Sunday, June 20, 2010

PG&E Disregards Precautionary Principle on Smart Meters / JANE CELLTOWER / Children’s Health Problems / Brain Cancer / CAN cause cancer

W.E.E.P. News

Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News

21 June 2010

PG&E Disregards Precautionary Principle on Smart Meters

Written by Peter Phillips - June 20, 2010

Two weeks ago we got our notice that Smart meters would be installed at our home in Occidental California. We immediately contacted PG&E saying we were opting out because of health concerns. We were told that was not an option and that someone would get back to us. The following article outline how the Precautionary Principle is being ignored by PG&E.

Peter Phillips and Mary Lia

Smart Meters

by Alexander Binik,

Executive Director, DE-Toxics Institute, Fairfax, CA  February 8, 2010

As re cell phones (and previously re tobacco, asbestos, phthalates, etc), industry uses its PR and the media to tell us that any health concerns are groundless and that those raising them are fear-mongering. And, as with these other examples, the truth is very different.

1) PG&E will be installing their wireless so-called smart meters (replacing our current electric meters at all our homes and businesses) throughout Marin and San Francisco beginning July 2010. They have a published schedule for installation throughout their service area of northern & central CA. They have already been installed in some areas; where they have been installed, many residents have been complaining that the meters give false impossibly-high readings (even for periods when the resident was out of the country and virtually nothing remained plugged in at their residences) . No one is given an opportunity to opt out and instead retain one's current meter.

2) This is being promoted, regionally & nationally, as part of the smart grid update to electrical distribution; but, in fact, those features of the smart grid that help move electrical power between regions can be implemented without using wireless smart meters where we live and work.

3) The claim is that the meters will help us monitor and reduce our energy use and therefore our carbon footprint. The reality is that this claim is extremely dubious, and--once the system is fully in place--our overall carbon footprint could even increase because of this program.

4) On the other hand, it will enable PG&E to save its corporation significant dollars by laying off its meter readers. And there are billions of dollars to be made by corporations nationwide who are supplying the electronic equipment for the program. This is another major driving force (including corporate pressure on the Obama administration).

5) The problem is that the meters and their corresponding data collectors broadcast very frequent bursts of powerful microwave radio frequency (RF) radiation; each meter further "repeats" the signal from numerous other meters in the surrounding neighborhood. In concert, this creates a dense mesh network of ongoing RF radiation that is transmitted throughout our indoor and outdoor environment, day and night without cease. There is no opportunity for customers to opt out of this program nor the "electrosmog" radiation exposure it creates - the public cannot escape it. PG&E has never had the meters independently tested for safety with regard to the chronic, near-constant exposure to the high frequency radiation they emit.

6) The industry claims that the amount of radiation is too small to harm anyone. This claim is based on standards exclusively for thermal (heating) damage that such radiation can cause to cells, but ignores the substantial range of harm that scientific experiments have shown it can cause through non-thermal effects--DNA breaks and the possible cancer implications, neurological symptoms, etc.--in other words, the exact same situation as is the case re cell phones. One critical difference is that we can choose when and how we use cell phones and how we expose ourselves and those around us to their radiation; with smart meters that will be impossible!

7) In claiming this radiation exposure is safe, industry follows the same flawed reasoning as re chemical exposure: they ignore the cumulative impacts of repetitive (as opposed to one-time) exposures. They also ignore the additive exposures from multiple sources of such radiation to which we are exposed (cell phones, cordless home phones, wi-fi, home networking, and the list goes on and on).

8) Every individual has a different tolerance for such cumulative exposures before their impact (often in combination with chemical/heavy metal exposures) show up as impaired health, but already health practitioners are seeing major increases in the number of people presenting with various health complaints (beginning with headaches, insomnia, forgetfulness, confusion, etc.) which go away when their exposures are significantly reduced. This is only the tip of the iceberg, and once folks have been exposed nonstop and continuously to more layers and layers of RFR's for some time, the level of health problems will increase exponentially; unfortunately, because of our individual susceptibilities and myriad other exposures and stressors, it will be impossible to prove that any specific illness has been caused exclusively by a particular RFR exposure.

9) As already mentioned, there is now no way to opt out, even if one knows (and one's doctor verifies) that one is "electrically sensitive". These meters are unnecessary. Even if they were to be put into place, it could be done by, say, fiber optics cable connection to the home (more expensive than wireless). And even if a wireless meter were to be used, PGE could establish procedures for "opt out's" that would turn on the wireless signal for less than 1 minute a month in order to read the meter, rather than continuously with pulse peaks every 45 seconds or so. (Of course, even then we would still be getting irradiated by the signals from our non-opting-out neighbors' meters.)

10) The next generation of all, home appliances, including heating and cooling systems, will include devices that receive from, and transmit to, the meters constantly around the clock. Disabling such devices will be difficult, expensive, and will void the manufacturer's warranty for the appliance. Here's the greenwashing: PGE claims that having 24/7 monitoring capabilities of all our appliances will mean that we can take time during our workday to be constantly checking in on our electrical energy use and turning devices down or off to reduce peak loads (as though we don't already know that, during the hottest summer days, peak loads are during the daytime when air conditioners are in great use). Among the things PGE ignores is that these devices will be "vampire" devices, not only emitting their own radiation but also using energy which collectively may well amount to more than would be saved via extra conservation. And the cumulative additional radiation will be considerable. Besides the social and emotional costs of being ill, there is the additional cost of lost wages and of medical treatment and medications. Unfortunately, because they are likely to buy into the greenwashing claims, major national environmental organizations (Sierra Club, NRDC, etc.) are likely to support installation of these meters without fully examining their potential health consequences.

11) In addition to adding greatly and directly to our high-frequency radiation exposure, the transmitting meters also often put high frequencies directly on home and building wiring. This can happen deliberately through signaling to electrical loads or inadvertently through poor engineering. Poorly engineered meters can cause electrical pollution (known to public health scientists as "dirty electricity") by putting the transmitted signal directly on home wiring or by the way they draw power to operate. Whether deliberate or inadvertent, studies are finding such high frequencies on building wiring are related to a host of health problems, similar to those described above for the RFR's.

12) Implementing this wireless meter program--universally and without real prior public and scientific examination of public health implications--is a very significant violation of the Precautionary Principle. We will be paying with our health for decades and generations for this greenwashing program which will actually benefit only PGE stockholders and major electronics manufacturers.




Mastedatabasen, Search existing & future mobile phone masts in Denmark .... It includes two full cases against cell phone masts, a pdf guide containing the ...



Wi-Fi Technology Blamed For Children's Health Problems At School

author: jailbush       


If your kids have complained about similar problems since wi fi was installed in the Portland Public schools, please email me. I am gathering evidence for a project. Meanwhile, call, write, email, and appear before the school board and tell them what you think of them irradiating our kids all day, every day with radio frequency radiation similar to that of cell phones and cell towers.


Cell Phones And Brain Cancer

June 18th, 2010

The tumor was on the same side of the head where she held her cell phone and was shaped like the cell phone antenna. Cell Phones And Brain Cancer The case got widespread media attention and was featured in CNN's Larry King show.

Although the claim was dismissed by the court due to lack of sufficient evidence, it was a public relations nightmare for the wireless industry. It also marked the beginning of the global search for a definitive answer to the question: are cell phones safe or not? Does it cause cancer and other degenerative diseases? Brain cancer is up 25% since cell phones became popular. Every year, there are 183,000 more cases in the US alone. Some health experts say there's a link with cell phone use, but is there proof?

In an effort to diffuse the negative publicity from the high-profile lawsuit, the cell phone industry itself funded a million dollar research program to prove that cell phones are safe. After 6 years of intensive research, however, the results were not what they were looking for. Dr. George Carlo, the chief research scientist of the program, found evidence that cell phones pose some health risks, possibly even cancer.

The first evidence of cancer link that shook the cell phone industry came in 1997. Dr. Michael Repacholi and his colleagues from the Royal Adelaide Hospital in South Australia reported that long-term exposure to the type of radiation that comes from digital cell phones caused an increase in the occurrence of lymphoma in mice. The study received widespread international media attention because it was the first time that cancer has been linked to the cell phone in a well-conducted study.


In order to show a link between cell phone radiation and cancer, let's look at several studies Dr. Carlo investigated that made him blow the whistle, so to speak. These red-flag findings provide the pieces that fit together to form the cancer picture:

- DNA Damage in Human Blood Studies

- Breakdown in the Blood-Brain Barrier

- Studies of Tumors in People Who Use Cell Phones

- Studies of Cell Phone Radiation Dosage and Response


All tumors and all cancers are the result of genetic damage. Most often that damage includes the formation of micronuclei--fragments of chromosomes that form membranes around themselves and appear under a microscope as additional nuclei in blood cells (which normally have just a single nucleus). The relationship between micronuclei and cancer is so strong that doctors around the world test for their presence to identify patients likely to develop cancer. The presence of micronuclei indicates that the cells can no longer properly repair broken DNA. This deficiency is considered to be an indication of an increased risk of developing cancer.

