Reports on Smart Meter Problems

Updated July 23 2019

The 50-page paper “Overview: Fire and Electrical Hazards from ‘Smart’, Wireless, PLC, and Digital Utility Meters” is now available free for downloading and printing. It provides information from experts on utility meters used in the U.S. and Canada.

The report “Analysis: Smart Meter and Smart Grid Problems – Legislative Proposal” is available free to the public for downloading and printing. This 173-page report, released in 2012 by health and environmental advocate Nina Beety, has extensive referenced information on the many problems and risks of the Smart Meter program known at that time, with information from state, national, and international resources.

Investigation and admissions by the industry since 2012 continue to substantiate these serious problems, providing a searing indictment on regulatory and legislative officials who have failed to halt Smart Meter deployments.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

Health experts urged states to adopt a free opt-out for Duke Energy customers

In 2017, Dr. David Carpenter MD, Dr. Magda Havas, and Dr. Lennart Hardell wrote letters to each of the utility commissions that oversee Duke Energy (emphasis added).

We, the undersigned, are scientists and health professionals who together have co-authored many peer-reviewed studies on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR). We are aware that the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio is considering a proposed smart meter opt-out fee from Duke Energy. Smart meters, along with other wireless devices, have created significant public health problems caused by the radiofrequency radiation (RFR) they produce, and awareness and reported problems continue to grow. With Duke Energy being America’s largest utility provider and, consequently, having the largest potential smart meter implementation reach, it is imperative that the [] Commission […] be fully aware of the harm that RFR can cause and allow utility customers to opt out of smart meter installation with no penalty….

[W]e urge the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to reject any fees or tariffs associated with smart meter opt-out and allow citizens to opt out without penalty.

Comparing Smart Meters to cell phones, they said:

Smart meters operate with much more frequent pulses than do cell phones, increasing the potential for adverse health impacts.

Smart meter pulses can average 9,600 times a day, and up to 190,000 signals a day. Cell phones only pulse when they are on.

Cell phone RFR is concentrated, affecting the head or the area where the phone stored, whereas smart meter RFR affects the entire body.

An individual can choose whether or not to use a cell phone and for what period of time. When smart meters are placed on a home the occupants have no option but to be continuously exposed to RFR.

They focused on the problem of electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS) also known as EHS.

While the strongest evidence for hazards coming from RFR is for cancer, there is a growing body of evidence that some people develop a condition called electro-hypersensitivity (EHS). These individuals respond to being in the presence of RFR with a variety of symptoms, including headache, fatigue, memory loss, ringing in the ears, “brain fog” and burning, tingling and itchy skin. Some reports indicate that up to three percent of the population may develop these symptoms, and that exposure to smart meters is a trigger for development of EHS…

There are a number of double-blind studies which clearly show that some people with EHS will develop symptoms when exposure to RFR is studied in a double blinded experimental protocol, in which the subject do not know whether or not the RFR is being applied. These individual are not suffering from a psychosomatic disease, but rather one that is induced by the exposure to RFR.

They emphasized three fundamentals:

The adverse health impacts of low intensity RFR are real, significant and for some people debilitating. We want to stress three fundamentals as your agency proceeds to consider a smart meter opt-out:

The Federal Communication Commission’s safety standards do not apply to low intensity RFR.
There is no safe level of exposure established for RFR.
People around the world are suffering from low intensity RFR exposure, being at increased risk of developing both cancer and EHS.

———————————

Letters February 3, 2017

Authors:

Dr. David Carpenter, MD, (Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, State University of New York)
Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD (Professor, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden)
Dr. Magda Havas, BSc, PhD (Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada)

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Health experts urged states to adopt a free opt-out for Duke Energy customers

Landmark 5G/wireless study: New Hampshire officials recommend reducing public exposure, education on wireless health effects

Summary from EMF Safety Network
November 5, 2020

The state of New Hampshire established a legislative commission to study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019.  They recently completed their final report which includes 15 recommendations to raise awareness, educate, promote oversight, and reduce radiofrequency radiation (RF, also known as wireless).

