Wireless Health Damage is No Joking Matter

By the way did we mention we’re not joking when we say wireless radiation from cell phones, wi-fi, and “smart” meters can injure–even kill you?

Above is a photo of our neighbor in Scotts Valley, a man we interviewed in September. He worked at a tech firm for ten years. During that time, he kept his cell phone in his left back pocket–switched on and sending signals.  The other day he showed us his tumor that he says he is 99% sure is from his cell phone.  He also has a tumor on his left ear–the side he used to speak on his phone.

For this man, and the thousands of others reporting health effects from smart meters and other wireless devices, injury brought about by wireless non-ionizing radiation is not “theoretical,” “possible”, or “imaginary.”  It is a devastating reality that far too many people are being forced to live with because of industry greed and corrupt regulatory agencies turning a blind eye.

It’s time to stop debating whether wireless is causing health effects–and time to start discussing what we should do about it.  The first, most minimal and basic step is to pull the plug on the wireless smart meter mesh network–an involuntary and senseless radiation exposure on with an unprecedented penetration and scale.

We’re sorry if this photo shocks you- but maybe that is what it takes to shake people out of their denial.  Wireless meters and phones are not smart, sexy or fun.   As The Smiths sang in 1985, “it is death for no reason and death for no reason is murder.”

[Update: nearly 50 people spoke out during the public comment period of the CPUC meeting Thursday, an excellent showing. People spoke repeatedly and from a diverse set of backgrounds about the extortionate nature of the opt-out cost, need for an analog option–and many simply called for the whole misguided, dangerous program to be scrapped. Good job, all! More on this to come.]

Show up and speak at the CA Public Utilities Commission Thursday, December 1st 9am 505 Van Ness in San Francisco — demand that they pull the plug on the wireless smart meter programAs a cancer survivor himself, CPUC President Michael Peevey should know better.  Since he apparently has a hard time putting health and safety first when industry profits are at stake, the man needs to be removed by Gov. Jerry Brown.  Yesterday.

Submit your smart meter complaint at SmartMeterHelp.Com

This entry was posted in Animal Harm, Cancer, Cell phones, CPUC, Santa Cruz County. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Wireless Health Damage is No Joking Matter

  1. Richard says:

    “By the way did we mention we’re not joking when we say wireless radiation from cell phones, wi-fi, and “smart” meters can injure- even kill you?”…

    Yes…I think I do remember hearing that, but I still can’t get my head around why anyone would believe it. What evidence supports your statement?

    Regarding the picture above, correlation does not imply causation; period. What is the tumor; Is it benign; Is it cancerous? Not NEARLY enough information to justify the “shock” value of this picture and the speculation that followed. This picture and article only stirs the pot–a pot full of misinformation, speculation, and fear.

    I will say, however, that it would be tragic if we learn that low-power wireless communication *can* cause tumors, but that relationship *has not* been demonstrated–and I doubt it ever will.

    Individuals that claim to be EHS truly have my sympathy–no one deserves to be uncomfortable in their own home–but I *would* like to see a scientific study of more than n=1 that supports the claim. If it’s real, then it should be testable.

    • admin says:

      @Richard We suggest you do a little more research before you claim that no relationship has been established between cell-phone-strength RF microwave radiation and tumors, and other illnesses. Please visit this page:
      http://www.saferphonezone.com/cell-phones-myth-or-fact/
      Environmental Health Trust is a reputable organization headed by an award-winning epidemiologist.

      How did people end up having an impression that there is “no conclusive evidence”? Please read the book, Disconnect.

      I briefly quote from the above page:
      “MYTH:
      “The World Health Organization (WHO) statement does not mean cell phones cause cancer, because it is based on limited evidence.”

      “FACT:
      Thirty-one highly acclaimed members of the International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO committee, voted in a nearly unanimous decision after detailed examination of this data. In their expert opinion, cell phone radiation, also known as microwave radiation, is in the same rank as many things you would never let your child play with, including jet and diesel fuel and some chlorinated pesticides like DDT and Kepone.