- In December 1998, Drs. Ray Tice and Graham Hook of Integrated Laboratory Systems in North Carolina have shown that blood cells exposed to cell phone radiation suffer genetic damage in the form of micronuclei. In their studies, DNA and chromosome damage in human white blood cells occurred when exposed to signals from all types of phones--analog, digital, and PCS. Damage was shown even from signals occurring at a SAR level below the government's "safety" guideline.

- Using different methods, the above finding was confirmed by Dr. Joseph Roti Roti of Washington University in St. Louis in 2000. His research showed that human blood cells exposed to radiation at wireless phone frequencies did indeed develop genetic damage, in the form of micronuclei. This finding received a lot of notice because Dr. Roti Roti is a prominent scientist who does hiw work under funding by Motorola Inc.

This has a very serious implication. If cell phone radiation encourages the formation of micronuclei in blood cells, and micronuclei are said to be "biological markers" for cancer, then based on these studies alone cell phone use could be said to increase the risk of cancer.


The blood brain barrier is a special filter in the blood vessels of the brain that keeps dangerous chemicals from reaching sensitive brain tissue and causing DNA breaks and other damage.

- In 1994 and again, in 2002, Dr. Leif Salford from Lund University in Stockholm, Sweden found in his studies that rats exposed to cell phone radiation showed a breakdown in the blood brain barrier, as well as areas of shrunken, damaged neurons.

The micronuclei studies of Tice, Hook and Roti Roti and the blood-brain findings of Salford provide a two-step explanation for how cancer could be caused by cell phone radiation.

Step One: A leakage or breakdown in the blood brain barrier would provide a pathway for cancer-causing chemicals in the bloodstream (from tobacco, pesticides, air pollution, etc.) to leak into the brain and damage sensitive brain tissue that would otherwise be protected. These chemicals could break the DNA in the brain or cause other harm to reach those cells.

Step Two: While a number of studies showed that cell phone radiation by itself does not appear to break DNA, the micronuclei findings suggest that they do impair the DNA repair mechanisms in brain cells. Micronuclei result from a breakdown of the cell's ability to repair itself. If the brain cells become unable to repair themselves, then carcinogenesis--the creation of tumors--induced by chemical toxins could begin.

DNA carries the genetic material of an organism and its different cells. Any damage that goes unrepaired affects the future generation of cells. The change has procreated and this mutation is seen as a possible cause of cancer.


Epidemiological studies, performed by different investigators using different methods, show some evidence of an increased risk of tumors among people who use cellular phones.

- In 1998, Dr. Ken Rothman of Eidemiology Resources, Inc. in Newton, Mass., did a study showing that users of handheld cell phones have more than twice the risk of dying from brain cancer than do car phone users--whose antennas are mounted on the body of the car, far removed from the users' heads.

- In 1998, Joshua Muscat, a research scientist from the American Health Foundation, showed in his study a doubling of the risk of developing neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain among cell phone users, particularly on the side of the skull where cell phone antennas are held during calls.

- Muscat also showed in another study that people who have used cell phones for six years or more have a 50-percent increase in risk of developing acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor of the nerve that controls hearing and extends from the ear to the brain. Acoustic neuromas can cause hearing loss and can be life-threatening if untreated.

This was confirmed in a separate study in Stockholm, Sweden by Anders Ahlbom in 2004 and sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO), which finds that people who have used cell phones, this time for at least 10 years, may have an increased risk of developing acoustic neuroma.

- In a study also requested by WHO, researchers headed by Dr. Lennart Hardell of the Orebro Medical Center in Sweden examined 1,617 patients aged between 20 and 80 who had been diagnosed with a brain tumour between 1997 and 2000. They were then compared to healthy people.

Those who used cell phones for less than 10 years faced a 20% higher risk of developing brain cancer. But for those who used them for more than a decade the risk was 80% higher. The study also found that tumours were 2.5 times more likely to be on the same side of the head as the phone was held. The cancer of the auditory nerve, accoustic neuroma, showed a larger increase--3.5 times greater risk.


All studies mentioned showed that an increase in cell phone radiation exposure also increases the likelihood of the adverse effect occurring.

In Repacholi's study of mice, the risk of lymphoma increased significantly the longer the mice were exposed to the radio waves.

In the research work done by Tice, Hook, and Roti Roti, the risks of genetic damage as measured by micronuclei formation increased as the amount of radiation increased.

In the three epidemoiological studies--two by Muscat and one by Hardell--the risk of tumors was greater in the areas of the brain near where the cell phone was held.

In Salford's study, the higher the radiation exposure level the rats were exposed to, the more damage was apparent in the blood vessels in the brain and the neurons.


The test tube studies by Tice and Hook; the mouse study by Repacholoi and Selford; and the epidemiological studies by Rothman, Muscat, and Hardell all agree in that they suggest an increased risk of cancer among cell phone users. They fit together to form the beginnings of a picture that everyone can see. They perhaps don't form the complete picture yet, but there are enough already in place to see that there is cause fo genuine public health concern about cell phone safety.

According to Dr. Carlo, "The big picture is disturbingly clear. There is a definite risk that the radiation plume that emanates from a cell phone antenna can cause cancer and other health problems. It is a risk that affects hundreds of millions of people around the world. It is a risk that must be seen and understood by all who use cell phones so they can take all the appropriate and available steps to protect themselves--and especially to protect young children whose skulls are still growing and who are the most vulnerable to the risks of radiation."


- In 2000, a team of Sydney researchers published a scientific hypothesis about how mobile phone radiation causes cancer. The report claims that the radiation generated by cell phones causes ongoing stress to the body cells, causing them to give off 'heat shock proteins (HSP).' The human cells sometimes release these proteins in response to injury or infection. Such a chronic activation of the heat shock response affects the normal regulation of cells, which could result in cancer.

- In 2002, cell biologist Fiorenzo Marinelli and his team at the National Research Council in Bologna, Italy, exposed leukemia cells to continuous radio waves similar to that of cell phones. The exposed cells had a higher rate of death than the controls initially, but after further exposure, a curious thing happened: instead of more cells dying, the exposed cells were replicating furiously compared to the controls. Genes that trigger cells to multiply were turned on in a high proportion of the cells. The cancer, although briefly beaten back, had become more aggressive. Marinelli suspects that the radiation may initially damage DNA, and that this interferes with the biochemical signals in a way that ultimately triggers the cells to multiply more rapidly.


Now with all the mounting evidence, the cell phone industry still maintains their position that cell phones are safe and have even begun marketing towards children.

The governments have been slow in stepping in to warn people of any danger from using cell phones. Fortunately, health officials and experts in several European countries are taking the first steps, having issued public warnings to parents urging caution about kids and cell phones,

If the previous environmental issues involving tobacco, asbestos, and lead are any indication, it takes years and even decades to accumulate the amount of evidence that would produce a definite ruling. In the case of cigarette smoking, it took two decades of study and 100 years of consumer use to gather enough data to meet research standards to demonstrate the need for the U.S. Surgeon General's warning label on cigarette packs. Some experts say that in the case of cell phones, it will not take that long as data are coming in at a faster pace. But at the present the authorities can only urge people to exercise caution.

Replication of research is another problem. A study that comes out with a new finding generally does not gain immediate acceptance in the scientific community or the wireless industry unless another research lab has been able to replicate the work and the findings. The industry has cleverly perpetuated their position by creating an illusion of responsible follow up by always calling for more research.

When Dr. Salford published his study in 2003 showing that rat brain neurons were dying from exposure to cellphone radiation, he warned there might be similar effects in humans that over time could lead to degenerative diseases of the brain. His study was written off by the industry as a "novel" finding that needed to be replicated.

But achieving the scientific standard of replication can be complicated. Salford says if studies aren't absolutely replicated, providing an apples-to-apples comparison, there's wiggle room to dispute follow-up findings. Research studies require funding, and the wireless industry, after Dr. Carlo's revelations, have been reluctant to put money into more comprehensive research. As for governments, again many European governments are taking the responsible course by funding research, but the U.S. and Canada are lagging poorly.

In 1999, CNN's Larry King once again featured a man who brought a multimillion dollar lawsuit against cell phone manufacturers. This time the man, a Maryland neurologist, was himself diagnosed with brain cancer--again located on the side of the head where he held his cell phone. The suit was yet again dismissed, however, and the man died not long afterwards.

According to WHO report, 0.1 billion people have died from tobacco use in the 20th century, and 10 times as many will die in the 21st century. No one is suggesting that cell phones could cause as much casualties, but do we really want to wait and find out?


Unlike tobacco, the cell phone has become as an indispensable part of our lives as television and computer. It has enabled us to make a gigantic leap in the way we communicate with one another and has been credited widely with saving people's lives in emergency situations. Cell phones are here to stay, and perhaps rightly so.

The question is not how to stop people from using this ubiquitous device but rather how to make it safer. The first step always is to admit there is a problem, hence the industry and the government have to acknowledge the health risks inherent with the present technology. This way we can all find the proper solutions that we may more enjoy the benefits of its use without sacrificing our health and wellbeing


As scientists warn that regular mobile use CAN cause cancer just how safe is your mobile phone?

At last, the UK National Newspapers are beginning to take the threats from mobile phones seriously.

This is the link to the centre page spread in yesterday's Daily Mail.  .

The tinyurl is .

Best wishes


Web site    e-mail

To sign up for WEEP News:  (provide name and e-mail address)

W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution