"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Edmund Burke
|
What exactly is electro smog: Electro-smog is a type of pollution, which is caused by invisible electromagnetic radiation (EMR) resulting from the use of both wireless technology and mains electricity.
What is a Smart Meter? A Smart meter is an AMR (automatic meter reader) and AMI (automatic meter infrastructure) meter, which uses wireless technology, in other words RF radiation, in order to send information to a drive by vehicle or in case of a grid coverage directly to your utility supplier. Watch this video by Steve Magee (author of: Solar Radiation, Global Warming, and Human Disease) to find out more: The Difference Between AMR meter and Smart Utility Meters (AMI). What's worse Mobile Phone or Smart/AMR meter? There is no such thing as safe exposure for ovarian follicles, just as there is no such thing as better cancer or headache, therefore we believe that the exposure to RF should be as small as possible. The evidence suggests that we should minimise the usage of mobile phones, wi-fi routers and turn them off when we don't use them (especially when we sleep). Mobile phones should only be used when necessary and for short periods of time. If we do not carry them on our body and their usage is intermittent, then exposure tends to be less dangerous than the chronic exposure over constant long periods of time (such as exposure to AMR, Smart meters, Radars, Mobile masts). "Community policy on the environment shall be based on precautionary principle and on the principles that preventative action should be taken, that environmental damage should, as priority, be rectified at the source and the polluter should pay" (Treaty of the European Union, 1992). There is this fundamental difference between having a consumer choice between what technology to buy and when we will use it in our life, and having utility companies come along and say we are going to force this on you and you will be using it on a 24/7 basis whether you like it or not. The precautionary principle: "Precautionary principle provides justification for public policy actions in situations of scientific complexity, uncertainty, and ignorance, where there may be a need to act in order to avoid, or reduce, potentially serious or irreversible threats to health or the environment, using an appropriate level of scientific evidence , and taking into account the likely pros and cons of action and inaction" (Gee, 2006). Taken from the European Environment Agency Bio-Initiative Report, 2007, section 16). WHO (World Health Organisation) is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency: More than 200 scientists from 40 countries called on the U.N. and the WHO for greater protection against non-ionizing radiation. This includes microwaves and radio frequencies from wireless technology. 'WHO and ICNIRP claims that low levels of radiation are safe, in spite of growing scientific evidence to the contrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health.' they say (Source: International AppealScientists call for Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure). Citation from: House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee Smart meter roll out (UK, 2013–14): The advice from the UK Health Protection Agency is seriously flawed as is the advice from ICNIRP as they are heavily influenced by industry. Governments are following the same path as was followed by the tobacco industry, although the telecommunications industry is far more powerful. I hope that you will do something to halt the roll out. If you don’t then the health of many people will worsen and the levels of cancer in future years will increase. One of my children is electrosensitive and we have had to remove her from the local authority school as she suffered from severe headaches only when exposed to the WiFi radiation being transmitted from the laptops and wireless routers. ; There are many studies showing the damage caused by this technology and even WHO classified this technology as a class 2B carcinogen—and yet governments are attempting to increase the exposure. The more devices emitting RF in our surroundings the more problems our body has to cope with. AMR and Smart meters are yet another pollutant added to our already polluted environment. In addition, we can't just switch off these devices. This infringes our human rights to a healthy environment as well as our rights of being a tenant or home owner. "Until we are really sure that there is no health issue connected with non-ionising radiation we should be very careful with our decisions" (source). EU parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: EU assembly has repeatedly stressed the importance of states' commitment to preserving the environment and environmental health, as set out in many charters, conventions, declarations and protocols since the United Nations Conference on Human Environment and the Stockholm Declaration (Stockholm, 1972). The Assembly refers to its past work in this field, namely Recommendation 1863 (2009) on environment and health: better prevention of environment-related health hazards and more generally Recommendation 1885 (2009) on drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a healthy environment and Recommendation 1430 (1999) on access to information, public participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice implementation of the Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention. ********************************************************************* Contact details: [email protected] ********************************************************************* |
.Scientist Dr. Barry Trower has announced that the telecommunications industry, with the co-operation of governments around the world, is violating the Nuremberg treaty by allowing human experimentation on a global scale. Dr. Trower also references an Environmental Law, which says any entity which damages an environmental water supply, a habitat, an environment, any animals, any nature conservation area is liable for the damage. The Nuremberg Treaty defines that no person may be experimented upon for any reason (including microwave radiation) without their consent and before they give their consent they must have full knowledge of the length of the experiment, the outcomes, any potential dangers and ill healths. People must give individual consents to such experiments (source). Based on epidemiological studies, 3% of the UK population (1.8 million people) will become seriously ill after the Smart meter roll-out, however the evidence will be called non-conclusive and links will not be drawn (Microwave Radiation Expert and whistle blower Dr. Barrie Trower).
Revelations about the dangers of smart meters and the deceptions perpetrated on people are just beginning. Please, let us invoke the precautionary principle and implement a moratorium now, before any further damage is done. To provide perspective, it seems appropriate at this point to quote the Attorney General for the state of Illinois (USA) who made some important common sense observations, as appropriate today as they were in 2011: “The utilities want to experiment with expensive and unproven smart grid technology, yet all the risk for this experiment will lie with consumers. The pitch is that smart meters will allow consumers to monitor their electrical usage, helping them to reduce consumption and save money. Consumers don’t need to be forced to pay billions for so-called smart technology to know how to reduce their utility bills. We know to turn down the heat or air conditioning and shut off the lights. The utilities have shown no evidence of billions of dollars in benefits to consumers from these new meters, but they have shown they know how to profit. I think the only real question is: How dumb do they think we are?” (Reference).
Once their meters are be installed it will be much harder to try stopping gas and electricity providers following the same model, which will turn our households into a life-size microwave ovens. Therefore we encourage EVERYONE to not give consent, refuse Smart meters and intead request an analogue meter, which can fulfill your obligation to allow Southern Water to meter the usage, but to do so without any possible risks to your health. If the point is to measure the utility (whether it is gas, electricity or water usage) then these meters have proved themselves to be accurate and reliable.
When considering exposure in the context of ICNIRP guidelines, it is important to recognise that the guidelines are intended to limit TOTAL EXPOSURE to radio waves from all sources and not just that part of exposure arising from a particular device! The document also states that radiation values of very short-term peak fields be regarded as instantaneous values, which should NOT be time averaged!
(ICNIRP is the internationally recognised body that sets guidelines for protection against adverse health effects of non-ionising radiation).
The recommended guidelines of this organisation and guidelines of WHO should not be taken into consideration. The ICNIRP recommendations have been criticised for being obsolete and the European Parliament has in a resolution asked the European Commission to review the scientific basis. The ICNIRP standards do not take into consideration possible long term effects, cancer for example. One would ask why are they in denial and keep lying to public? They are lying to protect themselves from law suits and to protect their profits and make money for industry.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION and ICNIRP: Professor Ahlbom, who is supposed to chair the expert group on epidemiology at the upcoming IARC evaluation of the carcinogenicity of mobile phone radiation, is the cofounder of 'Gunnar Ahlbom AB' a Brussels-based lobby firm aiming to assist the telecoms industry on EU regulations, public affairs and corporate communications. Professor Ahlbom created the lobby firm in 2010 together with his brother and sister-in-law who live in Brussels. The brother, Gunnar Ahlbom, has been a telecoms lobbyist in Brussels since the early 90’s, and was already active in this field in 1998 when Professor Ahlbom participated in the setting of the controversial ICNIRP standards on radiation from different sources of non-ionizing radiation like wireless devices and cell towers. There is evidence that Professor Ahlbom has had a preconceived opinion about EMF (electromagnetic field) radiation and health risks for a long time. The latest evidence suggests that he might have been consciously doing outcome-oriented research and reviews. In the last years he has repeatedly and firmly declared that there are no effects at exposure levels below the ICNIRP guidelines, systematically ignoring or criticising the entire body of research concluding there is a risk.
Sir William Stewart, the Chairman of the Health Protection Agency has stated that he thinks that the WHO are wrong to state that there are no adverse health effects from low level long-term exposure to wireless devices (Panorama, 2007).
The UK Health Protection Agency (HPA) advise the UK Government on the use of wireless technologies in schools. The HPA (2008) have stated that: "There is no consistent evidence to date that Wi-Fi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population. ... the results so far show exposures are well within internationally accepted (ICNIRP) guidelines."
In 2007 the above statement said 'no evidence', this has since been changed to 'no consistent evidence'.
The position of the UK Health Protection Agency contrasts with that of the French Health and Security Agency which is recommending that people reduce their exposure to wireless technologies because of health concerns (October 2009).
