By Josh Hart, Director Stop Smart Meters!
Last weekend, I was invited to speak at a Take Back Your Power screening in Dublin (California, not Ireland- where I spoke in June) at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) hall. The IBEW recently joined more than 900 individuals and organizations who submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission’s review of current RF guidelines. In the IBEW’s comments, they stated that the FCC’s existing regulations “have no practical application to provide (radiofrequency) safety.” (IBEW letter pdf) If anyone knows whether something is safe or not, it is probably the people who work around it all day.
Congressman Jerry McNerney, who has introduced the “smart grid advancement act” got his start in the IBEW hall where the film Take Back Your Power was shown last Saturday night
Ironically, we are told that this hall in Dublin where Take Back Your Power was screened is where Jerry McNerney, the congressman who introduced the Smart Grid Advancement Act, launched his political career. The bill would promote (some say mandate) ‘smart’ meters and require wireless chips in consumer appliances to qualify for the Energy Star efficiency program. Several attendees at the event said they knew the man personally and afterwards some spoke about sending him a copy of the film.
About two dozen people showed up including scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Labs (LBL), under contract to the Dept. of Energy (DOE), and one Oracle employee involved in meta-analysis of the mountains of smart meter data that are being generated- essentially the electronic signature of what goes on in your home, stored in a server farm.
When public doubts about the safety of the ‘smart’ grid began to reach a fevered pitch, LBL published a set of stilted, selective and inaccurate (but convincing-sounding) public responses to a smart meter inquiry at the Michigan Public Services Commission. Why all the fuss to do damage control about an issue they claim isn’t even worthy of investigation? The telecommunications industry, ‘smart’ grid program, defense industry- really the entire military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about– is based on microwave transmissions. If the public understood the truth and more importantly- acted on it, all of this could be at risk. Thus, the robust response from the LBL and the resistance from those scientists steeped in its dogma.
After the screening, a woman named Joanne who has a pacemaker told her story about how the ‘smart’ meter affected her health when it was installed. When she called PG&E (must have been in 2010 or 2011) there was a nice man on the phone who warned her that the new meter might cause interference with her medical device. PG&E came right away and changed it to an analog and didn’t charge her a fee for 2 years. Now they have started charging even Joanne as the utilities go into lockdown zip-lip mode, not admitting to any possible health or safety effects even as thousands get sicker and fires consume homes and businesses like popcorn (you never know when the next one will go pop.)
A suspicious fire in San Francisco’s Presidio Heights; residents reported hearing a pop pop sound coming from the alleyway nearby- smart meters have not been ruled out as a cause
Lots of skepticism from some in the audience, even after hearing from Dr. David Carpenter, Olle Johansson and the other experts interviewed in the film. One audience member told Joanne (and you know we’ve all heard this before), “I know you believe you feel these things- I know it’s real for you…but…” Yet most people in the room were fairly horrified at what Joanne was describing.
Ellie Marks, whose husband Alan suffers from a cell phone caused brain tumor, was there to speak out and came to my defense when the temperature in the room shot up and emotions ran high. (Thanks Ellie!)
If you have seen the film I Am, it reminds us that science does not contain a set of fixed truths about the world. (The film also suggests we can “talk” not only to yogurt, but to other animals and plants through our heart’s own electromagnetic field, an emerging line of scientific inquiry). At one time it was a “scientific fact” that the Earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Doctors cheerfully smoked cigarettes. We x-rayed our kids’ feet at shoe shops. Science is a process of inquiry, not a static body of fact and law. If “scientists” are rejecting out of hand people’s self-reported ‘smart’ meter induced symptoms as “anecdotal” or somehow “not objective” they are introducing a bias that is protective of the status quo, one that uses ridicule and doubt as tools to perpetuate itself. Such a rejection without inquiry of thousands of reports of health problems from ‘smart’ meters represents not just misguided science but a sociopathic recklessness as well as an infantile clinging to a comfortable and profitable worldview.
