For some, it's because their power bill suddenly doubles from one month to the next. Others return home from work to find a door hanger notifying them of a SM upgrade, before discovering a fridge with a blown out compressor, full of melting and spoiling food. In some cases, when people are home, they are met by a rude, unprofessional, untrained worker who claims that the meters are mandatory and a refusal of a Smart Meter will result having their power disconnected. Of course, some people are not okay with the granularity of data that is collected, transmitted wirelessly through their neighbors' meters, then stored by the utility, just waiting for law enforcement or a hacker to come knocking. Occasionally, the new meters have sparked electrical fires.
The majority of ratepayers will not have these awful experiences or strong concerns with the wireless meters being deployed, but they should. They should also take the time to understand how the microwave emissions and power quality disruptions (dirty electricity) generated by Smart Meters can wreak havoc on their family's health, including why the agency charged with protecting us from these exposures is failing.
One issue that requires some clarification is the concept of radio frequency radiation accumulation. Utilities have gone on record claiming that a 30 minute cell phone produces an equivalent exposure as decades standing next to a Smart Meter (making the enormous assumption that these cheaply built plastic meters will even last half that long). At the same time, quite to the contrary, some are saying that cumulative, biological effects are not believed to exist.
From the Vermont Department of Health's Smart Meter report:The vast majority of new research and more recent summaries on the health effects of radio frequency radiation have focused on non-thermal effects. Other issues of interest include concerns that certain people are more sensitive to RFR than others, that certain frequency modulations are uniquely harmful, and that long-term exposure to RFR can have cumulative effects.
The VDH concludes with a 13 year-old statement by a non-health organization:
The IEEE (1999) stated:
That no reliable scientific data exist indicating that a) certain subgroups of the population are more at risk than others; b) exposure duration at ANSI C95.1- 1982 levels is a significant risk; c) damage from exposure to electromagnetic fields is cumulative; or d) nonthermal effects (other than shock) or modulation-specific sequelae of exposure may be meaningfully related to human health.
The truth of the matter is that there is no reliable way to quantify cumulative exposures to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. However, it is clear that the longer a person is exposed to electromagnetic radiation, the more likely they are to experience health problems, either directly related to the exposure, or indirectly from a weakened immune system, anxiety, sleeplessness, changes in serotonin or melatonin levels, compounding chemical exposures, inability to detoxify, or broken DNA.
Our bodies are not machines and no one responds the exact same way to any given environmental pollutant. The only absolute fact is that the lower your exposure to electromagnetic fields, the lower your risk of getting sick will be.
Further reading:
Exposure to electromagnetic fields and suicide among electric utility workers - Western Journal of Medicine
The results of this study provide evidence for an association between cumulative exposure of extremely low-frequency EMFs and suicide, especially among younger workers. We hypothesize that an increased vulnerability at younger ages may be based on a change in the nature of depression with age, with suicide more closely linked to depression among younger workers and physical impairments among older workers. Future research on the effects of exposure to EMFs on suicide and depression is warranted to examine moreclosely the temporal pattern of exposure, depression, and suicide.
Leukemia following Occupational Exposure to 60-Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields among Ontario Electric Utility Worker - American Journal of Epidemiology
In conclusion, this study confirms the previously observed associations between estimated exposure to magnetic fields and certain types of leukemia in the Ontario Hydro component of the triutility study (25). Uniquely, it demonstrates significant associations with cumulative electric field exposure and the occurrence of all leukemia, with suggestions that the risk may mainly relate to acute nonlymphoblastic leukemia and its component acute myeloid leukemia. Exposureresponse relations are present for these associations.
Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards - Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy
Scientific research has shown that ELF and RF fields interact with DNA to stimulate protein synthesis, and at higher intensities to cause DNA damage. The biological thresholds (field strength, duration) are well below current safety limits. To be in line with EMF research, a biologically based standard must replace the thermal SAR standard, which is fundamentally flawed. EMF research also indicates a need for protection against the cumulative biological effects stimulated by EMF across the electromagnetic spectrum.
A precautionary limit should be adopted for outdoor, cumulative RF exposure and for cumulative indoor RF fields with considerably lower limits than existing guidelines. It should reflect the current RF science and prudent public health response that would reasonably be set for pulsed RF (ambient) exposures where people live, work and go to school. This level of RF is experienced as whole-body exposure, and can be a chronic exposure where there is wireless coverage present for voice and data transmission for cell phones, pagers and personal digital assistants (PDAs) and other sources of radiofrequency radiation. Although this RF target level does not preclude further rollout of WI-FI technologies, wired alternatives to WI-FI should be implemented, particularly in schools and libraries so that children are not subjected to elevated RF levels until more is understood about possible health impacts. This recommendation should be seen as an interim precautionary limit that is intended to guide preventative actions. More conservative limits may be needed in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment