Re: Smart Meters in communities
From: Valerie McIntyre (
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Yes, let's get this topic back on topic. You population-growth folks can
apply for your own subject line! :-)

Thanks for the CCST document, Dick.
As you likely know, the California Council on Science and Technology Report
on the Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters promotes the
standard industry line.

The Key Findings don't reflect the views of Dr. Magda Havas, author of a
requested written submission (See: Appendix D, Biologists/Medical category).
Havas' reasons for not supporting the conclusions of the CCST report may be
of interest: <>
BioInitiative Report founder, Cindy Sage's response to the CCST Report may
also be of interest: <> I
haven't checked all the contributors' submissions but it doesn't take too
much imagination to get the drift of things.

My response to the four Key Report Findings on page 5 of the CCST Report <> is as follows:

No. 1 is irrelevant. Nobody who's concerned about the biological and health
effects of wireless radiation cares about ranking common household
electronic devices. If any of them are close enough and of sufficient
intensity, they're potentially dangerous.

No. 2 is also irrelevant. We're not concerned with only thermal impact, the
problem is thermal and non-thermal.
(For those new to this subject: standards for safe levels of wireless were
originally tied to thermal effects, i.e. those effects which would heat up
skin or tissue. It's been found now that there are negative non-thermal
radiation effects and they're becoming known at a rapid pace, evidenced by
the rise in brain tumors among cell phone users, and childhood leukemia in
areas near cell towers.

No. 3 is simply wrong. There's a wealth of independent scientific
information about the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation on
people and the environment. The World Health Organization just this year
gave wireless radiation a class 2B "possibly carcinogenic" classification.

Industry-funded studies manage to discount this legitimate science but many
countries have seen through this misinformation campaign. Unfortunately the
United States and Canada, due to an apparent lack of money and political
will, refuse to take a serious look at the issue.

A special note should be made of the fact that smart meters have been sprung
on us so recently that there is a shortage of information about their
effects. But responsible governments, mostly at the local/municipal level,
are calling for a moratorium on installation of smart meters until their
impact can be properly assessed.

No. 4 is also wrong, and a bit of diversion from the real issue. Enough is
known to warrant more study and taking a precautionary approach. The issue
is not lack of information but the lack of will in the U.S. and Canada to
look at the existing information and to ask for more. This is a
fast-changing field and FCC standards based on thermal effects are
ridiculously and dangerously out of date.

Is consensus in our communities possible?  I think raising awareness about
the issues is a first step.
 Valerie  - from WindSong Cohousing, Langley, BC

From: Richard L. Kohlhaas (   Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011
21:53:25 -0700 (PDT)

Here is another take on smart meters:

Dick Kohlhaas
(PhD Electrical Engineering)
Resident of  Colorado Springs Cohousing Community at Casa Verde Commons

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.