      “The WHO determined that “radiofrequency radiation and electromagnetic fields”warranted a 2b classification “as a “possible carcinogen,” based on an exhaustive examination of peer-reviewed, published epidemiology studies, industry-funded Interphone studies, and hundreds of scientific papers.

      “They concluded that human studies consistently found that with more than 10 years of use (with 30 minutes a day considered as high use), there is a significantly increased risk of glioma, a lethal brain tumor. The WHO explicitly rejected the recent negative and widely publicized study from Denmark on brain cancer and cell phones in the British Medical Journal because it lacked detailed information on phone use and the power to find any change in risk.”

      • Richard says:

        Thanks. I am familiar with those resources the results published by WHO earlier this year. The 2B classification does make me think harder about the issue, but “possible” is just that, and I respect your organization and the intellect of its contributors enough to *not* go into the meaning of a “possible” relationship–I think we all know what it means.

        • Tiffany says:

          Richard,

          Possible is only plausible if the proper research was done. Please look at the Sutro Tower and the map of the cancer rates around the tower, it gets denser as you get closer to the tower. Im not making this up, if we had RFR experts that were not bought by the corporations owning this technology doing some real research and the research that has been done 3rd party independent from these corporations not being discredited with money, I am sure you would see a much different world than the one we live in. Greed is running a muck in our country. If we feel like listening to third party independent research, we should not be hounded that we are crazy and do not know what we are talking about because most of us, including myself, have done a lot of research on this. Can you really believe the corporations that hold a monopoly in an area when they have lied? No. Have we proven they have lied? Yes. It is up to you if you want to believe an average Joe, like yourself, or a corporation with shareholders they would like to satisfy at any and all costs.

    • Jim says:

      So you don’t do any research and then make comments like that?

      NAY SAYERS – DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE MOUTHING OFF !!

      I am really tired of having to point to stuff that’s already been posted. It’s available if you turn off the damn TV and spend a little time on something important. Oh and try using Google!

      And if you are so smart, please take your head and put it next to a 900 Mhz transmitter at 2.5W with random on and off pulses ALL DAY LONG 24/7 for weeks on end and then let us know how you feel. If you are not willing to do that, then maybe you can now realize how wrong you are.

      IF ANY OF YOU are not willing to do that, you just admitted that there is a problem. That also includes CPUC people and ANY elected officials.

      I know a number of people who would be willing to supply the transmitters and batteries for a year long test, so it will be free if you would like to try.

      Technically and physics wise you wouldn’t last a day before your brain would start thumping and you would give up. And then you may eventually grow one of those “non cancerous” tumors in your brain, because for some reason a non cancerous tumor is OK for some reason. (not saying that above pic was non cancerous)

      Someone should go to a PUC meeting and put a transmitter up on the table in front of each of the PUC members, tell them what it is and what it does and watch them squirm.

      Even better, get them on video saying “take that damn thing out of here!”.

      You want to read this:
      http://lamesa.patch.com/blog_posts/revealed-sdge-smart-meter-technical-data-and-bio-effects-of-microwave-radiation

      And specifically you want this data from that article:

      A recently declassified U.S. Army scientific study on the bio effects of radio frequency microwave radiation for the purposes of the development of new weaponry and behavioral control (currently in use by military and police) reveals that microwave radiation exposures have been linked to a large number of biological and health effects.

      Many of the effects they note are virtually identical to the unusual clusters of health complaints of people (also related to reactions of their pets) following the installation of smart meters, routinely denied by the state utility regulatory commission (CPUC) and utilities.

      These include increased aggression and irritability, inhibition of food and drink intake, increased mobility or conversely, incapacitation via loss of muscle control, muscle weakness, intense muscle spasms, loss of consciousness; cognitive effects such as loss of memory and confusion; microwave hearing (buzzing, ticking, hissing, or knocking sounds that originate within the head or behind it), and even damage to multiple organs or the brain, seizures (convulsions), and death.

      This study clearly supports that subtle heating of tissue does occur with radio frequency microwave radiation, associated with these undesirable and potentially very dangerous biological effects.

      Importantly, U.S. Army scientists agree with a growing number of independent scientists worldwide, in emphatically stating that 100% of the human population is susceptible to radio frequency microwave radiation effects, caused by subtle heating, with some sectors of the population more reactive at lower doses, including those with thermoregulatory mechanisms (impacting temperature control, respiration, water loss).

      Significantly, likely pertaining to the ringing of ears (tinnitus) that people experience with smart meters, the U.S. Army study says this, with regard to exposure to pulsed microwave radiation: “At this time, virtually all investigators have studied the [microwave hearing, acoustic] phenomenon now accepted as thermoelastic expansion of the brain, the pressure wave of which is received and processed by the cochlear microphonics system, to be the mechanism of acoustic perception of short pulses of rf energy” (p. 8 of 20).

      Notably, in one study, this microwave hearing was triggered through exposure to 2450 MHz radio frequency energy, which is exactly one of the radio frequencies used by antennas contained within current smart meters. “The sounds are heard as the individual pulses are absorbed. The effect is immediate, within milliseconds” (p.9 of 20). Army scientists describe a range of sensitivity, with some people unable to hear it, possibly due to cochlear damage.

      Alarmingly, the Army study also describes additional aspects of microwave radiation that can control behavior, including a particularly troubling application of this technology: the induction of externally produced messages, simulating voices, into the human brain.

      “Application of the microwave hearing technology could facilitate a private message transmission. It may be useful to provide a disruptive condition to a person not aware of the technology.”

      “Bio Effects of Nonlethal Weapons (fn 1) addendum to the Nonlethal Technologies * Worldwide (Ne GIC-I1 47-101-98s)”

      • Richard says:

        Jim – What can I say?…I am a skeptic. But to say that I am “mouthing off”–really? The causative relationships in this article is pure speculation (well, at least 99% speculation) and to scare people with “…we say wireless radiation from cell phones, wi-fi, and “smart” meters can injure- even kill you?”–Well, that just ain’t cool.

        Thanks, too, for the fear-generating add-on about military weaponry. What does that have to do with the mission of stopsmartmeters.org?

        • You sir, are not a skeptic. A skeptic is someone who questions an idea that is commonly taken for granted. Most folks who find their way to this website are skeptical of the wide-spread BELIEF that microwave radiation is harmless and the MYTH that Smart Meters are going to save us from a aging and decrepit grid, global warming and resource depletion all at once.

          You might be a TROLL though…

          I’ll supplement the info provided above with this post:

          http://smartermeters.blogspot.com/2011/11/numbing-agent.html

          • Richard says:

            Re: your link. Oh, come on…really?!

            People claim electrosensitivity, okay fine. I’m okay with that. But I’m NOT okay with this campaign of wireless fear that’s going on.

            Personally, I’d just like to see some controlled studies that support the claim. **And now you want to claim that EHS is under-reported due to the same phenomenon that you claim causes it. Really?!**

            I certainly am not a trolling for anything except the truth. I stand by my previous statement: If it’s real, then it should be testable.

          • admin says:

            @Richard @SmarterMeters
            Smarter, well, I can tell you that Richard is not a shill, for what it is worth. Richard, the reports which we receive daily, while anecdotal, are so precisely similar from experience to experience, that it beggars belief to dismiss all the reports as merely false-attribution errors. There is something seriously wrong here, and I invite you to show true skepticism, and investigate with rigor.

            We don’t have nice clean double-blind, gold-standard clinical studies, but we do have a whole lot of people whose symptoms are entirely novel to them; they were not sick before installation. The testing you and others wish for should have been done *before* deployment.

            EHS is accepted in several EU countries as a wholly legitimate disability, and they do provocation tests, for instance, the details of which I don’t have.

            Stay with us, Richard, and perhaps the conversation can help us learn how to address the lack of acceptance that we find elsewhere.

          • Richard says:

            @admin – Thanks for the invitation. FWIW, I still think that the lead sentence of this article is totally unsubstantiated; and I would hope that future articles won’t follow suit.

