Claims that smart meters are dangerous to human health called preposterous by FortisBC officials

By on May 23, 2013
Suggestions that FortisBC is prepared to risk the health of its tens of thousands of customers across the South Okanagan are preposterous, says Corey Sinclair, the company’s manager of regulatory affairs.
“The suggestions of something nefarious have been a bit much,” said Sinclair, who, along with Mark Warren, the company’s director of customer service and Neal Pobran, manager of corporate communications, paid a visit to Osoyoos two weeks ago to meet with various media outlets.
Health Canada is in charge of setting the parameters for utility companies like FortisBC to operate under when it comes to health care standards and suggestions that advanced metering infrastructure (AMI)  – more commonly known as smart meters- pose a threat to human health have never been proven and would not be approved by Health Canada officials, said Sinclair.
The British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) is ultimately in charge of approving or rejecting the current FortisBC application to introduce its automated metering infrastructure (AMI) – more commonly recognized as smart meters – to its customers across the South Okanagan.
A similar application by FortisBC was rejected by the BCUC in 2008.
You could stand half-a-metre away from one of the smart meters being proposed to be installed on residential properties in Osoyoos and across the South Okanagan for several consecutive hours and not be affected at all, he said.
“The readings would be 10,000 times lower than the safety code standard approved by Health Canada,” he said. “The electronic emissions from a baby monitor are 340 times greater than those emitted by a smart meter.”
Outspoken proponents against FortisBC’s AMI project like Kelowna’s Jerry Flynn, a retired electronics expert from the Canadian military who has spent the past several months speaking to thousands of B.C. residents about what he perceives to be the serious health risks posed by smart meters, has made an impact and resulted in significant negative press against the utility, Sinclair admitted.
Canada is a free country and people like Flynn can do as they please, but none of the information he has presented to the public over the past several months has been scientifically proven, which is the only standard that counts as far as FortisBC management is concerned, he said.
“Mr. Flynn throws reams of information at you and website after website … but it’s our position none of that information he throws out there has been approved through peer-reviewed science,” he said.
“While we respect what Mr. Flynn is trying to do because we do believe he’s convinced he’s right, when you dig in you will find out most of his information doesn’t come from very reliable sources or is simply inaccurate.”
It’s easy in today’s technological age to download a seemingly endless amount of information from various websites and suggest it acts as proof on any number of controversial subjects, but FortisBC has done its due diligence in applying to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) to introduce its AMI project to its customers, he said.
Health Canada has established its “safety code 6” relating to electro-magnetic emissions based on the best science available today and would never approve any program or project that would endanger the health and safety of Canadian citizens, said Sinclair.
“We would never do anything to cause any harm to our customers and we think Health Canada has done a great job of reviewing the science,” he said.
Commissioners from the BCUC have held dozens of public hearings about the FortisBC AMI application and received thousands of comments on its website , so members of the public have been given every opportunity to voice their concerns relating to this project, he said.
The fact the BCUC rejected its application back in 2008 clearly shows FortisBC does not exert any influence over the BCUC, as some have suggested, and FortisBC has complied with every rule and regulation demanded throughout the process, said Sinclair.
If the BCUC were to reject its current application, the company would “have no choice but to accept that decision and carry on with running our business,” he said.
When asked if the company would consider an “opt out clause” if the application is successful and certain customers did not want a smart meter installed on their home, Sinclair said the company considered this option, but made a business decision that it would not be economical feasible to offer such a clause.
No time line has been set by the BCUC to make its final decision on the FortisBC application to install smart meters in the South Okanagan. FortisBC made its final submission, based on public comments and information gathered at public hearings, recently.


  1. Rongee

    May 23, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    Prof. Olle Johansson of Sweden elegantly summarizes in a recent letter to our useless Provincial Health Officer Perry Kendall: 1) Low intensity health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing exposure standards 2) public safety limits are obsolete and inadequate with respect to prolonged exposures 3) new standards are urgently needed to protect human health world wide 4) it is not in the public interest to wait (paraphrased for brevity). Google: ‘The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields’ by Andrew Goldsworthy. Sinclair and Warren are either ignorant or wilfully deceptive. Why not meet Jerry Flynn in a town hall meeting and lets get the facts clarified? Fortis won’t do that, nor will BC Hydro. Why did Santa Cruz CA reject smart meters after conducting their own independent investigation? Research it. Think for yourself. Start with ‘Corrupt to the Core’ by Dr. Shiv Chopra, an ex Health Canada scientist.

  2. Rongee

    May 23, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    I put in a comment re the Fortis article, it was marked to be ‘moderated’ but not has disappeared. Why are you not publishing it? It’s not profane, it is accurate, all the facts can be documented. Remove the word ‘useless’ as a descriptor for our public health officer if you like, but I want to know why my time consuming and well thought through comment was not published.

  3. Jerry Flynn

    May 23, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    I hereby formally INVITE any senior executive(s) of Fortis BC to debate with me one-on-one the whole issue of smart meters in meshed-grid networks. My only stipulation is that the debate must be in a public venue and the public and media must be invited and in attendance.
    Jerry Flynn

  4. Sharon

    May 23, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    Mr. Sinclair believes that exposing the residents of BC to a 2b carcinogen is not a problem? That we should be comforted by the fact that an industry-based standard — Safety Code 6 — will be protective when the major agencies, including the World Health Organization, confirms that this standard is protective of thermal effects — “if it doesn’t cook you, it doesn’t hurt you” attitude. This guideline does not in any way apply to the non-thermal (non-heating) effects that are experienced from prolonged exposure to frequencies used by the smart meters and transmitters.Bravo to people like Jerry Flynn who are taking time from their lives, with no ulterior motive or possibility of personal gain, to try to educate people about the hazards of the proliferation of microwave radiation to which we are being exposed. There are few reasons for a smart grid, and certainly many problems with the wireless version. But if we must have this program, let it be done as safely, as uninvasively as possible, by use of fiber optic cable. This will protect our data as well as our health. The other problems such as high bills, unproven benefits, etc. will remain.

    Fortis says it’s not economically feasible to allow opt out. Experts have said it’s not economically reasonable to have a smart grid. In fact many countries and states are delaying or refusing to implement it because the benefits do not justify the costs. It’s certainly not economically feasible to have to pay additional health costs for people who will be forced to have something on their homes that their doctors say they should avoid.

  5. Norm

    May 23, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    What is preposterous is the Fortis claims that the claims and concerns about the potential of AMI causing health problems having no foundation in science. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers from independent scientists identifying health problems related to the radiation.
    It is time Fortis and the rest of the Electromagnetic Radiation is good for you crowd” to produce competent research from independent scientist to show there is no reason for concern
    Why is it that a for profit publication spin is given more credence than proven fact based science.
    Of course it is financially feasible to allow an opt clause. Many places in the world have allowed a no cost opt-out. Many places have allowed the customer to read their own meter and send the readings in, If their is concern about the customer reading a meter correctly, have them take a picture and send it in.

  6. Sharon

    May 23, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    I suggest that there be some public meetings, with debates between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Sinclair and some of the other folks from Fortis. I have confirmed with Mr. Flynn that he is eager to participate — how about the people from Fortis who claim to know so much about the health risks. Doesn’t the public deserve to have a chance to hear from both sides? Let me know and I will be happy to coordinate. email to

  7. Maud Crossing

    May 23, 2013 at 9:47 pm

    The idea of further saturating the community with yet another layer of Electromagnetic (pulse) radiation, and the increasing indiscriminate use of wireless technology terrifies those who have detailed knowledge of the adverse biological harm that microwaves are doing to the population, and to all forms of life on earth.
    Smart meter lunacy could well prove to be the health curse of the 21st century.

  8. Linda Ewart

    May 23, 2013 at 9:54 pm

    If Fortis’s decisions and directions are sacrosanct then no wonder we have a problem here. With this kind of “due diligence,” lead would still be a main additive in paint and gasoline, DDT would still be used indiscriminately to control pests, and BPA in plastics would be the order of the day. No one, not even the trillion dollar wireless industry or our beloved Health Canada should be allowed to rest on their profitable laurels. Awareness doesn’t happen overnight, especially when money is involved. Non-industry studies were ignored for decades before the fact of harm was too obvious to ignore. Wireless radiation is categorically identical to that of DDT and lead paint- known and obvious toxins that underwent rigorous research before being classified as 2B – testing of the same quality that now shows evidence of very real harm.

  9. Linda Ewart

    May 23, 2013 at 9:54 pm

    There is no doubt that Mr. Sinclair, as FortisBC’s Manager of Regulatory Affairs, is convinced that Health Canada is beyond reproach when it comes to Canadian safety standards. It is not.

    “Negligent” is a better word than “nefarious” for Fortis’s direction in the case of its AMI program. Willful or not, it is negligent to ignore all but your own perceived truth without opening your mind to the reality of others who have legitimate information and concerns.

    Mr. Flynn is no dummy. Neither are the other interveners in the BCUC hearings that took place recently to explore the issue in more depth than that undertaken by our governments and authorities. To dismiss his information amounts, again, to willful blindness on the part of FortisBC and its managers.

    I would love to see a debate between Mr. Flynn and Fortis’s experts, if only to help sort out the statements that are being made on both sides. Every responsible citizen would be wise to take the same approach to understanding this very worthy and contentious issue.

  10. Cosmo

    May 24, 2013 at 8:19 am

    Is a document with over 2000 studies that demonstrate that wireless frequencies have adverse effects on the health of humans, plants, and animals PREPOSTEROUS?

    BioInitiative Report of 2012

  11. Norm

    May 24, 2013 at 9:55 am

    We need a full public meeting where people such as Jerry can present the facts related to the harm and danger of Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR). The “EMR is good for you” crowd should be invited to participate and present and defend their “proof” that EMR can not cause harm.
    The public must be informed of the facts regarding EMR and the harm it is doing to people flora and fauna.

  12. Marcus

    May 24, 2013 at 10:13 am

    A Canadian expert and researcher of low-level radiation said in a CBC Radio interview: ” Safe radiation is wishful thinking, it simply does not exist!”

    It is long overdue, that Fortis and BC Hydro is held accountable for their actions, by independent radiation experts like Jerry Flynn in a public debate!
    It is long overdue, for exposing industry lobbyist for the corporate puppets that they are!

  13. Robert Riedlinger

    May 24, 2013 at 10:18 am

    Health Canada has established its “safety code 6” relating to electro-magnetic emissions based on the best science available today and would never approve any program or project that would endanger the health and safety of Canadian citizens, said Sinclair.
    You are WRONG WRONG WRONG when you say Health Canada based Safety code 6 on the best science available today.
    I know from personal experience that Safety Code 6 dose not protect public health since I had to move from a home I purchased that was 400 feet from a broadcast tower.It was a case of either I move or go nuts from the EMF that were emitted into my house.
    Since that time 17 years ago I have been researching the subject and find there are many Canadians that are suffering from EMF at code 6 densities.
    Why is Health Canada reviewing their safety code if it is proven safety beyond doubt?
    Read the BioInititive and find what the best science is telling us.
    Tobacco was also safe when corporations were making big profits .Not so safe after the surgeon General of US brought out the facts,which will happen in time with EMF!!

  14. Arlene

    May 24, 2013 at 10:40 am

    Even Dr. John Blatherwick, speaking as medical expert for BC Hydro, said “Safety Code 6 is grossly out of date. I’m not going to hide behind Safety Code 6.”
    Unlike other RF exposures such as WiFi or cordless phones, Smart Meter radiation is involuntary and it is 24/7. In the Netherlands, mandatory Smart Meters were rejected as a violation of the consumers’ right to privacy and freedom within their homes. In Quebec and in more than a dozen US states as well as in the UK, Smart Meters are being reviewed, facts about the health and privacy risks are being made public and policies on mandatory wireless Smart Meters are being reversed. People are getting the choice to opt-out. Analog meters are being re-installed. People in BC also deserve the choice to protect our health and privacy.

  15. Linda Ewart

    May 24, 2013 at 4:47 pm

    Dear Moderator,
    I am wondering why other people who look for my comments at the end of this editorial can’t see them? I know for a fact that other people have sent very presentable comments re this article and they are simply not there. This is very mysterious. Could you please check to see why people can only see their own comments privately and others can’t read them? What are comments for if not to share and encourage discussion?


