A Not-Very-Smart Debate on Smart Meters

A smart meter (Image used by permission of Kamstrup, Denmark, Skanderborg)

This morning I had the pleasure of going on the Bill Good show with guest host Mike Smyth at CKNW radio in Vancouver, Canada. Many Canadians are concerned about possible health effects from wi-fi and smart meters, so they had me on to debate Joshua Hart from StopSmartMeters.org. This web site is dedicated to the cause of opposing smart meters (as you might have guessed).

Their page shows a long list of ideological reasons to oppose smart meters. Since they provide more granular reporting than does a once-a-month meter reading, utilities can see whatever data they want about when you’re using their service. This gives some people a perfectly legitimate privacy concern, as well as other concerns like potentially higher charges for on-peak usage. These are perfectly valid arguments, and everyone’s opinion on them is equally valid.

But Joshua goes one step further. Only one of his many reasons to oppose smart meters is health concerns, but since that’s what’s in the news, it was the entirety of what we discussed today. He threw at me the basic arguments that science is accustomed to hearing:

  1. The World Health Organization recently reclassified radio frequencies as a carcinogen. Not true. Responding to public outcry for even more study of this question, they classified it as a “possible” carcinogen — basically, the standard classification for most manmade substances and technologies — to permit WHO researchers to do yet another study on it. If you want to know what the WHO’s true position on RF is, read their statement here.
  2. Smart meters bathe people in microwave radiation. Not true. Radio is far below microwave on the EMF spectrum. You can easily verify this for yourself: Do a simple Google search for “emf spectrum” and you can see the difference. You might also want to check with your local public utility to see on which frequency your smart meters transmit. It’s simple radio, most similar to police radio. We should expect to see similar health issues.
  3. We’re seeing a “cascade” (as he put it) of scientific research showing that radio causes cancer. Not true. You might come to this conclusion if the only sources you read are websites like Joshua’s that are dedicated to anti-radio ideology, but if you look instead at what the research has shown, this would be a bizarre conclusion to reach. The WHO link above does a good job of giving the current understanding, as does this article from Scientific American.

Joshua’s real low point (and I’m sure he regrets it) was when he asserted that scientific study is an insufficient safeguard because “we still don’t know how cigarettes cause cancer.” If this is an argument he’s used before, he’s revealing that he doesn’t even take the most basic effort to inform himself on current science. I will refer Joshua to the #1 (National Cancer Institute) and #2 (About.com) results of a Google search for “how do cigarettes cause cancer”.

An audio download of our debate (25 minutes) should became available at this link and should remain up for about a month.

Ideology is fine. Making up bad science to scare people into supporting your particular ideology is not.

About Brian Dunning

Science writer Brian Dunning is the host and producer of Skeptoid.
This entry was posted in Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Technology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to A Not-Very-Smart Debate on Smart Meters

  1. RobertWilliams22 says:

    JOSHUA HART

    Because of Joshua Hart, many people have looked seriously into this issue.

    Joshua Hart is a true American hero, and most heroes in history have taken tremendous flack and criticism during their life times. It’s not glamorous to be a hero currently, only in history.

    Brian, you do a lot better when you write these articles alone, not so well when Josh is on the show with you.

    The Utility industry and the complete Wireless industry are spending 100’s of millions (1) to discourage government from doing independent studies and to pacify an unsuspecting public. Their methods are more modern, but the patterns are almost identical to those used by the cigarette industry last century when they promoted the “Safety” of their cigarettes.

    Under tremendous industry pressure NOT to add the non-ionizing radiation from Wireless smart meters to the class 2B Carcinogen list, the World Health Organization did so anyway.

    Simply, once a toxin of any kind or any magnitude makes the 2-b carcinogen list, rational people and rational societies do NOT allow exposure to children.

    Voluntary exposure to non-ionizing radiation is another question of an adult’s personal choice and freedom, but involuntary 2nd hand exposure should also be prohibited.

    Products don’t make the class 2-B carcinogen list so that someone can then study them. They get on the list because of the strength of indications that there are serious problems. In my quick review, I have not yet found a single product that made the 2-B Carcinogen list that has ever been removed from the list. Cancer is NOT the only problem from these items, but many other health maladies are associated with these class 2-b carcinogens that set in much sooner than does cancer.

    If you check closely and without bias, you will find that there were a number of votes from the World Health Organization committee that suggested an even stronger classification at the 2-a list as a probable carcinogen. Statements by any individual member of the committee have to be delicate, since 100 % proof is a standard that can rarely be achieved and also because the wireless industry controls tremendous amounts of research and grant funds that universities, as well as individual researchers, count on.

    The Utility Companies prior to May 31, 2011 based their claims of “Safety” on the World Health Organization not making any declarations on the danger of this non-ionizing radiation. So now that the World Health Organization has made this May 31, 2011 tremendous and historical declaration, now you and the industry are attempting to slant the significance of the class 2-b cancer categorization that they have made.

    Below are some experts and links that you can further attempt to minimize. A difficult one to ignore is the insurance company hiring independent scientists and the scientist’s findings are CELL DAMAGE and DNA CHAIN BREAKS. These insurance companies will no longer insure liability from these wireless smart meters and some other wireless devices. I wonder how you will minimize that? Insurance companies are probably the most rational, unemotional and accurate actuarial decision makers on the planet and they won’t insure the meters now due to the non-ionizing radiation damage they see and the associated risks.

    SMART METERS LINKED TO CANCER.

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

    B. The National Institute of Health months ago 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

    C. 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/

    D. Insurance Companies Won’t Insure Wireless non-ionizing radiation Device Risks (includes smart meters), (3 minutes).
    http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=382

    So MANDATORY installation of Wireless smart meters on people’s homes must STOP.

    Because Cell Phone use and other devices are Voluntary and can be shut off at the user’s discretion, that is a different issue.

    1. 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/

    2. 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

    3. 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

    4. RADIATION MEASURED FROM SMART METER MOUNTED ON A HOME ONCE ACTIVE IN THE UTILITY SYSTEM SHOWS RADIATION BURST PULSES APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY FOUR SECONDS 24 HOURS PER DAY traveling through the bodies and brains of the inhabitants of that home.
    Youtube Video (6 minutes, 1st minute is sufficient).

    • erlando says:

      3. 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

      Funny how that press-release is NOWHERE to be found on this page: http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=2637&archive&l=en .

      You should think that the Karolinska Institute listed that rather significant press release along all the other press releases. Also searching on significant phrases within the text yields no results on ki.se

      If one of your sources is so obviously faked why should we believe anyhing you have to say?

      • RobertWilliams22 says:

        Excuse me – that is the link that I saw the report on. I did not fake it, as you say.

        The shills that enter these comment sections are working FOR the utility companies and for other organizations that have a stake in these meters.

        There is no payoff to those, like myself, who bring this information to the attention of a broader public.

        Erlando – Please explain why the independent laboratory scientists reporting at the Commonwealth Club AND the those hired by insurance companies observed CELL DAMAGE and DNA CHAIN BREAKS.

        Those are difficult realities to deny, so instead you go after a link to attempt to diffuse the important information. That is the pattern of shills, but I am NOT accusing you of being a shill, as you accused me of “Faking” but your methods and patterns seem suspicious – don’t you agree

        What is your motivation?

        Also, I am waiting to hear back from you how you explain the insurance companies not insuring liability from the smart meters.

        • erlando says:

          If you saw the “report” (actually it’s only a press release) on ki.se, why are you linking to scribd.com? I find this highly suspicious especially given that no trace of any of the press release is to be found on ki.se. Did they get paid to remove it?

          I’m not a shill. I just loathe intellectual dishonesty.

          • belo says:

            It may very well be that the press release in question actually was issued by KI but then quickly retracted, because it is apparently issued by docent (associate professor) Olle Johansson, who is well known here in Sweden for indiscriminately spreading FUD to the general public in order to secure research grants for himself and his department.

            Docent Johanssons own research into electromagnetic fields and “electrohypersensitivity” is of mediocre quality with regards to scientific method, and its findings are often called into question.

            He was awarded the less than flattering title of “Misleader of the Year” for 2004 by the Swedish non-profit organisation “Vetenskap och Folkbildning” (VoF, translates to “Science and Education” in English) which promotes popular education about the methods of science and its results.

            It is a shame that docent Johansson is still allowed to remain with the Karolinska Institute, since its reputation as one of the leading research institutes in the world hardly benefits from his work. I can only assume that there are politics involved that are beyond the merits and boundaries of science.

            A far more interesting study, released just a few days ago, into the risk of brain tumors in young users of mobile phones is on the contrary fully endorsed by the Karolinska Institute and can be found here:

            http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?l=en&d=130&a=125250&newsdep=130

            Here is docent Johanssons own page about himself at KI, itself grossly misleading regarding EHS in Sweden:

            http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=25981&a=54583&l=en

            Here is the VoF:s reasons for their 2004 award:

            http://www.vof.se/visa-forvillare2004eng

            In short, people referring to Johanssons research a) hasn’t done their homework properly and/or b) cherrypick their sources carefully with regard to the result they want to promote.

    • jaycee says:

      Some interesting links:

      The iarc link confirms the WHO classifying Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic. However the main area of concern seems to be radiation from cellphone usage, i did not see any mention of smart meters.

      The jama link concludes “Conclusions: In healthy participants and compared with no exposure, 50-minute cell phone exposure was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in the region closest to the antenna. This finding is of unknown clinical significance.” again the research is about cellphones not smart meters.

      In both the above cases neither show any actual risk. The IARC refers to a Lancet article. This article does reference a couple of studies that found a correlation between cellphone use some cancers, accepts that these studies were possibly prone to bias but it was not possible to rule out bias as the only factor. More studies no doubt needed.

      However the remaining links are less useful. They seem to link to sites that have already come to a conclusion that electromagnetic radiation is harmful and as such i would treat there information, as i would information about intelligent design from answers in genesis, with a great deal of caution.

      I tell a lie, scribd.org and youtube don’t appear to have a particular motivation but do appear to be sites where anyone can publish anything so the final two link are not evidence I would accept.

      I am interested in the link you provide to show cell and DNA damage caused by non ionising radiation at intensities less than those produced by smart meters. Do you have any links to actual scientific peer reviewed articles on this?

    • JFC says:

      A. Already addressed elsewhere
      B. This is a good test of basic reading skills: An abstract does not designate the consensus opinion of (And I noticed you got the ordering of the words wrong, too) the National Institutes of Health.
      C. … and why should I believe these people? Not getting sucked into that.
      D. … and the same thing with this link. People believe weird things: scientists included (whether they be real or “scientists”).

      I’d also certainly call C&D instances of “Proof by Verbosity”. There’s no reasonable way to speedily find what might be actually reasonable through those pages.

      Begin Side point:

      As often appears to be the case, these are requests for you to watch some video and generally take things in only in the order they present them to you, and furthermore, you aren’t allowed time to sit back and think about the (un)reasonableness of what concepts were just presented. Strictly speaking, you are always allowed to stop the video and think, or rewind and play again, but doing those things is always a bit jarring, so that tends to be avoided.

      Of course, there are many things that may be in a video that are hard to encapsulate by words, especially image juxtaposition, various forms of editing and special effects, “priming”, and emotional content, and that non-semantic information can further distract from the (in)validity of the arguments presented in the video.

      In other words, Videos are a good way to Bog People Down.

      I would tend to think “Proof by Video” might even deserve it’s own subcategory. Videos are good for an introduction to some concept (hey, the InFact videos are certainly worth something), but I’ve seen far too many Wacko’s offer videos as “Proof”.

      And while you might be watching or remarking on said video, the Wackos may still continue their proselytizing.

      End side point:

      Anyways, back to the post:

      … So wait, why are we starting numbering by Arabic numerals instead of letters? Is that a psuedo-reference list?…

      1&2. more videos.
      3. As erlando pointed out, the article is not on their website. There’s no 2/3/2011 publication.
      4. IMO A burst pulse would only be significant if the burst truly generated frequencies in virtually all frequencies as a true impulse would (the closest natural thing that comes to mind would be a lightening strike). But for it to do that, I’m pretty sure it would violate FCC RF interference regulations and interfere with many devices. It would also be pretty hard to imagine that it would produce any more radiation of the possibly harmful variety than a engine’s spark plugs.

    • 127dot0dot0dot1 says:

      @ robertwilliams (if that is your real name…) Just been looking at the 2(b) aka the “Maybe but probably not carcenagenic substances list” – I see Carpentry is on the list. Can I take this to mean that you have no wooden items in your house, nor is any wood used in its construction?

      (okay, its a bit of a strawman… But if Magnetic fields are bad and to be avoided, so must carpentry… right?)

  2. BigFrankieC says:

    Wow, two and a half pages of long-winded reply, and no mention of the definition of “non-ionizing.” Sad.

    Regarding the scare tactic of pointing out that it’s in the same possible carcinogen category as DDT and lead… well, that doesn’t make sense. DDT and lead don’t kill you with cancer. They kill you by damaging the nervous system. Titanium dioxide (that white sunscreen) is on there, too. Those are on the “Possible” list, they’re the ones that didn’t make it onto the “Probable” list which has stuff like burned oils (deep fryers and BBQ.)

    • RobertWilliams22 says:

      1. Oversimplified, non-ionizing radiation does not knock an electron off of an atom to charge the atom and does not create heat as does Ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is monitored by the heat it creates (called thermal effects) and limits are placed on work areas for people and shields are placed on people in dentist’s offices for x-rays, etc.

      For some time, conventional physics assumed that because Non-ionizing radiation does not knock off the electron and does not heat, that it is safe. This seemed reasonable.

      But more recently laboratory scientists have observed the CELL DAMAGE, DNA CHAIN BREAKS and BREACHES in the BLOOD-BRAIN from levels of non-ionizing radiation lower than that coming from the Wireless smart meters.

      These laboratory tests have been repeated in different places and the results are consistent, and consistent with the limited tests done by scientists hired by insurance companies who will no longer insure liability of devices emitting the non-ionizing radiation.

      2. The World Health Organization did place this non-ionizing radiation on their class 2-b Carcinogen list.

      Shills are calling the reporting of this World Health Organization class 2-B carcinogen listing “Scare tactics”. That could be said of any warning of any danger. And yes, the Cell Damage, DNA Chain Breaks, and Breaches in the Blood-Brain Barrier seen in the laboratory have indications of multiple other diseases and health maladies from these Wireless smart meters well in advance of cancer.

      Reasonable people would certainly view placement of a substance on the class 2B Carcinogen list as more credible than a handful of blogging shills who likely were solicited by Brian Dunning to diffuse objections to his inaccurate article.

      • Just to help you out on your terminology. Josh could stand to inform himself on this as well.

        WHO classifications:
        Group 1: Is carcinogenic to humans
        Group 2A: Probably is carcinogenic
        Group 2B: Possibly is carcinogenic

        “Possibly carcinogenic” means “not yet established to be carcinogenic”, whether you like it or not. Every time you say “Class 2-B carcinogen” you’re (a) wrong, it’s a not-established-to-be-a-carcinogen, not a carcinogen; and (b) it’s “Group 2B” not “Class 2-B” which, while a very minor point by itself, tells me you and Josh have spent very little time actually reading the WHO reports you so passionately misstate.

        • Anonymous says:

          Nice try with the selective cut & paste – how much are they paying you Brian? Full table here – gives a slightly different perspective doesn’t it?

          Group 1 – Carcinogenic to humans 107 agents
          Group 2A – Probably carcinogenic to humans 59 agents
          Group 2B – Possibly carcinogenic to humans 267 agents
          Group 3 – Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans 508 agents
          Group 4 – Probably not carcinogenic to humans 1 agent

          • You’re kidding, right? Because you’re simply repeating what I said. How much are “they” paying you?

            Group 2A is where some evidence exists that the substance may be carcinogenic, and group 2B is where no evidence yet exists that the substance may be carcinogenic.

          • Anonymous says:

            @Brian. Is it PG&E you’re working for?

            My point was that you had posted only the first three groupings of the WHO classification, omitting 4 and 5. You will not find twinkles or your badly colour corrected thumbnail shots on these lists, and your definition of “most man-made objects” being on the list is – well, are there less than 1,000 man-made objects? Can you see the number of agents I quoted next to my full table? Included is, essentially, toxins. By including only the first three groupings, you lead the reader into thinking that microwave EMF radiation is at rock bottom. This is disingenuous on your part at best. Deliberately misleading and shill-like at worst. Or maybe 3/5 in the best to worst stakes – depends which sections of the list you’re copying & pasting. Capiche?

          • Yes, I am a shill for an electric utility. They pay podcasters to make episodes on hundreds of unrelated subjects over many years, just so they can sneak in one blog post (out of billions on the web) to misstate some science. Now that you’ve blown our conspiracy wide open, we’re going to have to do some scrambling and damage control.

        • Anonymous says:

          By the way – “Class” = Classification. A 7 year old could have helped you with that one.

          From,

          An eight year old.

  3. @RobertWilliams22:
    By what mechanism do you propose that non-ionizing radio waves cause damage to the human body?

    This source says that smart meters only broadcast at 1W, which would be .001 what a cell phone transmits, not .01. Further, at 2-20ms/broadcast, the total broadcast time amounts to about 45 seconds a day. I’m having a little trouble understanding how 45 seconds’ of exposure to a 1W non-ionizing radio signal can possibly, by any conceivable mechanism, have any adverse health effects.

    Also, is there a reason why you are not protesting against FM radio stations, which broadcast at up to 50,000W 24/7? Seems to me that even if there were any mechanism by which non-ionizing radio waves could cause health damage, that exposure from smart meters would be a drop in the bucket compared to radio stations, which have been broadcasting continuously for many decades. Has anyone ever noticed cancer clusters in the area immediately surrounding radio broadcast towers? I don’t recall seeing any such observations in the scientific literature.

    • RobertWilliams22 says:

      The mechanism to know how the human body is damaged by non-ionizing radiation is important to understand and it is important for developing medicines to interrupt the mechanisms that lead to illness and disease.

      But seeing the damage from Non-ionizing radiation coming from Wireless smart meters, even prior to the mechanism being fully understood, is sufficient to warn the public and prohibit exposure of children and to use alternatives other than Wireless meters, alternatives such as analog meters, meters transmitting via wired shielded cables, meters transmitting via shielded fiber optics, etc.

      Transmission time of 45 seconds a day indicates 22,500 pulsed transmissions per 24-hour day, each radiation transmission being only 2/1000 of a second long. And those 22,500 pulses of radiation occur throughout each day at the rate of approximately one every four seconds 24/7, not within a window of 45 seconds as the utility companies pretend to make people complacent. Given that you are giving the exact same Utility company misrepresentation here, have you also been fooled, or do you have a motivation to promote that deception?

      Pulsed radiation is far more damaging than equivalent totals of steady radiation and FM stations are not more damaging and you mixing apples and oranges to minimize the danger of these smart meters is very suspicious to me as to your motivation. Living under a radio tower is known by most people to be harmful, but at the distances that we typically live away from such towers, that type of radiation is trivial in comparison to wireless 2-way wireless smart meters attached to homes within inches and feet of the people living (and sleeping) within those homes up to 24 hours per day.

      • erlando says:

        Why are you avoiding the question about FM transmitters?

      • I’d also like to ask further info on your statement “Living under a radio tower is known by most people to be harmful.” That’s news to me. I presume you mean living near a radio tower. How near? What kind of harm have they suffered? How did you determine that “most people” know this? Is it the scientific consensus, or do you assert the existence of yet another conspiracy?

