How to stay healthy in our electronic age
By Ken Jenkins
January 18, 2011
We live in a sea of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) that is growing in intensity due to a continuing increase in man-made electrical sources. The health impacts of EMR are increasingly of concern to citizens worldwide. Cell phones in particular are suspect in connection to health problems, particularly brain tumors. A small percentage of people are unusually sensitive to EMR and exhibit a range of symptoms from overexposure.
And now yet another EMR source is moving to our homes and businesses. Utility companies are replacing their expensive staff of meter readers and their trucks with electronic meters, often called “Smart Meters,” that transmit a digital signal via microwaves to the utility’s home base. This “meter reading” signal is broadcast many times a day, much like the microwaves from cell phones and cordless phones.
Although the potential long-term cost savings from this change in meter reading methods - replacing manpower with electronics - is significant, it seems unlikely this savings will be passed along to the customers; that is just not how most corporations operate these days.
Many utility customers are justifiably outraged, partly because they are not given a choice about whether or not a radiating Smart Meter will be installed where they live. This meter change is being imposed on customers, often against their expressed will. Questions and concerns have been raised about the effect of EMR fields on the health of those living nearby. Some are mounted just a few feet from where people work, live and sleep. Are these new Smart Meters safe?
I am an electrical engineer (BSEE, 1969, Carnegie-Mellon University), and have studied and warned about electronic radiation dangers for four decades, including from cell phones and home cordless phones. I have measured radiation from microwave ovens, TVs, computers and monitors, electric blankets, power lines, radio transmitters, and all sorts of other electrical equipment using sensitive meters designed for that task. I use a stethoscopic (air tube) headset for my own cell phone. I take this matter of EMR very seriously. Based on this research, many commonly used devices and appliances, including Smart Meters, can pose a significant risk, but only under certain knowable circumstances.
I'll try not to be too technical in addressing this issue, but these are technical matters.
PG&E claims that Smart Meters emit ‘only 1/6000th the amount of radiation of a cell phone.’ However, independent researchers say they put out pulses 2-15 times per minute that are between 2 and 3 times the strength of cell phones. Are these two views at odds, or just expressing the same data in different ways? Most importantly, are these levels of significant risk?
Critics of Smart Meters point out that PG&E has been using time averaging to minimize the reported strength of the Smart Meter radiation. That is a mathematically and scientifically valid approach, but it leaves questions about how their intermittent bursts of waves affect people and other biological systems differently from continuous wave sources.
Let’s look at some general principles regarding EMR. We start by identifying the relevant variables, and how each affects the degree of risk to biological systems when exposed to various forms of EMR. Radiation dangers/risks to humans (and other biological life forms) are a function of three major relatively simple variables, and two additional, more complex variables.
The three simple variables are:
1) Intensity of the radiation source. How strong is the signal?
2) Proximity of the source to the person. How far away is the transmitter from the person?
3) Duration of the exposure per unit time. How many seconds, minutes or hours per day is the person exposed to the radiation?
The complex variables include the frequency (or frequencies) of the radiation source. How many Hertz (cycles per second) is the signal? There is also the question of intermittent vs. continuous transmission. These variables are more subtle and complex, and beyond the scope of this brief analysis.
So, looking at variables 1-3:
1) Obviously the power/intensity/strength of the radiation source is of major relevance. High power sources like microwave ovens can pose a far greater risk than, say, an electric blanket, which radiates a weak field.
2) Proximity is one of the two most relevant variables, since we have significant control over it. Even powerful radiation has little effect if it is miles away. By contrast, sources placed in direct contact with the body, like cell phones, home cordless phones, and electric blankets, have far more effect, even with their much weaker fields.
The key to understanding and working with this variable of proximity is in understanding the "inverse square law" regarding the relationship of the distance between the radiation source and the life form. Inverse square means that if the distance is doubled, the intensity is only 1/4 as strong. Tripling the distance results in 1/9th as much intensity, 10 times the distance = 1/100th the intensity, and so on. In mathematical terms, the intensity is said to drop off exponentially (square, or second power, is an exponential).
3) The duration of each exposure, and frequency in the rate of repetition of exposures are also important variables. Contrast, for example, two one-minute cell phone calls a week, with 2 or 3 hours of use per day. This variable is linear – twice the total duration means twice the risk.
These three variables are multiplied to calculate total radiation exposure and possible risk. Thus, to be a big problem, all three variables have to be at least fairly high, that is, fairly high intensity, fairly close proximity, and fairly long duration of exposure. If any of the three is at the low end, the total exposure risk is less. If two out of three are low, the risk is much lower. If all three are low, the risk is almost certainly negligible.
So let's look at a few common examples of radiation source exposures and risks with all this in mind, by multiplying an estimated rating of all three variables:
An electric blanket:
1 (intensity)-low/weak field strength.
2 (proximity)-high - a short distance between the blanket and the body.
3 (duration)-high-many hours per day, on a daily basis.
Multiplying these three: low x very high x high = moderate/significant.
The long-term risk of sleeping under an electric blanket every night is moderately high, and significant, due to the combination of both close proximity and long daily duration.
A cell phone or home cordless phone:
1 (intensity)- low to moderate field strength.
2 (proximity)- extremely high (if used without a headset) – the phone is literally pressed directly against the head)! So the remaining variable of concern with phones is #3, the total duration (length and number of calls per day). A person who uses a cell a few minutes a day is at rather low risk, but those who use them hours a day, day after day are at high risk of adverse health impacts. A headset, especially an air tube type, or using the speakerphone function, lowers the proximity dramatically(inverse square law) and thus lowers any risk dramatically.
Wi-Fi router:
1 (intensity)-moderate to low field strength.
2 (proximity)-varies between a few feet and many feet.
3 (duration)-high-often 24/7.
So the risk of a Wi-Fi router is moderate to low. The primary risk reducer is to keep the Wi-Fi base away from the immediate area where anyone spends much time per day.
Microwave ovens:
These ovens measure high intensity radiation within a very few feet, but that level drops off fast (inverse square law) more than a few feet away. Duration is generally fairly short, so the easy way to reduce risk from microwave ovens is to simply step at least 6-8 feet away while they are operating. Some people feel safer leaving the room entirely while microwave cooking is underway.
With this risk assessment methodology in mind, let's look at the Smart Meter radiation risk:
The power/intensity (1) of the Smart Meter is said to be 2-3 times the strength of a cell phone. That is a modest difference, so this intensity risk variable is moderate.
The proximity (2) ranges from some, to dozens, of feet away from most humans, most of the time. Additionally, there are generally walls between the source and the person, which will attenuate the signal measurably lower. So we have to set this (3) distance variable to (most often) LOW, and this is crucial. Remember, we are talking about an inverse square drop-off in intensity, and compared to using a cell phone, the difference in distance squared is very large. Thus, comparing cell phones risk to Smart Meter risk is a wildly misleading comparison, because of the profound difference in proximity/distance. The magnitude of this variable is much smaller due to the inverse square relationship.
The Smart Meter transmission is said to be pulses of 2-15 times per minute. How long those pulses last is not specified, but is likely brief, since the amount of data transmitted is small. These pulses are said to go on 24/7. Taking all these variables into account, this is also a moderate exposure value.
BTW, the pulse vs. continuous wave may be misleading. Continuous is more of a problem than intermittent pulses, since it is the total energy that is of most relevance. Time averaging is not a "slick attempt to hide the real strength," it is sound science. If the 2-15 pulses have, let's say, a one-second duration each, then the total radiation exposure is between 1/30 and 1/4 that of a continuous transmission like a cordless phone.
So, the bottom line on the Smart Meter:
1 (intensity) = moderate
2 (proximity) = (usually) LOW
3 (duration) = moderate.
The relatively high proximity distance means the overall risk is low. If the meter happens to be directly on the other side of a wall from one's bed, or any other place where one spends hours a day, then some concern is warranted. But such close proximity is not a common configuration in most houses, apartments or businesses.
Thus PG&E's estimate of a Smart Meter being 1/6000th of a cell phone is likely in the right ballpark, primarily due to the profound difference in proximity. The Smart Meters are simply too far away from most humans most of the time to be a risk to anyone but the most sensitive of people.
All that said, we should have the right to choose. A cell phone (or cordless home phone) is a choice, but electricity has become a necessity. Choosing to opt out, however, should come with a willingness on the part of the customer to pay the extra cost of the manual checking of old-style meters, a time-consuming labor with high transportation expenses.
It saddens me to see so much activism energy dissipated on a relatively minor problem, based on little understanding of EMR risks in general, and of this Smart Meter radiation risk in particular. Thus I am taking the time to share this information. What is needed is not a major crusade limited to this one minor contributor to electro-smog, what is needed is more education about the principles of radiation risk briefly outlined here, and about the full range of risk factors. With such education, relative risks can be evaluated, and actions taken to reduce them.
We live in a sea of electromagnetic radiation from many sources. The relative risks and contributions of each radiation emitter can be evaluated with the relatively simple method and formula explained here, so we can personally manage and minimize health risks.
Source: personal communication
Smart Meters and Other Electromagnetic Radiation Hazards
Reply With Quote
That is somewhat comforting...but then I look at the fact that there are TWELVE meters right outside my bedroom, not one. Yes, I've moved the bed...so far, don't feel any different. I wish I knew how to quantify the risk when there are multiple meters. I'm trying to to obsess over this but.... The head of the bed is now about 10 feet from the meter wall. The meters are against a fake brick exterior surface. The main thing I have noticed for a long time now is that tinnitus (ringing in my ears) is much much worse in my bedroom. I thought maybe it was just because I'm more aware when trying to go to sleep but I will start noticing even while reading or watching TV. I am concerned, trying not to be as there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. On the other hand, I'd bet I don't use my cell phone for 2 hours a WEEK, don't use the microwave at all, don't have an electric blanket (often wish I had a cooling one, lol) and don't have a WiFi router.
Originally Posted by Reesacat
I am proud and excited to introduce my friend Marjory Wildcraft. Marjory has produced for the aspiring gardener and farmsteader, the most comprehensive package of how-to instructions and advice that I have ever seen. The set contains three disks: two DVDs of hands-on how-tos, and one containing an immense library of print resources. This one collection of video and print DIY resources will replace all the how-to books on your shelf. But I won't waste words. Use