Claims that BC Hydro's "smart meters" are dangerous are blowing past what science is really saying about electromagnetic energy and wireless devices in general.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has been frequently quoted as being against these machines coming soon to homes and businesses in Prince George - not to mention cell phones and Wi-Fi devices and overhead powerlines - all under the heading of "electromagnetic fields" or "non-ionizing radiation" or "radiofrequency fields."
These quotations are twisting what the United Nations health branch really said.
"A number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency fields on brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep, heart rate and blood pressure," the organization said. "To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms, or 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity'."
In other words, even when someone has health problems and specifically tries to tie it to electromagnetic sources, the studies just don't agree.
However, if we are telling the Chicken Littles of Prince George to watch out for context, we must do the same as well. The WHO has a department specifically devoted to all things cancer. There isn't a whiff of political bias or ideological dogma attached to the WHO or its cancer department. That department has, indeed, classified the whole lot of these machines to be "possibly carcinogenic to humans" and that is the essence of the quote riddled through the leaflets and brochures around Prince George these days, and even recent speeches by federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May.
The WHO's cancer department released a report on May 31 authored by a focus group of 31 scientists from 14 countries who met this spring in France to tackle this very question. The "possibly carcinogenic" stamp is part of official terminology among specialists and on this particular topic it had a notation attached - "Group 2B" - which explains what the scientists meant.
You won't see any mention of "Group 2B" in any of the brochures and leaflets. Without that highly relevant context, such literature is nothing more than junk propaganda.
The "possibly carcinogenic to humans - Group 2B" category is generally described as having a body of evidence that contains a few whisps of scientific concern (among many studies with no evidence of cancer links, there was one study that indicated a possible link to a particular form of cancer among the heaviest cell phone users) leading scientists to think more study was worthwhile.
There are five billion active cellphone accounts out there in the world today, and in many parts of the world it is the primary form of communication, and even though this overwhelming set of circumstances has produced an underwhelming suggestion of cancer-linkage, that extra study is being done by the WHO. Sometime in 2012 they are scheduled to release a report entitled "The International EMF Project" that adds up all the science they could get their hands on dating back to 1996 when they first started trying to spot links between cancer and this form of radiation (by the way, it is a completely different family of radiation to that which exists in nuclear technology).
Furthermore, and this is part of the WHO context, the same cancer specialists went out of their way to say there is zero evidence that any wireless device causes any kind of cancer in any way at all if it is not pressed up against your body for frequent and prolonged amounts of time.
In other words, hands-free cellphones and texting and community Wi-Fi systems - and smart meters - have shown themselves to be worth the public's daily use.
-- The Prince George Citizen