The commission met between September 2019 and October 2020 and included 13 members with backgrounds in physics, engineering electromagnetics, epidemiology, biostatistics, occupational health, toxicology, medicine, public health policy, business, law, and a representative from the wireless industry.

They were tasked with answering 8 questions which included: why the insurance industry has exclusions for RF damages; why cell phone manufacturers have legal advice warning about distance between cell phones and the body; why 1,000’s of peer-reviewed RF studies that show a wide range of health affects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility, and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC); why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless; why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than other countries; why the FCC is ignoring the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen; why when the world’s leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation nothing has been done; and why the health effects of ever-growing numbers of pulse signals riding on the electromagnetic waves has not been explored.

Early on in their research the Commission learned that they could not discuss 5G without including all things wireless “…the Commission concluded that all things emitting radio frequency (RF) radiation needed to be considered together because of the interaction of all these waves.” At the heart of their discussion was whether or not RF affects humans, animals and nature. The introduction states:

There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum.

The Commission heard from ten experts in physics, epidemiology, toxicology, and public policy. Everyone except the telecom representative acknowledged the large body of science showing RF-radiation emitted by wireless devices can effect humans, especially children, animals, insects, and plants.

The Commission endorsed 15 recommendations. “The objective of those recommendations is to bring about greater awareness of cell phone, wireless and 5G radiation health effects and to provide guidance to officials on steps and policies that can reduce public exposure.” 

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Landmark 5G/wireless study: New Hampshire officials recommend reducing public exposure, education on wireless health effects

EPA admits no RF research review since 1984, no Congressional funding for RF study, no exposure guidelines exist for trees or wildlife

From Environmental Health Trust

EPA LETTER CONFIRMS LACK OF WIRELESS AND 5G SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR BIRDS, BEES AND TREES

July 11, 2020

On July 8, 2020, Lee Ann B. Veal Director, Radiation Protection Division Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America confirmed that they have no funded mandate regarding wireless  radiofrequency matters and that they are not aware of any developed safety limits or research reviews related to impacts of wireless on birds bees and the environment.

Please read the latest email exchange below. Theodora Scarato has followed up with more questions after this email. Responses will be posted. Scarato questions are in bold. 

We are holding our government accountable. If you think our work in exposing this reality is important, please DONATE to Environmental Health Trust. 

We are non profit fully supported by donations from the public.  Thank you.

LETTER FROM THE EPA TO THEODORA SCARATO

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Veal, Lee
Date: Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:32 AM
Subject: RE: Letter with specific Questions Related to the FDA review and to the EPA, CDC, NIOSH and FDA Jurisdiction on EMFs
To: Theodora Scarato

Dear Director Scarato;

Thank you for sending us your questions and references regarding radiofrequency (RF) radiation.  Up through the mid-1990s, EPA did study non-ionizing radiation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish rules regarding RF exposure, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, nor do we have a dedicated subject matter expert in radiofrequency exposure. The EPA defers to other agencies possessing a defined role regarding RF. Although your questions are outside our current area of responsibilities, we have provided a response to each one as you requested.

What is your response to these scientists’ statements regarding the FDA report and the call to retract it? EPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, has not conducted a review of the FDA report you cited or the scientists’ statements, and therefore has no response to it.

To the FDA- What consultants were hired for the FDA review and report on cell phone radiation? EPA Response: This is not an EPA matter. Please refer this question to the FDA.

What US agency has reviewed the research on cell phone radiation and  brain damage? I ask this because the FDA only has looked at selected studies on cancer. If your agency has not,  please simply state you have not. EPA Response: EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (EPA 600/8-83-026F). The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.

What US agency has reviewed the research on damage to memory by cell phone radiation?   If so, when and send a link to the review. EPA Response: EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (EPA 600/8-83-026F). The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.

What US agency has reviewed the research on impacts to birds and bees?   If so, when and send a link to the review. I will note the latest research showing possible impacts to bees from higher frequencies to be used in 5GEPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and we are not aware of any EPA reviews that have been conducted on this topic. We do not know if any other US agencies have reviewed it.

