Smartmeters and dirty electricity

Mick West

Staff member
I think coming from people who say in the same article:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is beneficial to plants- why do you think greenhouses pipe in carbon? Because it makes plants and crops more robust. According to Dr, Michael Coffman, a 500% increase in CO2 would only benefit plants and animals.
It's pretty likely it's bunk.

There's no evidence behind any of their claims, and the one paper they quote "'Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of of the Sutro Tower, San Francisco" by Cherry, is about a totally different type of broadcasting, and other meta-studies have show there to be no statistically significant effect.

In summary, this review has not found substantial epidemiologic evidence to support an
association of radiofrequency radiation with cancer. Furthermore, two prior San Francisco childhood
cancer studies found no evidence of childhood cancer clusters in the neighborhoods surrounding the
tower. Therefore, there does not appear to be a basis for conducting a cancer-RFR study around Sutro
Tower. Questions raised by the literature such as the relationship of RFR with rare outcomes such as
testicular and brain cancer would be difficult if not impossible to meaningfully answer by a study in San
Francisco because study power would be too low due to the limited size of the exposed population,
migration in and out of exposed communities, and the lack of historical exposure measurement. Many of
these questions may be best answered by further studies in other target populations.
The Author, Neil Cherry (who died in 2003), had a history of publishing papers that validated his theory that The Schumann Resonance signal had biological effects - and idea that's entirely out of the mainstream of science. His papers seem popular with people trying to sell quack anti-EMF/EMR devices.

Mick West

Staff member
The basis of the idea that there danger here is the theory that RF radiation has "non-thermal" effects. They claim that even though it's a very low level of radiation compared to cell phones (about 1%), that there is somehow a cumulative effect, as the meter will (eventually) be transmitting more.

It's like they are claiming that taking a warm bath for an hour would be more dangerous than taking a bath in boiling water for one minute.


Thanks Mick for clearing this up and spending the time explaining. This concept might be the next fear mongering plot by the same group ( G. Edward Griffins crew) to fan the flames of anti-technology ideas. There is now a whole section on the Rense site dedicated to this new issue.

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
The usual people are planning to speak at next Monday's Mount Shasta City Council meeting in opposition to the installation of Digital Water Meters, which is apparently a type of smart meter. As far as I know, they are just utilizing the time for non-agenda items at the beginning of each meeting, but the meeting agenda hasn't come out yet. I don't know whether the city is seriously considering this, but it did apply for a grant for water meter installation. The meeting should be broadcast live at 5:30 pm PST here:
The city passed a resolution three years ago urging the power company not to install smart meters. It will be interesting to see if they change their mind for their own water utility.


Last edited:

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
The meter most likely to be selected can be read remotely, but the meter reader has to "call" it, according to the city public works director. It is battery powered, not connected to an AC power source, so there is no way it could produce "dirty electricity."