Let’s start out by noting that the field of “environmental
medicine/clinical ecology” has its critics, and that it’s
not recognized as a medical specialty by the American Board
of Medical Specialties.
That said, the battle over the safety of smart meters
ratcheted up a notch last week, after the American Academy
of Environmental Medicine released a report titled
“Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human
Health ” — calling for “an immediate caution on Smart Meter
installation due to potentially harmful RF (radiofrequency)
exposure” and “accommodation for health considerations
regarding EMF (electromagnetic field) and RF exposure,
including exposure to wireless
Smart Meter technology.”
"In the last five years with the advent of wireless devices,
there has been a massive increase in radiofrequency (RF)
exposure from wireless devices as well as reports of
hypersensitivity and diseases related to electromagnetic
field and RF exposure,” the report says. “Multiple studies
correlate RF exposure with diseases such as cancer,
neurological disease, reproductive disorders, immune
dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity.”
This comes at a rather interesting time.
In Michigan , a report by the state Public Service
Commission staff concluded that the health risk from
installing and operating smart meters is “insignificant.”
In Maine , the state’s highest court ruled that state
regulators failed to adequately address safety concerns
about smart meters, and ordered its Public Utilities
Commission to reconsider a complaint raising health
concerns.
And here in California, smart meter opponents in Northern
California are raising money to sue our PUC for “ignoring
substantial evidence in the record of harm from smart meters
deployed on homes and businesses….The CPUC has NEVER
addressed the health and safety impacts of Smart Meters.
They’ve only provided an opt out with a penalty.”
In 2010, this same Northern California group asked the PUC
for a moratorium on smart meter installation until a study
could be done, and hearings could be held, on the health
effects. The PUC said no , pointing to a study on the health
effects of smart meters, done by the California Council on
Science and Technology , which found that:
Wireless smart meters, when installed and properly
maintained, result in much smaller levels of RF exposure
than many existing common household electronic devices,
particularly cell phones and microwave ovens, and the
current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standard
provides an adequate factor of safety against known
thermally induced health impacts of existing common
household electronic devices and smart meters.
The PUC has received hundreds of complaints about the new
meters. Some consumers are worried about radio frequency
radiation, some have challenged their accuracy and others
say the meters are an invasion of privacy and the PUC has
approved ”opt-outs” of the smart meter system in response.
Customers have to pay an initial fee of $75 and then an
ongoing fee of $10 a month to do so, however.
You can find the PUC’s stance on smart meters and opt-out
information here.
Smart meters connect to “a secure wireless network” that
Southern California Edison says gives customers greater
control to manage their usage even from a cellphone, many
miles from home. Smart meters are also read remotely, so
employees don’t have to trek to the house to read the
meter. By the end of this year, 5 million smart meters are
slated to be installed in Southern California.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine report refers
to a series of earlier studies and concludes that ”Long
range EMF or RF forces can act over large distances setting
a biological system oscillating in phase with the frequency
of the electromagnetic field so it adapts with consequences
to other body systems. This also may produce an
electromagnetic frequency imprint into the living system
that can be long lasting. Research using objective
instrumentation has shown that even passive resonant
circuits can imprint a frequency into water and biological
systems. These quantum electrodynamic effects do exist and
may explain the adverse health effects seen with EMF and RF
exposure.
“Because of the well documented studies showing adverse
effects on health and the not fully understood quantum field
effect, AAEM calls for exercising precaution with regard to
EMF, RF and general frequency exposure. In an era when all
society relies on the benefits of electronics, we must find
ideas and technologies that do not disturb bodily function.
It is clear that the human body uses electricity from the
chemical bond to the nerve impulse and obviously this
orderly sequence can be disturbed by an individual-specific
electromagnetic frequency environment. Neighbors and whole
communities are already exercising precaution, demanding
abstention from wireless in their homes and businesses.”
The AAEM also calls for independent studies to further
understand the health effects from EMF and RF exposure,
“recognition that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a
growing problem worldwide,” and greater “understanding and
control of this electrical environmental bombardment for the
protection of society.”
Safer
technology should be used for smart meters, it said such as
hard-wiring, fiber optics “or other non-harmful methods of
data transmission.”
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.