Dear editor,
There are a number of very good reasons for the public to reject BC Hydro's installation of the new smart meters, but negative health effects isn't one of them.
The WHO (World Health Organization) study widely (and often hysterically) cited by those who believe that Wi-Fi and cell phones cause negative health effects actually doesn't actually state that such health effects exist. It merely states that such health effects might be possible and that the situation should be monitored. Moreover, it refers to cell phones only, not to Wi-Fi or to radio frequency emissions generally. In any case, the possibility of such health effects is categorized by the WHO as their designation 2B. Below is the direct quote from the WHO report of what this means:
Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinoenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicty in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data.
By "limited evidence," the WHO means:
Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.
By "inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity," the WHO means:
Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity': The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available.
There is one word that sums up this situation — inconclusive. The WHO is saying they don't know one way or the other. It is just silly for anyone to confuse this conclusion with an actual health warning.
Remember that this study applies only to cell phones, which are more powerful than Wi-Fi signals and held next to the head. Smart meters are not even close to being the same thing.
Like all forms of radiated energy, such as sound, light, radio waves and the much more dangerous types such as X-rays and gamma rays, the intensity is reduced by 75 per cent with every doubling of distance from the source.
What this means is that the frequency, power and distance from the source of an emission has to be taken into account. For example, radio waves, even those in the microwave range of frequencies, should not be confused with the much more dangerous ionizing nuclear radiation from nuclear weapons and power plants.
Power output is the other major factor. It is a fact that Wi-Fi sources literally do not have enough power to break the chemical bonds of the human body and thereby cause damage.
In other words, all of this fear-mongering over the Wi-Fi communication aspect of these meters is unfounded hysteria, plain and simple.
Over 30 peer reviewed studies of Wi-Fi have been done. Twenty-six of them reached negative conclusions (no evidence of harm), three were inconclusive and one was deemed to be invalid due to the poor methods employed.
Of course, a person can find any number of websites, each citing their favourite "experts" to contradict all of this. But it is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the facts of the matter are to be found and the facts do not support even the slightest cause for alarm.
So, by all means oppose Hydro's arrogant and bumbling rollout of this program, but leave health claims out of it.
Scott Goodman,
Courtenay