Daniel Hirsch on CCST’s ‘Fuzzy Math’

Last night, Stop Smart Meters! caught up with Daniel Hirsch, a lecturer and expert in nuclear policy at UCSC who has been widely quoted in the media regarding recent events in Japan.  Mr. Hirsch had just finished his talk at Stevenson College, UCSC about the crisis at Fukushima and what it means for the future of nuclear energy.  The take home message from his talk is that instead of worrying about the milk and the rain, what we must do is to put an end to Obama’s desire to build dozens of new nuclear reactors in the US- the so-called ‘nuclear renaissance’ and begin shutting down existing plants- starting with the ones stupidly built on earthquake faults such as San Onofre and Diablo Canyon.

After the talk, which should be available online shortly, we asked him about ‘smart’ meter radiation.  It appears that many of the distortions that industry has used to deflect concern about such non-ionizing wireless radiation are the same techniques that have been used for many years to downplay ionizing nuclear radiation.

Here is what he had to say about the so-called ‘independent’ CCST report on the health effects of smart meters:

And here are the two charts that seek to compare microwave radiation from smart meters to cell phones, microwaves and other devices.   The first is from the CCST report- taken directly from EPRI- an energy industry front group.   The second is from Mr. Hirsch’s analysis (pdf), corrected for whole body, cumulative exposure.

The CCST report mixed units and published this highly misleading chart, which was presented as fact by many media outlets.   Why is our state legislature allowing their ‘independent’ health study to be hijacked by industry?  We learned in 6th grade math class never to compare different units of measurements on one chart- perhaps the industry ‘scientists’ who prepared this chart never completed grade school?
Chart produced by Daniel Hirsch, corrected to represent cumulative, whole body exposure.  When the chart is corrected to reflect the same units of measurement, it appears that smart meters are at least 100x more powerful than cell phones, which are increasingly being linked with brain tumors.

If you want to know whether Assemblymembers Huffman and Monning will demand that the CCST correct their flawed chart in the final draft of the report, much less put a stop to this rush to installation, why not ask them yourself?

Assemblymember Huffman:   (916) 319-2006

Assemblymember Monning:   (916) 319-2027

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Democracy, Environmental Concerns, Health studies, PG&E. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to Daniel Hirsch on CCST’s ‘Fuzzy Math’

  1. Ana says:

    I live in a home equipped with a smart meter located on the exterior wall
    of our bedroom, three feet from our bedroom headboard. I expect
    If either my husband or I develop thyroid disease or a brain tumor
    or head and neck cancer since it’s installation
    three years ago. We know what caused it.

    • Amy O'Hair says:

      Ana–Please don’t just resign yourself to this situation! Consider some shielding on the wall behind the meter, between your heads and the meter. Also consider asking your utility to move or to remove the meter.

  2. Zeolite says:

    These meters are anything but smart. They are dumb as they make the people who live with dumber and sicker. If PG&E likes them so much let them install them in their own homes only, and not force them upon people without their knowledge.

  3. ItPutsTheLotionOnItsSkin says:

    Wow.
    Americans really are stupid.

    You know what else is ‘non-ionizing radiation’?
    Light.

    • ringtone says:

      What else is really stupid is that they dont want to compare peak exposure!!

      A cell phone glued to your ear tends to have really minimal impact on whole body in terms of exposure. Comparing whole body exposure of cell phone with whole body exposure of other devices that are not as local in impact is like saying – “A needle cannot hurt you because it only pricks a tiny surface of your body”.

      Its important for everyone to understand that peak localized exposure of a cell phone is way way higher than what a smart meter can do to you 3 meters away.

      I realize that you are fighting something here but please stop distorting scientific facts to suit the needs of your movement.

      Cell phones closely held to your ear expose you to a lot more radiation than any other devices mentioned in these charts. period.

      • Joel says:

        Well said, and if I am not mistaken, if we are talking culmulitive effect here, the Smart Meters are not on continuously as the chart would have you believe. I think it is more on the scale of under 1 minute per day.
        The presentation of these charts is very misleading, but then again quackery has to be misleading, as it has no truth to support it.

        • Gwen says:

          Utilities company said 1 minutes because these devices spike about 13,000 times a day, every few seconds. The companies consider each spike one millisecond and add them together to make up a minute or two! This video shows readings recored between a collection antenna and a smart meter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNrRIFkiHKM Cumulative effects is a big concern. Can you imagine living in a condo unit close to the electrical room, where dozens of these meters are operating at the same time?

        • mo says:

          Where have you been lately ? You missed all the reports of smart meters pulsing upwards of 150+ times ..in ONE MINUTE. They are lying about the few pulses in 24 hours. These pulses are accumulative in all living things. The wireless meter purveyors don’t want that fact remembered.

        • Trevor says:

          well said?????The only way to Qualify the “Duty Cycle” on these Mesh and WiMax devices is to simply sit there and do a “Duty Cycle” Test…..it only takes Time an analyser and 3 Brain cell’s LOL

      • Holly says:

        I am so sorry you feel a Nuclear Professor report is misleading – I mean he is just a Nuclear Professor quoted numerous times for the Japan Radiation Disaster!

        As Well NOTE – our group just got off the phone with our local utilities company and they stated they pulse every hour & pulse every time a home next you send a signal – this is how their mesh network works – so they never considered the whole picture of their own plan. No quackery coming first hand from the Utility company – obviously you work with the wireless industry. Just like the paid CCST group – who’s Dr.s have been paid for by the wireless industry for years. I have seen their names on numerous cell tower permits for the last 7 years!

        • MS Nuc engr & BS Mech engr says:

          Prof. Hirsch is not a professor of Nuclear Science. He is a professor of Nuclear Policy. Nuclear Policy is not the same thing as Nuclear Physics or Nuclear Engineering. Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Engineering are hard sciences, while Nuclear Policy is a social science. Don’t get me wrong, all are worthy fields of study. My point is that the issue of whether smart meters emit harmful radiation is in fact a very technical question (i.e. requires extensive knowledge of advanced physics and mathematics). The tools to preform this kind of technical analysis are held by (taught too) Nuclear Physicists and Nuclear Engineers, not people who study Nuclear Policy.

  4. Mia Nony says:

    USE SPIRULINA & CHORELLA TO OUTSMART SMART METER & ANY KIND OF RADIATION

    Two amazing superfoods — Spirulina and Chlorella — offer substantiated protection against harmful radiation.
    They also help to detoxify the body of harmful radiation after exposure, effectively protecting organs and other areas..
    -radio-protective power
    -decreases the radioactive load received by the body when consuming radiation-contaminated food
    -effectively protect against both the damage caused by chemotherapy drugs and the damaging effects of gamma radiation exposure
    -mitigates the damaging effects of harmful radiation
    -repairs radiation damaged DNA

    Spirulina was used to successfully treat child victims of Chernobyl

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2505406
    http://www.iimsam.org/publications_and_reports.php
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10907410
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11749812
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10921251
    http://jpronline.info/article/viewFile/3180/1592
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2688154
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8176669
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8543329

  5. Tom R says:

    I just found out that my apartment sits right above the room where all of the “smart” meters are for the whole building – somewhere between 30 and 40 of them. I’m pretty sure we are separated from them by concrete, at least in a strait line. But there are windows and vents only slightly out of that path.

    Should we just move? What are the odds of my wife and I getting these things taken out? I doubt very much that we’ll get the other residents too exited about it – maybe some of them but not most.

    What do you think?

    • Amy O'Hair says:

      @Tom R
      Concrete provides little barrier to RF microwave radiation. If you live in the SF Bay Area, I could come to measure the RF levels in your apartment. Your situation draws a stark picture of the basic equity and rights issues that banks of meters raise. Please contact me if you are interested. amyohair AT gmail DOT com.
      Here is some shielding info to help you protect yourself in the meantime:
      http://www.lessemf.com/faq-shie.html#smart
      FYI, aluminum foil is a cheap, good RF reflector material, so you don’t necessarily have to buy their expensive materials.

      • Holly says:

        Hi Amy -

        Can you please send an email as to what make and model of rf reader you are using – our group might be interested in picking one up for our own testings.

        Thanks Holly

      • Kathryn says:

        Hello. Who could come and check the smart meters for me? I too will be living above a series of smart meters. Many thanks. Kathryn

    • caligurl says:

      That is terrible for you, and terrible that we just got a letter today informing us we can “opt out” for 100 dollars per year from this, seems worth it, to avoid tumors- we live in a one room cabin. I think you should move, sorry, but that is way too much radiation to be under you, pulsing 150 times per minute x 30, 24 hrs. per day! And, someone should have to pay for your trouble, since you are at risk and are now in an unsafe dwelling.

  6. Physicist says:

    With RF measurements, one always needs to consider the antenna which is launching the radiation (i.e. which direction is the power going?).

    Just as with the case of the needle that someone mentioned above, very ‘directed’ raditaion creates high doses in small areas, whereas ‘undirected’ radiation reduces the peak dose considerably.

    Both of the charts shown above can be misleading if these effects are not considered.

    • Charyl Zehfus says:

      I was told by the manufacturer of one transmitting meter that the signal is multi-directional. This is so it can be read or reach its signal destination without wasting time tweaking the direction it points. This is highly inefficient and results in ambient levels of the combined signals from all meters within range that have been untested and remain unmeasured. How COULD they be measured and standardized when the distance between houses and things like folliage vary?

      Clearly, the utilities and manufacturers do not care about the radiation of their devices. They are just following FCC standards, they will say. But how do they know, since no one is testing combined levels and reflections, etc.???

      Besides, FCC standards are outdated and ignore any health or biological effects except heating of tissue on a 200-pound, healthy man in a 6 minute test. Transmitting utility meters on bursting and pulsing 24/7.

  7. sharanjit sandhu says:

    How do you know if you have smart collector meters in your building? we have 6 smart meters that were installed around 8 months ago in the basement of our apt. building in sf.

    • Unfortunately there is no way to know for sure- the meters look identical to other electric meters- but they likely send signals more frequently. An EMF analyzer may be able to provide some clues. How did we get to a point where our utilities are secretly installing devices on our homes and not divulging basic information about them to the public?

  8. hidde keizer says:

    There is a very effective way around the radiation comming from any divice, such as smart meters, mobile phones, wifi, etc:

    wrap it in aluminum foil and leave no holes open.
    It works like a farraday cage.
    No radiation will come in, and non will come out. It cannot pass the foil.

    The electromagnetic frequency all radiation devices use produces per definition an opposite wave in the metal around it, the 2 eliminate each other, the farraday principle.
    There is no way around this effect since electromagnetism is the only type of wireless communicationenergy we have.

    Try it with your cell phone. Call someone or a phone in you house, wrap the mobile in aluminum foil, no holes open, and you will see that the connection immediately will be broken. No radiation can reach the phone, and the phones signal (=electromagentic radiation) cannot pass the foil.
    Exactly the same can be achieved with your smart meter within seconds, that’s how long it takes to wrap aluminum foil around it.

    Very, easy, very low cost and very good for your health.

    • HI Hidde,

      This has worked for some people, but we would caution:
      1. Sometimes the wireless antenna will ramp up to try and get around the obstruction.
      2. This can cause a fire hazard
      3. This may make the “dirty electricity’ that’s going onto the lines in the home even worse
      4. getting close to these meters is not advised, particularly for electrosensitive individuals.

      That said, foiling has helped some people. And there are new products on the market that are filling this niche, with promising initial results: http://smartmetershield.com/

    • Susan says:

      An electric meter on the wall of the home (exterior) cannot be foiled completely as the back of it cannot be reached (though opening the wall and placing a shield behind is potential idea – with electrician advisement). When the meter is blocked from all but one side, the meter ramps up and sends higher signal and thus, emissions into the home. This is NOT healthy. Further, wrapping a meter oneself is harmful. I know, firsthand. My hands, arms, and then head ached for many days after doing so, severely, even though I only touched the meter to smooth the foil for a couple seconds, max. A type of radiation poisoning, I have not one doubt. Foil on interior wall, heavy duty, 3 X 5 foot, is what I have, plus I installed sheet metal there as well, right behind meter, about 2 ft. by 3 foot piece. The foil stopped the extremely shrill ringing in my ears, when applied to the wall. I was advised to ground these shielding items, above, to the outside, and I did, to a grounding rod in the ground outside. More is described on http://www.smartmeterdangers.org Smart Meter Q & A, at the bottom, under shielding. I have one of the smart meter shields in place and it works well enough (not perfectly). I am able to sleep through the night and it reduces headaches. I tested it to see if it was truly helping, again, the other day, by having the shield removed outside. Without it, tingling in head and headaches when I woke up each day. Putting the shield on alleviated the strength, now just mild headache (any help is preferable). http://www.smartmetershield.com is the place to obtain these. I believe there is a money back guarantee and they aren’t cheap. But cheaper than moving, for the time being.

      • Jim says:

        You should make yourself available for study by a local university lab.

        They can try different frequencies and pulse rates at low power from behind a plastic wall or in the next room so you can’t hear or tell if the signals are on or off.

        You would have to make sure they understand how sensitive you are and make sure they do no harm of course.

        This could prove to skeptics that this is a real problem and also give you and everyone else more data and proof to throw at the power and cell phone companies.

        If you tell a few researchers about your problem they would probably jump at the chance. The cost to do a study like that is minimal since they have the equipment needed already there.

        • Veronica says:

          I would volunteer for any study to do with emr. I am very sensitive and very frustrated that a good research study cannot be done to prove this exists. It is obvious that he powers tha be do not want it proved. It seems insane to me that people all over the world are suffering with this and it is constantly being shoved from view. If it gets any airplay, the sow or srticle always ends with something that makes you doubt whether it is real. In the mean time, people are suffering untold agony and frustration. To know that you are being damaged by this and also know that the entire world doesn’t know or care is very difficult. I pray every day that researchers will do some good studies or that they will find the mechanism that causes this or biological proof of this very real suffering. God bless anyone suffering with this.

    • Tom Steadman says:

      Hidde – Your proposed solution applied to a smart meter would direct all of the RF transmission inside your house since you cannot wrap aluminum foil arund the back of the meter. So, while I agree that your idea is low cost, it’s also ineffective.

    • caligurl says:

      but wait- if they are monitoring your meter- won’t it show a problem on their system, resulting in power being cut off to your home- or a charge of tampering (criminal) with the device- for theft? that’s next you know, this is coming down from above, to thin the herd I think.

