Are New Zealand’s EMR regulations sufficient to protect public health?

Are New Zealand’s EMR regulations sufficient to protect public health?

A one word answer to this question is, sadly, no,


To give one example, the legally allowable electromagnetic fields (such as are present around power lines and household wiring in home connection to the national electricity grid) is 2000 milligauss.

Research has shown the risk of childhood leukaemia is increases when children live in homes with higher electromagnetic fields from household wiring or too close to high voltage powerlines.

In terms of exposure levels, at as little as 3-4 milligauss for a home the risk of ALL (the most common form of leukaemia in children) is approximately doubled. (See:

Yes, that is not a typo, the risk of this form of childhood leukaemia doubles at 1/500th of the maximum legal exposure limit.

Does it seem to you like the standard is adequate to protect health?


Here’s another example: 

The standard* for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in the microwave range (let’s just call it microwave radiation for short) varies according to exact frequency produced by the many different devices that are designed to produce microwave radiation.


Devices that produce microwave radiation include microwave ovens, cordless phones, cell phones, cellular phone infrastructure, “smart” or “advanced” electricity meters, wi-fi routers, wireless baby monitors etc. etc.


*For example, for devices that produce microwave radiation at the frequency of 900MHz, the allowable limit is as high as 4,500,000 microwatts per square metre when the device radiates continuously. (See this link for a discussion of one device that produces microwave radiation and how lax the safety standard can be in practice: )


Microwave radiation is considered to be a has been classified by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a possible carcinogen (Class 2B) on the basis of increased brain tumour rates in longer term users of wireless phones. (See;

In a more recently published paper, the authors called for microwave radiation to be upgraded to a probable carcinogen due to more evidence. (

Cordless and mobile phones have to comply with regulations in order to be sold.  An increased risk of cancer in their longer term users suggests that the safety standards for wireless phones are not adequate to protect public health.

Research on the health effects of microwave radiation is available at the following website:

If you read the Bioinitiative website (above) you will see that adverse health or biological effects from exposure to microwave radiation begin at levels that are very much lower than the legal limits for devices that produce microwave radiation.

In NZ, the legal limits for exposure to microwave radiation are among the highest (i.e laxest) in the world, and one reason for this appears to be that people in the telecommunications industry played a major role in setting these standards.  You can read more about this by going to this link:

The health risks associated  with cordless and cellular phones (and from cellular phone infrastructure see: ) are one reason why New Zealand needs to protect and enhance its traditional copper-based landline phone system.

Our copper landlines are now under threat.  Please visit this LINK  for more details and take action.


Thank you for visiting the site that provides New Zealanders with non industry information about smart meters.

NB: If you are on Facebook, please consider “liking” and “following” the following pages so that you can get updates on the landline phone  issue and smart meter issues.

Interested in the smart meter issue?

Please note that if you would like to receive email updates on the smart meter issue for NZ, you can sign up to the free email list at

NZ researcher presents e-poster on electrohypersensitivity at public health conference

New Zealand researcher Mary Redmayne PhD  recently presented an electronic poster (an e-poster) at the 2017 World Congress on Public Health in Melbourne.

Dr. Redmayne’s research interests include the effects of electromagnetic radiation and health as well as how the use of wireless devices impacts on educational outcomes.

To learn more about Dr. Redmayne please see this link

Her e-poster may be accessed through this link:


NB: There are many other links on relating to electrohypersensitivity (EHS).


A paper by an Australian physician has linked smart meters to the development of EHS. Please click HERE for more information.


Two links about EHS are below:


What is it like to live with electrohypersensitivity (EHS)? One woman’s story

A helpful paper on electromagnetic sensitivity by Dr. Mallery-Blythe




Doctors discuss wireless radiation and children’s health

The leading US experts on wireless radiation and human health impacts participate in a live press conference prior to their panel at the Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting in Baltimore. Featuring Dr. Devra Davis, Dr. Hugh Taylor, Dr. Martha Herbert and Dr. Catherine Steiner-Adair.

Please note that cordless phones and cell phones, wi-fi and microwave ovens are among some of the highest sources of the wireless radiation in many homes.

A traditional landline with a cord and a safe hardwired internet connection is a good way to start to protect your children’s health.  (Here and here are links to help you.)  Also:  Avoid using a microwave because a lot of microwave radiation can leak out of these ovens.



Smart meters are not compulsory in NZ

Roll outs of wireless so-called “smart” meters are ongoing in many areas of NZ, including, currently, the Hokianga region. (Some companies may describe smart meters as “advanced” meters in their letters to customers or simply state that the company plans to install the next generation meter or upgrade or a replace the existing meter.)

If you live in an area where smart meters are being installed you may  receive a letter stating that your meter will be upgraded or replaced, however sometimes letters get lost in the mail and do not arrive prior to a planned installation.

You can click HERE for information on how to avoid getting a smart meter.

Please note that while some electricity company representatives tell customers that smart meters are “compulsory” or are a “government requirement” or use other words to this effect, this is not true.  The legal situation regarding electricity meters is explained at this link.


How to get updates on the NZ smart meter situation

If you have found this information interesting or useful, please sign up to the free email list at

Stop Smart Meters NZ is now on Facebook and you can get updates by visiting our page at this link:


Cell phone radiation increases cancer in animals – new study

This shouldn’t be much of a surprise given that a number of studies show that people who use cell phones are at increased risk of developing some types of cancer. (NB: See below for some examples as well as important tips to reduce your exposure to radiation from your cell phone, if you have to use one.)

You can read coverage by the Wall Street Journal of this study at this link (you may need to be a subscriber to access the full article) or an article and interview about the study in Scientific American HERE.

Cell phones and cancer in humans

A 2014 study (published in the journal Pathophysiology) showed that the brain tumour risk was highest after 25 years of mobile phone use and after 15-20 years of cordless phone use.


 This is but one of many other studies showing a link between cell phone use and brain (and other) tumours in people.

 Links to more studies are below:

It is now indisputable that radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the microwave range such is produced by cordless and mobile phones, cordless phone bases, smart meters and cell phone towers has been classified by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer as a “possible carcinogen” (type 2B).


Cellular phone use safety tips:

I realise that many people do have jobs that require them to use a cellular phone.

There is information to help you reduce the risks of unavoidable cellular phone risk at this link:

Please note that ideally, cellular phone use should be minimised, because the more cellular phones are used, the more cellular phone infrastructure is need to support the phones’ use – and living close to cellular phone base stations has been associated with increased risk of cancer in several studies, for example, the one that you can read HERE.


Ed note: If you think that this article is important, please share it, thank you!

This article is also accessible through our Facebook page at this link:

Smart meters are not compulsory in NZ

Please note that it is NOT compulsory to have a smart meter in NZ and to learn how people are refusing to have one installed, please see this LINK. Please notethat it seems to be quite common for smart meters to be installed without prior notification, so if you still have an analogue meter and want to keep it, it would be prudent to take steps to prevent a smart meter installation NOW.

Resources to help you refuse a smart meter, including bilingual Te Reo/English options may be found at this LINK of

To sign up for the free email newsletter, please visit

Smart meter emissions graph

Smart meter emissions graph

Ed note:  In the spirit of an image being equal to one thousand words, please look at the graph below.  The graph was created using data supplied to Auckland City Council (prior to the advent of the “super city” Auckland Council) by Mighty River Power.

Mighty River Power owns the smart metering business “Metrix” as well as four electricity retailers, namely Mercury Energy, Tiny Mighty, Bosco and Globug.  (The latter company provides a pre-pay electricity service in which customers have both a smart meter plus a second RF producing device (known as a Globug) installed in their home; you can read more about this system HERE.)

As a general rule, Metrix has been installing Elster gREX mesh network smart meters in its customers’ homes. These are a type of radio mesh meter.


New screenshot of smart meter emsisions graph

As you can see from the graph (which you can enlarge by clicking on it), at close range to the radio mesh network smart meter, the exposure from the meter when it is transmitting is very high.

Please also note that the limit for RF at 900 MHZ, according to NZ Standard (NZS) 2772.1:1999 is approximately 450 µW/cm2 (450 microwatts per centimetre squared).

However, under normal operating conditions, smart meters do not emit RF constantly – they emit RF in brief bursts.  Some smart meters produce RF every fifteen minutes; others may emit RF more or less often.  Testing of a smart meter in operation will show its emission profile.)

The graph above shows that during these brief emissions, the intensity of RF within a few centimetres of the smart meter is between 100 and 200 times 450 µW/cm2. But this is still legal, because if you average the meter’s emissions over six minutes (during most of which time the meter is not emitting at all) you come up with the answer that the average emission is practically zero.  (Time-averaging over six minutes is specified under NZS 2772.1:1999.)

To put the emissions into perspective, the report compiled by a coalition of scientist available at, just 0.1 microwatts per centimetre squared is recommended as the upper limit for human exposure. (Yes, that it just one tenth of one microwatt per centimetre squared.)

Fortunately smart meters are not compulsory in NZ so no one needs to put up with this type of unnecessary exposure to this type of radiation which is classified as a possible carcinogen (type 2B).


A note about units of measurement: Most of the posts on this site use microwatts per metre squared as a unit of measurement.  Using this measurement, the upper limit under NZS 2772.2:1999 is approximately 4.5 million microwatts per metre squared while the upper limit recommended in the BioInitiative Report is 1000 microwatts per metre squared.

Other posts on the site that discuss the emissions of different types of smart meters may be found HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE (under the Technical FAQs section).


NB:  If you are interested in the smart meter issue, please sign up for updates at


Cell phones don’t cause brain tumours. True or False?

A new study by Professor Simon Chapman et al which was published by Cancer Epidemiology has just been trumpeted in The Conversation and the Daily Mail as showing that cell phones don’t cause brain cancer.

But is this really the case?

The text of abstract alone gives rise to some observations and pertinent questions:

  • Why was 10 years chosen for a cut off point for the Chapman study?

The new Chapman study was designed to detect a 50% increase in incidence in brain cancer assuming that this excess risk should show up at 10 years of cellular phone use.

By comparison, world renowned Australian neurosurgeon Charlie Teo (whose surgical skill has saved or extended the lives of many brain tumour patients) has been quoted (in 2008 as saying:  “If you look at the science on mobile phones and the link with brain cancer, it is quite compelling … we know that [ionising] radiation causes cancer, but it takes about ten years for it to develop, so we know that electromagnetic radiation [from phones] is going to take at least ten years to create brain tumours and possibly longer fifteen, twenty years.” [emphasis added]

Moreover, a major study by Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg published in 2014, showed a significant increase in glioma (a common, and unfortunately often fatal, type of brain tumour) for people who used both mobile and cordless phones.

The 2014 study (published in the journal Pathophysiology) showed that the brain tumour risk was highest after 25 years of mobile phone use and after 15-20 years of cordless phone use.


According to the Chapman study, mobile phones were introduced into Australia 29 years ago. Given that the Hardell study shows that it takes 25 years (or more) exposure for the maximum increase in cell phone-related brain cancers to be detected, it is perhaps not surprising that the 2016 Chapman study did not find a significant excess risk.

According to the Chapman study abstract, cell phones were introduced into Australia in 1987 (only 29 year ago). While today over 90% of Australians are estimated to use a cell phone, at the time of the introduction of this technology to the country in 1987, only a small minority of people actually used a cell phone.  (Even by 1993 only 9% of the population was estimated to use a cell phone.)  On this basis, relatively few Australians would have had 25 years of exposure to cell phones over the period examined by the study and this would have biased the study towards a “no effect” result.

Was the Chapman study designed to reach the conclusion that cell phones don’t cause cancer?

There is no information about any of the authors’ possible conflicts of interest on the study abstract.

However, Professor Simon Chapman appears to have (or have had) links with the cellular phone industry.

He is the co-author of a paper that examined the impact of cellular phones in emergency situations. (The paper showed that cell phones can be of assistance in helping people get help quicker in emergencies such as car accidents or being lost in the bush.)

The full text version of this paper acknowledges that funding for the study was provided by AMTA (Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association).

Simon Chapman is also the author of a book called Lifesavers and cellular samaritans : emergency use of cellular (mobile) phones in Australia.

In the listing for the book Simon Chapman is listed as the primary author, WN Schofield and the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) are listed as being the second and third authors, respectively.  AMTA is listed as being the publisher of the book. (See;

It is interesting, given this publication record, that Simon Chapman does not declare any conflict of interest in the relevant section of the paper.  He could for example, have included a statement to the effect that he has received funding from a telecommunications industry body (AMTA) for a previous paper.  (On the other hand, I do not know the disclosure policy for the journal; perhaps authors are required to disclose only funding specifically relevant to the particular paper rather than sources of funding for past work.)


Regardless of whether Professor Simon Chapman does or does not have any telecommunications industry links that may (or may not) have biased his new paper, in my opinion, the media coverage of his 2016 paper is potentially extremely destructive to public health.

It is apparent from the Hardell studies that cellular and cordless phone risk are similar to cigarette smoking in that it can take decades of heavy smoking before lung cancer develops – and of course not all heavy smokers develop lung cancer, although they may suffer from other smoking-related conditions.

With an estimated 90% plus of Australians using cellular phones (and a similar proportion of people in NZ), twenty five years from now we could easily be looking at a significant number of people developing brain tumours that could have been avoided had there been clear public health messaging to avoid cordless and cellular phone use – except in an emergency.

As it is, the publicity given to Simon Chapman’s 2016 study means that most people are likely to believe that cellular phone use is safe.  On the basis of the messages in the media relating to Simon Chapman’s 2016 study, they may even allow their children to use cellular phones, even though Hardell’s Pathophysiology paper showed that the risks from mobile (and cordless phone) use are higher in people who begin using these wireless phones prior to the age of twenty.

Today virtually everyone knows that smoking increases the risk of developing lung cancer. (Based on US insurance statistics a white male who smokes has about 10 times the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer as a non-smoking white male.)

However, while the smoking-lung cancer connection is now so well known it is practically taken for granted, this was not always the case.  For decades, as genuine research on smoking and disease was being published, so too was tobacco industry funded research also published.  This industry sponsored research (aka “tobacco science”) caused confusion in the public and resulted in many people continuing to smoke because they believed that it was safe – and consequently caused many, many unnecessarily early deaths.

A failure by mainstream media to inform the public about the research that demonstrates links between cellular and cordless phone use and cancer could have the same tragic consequences.

Ed note: If you think that this article is important, please share it, thank you!


Cellular phone use safety tips:

I realise that many people do have jobs that require them to use a cellular phone.

There is information to help you reduce the risks of unavoidable cellular phone risk at this link:

Please note that ideally, cellular phone use should be minimised, because the more cellular phones are used, the more cellular phone infrastructure is need to support the phones’ use – and living close to cellular phone base stations has been associated with increased risk of cancer in several studies, for example, the one that you can read HERE.


Link to Daily Mail article:

Link to abstract of Prof. Simon Chapman et al’s 2016 study:


More info

if you are interested in receiving newsletters from (mostly about smart meters but occasionally about other technologies that produce miocrowave radiation) there is a free email list at )

Prostituting Science:  A must-read book about “environmental illness”

Prostituting Science: A must-read book about “environmental illness”

A monumental and perhaps the most inclusive work ever on MCS [Multiple Chemical Sensitivities] and EHS  [Electrohypersensitivity] –   Pelda B. Hyman, New York.

In presenting a PS Coverhost of the non-communicable diseases that currently plague our society not simply as diseases of civilization but as by-products of that civilization’s reliance on chemo- and electrowizardry, Prostituting Science takes up where Silent Spring left off.

Prostituting Science documents authoritative evidence for such an aetiology for a number of contemporary disorders ranging from asthma, migraine, diabetes, obesity, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and cardiovascular disease; through ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, depression and schizophrenia; to chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

In addition to mustering a formidable assemblage of scientific data, Mrs Crumpler documents her own family’s descent into disabling Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) and Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) as a consequence of heavy pesticide exposure. Here, too, is all the evidence you’ll ever need to convince the sceptics that these are bona fide physiological disorders, as well as an effective treatment protocol for recovery.

As the title denotes, Prostituting Science also explores the paradox whereby the more that is known of a physical aetiology for these disorders, the more widely accepted have become allegations of psychogenesis. Within this context are also recounted gross abuses of the civil and human rights that other citizens of a representative democracy tend to take for granted.

Diana Crumpler trained as a teacher-librarian and taught in Victorian schools until 1984, when she was forced to retire due to ill-health. A career change was prompted by the eventual diagnosis of MCS and EHS. For the past 25 years she has been one of Australia’s foremost writers on MCS and EHS and the effects of chemicals on both human and environmental health. Her first book, Chemical Crisis, won widespread acclaim in Australia, North America and Great Britain.


NB:  The text above comes from the back cover of this book which I highly recommend to anyone who is interested in how chemicals and electromagnetic radiation can adversely impact health.

To order the book, please use the form below:

Prostituting Science order form on flyer

Smart meter radiation measured in Whangarei

On December 22, 2015,  Whangarei journalist Clare Swinney used a Cornet ED 78S model EMR test meter to measure the microwave radiation (also known as radiofrequency radiation) adjacent to a smart meter which had been installed at a friend’s home.

As you can see from the video below, the smart meter was shown in the test to emit brief pulses of microwave radiation every six seconds or so.


The pulses of microwave radiation measured during this brief video clip were quite high; over 100 milliwatts per square metre or 100,000 microwatts per square metre.  The highest pulse measured on December 22 was over 140,o00 microwatts per square metre. The previous day, the highest measurement had been 258,000 microwatts per square metre.

The Bioinitiative Report (which was written by an international coalition of scientists concerned about the health effects from microwave radiation exposures) recommends a maximum exposure of only 1,000 microwatts per square metre.

The brand and model of the meter being measured in the youtube clip is a Landis+Gyr E350 series smart meter.  (This type of meter is also being installed in the Waikato area by WEL Networks Ltd where the meter is being termed a “smart box”.)

Landis+Gyr smart meters are also being installed in other parts of NZ including the South Auckland region by Counties Power. Network Tasman Ltd (which covers the Nelson and Golden Bay area) also indicated that it would install this type of meter as did Alpine Energy which is in Central Canterbury. NB:  If you go to and type Network Tasman into the search box you will found a lot of information about this company’s activities or you can go to this link.

(Links to more information about the Landis+Gyr E 350 series type of meter will be included at the bottom of this post.)

The meter appears to be owned by Metrix. (Metrix is a division of Mighty River Power which was partially privatised by the NZ governemnt.  Metrix’s company motto is “Power is Information“).

What if you don’t want to be exposed to microwave radiation from a Landis+Gyr smart meter?

If you have a Landis+Gyr E 350 type smart meter at your home and do not want to be exposed to the potentially carcinogenic microwave radiation from the meter or you have developed symptoms like this lady since its installation, these meters do have a removable modem and ZigBee chip.

Your electricity retailer should be able to arrange for the removal of the modem and ZigBee (also known as “communications module” for you.  Once these components have been removed the meter will no long produce pulses of microwave radiation.  (You can read more about smart meters with their modems removed at this link.

Smart meters are NOT compulsory in NZ

Please note that while staff from some electricity companies have been telling their customers that smart meters are compulsory or are some sort of government requirement, this is NOT true.  (There is more information about this issue at this link )  If you do not want a smart meter because you are concerned about the higher bills that could follow a smart meter installation, or Time of Use pricing, many people in NZ are successfully refusing to have a smart meter installed using the techniques described at this link


Links to further information about Landis+Gyr E350 series smart meters


Is the WEL “smart box” a way to facilitate “smart” water metering?

A WEL “smart box” is a “smart meter”

Is the WEL “smart box” a health hazard?


Shame on you, WEL Networks Ltd

Did you agree to have a WEL Networks “smart box” installed because you thought it was compulsory?

If you would like to keep up to date with information about electromagnetic radiation and health, including the “smart” meter issue in NZ, please sign up to the free email list at Thank you




A helpful paper on electromagnetic sensitivity by Dr. Mallery-Blythe

British physician Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe has written an excellent resource on electromagnetic hypersensitivity (also know as electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and electrosensitivity (ES).)

You can read this document at this link:


NB: Smart meters have been reported as a possible contributing factor in the development of electromagnetic hypersensitivity in some people.

If you would like to keep up to date with information about electromagnetic radiation and health, including the “smart” meter issue in NZ, please sign up to the free email list at Thank you

EMF scientists appeal to United Nations for better safety standards for non-ionising radiation

An international group of scientists who have expertise in electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and electromagnetic fields (EMF) have appealed to the United Nations for protection from exposure to non-ionising electromagnetic field exposures.

Their appeal discusses why current safety standards in most countries [this includes NZ – Ed] are inadequate because “numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines.”

The scientists have requested that:

  1. children and pregnant women be protected;
  2. guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened;
  3. manufacturers be encouraged to develop safer technology;
  4. utilities responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution, and monitoring of electricity maintain adequate power quality and ensure proper electrical wiring to minimize harmful ground current;
  5. the public be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy and taught harm reduction strategies;
  6. medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity;
  7. governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that is independent of industry and mandate industry cooperation with researchers;
  8. media disclose experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding health and safety aspects of EMF-emitting technologies; and
  9. white-zones (radiation-free areas) be established.

The full text of the scientists’ appeal is at this link:


NB: If you are interested in the health effects of EMF and/or the smart meter issue, please sign up to the free newsletter at

How much microwave radiation do smart meters in NZ produce?

There are a variety of different types of smart meters on the NZ market.  These include EDMI Atlas Mk7A, Mk7C and Mk7D meters, Elster gREX meters and Landis+Gyr E350 series smart meters, to name a few of the more common types.

The meters all have to comply with NZS2772.1:1999.  However this standard is designed to protect only against shocks, thermal injury and sudden death not the type of symptoms  (such as headaches, heart function abnormalties etc that have been reported by many people following exposure to radiation from smart meters. (See:

The following links discuss the level of microwave radiation produced by different types of smart meters on the NZ market. 

In practice, exposure from the same type of meter could vary depending on the type of environment in which a meter is located.  (For example, a meter inside am open plan home could expose the occupants to more microwave radiation than the same type of  meter mounted on an exterior corrugated iron wall as the metal will reflect radiation away from the home.)

Another type of meter (it looks from the photo to be an Elster gREX smart meter) was measured as producing 1,360,000 microwatts per square metre.



NB: If you are interested in the smart meter issue, please sign up to the free newsletter at


See the cell phone documentary Mobilize for free

The cell phone documentary Mobilize tells you the truth about cell phones and health.  You won’t get this information from the telecommunications industry but what you learn through watching this film could save your life  – or the life of a family member or friend.

 Mobilize  will screen in Auckland on Tuesday, May 26 at 7.o0 PM at the St Heliers  Community Centre, 100 St Heliers Rd,  St Heliers, Auckland.

Seating is limited; please phone 575 6098 to book your seat.  Refreshments will be served after the film.  The screening is free.

About the event organiser and how to find out about future events:

This movie evening is being organised by Paul Waddell from  It is well worth joining his email list for information about EMR as well as events that are coming up.


NB: If you are interested in EMR and health, please sign up to the free newsletter at



Smart meters: Correcting the gross misinformation

Companies that stand to profit from smart meter roll outs frequently claim that smart meters are “safe”.  Too often, this assertion goes unchallenged.

Below you can see how a group of scientists and health professionals wrote a letter which was published in a Canadian magazine.  The letter rebutts claims by smart meter proponents that so-called smart meters are safe.

The introductory text below comes from this link:


In a Canadian magazine, La maison du 21e siècle [“The house of the 21st century”], Dr. David O. Carpenter, a distinguished physician and former founding dean of the School of Public Health, State University, Albany (New York), has just published a letter called “Smart Meters: Correcting the Gross Misinformation.”(**) It is here reproduced in its entirety:


“Smart Meters: Correcting the Gross Misinformation.

“We, the undersigned are a group of scientists and health professionals who together have coauthored hundreds of peer-reviewed studies.

“We wish to correct some of the gross misinformation found in the letter regarding wireless “smart” meters that was published in the Montreal daily Le Devoir on May 24. Submitted by a group Quebec engineers, physicists and chemists, the letter in question reflects an obvious lack of understanding of the science behind the health impacts of the radiofrequency (RF)/microwave EMFs emitted by these meters.

The statement that “Thousands of studies, both epidemiological and experimental in humans, show no increase in cancer cases as a result of exposure to radio waves of low intensity…” is false(1). [Emphasis added]

“In fact, only a few such studies — two dozen case-control studies of mobile phone use, certainly not thousands, have reported no elevations of cancer, and most were funded by the wireless industry. In addition, these reassuring studies contained significant experimental design flaws, mainly the fact that the populations followed were too small and were followed for a too short period of time.
“Non industry-funded studies have clearly demonstrated a significant increase in cancer cases among individuals who have suffered from prolonged exposure to low-level microwaves, transmitted notably by radio antennas. The effects were best documented in meta-analyses that have been published and that include grouped results from several different studies: these analyses consistently showed an increased risk of brain cancer among regular users of a cell phone who have been exposed to microwaves for at least ten years.

Brain Cancer Rates

“Furthermore, the argument that brain cancer rates do not indicate an overall increase in incidence is not evidence that cell phones are safe: the latency for brain cancer in adults after environmental exposure can be long, up to 20-30 years. Most North Americans haven’t used cell phones extensively for that long. The evidence of the link between long-term cell phone use and brain cancer comes primarily from Northern Europe, where cell phones have been commonly used since the 1990s.

“Children are especially at risk. In May 2012, the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics reported a 50 percent increase in incidence of frontal and temporal lobe tumors in children between 1999 and 2009. This statistic is especially disturbing since in May 2011, after reviewing the published scientific literature regarding cancers affecting cell phone users, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency radiation as a 2B, possible human carcinogen. Despite the absence of scientific consensus, the evidence is sufficiently compelling for any cautious parent to want to reduce their loved one’s exposure to RF/microwave emissions as much as possible, as recommended by various countries such as Austria, Belgium, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom.


“Public fears about wireless smart meters are well-founded. They are backed by various medical authorities such as the Public Health Departments of Santa Cruz County (California) and of Salzburg State (Austria). These authorities are worried about the growing number of citizens who say they have developed electrohypersensitivity (EHS), especially since for many of them, the symptoms developed after the installation of such meters (it takes some time for most people to link the two events).

“Since the turn of the millennium, people are increasingly affected by ambient microwaves due to the growing popularity of wireless devices such as cell phones and Wi-Fi Internet. Therefore, the mass deployment of smart grids could expose large chunks of the general population to alarming risk scenarios without their consent. According to seven surveys done in six European countries between 2002 and 2004, about 10% of Europeans have become electrosensitive, and experts fear that percentage could reach 50% by 2017. The most famous person to publicly reveal her electrosensitivity is Gro Harlem Brundtland, formerly Prime Minister of Norway and retired Director of the World Health Organization (WHO).

“While there is no consensus on the origins and mechanisms of EHS, many physicians and other specialists around the world have become aware that EHS symptoms (neurological dermatological, acoustical, etc.) seem to be triggered by exposure to EMF levels well below current international exposure limits, which are established solely on short-term thermal effects.(2) Organizations such as the Austrian Medical Association and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine have recognized that the ideal way to treat of EHS is to reduce EMF exposure.

“Therefore, caution is warranted because the growing variety of RF/microwave emissions produced by many wireless devices such as smart meters have never been tested for their potential biological effects.

Well-known bioeffects

“While the specific pathways to cancer are not fully understood, it is scientifically unacceptable to deny the weight of the evidence regarding the increase in cancer cases in humans that are exposed to high levels of RF/microwave radiation.

“The statement that “there is no established mechanism by which a radio wave could induce an adverse effect on human tissue other than by heating” is incorrect, and reflects a lack of awareness and understanding of the scientific literature on the subject. In fact, more than a thousand studies done on low intensity, high frequency, non-ionizing radiation, going back at least fifty years, show that some biological mechanisms of effect do not involve heat. This radiation sends signals to living tissue that stimulate biochemical changes, which can generate various symptoms and may lead to diseases such as cancer.

“Even though RF/microwaves don’t have the energy to directly break chemical bonds, unlike ionizing radiation such as X-rays, there is scientific evidence that this energy can cause DNA damage indirectly leading to cancer by a combination of biological effects. Recent publications have documented the generation of free radicals, increased permeability of the blood brain barrier allowing potentially toxic chemicals to enter the brain, induction of genes, as well as altered electrical and metabolic activity in human brains upon application of cell phone RF/microwaves similar to those produced by smart meters.

“These effects are cumulative and depend on many factors including RF/microwave levels, frequency, waveform, exposure time, bio-variability between individuals and combination with other toxic agents. Clear evidence that these microwaves are indeed bioactive has been shown by the fact that low-intensity EMFs have proven clinically useful in some circumstances. Pulsed EMFs have long been used to successfully treat bone fractures that are resistant to other forms of therapy. More recently, frequency-specific, amplitude-modulated EMFs have been found useful to treat advanced carcinoma and chronic pain.

“High frequency EMFs such as the microwaves used in cell phones, smart meters, Wi-Fi and cordless ‘‘DECT’’ phones, appear to be the most damaging when used commonly. Most of their biological effects, including symptoms of electrohypersensitivity, can be seen in the damage done to cellular membranes by the loss of structurally-important calcium ions. Prolonged exposure to these high frequencies may eventually lead to cellular malfunction and death.

“Furthermore, malfunction of the parathyroid gland, located in the neck just inches from where one holds a cell phone, may actually cause electrohypersensitivity in some people by reducing the background level of calcium ions in the blood. RF/microwave radiation is also known to decrease the production of melatonin, which protects against cancer, and to promote the growth of existing cancer cells.

Early warning scientists attacked

“In recommending that the Precautionary Principle be applied in EMF matters, the European Environment Agency’s Director Jacqueline McGlade wrote in 2009: “We have noted from previous health hazard histories such as that of lead in petrol, and methyl mercury, that ‘early warning’ scientists frequently suffer from discrimination, from loss of research funds, and from unduly personal attacks on their scientific integrity. It would be surprising if this is not already a feature of the present EMF controversy…” Such unfortunate consequences have indeed occurred.

“The statement in the Le Devoir letter that “if we consider that a debate should take place, it should focus exclusively on the effects of cell phones on health” is basically an acknowledgement that there is at least some reason to be concerned about cell phones. However, while the immediate exposure from a cell phone is of much greater intensity than the exposure from smart meters, cell phone use is temporary.

Smart meters

“Wireless smart meters typically produce atypical, relatively potent and very short pulsed RF/microwaves whose biological effects have never been fully tested. They emit these millisecond-long RF bursts on average 9,600 times a day with a maximum of 190,000 daily transmissions and a peak level emission two and a half times higher than the stated safety signal [Perlingieri’s italics], as the California utility Pacific Gas & Electric recognized before that State’s Public Utilities Commission. Thus people in proximity to a smart meter are at risk of significantly greater aggregate exposure than with a cell phone, not to mention the cumulative levels of RF/microwaves that people living near several meters are exposed to. [Website editor’s note:

“People are exposed to cell phone microwaves primarily in the head and neck, and only when they use their device. With smart meters, the entire body is exposed to the microwaves, which increases the risk of overexposure to many organs.

“In addition to these erratic bursts of modulated microwaves coming from smart meters that are transferring usage data to electric, gas and water utilities, wireless and wired smart (powerline communication) meters are also a major source of ‘’dirty electricity’’ (electrical interference of high frequency voltage transients typically of kilohertz frequencies). Indeed, some scientists, such as American epidemiologist Sam Milham, believe that many of the health complaints about smart meters may also be caused by dirty electricity generated by the “switching” power supply activating all smart meters. Since the installation of filters to reduce dirty electricity circulating on house wiring has been found to relieve symptoms of EHS in some people, this method should be considered among the priorities aimed at reducing potential adverse impacts.

Rather be safe than sorry

“The apparent adverse health effects noted with smart meter exposure are likely to be further exacerbated if smart appliances that use wireless communications become the norm and further increase unwarranted exposure.
To date, there have been few independent studies of the health effects of such sources of more continuous but lower intensity microwaves. However, we know after decades of studies of hazardous chemical substances, that chronic exposure to low concentrations of microwaves can cause equal or even greater harm than an acute exposure to high concentrations of the same microwaves.

“This is why so many scientists and medical experts urgently recommend that measures following the Precautionary Principle be applied immediately — such as using wired meters — to reduce biologically inappropriate microwave exposure. We are not advocating the abolishment of RF technologies, only the use of common sense and the development and implementation of best practices in using these technologies in order to reduce exposure and risk of health hazards.”


1. Scientific papers on EMF health effects:

2. Explanation and studies on electrosensitivity:

3. Governments and organizations that ban or warn against wireless technology:

[Letter signed by:]

*David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health & the Environment, University at Albany, USA
*Jennifer Armstrong, MD, Past President, Canadian Society of Environmental Medicine, Founder, Ottawa Environmental Health Clinic, Ontario, Canada
*Pierre L. Auger, M. D., FRCPC, Occupational medicine, Multiclinique des accidentés 1464, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
*Fiorella Belpoggi, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna, Italy
*Martin Blank, PhD, former President, Bioelectromagnetics Society, Special Lecturer, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, USA
*Barry Breger, MD, Centre d’intégration somatosophique (orthomolecular medicine), Montreal, Quebec
*John Cline, MD, Professor, Institute for Functional Medicine, Federal Way, WA, USA, Medical Director, Cline Medical Centre, Nanaimo, BC, Canada
*Alvaro Augusto de Salles, PhD, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
*Christos Georgiou, Prof. Biochemistry, Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece
*Andrew Goldsworthy, PhD, Honorary lecturer in Biology, Imperial College, London, UK
*Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, PhD, Director, Centro de Investigación, Hospital Universitario LA Fe, Valencia, Spain
*Livio Giuliani, PhD, Senior Researcher, National Insurance Institute (INAIL), Chief of Radiation and Ultrasounds Research Unit, Rome, Italy
*Yury Grigoriev, PhD, Chair Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russia
*Settimio Grimaldi, PhD, Director, Institute of Translational Pharmacology (Neurobiology and molecular medicine), National Research Council, Rome, Italy
*Magda Havas, PhD, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada
*Lennart Hardell, MD, Professor of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden
*Denis L. Henshaw, PhD, Professor of Physics, Head of The Human Radiation Effects Group, University of Bristol, UK
*Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Chairman of Board, Environmental Health Trust, and Founding Director emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, USA
*Isaac Jamieson, PhD Environmental Science (electromagnetic phenomena in the built environment), independent architect, scientist and environmental consultant, Hertfordshire, UK
*Olle Johansson, PhD, Professor of Neuroscience (Experimental Dermatology Unit), Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
*Yury Kronn, PhD, Soviet authority on physics of nonlinear vibrations and high frequency electromagnetic vibrations, founder of Energy Tools International, Oregon, USA
*Henry Lai, PhD, Professor of Bioengineering, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
*Abraham R. Liboff, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA
*Don Maisch, PhD, Researcher on radiation exposure standards for telecommunications frequency, EMFacts Consultancy, Tasmania, Australia
*Andrew A. Marino, MD, PhD, JD, Professor of Neurology, LSU Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA
*Karl Maret, MD, M.Eng., President, Dove Health Alliance, Aptos, CA, USA
*Sam Milham, MD, former chief epidemiologist, Washington State Department of Health, USA
*Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
*Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg State Government, Austria
*Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Director, Center for Excellence in Science, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Colorado, USA
*John Podd, PhD, Professor of Psychology (experimental neuropsychology), Massey University, New-Zeland
*William J. Rea, MD, thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon, founder of the Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Tx, USA
*Elihu D. Richter, MD, Professor, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel
*Leif G. Salford, MD, Senior Professor of Neurosurgery, Lund University, Sweden
*Nesrin Seyhan, MD, Founder and Chair of Biophysics, Medical Faculty of Gazi University, Turkey
*Cyril W. Smith, PhD, lead author of “Electromagnetic Man”, retired from Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Salford, UK
*Morando Soffritti, MD, Scientific Director of the European Foundation for Oncology and Environmental Sciences “B. Ramazzini” in Bologna, Italy
*Antoinette “Toni” Stein, PhD, Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE-EMF Working Group), Co-Coordinator, Berkeley, CA, USA
*Stanislaw Szmigielski, MD, PhD, Professor of Pathophysiology, Consulting Expert, former director of Microwave Safety, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland
*Bradford S. Weeks, MD, Director, The Weeks Clinic, Clinton, WA, USA
*Stelios A. Zinelis, MD, Vice-President, Hellenic Cancer Society, Cefallonia, Greece

Maison Saine. 11 July, 2012. Quebec-based magazine La Maison du 21e siècle asked physician David O. Carpenter, former founding dean of the University at Albany (NY)’s School of Public Health, to comment on a letter published in the Montreal daily Le Devoir last May 24  [2012]. This letter claimed wireless smart meters pose no risk to public health. Some forty international experts contributed to the following rebuttal. See, Dr. David O. Carpenter:

NOTE: This original article link (above) also has numerous medical links.

Electromagnetic radiation and health presentation at EcoWest Festival on March 25

Eco-West Festival 2015

EcoWest is a month-long festival of diverse events from 14 March – 12 April 2015, showcasing the people and projects caring for the West Auckland environment and connecting you with a myriad of opportunities to discover, make, regenerate and learn.

This year’s festival programme features over 40 events hosted by innovative environmental organisations, businesses, sustainability experts and creative entrepreneurs who embrace eco ideas through their work.

As part of the Eco-West Festival Paul Waddell from will be giving a presentation on Wednesday 25th March from 6.30 to 8.30.  This will be a practical demonstration of testing for electromagnetic radiation and a discussion on how to be safer in our modern techno world.  Cost is $10 Please click here to make a booking.


NB: To sign up for emails on the smart meter situiation in NZ please visit

Environmental Sensitivities Symposium March 2015

An Environmental Sensitivities Symposium is coming up in 2015.  The Symposium is designed to help people with a variety of illnesses, including those who have electromagnetic sensitivity (also known as electrosensitivity or  electrohypersensitivity), multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), food allergies and other conditions such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Lyme disease.

The Symposium features international experts such as:

Michael Bevington is the chair of Trustees of the charity ElectroSensitivity UK (See
Prof Olle Johansson, associate professor, head of the Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, is a world-leading authority in the field of EMF radiation and health effects.
Other speakers include:
Martin Pall, PhD, Dr Christabelle Yeoh and Lucinda Curran.
Basic access to the online Symposium is FREE while there are upgrades available for modest fees.  (A book option is available for people who have severe electrosensitivity issues and cannot use a computer.)
More information about the Symposium speakers may be found at this link:
The Symposium website is below:
NB:  Please let colleagues, friends and family know about this event as public education about conditions such as electrosensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is badly needed to help improve the lives of people who have these conditions easier.  (The current lack of knowledge among the general public about electrosensitivity, MCS etc. makes life harder than it should be for people who have developed these conditions as neighbours may inadvertently cause harm, by for example, allowing the installation of a  smart meter close to the home of some who has electrosensitivity, or by using toxic garden chemicals etc. etc.)
More information on the Symposium may also be found at this link: