Institute for Health and the Environment

andDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences
School of Public HealthThis is a report on the review of the California Council on Science and Technology document, “HealthImpacts of Radiofrequency from Smart Meters”. I am a public health physician and former Dean of theSchool of Public Health at the University at Albany. I have been involved in review and analysis ofstudies on electromagnetic fields, including radiofrequency fields, for many years. I served as theExecutive Secretary to the New York State Powerlines Project in the 1980s, and have published severalreviews on the subject and have edited two books. In addition I was invited to present to the recent
President’s Cancer Panel on the subject of powerline and radiofrequency fields and cancer.
This document is not an accurate description of the state of the science on the issue of radiofrequency
fields, and is full of inaccuracies. My specific concerns are as follows:
1. The benefit of the smart meters is entirely to the utilities, and is economic in nature. If they install
smart meters they can fire those individuals who at present are employed to go around reading
meters. Thus this is a job-killing proposal, and will increase unemployment in a state that alreadyhas too much.
2. When a smart meter is installed residents have no choice in the matter nor ability to avoid
exposure. But every individual has the option to use or not use other personal wireless devices,
until more is known about health consequences of chronic RF exposure. There is a majordifference between an exposure which an individual chooses to accept and one that is forced on
individuals who can do nothing about it.
3. The statement “The potential for behavioral disruption from increase body tissue temperatures isthe only biological health impact that has been consistently demonstrated and scientifically provento result from absorbing RF within the band of the electromagnetic spectrum that smart metersuse” is totally wrong. In the first place there are many adverse health effects other than“behavioral disruption” demonstrated as a result of tissue heating. The evidence for increased riskof brain tumors, acoustic neuromas and parotid gland tumors in individuals who have used a cellphone for 10 years or more is consistent, and the tumors occur predominantly on the side of thehead where the phone is used. There is also strong and consistent evidence for increased risk ofleukemia in individuals who live near to high power AM radio transmission towers, even though
this report characterizes such exposures as being “quite low” and show in Figure 7 that they arelower than the RF fields from smart meters.
4. The statement “The scientific consensus is that body temperatures must increase at least 1oC tolead to potential biological impacts from the heat” is totally wrong, and makes it obvious that nopersons with medical or biological expertise participated in this report. Every enzyme system inthe body is exquisitely sensitive to temperature, and increases activity by even a fraction of adegree increase in temperature. In fact all RF generates heat, and what is defined as “nonthermal” is only a function of our ability to measure the temperature increase.
5. The statement “While concerns of brain cancer associated with mobile phone usage persist, there
is currently no definitive evidence linking cell phone usage with increased incidence of cancer” isincorrect. The evidence is strong and consistent among studies looking at long-term and intensive
use of cell phones. The AM radio studies mentioned above are also relevant, particularly because
like smart phones radio transmission towers give whole body radiation, not just to the head.
6. The statement “There currently is no conclusive scientific evidence pointing to a non-thermalcause-and-effect between human exposure to RF emissions and negative health impacts isEast Campus, 5 University Place, Room A217, Rensselaer, NY 12144-3429
PH: 518-525-2660 FX: 518-525-2665
www.albany.edu/iheInstitute for Health and the Environment

andDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences
School of Public Healthinaccurate, and depends totally on what one defines as conclusive”. In biology and medicine there
is nothing that is 100% proven. We rely on statistical significance and weight of evidence whendrawing conclusions about health effects. When one uses these definitions there is conclusive
scientific evidence for adverse health effects in humans.
7. The evidence for adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation is currently strong and grows
stronger with each new study. Wired meters with shielded cable do not increase exposure. The
report clearly indicates that “smart meters could conceivably be adapted to non -wirelesstransmission of data. However, retrofitting millions of smart meters with hard-wired technology
could be difficult and costly.” Clearly the answer to this dilemma is not to install wireless smart
meters to begin with.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this faulty report, and on the general issue of smart meters.
Their use is unwise from both a public health point of view, which is where my expertise lies, but andalso from a purely short and long-term economic point of view.
Yours sincerely,David O. Carpenter, M.D.
Director, Institute for Health and the Environment
University at Albany

East Campus, 5 University Place, Room A217, Rensselaer, NY 12144 -3429
PH: 518-525-2660 FX: 518-525-2665
www.albany.edu/ihe