          • Richard, I know, it’s a tough pill to swallow—that this totally ubiquitous, yet invisible *thing* that, more or less, drives our whole economy and military industrial complex is actually a hazardous, disabling, carcinogenic, genotoxic, neurodisrupter.

            For those of us who have been hurt by wireless and also been fortunate enough to figure out what was happening, mitigate the source of the radiation, and get better, it’s impossible to sit idle while others get sick.

            For those of you who have serious money to be made selling wireless contracts, installing smart meters, and prescribing poorly tested pharmaceuticals to “treat” many of the conditions caused by unnecessary microwaves and dirty electricity, it’s understandable why you’d portray this information as “fear mongering.”

            A little fear is actually healthy.

            http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19450936

            “Oftentimes we see drivers weaving in and out of lanes or driving on the shoulders. We stop to investigate what we may think is a possible DUI driver only to find out it was someone talking on the phone, hands-free or not.”

        • Jim says:

          Richard, so the army research doesn’t mean anything to you?

          So I guess the only thing that will convince you is what I said to try. So now go stick your head next to a 2.5W transmitter at 900 Mhz with random pulses for days on end and let us know how it goes.

          With all the proof available to you on the internet, you still don’t get it?

          You sir, are a waste of time.

          • Richard says:

            That’s nice, Jim. Why am I “a waste of time”? (by which I assume you meant *your* time); Because I don’t agree with your point of view?

            “With all the proof available…”

            No, the “unclassified” report does nothing to sway my view on SmartMeter radiation. I won’t deny the stated effects of those military devices, but the power levels are incomparable.

            Share with me one–just one–piece of scientific literature that actually supports the need for concern over a 2.5 watt transmitter and I’ll listen.

          • admin says:

            @Richard It might occur to an observer that you are being a bit disingenuous. Science on bioeffects of low-intensity RF is easy to find. Putting aside the fact that the FCC limits transmitters in the SM band to 1 watt, and they are not known for their caution regarding RF, let’s look at power density–the measure of the RF hits an object. To quote from Sage’s letter in reply to the CCST report [sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?p=343]:

            “Kundi and Hutter (Pathophysiology, 2009) say they don’t yet find RF health impacts at levels below 0.05 to 0.1 uW/cm2” but do find consistent evidence of adverse health impacts at levels generally above that (based on at least eight cell tower studies conducted internationally). These figures were for healthy adult populations.

            “From the CCST Report, figures 1 and 7 (identical) give a comparison of RF levels from various sources, including two estimates for smart meters. They are 4 uW/cm^2 at 10 feet, and 40 uW/cm2 at 3 feet away.”

            A few studies:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19261451
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19268551
            A summary of studies: http://www.emrpolicy.org/science/research/fact_sheet.htm
            http://knol.google.com/k/absarul-haque/neurological-effects-of-radiofrequency/1xc61x617bpvo/2#
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

          • Jim says:

            Richard, you are wasting everyone’s time.

            Please go do the test on yourself, let us know how it goes.

            Until then, you are just wasting our time because NOTHING will convince you short of your brain frying.

          • Richard says:

            @admin – Thanks for the references. Lots (*lots*) of uncertainty in those studies, and the statistics are far more in favor of no relationship. That is my reasoning. Sorry, if that came off as disingenuous. I just need to see some data that supports the claim, and I have yet to see that.

            Is there uncertainty? Of course.
            Is the uncertainty worth addressing? I believe so, for the sake of EHS folks.

            But at some point we have to move on; When to move on, I suppose, is up to the individual.

          • Richard says:

            I also meant to add this summary figure of the statistics with my last post – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995180/figure/F2/

  2. inside9 says:

    TURN, The Utilities Reform Network, asked for Mr. Peevey’s termination today in a letter to its email recipients. I would add that this should be done as expeditiously as possible if it means that thousands more people can avoid suffering from our latest envirohazard, Smart Meters.

    “To Smart” means “to FEEL PAIN.” Something I am not willing to accept!

  3. Angel De Fazio says:

    I would suggest that you go research WHO classification of this issue as a Class B Carcinogen.

    What about the capillary study?

    The penetration rate into the brain/skull of people of various ages?

    If not, research before questioning an EXAMPLE of what is going on.

    If this WASN’T a problem, they want to keep ‘quiet’ about…why are so many states providing alternatives to the deployment?

  4. Rampage_Rick says:

    If that gentleman’s tumors are in fact caused by a cell phone as you explained, then shouldn’t your “first, most minimal and basic step” be to pull the plug on CELL PHONES???

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc or more simply A occurred, then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B. The logical conclusion is that avoiding A will prevent B but you’re attempting to argue avoiding C will prevent B. Still following?

    In addition, this gentlemen has a tumor on his leg and on his ear. Anywhere else on his body? No? Only in locations where his phone was practically touching? Again, following your logic I should assume that if I carried a smart meter in my pocket I might get a tumor there. So if I don’t walk around with my smart meter strapped to my body I’ll be fine. I’ll sleep better tonight! Thank you and goodnight…

    • Jim says:

      Rick, what about 2.5 Watts at 900 Mhz don’t you understand?

      Oh that’s right, you have no idea of the power levels for a typical cell phone….

      MICRO WATTS!!

      Notice I didn’t say milliwatts. That would be in the MAXIMUM range, and the FCC demands that the phone use the minimum power to make any transmission.

      And when a cell phone is on but not “talking” then it checks in periodically but not anywhere near as much as a “Smart” Meter does.

      Have a nice sleep now that you know all this!

      • Rampage_Rick says:

        My old Motorola P8767 put out 3 watts 800/1900 Mhz. Bought it specifically for that reason, I got service in places nobody else could. Had to replace it when they shut down the old analog cell network.

        You correctly explain the basics about how cell phones constantly adjust their transmit power as necessary. They do use the minimum transmit power required, with a small signal margin. The transmission power levels you state are wrong. Transmit power for modern phones ranges between 21 dBm to 33 dBm (125 mW to 2000mW = 2 watts) Besides, if phone transmitters used as little power as you say, we’d get a hell of a lot more talk time from typical 10 watt-hour cell phone batteries (i.e. 2 days talk time instead of 5 hours) I believe you’re confusing transmit power with exposure level or absorption, which is given in microwatts per square centimeter.

        In a similar vein, smart meters likely adjust their transmit power as required. A cluster of ten smart meters don’t all need to transmit at 1 watt to communicate with each other. This would be like a van full of people all shouting at each other, and would be a very poor design for a reliable wireless mesh network. Having a cluster of radios transmitting to each other at maximum power makes it much more difficult to communicate with more distant radios. Such a cluster would most likely operate with all but one of the radios at the lowest transmit power, and the one radio delegated to communicate with the rest of the neighborhood would transmit at whatever power was necessary. Here’s a basic analogy: When a van full of people pulls up to a drive-thru everyone in the van talks quietly amongst themselves to finalize the order, then the driver relays the entire order to the order box (usually with a louder voice)

        I don’t know about your area, but the smart meters being deployed here in BC use a radio module with an FCCID of SK9AMI7. They’re rated for 688.65 mW transmit power at 900 Mhz and 65.01 mW transmit power at 2.4 Ghz.

        Where I’m located my smart meter (not yet installed) will have to send a signal about 500 feet to the closest neighboring meter. The closest cell tower to my house is 26,750 feet according to Google Earth. Radio waves in free space follow the inverse-square law, which states that to send a signal 53.5 times the distance will require a signal that is 2862.25 times as strong. If I’m going to fear something, it would be my cell phone, not my smart meter. I fear neither at this point, as I have yet to read anything conclusive on the matter.

        I have more, but I’m giddy from the penultimate irony of you simultaneously arguing the safety of cellphones and the danger of smart meters. The sad part is I understand this material and can formulate a valid response but 99% of the public has no such insight and would just take you at your word, possibly even considering you “knowledgeable” in the matter.

        • Richard says:

          YOU’VE GOT MY VOTE! :-)

        • I’m don’t think there is such thing as a properly designed wireless mesh network. You will always get more packet loss, use more electricity, and experience earlier system failure than with using wires.