        • NedERobinson says:

          @RobertWilliams22
          Is English your second language or are you high on opiates? Your sentences run on and on, often making no sense. For all your words, you say nothing. Work on your syntax; it is hard to take you seriously when you write like a 5th grader.

  4. jaywiener says:

    It is fascinating to see the parallel between the anti-smart meter fanatics and the anti-government Tea Party fanatics. Both start with a mix of facts and nonsense, both have extraordinary energy, and both want to do exactly what is wrong for our society. Telling them the truth is futile; they live in an alternate universe where ‘facts’ are true if and only if they want them to be true. And our opinions do not count.

    • RobertWilliams22 says:

      You have offered NO information at all in your comment.

      To Brian Dunning, the author of this article: I would think that you could do better than these attacks that you have apparently organized under the pretense of random responders to my comments.

      You or they are still welcome to return to the information and the expert links, mostly in video form so easy for all to follow, that I supplied above in my original comment, and challenge it with substance, if you have any. Brian, you were unable to satisfy the listeners who believed and trusted Josh Hart in the debate and your second attempt here on this sight to overcome the truth and somehow win without Josh present is pretty sad.

      • I thank you for your generosity in letting me know that I’m welcome to respond on my own web page.

        I was pretty convinced that you are Joshua Hart, once I read your bizarre post then Googled your username to find that it only exists to copy & paste essentially the same paragraphs to science articles on EMF. You are certainly a motivated man.

        However, your identity is not relevant to the content of your post, and not relevant to intelligent discourse. What is relevant is that, since it’s the same paragraphs you paste everywhere, it doesn’t contain anything specific to my particular blog post. So I don’t feel too motivated to respond. I placed the link to the WHO’s true position on EMF. If you want to pursue this, you can start by reading that.

  5. Woof says:

    @RobertWilliams22: Fractally wrong.

  6. Legion says:

    Here is my well thought out, scientifically researched, critically oriented and repectful reply to RobertWilliams22:

    Shutup, stupid.

    – Legion -

  7. Sue says:

    This does sound like a bunch of shills.

    Thank you for your tremendous efforts to help protect all those being harmed, Robert, including fetuses in the womb. Did you see the recent study strongly linking rf-exposure in the womb to asthma? Many are working on the links between rf-exposure in the womb and autism, and ADD/ADHD, and neurobehavioral issues. Children are being born neurologically deformed, after getting hammered with radiation in the womb. Something is being lost that can never be regained. Brian, can you maintain your utter certainty, in the face of such devastation?

    I was made homeless and extremely electrosensitive by wireless Smart Meters. In a worldwide study, they found that 3-8% of the various populations studied had Electrical Hypersensitivity, and 35% had moderate sensitivity (sensitivity to emf and rf radiation). I know many who have been sickened by their wireless Smart Meters and many who have been made homeless. Can one maintain their utter certainty, in the face of such devastation?

    I can’t go to most public places now. I had found a weekly class that was far enough away from cell phone towers, that I thought I could attend it. (I do a lot of searching and research.) During the first class, I was nauseous and slightly delirious the whole time, and extremely overstimulated and hyperactive. I asked them to turn off their wi-fi router for me, for the next class. I did not get nauseous or delirious, but I felt extremely overstimulated and hyperactive. For the first two classes, it took me several hours after the class, to recover. For the third class, I asked, in addition to turning off the wi-fi router, if everyone could turn off their cell phones for me. I saw people pull out iPhones, which have the new, stronger technology — “3G” or “4G” — a stronger radiation field, from a stronger cell phone tower, to power the phone to be able to do internet and other things. Everyone turned off their phones for me. In this class period, I did not feel overstimulated or hyperactive.

    • Sorry to hear about your experience, but it does ably illustrate why personal anecdotes are not useful as evidence. The scientist knows that his own experiences are subject to personal bias, preconceived notions, observational selection, and most importantly, a lack of controls. Clearly you knew that devices were operating in the room, and you believed they were turned off when you later experienced no symptoms. There was no blinding, and you experienced exactly what you expected to experience. I’m not trying to trivialize your ordeal, I’m only explaining why it does not tell us anything useful.

      Should your mind be open to learning what science has to say on your condition, you can check out my episode about electromagnetic hypersensitivity here. It is treatable.

      • Sue says:

        As a matter of fact, I had no idea that there was a wi-fi router running. I had been to a class there before, several times, before I lived in a Smart Meter operating mesh network, and I had felt utterly fine, then. And I had no idea about how strong i-Phones are, even in their sleep mode. I just assumed I could never attend that class again. A friend of mine suggested I try one more thing, and ask the teacher and fellow students to turn off their cell phones.

        If you can’t believe people whose lives are being utterly destroyecd, I think you lack serious morality, humanity, compassion. Even if you couldn’t care less about adults with this sensitivity, whose lives are being destroyed, at least you might care for the future generations whose lives are being destroyed. That is not treatable. They are being hammered with radiation in the womb, as their delicate embryonic tissues unfold. It does not take a rocket scientist, to see the tragic danger there.

        Oh, there is some success with treatment, for some people with Electrical Hypersensitivity. But, you have to be able to afford the various treatments. I cannot. Remember, there’s no health care coverage in this country for millions, including the most vulernable. My life has been devastated by this illness, I can no longer work, and there’s not a sufficient safety net to catch me, so I can get proper medical treatment. I know so many like me, including some of my close friends.

        • Of course I believe you (you’d know this if you looked at the link I offered). I’ve talked to many sufferers of the same condition. Many of them have had far more dramatic physiological symptoms. But let me make a few points, intended in a helpful spirit.

          1) You say data networks like 3G and 4G are more powerful than regular cell phone signals, and new iPhones are more powerful than other phones. Neither of these is true. It’s like saying cars with new tires have louder exhaust. Like most people, you lack personal expertise in this technology (which is to be expected, there’s no reason you should be a cell phone engineer); all you know about the subject is what you hear anecdotally from friends and from web sites. I’m asking you to open your mind to the possibility that your knowledge on this subject is not as complete as you may think.

          2) You say you didn’t know there was wi-fi operating. Yes, your brain does know that public buildings, especially schools, are going to have data networks. That’s simply the way modern infrastructure works. Supermarkets and libraries have guys walking around with scanners. There is a computer in the classroom’s corner. The custodian has a walkie talkie on his belt. Whether you consciously observed these or not, your brain has already learned to associate wireless technologies with public places.

          • Sue says:

            What on earth are you talking about? I know people who have been electrosensitive for decades, who have been demolished by 3G and 4G cell phone towers. I know this very personally. What do you know about it?

            And I did NOT know there was a wi-fi router. I was sensitive to wi-fi when I went to class there before. I had no problem at all, whatsoever. They’re a very green organization, and I assumed they had wired internet.

          • 127dot0dot0dot1 says:

            @ sue. Firstly, conflict of interest time – I’m a call centre employee and very minor shareholder on one of the worlds biggest telcos – Telefonica.

            But in regards to electo-magnetic sensitivty is it possible; maybe, we see cows tending to orient themselves in N-S directions except where high voltage power lines are present and we know certain other animals do have a magnetic sense.

            But when it comes to WIFI and cellphones… The only proof only ever seems to be anecdotal… Some random Internet stranger/friend/etc thinks they are, but whenever a double blind test is done, wim only aware og see placebo like results.

            But since you personally know a lot of people who are effected…let’s put this to the test. Lets get a swag of wifi devices, femtocells, DECT (cordless) phones, remote control cars, Bluetooth headsets, etc and run a double blind test on you all.

            Not believing has nothing to do with morals, and I think you’re on morally bad ground making such a claim. Not believing has to do with evidence. Common knowledge has been disproven before (see Galileo) and if you can prove in a double blind test this is real, I for one would be delighted to believe you and support your cause.

            Until such proof exists, I shall take delight in the 2.4ghz and 5Ghz networks in my home, plus the 2.1 and 1.8 Ghz networks my cellphone connects with.

  8. Marcracc says:

    We are Dunning. All of us…
    bwahahaha!!

  9. DirectorCEP says:

    Robert Williams is right on all counts. Joshua Hart IS an American hero who is correct about the dangers of smart meters. View the science on http://www.smartmeterdangers.org. View a letter from Professor Olle Johansson to the CPUC located on http://www.scribd.com/doc/59738917/Dr-Johansson-s-letter-re-SmartGrid-Smart-Meter-dangers-to-CPUC-7-9-2011. I am CC’d on this letter which is not faked, nor is the letter Robert Williams refers to. The shameful attacks are obviously by people with conflicts of interest or complete ignorance. Which is it?

    • I can think of no one better qualified to judge “conflicts of interest” or “complete ignorance” than the director of “ElectroSmogPrevention.org” who posts links from a site called “SmartMeterDangers.org”. With as much skin in the game as you’ve got, it’s more than a little funny to see you come on here and charge me with being a shill. A shill for…….???

  10. NedERobinson says:

    It’s impossible to debate people like this, and probably useless as well. “Robert” will continue to move the goalposts rather than address any real criticism of his point of view. The more people that post, the more fake Brian Dunnings there are. Brian is a paid schill for big radio, and we are all his minions. Any speaking out on behalf of science is further evidence of the conspiracy. Thank “god” Brian Dunning has the patience to even talk to these people. Why though must news organizations devote equal time to crack pots who misuse scientific sounding information? Would a reptoid theorist get the same time to explain his or her ideas?

  11. redartifice says:

    I’m not Brian Dunning. I am, however, Spartacus.

  12. M.Hertz says:

    The world turned it’s back when the nazi’ killed millions of people.
    For those of us who have been terribly injured by the dangerous pulsed radiation emissions from AMR “smart” meters, it feels similar.
    Our government and some of our fellow citizens are turning their backs on us.
    In my village, people in their 40’s, 50’s and 60’s are sick and some are dying. This all started when AMR “smart” utility meters were installed here 2-3 years ago. I most likely would have died of a heart attack if the electric company, Con Edison had not removed the meters from my home.
    It’s only a matter of time before the stupid utility companies will no longer be able to use “smart” meters because their customers are going to be dead.
    The utility companies are lying when they say this technology is safe. By now they know.

    • ingrid6726 says:

      I just love it when people throw in Nazi/Hitler into a dicussion, you just know it’s going to be intelligent and logical. I liked it so much that after listening to the Skeptoid podcasts for a couple of months I actually had signed up to the blog to reply to this.
      Firstly, what on earth does the Nazi Party have to do with this!? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Secondly, I have never seen a smart metre; maybe we don’t have them in Australia, I don’t know. But I certainly do know a lot of people in their 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s, that are sick, or have died and this obviously had nothing to do with smart metres. 40 is the beginning of middle age so it is to be expected that they will begin to have more problems unless they really have always looked after themselves and have also been lucky enough to dodge the many different things that can make you sick or die even if you live a healthy life-style. Without all this brilliant technology that you seem to dislike so much, all our lives would be much shorter because your doctor that treats you, the hospital that you go to to have your scans and tests done, the scientists that research and develop the medications that you take, etc. all rely on the marvellous technology that is available. Without it we would be lucky to live to 40 and our lives would be a lot painful without it.
      PS I do not work for an electricity company, a pharamcuitcal company, or Brian Dunning. I just don’t believe “They” are out to get me.

      • 127dot0dot0dot1 says:

        @ Ingrid – they’re coming.
        http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/surge-in-electric-hostility-20110813-1isah.html

        Basically its an electric metre that can do clever things, tell you how much you’re using in real time and historically, charge you less when there’s a lot of surplus power on the grid (like in the dead of night when the folks that own UK wind power plants PAY other electricity providers to STOP making electricity so they can get renewable energy certificates (issued when green power is put in the greed) that the retail electricity MUST buy from them), and charge you more during peak demand.

  13. BigFrankieC says:

    Sweet. I never been called a “shill” before. Does this mean that I’m now a real member of the “skeptic community?” =]

    • roma0104 says:

      Oh, Frankie you have not learned, we are not the ‘real’ skeptics. To be a real skeptic we have to outright reject everything that the media or any authority figure tells us, with no regard to the evidence. Everything from authority is meant to exploit us or harm us.

  14. NedERobinson says:

    Wow there are a lot of genuinely crazy, sad people out there.

    • SmokinAces says:

      As well as there must be “a lot of” genuinely docile, willing sheeple out there who would climb all over each other for the chance to be lab rats & guinea pigs for their local Electric company. Lap it up, power industry lapdogs!

      Is the radiation these things put out harmful?

      I guess time will tell and if and when any of you start getting sick before your time we hope it won’t be too late, just because there may be no more analog meters to go around due to the distinct possibility that by that time, through the efforts of guys like Brian , they will all have become obsolete, and oh well, sorry, no longer available!

      As for us freedom, civil rights and privacy lovers we are not going to allow PG$E to force this all day long intermittent and ongoing 24/7 packet burst radiation crap down our throats. We are locking down our analog meters.

      As for any of y’all who allow your electric utility company to install a smart meter on your homes you may as well just walk around all day with a Facebook helmet webcam pointed at yourselves. Their whole purpose for existence is customer surveillance. For instances:

      1. They individually identify electrical devices inside the home and record when they are operated causing invasion of privacy.

      2. They monitor household activity and occupancy in violation of rights and domestic security.

      3. They transmit wireless signals which may be intercepted by unauthorized and unknown parties. Those signals can be used to monitor behavior and occupancy and they can be used by criminals to aid criminal activity against the occupants.

      4. Data about occupant’s daily habits and activities are collected, recorded and stored in permanent databases which are accessed by parties not authorized or invited to know and share that private data.

      5. Those with access to the smart meter databases can review a permanent history of household activities complete with calendar and time-of-day metrics to gain a highly invasive and detailed view of the lives of the occupants.

      6. Those databases may be shared with, or fall into the hands of criminals, blackmailers, law enforcement, private hackers of wireless transmissions, power company employees, and other unidentified parties who may act against the interests of the occupants under metered surveillance.

      7. “Smart Meters” are, by definition, surveillance devices which violate Federal and State wiretapping laws by recording and storing databases of private and personal activities and behaviors without the consent or knowledge of those people who are monitored.

      But never mind any of the above! Like Bobby McFerrin says “Don’t worry, be happy!” The folks who brought you the BP oil disaster, the Chromium 6 Groundwater contamination mass poisoning and the ongoing Fukushima plutonium spew all have your best interests at heart, don’t they?

      • These are all ideological objections, which are perfectly valid. Nobody here is debating any of this. Having an ideological objection to a product/technology/invention/etc is fine, and it’s everyone’s right. It only crosses the line when you make up untrue science claims to try and scare the public into supporting your ideology. Keep your science and your ideology separate.

  15. roma0104 says:

    I personally find the misinformation about EM fields saddening. Some education on what an EM field is and how prevalent it is, would be in order for a few of us here. I know, the EM spectrum is confusing, scary and hard to grasp with the human mind but once you know what you are talking about all these little ‘monsters’ of EM disappear.

    EM is produced by everything that can transmit ‘information’. The computer you are typing at to the sun. If you are alive you just cannot avoid it. Your brain produces EM fields, the stars above us produce the strongest EM signals ever recorded (although some may be weak when they arrive) and have been doing so for billions of years, yet, here we are. It just does not stand to reason that EM fields are just BAD.

    It is possible that non-ionizing radiation can knock a electron free if the atom was hit by two or more quanta at the same time, although this would be unlikely. You probably would die from some other health problem several times over before having to worry about this happening, and then you body might be able to correct the issue and you would never notice to begin with.

    Hence this is why all kinds of EM producing appliances are labeled as POSSIBLE carcinogens. If you want to go wild with labeling you could label your own nervous system as a possible carcinogen. Some people lack this, so they are safe. :) Okay, enough of that.

    It is HIGHLY unlikely that a <1GHz appliance is going to give you cancer, turn you purple, or make you Spiderman. There is not enough energy there to do the damage (unless you are worried about some super heavy atoms in your body, in that case you probably need to worry about the radiation coming from it), it is not speculation, it is math and the math says it is not a certifiable threat.

    But if you want to run around and spend your life worrying about every little thing that is not 100% certain then be my guest. There is a lot in life that is uncertain and I have a life to live.

  16. soapboxjill1 says:

    Let’s pump a bit of chloroform into our baby’s bedroom 24/7. Let’s add a tad of lead to our kids’ drinking water 24/7. Let’s blow a little motor exhaust into our home air supply 24/7. Let’s put a smart meter on the wall of our home that pulses radio-frequencies in bursts 24/7, along with all the neighbors’ meters, which also pulse 24/7, cutting through our living spaces. Yeah. Let’s not take any precautions with potentially harmful exposures, despite the existance of some scientific studies and people’s reports of harm. Oh, yeah.

    And most of all, let’s demonize people who report they are made sick by wireless emissions, and get better only when away from them. Let’s just label them as crazy and be done with their inconvenient protest. After all, they can’t prove it so that automatically means we should ignore and discredit them, and not call for more studies and prudence in the meantime. They surely do not deserve our respect as fellow human beings, and they surely cannot be as smart as we are either. After all, we do not experience what they experience, so it can’t be real. Even if they have a different physiology and genetic makeup than we do, their bodies should react like ours to have their experiences be real and valid. Yeah.

    Anyhow, we like our convenient phones, wifi and see no problem with smart meters. No one is going to get in the way of our love affair with wireless technology! No one!

    • 127dot0dot0dot1 says:

      Thanks Jill for providing a great example of a Straw Man Argument.

      Lead and Choloroform, which I presume you’ve selected because they appear on the 2B list IIRC have other, proved, effects beyond the hypothesised but not proven Cancer link; Lead in the water has no beneficial effects (as we live in an age where copper and plastic pipes are common and cheap), neither does Chloroform. Wifi, Smart Meters, Cordless and Cellular phones however do.

      I don’t think we’re demonising someone here for having a theory without having evidence. Should we ignore someone who makes claims without evidence, Absolutely. That said, should we ridicule someone who *misuses* science and language to make high profile claims that are not currently supported by either? Yes.

      You have a theory. Go prove it with real science, then call the media – Not Call the media and misuse science and language to get your 15 minutes of game.

      • soapboxjill1 says:

        Why do these 4000+ studies not qualify as “real science?”

        http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeaccess/report/index.htm

        http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Navy_Radiowave_Brief.pdf

        Why should people only acknowledge the studies that counter these studies? Studies can be found on BOTH sides of this issue. Add to this the many reports of sensitivity and illness world wide from exposure to the studies that show biological changes in the body from exposure and YOU HAVE REASON to apply the Precautionary Principle to further proliferation of these devices. Unless you want to play Russian Roulette with public health.

        FCC standards are based on only tissue heating, and they ignore all the studies that show other effects (see links above for SOME of them). FCC standards were set before the current levels of ambient rf, and the wireless explosion. NO ONE tested the COMBINED biological effects of the current SOUP of emissions. NO ONE is keeping track of the levels. (You could actually HAVE heating effects in public places where all the mobots are powering up their cell phones from the COMBINED effect) And anyhow, SINCE WHEN does the FCC have the knowledge and expertise in human BIOLOGY to determine what levels are safe, or not?

        It boils down to a choice: Apply the Precautionary Principle to this technology’s proliferation, or play Russian Roulette with everyone’s health.

  17. Mike Weaver says:

    While these articles are discussing cell phones, the discussion is relevant to smart meters:

    New Data on Cell Phones and Cancer

    A Disconnect between cell phone fears and science

    Critique of “Risk of Brain Tumors from Wireless Phone Use

    On a related note, if one is truly convinced that RF is causing health problems, it isn’t terribly hard to add wire mesh to your room/house to make it a Faraday cage. That will give you a fabulous RF-free place to live.

    I fully encourage that approach as it allows the rest of us to enjoy the benefits of RF-based technologies. Seems to me to be a win all around.

    • soapboxjill1 says:

      Why do these 4000+ studies not qualify as “real science?”

      http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeaccess/report/index.htm

      http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Navy_Radiowave_Brief.pdf

      Why should people only acknowledge the studies that counter these studies? Studies can be found on BOTH sides of this issue. Add to this the many reports of sensitivity and illness world wide from exposure to the studies that show biological changes in the body from exposure and YOU HAVE REASON to apply the Precautionary Principle to further proliferation of these devices. Unless you want to play Russian Roulette with public health.

      FCC standards are based on only tissue heating, and they ignore all the studies that show other effects (see links above for SOME of them). FCC standards were set before the current levels of ambient rf, and the wireless explosion. NO ONE tested the COMBINED biological effects of the current SOUP of emissions. NO ONE is keeping track of the levels. (You could actually HAVE heating effects in public places where all the mobots are powering up their cell phones from the COMBINED effect) And anyhow, SINCE WHEN does the FCC have the knowledge and expertise in human BIOLOGY to determine what levels are safe, or not?

      It boils down to a choice: Apply the Precautionary Principle to this technology’s proliferation, or play Russian Roulette with everyone’s health.

  18. Electric Monk says:

    So let’s talk about smart meters. The power line going in to your home has two sides. The consumer side (your side) and the suppliers side. The meter is powered by the suppliers side, as it is their appliance and they can’t charge you their appliance.

    If you really think there is an issue with the safety of these things, get an electrical engineer to pull one apart and ensure that the meter is actually powered by the suppliers side of the meter. There would be a legal reason to pull them out if the meter’s power supply is taken from your side of the meter and not the suppliers side.

    Apart from that, I will assume that they are legal and the supplier is paying to power these things.

    So here is a logical scenario for you all to consider. The power supply companies are paying to power 300 000 000 of these devices. How much power do you think they are willing to use in their transmitters? Digital communication sends a lot of data in very short bursts. You could send all the data about 24 hours of power usage in seconds.

    Without knowing anything about these devices I would have to assume the amount of time the spend transmitting and the amount of data they transmit would be tiny. That alone would make any risk factors low, even if they could be proven to be “carcinogenic”.

    But if you’re really worried about EMF, don’t drive a car, those spark plugs are nasty. They put out the full spectrum ;)

  19. SmokinAces says:

    The damned things ping and put out a packet burst spike at random intervals averaging about 5-10 seconds between pulses all day long. And yes they are microwave just like Josh says! 2.4 ghz just like your Microwave oven*. There is a reason 2.4 ghz was chosen as the most efficient to heat organic material like food, not to mention people’s brains therefore this is not something any rational person would want to have next to or even anywhere near their living spaces.. But no one ever said the sheeple were rational, did they?

    Recently Josh debated some guy on community access TV who asserted that the CPUC should have jurisdiction in the matter of smartmeter banning or authorization and that local governments should have no say or authority to do anything but what the CPUC says. Like I said before there are plenty of willing sheeple out there who not only enjoy being lab rats and guinea pigs for their local power company, they prefer being governed, controlled, regulated and experimented on by parties less accessible if they ever need to complain (oh perish the thought) due to distance, unfamiliarity and inconvenience! Go figure!

    All I can offer for to explain this sort of preference is that the pro-smartmeter crowd must have already had their brains sufficiently cooked by their microwave oven or maybe even their cellphones.

    Enjoy your servitude, lapdogs!

    Jim Ostrowski

    P.S. my quote for the day:

    “The elite’s arsenal of military and biological weapons [e.g Smartmeters], economic strategies, and social engineering that create most of the suffering and misery on this planet is simply staggering. As many of you already know, the elite can engineer famines, turn natural catastrophes deadlier [e.g. Fukushima], and manufacture others. They can collapse any economy. They can create and release deadly diseases and contaminate our water and food. And they can hide their crimes while creating more social trauma, because they own and control the mainstream media. So why should it surprise you, dear reader, that they use our children as sex slaves and get away with it?”

    “No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.” – William Blum

    *http://www.cmpco.com/smartmeter/

    “The wireless signals from smart meters comply with all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations for commonly used consumer wireless devices. The meters broadcast their signals in the 2.4 GHz to 2.483 GHz frequency range.”

  20. soapboxjill1 says:

    Jim, You lost me with the “use our children as sex slaves…” quote. But I’m with you about the mobots (my new term for braindead mobile users controlled by their addiction to the technology).

    Want to be a Smart Grid Slave? Take a look at these smart article about the smart grid idea’s origins and aims:
    http://www.morphcity.com/home/104-smart-meter-slavery
    http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/smart-meters-no-federal-mandate/

  21. soapboxjill1 says:

    P.S. For those of you who don’t like the “hitler” or “slavery” imagery, get a life. It’s not literal, you silly people, who don’t understand metaphor or simile!

  22. SmokinAces says:

    Hi Jill!

    Are we here all by ourselves? Where did all the so called “skeptoid” Pro SpyMeter …er I mean Smart Meter people go?

    And, a little hint: Remember the “Milk Carton kids” from the ’80’s? Where did they go?

    Perhaps you should paste that quote of William Blum’s on some search engine that doesn’t start with a G to get up to speed, Jill!…I don’t want to “lose” you because I just love your comments on this thread.

    Anyway, it’s looks like we’ve prevailed in this little debate, so Smoke ‘em if you got’ em Jill! Keep an eye peeled tho’ on this place from time to time, cuz ya never know, they have atendency to come out from under thier rocks when they think the coast is clear

    Jim

  23. Skeptical are you! You are a DUMB ASS! ALL CELL PHONE MANUAL’s say to keep THESE DEVICES away from your heads! The New BLACK BERRY TORCH CELL PHONE MANUAL says to keep .98 inches away from your heads and for teenagers and PREGNANT Women to avoid putting these devices near their lower addomens. I’ve been Personally Effected by this HORENDOUS Industry! GEE, ARE YOU THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA? YOU ARE A BONIFIED DUMB ASS! I HAVE CONNECTIONS TO THE WHO OR WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION! NON-IONIZING RADIATION IS A CLASS 2B CARCINOGEN THE SAME AS LEAD, DDT, AND ETHELBENZENE! THIS CLASSIFICATION WAS VERY CLOSE TO BEING A CLASS 2A CARCINOGEN. ALL BECAUSE OF INDUSTRY PRESSURE! QUITE TRYING TO BE A SKEPTICAL WIZARD, BECAUSE YOUR NOT!

  24. Denise says:

    I’m not at all educated on the smart meter technology…I am curious though, don’t many individuals already have all sorts of wireless devices? IE cell phones, smart phones, tablets, ipads, internet, wireless headsets, etc? (I have a number of these items, and I’m a senior, so not just young people use these things)
    How are smart meters different, or more dangerous? Should we be throwing away all these other devices? – Puzzled now..but will educate myself!

  25. Mia Nony says:

    live.the.future says:
    August 6, 2011 at 11:29 am
    @RobertWilliams22:
    “By what mechanism do you propose that non-ionizing radio waves cause damage to the human body?”

    The hard science has now proven that there is indeed a a thermal heat effect caused instantly by non ionizing radiation, which can be and has been indisputably detectable and demonstrated by skilled thermography.

    The mechanism which causes damage to the human body is good old fashioned irrefutable electrical induction.

    Electrical induction is caused by frequency conflict.
    That is why frequency conflict is against the law.

    Ask any electrician or electrical engineer what would happen if you introduced a different frequency to 60- hertz power transmission lines.
    You would go to jail because you could cause electrical collapse of the power grid
    Frequency conflict is against the law.

    In this instance, the frequency conflict is induced between stronger frequencies and natural biological frequencies on which all biological creatures operate.

    Think humans aren’t electrical?
    Ask any doctor about brain waves, ECGs and what they measure.
    EMF non ionizing radiation precipitated electrical induction is taught to medical students for medical credits in the US and in Canada.

    Electrical induction is an indisputable matter of peer reviewed electrical and medical science.

    The electrical induction from EMFs causes what is called the thermal heat effect by excitation of human tissue of the intricate dynamic electrical grid known as the human body.

    Frequency conflict heats biological tissue by means of
    excitation of atoms and molecules. Man made artificial frequencies override the normal 7.85 hertz (awake) of the human body (.5 hertz when asleep) which is in tune with the magnetic lines of flux of the planet.
    Those lines of flux guide and make possible survival and guidance of all biological entities, from human to navigational pollinators, to migration of birds to -echo-location of bats, lines of flux upon which everything from butterflies to whales and dolphins depend.

    So essentially EMF frequencies create conflict and co-opt the human body and force the nerves to switch on and off up to 4.8 billion times a second instead of 157o times a second.

    This in turn causes depolarization of nerves and muscles.

    These frequencies turn house wiring into an antenna and at the same time turn humans, pets, anything biological into an involuntary conductor of these microsecond pulsed frequencies.

    Electrical induction is against EMF law in all “civilized” countries. In Canada Safety Code Six expressly states that the thermal heat effect is “to be avoided”.

    The causal link of electrical induction was unknown and was was deemed to be “missing” for decades.

    EMF code SC6 is obliged to use the weight of evidence to demonstrate safety.

    Instead of using the weight of evidence, Health Canada arbitrarily used microwatts to measure higher levels of detectable heat loads.

    Essentially they employed junk science to determine that if you skin was not burning there must be no harm, a refusal to use weight of evidence which dismissed the weight-of-evidence approach that Health Canada was obliged to use.

    As a result HC deemed that “some” heating of human tissue was to be permitted as long as it did not exceed a certain wattage level.

    So, in the absence of the weight of evidence Health Canada and all equivalent international EMF Safety Codes have continued to permit human exposure to anything less than, in the case of Canada, 1000 watts, deemed “safe”.

    Until now.
    No longer.

    On September 24th, 2010 the weight of evidence for zero tolerable exposure to wireless frequencies was presented to the Standing Committee of the Canadian House of Commons by Curtis Bennett, an electrical journeyman and thermal heat specialist.

    The weight of evidence for electrical induction as the missing causal link to EMF non ionizing radiation harm to humans is no longer “missing” or a mystery.

    The frequencies enabled by smart meters are illegal because the application of the law was obliged to change as soon as Health Canada was presented with the weight of evidence, a methodology they avoided for this issue and which they were obliged all along to have used as an integral prerequisite part of their own laws.
    thermoguy.com
    info@thermoguy.com

    • Stephan says:

      Mia, you might want to post your sources of this, ahem, science, if you want people to take you in any way seriously.

    • This is an incredible comment. I believe, in fact, that every single sentence is wrong. Amazing.

      • Stephan says:

        Thanks @Brian. Having now read it twice, I tend to agree expect for one small detail. I suspect she may have got the email address right.

        • skepticalesquire says:

          Its not just this post either. Google her. Every post and artcle she has in the internet is a wonderous blend of ignorance and imagination.

      • Gregg says:

        “depolarization of nerves and muscles”? Since when did my muscles become magnetic?? It’s like reading one of those crazy people postings that talk of how they receive radio wave commands from space. Google “the master-race Frankenstein Radio controls” and read that!

  26. hh says:

    The most obvious indication that the author doesn’t have clue about the topic is that he states “smart” meters don’t emit microwave radiation. It is very easy to verify if you go to a manufacturer’s site such as Itron, and read a technical specification sheet you will find that “smart” meters broadcast on two bands: 900 MHz and 2.4 GHz, both easily verifiable to exist within the microwave spectrum of 300 MHz to 300 GHz. This blatant error (or lie) is a perfectly good example of why the whole article should be ignored.

    Furthermore, there are thousands of scientific studies showing many different harmful biological effects from chronic low-level microwave radiation, just like a “smart” meter emits 24/7 well below thermal levels. Go to pub med and insert search terms: “microwave chronic low-level health” in various combinations and you will have plenty of reading to do. “Smart” meters are toxic, and are classified as Class 2B carcinogens by the World Health Organization (IARC) as confirmed in a letter by Dr Baan who was on the panel. I don’t know what Brian Dunning’s motives are, but he clearly hasn’t researched the topic adequately or simply lying due to a conflict of interest.

  27. NB says:

    @hh – Thank YOU for pointing out the obvious microwave emissions from “smart” meters. Here’s one of the BEST reports I have found in my two year research of this subject. It is written by a distinguished, credentialed physician and scientist whose career is spanning 55 years – Professor Doctor Karl Hecht at the University of Berlin, Humboldt, a physician, scientist, lecturer Emeritus, etc. Here’s more about his background:
    http://www.karl-hecht.wosco.org/biographi.html

    and here’s his 6 page report that provides his perspective as a doctor and scientist :
    http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/hechtvortrag070724englisch.pdf

Leave a Reply