Posted by EarthCalm Staff- Updated on 6/13/2019 to
Smart Meters are Recognized as Hazardous
The Smart Meter controversy continues. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has now weighed in with its position on smart meter dangers in a letter to the Public Utilities Commission in California, which called to halt Smart Meter installation.
Following in the footsteps of other organizations, such as the World Health Organization (which classified RF as a possible 2B carcinogen—same as lead and DDT) and scientists in hundreds of studies, the AAEM has now added their opinion that the installation of smart meters, which emit the same kind of radiation as cell phones, should be halted immediately.
The AAEM Weighs In
Calling for immediate caution regarding smart meter installations due to radiation health risks, the letter submitted by the AAEM cites several peer-reviewed scientific studies, and concludes that:
“significant harmful biological effects occur from non-thermal RF exposure, showing causality.”
It further states its opinion that the installation is irresponsible & calls not only for a moratorium on installation, but also immediate relief to those requesting it, including the return of analog meters.
Studies Reviewed by Board
The literature cited in the letter raises serious concerns about the levels of RF and ELF exposures emitted by smart meters. The board also states that the existing FCC guidelines for RF safety, that have been used to justify installation of smart meters, only look at thermal damage and are obsolete since many up-to-date studies show metabolic & genetic damage from RF below the level of intensity which heats tissues.
“The current medical literature raises credible questions about genetic and cellular effects, hormonal effects, male fertility, blood/brain barrier damage and increased risk of certain types of cancers from RF or ELF levels similar to those emitted from smart meters.”
“Children are placed at particular risk for altered brain development, and impaired learning and behavior. Further, ELF/RF adds synergistic effects to the damage observed from a range of toxic chemicals.”
The Letter Concludes:
“...It is unacceptable from a public health standpoint to implement this technology until these serious medical concerns are resolved.”
With all the evidence in the literature of smart meter radiation health risks, how did the Public Utilities Commission end up installing them to begin with?
Radiation health risks were not tested based on realistic standards.
RF safety standards set up by the FCC were flawed from the beginning. Aside from measuring only thermal effects and ignoring non-thermal effects, there were other problems in the testing process.
First, the standards were set for only short-term effects (5 & 30 minutes)—which, of course, is different from the actual long-term usage of consumers.
Secondly, they were set based on the effects to an average 6’2”, 200-lb. male, leaving most women and all children out of the equation. It also doesn’t consider the elderly population or those who are ill.
Also, the meters were assessed for safety compliance in isolation, not in a mesh network, in which they are designed to operate. Nor were they assessed in combination with other sources of RF such as Wi-Fi, DECT and cell phones, cell towers, etc.
Will the smart meter controversy ever be solved?
It may still take a while. The wheels of justice seem to turn slowly when issues of this magnitude are involved, despite the fact that the public welfare is endangered. But the AAEM is pushing hard for immediate action on the subject. Dr. Wm J. Rea, member of AAEM & former thoracic surgeon, states:
“By continuing to layer more and more wireless communication within our communities, we are setting the stage for widespread disease.”
Until there's a definitive answer and national precautions, more and more people are taking precautions by turning to EMF protection for their families. Find out more about smart meter radiation concerns and solutions by visiting our website.
The statements herein have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. The technology and products within are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any physical/mental/medical conditions or diseases. If you have a physical/mental/medical condition or disease, please consult a professional health care provider.