  9. cathy says:

    But the RF in a smart meter is Not transmitting all of the time?? so how are any of these numbers accurate??

    • Cathy- the RF from an electric smart meter sends out a pulse every 4-5 seconds roughly, for a total of 22,000 pulses daily. However they are able to broadcast continuously. I believe Hirsch’s calculations took into account cumulative exposure levels over a 24 hour period.

      • John Thielking says:

        I thought I read some info from PG&E that said the smart meters broadcast once every 15 minutes. Also, in one of the anti-smart meter reports I read that one out of every 500-5000 smart meters is rigged as a base station to receive and rebroadcast up to 5000 signals from the other meters in the neighborhood. Based on these figures, the base station meters could end up broadcasting 5 pulses per second. Do you have a url or other reference for the “every 4-5 seconds” remark? I like Uncle Dennis’ solution broadcast on FRSC: Wrap your meter in aluminum foil and leave a screen-wire window so the meter reader can read it.

  10. John Thielking says:

    Daniel Hirsh’s analysis of the relative exposure of a smart meter vs a cell phone may be correct. However, the CCST report, if it is only dutifully reporting maximum exposures as the FCC requires manufacturers to do, is also correct in its own way. You see, the FCC requires manufacturers to report radiation exposures based on 100% duty cycles for all devices regardless of their actual real world duty cycles. In the case of the microwave oven, the maximum allowable leakage may also be what is required to be reported. It may be in fact illegal for a manufacturer or an installer such as PG&E to report the numbers in any other way.

  11. John Thielking says:

    This next comment would have been posted on the homepage but there is no comments section there. Have you considered carefully what would be legally required for local governments to legally enforce a ban on smart meters and/or what kind of lawsuit would stand up in court? I refer specifically to the 1996 Telecommunications Act that puts regulation of emf exposure exclusively in the hands of the FCC and may limit liability of wireless device manufacturers. We already went down this path with trying to ban cell towers in Santa Cruz County. Ultimately, one cell tower permit for a location in Beach Flats was denied because the proposed cell tower exceeded the height limit for poles (including flagpoles) in the Santa Cruz city building code, not because the city council concluded that the emf from the tower was dangerous. In fact, when citizens were giving public testimony, they were advised that any consideration by the city council that they were acting to protect people’s health, as opposed to enforcing the building codes, could be grounds for the cell tower provider to mount a court challenge later.

    My advice is to stick to writing laws that talk about things other than emf exposure, and take enforcement actions that have to do with building code violations, so that when the law or enforcement action is challenged in court later it will have legs to stand on. If the smart meters are not UL Listed (meaning that the design is not quality tested to be sure the units aren’t prone to starting fires, etc), then if there isn’t already a local electrical code section or other law requiring that all electrical equipment used in the home be UL Listed, then pass such an ordinance and enforce it. Building codes are the exclusive domains of cities and counties and any enforcement action taken by these entities to enforce building codes would likely stand up in court. You could also pass a law requiring a permit for any electrical panel upgrade, if such a law is not already on the books. Then routinely deny permits for smart meter upgrades. If federal law requiring the installers of the smart meters to be trained professionals is being violated, then file an injunction in the appropriate jurisdiction and get the installations stopped that way. The more energy expended by local govt’s making legal decisions based on emf exposure, the weaker their cases become if they ever go to trial.

    • If the utilities cited the 1996 telecom act in forcing these on despite health effects, they would have to define each smart meter as a “telecommunications facility” that they would need separate planning permission for. I don’t think they want to go there.

      • John Thielking says:

        As far as I know, the 1996 telecom act applies to cell phones, not just cell towers. The FCC has sole jurisdiction regarding regulation of the outputs of cell phones. Therefore only if the smart meters exceed FCC allowed radiation limits can they be eliminated by the FCC’s own rules.

        I have heard of at least two people in Santa Clara County who have successfully opted out of receiving smart meters. I don’t know why opting out is such a problem in Santa Cruz County.

        Another route to eliminating smart meters from your neighborhood is to do like Marin did recently and form your own city managed utility. The utility in Marin is not allowing smart meters to be installed. People in Marin can opt out of that utility and go with PG&E, so it is still possible that your neighbors would have smart meters if PG&E is their utility.

        Mobile home parks are also their own little fiefdoms that, at least in the case of the park where I live, may not allow smart meters to be installed. In my park, the owners own the meters and don’t want to invest in the more expensive smart meters. I’m surrounded by mobile home parks in this area, so I feel pretty safe right now. For a complete list of mobile home parks in Santa Cruz County (some of which may be far away from cell towers) go here: http://www.propertyinsantacruz.com/mobile-home-space-rent-chart.php . It is also possible that condo owners may be able to organize to get the homeowners’ association to go with a mobile home park style of electric and gas distribution for their properties and eliminate smart meters that way. You would then get your utilities added onto your HOA dues bill.

        Finally, I did a little research by visiting the code enforcement people for the city of San Jose, CA. They said that it is true that all electrical equipment used within the home must be UL listed. However, PG&E is exempt from this requirement. None of their equipment is required to be UL listed. So that means that it is possible that smart meters were never evaluated by an independent testing lab to see if they could get overloaded and start fires and so on.

        • Thanks, John, that was very informative. Hope it helps someone get away from the meters and maybe the concept that private property owners CAN own their own meters can be used for other applications other than just mobile home parks.

  12. Eric Dobis says:

    I’ve had a smart meter installed for the last 4 years. It is on a wall that on the other side my dog sleeps and is in while we are away. I never thought about the smart meter being an issue, however recent issues with my wifi got me looking at interference sources. That sparked more reading on my part about smart meters. Now I’m also starting to question if this could be the cause of the tumor my dog has developed. I’m wondering if something has gone wrong with the smart meter that is also causing the wifi interference. What are my options here? Do I call the supply company and have them remove it? Should I have someone measure the RF level before I get the utility company involved? Thanks for the information and any input. South East Michigan

    • Amy O'Hair says:

      Eric–
      I am sorry for dog’s illness.
      You can have RF measured, and it can be quite high, but unless it reaches the extremely high limits for exposure to RF that the FCC has “established as acceptable,” no one in authority is likely take notice. You can ask the utility to remove it because it interferes with your WiFi. (BTW you may want to keep your WiFi transmitter further away from yourself and your dog.) That said, document, document, document–video, photo, write. Establishing timelines for what has happened in your household since installation is something you can do. You can have the RF levels measured so that you can either shield walls to protect yourself and your dog, or rearrange your living space to limit your exposure. You can read about studies documenting the biological effects on animals. Here is one summary of some of the RF studies done over the decades: http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/silent.pdf
      Best of luck to you.

    • rlr says:

      If one is to believe that RF from smartmeters causes cancer then in the same logic a reader should not take your assertions that your dog has cancer based on the smartmeter, that your dog has cancer at all, or that you even have a dog as a fact. We need facts not speculation.

  13. rlr says:

    “The RF from smartmeters may or may not cause detrimental health affects.”

    Here’s the reality folks. Smartmeters are one of the largest contributors to consumers reducing their net energy consumption on a residential or commercial scale. The decrease in the need for future energy production has a much greater impact on health, energy and water resources than these hypothetical RF scenarios. You people want all the cake and are unwilling to make tough choices. Picket, rant, rage and complain but these types of broad societal initiatives are necessary in a the current consumer climate. PUT YOUR ENERGIES TO BETTER USE AND EDUCATE THOSE THAT USE ENERGY AND OTHER RESOURCES WASTEFULLY. THEN SMARTMETERS MAY NOT BE NECESSARY. It’s a frustrating scenario but take the blinders off.

    • Jim says:

      These “smart” meters are NOT programmed to go backward as a default feature like a mechanical meter does.

      This makes it more difficult for people to go Solar. They can’t use a small inexpensive Grid Tie Inverter to easily supplement their power usage and earn “credits” for later use.

      And the power company makes it super difficult and expensive for someone to just put up a small system with the plan to keep adding to it over time.

      So much for your “broad societal initiatives”.

      It’s always about stock prices and CEO salaries. Are you really that naive?

      It’s all about getting the government giveaway $$$. And where does that money come from? OUR KIDS!!!

      Besides, any savings will be ate up with the costs of these meters and all the problems whey will cause. Plus the power company will whine and complain that they are losing PROFITS $$$ because people are saving power, and now they have to raise rates.

      It’s always about stock prices and CEO salaries.

      It’s always about stock prices and CEO salaries.

      • Rob says:

        Incorrect. My grid-tie inverter works fine with my smart meter. They are programmed to not “spin backwards” to prevent tampering if you do not have a generation facility. If you get solar panels, your utility should re-program your meter or replace it with one that has solar-compatible software. This software has a second read-out which shows the generation total.

        When you apply to have your solar panels attached, your utility should provide a compatible meter. Edison re-installed mechanical meters for solar customers until they had the software update ready.

    • Redi Kilowatt says:

      You are sadly misinformed about the new AMI meters.
      The new meters main purpose is for revenue collection and remote disconnection of electrical service, that’s it.
      In the future, they plan on selling the home area networks systems to customers so they can monitor (not control in any way) large appliances like refrigerators and ovens individually, but not anything else.
      There will be a voluntary program in the future to control the low volt circuits in the thermostats for those who have air conditioners, and PG&E is offering a $25 credit to those customers who allow a smart thermostat for their air conditioners. They cannot and never will control anything else in a home.
      And commercial users have their own private controls systems for lighting, HVAC , communications and complex machinery in manufacturing and processing facilities. The commercial customers will never have any utility corporation control anything or any part of their operations. Commercial customers have been taking care of themselves for decades, and private industry are the leading developers of designing energy efficient and energy saving systems, that is the bottom line, increasing profits.
      Businesses will use energy however they see fit, and no utility corporation can tell them how to run their business.
      To many people, buying a house is like starting a business. It is often the single largest investment that they will ever make in their lives. And in my area, many individualists work from home and that is where their business is too.
      There is no possible way that anyone would ever even consider allowing a corporation like PG&E to control their homes and businesses.
      Sounds like you drank the “Like em Aid” rlr.

