I was on the phone with the CPUC public advisor this morning and to everything I said–such as double strand DNA breaks, crossing blood brain barrier or even the World Health Organization’s declaration of RF radiation being possibly carcinogenic–the advisor just said “It meets the FCC standards”; so this e-mail (from EMF SafetyNetwork website) which just came in, felt like a relief as Cindy is saying “Hey, wait a minute . . .”
A few Points which stood out from my reading. To read the entire article and Sage’s report, please see the link above.
On the Dangers to the Public, especially Children who play at home and in their yards. Sage writes: “What is most concerning is that these meters can be accessible directly at and near the face plate of the meter, so that the public cannot be restricted (these are on private property and all areas around the meter are private property that can be assumed to be accessible by both children and adults). Such access virtually guarantees that violations will occur. Access is not a controllable situation since these meters are on private property of every ratepayer, and accessible to the general public, including children playing in their backyards, side yards, or inside their home. . . . the FCC has no way to prevent harmful exposures (those which exceed federal safety limits as defined by the FCC).”
Sage’s Recommendation: “Deploying millions of wireless utility meters on such limited testing and questionable assertions of safety is unwise. Given that RF has recently been classified as a Possible Human Carcinogen, and this wireless utility meter initiative imposes the most extensive RF blanket yet created over every living resident that is electrified, ratepayers and the decision-makers will not know what irretrievable commitments of health and resources have been made until it is too late. Where even the best industry study cannot give more reliable and defensible evidence of compliance with FCC safety limits, public utility commissions should halt the rollout, pending demonstration that RF emissions meet FCC public safety limits under a reasonable worst-case assessment as determined by FCC OET 65 formulas.”
We are told that this radiation meets FCC limits. We are also told that if it is below those limits, it is safe. And one third wrinkle: When it doesn’t meet FCC limits, that’s okay, too. The FCC provides a special form for industry applicants to fill out to get approval in those situations.
Or they simply ignore the violation: For example, Amy O’Hair (from StopSmartMeters.org) has written that one type of Smart Meter used by PG &E “uses a 4db antenna, ramping up transmitting power to 2.5 watts, which exceeds the FCC’s limit for this unlicensed band by a factor of 2.5 (limit is 1 watt).”