My reply to "Is the "smart meter" scare justified?" by Dariusz Leszczynski

Last week I came across this article "Is the "smart meter" scare justified?" in the washington times communities site ( http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/between-rock-and-hard-place/2012/feb/18/smart-meter-scare-justified-conflict-wireless/).

The artical was written by Dariusz Leszczynski the owner of the blog "Between a Rock and a Hard Place"

I Usually agree with Dariusz on many cellphone and radiation matters but this time I must say we disagree.

In a reply to this article I wrote the following reply, which I posted on the the site and I am also posting it here:

"Dear Dariusz.

I read this article and had to check again in order to make sure that you wrote it.

I must say that I expected more from you.

Where from did you get the info about the smart meters radiation transmissions?

Did you measure the meters yourself?

Did you watch videos with measurements taken in the US?

How many times do the meters in Finland transmit in an hour and for how long (how many seconds) each time?

From what I have seen the meters in the US emit radio frequency radiation 3-8 times a minute, every transmission can take up to several seconds (http://youtu.be/aOabFJlenz4?t=1m31s). These meters do not only transmit their own data but also receive and transmit data from other meters that are farther away from the collector.

Even if a single meter emits RF radiation only once a minute, a person living in a house where a smart meter is installed on the other side of it's bedroom wall will be exposed to 1440 short pulses of RF radiation every day.

When several meters are installed on the same wall the exposure to RF from all these meters becomes almost constant (http://youtu.be/wCzI0R7M9To?t=2m17s ).

Regarding your reference to the IARC classification, The IARC classification was for Radio Frequency in general and not only for "cellphone's radiation". The classification was " based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use." but refers to all Radio frequency radiation, not just the RF radiation emitted from cellphones (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf).

Regarding your comment "It is difficult to understand where the scare of "smart meters" comes from" I can tell you that the scare was not there to begin with. It is caused by people that were hurt by smart meters; people that their health deteriorated after smart meters were installed on their wall.

Therefore I think your conclusions and views about smart meters are not true and based on insufficient info. I hope that you will take an RF meter in your hand, go and make some measurements, see some reports and videos from the US and that soon you will change your mind.

Meanwhile I am very sorry for the disinformation you create.

Please feel free to read more about smart meters on my web page: http://www.norad4u.com/knowledge/smart-radiating-meters

Amir (No Rad)

www.norad4u.com"

Comparing Coffe and RF

Many RF health effect skeptics repeat that RF radiation is only as dangerous as coffee. They claim that they quote the WHO on this. Few months ago a fellow awareness activist from Israel, ENG Michael Peleg has brought to my attention that there is a big difference between coffee and RF in the WHO reports. Coffee is suspected to promote mostly one type of cancer (bladder cancer ), there is a possibility that it is somewhat protective against collon cancer and it is not suspected to rise the overall cancer risk while RF radiation is "suspected" to promote more types of cancer. More importantly, the WHO does not suggest reducing the use of coffee while it does recommend to reduce the exposure to RF.

From the IARC/WHO:

RF radiation

WHO/IARC RF – group 2B - http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

"Conclusions

Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working

Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a

conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."

"… it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting. ""

COFFEE:

WHO/IARC- Coffee – group 2B - http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol51/volume51.pdf

"Overall evaluation Coffee is possibly carcinogenic to the human urinary bladder (Group 2B).

For definition of the italicized terms, see Preamble Evaluation.

N.B. - There is some evidence of an inverse relationship between coffee drinking and cancer of the large bowel; coffee drinking could not be classified as to its carcinogenicity to other organs."