L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Health Trust has filed his critique of the recently issued CCST Report on ‘smart’ meters. [ You can download Morgan’s full comments as a PDF complete with references here. ] Following are excerpts of what he has to say – see the PDF for citations: Please scroll down to view Morgan videos.
The California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) Smart Meter Report is based on a 1997 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exposure standard , which has not been revised for 15 years, while the technology on which these standards were based has been changing at an exponential rate. The exposure standard is based on acute (short-term/immediate) thermal (measured temperature change) effects, and is not based on chronic (long-term) effects.
During the intervening 15 years, peer-reviewed scientific studies of humans, animals, and living cells have found that chronic exposures to non-ionizing, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation cause a host of serious problems. Here is a partial list of these problems:
• Human studies found risks for: brain tumors (cancer [1-3], acoustic neuroma [4-6], meningioma [7-9]), parotid gland tumors [10-12], eye cancer , testicular cancer and damaged sperm [14-16], and leukemia [17-18];
• Animal studies found single and double strand DNA breaks [19-23], DNA damage to sperm [24-25] as well as blood-brain-barrier leakage with resultant dead neurons and cognitive deficits [26-28];
• Specific modulation techniques studies found a 6-fold difference between the power absorbed from two different modulation techniques by human cells before DNA damage was found [29-30], and;
• Cell studies found genetic damage in human and animal cells including human sperm cells [31-32].
With human, animal and cell studies all showing harmful effects, it is hard to imagine why the exposure standard has not been changed.
Given CCST’s assertion that ‘To date, scientific studies have not identified or confirmed negative health effects from potential non—thermal impacts of RF emissions such as those produced by existing common household electronic devices and smart meters,’ is demonstrably false, this Report should be substantially revised, or withdrawn, and the money received for the study returned.
Ironically CCST has just produced another Report, ‘Trust and Accountability in Science and Technology,’ yet has contributed to this very problem with the above assertion.
As the CCST Report states there are alternatives to wireless smart meters (page 24), but the report makes no recommendation stating that these alternatives have tradeoffs of “cost and performance.” See An Alternative to Wireless Smart Meters below for an alternative without these tradeoffs [see PDF].
The CCST Report ignores specific characteristics of microwave radiation. The specific characteristics of smart meter radiation are unique to this technology. To understand the characteristics we need to know the carrier frequency, and of far greater importance, the modulation technique used to encode the information to be “carried” by the “carrier” signal. Modern modulation techniques are quite complex. This includes the rise and fall times of the digital signal in addtion to the data encoding scheme.
With full and complete knowledge of the smart meters’ modulation technique (not disclosed), a Fourier Transform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform) can be used to determine the large set of individual frequencies embedded in the smart meter’s modulation scheme. Each frequency, or combinations of frequencies, could have a unique biological effect. There has NEVER been a scientific study of a specific modulation technique on living organisms, whether humans, animals, or cells. Therefore, to blindly assert that, “scientific studies have not identified or confirmed negative health effects from potential non—thermal impacts of RF emissions,” is specious.
In the absence of information, and in the presence of a multitude of reports of ill health, incorrect meter readings, electromagnetic interference (EMI) to other electrical equipment (and possibly EMI from other equipment to the smart meter itself), there is a serious dereliction of duty by the government of California to protects its citizens’ health and well being.
Yet this report makes no recommendation, as it should, to thoroughly investigate each of these problems….
• The CCST Report is based on an existing FCC standard that has not been updated for 15 years, is based only on short-term effects from heating, and ignores long-term effects.
• The CCST Report should recommend that California send a Resolution to the Federal government asking that the exposure limits be revised based on the findings of science studies published since 1997.
• The CCST Report is patently wrong when it states, ‘scientific studies have not identified or confirmed negative health effects from potential non—thermal impacts of RF emissions.’
• The CCST Report requires substantial revision to reflect what scientific studies have found concerning negative human health effects and/or DNA damage to animal and cells, or if not revised, should be withdrawn and all monies returned to the government of California.
• An alternative to wireless smart meters exists. The wireless smart meter program should be abandoned in favor a wired system using the pre-existing landline phone system. Without regard to the cost wasted on a bad decision, this system would be less expensive and would be secure from hacking.
• The CCST should recommend a moratorium on wireless smart meter installations until such time that the wired smart meter alternative is available.
• The State of California, its counties and cities are derelict in their duties to protect its citizens’ health and well being given the multitude of uninvestigated reports by its citizens.
• The CCST report should recommend the State of California direct the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to investigate all citizens reports as described below.
• The CPUC is derelict in its duty
o To adequately regulate PG&E, whether
• Natural gas transmission pipe lines as witnessed by the explosion and loss of life and property in San Bruno, CA, or
• By not taking actions against PG&E’s spying on groups opposing wireless smart meters, or
• By not taking action against PG&E’s public release of private emails from people who are opposed to wireless smart meters, and
• For not requiring PG&E to document why particular smart meters malfunctioned.
o for not investigating smart meter EMI reports of interference with garage door openers, cordless telephones, baby monitors and heart pace makers, as well as for not filing reports to the FCC of such EMI reports,
o for not requiring its subcontractor, Structure™, to test the accuracy of smart meter under real-world conditions of potential EMI resulting from high frequency voltage transients conducted into the smart meters that co-exist with 60 Hz power, and where large RF radiation fields create potential EMI from radiated fields into smart meters,
o For not having medical doctors investigate the health effects reported to them by citizens, nor even asking citizens making these reports to provide medical documentation of their reported health problems by their physicians. ”
Morgan goes on to cite a range of studies showing that EMF exposure can increase the risk of some of the following biological effects as high as 300% – (see PDF for sources):
Salivary (parotid) gland tumors
Human testicular cancer and damaged sperm
In-vivo Studies: brain DNA damage
In-vivo Studies: Damaged Sperm
In-vivo Studies: Blood-Brain-Barrier (BBB) Leakage
Modulation differences induced 6-fold difference in threshold of genetic damage to cells
In-vitro Studies: Genetic damage to cells including human sperm cells…
Please remember, your bite-size contributions on our Donate Page are what help keep us going