  16. Susan

    May 24, 2013 at 6:45 pm

    Fortis please tell me why the WHO in May of 2011 Classified RF like that used in smart meters as a Class 2b carcinogen. We don’t use lead (2B classification) in gas any longer! We took it out for this reason. Why would you want to go head with this project is beyond me

  17. Racquel Simper

    May 24, 2013 at 8:53 pm

    Why doesn’t Fortis Gas and Corey Sinclair understand that people do not want a WIFI source stuck on the side of their home.Not only that the Fortis people don’t let on that this is only the start of this technology.Wifi enabled,Toasters,fridges,stoves,thermostats,dishwashers,dryers,lamps,furnaces.All being collectively enabled by the smart meter.The EMF levels in these futuristic houses will be intolerable.And DANGEROUS.
    Lets also understand that Government has become a revolving door for industry to push their agenda.Through people who worked in the very industry that pushes this.
    The public is unaware of the real intentions of these corporations.

  18. Racquel Simper

    May 24, 2013 at 8:59 pm

    Why don’t these executives put a Bank of 30 smart meters
    next to their beds and desks at work if they believe in these devices.We will use you as the guinea pigs for ten years and see how you make out.
    Its like the guys in Monsanto that won’t eat the food they produce but will certainly force it on the rest of us.
    You think Steve Jobs of Apple got cancer from all the ,Organic Vegetarian food and exercise he did.Or was it the Wifi that he sat in day in day out?

  19. Christel

    May 24, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    I’m on CPP Disability for Electro-hyper-sensitivity (EHS) caused by massive exposure to wireless laptops at my favourite university, topped with a Telus tower. Now I can’t attend functions in publicly-funded buildings, including schools, hospitals, government offices, because they have wifi. The last time I used a friend’s cell phone, I had intense pain throughout my sinuses and dripped bloody mucus the following day. Tell me again how safe the electromagnetic radiation from this class 2B carcinogen is, because I think my body didn’t understand the message. Until my body “gets it”, take your smart meters–and all other wireless devices–and recycle them. Don’t forget the people mining for blood minerals used to make them, or the people running haz-mat recycling centres without benefit of “North American worker safety standards”, or the cost to the environment of making heavy metal-containing, plastic (aka oil) meters that won’t last more than five years. . .and medical or health care costs for all the people involved.

  20. vicki lightfoot

    May 25, 2013 at 6:16 am

    This article is not balance. Only quoting Fortis on a project they are doing is simply bad journalism. I call for a public conversation between Forts and Jerry Flynn with the media in attendance. Let’s not let this discussion be a one-way advertisement for Fortis. Let’s have a public discussion on what Fortis has just been quoted as saying in this article. You owe it to the public.

  21. Christel

    May 26, 2013 at 8:16 am

    Agree 100% with Vicki — Interview both Fortis and Jerry Flynn at the same time and post the video. Fortis and Hydro (and Big Telecom) lies need to be exposed fully.

  22. Mike

    May 26, 2013 at 8:51 am

    Too much tinfoil to have a rational discussion here. Disinformation from paranoid and possibly dillusional posters isnt helping anyone settle this issue. From made up disabilities (interesting Christel got disability benifits for a condition not recognized by the medial community) to massive exaggerations (only ELF-EMF or extremely low frequency EMF which smartmeters do not produce are classified as class 2b). Oh and does anyone care that class 2b only means it could be a “possible” carcinogen and that a documented link has not yet been established. People need to stop educating themselves on the internet using psudeo-scientific conspiracy sites. Go to a library and pick up a book. The real academics have concluded this and there is more danger from your neighbors microwave than a smart meter.

  23. Mike

    May 26, 2013 at 8:55 am

    Oh, and i hope none of the paranoids here drink coffee or eat pickles because they too are class 2b carcinogens:

  24. Marcus

    May 26, 2013 at 9:36 am


    Wonderful that you are encouraging readers to read science regarding EMF.
    Here is a perfect place to start:

    While you are there educating yourself, check out the ‘Medical Appeals’

  25. Norm

    May 26, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    Mike the WHO recognises EHS exists, read their fact sheet 296
    If you cite facts at least use the correct facts.

  26. Norm

    May 26, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    Coffee is also one of the best sources of antioxidants for most people. What health benefits does EMR provide?

  27. Rongee

    May 26, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    As industry cannot prove safety, they believe in the best defence being offence. Thus, high levels of disrespect, stigmatizing victims, and suggestions of mental deficiencies in EHS sufferers. This is all by design…to deflect the attention away from the science…independent science is clear that microwave radiation is harmful. Re Coffee and Pickles: Mike is right in a half-truth and deceptive sort of way. This warning applies to coffee in large quantities, and to a specific type of pickling agent used in South Asia. To compare EMF radiation dangers to everyday coffee and pickles is rather silly, isn’t it Mike? Do you work for Fortis, Mike?

  28. Phyllis

    May 26, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    Anyone bringing up the old tinfoil argument is not an educated debater as resorting to insults only makes one suspect lack of sound scientific evidence on their part.

    Also the list of possible 2b carcinogens by the WHO contains exhaust fumes, DDT and many other substances that one would not want to be exposed to constantly. And the pickles are not the factory produced variety we have here but slow fermented and mycotoxin producing Asian pickles which are consumed daily in some parts of the world.

    The problem being “heavy exposure” as will be the case if a smart meter is on the side of your house where you spend a lot of your time.

    Heavy coffee drinking is suspected to contribute to bladder cancer in susceptible individuals. Read the WHO monograph. Coffee also contributes to heart palpitations in susceptible individuals – it is not a benign substance for everyone so it would be unconscionable to force everyone to drink it.

    Even if only susceptible individuals suffer from EMF exposure, that is reason enough for any caring government not to subject these ones to exposure in their own homes.

    In a Santa Cruz court case, PG&E, a California utility company, was forced to admit under oath that their meters transmit microwave radiation as much as TWICE PER SECOND! So it sounds better if they add it all up and just say a few minutes a day so we don’t know it is spiking constantly, doesn’t it?

    And why haven’t there been studies by our government or the utilities on the biological effects of this exposure (does it affect DNA?) or possible harm to people with medical devices such as pacemakers. It leaves me to believe they don’t want to know in case it affects their bottom line. They have not done their due diligence.

    Why is Canada’s outdated safety code 6 so many times less stringent than many other countries? Don’t we care about our citizens?

  29. N. Baer

    May 26, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    The industry will never be able to prove that microwave radiation is harmless. It’s already been proven way back in 1947. Let’s get real about the science which stretches all the way back to the mid’ 1700s when a French scientist and abbey exposed a group of people holding hands in a circle, to electricity.

  30. bernadette slosmanis

    May 26, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    If we don’t want ElectroMagnetic Radiation beamed on us, then B C Hydro & Fortis should give us an opt-out option.
    If plants, bushes & trees can shrivel up, what’s EMF doing to us?
    BC Hydro & Fortis are supposed to “serve” us, the taxpayers?!!
    X-rays were used liberally when first introduced. Now we realize the negative effects so we minimize use of X-rays. If pregnant, X-rays aren’t given. History seems to repeat itself…..Class 2-B carcinogens were thought harmless for years until masses of people got sick…….


    May 27, 2013 at 6:24 am


    Please re-read WHO Factsheet 296. You missed the part that said:

    “EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has
    no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.”

  32. norm

    May 27, 2013 at 11:50 am

    I merely said the WHO recognises it exists. They admit the symptoms are real even if they will not say what they feel causes them.


    May 27, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    Let me clear that up for you Norm:

    It has been suggested that symptoms experienced by some EHS individuals might arise from environmental factors unrelated to EMF. Examples may include “flicker” from fluorescent lights, glare and other visual problems with VDUs, and poor ergonomic
    design of computer workstations. Other factors that may play a role include poor indoor air quality or stress in the workplace or living environment.
    There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.

  34. Phyllis

    May 27, 2013 at 12:57 pm

    Suggestions are not proof of anything — maybe this, maybe that. And the WHO documents I read say there is “currently” no scientific basis as good science knows that subsequent studies can change a position. Studies often contradict, so they are not the end all, be all. Time will tell. The evidence is not all in yet.

    Unfortunately bias in the selecting of which science and studies are accepted is often present with industry funded studies and their lobbyists and yet it is curious that renowned scientists who don’t stand to profit are often dismissed as presenting “bad” science. I fear it is the other way around.

    Industry and their partners will never really be believed when they only present the “science” that agrees with their own agenda and reject all else. People are not quite that gullible.

    “How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense” Heads they win, tails we lose — This is an interesting read for anyone who wants to see how the system can be corrupted.

  35. Dawn

    May 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    This is all a money issue. Big money for big corporations. For example, regarding the Opt-Out Clause, simply the fact that Mr. Sinclair says that “the company considered this option, but made a business decision that it would not be economically feasible to offer such a clause”, sort of sums it up.

    Of course they don’t want to have a public discussion. Is anyone really surprised? It’s not just Jerry Flynn they don’t want to have discussions with. It’s a growing number of the public that are becoming aware of the health risks along with security and privacy dangers that they don’t want to address. If the public stays ignorant of the risks, as Fortis and B.C. Hydro wish,the meters will be in before anyone notices.

    Mr. Flynn is just brave enough to speak openly for many of us. Why wouldn’t the big money simply attend and answer some very pertinent questions in front of the press and public? Afraid of the media? Something to hide perhaps?


    May 27, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    Perhaps you have been misled by anti-wireless advocates’ propaganda about industry funded studies. The fact is that industry funding is usually provided through pay walls that isolate researchers from industry influence over scientific investigations or resulting publication. Control is typically in the hands of a government body or a university panel. Possibly because such studies are usually so well funded; they employ the most rigorous methodologies, state of the art laboratory equipment, and the most qualified professionals. Studies without these resources are more likely to be questionable and poorly executed, and consequently find fewer acceptances from public health bodies.

    There is no massive conspiracy to cover up the health effects of EMF, involving virtually all the world’s most prestigious health science organizations. Any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous.

  37. Marcus

    May 27, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    Doubting Thomas,
    You seem to have missed this international educational science website:

    While doing your research there, click on: Appeals.
    The Freiburger Appeal teaches about the biological fallout that happens due to wireless devices.

    Incidentally, the Appeal was signed by over 1000 medical doctors.

    You also might like to learn, that the Austrian Medical Association as well as The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, recently issued the same warnings to governments and physicians.

  38. Phyllis

    May 28, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    Perhaps you are working for the wireless industry and have been misled to believe they are working solely for the good of mankind, not profit. Just as with some politicians, some scientists do choose to support the hand that feeds them. However there are many in both professions that will not compromise their integrity for cash and kudos to them. But let’s be real here.

    One good wireless guy is Didier Bellens of Belgacom who refuses wifi in his office, uses a landline and visits school children to tell them to avoid cell phone use as much as possible. He is supporting the precautionary principles recommended by the World Health Organization. He is in the minority unfortunately.

    On the other hand, the 2b classification by the WHO came about shortly after expert Prof. Anders Ahlbom who was appointed to chair the IARC evaluation of the carcinogenicity of mobile phone had his links to the Telecom Industry outed which exposed a CONFLICT OF INTEREST AT THE WHO so he had to go. He was not the only one.

    Unfortunately, from time to time, there are some unscrupulous people in positions they should not be holding that do influence policy. This is a fact.

    It would be preposterous to believe otherwise.

  39. Marcus

    May 28, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    In 2010 Prof. Anders Ahlbom created a telecom lobby firm in Brussels. His partner and brother Gunnar worked as a telecom lobbyist for years.

    This conflict of interest was uncovered by Swedish investigatve reporter Mona Nielsson.

  40. Norn

    May 29, 2013 at 11:22 am

    Doubting Thomas
    I merely said the WHO recognises that EHS exists, it is you that has challenges with comprehension. Yes it is true the WHO does not have a medical diagnosis or admit they understand the mechanisms.
    The Austrian Medical Doctors do

  41. Phyllis

    May 30, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    Yes, Safety Code 6 is being reviewed. Unfortunately there are at least 4 panelists that have either undisclosed conflicts of interest with the wireless industy and/or have previously stated their support for wireless. So it is not an independent panel at this point and doubtful it will recommend any big changes.

  42. Mike

    May 31, 2013 at 9:49 am

    Marcus: is not an international education science site (what ever that is…) it’s an anti-wireless group.