What is a safe level of radiofrequency radiation? I ask this because the FDA and FCC both state they do not need to test cell phones at body contact and it is proven that phones will create exposure that are higher than FCC limits when phones are tested in these positions.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the FCC to establish rules regarding radiofrequency (RF) exposure. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. The EPA defers to these regulatory authorities for the establishment of safe levels of radiofrequency radiation.

The FDA and FCC have been provided with information and published data showing  the fact that cell phones create cell phone radiation exposures that violate FCC limits. What agency has the job of ensuring accountability that the American public is not exposed to RF radiation that exceeds FCC limits. The FCC has test protocols that say body contact tests are not needed. The FDA refers to the FCC. Yet the fact is that cell phones exceed FCC limits when tested in body contact positions. Are the FCC limits legitimate? These FCC limits are being violated.  Who is the responsible agency that will ensure Americans are protected? The FCC says their rules are not being violated as their rules allow for a space between the phone or device and the body? The FDA says there is a safety factor so there is no need for them to act (and will not state what the safety factor for a cell phone is)  . YET government limits are being exceeded. Are agencies fine with limits being violated? If so please explain at what level of cell phone radiation a federal agency will step in? If so, which agency has jurisdiction? (March 12, 2019 Publication on Om Gandhi’s paper on radiation emissions violating FCC limits 11 times and August 21, 2019 Chicago Tribune cell phone testing data released)

EPA Response: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the FCC to establish rules regarding radiofrequency (RF) exposure. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and the questions you raise are outside of EPA’s areas of responsibilities and current expertise.  Please refer this question to FCC and FDA.

The National Toxicology Program states clear evidence of cancer was found and the FDA disputes this because it was just an animal study. However birds fly and nest on cell antennas mounted on towers, bees fly in front of antennas and family pets (dogs, cats) will sit directly on or near Wi-Fi routers and smart speakers despite the fact that the manuals state humans should be at a minimum of 20 cm from wireless devices (far more from antennas of towers). What about the impact to these animals? What is the US government doing to ensure safety for wildlife and family pets? 

EPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and the questions you raise are outside of EPA’s area of responsibility and current expertise. We defer to FDA to provide a response regarding their findings.

Please send me the staff member of your respective agency who is on the Interagency Radiofrequency Workgroup as I have repeatedly tried to get this information and it is never provided to me.

EPA Response: The Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG) is an informal forum for exchange of information and the group does not meet to set, or advise on, policy, rulemaking or guidance. The group has not met in more than two years.

The FDA only reviewed selected studies on cancer  until 2018. Most recently, the American Cancer Society funded radiation in people with genetic susceptibilities. The National Toxicology Program published research showing DNA damage. Will the FDA be updating it’s review with these studies? If not, then what agency is accountable to American public to ensure humans are not harmed?

EPA Response:  The questions you raise are outside of EPA’s areas of responsibilities and current expertise. Please direct questions about FDA activities to FDA.

What agency ensures safety related to extremely low frequency (ELF-EMF) electromagnetic fields- also non ionizing? Currently we have no federal limit, no federal guidelines and confirmed associations with cancer and many other health effects. Kaiser Permanente researchers have published several studies linking pregnant women’s exposure to magnetic field electromagnetic fields to not only increased miscarriage and but also increased ADHD,obesity and asthma in the woman’s prenatally exposed children.  A recent large scale study again found associations with cancer. Please clarify which US agency has jurisdiction over ELF-EMF exposures? 

EPA Response:  There are no U.S. Federal standards limiting residential or occupational exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) from power lines.  The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.

When it comes to cell phone radiation SAR thresholds, what is your understanding of the “safety factor” in place?

EPA Response:  EPA last commented on FCC proposals for SAR limits in the 1996 FCC 96-236. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the FCC to establish rules regarding radiofrequency (RF) exposure. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. The EPA defers to these regulatory authorities for the establishment of safe levels of radiofrequency radiation.

Sincere regards,

Lee Ann B. Veal

Director, Radiation Protection Division

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air

www.epa.gov/radiation

From: Theodora Scarato <
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2020 5:27 PM
To: ombuds@oc.fda.govDICE@fda.hhs.govjeff.shuren@fda.hhs.govStephen.Hahn@fda.hhs.govSecretary@hhs.gov; Veal, Lee <Veal.Lee@epa.gov>; bullard-jenkins.pamela@epa.gov; Griggs, John <Griggs.John@epa.gov>; Wilds, Edward <Wilds.Edward@epa.gov>; Edwards, Jonathan <Edwards.Jonathan@epa.gov>; edwards-jonathan@epa.gov; Rowson, David <Rowson.David@epa.gov>; rowson-david@epa.govzkz1@cdc.govfjh1@cdc.govfrancis.collins@nih.govhrcs@cdc.govnidcdinfo@nidcd.nih.govtalktodol@dol.gov
Cc: Miriam Falco <miriam.falco@cancer.org>; William G. Cance <bill.cance@cancer.org>; Susan Gapstur <susan.gapstur@cancer.org>; Lindsay.Lloyd@fda.hhs.gov; Louis Slesin <louis@microwavenews.com>; sborenstein@ap.org; Broad, William <wjb@nytimes.com>; alan.burdick <alan.burdick@nytimes.com>; Hilary Stout <hilary.stout@nytimes.com>; rebecca.blumenstein <rebecca.blumenstein@nytimes.com>
Subject: Letter with specific Questions Related to the FDA review and to the EPA, CDC, NIOSH and FDA Jurisdiction on EMFs

Dear Honorable Leadership and Scientists  of the FDA,  EPA,  CDC, Health and Human Services,  National Cancer Institute and Department of Labor;

I would respectfully ask the following questions for each of your agencies- the CDC, FDA, HHS, FDA, EPA, NIOSH, Department of Labor  to answer promptly.

  1. What is your response to these scientists statements regarding the FDA report and the call to retract it?
    2. To the FDA- What consultants were hired for the FDA review and report on cell phone radiation?
    3. What US agency has reviewed the research on cell phone radiation and  brain damage? I ask this because the FDA only has looked at selected studies on cancer. If your agency has not,  please simply state you have not.
    4. What US agency has reviewed the research on damage to memory by cell phone radiation?   If so, when and send a link to the review.
    5. What US agency has reviewed the research on damage to trees from cell phone radiation?   If so, when was it issued and send a link to the review. Note this study showing damage from long term exposure to cell antennas. 
    6. What US agency has reviewed the research on impacts to birds and bees?   If so, when and send a link to the review. I will note the latest research showing possible impacts to bees from higher frequencies to be used in 5G.
  2. What is a safe level of radiofrequency radiation? I ask this because the FDA and FCC both state they do not need to test cell phones at body contact and it is proven that phones will create exposure that are higher than FCC limits when phones are tested in these positions.
  3. The FDA and FCC have been provided with information and published data showing  the fact that cell phones create cell phone radiation exposures that violate FCC limits. What agency has the job of ensuring accountability that the American public is not exposed to RF radiation that exceeds FCC limits. The FCC has test protocols that say body contact tests are not needed. The FDA refers to the FCC. Yet the fact is that cell phones exceed FCC limits when tested in body contact positions. Are the FCC limits legitimate? These FCC limits are being violated.  Who is the responsible agency that will ensure Americans are protected? The FCC says their rules are not being violated as their rules allow for a space between the phone or device and the body? The FDA says there is a safety factor so there is no need for them to act (and will not state what the safety factor for a cell phone is)  . YET government limits are being exceeded. Are agencies fine with limits being violated? If so please explain at what level of cell phone radiation a federal agency will step in? If so, which agency has jurisdiction?

(March 12, 2019 Publication on Om Gandhi’s paper on radiation emissions violating FCC limits 11 times and August 21, 2019 Chicago Tribune cell phone testing data released)

  1. The National Toxicology Program states clear evidence of cancer was found and the FDA disputes this because it was just an animal study. However birds fly and nest on cell antennas mounted on towers, bees fly in front of antennas and family pets (dogs, cats) will sit directly on or near Wi-Fi routers and smart speakers despite the fact that the manuals state humans should be at a minimum of 20 cm from wireless devices (far more from antennas of towers). What about the impact to these animals? What is the US government doing to ensure safety for wildlife and family pets?
  2. Please send me the staff member of your respective agency who is on the Interagency Radiofrequency Workgroup as I have repeatedly tried to get this information and it is never provided to me.
  3. The FDA only reviewed selected studies on cancer  until 2018. Most recently, the American Cancer Society funded Yale study linked Thyroid cancer to cell phone radiationin people with genetic susceptibilities. The National Toxicology Program published research showing DNA damage. Will the FDA be updating it’s review with these studies? If not, then what agency is accountable to American public to ensure humans are not harmed?
  4. What agency ensures safety related to extremely low frequency (ELF-EMF) electromagnetic fields- also non ionizing? Currently we have no federal limit, no federal guidelines and confirmed associations with cancer and many other health effects. Kaiser Permanente researchers have published several studies linking pregnant women’s exposure to magnetic field electromagnetic fields to not only increased miscarriage and but also increased ADHDobesity and asthma in the woman’s prenatally exposed children.  A recent large scale study again found associations with cancer. Please clarify which US agency has jurisdiction over ELF-EMF exposures?
  5. When it comes to cell phone radiation SAR thresholds, what is your understanding of the “safety factor” in place?

I am writing to all of you so each of your agencies can provide me with the answers from your respective agencies. Usually one agency  sends me to the other agency but I do not receive an answer. Everyone points the finger at the other but no one has an answer. Please answer my questions numbered one through ten numbered so we have clarity in the response.

Please see the letter from multiple scientists below. I also attached a sampling of recent  pertinent science.

Theodora Scarato

Executive Director Environmental Health Trust

If you think our work in exposing this reality is important, please DONATE to Environmental Health Trust. 

We are non profit fully supported by donations from the public.  Thank you.

See also

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA admits no RF research review since 1984, no Congressional funding for RF study, no exposure guidelines exist for trees or wildlife

New review study finds heavy cell phone use increases tumor risk

From Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

November 2, 2020

A review of research on cell phone use and tumor risk found that cell phone use with cumulative call time more than 1000 hours significantly increased the risk of tumors.

(Berkeley, CA, November 2, 2020)  Today, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the case-control research on cell phone use and tumor risk.

This study updates our original meta-analysis (i.e., quantitative research review) published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2009. The new review examined twice as many studies as our original paper.

“In sum, the updated comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or more hours in their lifetime (which corresponds to about 17 min per day over 10 years), and especially among studies that employed high quality methods.”

The abstract and excerpts from this open access paper appear below:

Yoon-Jung Choi+, Joel M. Moskowitz+, Seung-Kwon Myung*, Yi-Ryoung Lee, Yun-Chul Hong*. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020, 17(21), 8079; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079.

Abstract

We investigated whether cellular phone use was associated with increased risk of tumors using a meta-analysis of case-control studies. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 2018. The primary outcome was the risk of tumors by cellular phone use, which was measured by pooling each odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). In a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies, compared with never or rarely having used a cellular phone, regular use was not associated with tumor risk in the random-effects meta-analysis. However, in the subgroup meta-analysis by research group, there was a statistically significant positive association (harmful effect) in the Hardell et al. studies (OR, 1.15—95% CI, 1.00 to 1.33— n = 10), a statistically significant negative association (beneficial effect) in the INTERPHONE-related studies (case-control studies from 13 countries coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); (OR, 0.81—95% CI, 0.75 to 0.89—n = 9), and no statistically significant association in other research groups’ studies. Further, cellular phone use with cumulative call time more than 1000 hours statistically significantly increased the risk of tumors. This comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found evidence that linked cellular phone use to increased tumor risk.

+Contributed equally to this study as the first author. *Correspondence.

Excerpts

3.5. Exposure–Response Relationship Between Use of Cellular Phones and Risk of Tumors

Table 3 shows an exposure-response relationship between cellular phone use and tumor risk. In the subgroup meta-analysis by time since first use or latency, overall the risk of tumors by cellular phone use non-significantly increased from an OR of 0.97 to 1.29 as latency increased from less than 5 years to 10 or more years. This finding was observed in each subgroup meta-analysis by research group. Especially, statistically significant increased tumor risk was observed for latency of 10 or more years in the Hardell studies (OR, 1.62; 1.03 to 2.57; n = 5; I2 = 39.9%). Similarly, the use of cellular phones non-significantly increased the risk of tumors as the cumulative or lifetime use in years and the cumulative number of calls increased in all studies and in each study group. Remarkably, in the subgroup meta-analysis of all studies by cumulative call time, cellular phone use greater than 1000 hours statistically significantly increased the risk of tumors (OR, 1.60; 1.12 to 2.30; n = 8; I2 = 74.5%). Interestingly, the use of cellular phones overall and in the Hardell studies (OR, 3.65; 1.69 to 7.85; n = 2, especially in the Hardell studies) non significantly increased the risk of tumors with cumulative call time of 300–1000 h and more than 1000 h, while it decreased the risk of tumors in most subgroup meta-analyses of the INTERPHONE studies.

5. Conclusions

In sum, the updated comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or more hours in their lifetime (which corresponds to about 17 min per day over 10 years), and especially among studies that employed high quality methods. Further quality prospective studies providing higher level of evidence than case-control studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

This open access paper and supplemental material can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/cellphonetumor.

https://www.saferemr.com/2020/11/new-review-study-tumor-risk.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on New review study finds heavy cell phone use increases tumor risk

EMF Medical Conference 2021 — register now (video trailer)

The EMF Medical Conference 2021
Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF Associated Illness

January 28 – 31, 2021

A Virtual Conference

The EMF Medical Conference (EMFMC) 2021 will convene leading physicians, clinicians, and scientists for a series of presentations on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of EMF associated illness. Experts in EMF assessment will present proven methods that can prevent or limit EMF exposure hazards.

CME/CE credit

The public is welcome to attend.

Registration information at http://www.emfconference2021.com/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on EMF Medical Conference 2021 — register now (video trailer)

“Radio Frequency Radiation Health Risks: Implications for 5G” — Grand Rounds, UC San Francisco, Sept. 24, 2020

http://bit.ly/UCSFgrandrounds

This presentation summarizes research on the biologic and health effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and cell towers and discusses the implications of this research for 5G, fifth generation cellular technology.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on “Radio Frequency Radiation Health Risks: Implications for 5G” — Grand Rounds, UC San Francisco, Sept. 24, 2020

NRDC: The Challenge of Nonionizing Radiation – A Proposal for Legislation / 1979

Once again, progress threatens to roll right over the regulators, leaving them to clean up the mess, as has been the case with air and water pollution.

In this in-depth and timely article, Karen Massey, project attorney for the Natural Resource Defense Council warned, as others had, of health and environmental hazards from microwave exposure when microwave ovens and CB radios were the primary microwave consumer products, and cellphones were still on the horizon.

From the Duke Law Journal

The Challenge of Nonionizing Radiation: A Proposal for Legislation
By Karen Massey
1979

PDF

From the Introduction:

Nonionizing radiation is an important factor in the life of every member of an advanced technological society. This is particularly true of American society with its space program, its sophisticated weapons systems, its highly developed electronics products, and the world’s most advanced national communications system-all of which use nonionizing radiation, generally in the microwave and radio frequency ranges. Most Americans are probably unaware of either the pervasiveness of nonionizing radiation or the controversy surrounding its status as a pollutant and a health hazard. In the last decade, however, both the scientific community and the United States Congress have begun to pay more attention to this form of energy and its impact on our lives. Very recently, their concerns have begun to trickle into the general public domain, popularized by a series of articles in the New Yorker by Paul Brodeur, recently expanded and published in his book, The Zapping of America.’ Unfortunately, America’s inventors and entrepreneurs move much more swiftly than its scientists, politicians and publicists; while the latter investigate and deliberate, the American public is presented with an array of consumer products such as CB radios and microwave ovens. Once again, progress threatens to roll right over the regulators, leaving them to clean up the mess, as has been the case with air and water pollution.

The purpose of this Article is to assemble the available information on radio frequency and microwave radiation in a systematic way, and to present it accurately as both a primary agent of progress in the second half of the twentieth century and a potential threat to man’s environment. The Article attempts to assess the immediate need for a regulatory system that would control nonionizing radiation in the public interest and offers a critique of the existing system, or lack thereof, for controlling such radiation. It makes a plea for a legislative solution and offers some suggestions for dealing with what may be the most complex yet in a line of pollution problems that tax the individual talents of both the scientists and the policymakers, as well as their ability to bridge the gap between their two spheres of action.

PDF p. 59-61

…[E]ven with additional knowledge, there are problems with the practical operation of the hazards-effects distinction when dealing with a national ambient standard for an extremely varied population. Different people react differently to the same stimulus. For example, even moderate exercise can cause hazardous physiological changes in some individuals. If their doctors have informed them of this hazard, they may choose not to engage in such activity, or to ignore the medical advice, knowing the possible consequences. It is well established that more stringent standards are needed for involuntary risks such as subjecting persons to high ambient levels of nonionizing radiation whenever they sit on a terrace or walk down a street. In setting standards, the at-risk population to be protected must be identified. For example, Congress has determined that in setting ambient exposure standards under the Clean Air Act, “public health” means the health of the most sensitive members of the population.334 In the present case, this group might include persons wearing electronic cardiac pacemakers or those having metal bone pins. If these persons are included, then the general American population standard must be lower than that which protects the average healthy person, since some electronic cardiac pacemakers, at least, have been shown to be affected at very low levels of NEMR.335 Alternatively, it might be possible to redesign and better shield these pacemakers336 and to substitute other materials for bone pins, but some provision must be made for the wearers in connection with setting health standards. In addition, research may point to other population groups who, for nonmodifiable physiological reasons, are likely to suffer from exposure to levels of nonionizing radiation that would not be hazardous to the average person

p. 62

The fact that the benefits of the pollution in question are so great — national defense, essential communications, first amendment values — may even enhance the need for such a standard confining the operation of cost-benefit analysis. One commentator analyzes the situation thus:

Society’s historical empirical approach to arriving at acceptable balances of technological benefit and social cost by trial, error and subsequent corrective steps create in advanced societies today a critical situation for two reasons: 1) the difficulty in changing a technical subsystem once it has been woven into the economic, political, and cultural structures and 2) the techniques for societal diffusion of a new technology and its subsequent exploitation are now so highly developed that widespread use of a new technological development may occur before its social impact can be properly assessed and before any empirical adjustment of the benefit-versus-cost relations is obviously indicated.346

The very fact that society places a high value on defense and communications makes them likely to develop more rapidly than other technologies and to become instantly “essential.” Since traditional market mechanisms have failed to account for health costs, health protection requires special governmental attention. Other efforts may be made within the process of cost-benefit analysis to deal with this problem, but the health-based pollution standard serves as a necessary safeguard in a preventive program.

Footnote 346
Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Nat’l Acad. of Sciences, “Considerations of Health Benefit-Cost Analysis for Activities Involving Ionizing Radiation Exposure and Alternatives” (1977) [hereinafter cited as BEIR II REPORT]

346. BEIR II REPORT 23. Such thoughts have been echoed in several court opinions in recent years. See, e.g., Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 941 (1976) (“Man’s ability to alter his environment has developed far more rapidly than his ability to foresee with certainty the effects of his alterations. It is only recently that we have begun to appreciate the danger posed by unregulated modification of the world around us, and have created watchdog agencies whose task it is to warn us and protect us, when technological ‘advances’ present dangers unappreciated-or unrevealed-by their supporters.“); Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (“The public’s need for information is especially great in the field of science and technology, for the growth of specialized scientific knowledge threatens to outstrip our collective ability to control its effects on our lives.”)

Posted under Fair Use Rules

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on NRDC: The Challenge of Nonionizing Radiation – A Proposal for Legislation / 1979

Amazon / Vector electric Smart Meter deal puts ‘how you live your life’ on web giant’s servers | ABC News

Summary from Stop Smart Meters Australia
6 September, 2020

Amazon Web Services, a subsidiary of the world’s biggest retailer, and New Zealand power grid owner, Vector, have joined forces to analyse, share and monetise data generated by more than 1.6 million smart meters across Australia and New Zealand.

The alliance will use data from the internet-connected smart meters to gather information on consumers’ consumption and network performance.

According to a recent ABC News report ‘The data goes far beyond how much power you use in a certain time of day — revealing things like the number of televisions you have, the age of your fridge and other appliances, and the number of people in your home’.

Almost every home in Victoria is connected to smart meters, part of a program that cost consumers $2 billion and, when reviewed by the Auditor-General, was found to provide almost “no benefit”.

Kaspar Kaarlep, co-founder of power technology company WePower is quoted by ABC business reporter, Daniel Ziffer, as stating that ‘greater consumer protections in Europe mean this deal would not be legal there’. Kaarlep likens the alliance to the City of Melbourne selling access to all of its CCTV cameras to Amazon … to develop new products and services. ‘When do I come home? When do I leave? What do I have at my home? Who do I live with? This is all visible in that data.’

CEO of the Consumer Policy Research Centre, Lauren Solomon, adds, ‘We actually can’t really tell what data’s being collected, who it’s being shared with and what it’s being used for’.

To read the ABC report in full, go to Amazon’s Vector power smart meter deal puts ‘how you live your life’ on web giant’s servers

Stop Smart Meters Australia link:
Amazon’s Vector power smart meter deal puts ‘how you live your life’ on web giant’s servers | ABC News

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Amazon / Vector electric Smart Meter deal puts ‘how you live your life’ on web giant’s servers | ABC News

August 3-14, 2020: Air Force exercise Red Flag 20-3 may cause health problems

A member of the public alerted me today to a new military exercise happening now. People are reporting health problems including being unable to sleep/insomnia and loud ringing in the ears. Other sudden onset or worsening health problems based on RF research may include heart rhythm disturbances, nausea, cognitive problems, headaches and migraines, neurological problems, and flu-like symptoms.

Information on the exercise was posted on a forum. www(dot)airliners(dot)net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1449617
Contact the AFB for more information:

Courtesy of Nellis Air Force Base Media Operations. Red Flag 20-3 runs from today 8/3 through 8/14.

For more information about Red Flag, contact the Nellis Air Force Base Public Affairs Office at 702-652-2719 or by email at 57WG.PA.MediaOps@us.af.mil

Also contact your Congressional representatives for information and to complain. These experiments/military exercises are a public health threat and are done without any notification or advance warning, public hearings, environmental review, or full informed consent from the public.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on August 3-14, 2020: Air Force exercise Red Flag 20-3 may cause health problems

Alabama Governor issues proclamation recognizing electromagnetic sensitivity — May 2020

Posted by Environmental Health Trust

2020 PROCLAMATION ON ELECTROMAGNETIC SENSITIVITY
By the Governor of Alabama

MAY 2020 ELECTROMAGNETIC SENSITIVITY MONTH

Whereas, people of all ages in Alabama and throughout the world have developed the illness of Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) aka Electrical Sensitivity or Microwave Sickness as a result of global electromagnetic pollution; and

Whereas, Electromagnetic Sensitivity is a painful chronic illness of hypersensitive reactions to electromagnetic radiations for which there is no known cure; and

Whereas, the symptoms of EMS include, dermal changes, acute numbness and tingling, dermatitis, flushing, nausea, stress, visual disturbances, severe neurological, respiratory, speech problems, chronic sleep disturbances and sleep deprivation, and numerous other physiological symptoms; and

Whereas, Electromagnetic Sensitivity is recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the US Access Board and numerous commissions; and

Whereas, this illness may be preventable through the reduction or avoidance of electromagnetic radiations, in both indoor and outdoor environments and by conducting further scientific research;

NOW, THEREFORE, I Kay Ivey, Governor of Alabama, do hereby proclaim May 2020, as Electromagnetic Sensitivity Month in the State of Alabama

 

Alabama Proclamation on Electromagnetic Sensitivity 2020

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Alabama Governor issues proclamation recognizing electromagnetic sensitivity — May 2020