Re: Smart meter hysteria. I have two questions: Are the smart meters a significant source of electromagnetic fields in comparison to other sources that we willingly accept? Are present standards adequate?
Here are a few references and there will be contradictions.
1. www.ccst.us/projects/smart/ — a variety of views.
2.www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html — an easy to read report from the World Health Organization.
3. heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/29676.pdf — a highly technical report from EPRI dealing with actual measurements.
4.www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smart-final.pdf — California Council on Science and Technology, quite readable.
From the point of smart meters being significant sources, numbers do count and there is measured data which indicate that peak levels in power density are low — comparable to cell phones only — if one’s head is in contact with the meter at the time it is transmitting. That is quite uncomfortable.
The information written in a recent letter to the editor from B.C. Hydro’s Mr. Murphy is based on actual measurements — as is the EPRI data (3). The protocols and instrumentation are well laid out — one has the data needed to make independent tests.
From the adequacy of the standards level, WHO and others do clearly indicate lack of evidence for non-thermal effects at levels much higher than cell or smart meter exposures. In the case of cell phones, it’s as yet unproven, for which we have no solid data at present so that caution is reasonable (i.e. the 2B cancer warning which is also associated with coffee, carpentry and acrylic fibres) because there is no way to prove a negative.
Can we eliminate risk altogether? Shut down the major source of EM radiation, the sun, and the rest will follow.
D.H. Kelly
Qualicum Beach