Advancing Sound Public Health Policyon the Use of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR)
P. O. Box 117 Marshfield VT 05658
Tel. and FAX : 802-426-3035
E-mail: info@emrpolicy.org

Board of Directors
Janet Newton
President
Marshfield VT

To:

California Council on Science and Technology

Date: 31 January 2011

Deb Carney
Vice President
Golden CORE:

Comment on: Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters
Response to Assembly Members Huffman and Monning (CCST Report)

Diana Warren
Secretary/Treasurer
Wayland MA

Cc:

via E-mail to:
California Assemblyman Jared Huffman
California Assemblyman Bill Monning

Science Advisory Group
Magda Havas, Ph.D.
Trent University
Peterborough, Ontario
CanadaGerard J. Hyland, Ph.D.
University of Warwick
Coventry, Great Britain

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important public healthy policy
issue.

The EMR Policy Institute (EMRPI) is a national advocacy organization establishedin 2003 whose goal is to create better cooperation between public healthRaymond Kasevich, M.S.E.E.
RF Consultant
Great Barrington MA

regulatory agencies in order to mitigate unnecessary hazardous electromagnetic

Henry C.Lai, Ph.D.
University of Washington
Seattle WA

need for sound, biologically-based human safety policy that protects public health

Roger D. Mattson, Ph.D.
Health/Safety Consultant
Golden CO
Jerry L. Phillips, Ph.D.
University of Colorado
Colorado Springs COStuart Selikowitz, M.D.
Dartmouth Medical School
Hanover NH

radiation (EMR) exposures. We educate policy makers and the public on theregarding EMR exposures across the electromagnetic spectrum.

EMRPI continues to challenge the inadequacy of the US safety policy onelectromagnetic and RF radiation exposures by submitting official comment to key
federal agencies. Our record of formal comment as individuals and through ourorganization dates back to 1997. It includes official comment to key federal
agencies such as the NAS, FCC, FDA, GAO, NIOSH, NTIA and DOJ.

The EMR Policy Institute is a
501 (c)(3) non-profit
organization as defined bythe U.S. Internal Revenue
Service.

The directors of EMRPI have participated in taking three cases to the US
Supreme Court challenging the FCC’s RF safety policy as inadequate to protect

1all members of the public. In each case the Court denied certiorari on procedural grounds.
This EMRPI Comment is based upon our 14-year record of scrutiny of the inadequacies in
the current FCC radiofrequency radiation policy that was put in place in 1997. Since 1997
the FCC has resisted all calls to address these inadequacies, i.e., to develop biologicallybased safety limits for human exposure to RF radiation that protect all members of the public.

Currently there are three U.S. federal mandates promoting wireless technologies that canadversely affect the health and well being of all Americans, and especially those who require
Implanted Medical Devices (IMDs) as well as those who suffer from the functional
impairments of EHS and Radiofrequency Sickness. These population subgroups warrant
protection by the under Americans with Disabilities Act provisions. There is no federal
agency coordination to enforce these provisions. The mandates are:• Wireless broadband• SmartGrid and Smart Meters (wireless utility meters)• Unlicensed commercial use of TV White Spaces spectrum.

Ubiquitous involuntary exposure to Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) with IMDs from thesesources as well as from the plethora of wireless consumer devices now on the market
presents the greatest potential for harm for Americans with IMDs. The FCC’s focus on EMIand “safety” continues to protect devices rather than members of the public as found in its
2009 announcement of its International TV White Spaces Fellowship and Training Initiative:. . . by building on a proven concept: the safe deployment of new, intelligent devices
in the unused spectrum that exists between television channels without causing
undue interference to adjacent users. (Emphasis added.)“Adjacent users” refers to commercial communications devices rather than to humans withIMDs.

In view of California’s initiative to deploy wireless smart meters statewide EMRPI submits thefollowing comment on the CCST Report:

1. The January 2011 CCST Report misses out on a key opportunity to address its own“Key Report Findings” and “Other Considerations” by failing to provide the public with2

a clear analysis of the scientific record upon which the current FCC RF radiation
safety policy is based. On p. 8 The CCST Report specifically references the 2008
National Academies of Science Report: Identification of Research Needs Relating
to Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communication (NAS Report at:
www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12036) The National Academies of Science
performs provides a parallel service for the US federal government that the CCST
does for the State of California, yet the CCST Report fails to include the specificdetails of the 2008 NAS Report findings.

2. Safety regulations are based on the published record of scientific studies in a given
field. The NAS Report enumerates the holes in the RF research record upon which
FCC RF safety policy is based. In failing to include the NAS Report findings, theCCST Report missed the mark for explaining its own Key Finding #3 – To date,scientific findings have not identified nor confirmed negative health effects frompotential non-thermal impacts of RF emissions such as those produced by existing
common household electronic devices and smart meters. . . and Other
Considerations #3 – Consumers should be provided with clearly understoodinformation about the radiofrequency emissions of all devices that emit RF including
smart meters.

3. On p. 7 CCST Report states that: Given current scientific knowledge, the FCC
guideline provides a more than adequate margin of safety against the known thermaleffects. It fails, however, to specify the holes in the “current scientific knowledge”
delineated in the NAS Report.

4. On p. 8 CCST Report states that:: At this time there is no clear evidence that
additional standards are needed to protect the public from smart meters orother common household electronic devices. However, the 2008 NAS Report
documents the need to characterize specific aspects of real-life public exposure to RF
radiation that are not addressed in the scientific record upon which the current FCC
RF safety policy is based (see pp. 13-44):
a. Exposure of juveniles, children, pregnant women, and fetuses both forpersonal wireless devices (e.g., cell phones, wireless personal computers[PCs} and for RF fields from base station antennas.

3b. Variability of exposures to the actual use of the device, the environment inwhich it is used, and exposures from other sources.
c. Multilateral exposures.
d. Multiple frequency exposures.
e. Location of use (both geographic location and whether a device is primarily
used indoors or outdoors).
f.

Models for men and women of various heights and for children of variousages.

g. Exposure to rooftop maintenance workers and to members of the public thatlive in close proximity to multiple co-located base station antennas.
h. Exposure to subpopulations among maintenance employees.
i.

Chronic exposures that are similar to those from existing TV and radioantennas.

j.

Multilateral exposure to the typical arrangement of four to six antennas withmultiple frequencies, rather than a single antenna radiating at a single
frequency from a single direction as used in laboratory studies.

k. Exposure to others sources of RF radiation such as cordless phones, wirelesscomputer communications, and other communications systems.
l.

Exposure to the hand or the human lap or parts of the body close to thedevice.

m. RF exposure in close proximity to metallic adornments and implanted medicaldevices (IMDs) including metal rim glasses, earrings, and various prostheses(e.g., hearing aids, cochlear implants, cardiac pacemakers).
n. Models for whole-body exposure due to base station antennas.
o. Sufficiently long exposure and follow-up to allow for detection of effects that
occur with a latency of several years.
p. Lack of information concerning the health effects associated with living inclose proximity to base stations.
q. Research that includes children, the elderly, and people with underlying
diseases.
r.

Research on possible adverse RF effects identified by changes in EEG
activity.

s. Lack of information on possible neurophysiologic effects developing duringlong-term exposure to RF fields.

4

t.

Studies focusing on possible adverse RF effects identified by changes incognitive performance functions.

u. Effects of RF exposure to the sensitive biological targets of neural networks.
v. Possible effects of RF exposure on fetal and neonatal development.
w. Possible influences of exposure on the structure and function of the immunesystem, including prenatal, neonatal, and juvenile exposures.
x. Possible influences of RF exposures on the structure and function of thecentral nervous system, including prenatal, neonatal, and juvenile exposures.

5. At p. 8 CCST Report states that: No clear causal relationship between RF emissions
and non-thermal human health impacts has been scientifically established, nor havethe mechanisms that might lead to such biological impacts been clearly identified. In
this statement CCST Report leaves the inaccurate impression that science has
established the “mechanism” or cause of development of other diseases such as
cancer, Alzheimers’ Disease or ALS, which is not the case. Lack of a single
mechanism for causation of adverse health effects arising from exposure to nonthermal levels of RF emissions is not a valid rationale to negate the scientificevidence demonstrating these non-thermal effects.

6. Illustrating inadequate protection under the current FCC RF safety policy is theexperience of geophysics professor Gary Olhoeft PhD with the critical EMI problemshe encounters daily with his Medtronics Deep Brain Stimulator (DBS). Prof. Olhoeft’scomment was read at the first Public Comment period at the July 26-27, 2010 FCCFDA combined public meeting on, “Enabling the Convergence of Communications
and Medical Systems.” Despite Dr. Olhoeft’s insightful analysis and account of thisone example of EMI between wireless systems and his DBS, neither the FCC
moderator nor the FDA moderator of the following day’s panel on Electromagnetic
Compatibility (EMC) raised one question on this EMI topic so critical to the life, healthand well being of millions of Americans. Even the last panel discussion,
Electromagnetic Compatibility – How to Promote EMC, made no mention ofcompatibility with implanted electronic medical devices such as Deep Brain
Stimulators that treat Parkinson’s patients, or insulin pumps for diabetics, forexample.

5

Professor Olhoeft submitted his written Comment in the current US Department ofJustice Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making proceeding. See also the video of
his presentation at the 2009 EMRPI scientific conference, “Electromagnetic Radiation
Impacts on Human Health,” at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=joB6LWfVzw&feature=related

7. No federal agency is keeping track of cumulative wireless power density, nor
identifying critical levels and locations where individuals who require IMDs may be atrisk.

8. The FCC continues to issue compliance statements for new wireless devices andsystems without regard for existing RF levels. Those most seriously threatened are
the NIH-estimated 20 million Americans who require IMDs. These 20 million
Americans account for 8-10% of the US population. The most serious threat to themis from Smart Meters and wireless broadband because of their ubiquitous deployment
throughout the public’s living and working environments and now throughout medical
treatment settings.

9. In stark contrast to the lack of public health concern in key US federal and stateagencies are these precautionary provisions called for in The European Parliament
April 2009 Resolution approved by a vote of 559-22:
www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-20090216+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN•Particular consideration of biological effects, especially given that some studies
have found the most harmful effects at lowest levels;•Evaluation of potential long-term adverse effects of mobile telephony radiofrequencies;•

Increased investigation of harmful effects of multiple exposures to different EMF
sources, particularly for children;•

Member States to follow the example of Sweden and to recognize persons that sufferfrom electrohypersensitivity as being disabled so as to grant them adequate
protection as well as equal opportunities;

10. Because individuals with electronic IMDs and EMR functional impairments are6

inherently sensitive to RF and EMR exposures, EMRPI strongly urges the State ofCalifornia to broaden #4 of CCST Other Considerations to require Smart Grid / Smart
Meter options that employ fiber optic and hard-wired data transmission rather thanwireless transmitting Smart Meters.

Respectfully submitted by
The EMR Policy Institute

Janet Newton, President
P.O. Box 117
Marshfield VT 05658
JNewton@emrpolicy.org
Telephone: (802) 426-3035
www.emrpolicy.org

7