Australia’s independent audit of smart meters – do not have any hopes…

On July 15, 2014, Australian news site news.com.au published a brief story: ‘Reports of illness prompt audit of smart meter radiation‘.

Those, who have any hopes that this audit will help to resolve the problem of smart meters and reports of illness should lose their hopes immediately. It is very likely that nothing will change. Smart meters will be pronounced perfectly safe because emitted radiation levels are below current safety standards.

The article states, and I quote:

“…Energy Minister Russell Northe said: “The Government expects that smart meters will be shown to operate well within the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency standard.”

Electromagnetic emission rates from the smart meters will be compared with those from other devices such as mobile phones, microwave ovens, televisions, wi-fi routers and computers.

A similar, smaller 2011 study found emissions were well within the accepted safety standard…”

Statement from Mr. Northe clearly shows that the result of the audit is already known – safety standards are met. No problem.

This is and will be the answer to anyone who now, or in the near future, will question safety of smart meters or any EMF-emitting device – safety standards are met.

However, are the current, very old, safety standards correct and are they protecting all users of EMF-emitting devices and technologies?

When you ask ICNIRP, the answer will be yes. However, ICNIRP is a “private club” where members themselves select new, similarly minded, members. Furthermore, there is no accountability for mistakes made by the ICNIRP members. There is also no accountability for the conflict of interest in ICNIRP. For very strange and unexplainable reasons, this “private club” got an upper hand and dictates the whole world, via its WHO connection, what is safe and what is not?

As long as the current safety standards are in place, efforts to limit the already uncontrolled spread of EMF-emitting technologies will be futile. The appropriate authorities, politicians, policy and decision makers will always have the easy answer ready – technology meets current safety standards.

Are these safety standards really correct? I am not certain, and I have doubts stemming from the three sets of epidemiological studies: European Interphone, Swedish Hardell group and French CERENAT. These are three replications that all have shown that the long term (over 10 years) avid users (30 minutes per day) of cell phone have higher risk of developing brain cancer. Epidemiology, as I often pointed out, is a very uncertain science because of a diverse variety of biases. However, here we have three studies showing the same. Three replicates.

These three replicates suggest that the current safety standards are not correct and do not protect all users. Here is what I wrote in my recent article published by The Green Gazette in Canada ‘Wireless communication and Precautionary Principle’:

“… In epidemiological case-control studies evaluated by the IARC [CERENAT study was published after IARC evaluation], adult participants used regular, off-the-shelf, cellphones.

These cellphones were built to fulfill the ICNIRP safety standards. However, avid use of such “safe” phones for a period of over 10 years led to an increased risk of brain cancer.

This means that the current safety standards do not sufficiently protect users of cellphones…”

What is needed is not an audit of certain “gadgets” but there is an urgent need for a really independent, non-ICNIRP, audit of the reliability of the current safety standards.

Advertisements