          You seem to know what you’re talking about, but you give Smart Meters way too much credit. As a grid-powered device, there is no reason for them to be programmed to save power if collocated or happen to be in close proximity to another SM. Cell phones and laptops must reduce transmissions to save energy because they depend on a battery. Cell towers and WiFi routers actually emit a fairly steady field of radiation, regardless of whether any devices are connected.

          The problem with grid-tied microwave devices, over portable ones, is that they screw up power quality, which can damage other electronics and create a biologically harmful electromagnetic environment in that section of the grid.

          https://www.msu.edu/user/hillman/ABSTRACT.htm

          Can someone explain why a Smart Meter needs to send 10,000 (or more) pulses a day to report usage that might be a 2 or 3 digit number (KWH)?

          • Richard says:

            Re: your cow link

            Okay, so…using average values for a 2-day total from 110 cows, that’s 1320 gallons with an average decrease of 57 gallons . That’s only 4.3% and the correlation coefficient isn’t exactly compelling. This is, at best, the basis for a working hypothesis to be tested further.

            Thanks for the link, though–seriously :-) …I’m always interested to learn about how the scientific community is trying to measure the biological effects of EMFs.

          • Calley says:

            That’s a good question, Smarter Meters–“Can someone explain why a Smart Meter needs to send 10,000 (or more) pulses a day to report usage that might be a 2 or 3 digit number (KWH)?”

            The answer is that the meters are constantly “pinging” each other to make sure they are all working. Picture a group of people spread out in a park. They are constantly calling to each other, “John, you there?” “Yes, Jane, I’m here.” “Bob, you there?” “Yes, Jane, I’m here.” “Is everything working OK, Bob?” “Yes, Jane, everything is working OK.”

            Every one of those communications is a meter pulsing radiation. So while it’s probably true that they only send data every 15 minutes, the meters are still pulsing constantly to ensure that all the meters are online and working properly.

        • Redi Kilowatt says:

          @Rampage _Rick
          I remember the 3 watt Motorola “bag phones”. They got out well on the old Rural Mobile Telephone Service (RMTS) networks that were analog. I think those old networks are gone now, but I could be wrong.
          Do you remember the old 30 watt mobile telephones used back in the 60’s ? They were vehicle mounted, had about 10 frequencies in the 155 MHz VHF range.
          Here in the S.F. bay area, the base station was in Oakland, and we had 3 frequencies to use, they were full duplex. It was mainly important people like broadcast engineers, kingpin mafia and drug movers. rock stars and other business people who thought they were important that had them. But also, people that lived out in the boonies where there were no land lines had them .
          Now, there are satellite phones for people out in the middle of nowhere to use, and the telecom corporations are expanding their mobile phone networks to handle the sales of millions on new mobile phones, and also the SmartSync (SmartMeters) being deployed across the U.S.
          What has happened is a very complex plan was cooked up by corporate heads, lobbyists, government (FCC) and marketers and manufacturers to promote total saturation of mobile phone networks, the SmartMeters in the U.S. use mobile phone networks to transmit total usage data to the utilities central data centers.
          That is the main reason that the lobbyists got the government to say that everyone should have a mobile phone, and try and do away with the land line networks.
          Also, Obama was on TV a few months ago saying that we the taxpayers should fund a program so that all residences in the U.S. have a broadband internet connection. This is very good news for the telecom corporations, but many people do not want broadband high speed connections. One reason for the big push is that in the distant future, electric vehicles are hoped to be promoted and selling to the wealthy urban dwellers.
          There are plans to use electric vehicle batteries for storage of DC electricity inverted back to AC on the power grid. The special chargers and new E9 electric meters need to send commands and data over broadband cable, the mobile phone networks, and broadband over powerline carrier (BPL).
          The corporations and the governments that they control have big plans for all of us in the future, and want to “cover the earth” with RF technology, adding thousands of new mobile phone towers every year. Soon, they hope that there will be no escape from RF mobile phone networks. I did read on the internet that a mobile phone tower only puts out about 100 watts of power, I don’t know if that is true, because I thought that it would be substantially more. But I guess if they put up more towers, they won’t need as much power as before.