I am not a machine.
The Earth is not a machine. Neither are the people nor the plants and other animals who inhabit it. Yet that worldview infects practically all aspects of our culture, mechanizing our lives and leading to degradation, suffering, and alienation. The truly scientific reaction to thousands of people reporting physical symptoms after a novel, radiation-emitting device is installed on their home would be one of precaution, inquiry and curiosity- investigate the issue further, and get to the bottom of it. Which is what hundreds of people are doing, mostly on a grassroots, individual level. Doing the job of the captured regulatory agencies and atrophied governments.
The industry on the other hand is attempting to (in the words of Motorola) “war game the science.” There is a war being waged to hide the truth from you, and we are funding that war through our taxes. While governments, universities and industry circle the wagons to protect their interests, the individuals who make up these institutions appear increasingly to be growing leery of this “war game” of shoddy science and spin being waged against the people. I had to wonder- did we have a future Thomas Drake or Edward Snowden there with us on Saturday night? Someone inspired to take great personal risk for the benefit of us all?
Back in the Dublin IBEW meeting room, after the credits rolled and people blinked as the fluorescent lights were switched on, you could almost see the walls of stubborn, fixed belief in the “official” scientific regime beginning to crumble. People’s cognitive dissonance in full defense mode. A lifetime of thinking in a certain way and sudden flecks of doubt. They wanted to leave and get away but at the same time could not. The genie could not be stuffed back in the bottle no matter how hard they might try. I’ve never seen faces turn so red.
The new Director of Stop Smart Meters!
One couple in particular were really steamed- a guy with a PhD in physics and his wife, a former nurse. She said I reminded her of “Sarah Palin” (that is a first!) and that the film was “hyperbole,” but it was clear that it really got to her. She said “I thought this was going to be a film about smart meters- and now you are talking about cell phones!” I tried to explain that within the smart meter debacle contained many connections to other larger issues: RF health, privacy, government corruption, etc.
People were interrupting me and each other and the hour and a half discussion afterwards became really heated. It was truly a cathartic event- people expecting a regular Saturday movie night at the IBEW hall instead had their assumptions about the world firmly shaken. The organizer said no film she has ever shown has had that effect before. That is what Take Back Your Power, and public debates that result, have catalyzed in audiences all over the world.
One scientist claimed that it was “impossible for RF waves to affect human cells in any way because the wavelength was too large.” Others were wondering how the switch mode power supplies (SMPS- that convert AC to DC within the meters) could cause so much more dirty electricity than those contained in other electronics. (Maybe the scientists and medical professionals reading this could comment on these questions.) The important thing is that people were engaged with the subject. Fired up. And that’s what matters.
There were electrical engineers there, scientists, and doctors- people who may not otherwise have taken steps to see the film for themselves, but who are regular attendees of movie night. To their credit, they came out to see a controversial film and engage with it in public, not just sit there at home watching TV. Many of them were still not completely convinced at the end of it- but I definitely saw seeds of recognition and change sprouting within them and I think we did really get through to some of them in a deep way.
We sold several DVD’s at the end, and connected with the head of the local IBEW chapter. In his work as an electrician, he wears RF protective clothing while working on electronics of cell towers, and is required to limit his exposure to the high levels found near the towers. We discussed the schizophrenic attitude society has toward RF. He knows this stuff is dangerous from personal experience- this is no abstract science to those in harm’s way- and that includes smart meter installers let’s not forget.
Kim Bendis of Naperville, Illinois Smart Meter Awareness group, was one of the people arrested in January – simply for refusing a smart meter.
One man, in addressing the naysayers at the end of the discussion stood up and said, “Even if you don’t believe in the health impacts, surely you can see that we have a major problem on our hands if people are being arrested for refusing an unwanted device on their own home!” He’s right. Nearly a year later there is still a sense of unreality about the Naperville arrests that took place, where people were arrested simply for refusing permission to install a smart meter on their homes. That situation needs to be put right.
Bottom line: I would rather show Take Back Your Power to a room of skeptics and have a heated controversy erupt (even if it gets ugly- as it did, briefly) that changes minds rather than preach to the choir of people who already believe it. Though motivating the true believers and helping to spur action is also important.
In addition to the screenings we are holding by renting out halls and advertising, it is just as important- if not more so- to show the film to existing groups- in churches, union halls, rotary clubs, schools, etc. You get a wider diversity of people and really get the chance to engage with and change people’s views, thus widening the movement.
We can’t get angry with people who don’t believe the truth that RF from ‘smart’ meters (and cell and cordless phones, iPads, towers, wi-fi and all the other toxic tech) is causing an epidemic of health problems. Some people ridicule and attack us for even suggesting it, digging in their heels to stop history and deny reality. This is just a defensive psychological reaction. And it’s an important part of the process. It’s the walls coming down.
These people will come around, or their views will gradually become eclipsed by a new paradigm. We can’t change people overnight- it’s a process and we need to engage with people where they are – not where we want them to be. This is probably good advice whether you are speaking to a church group or sitting around the Thanksgiving table with your family. Seek the truth and speak it, be unapologetic, and confident that we will prevail. Do what it takes to bring out the message even if it requires more bravery than you’ve ever mustered, or it’s uncomfortable, messy, or inconvenient.
And whatever you do, never give up your power to anyone. If you realize you’ve given it up, take it back. It’s your birthright. It’s also a really great documentary that is making waves.
“Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion”
“Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul”
-Edward Abbey
Great article Josh! I think it is a great idea to light a fire inside the union that is impacted by this RF all day long. Keep it up!
Josh,
That was quite courageous of you stepping in to the fire and staying in. Change isn’t always pleasant. The truth wants to be heard and cognitive dissonance is a big part of what needs to happen for a person to change inside out and outside in. Thank you all the help you provide.
Great article. Thank you for standing up!
As an anti-Smart Meter person, I am happy for any reason that others oppose them, though I am not particularly concerned about the possible health issues. I haven’t seen the film, so may become more convinced of these issues, possibly including smart phone issues in the future. However, I note that there are still many people who are adamantly against vaccinations, adding chlorine to public water supplies, etc., etc.
My interest is philosophical and economic. I believe that Smart Meters are merely the method that the utility companies are employing to SEEM to be concerned and involved in complying with public government efforts for “energy conservation”, WHILE ACTUALLY MERELY ATTEMPTING TO INSURE AND INCREASE THEIR FUTURE PROFITS, by passing the cost of this “environmentalism” on to the consumers, rather than accepting the cost themselves.
Power is, and should be, a public commodity. The government should own the transmission and distribution lines, and should recover the cost of them by assessing the power generation companies for use, while regulating the cost to consumers. What are we going to have to pay more for next? Water? Air?
“…the truth that RF from ‘smart’ meters … is causing an epidemic of health problems.”
Any “truth” in the above quotation is anecdotal at best. The greatest scientific breakthroughs and the resultant theories have been supported with sound science. In the absence of such, the null hypothesis prevails.
Shouldn’t the ‘null hypothesis’ be that emf receiving and emitting biological beings (us) are impacted by artificial sources of emf? The overwhelming independent evidence suggests just that, Richard.
SSM seeks to support the notion that radiation from smart meters is causing an epidemic of health problems; You claim that living without such radiation is the natural state; Hence, the working hypothesis in any scientific investigation of smart meter radiation (or the like) and health effects must be that *there is a significant difference* in the health effects of people when exposed to smart meter radiation as compared to the natural state; and the NULL HYPOTHESIS must therefore be that *there is NO significant difference* in the health effects of people exposed to smart meter radiation as compared to the natural state. At this point, the null hypothesis prevails. Keep us posted on any significant developments 🙂
P.S. “impacted by artificial sources” is a FAR cry from “causing an epidemic of health problems”; wouldn’t you agree?
Richard, your analysis is like looking through a narrow and slanted silo. We know smart meters emit RF- some analyses show more than 200x the strength of a cell phone. Many studies indicate that cell phones cause brain tumors- enough that the WHO re-classified RF as a possible carcinogen in 2011. It is the official position of the World Health Organization that the smart meter on your home “may cause cancer.” We’ve been through this a thousand times. The “null hypothesis” is in the process of being shredded, but you have apparently haven’t received the message. “May cause cancer” may not be enough for left-brained sociopaths who require 100% confirmation of harm before acting or “scientists” who dismiss the early warning signs and refuse to consider even widespread firsthand reports of harm. But believe it or not there is another world out here that is not made up of ones and zeros- there are actually living breathing beings who form relationships and fall in love and some get hurt by technology. Some die. Ethics and public policy matter. There is a thing called risk analysis that the insurance industry is very good at- they don’t wait for 100% confirmation. They look at research and trends, in order to make an honest assessment of future risk so they can protect their money. Swiss Re has told investors that the EMF issue could “threaten the insurance industry’s very existence.”
See: http://microwavenews.com/riskreason.html
Most insurance companies have specific exclusions that limit liability for future wireless health damage. Now are you saying that you know something the insurance industry does not? Are you saying that protecting public health is not as important as protecting a bank account? What kind of research exactly are you proposing? And who exactly would fund it? The evidence is there- but you must be covering your ears and your eyes not to see it- but not apparently- your mouth.
Swiss Re publication – A good read, to be sure, and I truly appreciate the reference. Two thumbs up 🙂 and I’d recommend it for anyone interested in the topic.
By the way, did you read beyond page 5, or is that where you stopped after grabbing your juicy soundbite?
Personally, I like page 32 … I won’t bother quoting, as anyone that can read here can just as well read there. Actually, I like the whole thing, and I’m not worried about its theme. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging risk, and I have to say they are smart to be addressing it so openly.
“The evidence is there- …” Well, actually, it’s not… There’s a lot of fear and speculation, but no evidence to support your claim of RF/electrosmog/EMF or SmartMeters “causing an epidemic of health problems”; and so, the null hypothesis prevails.
Ciao.
I’m of the opinion Richard that the actions of the insurance industry are far more informative as to what’s really going on with the science. If the insurance industry says “no way we will not insure the cell phone companies against future health impacts” then don’t you think we should be at least a little concerned? Maybe even concerned enough to take minimal steps like banning wi-fi in schools, a moratorium on smart meters, and warnings on cell phone labels (all very minor steps). Or would you rather wait for a wave of tumors and illnesses, and then say “aha! The null hypothesis was wrong after all!”
There is no objectivity in science- sorry. Your identification of the null hypothesis, and your decisions on what information to accept and reject is all culturally determined. Your opinion that we should not act with the info we already have is a product of your assumptions and dare I say- your indoctrination. You are a product of your culture and your culture is destroying life on this planet. Accept that and we will be well on our way to figuring this all out…
“I’m of the opinion … that the actions of the insurance industry are far more informative as to what’s really going on with the science. ”
Well, you’re certainly free to believe that, but science is science, and the Swiss Re view on risk is based on the public perception of EMF, not the science of EMF.
Read the report again… And if you’re looking for a quick primer, then search for all instances of “society” within the doc… Those passages are quite telling by themselves, not to mention in the context of the entire work.
Insurance companies’ coverage exclusions related to future wireless health risks are based on future scenarios of the risk of large numbers of lawsuits for damages. It has nothing to do with risk of public perception (i.e cell phone sales). So again Richard, are you saying that looking at the same evidence as major insurance firms are looking at, you would risk large numbers of human lives more freely than the insurance industry would risk its profits? At what point would you take precautions? How many people have to scream bloody murder and how many scientific studies showing harm need to be published before you would take preventative action?
