CCST Report 'Full of Inaccuracies' Say Scientists

Two prominent experts on electro-magnetic health effects are among the first to comment on the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) Report issued last week.

Dr. Ollie Johansson, of Sweden’s renowned Karolinska Institute observes, “…it is very strange to see, over and over again, that highly relevant scientific information is suppressed or even left out in various official documents, as high up as at the governmental level of society.”

Writes Johansson, “The body of evidence on electromagnetic fields requires a new approach to protection of public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative actions. These conclusions are built upon prior scientific and public health reports documenting the following:
1) Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing exposure standards.
2) ICNIRP/WHO and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequate and obsolete with
respect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures.
3) New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect
public health world-wide.
4) It is not in the public interest to wait.” (Read the full letter in PDF)
For an interview with Dr. Johansson, see our documentary PUBLIC EXPOSURE: DNA, Democracy and the ‘Wireless Revolution’ (scroll down for viewer)
For more on this topic see our playlist: Electro-Magnetic Health Protection

Dr. David O. Carpenter, Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at New York State University at Albany, who has been involved in review and analysis of
studies on electromagnetic fields, including radio-frequency fields, for many years, calls the CCST Report “full of inaccuracies… and makes it obvious that no persons with medical or biological expertise participated in this report.”

Carpenter concludes; “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.”
Read the full letter in PDF
For our interview with Dr. Carpenter see: Bio-Effects of Electro-Smog (scroll down for viewer)

For more on RF biological health effects see: The BioInitiative Report – Biological Standards for Wireless (scroll down for viewer)
Please remember, your bite-size contributions on our Donate Page are what help keep us going