    • Soapbox Jill says:

      Fact: chronic exposure to non-ionizing radiation has been proven in thousands of studies to cause biological harm.
      Fact: smart meters alone or IN CONCERT have been measured to be even higher emitting than cell TOWERS and phones
      Fact: the delivery of radiofrequency signals is as or more important than mere signal strength in determining harm and effects (pulsed, on & off)
      Fact: no one is actually keeping track of smart meter signals, their levels or mixtures, in order to even see if they fall into the very HIGH allowable levels of the FCC
      Fact: A WHO member responded in an email that the class 2B potential carcinogen of cell phone exposure ALSO applied to radiofrequency from other sources, such as wifi
      Fact: people who fall to read up on the facts will sleep well in their naivite until they or someone they know falls ill from wireless exposures. Nighty night.

  5. RobertWilliams says:

    SMART METER HEALTH PROBLEMS AND CANCER.

    6. The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION May 31 2011 placed the Non-ionizing radiation coming from Wireless smart meters (& some other wireless devices) on the Class 2-B Carcinogen List.
    http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

    7. The NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH Feb 2011 found biological changes in the brain after only minutes of exposure to non-ionizing radiation.
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/8/808.abstract

    8. LABORATORY SCIENTISTS have observed
 (1) Human Cell Damage
 (2) DNA Chain Breaks 
(3) Breaches in the Blood-Brain Barrier
 from levels of non-ionizing radiation lower than emitted by WIRELESS Smart meters.
    http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/cc-video/

    9. INSURANCE COMPANIES Hired Independent Laboratory Scientists and they also observed Cell Damage and DNA Chain Breaks. Now the Insurance Companies will NOT Insure Liability damage from Wireless Smart meters and other wireless devices.
 TV Video (3 minutes)
    http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=382


    Cell Phone use and other devices are Voluntary and can be shut off at the user’s discretion, but Smart meters mounted on homes are emitting radiation 24/7 and can not be shut off.

    10. WIRELESS SMART METERS – 100 TIMES MORE RADIATION THAN CELL PHONES.
 Video Interview: Nuclear Scientist, Daniel Hirsch, (5 minutes)
    http://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/04/20/daniel-hirsch-on-ccsts-fuzzy-math/


    11. WIRELESS SMART METERS – CANCER, NERVOUS SYSTEM DAMAGE, ADVERSE REPRODUCTION AFFECTS. 
Video Interview: Dr. Carpenter, New York Public Health Department, Dean of Public Health, (2 minutes)
    
http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=3946

    12. THE KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE IN STOCKHOLM (the University that gives the Nobel Prizes) ISSUES GLOBAL HEALTH WARNING AGAINST WIRELESS SMART METERS.
 2-page Press Release
    
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48148346/Karolinska-Institute-Press-Release

    NOTE: many of the tests on non-ionizing radiation (the type of radiation emitted by smart meters) have been done using devices other than smart meters because smart meters have only been in people’s homes for a very short time.

    But as a Wireless smart meter emits 100 times more radiation than a cell phone, it is not difficult to project. If a machine gun (smart meter) fires 100 bullets in the same time that a pistol (cell phone) fires one bullet, it is not difficult to project the harm that the machine gun can do, even if the tests were done with the pistol.

    People who are electro-sensitive is an ADDITIONAL problem, more likely occurring from impacts on their nervous systems and/or neuro transmissions within their bodies. But even for those who feel nothing initially, everyone’s cells, DNA, blood-brain barriers are being attacked / challenged and for what. Promises of energy savings that have NEVER been proven and NEVER demonstrated in any real life scenario, only within the propaganda of the utility companies and related vested interests.

  6. Jim says:

    “Bio Effects of Nonlethal Weapons (fn 1) addendum to the Nonlethal Technologies * Worldwide (Ne GIC-I1 47-101-98s)”

    http://www.kipnews.org/2011/05/05/declassified-document-on-electronic-harassment/

    “A pressure wave is generated in most solid and liquid materials by a pulse of RF energy”

Leave a Reply

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


4 + = twelve

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>