My last post on this topic, just to prove that you have not read the publication that you call on to support your argument; Here are some quotes from the publication that support mine:
“As long as the causes of cancer and other diseases have not been identified beyond all doubt, statements concerning them are, at best, conjecture.
…
The crucial question, therefore, is not what results EMF research will yield in the foreseeable future, but how society will evaluate such conjecture.
…
We consider the risk of change to be so dangerous because it is evident that a wide range of groups have great political and financial interest in electrosmog being *considered* hazardous by society.
…
The question posed at the outset as to what court decisions could be expected in future EMF liability cases thus proves to be unanswerable. If society wishes to consider weak electromagnetic fields a cause of illness, these fields will be deemed a cause of illness…
…
These risks are imaginable but not demonstrable, which is why they are occasionally referred to as phantom risks.
Even though we do not know whether they actually exist, they are real to the extent that they exist in people’s minds and thus affect them if only to stimulate insecurity and concern.
There is nothing that frightens people more than an uncertain danger, even though it may not exist.”
It is clear from these statements (and more, but you have to actually READ the document) that the while the risk of lawsuits is real, the basis for that risk is based on public perception of a hazard that is probably not.
As for this – “…how many scientific studies showing harm need to be published…”
How about one — Just one good study with significant results. Your definition of “harm” seems to include any measureable change or effect without knowing if that change or effect is harmful. I do not deny the existence of any effect… Everything affects everything else, so I am not surprised to see some effect in a published study; but is it harmful? To this point, I am not aware of any studies in which exposure to low-intensity RF fields have demonstrated “harm”, and I am not swayed by the personal stories/anecdotal evidence posted on this site.
>> “There is nothing that frightens people more than an uncertain danger, even though it may not exist.”
>> And then there’s the fact that the Swiss Re report was published in 1996, and here we are…discussing it as if it were a current concern.
I don’t really care what the insurance industry says Richard. I care what they do. I assume most corporations are lying at this point in order to boost their bottom line- that’s why there are corporations, right? My point in referencing the document is that the insurance industry has been concerned about this issue for a long time. They can say whatever they want- the proof is in the pudding- most insurance companies refuse to insure against future health impacts of wireless. But you apparently demand a higher level of proof- are our kids’ lives more disposable than the insurance industry’s cash? If you answered yes to that question, I think there’s a company called Exponent who has a position open for you.
By the way, here is one good study for you: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22939605?dopt=Abstract
Brain tumors meet my definition of “harm” how about you?
There are just a few people on this earth that would have such a vested interest protecting smart meters as Richard. Continually ignoring all the complaints Peter Valberg (tobacco industry expert witness) comes to mind often. He’s established a career confusing the public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o39iPPUmQxc
Maybe he’s just a spin off from Professor Erwin Correy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHlLmYVCzKY
Re: comments from “onthelevelblog” –
With regard to to your last question: I would certainly agree that brain tumors represent a biological “harm”; I am all too familiar with their affect on people.
With regard to your “one good study”: I humbly submit this commentary –
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-cell-phones-a-possible-carcinogen-an-update-on-the-iarc-report/
…although, you may/probably disagree with their assessment.
Richard, any “science” blog that uses the word, “manufactroversy” is a suspect source in my book.
“a suspect source” >> That’s a cop out…
You’ve posted some pretty ridiculous things, too, like: “Evidence that wireless technology in general- and smart meters in particular- are causing serious health problems is growing every day.”
Take some time to read and digest the commentary… It’s a fair criticism… Hmmm, yeah, I wonder why the incidence of cancer has not increased given the advent of all this harmful technology…
You’ve probably seen this: http://xkcd.com/925/
How is that ridiculous Richard? Have you even been reading this website for the last 3 years? Cancers take a long time to develop- it’s called latency. Just ask Hiroshima victims, who experienced a boom in brain cancers 40 years after the US dropped the bomb. Radiation- both ionizing and non-ionizing breaks DNA bonds and leads to cancer. Do you at least accept that?
Yes, I understand latency; and now I get the sense that you didn’t even bother to read the commentary that I referenced. Too bad…
You are quick to ignore significant critiques, and even quicker to promote insignificant results… but that is the bread and butter of this site.
You play on people’s fears and memories (Hiroshima, DDT, lead, etc.) in concert with the mere *possibility* of something being a carcinogen to promote the SSM! agenda… and that ain’t right… but it sells papers, don’t it!
Anyhow, it is clear that some of your readers seem to appreciate what you’re doing, and there’s something to be said for that. 🙂 I just hope they will take time to consider the complex nature of science as they ponder the significance of what’s posted in “The Science” at the top of this page.
Peace.
Richard- what makes a scientific finding significant? If it agrees with your null hypothesis?
C’mon… Now you’re just being argumentative…
If you are going to toss around links that talk about pooled data and odds ratios, then certainly you should understand the significance of those methods and numbers.
And when someone reports data suggesting a weak association of two variables, when other studies have shown a negative association, then why would you choose to jump on one bandwagon over the other? Because it suits your agenda… That’s why.
Science is exciting–there are lots of highs and lows–new data that cause researchers to think about the world in new ways, prompting new methods of investigation and analysis.
However, the total body of data at present do not support your hypothesis… https://stopsmartmeters.org/2013/11/27/fireworks-at-take-back-your-power-screening-in-dublin-ca-heated-rf-debate-erupts-at-movie-night/#comment-480168
… it might; it’s possible; but it doesn’t.
All I know is when the conservative World Health Organization classifies something as a “possible carcinogen” then there is ample evidence (especially when combined with the thousands of other studies) that this is a risk to public health. Calling it a “manufactroversy” as your cited author did seems like it is denying what to any thinking person is an actual (and quite lively) controversy. Who has an agenda, after all?
FWIW: Like you, I didn’t care much for their “manufactroversy” comment. However, …
All your comments suggest that you do not read beyond the abstract, executive summary, or editor’s note, which says a lot about how much you truly want to understand the issue. EMF and public health is a science-based issue, and it deserves more than an emotional response to an abstract.
Case in point: Just look at the Carlberg/Hardell study that you cited as “one good study”: In Table 8, from which they cite the eye-catching odds ratio of 5.5, note the overlapping confidence intervals for each latency group within a category… That indicates that they are not significantly different… So, let’s not go down the latency road with this study, okay?
And where C/H did resolve statistically distinct groups, any association (given by the odds ratio) is rather weak, which at best provides a basis for future working hypotheses.
When you examine the data, the evidence just isn’t there…
Well then your view of the Hardell study does not line up with the WHO IARC committee who decided it was significant enough to move the cancer risk designation of wireless up a notch.
Your blind ‘null hypothesis’ cuts like a knife into the hearts of all those thousands of people complaining of ‘smart meter syndrome’ What if you were suffering from a terrible ailment and no one believed you? Since when does science not listen to what people have to say? Once in a while you can learn something if you actually listen to people… what kind of world would it be like if we assumed everyone was lying all the time? The kind of world the utilities are trying to create.
Something is definitely wrong here.
Even ninth grade high school girls figured out that wireless kills plants. Professor Richard doesn’t get it, yet has boasted of credentials given to annihilate their free thinking minds.
“An experiment by a handful of high school students in Denmark has sparked some serious international interest in the scientific community.
Five ninth-grade girls at Hjallerup School in North Jutland, Denmark, noticed they had trouble concentrating after sleeping with their mobile phones at their bedsides. They tried to figure out why. The school obviously doesn’t have the equipment to test human brain waves, so the girls decided to do a more rudimentary experiment.
They placed six trays of garden cress seeds next to Wi-Fi routers that emitted roughly the same microwave radiation as a mobile phone. Then they placed six more trays of seeds in a separate room without routers. The girls controlled both environments for room temperature, sunlight and water.