  14. Lance Jension says:

    The people complaining about RF from smart meters are probably using a laptop computer than emits more RF than they would ever receive from a smart meter. RF has been around use for years. Gas and water utilities deployed RF meters over 20 years ago. The people complaining now are using hyperbolic “studies” and conclusions that defy physics.

    • Amy O'Hair says:

      @Lance Jension
      The peak power of the RF pulses from ‘smart’ meter can often be much higher than any other source of RF in your environment. This is a powerful transmitter. I have been measuring the pulses, hundreds of meters, and banks of meters, and the peak power density is intense. There is a lot of research on non-ionizing radiation and biological effects in the last thirty years.

      Moreover, the pattern of ‘smart’ meter emissions is unlike ANY other emitter in your environment. The pulses are a few milliseconds long, and jump from zero to a few hundred microwatts per square centimeter during these pulses. The utilities arrive at their “reassuring” numbers by way of time-averaging.

      If you have any science or medical background, you will immediately see that time-averaging relatively long periods (e.g. 5997 millseconds) with extremely short (e.g. 3 milliseconds) burst of very high RF is a debased and specious practice—the very worst science, as the nature of the exposure is so vastly different from other fields. Compare to the neurological effect of a strobe light versus a 15-watt bulb—time-averaged, they are the same, but no scientist or medical professional would endorse such a specious equivalency.

      The accumulating accounts of illness resulting from installations present strong anecdotal evidence for biological effects that are indeed different from those resulting from other RF exposures. Some people who are able to use cell phones or WiFi become ill upon exposure to ‘smart’ meters. Sometimes this in turn effects their ability to use RF devices that before did not cause problems.

      The utilities’ assurance of safety has been piggybacked on public acceptance of cell-phone technology. But now, this basis is eroding as well, as doctors and public-health professionals speak out to warn people of dangers in cell-phone exposure to RF. None of this is good public policy.

  15. bernie cousino says:

    can you wrap the smart meter with aluminum foil to reduce radiation transmission and
    still signal the meter reading

  16. Mark says:

    If you can show me documented evidence of anyone who “became ill upon exposure to smart meters” (your words) I will change my mind and support you.

    You are critial of the charts but your chart also shown no units for the y axis.

    Your fear of the radio waves from smart meters is unfounded.
    Why do you fear smart meters and not WiFi signals for example.

    Re being always on, each smart meter transmits radio signal for a very small percentage of time, otherwise they would all interfere with each other. The intensity of radio waves from a cell phone against your head is MUCH larger even when you factor in the time average and whole body factors.

    Learn some science.

    Mark

    • Jim says:

      OK, so let’s learn some computer, radio frequency and electronic science….

      The frequency of wifi is much higher than the smart meters, maybe that’s the difference. Maybe it’s at a frequency that is absorbed by the outer layer of skin and so it doesn’t effect the brain as much. Or water attenuates the signal, which human bodies are are made up of mostly water.

      The data rate, signal modulation and repetition rate is much different. These meters are configured in a “mash” network where one meter re-transmits the data packets of another. The repetition rate may be near a neural triggering rate, who knows.

      That also means that a smart meter is transmitting more data packets than just one meter’s worth. So in a crowded situation it is transmitting almost continuously. It would depend on how many other meters are in range.

      The microprocessor in the smart meter is limited and so is the mesh routing protocol. Mesh routing is difficult. This means it’s probably inefficient and most of the time simply re-broadcasts any packet that it receives. No one knows because the software hasn’t been put in the public domain for peer review, which makes these meters a major security risk.

      There have been documented studies (blind) on electromagnetic signals affecting humans. You can begin your “Learn some science” studies at emfsafetynetwork.org

      From all the reports it’s pretty clear that some RF signals are affecting people’s lives. There are some people who are more sensitive than others. You should respect that.

      With “science” and facts we know that birds detect the earths magnetic field. Is it such a stretch and possible that some people may have this same ability? Could it depend on how much iron is in their blood?

      No one knows what it is yet, but until “science” does a complete study on it, I would error on the side that people are reporting problems to the point they are leaving their homes. And also go with some of the blind studies that have been done.

      So, back at you… “Learn some science”, please.

      • Tav says:

        Jeez , i guess the problem with not having a back ground in this type of science means i have no idea what to believe.

        I would like to assume the people fighting for the removal of these devises are doing so because they have good evidence and experience to back them up / motivate them.

        I would love to think that the people that are calling shenanigans on this whole issue are also well informed and have scientific back ground to back them up / motivate them.

        The thing i do know if that large corporations that come to a cross road between safety and profit will only chose the way of safety if they have figures showing losses will come in large suits against their negligence if that’s the case.

        I however do not appreciate the tone between people of opposite sides. I have a young son and great wife, and they depend on me. It would be great to have everyone work as a community on these types of issues and leave the partisan / opinions out.

        If things cause people to get sick , then lets find solutions.

        I don’t want my cake and eat it to , i want simple things like health and safety and i am more then willing to work hard and cooperate to get it.

        The sad thing about this information age is the constant barrage of dis-information.

        For those of you with the background to engage in this issue i ask that you do so without the background noise of those that do not understand all the facts. For me just use my appreciation as a motivator for what ever side you are on so the facts get the light of day.

        • Charyl Zehfus says:

          Just one thing, this is not a partisan issue. Some are TEA party goers and some Occupy Wallstreet goers, and others in between.

          This is a public health issue that transcends partisan politics. Please keep reading this site, and look at Magda Havas’ website, and Rory R. Glaser studies for some of the scientific evidence of harm.

          Also see this evidence of rf sensitivity as a bonafide biological syndrome http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/ehs-paper/

      • Bill says:

        It’s a “mesh” network, not a “mash” network.

  17. Pingback: Smart Meter Slavery | TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg

  18. Susan says:

    Go to http://www.smartmeterdangers.org for the science that shows why smart meters harm health and what the independent scientists are saying about smart meters. All in one location, easy to access, with over 5500 studies that show emf effects. Further, this technology is so lethal and torturous, it is used in weaponry now (electromagnetic weapons). That should silence any doubt, right there.

  19. Pingback: Smart Meters: PG&E Blinks After Lawsuit Is Filed | Plano Electrician

  20. Pingback: Smart Meter Radiation Messes with Your Brain | Stop Smart Meters!

  21. Pingback: WE SAY NO FEE: CHARGE THE UTILITY | Stop Smart Meters!

  22. Pingback: Silver Spring Networks IPO: How Capitalism is Supposed to Work | Stop Smart Meters!

  23. Pingback: Silver Spring Networks IPO: Predatory Capitalism in Action | Stop Smart Meters!

  24. Pingback: How Smart Are Smart Meters? | Urban Intelligence Blog

  25. Pingback: The Dangers of Smart Meters Hit Home — The Non-Toxic Nurse

  26. debbie barlow says:

    Our energy company, Genesis Energy, has installed these meters without even any information regarding the radiation in the leaflets they put out. I have been questioning them about it and have sent some sort of information that is an international standard. It also states that as the radiation being emitted from cellphones etc is growing the radiation from the meter is in line with it. I asked for a written guaruntee from Genesis that I would not suffer any illnesses or latent cancer from the meters. I am awaiting a reply. This is being rolled out here in New Zealand without full disclosure from the energy company, I have put to them that this is a breach of my rights as I couldnt make an informed decision, and I also said I intend to pursue this so all of New Zealand is aware of the risks. The company concentrated on cost saving when the meters were rolled out, there was no mention of radiation. I will let you all know what happens next.

  27. John Fryer says:

    Regardless of dangers real or imaginary, it should be pointed out that while people in flats may be right next to dozens of these radiation emitting devices other people who have large gardens will have one meter possibly 50 or more yards away.

    Any danger will therefore appear in the more vulnerable members of society.

    I am fairly certain the meter I have is a smart meter but a very long distance from the house.

    I fail to see why these devices need to be active many times a day and why they can’t just send the reading when needed every two or three months.

  28. Cindi Burkey says:

    No public hearings on any of this before blanketing our communities, schools and neighborhoods with WiFi and other devices that emit radiation.

    The more studies there are the more evidence there is, the evidence is mounting, and mounting, over the last decade—the acknowledgement is slow like the acknowledgement that cigarettes cause health problems..and people don’t want to believe it.
    But you can’t ignore the independent research. When even the WHO says the radiation is a “possible” carcinogen (like lead) I don’t know how much more mainstream you need to get before public policy can be affected.

    • Richard says:

      “…even the WHO says the radiation is a “possible” carcinogen (like lead)…”

      and, while lead is clearly poisonous to humans, with *measurable* negative effects, let’s not confuse this clear and present danger with the speculation that it (and wireless radiation) may be “possibly carcinogenic”.

      Let’s keep the apples in the apple bin, and the oranges in the orange bin :-)

      • Stop Minnesota Meters says:

        Richard–lead and radiofrequency radiation are in the same 2B classification so are in the same fruit “bin.”

        • Richard says:

          The bins are: (1) demonstrably hazardous, and (2) possibly hazardous. And why didn’t Cindi instead choose”Bracken fern” (also Group 2B) for comparison?…Probably because lead has a reputation–a bad one, and well-deserved–but its proven negative effects have nothing to do with cancer or the 2B classification. Lead’s toxicity is demonstrable; Lead’s carcinogenicity is just uncertain. So, to choose lead as the comparative reference, is rather sensationalist and misleading. As a lawyer, surely you can see that the reputation of the witness (lead) is not relevant to the case for carcinogenicity of lead or its Group 2B cohorts.

    • Bill says:

      You seriously cannot count a highly political and agenda-driven organization like WHO as a reliable and credible, unbiased source of any information.

  29. Pingback: Magic Tricks and Mountebanks at KIUC: Shosanah's Corner

  30. Pingback: Magic Tricks and Mountebanks at KIUC « Stop KIUC Smart Meters!

  31. Pingback: SmartMeter or NO Power at all! - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 10 - City-Data Forum

  32. Julie says:

    They just installed a smart meter, I told them I didn’t want one but they did it any ways. I live in Ohio and people here really aren’t talking about the smart meter. How can I get attention to how dangerous these meters are? I want the right to choose, how can I go about that? Please I need someone to help me get this information out about these smart meters.

    • Paul H says:

      First I would have blood work done. Have the lab measure for sugar levels and melatonin. It’s the only two that I know of to be affected. Sugar will be elavated and melatonin will lower. Definitely get a physical and start documenting. Letting them know that they just installed a class 2b carcinogen on the side of your home might help. In the meantime place heavy duty aluminum foil on the other side of the wall so that the pulsed microwave is deflected to somewhere else. Also, turn off all unnecessary breakers so the smart meter microwaves have nothing to ride on, especially when sleeping. Become informed and spread your info!

  33. BrianYYC says:

    Can anyone point me to the “multiple and numerous” studies on EMF and rF radiation? Every article I read never references these studies.

  34. Pingback: Naperville smart meter arrest « Xenophilia (True Strange Stuff)

  35. Leigh Cassidy says:

    I now have a beautiful A HF35C by Gigahertz solutions. A nice RF-annalyser with little information on what I am measuring, what is safe and what is not. You know everyone is complaining and all yet I cannot seem to find a simple chart in excel format or anything else in which I can chart my own results at home. Its great having info out there but I want tools that I can use to gather my own info. Is there a website somewhere this is available? A little explanations without a university class on what I am to be doing?
    Help would be appreciated.
    Leigh

    • Paul H says:

      Leigh, if I were you I would concentrate on the bedroom area. That’s where you spend most of your life in one spot. It’s also a repair area. I would place your meter on peak hold and place the switch on the right side all the way up( the most sensitive) I’ve got my sleeping area to within .06-.07. There is no safe level when being exposed to it all night long. Hope this helps!

      I’ve found that aluminium toy haulers, without any windows and grounded are the best places to sleep.

      • Paul H says:

        Leigh, I looked at your analyzer a little more closely and see that it doesn’t have the “peak hold” function that my 38B has. It does however have a “peak” function ,which is optimal for your machine. Definitely keep it at the more sensitive selection, 199.9uW/m. A safe level would be zero. If you reach maximum (which I highly doubt you will in your bedroom) then take it to the next setting which is 19.99mW/m2.

        If your looking for thermal affects (caveman science) then I would listen to Richard, as his postings show that he doesn’t accept affects at the biological level.

  36. Richard says:

    >> “A little explanations without a university class on what I am to be doing?”

    This exemplifies a problem, Leigh. Lay people can go out and get these analyzers and make measurements without truly understanding their meaning… Then someone posts online that they made a measurement and they are worried about what they see, yet they don’t understand it… So they ask on the internet, and there’s always someone willing to feed their fear. You’ll have to do some research and learning on your own if you want to convince yourself of any clear and present danger; and I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise, but I will refer you to some work done recently by the IARC – http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Publications/REF_Poster2012.ppt

    Just my 2 cents… I hope this helps :-)

  37. Pingback: Smart Meters – Engineering a Virtual Panopticon « Stop Smart Meters! (UK)

  38. Pingback: “Smart” Meters Planned for Seattle - What Effects on the Health of our World? - CommuniChi | CommuniChi

  39. Bill says:

    What units are the Y axis on the charts above? They are meaningless without identifying what has been allegedly measured, and look like amateur voodoo to scare people.

    What frequency in MHz are your smart meters transmitting?

  40. Eman says:

    The only purpose for these smart meters is more profit for the energy companies. For those of you who believe that these companies want to save you money and make your life better, your mistaken. When did such companies ever do something to help the consumers and protect him.. They just wanna rip you off.. U fall ill, and pharmaceutical companies and doctors benefits from it. It is all a scheme. I do not believe a word out of their filthy mouths. You don’t need evidence that these meters makes u sick, just know that Obama had these meters in his electoral campaign. He wanted to install them in every house.. When i heard him say that, that’s when i knew that there is something fishy going on. When did we ever trust a US President.. Remember Bush and the weapons of mass destruction.. All lies and bullshit… They are scheming something evil as usual, and it is not for the well being of the people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>