s advocate, can dismiss the research of the Motorola scientist, Robert C. Kane, whose book, Cellular Telephone, Russian Roulette, explains the technology’s effects on cells and body systems. Motorola was not too happy with him after his findings failed to support their claims of their products’ safety. Kane also has an essay online about second hand RF radiation and it is not pretty. Mr. Kane died of brain cancer. (He had tested mobile phones as part of his work, too).

    An excellent new overview of radiofrequency and microwave devices and their biological impacts can be found in Katie Singer’s new book, An Electronic Silent Spring, Facing the Dangers and Creating Safe Limits. Her chapter on how FCC guidelines came about are enlightening.

    And by the way, the Department of the Interior recently wrote about FCC “standards”:
    intensity radiation produced by cell phones and cell towers:

    “the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.”

    The DOT wants to protect migratory birds. Are you against protecting migratory birds? (obviously humans are not worth much to you)


    Quote Comment
  42. 142
    DV82XL Says:

            soapbox jill said:

    It would be interesting to see how you, the devil’s advocate, can dismiss the research of the Motorola scientist, Robert C. Kane, whose book, Cellular Telephone, Russian Roulette, explains the technology’s effects on cells and body systems.

    Robert C. Kane was employed in the telecommunications industry as a product design engineer. He held a BSEE from the Midwest College of Engineering. What he was not is an oncologist, epidemiologist, or any other medical professional, nor did he have any background in any life science. His opinion carries no more weight in this matter than any other non-expert.

    There is no plausible biological or physical reasoning for why it cell phones would cause cancer. UV, X-rays and gamma rays can cause cancer by breaking chemical bonds in DNA. Radio waves, emitted by cell phones, are not strong enough.

    The Journal of the National Cancer Institute published the results of a massive study in Denmark that followed the cancer histories of 420,000 cell phone users over 13 years and found nothing to support this idea. Why then should anyone buy the story of a disgruntled ex-employee with no medical knowledge that was dying from brain cancer and looking for someone to blame?


    Quote Comment
  43. 143
    soapbox Says:

    Corruption goes deep and wide.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2013/03/05/do-cell-phones-cause-brain-cancer-the-diehards-cling-desperately-to-opinion/

    Whatever. Think what you want.
    It was a lively, predictable debate. Thanks.


    Quote Comment
  44. 144
    s jill Says:

    forbes is surely pure, no business influence there…
    ha ha


    Quote Comment
  45. 145
    Jo-Tina DiGennaro Says:

    I think this is a very smug article. Why are you trying so hard to disprove something that has no scientific evidence of safety? The testimonies seem to be consistently bad and who are you to tell someone they are crazy for their suffering. Don’t put the cart before the horse–if these so called Smart Meters cannot be proven to be actually smart and safe–I want nothing to do with them.


    Quote Comment
  46. 146
    DV82XL Says:

            Jo-Tina DiGennaro said:

    I think this is a very smug article. Why are you trying so hard to disprove something that has no scientific evidence of safety? The testimonies seem to be consistently bad and who are you to tell someone they are crazy for their suffering. Don’t put the cart before the horse–if these so called Smart Meters cannot be proven to be actually smart and safe–I want nothing to do with them.

    To start off with there is a lot of evidence that these cause no harm in that we have been exposed to these sorts of RF fields for almost a century without any signs of ill effects; the square-inverse law tells us that the field from these meters all but disappears a few yards from them; and finally nobody claiming to feel these fields, or be affected by them, can demonstrate that they can in a double-blind test. That’s the weight of the current evidence. If people are claiming that these things are making them sick before they are turned on (in some cases) we are justified in thinking that this is psychosomatic, and not something physical.


    Quote Comment

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string 4sznGF to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam