What struck me most was the common time-line: normal people, strange new symptoms, who only later discovered that a smart meter had been installed at the time or just before their symptoms initiated.
It is striking that the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called for a moratorium on smart meters (2012) and continues to veto them today.
Based on their literature reviews and clinical experience, they advised no smart meters should be located in or next to the homes of those with cardiac or neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s or dementia; or electrosensitivity; or cancer.
Their board wrote to California’s Public Utilities Commission: “guidelines for RF exposure used to justify installation of ‘smart meters’ are based only on thermal effects and are obsolete” – guidelines now under heavy fire from the 224-scientist appeal to the UN (see Part 1).
The AAEM continues: “Wireless RF radiation … effects accumulate over time which is an important consideration given the chronic nature of exposure to ‘smart meters’. The current medical literature raises credible questions about genetic and cellular effects, hormonal effects … blood / brain barrier damage, and increased risks of certain types of cancers from RF and ELF levels similar to those emitted by ‘smart meters’. Children are placed at particular risk.”
Footage has been published of smart meter transmissions disrupting the human heartbeat. Blind electrocardiogram field tests (16 May 2017), verified by Dr Gilberto Leon MD, an American GP, reveal smart meter heartbeat disruption in an apparently healthy adult male.
Repeated disruption was found at 1m from a smart meter in blind tests on a healthy adult male. Dr Leon warned this effect “silently makes our hearts work too hard“, a chronic stress. He had to halt a later blind test (1.5m) on a woman due to the meter’s apparent, rapid impact. If such risks are confirmed by double-blind studies (if funded), or found at greater distances, should smart-meters be re-sited or withdrawn?
Electro-siege … RF-sensitive medical implants
Pacemakers, insulin pumps, deep-brain stimulators, cochlear implants, internal defibrillators (ICDs), spinal stimulators and other RF-sensitive implants are in growing use worldwide. Many of us have loved ones with such implants, and may face personal use in later life.
Geophysics professor Gary Olhoeft has a Parkinson’s deep-brain-stimulator that can be affected unpredictably around wireless technologies, even shutting off. He has given talks on the EMF cacophony we are creating – and its breathtaking short-sightedness.
During one such talk, everyone present indicated that their own medical implants had been disturbed by EMFs in the environment. On the lack of research into such interactions, he says “you have to ask: why is so little known about something that has the potential to injure or kill so many … ?”
Internationally, there has been no post-rollout monitoring of possible smart-meter / medical implant interactions, despite the meters’ 24:7 piercing microwave pulses, mixed modalities, and situations – such tiny shop units (UK) – which create sustained close exposure. Despite the new EU law on occupational EMFs.
Louis Donovan (California) testifies to four hospitalisations from pacemaker shut-downs, plus EMI that continually overrode his pacemaker, that coincided with smart-metering and ceased only on meter removal many months later. Baffled surgeons found no fault with his mint-condition device. Jerry Kozak (Canada) had chronic palpitations that overrode his pacemaker, relieved only by blocking his smart-meter. Though circumstantial, such testimonies suggest a need for vigilance.
In 2015, engineer Jeff Silverberg at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (USA) reported that “EMC information in regulation is often incomplete and has errors.” Noting that, numerically, medical implant interference problems may far exceed those reported to his unit, he flagged growing risks from the “proliferation of RF wireless technology”…