Louis Proud
[disinfo ed.'s note: excerpted from Strange Electromagnetic Dimensions: The Science of the Unexplainable by Louis Proud]
If, like me, you live in an urban environment, you’re bound to receive a high amount of exposure to EM radiation from sources too numerous to mention. Cities are grossly polluted with EM radiation, or “electrosmog,” and are becoming more polluted every year as our use of technology expands and technology itself becomes ever more sophisticated. If, on the other hand, you live in the country, it’s probable you receive a low to moderate amount of EM exposure. Some people choose to live in the country solely because they’re convinced that artificial EM fields make them acutely ill—a condition known as EM hypersensitivity (EHS). EHS is commonly assumed to be psychosomatic in origin; though, as we’ll see in the latter-half of the chapter, much compelling evidence suggests otherwise.
Smart meter health problems
Although I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself “hypersensitive” to EM fields, I have reason to believe that during one period in my life I suffered ill effects from long-term exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation. As with any story, it’s necessary to begin at the beginning. In early 2010, my wife (then girlfriend) and I moved into a small brick dwelling located in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. We found our new home reasonably pleasant and settled in quickly. Most of all, we were grateful to have a place of our own and to be paying such affordable rent.
One day in mid-2012, a technician paid a visit to our home to replace our analogue electricity meter with a “smart meter” as part of a Victorian Government plan to upgrade the electricity network—a plan that’s currently being implemented in other states of Australia. Smart meters are at present being installed in homes and businesses across the United States, and the same is happening in numerous other countries, including Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.
Smart meters and analogue meters are similar to the extent that both devices record your electricity usage for billing purposes. But whereas analogue meters are connected to the grid by means of wires, smart meters are digital, wireless, two-way communication devices that operate in the RF range. They record your electricity usage at frequent intervals and send that data directly to your electricity supplier. They enable your electricity supplier to monitor your power usage closely without having to send a technician to your home to do so manually. Not unreasonably, the surveillance capabilities of smart meter technology have sparked concerns among citizens who value their privacy and don’t appreciate being “spied on” by the powers that be.
Although at first I was annoyed that a smart meter had been installed in our home without our consent, I soon forgot the device was there and became absorbed in more pressing concerns. At the time I was busy working on a major writing project, which involved spending much time at home in front of the computer. (I’m aware computers emit various forms of EM radiation. To minimize my EM exposure while working in front of a computer, I always make sure the screen is positioned a good distance away from my body.) The project was coming along smoothly and I was confident I’d make the deadline on time.
As the weeks progressed, however, I noticed a gradual decline in my ability to concentrate on the project. I soon found any activity that required sustained concentration challenging. The problem appeared to stem from an intense feeling of agitation in the very core of my being. There were times when the feeling became so intense that I’d suddenly leap from my chair and dash from my office without completing the sentence I’d been writing. It’s as if my body was constantly on “alert mode.”
Thinking that perhaps my health had suffered from an overly homebound lifestyle, I began to make more trips outdoors, either going for walks around the block or visiting the park down the road. I felt much better when out of the house; the feeling of agitation lifted to some extent, only to come back as soon as I returned home. My wife revealed to me that she, too, was plagued by a feeling of deep-seated agitation and was experiencing concentration issues. It didn’t take us long to recognize that the problem coincided with the installation of the smart meter in our home.
The penny dropped when, throughout the ensuing months, I came across a series of online articles concerning cases in the United States and Australia of people claiming to have suffered health problems as a consequence of living with a smart meter in their home. Among the health problems frequently cited were “agitation” and “inability to concentrate”—the same problems my wife and I were experiencing.
One article that came to my attention concerned a family of six in the Melbourne suburb of Keilor East. After a smart meter was installed in their neighbor’s home, the Florios began to experience “constant headaches and sleep deprivation.”1 The family became what Ms. Florio described as “smart meter refugees,” opting to abandon their home because their suffering had reached an unbearable level.2
A similar article concerned a couple from Mt. Eliza, Melbourne, named Vic and Rosemary Trudeau. Just days after a smart meter was installed in their home, Rosemary began feeling extremely “irritable” and both she and Vic experienced a “high pitched ringing” in their heads. Other shared symptoms included nausea, headaches, difficulties concentrating, heart palpitations, and insomnia. The symptoms would disappear when they left home and reappear as soon as they returned home. Since their power company refused to remove the device, the Trudeaus were left with no other option but to abandon their home and take up residence in their camper van. “I’d never had any [health] problems [like these] before, and I’d lived in the house 22 years,” Rosemary insisted.3
Unlike the Florios and the Trudeaus, my wife and I didn’t abandon our home, though we did consider the possibility of moving. The opportunity to move arose when, in early-2013, my wife secured a job in Darwin, Northern Territory (where, fortunately, smart meters haven’t yet been introduced). Our health problems vanished for good soon after we relocated to Darwin.
A brief internet search will reveal that many people all over the world are experiencing health problems related to smart meters. These include stress, agitation, anxiety, irritability, insomnia, persistent headaches, ringing in the ears, eye problems, severe memory loss, mental confusion, inability to concentrate, heart palpitations, nausea, urinary problems, hyperactivity, fatigue, dizziness, and nose bleeds.
Isn’t this all a bit over the top? Surely those reporting such problems are either deluded or mentally ill? To be honest, had I not experienced some of these problems myself—and my wife also—it’s likely I would have adopted the “deluded or mentally ill” explanation and looked no further into the matter. One person I talked to about my smart meter health concerns suggested, as a joke, I wear a tinfoil hat. The term “tinfoil hat” is used in a derogatory fashion to refer to people inclined toward paranoid or conspiratorial beliefs. The term makes those who think cellphones, Wi-Fi—or indeed smart meters—pose a danger to human health silly or crazy.
Another health problem I experienced during my period of exposure to smart meter radiation was lowered immune function. It’s a well-known fact that when the immune system is weak it has difficulty doing its job, which is to defend the body against pathogens (disease-causing microbes). If you find yourself getting infections frequently and if these infections are difficult to eliminate, it’s a good indication your immune system is weak. Immediately after the smart meter was installed, my immune system suffered a devastating blow. First, a hair on my leg became ingrown and highly infected, necessitating a strong dose of antibiotics. This was followed by a persistent fungal infection in a certain part of my body. My immune system regained its strength as soon as my wife and I moved. Later we’ll look at evidence showing that exposure to artificial EM radiation can compromise immune function in animals and humans.
The WHO report
Are smart meters really as harmful as many believe? Before we focus specifically on smart meters, it would be valuable to take a look at the World Health Organization’s stance on non-ionizing (or low level) EM fields and human health. The World Health Organization (WHO), a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN), is an authority on matters of international public health. Established in 1948, the WHO is involved in coordinating international health activities and in aiding governments to improve health services. It goes without saying that their opinions are widely respected and taken seriously.
Featured on the WHO website is a several page report on EM fields and human health, simply titled Electromagnetic Fields (EMF), of which I will now give a brief summary. The WHO Report explains something we know already: ionizing forms of EM radiation—x-rays, gamma rays, and so forth—carry sufficient energy to break molecular bonds and hence damage living tissue, whereas non-ionizing forms of EM radiation—radio waves, ELF electric and magnetic fields, and so on—lack sufficient energy to break molecular bonds. Nobody disputes the fact that ionizing EM radiation is harmful to the body; the debate is focused on whether non-ionizing radiation is harmful to the body.
The Report gives particular emphasis to radio frequency (RF) radiation, which lies in the frequency range between 3 kilohertz (kHz) and 300 gigahertz (GHz) and is non-ionizing. Microwaves are one form of RF radiation. The Report acknowledges that RF radiation of high intensity can heat tissue and is therefore harmful to the body. (Earlier I explained that a microwave oven uses high intensity RF radiation to cook food.) The Report goes on to state that because RF radiation of low-intensity—such as that emitted by cellphone handsets and base stations, radio and television transmitters, and radar antennas—causes negligible to zero heating of body tissue it is extremely unlikely to harm the body.
The Report also addresses the topic of extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields and human health. Whereas RF fields are generally associated with telecommunications (radio, television, radar, cellphones, and so forth), ELF electric and magnetic fields are generally associated with electric power distribution and appliances that use mains electricity. The power lines that run past your home, the electric kettle in your kitchen, the clock radio situated on your bedside table—all are sources of ELF electric and magnetic fields. The Report explains that exposure to both induces currents in the body.
For example, if you were to stand under a 60 Hz power line, the electric field produced by the power line would induce an electric current that flows from your head to your feet, while the magnetic field produced by the power line would induce circulating electric currents within your body. “In virtually all ordinary environments, the levels of induced currents inside the body are too small to produce obvious effects,” the Report states.4 Listed under “obvious effects” are “nerve and muscle stimulation and changes in nerve cell excitability in the central nervous system.”5 The suggestion is that because these “obvious effects” are absent with respect to exposure to common, every day, low strength ELF electric and magnetic fields, such fields pose no harm to our health.
The following two statements from the Report give a clear indication of where the WHO stands on the issue of non-ionizing EM fields and human health:
“Despite extensive research, to date there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level [non-ionizing] electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health.”6
“With more and more research data available, it has become increasingly unlikely that exposure to electromagnetic fields constitutes a serious health hazard, nevertheless, some uncertainty remains.”7
To state there is “no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level [non-ionizing] electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health” but that “some uncertainty remains” is somewhat wishy-washy. After reading the Report in its entirety, one gets the impression the WHO is secretly thinking: We’d like to tell the public that exposure to non-ionizing EM fields is completely safe, but since doing so would make us look negligent or biased, instead we’ll tell them we’re 99 percent sure EM fields are safe. That way they’ll stop worrying about the matter.
Common sense tells us it would be extremely bad news for the military and the telecommunications and electric utility industries if the WHO came forward and admitted that exposure to non-ionizing EM radiation is linked to cancer and other serious health problems, never mind the impact this would have on each and every one of us, given that electricity is the lifeblood of modern society. Clearly the best approach on the part of the authorities would be to play down the issue as much as possible, without entirely dismissing it.
It’s worth noting that in 2002 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the WHO, classified ELF magnetic fields as a possible human carcinogen (“Class 2B”), due to there being a statistical association between “higher level residential ELF magnetic fields and [an] increased risk for childhood leukaemia.”8 In 2013, IARC classified RF radiation as another Class 2B carcinogen, stating “Positive associations have been observed between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless phones and glioma and acoustic neuroma.”9 Given that IARC’s list of Class 2B carcinogens includes such substances as coffee, gasoline, bracken fern, and welding fumes, one is led to believe that one is no more likely to develop cancer from excessive cellphone use as one is from feasting daily on bracken fern fiddleheads and gulping large quantities of coffee.
Public exposure limits
Just about every country has public exposure limits in place for both ELF (50/60 Hz) magnetic and electric fields and RF radiation. In Australia, the exposure limits for ELF electric and magnetic fields were set by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in 1989 and are similar to limits present in many other countries. (These limits are currently in the process of being updated.) NHMRC states that in areas where members of the general public experience continuous exposure, the electric field strength should not exceed 5 KV/m while the magnetic flux density should not exceed 0.1 mT. To the best of my knowledge, the United States has no federal exposure limits in place for ELF electric and magnetic fields.
We now come to RF radiation. In 2002, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) released a document titled the Radiation Protection Standard—Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields—3 kHz to 300 GHz. The exposure limits set out in the Standard are based on guidelines established in 1998 by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The limits take into consideration such adverse biological effects as electrical stimulation, heating of tissues, and nuisance auditory effects. Again, the heating aspect is strongly emphasized, with the assumption being that RF fields pose no threat to one’s health if they are not of high enough intensity to heat bodily tissue and cause tissue damage.
The RF radiation exposure limits listed in the Standard for the general population and with respect to long-term exposure are expressed in power flux density (power per unit area) and range from 0.2 mW/cm2 at 10 MHz to 400 MHz to 1 mW/cm2 at 2 GHz to 300 GHz. The latter limit of 1 mW/cm2 at 2 GHz to 300 GHz applies to cellphones, as 2 GHz is close to the frequency at which most cellphones operate. We find roughly the same limits in place in the United States and numerous other Western countries. For the sake of simplicity, we will say that 1 mW/cm2 is the RF radiation exposure limit for the general population.
When you expose yourself to common sources of RF radiation, the molecules of your body vibrate, which in turn causes heating. As I said, the same principle is at work when food is heated inside a microwave oven. In the case of talking on a cellphone, the specific area of your head to which the phone is in contact will absorb the greatest amount of RF radiation, becoming ever so slightly warm. Yet your overall body temperature will not be affected. RF safety standards ensure that the energy emitted by RF sources such as cellphones is low enough not to measurably increase body temperature.
The unit of measurement for the amount of RF radiation absorbed by the body is called the specific absorption rate (SAR) and is expressed in watts per kilogram (W/kg) or milliwatts per gram (mW/g). The ARPANSA SAR limit for cellphone handsets is 2 W/kg (using 10 gram averaging mass). This limit is such that talking on a cellphone will produce a maximum rise in temperature in the side of the head no greater than 0.1°C—far less than the increase in temperature required to destroy bodily tissue.
Although it’s reassuring to know that cellphones and other devices don’t emit enough RF radiation to “cook” our bodies the same way a microwave oven does, much convincing evidence shows that exposure to low-level RF radiation can produce biological effects that have nothing to do with the heating of tissue. It is these non-thermal or athermal effects, rather than the thermal effects, that are of relevance to our present discussion. There seem to be at least two attitudes within the mainstream scientific community toward non-thermal biological effects related to low-level RF radiation exposure: either we are told there is no evidence for such effects, or we are told there is evidence for such effects but that the evidence is controversial and unproven.
My research in this area has taught me that it’s futile to expect to receive from the authorities a truthful, straightforward answer as to whether low level RF radiation (indeed, non-ionizing EM radiation in general) can cause harm to our bodies. To get to the truth of the matter, we are left with no other choice but to bypass official sources of information, including ARPANSA and the WHO, and seek out genuine sources of information. Since one of our objectives in this chapter is to find out why smart meters have sparked a flurry of health complaints all over the world, for the time being we will limit our discussion to RF radiation.
Radio-wave sickness
Indications that RF radiation can produce a range of adverse health effects unrelated to heating of the body first began to emerge in the years following World War II, when it was found that radar operators have a tendency to suffer from internal bleeding, jaundice, leukemia, cataracts, headaches, brain tumors, and heart conditions. Later, in the 1970s, Eastern European and Soviet researchers—who had been at the forefront of research on bioelectromagnetics since before the 1950s—began to use the term “radio-wave sickness” to refer to a clinical syndrome in those occupationally exposed to EM fields, particularly RF fields. (Bioelectromagnetics is the study of the interaction between EM fields and biological entities.)
It was accepted as a fact by the researchers that low-intensity EM fields adversely affect the autonomic and central nervous systems of humans and animals. The symptoms they listed for radio-wave sickness include headache, increased fatigue, increased irritability, dizziness, loss of appetite, sleepiness, sweating, difficulties in concentration or memory, depression, emotional instability, rashes, thyroid gland enlargement, and tremor of extended fingers. Also listed, though found to be less common, were hallucinations, insomnia, fainting, and internal organ or intestinal difficulties. As the reader has no doubt recognized already, many of these symptoms are common among “smart meter victims.”
The Moscow signal
Of relevance to the topic of early research on the harmful effects of RF radiation on humans is an experiment carried out by the Soviets during the Cold War, in which, beginning in 1953 and continuing over a period of many decades, they beamed low-intensity microwave radiation at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. The U.S State Department first detected the “Moscow signal,” as it came to be called, in 1962, prompting an investigation into the matter by various U.S intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The initial theory put forward to explain the purpose of the signal, whose average intensity varied between 0.002 and 0.018 mW/cm2, is that the Soviets were using it to activate electronic listening devices hidden in the walls of the Embassy. Yet because the signal was found to be a composite of several frequencies and hence unsuitable for electronic eavesdropping purposes, a second theory was advanced as to its purpose: to induce physiological and behavioral effects among Embassy staff. A Scarsdale, New York, ophthalmologist named Milton Zaret, who was employed by the CIA in 1965 to help ascertain the purpose of the signal, concluded: “Whatever other reasons the Russians may have had, they believed the beam would modify the behavior of personnel.”10
The Moscow signal became the focus of a classified research project, called Project Pandora, which was placed under the direction of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), a secret organization within the Department of Defense. One of the objectives of Project Pandora was to “investigate possible behavioural and bioeffects (primarily the former) on primates [monkeys] when the latter were irradiated with microwave signals simulating the exposure of Embassy employees in Moscow.”11 According to Robert Becker, a United States orthopedic surgeon and expert in bioelectromagnetics, the monkeys “showed multiple abnormalities of blood composition and chromosomal counts.”12 It’s also been alleged that the monkeys exhibited a deterioration in their ability to perform certain tasks.
Yet, disturbingly, Project Pandora also involved human experimentation: the decision was made not to inform Embassy staff about the signal or to attempt to block the signal, but rather to treat the staff as guinea pigs by observing what effects they might suffer as a result of the prolonged irradiation. It wasn’t until 1976, when the U.S finally decided to install microwave screening in the Embassy building, that embassy staff—and the rest of the world—became aware of the situation. The Soviets denied beaming the building with microwave radiation, and in January of 1979 it was discovered the radiation had ceased. (The Moscow signal made a brief reappearance in 1983 and was again reported in 1988.)
Aftermath
After the Moscow signal became public knowledge, a number of epidemiological studies were undertaken to determine in what ways, if at all, Embassy staff had been affected by the radiation. However, the results of these studies are rather sketchy, indicating a desire on the part of the authorities to keep the truth hidden from the public. One such study, undertaken in 1976 by Dr. Abraham Lilienfeld and colleagues at the Department of Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, examined the mortality and morbidity of all Moscow staff and dependents from 1953 to 1976. Staff who had served at other eastern European embassies during the same period of time, as well as their dependents, acted as the control group.
Although the study supposedly found “No convincing evidence…that would directly implicate the exposure to microwave radiation experienced by the employees at the Moscow embassy in the causation of any adverse health effects,” this view is not shared by all.13 In the opinion of Simon Best and Cyril Smith, the study “yielded some provocative findings.”14 These include “a definite significantly raised rate of protozoal intestinal diseases, benign neoplasms, and diseases of the nerves and peripheral ganglia” among Moscow males.15 They add: “As a group, Moscow personnel suffered significantly more eye problems, psoriasis and other assorted skin conditions (mostly cysts, dermatitis and eczema), as well as depression, irritability, loss of appetite, and difficulty in concentrating.”16
The latter group of symptoms are all consistent with radio-wave sickness and very much support the theory that the purpose of the Moscow signal was to “modify the behavior of [embassy] personnel.” As an interesting addendum, three of those who served as U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union in the period 1953 to 1976, when the Moscow signal was active, died of cancer. In order of service: Charles Bohlen (1953–1957) died of pancreatic cancer in 1974 at the age of 69; Llewellyn Thompson (1957–1962 and 1966–1969) died of cancer in 1972 at the age of 67; Walter Stoessel (1973–1976) died of leukemia in 1986 at the age of 66, having first developed signs of leukemia in 1976. What makes the three deaths especially noteworthy is that the Moscow signal was beamed directly at the ambassador’s office.
Interestingly, the Moscow signal was between 500 and 55 times weaker than the 1 mW/cm2 exposure limit for the general population. In fact, since the 1950s and at the time of the Moscow signal incident, there existed in the Soviet Union a tremendously stringent RF radiation exposure limit of just 0.001 mW/cm2 for the general population. Today the limit is higher, at 0.1 mW/cm2. Of course, the Russians have long acknowledged that there are non-thermal biological effects associated with exposure to low level RF radiation. These effects are also recognized in China, where the limit is also set at 0.1 mW/cm2.
The Bise study
At the same time the Russians were busy bombarding the Unites States Embassy with microwaves, an important study on the “effects on the human nervous system of low power [RF] energy” was taking place in Beaverton, Oregon.17 The study, conducted by William Bise of Pacific Northwest Center for the Study of Non-Ionizing Radiation, consisted of eight experiments completed between July 1975 and June 1976. Five men and five women, ranging in age from 18 to 48 years, were chosen for the study. All 10 subjects were in good health. They included one high school graduate, two secretaries, a housewife, two professional health physicists, an electronics engineer, a hospital intensive care equipment expert, and two secretaries.
In the study, participants were exposed to both continuous wave and pulse-modulated wave RF radiation over a wide range of frequencies while their brain wave activity was monitored by means of an EEG. The tests took place at various times of the day, including at midnight, and some of the tests were conducted inside a Faraday cage (EM shielded room). The continuous wave RF radiation ranged in frequency from 0.1 to 960 MHz and the pulsed modulated wave RF radiation from 8.5 to 9.6 GHz. Power intensity varied from 10-16 to 10-13 W/cm2 (which is substantially below typical urban levels).
In the majority of tests, the subject sat on a chair about one meter away from the signal source, while an operator tuned the signal source through its entire range. Because the subject was unable to see the equipment or operator, they had no idea whether the signal source was switched on or off or at what frequency it was set. Each test took approximately 50 minutes. If during that period the subject’s brain wave activity altered at a particular signal source dial setting, Bise and his assistants photographed from the cathode ray tube the relevant section of EEG trace and/or recorded the frequency at which the change had occurred.
It was found that both the continuous and pulse-modulated wave RF radiation induced changes in brain wave activity in the male and female subjects. At certain frequencies, the EEG traces of some of the subjects displayed desynchronized alpha waves of 15 to 25 percent higher than normal amplitude, accompanied by slow waves of increased amplitude. At certain other frequencies, the opposite effect was observed—desynchronized alpha waves of 20 to 50 percent lower than normal amplitude (also accompanied by slow waves of increased amplitude). The majority of EEG changes occurred with continuous wave RF radiation between 100 and 960 MHz.
Featured in Bise’s 1978 paper is a table showing radio frequencies and correlative EEG changes. This lists all the frequencies that induced changes in brain wave activity, as well as such details as the number of subjects who responded to that frequency and the magnitude of the effect. Bise found that when a subject exhibited alter brain-waves from being exposed to a certain frequency—say, 200 MHz—all he had to do to make their brain wave state revert to normal was either switch off the signal or alter the frequency of the signal. Conversely, if he then changed the signal back to 200 MHz, the subject would again exhibit alter brain-waves. Bise gives plenty of examples of this phenomenon, in the form of EEG traces from various subjects, in his 1978 paper.
In addition to monitoring his subjects by encephalographic means, Bise paid close attention to their behavior and mental condition. He noticed that during the tests the mood and behavior of the subjects, observers, test engineer, and experimenters “appeared to change,” with some of them experiencing apprehension, mild irritation, irritability, concentration difficulties, and short-term memory impairment (all of which are symptoms of radio wave sickness). Bise mentions that during one of the pulse-modulated tests performed in the X-band (microwave region) with a power level of only 10-12 w/cm2, he, the subject, and the technician experienced severe headaches. The following day all three “felt mentally and physically sluggish…to the extent that they could do no work.”18 In conclusion, the results of Bise’s study strongly suggest that low level RF radiation can influence brain wave activity, and hence mental activity, in humans.
The EM field-stress connection
It’s no coincidence that many of the less severe symptoms of radio wave sickness—that is, fatigue, irritability, loss of appetite, difficulties in concentration and memory, depression, insomnia, and headaches—are symptoms of chronic stress. The connection between EM field exposure and stress first came to light in the mid-1970s when Soviet scientists discovered that exposing rats even briefly to low-level microwave radiation made the animals release stress hormones. The same reaction was observed with 50 Hz electric fields.
In a 1976 study led by Joseph J. Noval at the Naval Air Development Center in Johnsville, Philadelphia, young adult male rats were exposed for 30 to 40 days to 45 Hz vertical electric fields varying from 100 v/m to 0.1 v/m. The rats were housed in specially equipped, air-conditioned railroad cars, which, being made of metal, shielded the animals from ambient EM fields. Rats kept under identical conditions but not exposed to 45 Hz electric fields acted as the control group.
The exposed rats gained weight some 20 to 30 percent slower than the control rats (even though both groups consumed roughly the same amount of food and water) and had significantly elevated levels of the liver enzyme tryptophan pyrrolase. Elevations in this enzyme can occur in response to various types of stress. Additionally, the brainstems of the exposed rats showed increased levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which is released by nerve cells in the brain as a consequence of mild stress. The odd thing about the exposed rats is that although they showed signs of being “inwardly” stressed, outwardly they seemed fine, behaving exactly the same as the control rats. All of these details suggest that the animals underwent subliminal activation of the stress response.
Fight-or-flight
“Stress” is an abused term in that we tend to use it frequently without truly knowing what it means. A good definition of stress is “any environmental or physical pressure that elicits a response from an organism.”19 Stress has both a positive and a negative side. On the one hand, it promotes survival and enables us to adapt quickly to changes in our environment. On the other hand, it can do more harm than good, especially when left unchecked. Your body is hardwired to perceive stressful situations as a threat to its survival; it makes no distinction between real threats, such as finding yourself hanging from the edge of a four-story building, and imaginary threats, such as having a heated argument with your spouse. We respond to stress using instinct rather than logic. Who doesn’t feel anxious, if not fearful, when growled at by an aggressive dog, even when the dog is situated behind a sturdy metal fence and clearly poses no threat?
The instant you face a perceived threat your body activates the fight-or-flight response, to prepare you to either confront (“fight”) the perceived threat or to flee to safety (“flight”). Central to this ancient survival mechanism is the hypothalamus, which communicates with the rest of the body through the autonomic nervous system (ANS).
The nervous system is made up of two components: the central nervous system (CNS) and the peripheral nervous system (PNS). The CNS consists of the brain and spinal cord and is responsible for coordinating the activity of the entire nervous system. The PNS is the portion of the nervous system that lies outside the brain and spinal cord. Although the ANS is classified as part of the PNS, it is actually controlled by centers located in the hypothalamus, spinal cord, and brain stem.
The ANS is divided into two components: the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and the parasympathetic nervous system (PSNS). Together, the PSNS and the ANS regulate involuntary activity in the body, such as heartbeat, digestion, pupil dilation, salivation, perspiration, and respiration. The SNS and the PSNS have contrary roles. Whereas the SNS activates the physiological changes that occur during the fight-or-flight response, the PSNS dampens the fight-or-flight response, calming the body down once the threat has passed. If you like, the SNS is the accelerator pedal and the PSNS the brake.
The first system in the body to be activated by the hypothalamus during the fight-or-flight response is the SNS. The SNS tells the adrenal glands to pump large quantities of the hormones epinephrine (adrenaline) and norepinephrine (noradrenaline) into the bloodstream. The effects brought on by epinephrine and norepinephrine are dramatic: heart rate and blood pressure increase; the pupils dilate to take in as much light as possible; extra oxygen is sent to the brain, increasing alertness; and blood glucose levels increase, providing the body with a massive energy boost.
Next, the hypothalamus activates the second component of the stress response system: the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA axis)—so called because it consists of the hypothalamus, the pituitary gland, and the adrenal glands. This triggers the adrenal glands to secrete the steroid hormone cortisol. So as to make more energy available for the emergency at hand, cortisol suppresses the activity of non-essential bodily functions such as digestion and immunity. Once the perceived threat has passed, the PSNS kicks in, returning the body to its pre-stressed state. Epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol levels drop.
Chronic stress versus acute stress
There are essentially two different kinds of stress: acute and chronic. Acute stress is another name for short-term stress. It means the fight-or-flight response was activated and then soon after deactivated. Undergoing a job interview can bring about acute stress. The stress you experienced during the interview would have vanished the moment the interview ended. Chronic stress, on the other hand, is persistent stress. In the chronically stressed, the fight-or-flight response gets activated so often that it’s more or less continuously switched on.
The curious thing about chronic stress is that it tends to go unnoticed by the sufferer. It remains just outside of your awareness, slowly gnawing away at you. Remember, the fight-or-flight response occurs in the ANS, while the ANS functions on a largely subconscious level. For this reason, the ANS is often equated with the subconscious mind. Of course, short-term activation of the fight-or-flight response (acute stress) is very much a conscious phenomenon. It’s like revving the engine of a car, then turning the engine off. Long-term activation of the fight-or-flight response (chronic stress) is a largely subconscious phenomenon. It’s like leaving the engine idling on high for too long, until eventually the engine burns out.
In the case of chronic stress, it is the second component of the stress response system—the HPA axis—that remains “idling on high.” The primary result is an excess of cortisol in the bloodstream. Sustained high cortisol levels can be extremely harmful to the body, resulting in suppressed immunity, high blood sugar (hyperglycemia), muscle and bone loss, increased weight gain (as a result of food cravings), learning and memory difficulties, insomnia, aches and pains from inflammation, and fatigue and weakness.
Given that elevated cortisol levels weaken the immune system, stress makes you more susceptible to illness. No medical expert would deny this. If you work as a teacher in a high school or university you’d know the incidence of illness generally increases among students immediately following exam time, which is one of the most stressful times of the year for students. Robert Becker eloquently explains the connection between EM fields, stress, and the immune system:
“It is well-established that exposure to any abnormal electromagnetic field produces a stress response. If the exposure is prolonged, the stress response system becomes exhausted, and the competency of the immune system declines to below normal. In such a state, animals and humans are more susceptible to cancer and infectious diseases.”20
Earlier we saw evidence of an EM field–induced stress response in Noval’s 1976 study involving rats. As you will recall, the exposed rats, although outwardly fine, gained substantially less weight than the control rats (although one would think the rats, if stressed, would have gained rather than lost weight, though the symptoms of stress are many and vary from individual to individual) and also had increased levels of the liver enzyme tryptophan pyrrolase and the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, indicating a subliminal stress response in the animals. While it’s true the rats in Noval’s study didn’t become stressed to the point where their immune systems weakened and they became ill, plenty of studies do show a link between EM field exposure and illness, including cancer, and hence support the stress response hypothesis. We’ll look at one such study now.
The Arthur Guy study
In a study funded by the United States Air Force School of Medicine to the tune of $4.5 million and conducted at the University of Washington, Seattle, in the early-1980s under the direction of Dr. Arthur Guy, 100 male rats were exposed for 21 hours a day throughout a period of 25 months to pulsed microwaves at 2,450 MHz and approximately 0.5 mW/cm2. (This is a good deal lower than the 1 mW/cm2 exposure limit for the general population.) The control group consisted of 100 male rats kept under identical conditions to the experimental group but not exposed to microwave radiation. It was hoped the study would provide much insight into the possible health effects of long term, low level exposure to microwave radiation.
A total of 115 measures of health and behavior were collected as part of the study, including food and water consumption, body mass, and plasma corticosterone levels. In rats, corticosterone is secreted by the adrenal glands in response to stress, this being the equivalent of cortisol in humans. The term “plasma corticosterone” refers to the presence of corticosterone in the blood. Obviously, we would expect stressed rats to show higher plasma corticosterone levels than relaxed rats.
Initially the exposed rats had higher mean corticosterone levels than the unexposed controls; yet for the remainder of the study they had lower mean corticosterone levels than the unexposed controls. So why the initial peak then drop in corticosterone levels? Commenting on this finding in his book Cross Currents, Robert Becker says it indicates “that the stress response systems of the experimental [exposed] animals had become exhausted. This result is exactly as expected for a condition of chronic stress.”21
Further significant differences were noticed between the exposed and unexposed rats. There were 16 malignant tumors among the exposed rats compared to 4 among the unexposed controls. Of the 16 malignant tumors among the exposed rats, 7 were of the endocrine system, with 2 thyroid, 2 pituitary, and 3 adrenal gland tumors. As for benign adrenal tumors—called pheochromocytomas—there were 7 among the exposed rats and only 1 among the controls. In part because the exposed rats had more adrenal tumors than the unexposed rats, the mean adrenal mass of the former was significantly higher than that of the latter.
The highly respected journal Microwave News featured an article on Guy’s study in its July/August 1984 issue, at which time the results of the study were still under review by Air Force officials. (It wasn’t until 1992 that the study was published in a scientific journal.) The article states that “a number of experts found the…data highly suggestive of a link between microwave radiation and cancer, possibly through a stress response.”22 In a 1984 newspaper article, Dr. Samuel Milham, an epidemiologist at the Washington State Department of Health, is quoted as saying that the results of the study point to a “stress response” in the exposed rats. He explained, “It looks like the microwave radiation may have been a tumor promoter. It didn’t initiate the cancers, but once some cancer cells got going it promoted growth of the tumors.”23
There was clearly a higher incidence of cancer and general ill health among the exposed rats compared to the unexposed controls. This fact is confirmed by Guy and his colleagues in their 1992 paper, which states that the “incidence of benign pheochromocytomas of the adrenal medulla was higher in the exposed group than in the controls,” and that there was “a near fourfold increase of primary malignancies in the exposed animals…”24 The paper goes on to declare that the higher incidence of pheochromocytomas is not statistically significant but that the excess of primary malignancies is statistically significant and “provocative.”25 So what did Guy and his colleagues make of this statistically significant and “provocative” result?
“[W]hen this single finding is considered in light of other parameters, it is conjectural whether the statistical difference reflects a true biological influence. The overall results indicate that there are no defintive [sic], biologically significant effects on rats chronically exposed to this form of microwave irradiation.”26
That the results of the study were explained away and a negative conclusion drawn smacks of outright fraud on the part of those who conducted the study. It is Becker’s contention that the study was designed to generate a negative outcome, so as to prove that microwaves are safe, but that it didn’t go quite as planned. Becker bases his argument on the fact that the 200 rats used in the study were gnotobiotic—meaning germ and virus free. Being gnotobiotic, the rats had been delivered by caesarian section and housed in a pathogen-free environment. Gnotobiotic animals are extremely expensive to obtain (which partly explains why the experiment cost $4.5 million) and are used by researchers in experiments that require no interference from bacteria and viruses. For obvious reasons, gnotobiotic animals are far less likely to get sick than normal animals.
According to Becker, those who designed the study knew in advance that exposing the animals to microwaves would produce a stress response; and, aware of the compromising effect that stress has on the immune system, chose to use gnotobiotic animals rather than normal animals for no other reason than to “sharply reduce the incidence of cancer and infectious diseases in the exposed animals.”27 He adds: “Considering the extreme stress experienced by the exposed animals, if the animals had been normal (rather than gnotobiotic) the entire experimental group would have died of infection or cancer long before the close of the experiment.”28
The only sensible conclusion to draw from the evidence we’ve examined so far is that low level EM radiation causes harmful biological effects. As frightening as this is, it’s valuable to know, because it enables us to take measures to protect ourselves from such effects. One of the most valuable insights we’ve gained during the course of our investigation is that EM fields produce a stress response. The symptoms of radio wave sickness make perfect sense when seen in terms of chronic stress, and this applies to my own experience with smart meter RF radiation. The reason I felt agitated and that my immune system collapsed clearly stemmed from a case of chronic stress; not stress caused in the normal fashion, but stress induced by the invisible RF field of the smart meter installed in my home. We will now attempt to get to the bottom of why smart meters seem to cause more health problems than cellphones and other common devices that operate in the RF range.
Smart meters
Like cellphones, smart meters are radio transmitters and receivers. Whereas cellphones operate at approximately 2 GHz, smart meters operate in the frequency bands of 902–928 MHz and 2.4–2.48 GHz and on other nearby frequencies. Devices that operate at or near the same frequency as smart meters include Wi-Fi modems, many cordless telephones, baby monitors, remote controlled light switches, and household microwave ovens.
Cellphones and cellular base stations emit a near constant stream of RF radiation. Smart meters, on the other hand, emit RF energy not in a constant fashion but in the form of sharp, extremely brief pulses. Each pulse lasts from 2 to 20 milliseconds. (One millisecond is one thousandth of a second, or 0.001 second.) The rate at which smart meters pulse, as well as the frequency of individual pulses, varies from moment to moment and is impossible to predict. Independent investigators equipped with RF detectors have proven that smart meters are capable of pulsing at a rate that falls in the ELF range.
Smart meters are supposed to have very low RF emissions, lower even than cellphones, and to operate well below exposure limits. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) claims that if you were to stand a distance of one foot from a smart meter the RF radiation would measure only 8.8µW/cm2. Other official sources cite equally low power density figures for smart meters. Yet the catch is that these figures (including the one from PG&E) are “time averaged” with respect to a 30 minute period. This means the pulses are averaged over all the time the meter is not pulsing. Expressing power density in a time averaged fashion is deceptive, because doing so “hides” any large spikes in RF that may have occurred during that period.
It’s impossible to deny that the RF radiation emitted by smart meters is extremely weak when expressed in a time-averaged fashion. But what about the power density of individual pulses, known as the “peak power density”? Because companies such as PG&E refuse to provide peak power density figures for smart meters, the matter remains uncertain. The only figures available come from unofficial sources, such as independent investigators who have used RF detectors to measure smart meter pulses.
Cindy Sage, a California-based environmental consultant who specializes in EM field health issues, says she was informed by Southern California Edison that their smart meters carry a peak power density of 229 mW/cm2 at a distance of 8 inches. She commented in a newspaper article, “It’s an enormous, short pulse. It goes right through walls and it only stops when it hits something juicy. You become a walking antenna.”29 Quoted in the same article is a “68-year-old retired electrical engineer and self-made radio-frequency expert” named Lloyd Morgan.30 Morgan says he calculated that the peak power density for PG&E smart meters is approximately 288 mW/cm2 (which is similar to Sage’s estimate).
I should mention in passing that exposure limits for RF radiation with respect to peak power density are immensely higher than those with respect to time averaged power density. Thus, assuming smart meters do emit RF radiation with peak power density levels as high as those claimed by Sage and Morgan, these levels would still fall well below established exposure limits.
In light of what we’ve discussed, it’s easy to see why smart meters are causing so many health complaints among members of the public. That they emit short, sharp pulses of RF radiation is probably what makes them especially harmful compared to other RF devices. The pulsed aspect of smart meter technology is significant, because some evidence suggests that pulsed EM radiation is considerably more harmful than continuous EM radiation. That smart meters are capable of pulsing at a rate that falls in the ELF range is also significant, given what we discussed in the previous chapter about Schumann resonance and human brain waves. They add yet another layer of “electrosmog” to a world already highly polluted with artificial EM radiation, and that in itself is cause for concern.
EM hypersensitivity (EHS)
How much artificial EM radiation will the public be able to tolerate before the percentage of those suffering from radio wave sickness and other EM-related illnesses reaches epidemic proportions? There are indications we’re already facing such an epidemic, thanks in part to the recent introduction of smart meters. Earlier I mentioned how a family in Melbourne by the surname of Florio went so far as to abandon their home after a smart meter was installed in their neighbor’s home and they started experiencing headaches and insomnia. Another case I mentioned is that of Vic and Rosemary Tredeau, who also abandoned their home due to health problems caused by a smart meter.
The symptoms described by both the Florios and Trudeaus are undoubtedly those of radio wave sickness. There are also cases where exposure to smart meter radiation has led to EHS, a condition similar to radio wave sickness but far more debilitating. One such case involved a young Melbourne man who worked briefly as a smart meter installer in 2011 and decided to tell his story in the form of an open letter. This letter was posted on the website “Stop Smart Meters Australia” on October 10, 2012, and has since made its way around the internet. So as to remain anonymous, the man revealed only his initials. I shall call him James.
James says his job was not to install smart meters per se but to fit already installed, live meters with communication cards and aerials. After working in this role for around two months, he began to experience concentration and memory issues accompanied by a feeling of “general fatigue” and “a sense of creeping anxiety.”31 Unable to function in a healthy, efficient capacity, James lost his job. Yet despite no longer working with smart meters, his health problems multiplied to include heart palpitations, poor bladder control, psychosis, muscle cramps, altered perception, eyesight problems, constant tinnitus, and headaches.
At that stage in his life, James was living in a cramped apartment block in the inner suburb of Hawthorn. In close proximity to his bedroom was a powerful Wi-Fi router. After purchasing a new smart phone his symptoms became more acute, to the point where he felt he was “going to die.”32 It soon dawned on James that his symptoms were linked to EM radiation. For example, he noticed he felt considerably better when he switched his cellphone to “flight mode” (so that it didn’t emit RF radiation) and eliminated other sources of EM radiation. “I determined that being around any source of RF waves…really anything with a bit of EM radiation would spike my condition and push me back into that horrible state,” he commented.33
At one point James paid a visit to Newcastle, New South Wales, to spend time with family members. While there, his symptoms more or less vanished, only to reappear as soon as he arrived back in Melbourne. From that point on, James realized he had no other choice but to leave Melbourne altogether and move to a location with lower EM pollution.
Genuine or psychosomatic?
When faced with the question of whether James’s condition is real or psychosomatic, the easiest explanation to accept is the latter. A psychosomatic condition is one caused or aggravated by a mental factor such as stress. Illness due to chronic stress is psychosomatic in nature. A skeptic could argue that James found his job as a smart meter installer highly stressful, and that this stress, not the smart meter radiation, was responsible for his becoming ill. They could further argue that James felt better during his holiday in Newcastle because holidays have a relaxing effect on the mind, not because Newcastle, being smaller than Melbourne, has less EM pollution than Melbourne. So, then, is EHS a genuine or psychosomatic condition?
EHS is a relatively new condition, having only really emerged during the 1980s. Those afflicted with EHS find they become ill when exposed to virtually any form of artificial EM radiation, whether it’s from a cellphone, a washing machine, or power lines. The symptoms listed by James, which included fatigue, anxiety, concentration and memory difficulties, and heart palpitations, are all typical of EHS. Other common symptoms include dermatological issues, such as redness, tingling, and burning, in addition to digestive disturbances and ringing in the ears.
The only way EHS sufferers are able to gain relief from their symptoms is by minimizing as much as possible their exposure to EM radiation. This might include using EM radiation-emitting devices sparingly or not at all; living in a remote location, one well away from power lines and cellphone base stations, or in a home shielded from EM radiation; and sleeping under a wire-mesh canopy. Some EHS sufferers go so far as to don wire-mesh body suits and face masks—similar to the kind of apparel worn by beekeepers.
What does the WHO say about EHS? The WHO describes the symptoms of EHS as “non-specific” and “not part of any recognized syndrome.”34 It compares EHS to multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS)—in which a person develops allergy-like symptoms from exposure to chemicals in the environment—and says the symptoms of both conditions “lack apparent toxicological or physiological basis or independent verification.”35 It further says there is “no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure.”36
It’s not surprising the WHO is unwilling to accept EHS as a medical diagnosis, nor acknowledge its connection to EM field exposure, given its view that “there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level [non-ionizing] electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health.” The WHO offers little information as to the prevalence of EHS in the general population, but mentions that one survey came up with an estimate of “a few individuals per million.”37 Other, more reliable surveys indicate a much higher prevalence of EHS.
In a 1997 cross-sectional questionnaire survey involving 15,000 men and women between the ages of 19 and 80 in Stockholm County, Sweden, 1.5 percent of the respondents—the majority women in the 60 to 69 year age group—claimed to be hypersensitive to electric or magnetic fields. Also, a much higher percentage of those in the EHS group than those in the non-EHS group reported being intolerant or allergic to food, pollen, amalgam, dental fillings other than amalgam, mold, dust, mite, gluten, nickel, furry animals, and cosmetics.
A similar type of questionnaire survey was carried out in 1998 as part of the California EMF Program. The survey was conducted over the phone and involved 2,072 randomly selected adult Californians, 3.2 percent of whom reported being “allergic or very sensitive to getting near electrical appliances, computers or power lines.”38 It’s been suggested that the incidence of EHS among the general population is steadily increasing and might reach as high as 50 percent by the year 2017.
Countering the view of EHS as a psychosomatic condition is the presence of numerous striking similarities between separate EHS cases. Worth mentioning in this regard is the fact that most cases of EHS can be traced back to a specific job or incident that involved heavy exposure to EM radiation. You will recall that James, prior to developing EHS, spent a couple of months working as a smart meter installer, a job that placed him in very close proximity to smart meters and their pulsed RF fields. James himself attributes the job to his developing EHS.
Veronica Ciandre
Toronto resident Veronica Ciandre, a former television and movie hairstylist in her early 50s, also developed EHS as a result of heavy exposure to EM radiation. Ciandre and her teenage daughter used to reside in a top-story apartment overlooking the city. It had been their home for 12 years. They’d lived there comfortably and happily until, in December of 2009, 25 cellphone antennas were installed on the roof of the apartment building. Ten of the antennas were positioned directly on the roof of Ciandre’s apartment. Said Ciandre, “So basically each room in my apartment had an antenna on top of it just six feet away.”39
Not long after the antennas were installed, Ciandre began to feel ill, with symptoms that included “a hissing or buzzing or high pitched ringing” in the ears, numb hands and feet, persistent headaches, dizzy spells lasting for days, short-term memory loss, concentration problems, heart palpitations, and nausea.40 She also experienced difficulties with static electricity and would often get “zapped” when she touched ordinary objects such as her bed mattress and home light switches, as well as every time she patted her pet cat. Most troubling of all, she found it impossible to sleep at night on account of a tingling sensation in her body. According to Ciandre, “It felt like I was being plugged into an outlet.”41
Ciandre’s daughter, then aged 14, complained of similar symptoms and also developed painful rashes. “[W]e started feeling like we were living in a slow-cooking microwave,” Ciandre commented.42 Aware that both her health and that of her daughter would continue to suffer if they remained where they were, Ciandre and her daughter abandoned the apartment in February 2010. They spent months “couch surfing” in the homes of friends before Ciandre managed to find them a permanent place to live. Magda Haves of Trent University, Ontario, an expert on the health effects of EM pollution, visited the apartment with an EM field meter and confirmed the presence of high levels of RF radiation.
Ciandre believes the ordeal rendered her EM hypersensitive and was diagnosed as such by Dr. Riina Bray, the environmental health specialist at Toronto’s Women’s College Hospital. In order to limit her exposure to EM radiation, Ciandre’s been forced to make a number of dramatic changes to her lifestyle. She avoids using a cellphone because doing so gives her “strong discomfort and headaches.”43 In fact, so acute is her sensitivity to EM fields that a cellphone can trigger her symptoms when four or less meters in proximity to her body. Apparently, at the peak of her sensitivity, she could tell when the microwave was on in the next room, or when someone entered the room with a switched-on cellphone.
Like numerous others who suffer from EHS, Ciandre switches off the power in her home before going to bed at night and sleeps under a wire-mesh canopy designed to block out RF radiation. Using a wireless modem is out of the question; she connects to the internet through the phone line. Although she’d like to move from the city to the country in order to reduce her exposure to EM radiation, the fact that she has a teenage daughter prevents her from doing so. A spokeswoman for the group Citizens 4 Sa