After 12 days, they found the garden cress seeds in the routerless room had exploded into bushy greenery, while the seeds next to the Wi-Fi routers were brown, shriveled, and even mutated.”
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wireless-router-wi-fi-plants/
“… the WHO IARC committee who decided it was significant enough…”
Just so we’re all on the same page, here’s the latest from the good folks at the WHO: http://www.who.int/features/qa/30/en/
FWIW…
And what is your point? Again, the Hardell research raised enough red flags with the committee that *all wireless* was classified as a possible carcinogen. Never mind the spin that the WHO press office put on it.
The point is that you can’t call the WHO to your defense and then accuse them of spin with which you disagree: “an increased risk of brain tumours from the use of mobile phones is not established”…
Which brings me full circle (long circle) back to my earlier comment: >> At this point, the null hypothesis prevails. Keep us posted on any significant developments 🙂
Richard, I sent the contents of your criticism of the Hardell study to Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health, UC Berkeley Prevention Research Center,
School of Public Health (his website is at saferemr.com) to find out what his take was. This is what he replied:
“For Table 8 which looks at high grade astrocytomas, only 3 of the 16 odds ratios were significant (p < .05) for >1 to 5 year latency, whereas 10 of the 16 odds ratios were significant for >5 to 10 year latency, and 11 of the 16 odds ratios were significant for >10 year latency. That the magnitude of the odds ratios increases with increased latency suggests that latency is important. That many of the confidence intervals overlapped does not negate the overall pattern of the results given the sample size for this table.”
In other words, latency- the time between exposure to cell phone radiation and a brain tumor appearing- is important with regard to this issue. The difference in the control group and the exposed group grew more significant with time. These statistics provided enough of a warning that this prompted the WHO to change their cancer risk designation of wireless to “possible.” And what makes this even more worrying is that the WHO is like a huge ocean liner- it doesn’t turn on a dime and is extraordinarily conservative when it comes to health issues (some would say compromised).
I disagree with your assessment- the null hypothesis that wireless has no effect on human health has actually been disproved many times over- it’s just that many ‘scientists’ and industry quacks are paid to deny this and manufacture shoddy science to sow doubt and delay action to protect human health. And the media dutifully reports what they are told by their overseers. Meanwhile the public is waking up- a jury in VT ruled $1 million in compensation for a family who was evicted from their land by a smart grid tower, and a school in New Zealand is ripping out the wi-fi after a student died from a brain tumor brought on by sleeping with his wi-fi ipod under his pillow. See: http://tvnz.co.nz/technology-news/fathers-win-school-wi-fi-battle-5787916/video
I suspect if we catch up with Richard in 20 years when wireless has gone the way of asbestos, he’ll still be croaking about the null hypothesis. 🙂
Ribbit…
Richard tends to ignore that the inner life of a cell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPrfj8Trq_8 is a living city in itself relying on perfect timing and voltage. It seems that he relies on a theory that cellular life responds the same as a chemical and that thermal effects are the only cause of disruption.
I suppose some just can’t let the 50’s go. The 2013 article and published study below contradicts his view of thermal based science.
“Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated
calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcmm.12088/pdf
“The 2013 Nobel Prize honors three scientists who have solved the mystery of how the cell organizes its transport system. Each cell is a factory that produces and exports molecules. For instance, insulin is manufactured and released into the blood and signaling molecules called neurotransmitters are sent from one nerve cell to another. These molecules are transported around the cell in small packages called vesicles. The three Nobel Laureates have discovered the molecular principles that govern how this cargo is delivered to the right place at the right time in the cell.
Randy Schekman discovered a set of genes that were required for vesicle traffic. James Rothman unraveled protein machinery that allows vesicles to fuse with their targets to permit transfer of cargo. Thomas Südhof revealed how signals instruct vesicles to release their cargo with precision.
Through their discoveries, Rothman, Schekman and Südhof have revealed the exquisitely precise control system for the transport and delivery of cellular cargo. Disturbances in this system have deleterious effects and contribute to conditions such as neurological diseases, diabetes, and immunological disorders.”
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2013/press.html
Understanding that man made microwave frequency radiation (300MHz-300GHz) is identical to light in elctrical and magnetic properties, able to stimulate a gene is key here. Look at cryptochrome , a magnetoreceptor, for an example it interacts with light that would never burn or shock us but yet it plays an important function in the signaling for production of melatonin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844001/
Link to 16 pages of titles to studies on the importance of proper melatonin production.
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/library/downloads/melatonin-04-references-2013-09.pdf
Could the 900 MHz frequency make the skull a lossy resonator?
“Headache and other neuropsychological symptoms occur in users of cellular telephones, and controversy exists concerning risks for brain cancer. We hypothesize these effects result from the head serving as an antenna and brain tissue as a radio receiver. The frequencies for transmission and reception by cellular telephones, about 900 MHz for analog and 1800 MHz for digital transmission, have wavelengths of 33-35 and 16-17 cm, respectively. Human heads are oval in shape with a short axis about 16 to 17 cm in length. Near the ear there will be a cross-section in the head with an axis half the wavelength of RF/MW transmissions of 900 MHz and equal to the wavelength of RF/MW transmissions at 1800 MHz. Therefore, the human head can serve as a lossy resonator for the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the cellular telephone, absorbing much of the energy specifically from these wavelengths. Brain cells and tissues demodulate the cell-phone’s audio frequencies from the radio frequency carrier. Low audio frequencies in the ranges of alpha and beta waves affect these waves and thereby influence brain function. These effects state the case for a precautionary policy.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12445512
Hopefully this information will be used to complete a study on the health effects of smart meters.
Thanks to Richard for stimulating a response. 🙂
“Richard tends to ignore that the inner life of a cell … is a living city in itself…”
And yet, somehow, I have earned the accreditation to educate young minds on the subject of cell biology (among other subjects). I will let others ponder the veracity of your musings and references… 🙂
Ponder this….3 or 4am wakeups correlate with data dumps emitting from the smart meter.
Mechanism? The 900MHz frequency electrical properties are the same size of the human skull. I would hear a “click” in my head when sleeping close to the meter. Once removed all symptoms vanished.
By the way it has been difficult lately finding anyone that isn’t waking up at the same time as the smart meter dumps it’s data. The only ones that get a good night’s rest are sleeping under a Swiss Shield canopy without a smart meter on their home.
https://stopsmartmeters.org/why-stop-smart-meters/#comment-267458
A study showing that cryptochromes are a magnetoreceptor.
“Magnetically sensitive light-induced reactions in cryptochrome are consistent with its proposed role as a magnetoreceptor”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/08/1118959109.full.pdf+html
Richard: You are either a paid troll or a hapless imbecile. If you don’t understand the biological science involved in anatomy, you have no business even commenting on pages like this one. I’ve read over 100,000 pages of scientific data relating the biological effects of electromagnetic energy on biological cells, and it’s hardly the stuff of an overactive imagination. You know damn well the military has been studying RF effects and radar “sickness” since the early 50’s. Why don’t jerks like you just shut up?
With a little bit of luck, technically challenged dolts and/or liars like you will become extinct within the next few months. Don’t forget to drop dead soon.
Josh thanks for that you have done and are doing… have spoken to you in the past by phone; your encouragement and kindness meant alot to me when we were in the process of looking for solutions to the smart meter on my house. Since that time I have moved to another town in Massachusetts and we are going to have a showing of Take Back Your Power..I was wondering if you would be available to field questions at the end of the movie at the time of Questions and Answers? Please let me know if this might be possible?
Thank you Nancy. Yes I do speaking engagements remotely if you have a good (corded!) speakerphone around. Contact me at josh@stopsmartmeters.org for more info. -Josh