Karolinska Institutet
Department of Neuroscience
Experimental Dermatology Unit

Stockholm, January 17, 2011

To whom it may concern
The California Council on Science and Technology, 1130 K Street, Suite 280, California
95814, USA, has recently released its report on wireless smart meters (“Health Impacts ofRadio Frequency from Smart Meters”). In it, the possibility of any low-intensity healthconsequences of chronic exposure to pulsed microwave exposure is denied. However, in thecurrent field of science, the present state-of-the-art regarding this issue is not so simple.
Wireless communication is now being implemented in our daily life in a very fast way. At thesame time, it is becoming more and more obvious that the exposure to electromagnetic fields
not only may induce acute thermal effects to living organisms, but also non-thermal effects,
the latter often after longer exposures. This has been demonstrated in a very large number ofstudies and includes cellular DNA-damage, disruptions and alterations of cellular functions
like increases in intracellular stimulatory pathways and calcium handling, disruption of tissue
structures like the blood-brain barrier, impact on vessel and immune functions, and loss offertility. Whereas scientists can observe and reproduce these effects in controlled laboratory
experiments, epidemiological and ecological data derived from long-term exposures reflect inwell-designed case-control studies the link all the way from molecular and cellular effects tothe living organism up to the induction and proliferation of diseases observed in humans. It
should be noted that we are not the only species at jeopardy, practically all animals and plants
may be at stake. Although epidemiological and ecological investigations as such neverdemonstrate causative effects, due to the vast number of confounders, they confirm therelevance of the controlled observations in the laboratories.
Because the effects are reproducibly observed and links to pathology cannot be excluded, theprecautionary principle should be in force in the implementation of this new technology
within the society. This will be the only method to support the sustainability of these
innovative wireless communication technologies. The February 2, 2000 European
Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle notes: "The precautionary
principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain andpreliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern thatthe potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be
inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU". Therefore, policy makers
immediately should strictly control exposure by defining biologically-based maximal
exposure guidelines also taking into account long-term, non-thermal effects, and including
especially vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, the ill, the genetically and/or
immunologically challenged, children and fetuses, and persons with the functional
impairment electrohypersensitivity.
Mailing address
Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institutet
171 77 Stockholm
SwedenVisiting address
Retziuslaboratoriet
Retzius väg 8
SolnaDirect
Switchboard
Fax
Fax (KI)

Telephone468-52 48 70 58
468-52 48 64 00
468-30 39 04
468-31 11 01

Karolinska Institutet
Department of Neuroscience
Experimental Dermatology Unit

In November, 2009, a Scientific Panel comprised of international experts on the biologicaleffects of electromagnetic fields met in Seletun, Norway, for three days of intensive
discussion on existing scientific evidence and public health implications of the unprecedented
global exposures to artificial electromagnetic fields (EMF) from telecommunications andelectric power technologies. This meeting was a direct consequence of on-going discussions
already from the mid-nineties, when cellular communications infrastructure began to rapidly
proliferate, and stretching through, among many, the Benevento (2006), Venice (2008) andLondon (2009) Resolutions from this decade, and involving important conclusions drawn
from the 600-page Bioinitiative Report published August 31, 2007, which was a review ofover 2,000 studies showing biological effects from electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal
levels of exposure, which partly was published subsequently in the journal Pathophysiology(Volume 16, 2009).
The Seletun Scientific Statement (2011) recommends that lower limits be established forelectromagnetic fields and wireless exposures, based on scientific studies reporting healthimpacts at much lower exposure levels. Many researchers now believe the existing safety
limits are inadequate to protect public health because they do not consider prolonged
exposure to lower emission levels that are now widespread.
The body of evidence on electromagnetic fields requires a new approach to protection of
public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong
preventative actions. These conclusions are built upon prior scientific and public healthreports documenting the following:
1)
2)
3)
4)

Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health effects are demonstrated atlevels significantly below existing exposure standards.
ICNIRP/WHO and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequate and obsolete withrespect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures.
New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect
public health world-wide.
It is not in the public interest to wait.

• EMR exposures should be reduced now rather than waiting for proof of harm before acting.
This is in keeping with traditional public health principles, and is justified now given
abundant evidence that biological effects and adverse health effects are occurring at exposurelevels hundreds to thousands of times below existing public safety standards around theworld.
• There is a need for mandatory pre-market assessments of emissions and risks before
deployment of new wireless technologies. There should be convincing evidence that products
do not cause health harm before marketing. Such decisions may have to be quickly revised
given new evidence.
Mailing address
Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institutet
171 77 Stockholm
SwedenVisiting address
Retziuslaboratoriet
Retzius väg 8
SolnaDirect
Switchboard
Fax
Fax (KI)

Telephone468-52 48 70 58
468-52 48 64 00
468-30 39 04
468-31 11 01

Karolinska Institutet
Department of Neuroscience
Experimental Dermatology Unit

• The use of telephone lines (land-lines) or fiber optic cables for SmartGrid type energy
conservation infrastructure is recommended. Utilities should choose options that do notcreate new, community-wide exposures from wireless components of SmartGrid-type
projects. Future health risks from prolonged or repetitive wireless exposures of SmartGridtype systems may be avoided by using fiber-optic cable. Energy conservation is endorsed but
not at the risk of exposing millions of families in their homes to a new, involuntary source of
wireless radiofrequency radiation, the effect of which on their health not yet known.
I encourage governments to adopt a framework of guidelines for public and occupational
EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle states
when there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks
from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control theseexposures. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting arisk to those who discount it — as some nations have already done. Precautionary strategies
should be based on design and performance standards and may not necessarily define
numerical thresholds because such thresholds may erroneously be interpreted as levels below
which no adverse effect can occur.
You often hear about "safe levels" of exposure and that there is "no proof of health effects",
but my personal response to these seemingly reassuring statements is that it is very importantto realize, from a consumer's point of view, that "no accepted proof for health effects" is notthe same as "no risk". Too many times, 'experts' have claimed to be experts in fields whereactually the only expert comment should have been: "I/we just do not know". Such fields
were e.g. the DDT, X-ray, radioactivity, smoking, asbestos, BSE, heavy metal exposure,
depleted uranium, etc., etc., etc., where the "no risk"-flag was raised before true knowledgecame around. Later on, the same flag had to be quickly lowered, many times after enormous
economic costs and suffering of many human beings. Along those lines, it is now (regarding"the protection from exposure to electromagnetic fields" issue) very important to clearly
identify the background and employment (especially if they sit, at the same time, on theindustry's chairs) of every 'expert' in different scientific committees, and likewise. It is, ofcourse, very important (maybe even more important?) to also let 'whistleblowers' speak atconferences, to support them with equal amounts (or even more?) of economical funding as
those scientists and other 'experts' who, already from the very beginning, have declared acertain source or type of irradiation, or a specified product, to be 100% safe.
In the case of "protection from exposure to electromagnetic fields", it is thus of paramountimportance to act from a prudence avoidance/precautionary principle point of view. Anythingelse would be highly hazardous! Total transparency of information is the key sentence here, I
believe consumers are very tired of always having the complete truth years after a certain
catastrophe already has taken place. For instance, it shall be noted, that today's
recommendation values for wireless systems, the SAR-value, are just recommendations, andnot safety levels. Since scientists observe biological effects at as low as 20 microWatts/kg, isMailing address
Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institutet
171 77 Stockholm
SwedenVisiting address
Retziuslaboratoriet
Retzius väg 8
SolnaDirect
Switchboard
Fax
Fax (KI)

Telephone468-52 48 70 58
468-52 48 64 00
468-30 39 04
468-31 11 01

Karolinska Institutet
Department of Neuroscience
Experimental Dermatology Unit

it then really safe to irradiate humans with 2 W/kg (i.e., with 100,000 times strongerradiation!), which is the recommendation level for us? And, furthermore, it is very strange tosee, over and over again, that highly relevant scientific information is suppressed or even left
out in various official documents, as high up as at the governmental level of society. This is
not something that the consumers will gain anything good from, and, still, the official
declaration or explanation (from experts and politicians) very often is: "If we (=the experts)
would let everything out in the open, people would be very scared and they would panic."Personally, I have never seen this happen, but instead I have frequently seen great
disappointment from citizens who afterwards have realized they have been fooled by theirown experts and their own politicians.
Another misunderstanding is the use of scientific publications (as the tobacco industry did formany years) as 'weights' to balance each other. But you can NEVER balance a report showing
a negative health effect with one showing nothing! This is a misunderstanding which,unfortunately, is very often used both by the industrial representatives as well as official
authorities. The general audience, naturally, easily is fooled by such an argumentation, but if
you are bitten by a deadly poisonous snake, what good does it make for you that there are 100
million harmless snakes around?
In many commentaries, debate articles and public lectures - for the last 20-30 years – I haveurged that completely independent research projects must be inaugurated immediately toensure our public health. These projects must be entirely independent of all types ofcommercial interests; public health cannot have a price-tag! It is also of paramountimportance that scientists involved in such projects must be free of any carrier considerations
and that the funding needed is covered to 100%, not 99% or less. This is the clear
responsibility of the democratically elected body of every country.
Many smart meters are close to beds, kitchens, playrooms, and similar locations. Thesewireless systems are never off, and the exposure is not voluntary. The smart meters are being
forced on citizens everywhere. Based on this, the inauguration of smart meters with grudging
and involuntary exposure of millions to billions of human beings to pulsed microwave
radiation should immediately be prohibited until ’the red flag’ can be hauled down once andfor all.
With my very best regards,
Yours sincerely,

Olle Johansson, Assoc. Prof.,
The Experimental Dermatology Unit,
Department of Neuroscience,
Karolinska Institute,
Mailing address
Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institutet
171 77 Stockholm
SwedenVisiting address
Retziuslaboratoriet
Retzius väg 8
SolnaDirect
Switchboard
Fax
Fax (KI)

Telephone468-52 48 70 58
468-52 48 64 00
468-30 39 04
468-31 11 01

Karolinska InstitutetDepartment of Neuroscience
Experimental Dermatology Unit

171 77 Stockholm,
Sweden&Professor,
The Royal Institute of Technology,
100 44 Stockholm,
SwedenMailing address
Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institutet
171 77 Stockholm
SwedenVisiting address
Retziuslaboratoriet
Retzius väg 8
SolnaDirect
Switchboard
Fax
Fax (KI)

Telephone468-52 48 70 58
468-52 48 64 00
468-30 39 04
468-31 11 01