The above UK statements raise several important questions about the safety of non-ionising RF (radio frequencies):
1. The HPA statement does not say that it is completely safe, it says that the evidence is not consistent.
2. So, of importance is the question: how consistent should the evidence be before a precautionary approach is taken.
3. Should we consider the health of the 'general population', or should we be protecting vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women, and those with existing diseases?
4. Is it enough to be within the ICNIRP guidelines?
The story is very much the same in the USA where FCC (The Federal Communications Commission agency of the United States government) in 1991 referred to RF radiation in its conclusions, as a ‘Hazard,’ specifically setting a ‘Hazard Threshold.’ It has been discovered that, even amongst the 120 studies chosen by the Committee to prove the validity of its Hazard Threshold, there were 15 studies that concluded adverse effects at levels lower than the Hazard Threshold, thus disproving its validity. Three of these studies actually showed adverse effects at less than 10 percent of the Hazard Threshold. Thus these guidelines also have no credibility!
If half of the scientific studies show that your child's health or functioning may be made worse by repeated exposure to wireless technologies and half say that it is not likely to be affected, would you choose for them to use only wired-up devices for now until more is known? Would you like to be aware of the information? Hopefully future research will shed light on why damage is seen in some situations and not others. But as stated in its definition (see A Precautionary Approach), The Precautionary Principle can provide justification for action where there is scientific complexity. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it - as some nations have already done.
Too many times 'experts' have claimed to be experts in fields where actually the only expert comment should have been "I just don't know". Let's not forget that experts raised a "no risk flag" in the past about things such as DDT, X-ray, Tobacco, Asbestos, BPA, BSA, Heavy Metal Exposure, Fluoride etc. before the true knowledge came around, which often ended up with huge economic costs and suffering to many human beings. Certain industry-loyal scientists have preconceived opinions and systematically ignore or criticise the entire body of research concluding there is a risk.
Some experts such as Prof. Anders Ahbom and Dr. Alexander Lerchl are of huge economic interest for the telecommunications industry. They have been working for the industry and then were appointed to set the guidelines and radiation limits for WHO (World Health Organisation). The limits are generous and permit extensive exploitation of the technology. The industry has thus adapted its technology to the WHO values and any lowering of the limits would have enormous economic consequences.
Along those lines, it is now very important to clearly identify the background of every expert in scientific communities, and likewise in order to avoid so called experts such as Professor Anders Ahlbom (who participated in the setting of the controversial ICNIRP standards on non-ionising radiation adapted by WHO) dismissing all studies indicating health risks and/or biological effects to the benefit of the industry. The ICNIRP recommendations have been criticised for being obsolete and the European Parliament has asked the European Commission to review the scientific basis. The council of ethics of the Karolinska Institute where Ahbom is employed, concluded in 2008, that the ICNIRP membership may be considered a conflict of interest (WHO whole article "Conflict of Interest at The WHO"). We'd like to highlight that independence and credibility of scientific expertise without links to the industry is crucial for accomplishing a transparent and balanced assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health.
Outcome of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:
While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have wholly beneficial effects which are applied in medicine, other non-ionising frequencies, whether from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications, mobile telephony (and recently in devices such as Smart meters) appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals as well as the human body, even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.
As regards standards or threshold values for emissions of electromagnetic fields of all types and frequencies, the Assembly strongly recommends that the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle is applied, covering both the so-called thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation. Moreover, the precautionary principle should be applied when scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty. Given the context of growing exposure of the population, in particular that of vulnerable groups such as young people and children, there could be extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected.
The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary principle and despite all the recommendations, declarations and a number of statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack of reaction to known or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in adopting and implementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs.
In light of the above considerations, the Assembly recommends that the member states of the Council of Europe (in general terms):
Whilst good science should be repeatable, positive and negative results do not cancel each other out, they highlight the need for further investigations. Therefore we need to halt mandatory installation of smart meters until the complexities of their EMF pulsed signals and attendant health impacts are better understood. There are certain parts of our bodies that have no protection against radiation, such as in children, and unborn children (foetuses), ovarian follicles, people's brain blood barriers, certain hormone and neurotransmitters and inflammatory markers (TGF-Beta 1, MMP-9).
The first observed health effects attributed to Smart meter radiation are erratic blood pressure, followed by irregular heart beat and nervous system abnormalities. We therefore must make a paradigm shift from asking 'what level of harm is acceptable' to 'how can we prevent harm'. Smart Meters effect everybody, not just electrosensitive people.
"About 80% of health problems are caused or contributed to by the exposure to man-made electromagnetic radiation. These technologies have never been studied for safety, in fact all the studies that were done (correctly) show that they are not safe. Utilities [companies] (gas, electric, water) need to know this information".
Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt
Revelations about the dangers of smart meters and the deceptions perpetrated on people are just beginning. Please, let us invoke the precautionary principle and implement a moratorium now, before any further damage is done. To provide perspective, it seems appropriate at this point to quote the Attorney General for the state of Illinois (USA) who made some important common sense observations, as appropriate today as they were in 2011: “The utilities want to experiment with expensive and unproven smart grid technology, yet all the risk for this experiment will lie with consumers. The pitch is that smart meters will allow consumers to monitor their electrical usage, helping them to reduce consumption and save money. Consumers don’t need to be forced to pay billions for so-called smart technology to know how to reduce their utility bills. We know to turn down the heat or air conditioning and shut off the lights. The utilities have shown no evidence of billions of dollars in benefits to consumers from these new meters, but they have shown they know how to profit. I think the only real question is: How dumb do they think we are?” (Reference).
Once their meters are be installed it will be much harder to try stopping gas and electricity providers following the same model, which will turn our households into a life-size microwave ovens. Therefore we encourage EVERYONE to not give consent, refuse Smart meters and intead request an analogue meter, which can fulfill your obligation to allow Southern Water to meter the usage, but to do so without any possible risks to your health. If the point is to measure the utility (whether it is gas, electricity or water usage) then these meters have proved themselves to be accurate and reliable.
When considering exposure in the context of ICNIRP guidelines, it is important to recognise that the guidelines are intended to limit TOTAL EXPOSURE to radio waves from all sources and not just that part of exposure arising from a particular device! The document also states that radiation values of very short-term peak fields be regarded as instantaneous values, which should NOT be time averaged!
(ICNIRP is the internationally recognised body that sets guidelines for protection against adverse health effects of non-ionising radiation).
The recommended guidelines of this organisation and guidelines of WHO should not be taken into consideration. The ICNIRP recommendations have been criticised for being obsolete and the European Parliament has in a resolution asked the European Commission to review the scientific basis. The ICNIRP standards do not take into consideration possible long term effects, cancer for example. One would ask why are they in denial and keep lying to public? They are lying to protect themselves from law suits and to protect their profits and make money for industry.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION and ICNIRP: Professor Ahlbom, who is supposed to chair the expert group on epidemiology at the upcoming IARC evaluation of the carcinogenicity of mobile phone radiation, is the cofounder of 'Gunnar Ahlbom AB' a Brussels-based lobby firm aiming to assist the telecoms industry on EU regulations, public affairs and corporate communications. Professor Ahlbom created the lobby firm in 2010 together with his brother and sister-in-law who live in Brussels. The brother, Gunnar Ahlbom, has been a telecoms lobbyist in Brussels since the early 90’s, and was already active in this field in 1998 when Professor Ahlbom participated in the setting of the controversial ICNIRP standards on radiation from different sources of non-ionizing radiation like wireless devices and cell towers. There is evidence that Professor Ahlbom has had a preconceived opinion about EMF (electromagnetic field) radiation and health risks for a long time. The latest evidence suggests that he might have been consciously doing outcome-oriented research and reviews. In the last years he has repeatedly and firmly declared that there are no effects at exposure levels below the ICNIRP guidelines, systematically ignoring or criticising the entire body of research concluding there is a risk.
Sir William Stewart, the Chairman of the Health Protection Agency has stated that he thinks that the WHO are wrong to state that there are no adverse health effects from low level long-term exposure to wireless devices (Panorama, 2007).
The UK Health Protection Agency (HPA) advise the UK Government on the use of wireless technologies in schools. The HPA (2008) have stated that: "There is no consistent evidence to date that Wi-Fi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population. ... the results so far show exposures are well within internationally accepted (ICNIRP) guidelines."
In 2007 the above statement said 'no evidence', this has since been changed to 'no consistent evidence'.
The position of the UK Health Protection Agency contrasts with that of the French Health and Security Agency which is recommending that people reduce their exposure to wireless technologies because of health concerns (October 2009).
The above UK statements raise several important questions about the safety of non-ionising RF (radio frequencies):
1. The HPA statement does not say that it is completely safe, it says that the evidence is not consistent.
2. So, of importance is the question: how consistent should the evidence be before a precautionary approach is taken.
3. Should we consider the health of the 'general population', or should we be protecting vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women, and those with existing diseases?