    No one has addressed the fact that ONLY ELF-EMF is considered a Class 2b and that smartmeters (and all other household electronic devices) do not produce ELF-EMF.

    Oh, and the WHO report everyone keeps touting as proof EMF is a health hazard apparently hasn’t been read by any other them. I did. Here is what it says:

    “A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions.

    The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.”

    It goes on to say:

    “There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than EMF exposure itself.”
    I believe this last paragraph is what we are witnessing here…

    Finally, the WHO report concludes:

    “EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever the cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS HAS NO CLEAR DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA AND THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO LINK EHS SYMPTOMS TO EMF EXPOSURE. FURTHER, EHS IS NOT A MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS, NOR IS IT CLEAR THAT IT REPRESENTS A SINGLE MEDICAL PROBLEM.”

    So your only reputable source is essentially saying that EHS is a psychiatric disorder, not a medical condition caused by EMF. This may explain why there is a lack of rational conversation going on here. If you;re worried about EMF see a psychiatrist, dont spread false information.

  43. Marcus

    May 31, 2013 at 1:20 pm


    The Austrian Medical Association
    How to diagnose EHS, as well as dire warnings of prolonged exposure to wireless technology.

    Unfortunately EHS is very real and is getting worse globally. Open your mind and put aside you addiction to wireless technology.


    May 31, 2013 at 2:24 pm


    You are mistaken; RF-EMF also carries the 2B classification. However, the rest of your comment is right on the mark. The so-called EHS folks are indeed suffering from something. It’s just not what they think it is.

  45. Phyllis

    May 31, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    I think you shoud re-read the report. What you quoted says “No Clear diagnostic” and “No Clear Medical Problem”.

    It does not say there is “NO” medical problem. And since this report is from 2004 and is not including all the recent science it is not up-to-date. It was in 2011 that the WHO class 2B possible carcinogen designation came about. The WHO also recommended ongoing studies which are taking place.

    People want safe technology, not no technology — but often money comes before caution. Canada also dragged it’s feet on getting rid of the asbestos industry long after other countries banned it.

    “The designation of group 2b is radio frequency electromagnetic fields–that is unspecified as to source so the group 2b classification would have broad applicability to sources with this type of emissions”–Jonathan Samet, MD, Chairman of the Working Group of 31 Scientists for The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which, on May 31, 2011, declared radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a possible class 2B carcinogen.

    There are hundreds of reputable sources showing that emf exposure is a hazard. Trying to dismiss all evidence contrary to your position as those “anti-wireless people” is silly. If that’s the case then your position of what is acceptable evidence as a pro-wireless supporter would also be non-believable.

    From smart meter brochure;

    The types of EMF emitted by smart meters are:
    • radio frequency (RF) emissions and
    • extremely low frequency (ELF) emissions

    In conclusion the report does not say EHS is a psychiatric condition. Saying “some indications may point to this” is saying they don’t know! And these old studies were criticized as poorly done since by their nature, they produced anxiety in people worried about being exposed to emf’s.

    Sweden now recognizes EHS as a functional impairment entitling those who are affected to a suitable environment where EMF levels are low. The Canadian Human Rights Commission report also acknowledges
    environmental sensitivity attributed to electromagnetic exposure.

    So please stop spreading false information.

  46. Marcus

    May 31, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    My apologies, the previous link to the Austrian Medical Association did not work. This link works, read carefully as you will learn from medical science, EHS is very real.

    Incidentally they also mention that smart meter radiation will add to negative health effects.

    Please, take the time and read the warnings from the Austrian Medical Association. Only a fool would prefer to stay ignorant.

  47. Mike

    June 5, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    Too many types of crazy here. Cant debate the delusional. There is a tenancy here to ignore the facts that don’t support your argument and exaggerated and overstate facts that might partially support your argument (none presented firmly support your position…anecdotal evidence at best).

    When you go looking for sources on the internet to reinforce what you already believe you will no doubt find them. Try reading those that challenge your views and see if a little critical thinking leads you back to the land of the rational.

  48. Phyllis

    June 6, 2013 at 11:36 am

    Right back at ya, Mike. That’s exactly what you did.

    “Try reading those that challenge your views and see if a little critical thinking leads you back to the land of the rational.”

    You might want to try this yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>