According to a new report from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the radio-frequency (RF) exposure levels from one type of smart meter, even at close range, fall substantially below the protective limits set by the Federal Communications Commission for the general public.
EPRI said the findings serve as a valuable first step in characterizing RF exposures associated with smart meter technology. Smart meters installations in California and elsewhere have met with opposition in recent months due to concerns about possible health effects caused by exposure to RF.
“RF is a ubiquitous and increasing presence in our daily lives as evidenced by the expanding use of cell phones and other wireless technologies,” said Dr. Rob Kavet, senior technical executive at EPRI. “Smart meters are integral technology to a modern smart grid, but consumers need to be assured that health issues associated with RF exposures from new technologies have been carefully examined and are well understood.
The EPRI research addressed RF from a specific type of smart meter with measurements conducted at the manufacturer’s test facility. For a continuously-operating rack of 10 meters, each operating at a nominal power rating of 250 milliwatts (typical of many residential units), the RF power density level 1 foot in front of the rack was 8% of the FCC limit; at 20 and 50 feet, these values dropped to 0.18% and 0.11%, respectively. From 8 inches behind the rack, RF power density was 0.6% of the FCC limit.
The EPRI report also included detailed characterization of RF emissions from individual meters under laboratory conditions, analysis of individual smart meter activity from more than 53,000 meters deployed in the Southern California area, and measurements of RF in a variety of ambient residential and community environments.
Smart meters of the type measured in the EPRI study use wireless communications to transmit data on electricity use, report outages, regulate load flow and other functions. They are integral in the development of a “smart grid" that can provide electricity customers pricing options, help system operators pinpoint outages more quickly and improve reliability and efficiency.
The full EPRI technical report (An Investigation of Radiofrequency Fields Associated with the Itron Smart Meter 1021126) detailing the study is available at the link below. A summary report (Radio-Frequency Exposure Levels from Smart Meters: A Case Study of One Model” 1022270) is also available.
Here are some smart meter myths: http://www.energyinyourlife.com/article.php?t=100000066
Industry propaganda cannot cover up the truth about smart meters – they are dangerous. http://www.smartmeterdangers.org. The utilities and their supporters should be ashamed of the harm these are causing.
Thanks for the helpful link, Rick.
1. INSURANCE COMPANIES WON’T INSURE THE HEALTH PROBLEMS FROM WIRELESS Smart Meters
And Insurance companies don’t sacrifice insurance premiums ($$$) for no reason.
TV NEWS VIDEO – Insurance Companies Won’t Insure Wireless Device Health Risks (3 minutes, 13 seconds)
http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=382
2. WIRELESS SMART METERS TRANSMIT RADIATION APPROXIMATELY 25,000 TIMES PER DAY, 24/7, not 45 seconds per day as claimed by PG&E Corporate.
VIDEO – Radiation Measured From Smart Meter Mounted On A Home (6 minutes, 21 seconds)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRejDxBE6OE
3. UTILITY BILLS SKYROCKETED AFTER WIRELESS SMART METER INSTALLATION.
Senator Florez in a hearing with PG&E Customers whose bills have gone up and PG&E Corporate representatives.
TV NEWS VIDEO – Skyrocketing Utility Bills after WIRELESS smart meter installation (3 minutes, 19 seconds)
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/63581287.html?tab=video
For More Information:
http://stopsmartmeters.org/
Lions, tigers and bears oh my!
FCC standards are based only on heating effects, despite numerous other biological harm documented and studied for decades. Look at Zory Glaser U.S. military list of studies of rf effects, and the BioInitiative Reports. It is criminal the way the regulatory authorities refuse to protect public health. They won’t even apply the Precautionary Principle until more (independent) research can be done. They prefer to play Russian Roulette with public health – for profit.