4. Is it enough to be within the ICNIRP guidelines?
The story is very much the same in the USA where FCC (The Federal Communications Commission agency of the United States government) in 1991 referred to RF radiation in its conclusions, as a ‘Hazard,’ specifically setting a ‘Hazard Threshold.’ It has been discovered that, even amongst the 120 studies chosen by the Committee to prove the validity of its Hazard Threshold, there were 15 studies that concluded adverse effects at levels lower than the Hazard Threshold, thus disproving its validity. Three of these studies actually showed adverse effects at less than 10 percent of the Hazard Threshold. Thus these guidelines also have no credibility!
If half of the scientific studies show that your child's health or functioning may be made worse by repeated exposure to wireless technologies and half say that it is not likely to be affected, would you choose for them to use only wired-up devices for now until more is known? Would you like to be aware of the information? Hopefully future research will shed light on why damage is seen in some situations and not others. But as stated in its definition (see A Precautionary Approach), The Precautionary Principle can provide justification for action where there is scientific complexity. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it - as some nations have already done.
Too many times 'experts' have claimed to be experts in fields where actually the only expert comment should have been "I just don't know". Let's not forget that experts raised a "no risk flag" in the past about things such as DDT, X-ray, Tobacco, Asbestos, BPA, BSA, Heavy Metal Exposure, Fluoride etc. before the true knowledge came around, which often ended up with huge economic costs and suffering to many human beings. Certain industry-loyal scientists have preconceived opinions and systematically ignore or criticise the entire body of research concluding there is a risk.
Some experts such as Prof. Anders Ahbom and Dr. Alexander Lerchl are of huge economic interest for the telecommunications industry. They have been working for the industry and then were appointed to set the guidelines and radiation limits for WHO (World Health Organisation). The limits are generous and permit extensive exploitation of the technology. The industry has thus adapted its technology to the WHO values and any lowering of the limits would have enormous economic consequences.
Along those lines, it is now very important to clearly identify the background of every expert in scientific communities, and likewise in order to avoid so called experts such as Professor Anders Ahlbom (who participated in the setting of the controversial ICNIRP standards on non-ionising radiation adapted by WHO) dismissing all studies indicating health risks and/or biological effects to the benefit of the industry. The ICNIRP recommendations have been criticised for being obsolete and the European Parliament has asked the European Commission to review the scientific basis. The council of ethics of the Karolinska Institute where Ahbom is employed, concluded in 2008, that the ICNIRP membership may be considered a conflict of interest (WHO whole article "Conflict of Interest at The WHO"). We'd like to highlight that independence and credibility of scientific expertise without links to the industry is crucial for accomplishing a transparent and balanced assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health.
Outcome of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:
While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have wholly beneficial effects which are applied in medicine, other non-ionising frequencies, whether from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications, mobile telephony (and recently in devices such as Smart meters) appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals as well as the human body, even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.
As regards standards or threshold values for emissions of electromagnetic fields of all types and frequencies, the Assembly strongly recommends that the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle is applied, covering both the so-called thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation. Moreover, the precautionary principle should be applied when scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty. Given the context of growing exposure of the population, in particular that of vulnerable groups such as young people and children, there could be extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected.
The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary principle and despite all the recommendations, declarations and a number of statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack of reaction to known or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in adopting and implementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs.
In light of the above considerations, the Assembly recommends that the member states of the Council of Europe (in general terms):
- take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields
- put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially targeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age
- pay particular attention to “electrosensitive” people who suffer from a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network
- raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT wireless telephones, baby monitors and other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves (source)
Whilst good science should be repeatable, positive and negative results do not cancel each other out, they highlight the need for further investigations. Therefore we need to halt mandatory installation of smart meters until the complexities of their EMF pulsed signals and attendant health impacts are better understood. There are certain parts of our bodies that have no protection against radiation, such as in children, and unborn children (foetuses), ovarian follicles, people's brain blood barriers, certain hormone and neurotransmitters and inflammatory markers (TGF-Beta 1, MMP-9).
The first observed health effects attributed to Smart meter radiation are erratic blood pressure, followed by irregular heart beat and nervous system abnormalities. We therefore must make a paradigm shift from asking 'what level of harm is acceptable' to 'how can we prevent harm'. Smart Meters effect everybody, not just electrosensitive people.
"About 80% of health problems are caused or contributed to by the exposure to man-made electromagnetic radiation. These technologies have never been studied for safety, in fact all the studies that were done (correctly) show that they are not safe. Utilities [companies] (gas, electric, water) need to know this information".
Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt