Letter: Smart meters compound health problems

I WAS SKEPTICAL FOR A LONG TIME REGARDING WIRELESS RADIATION.

But then I accessed the articles describing the tests that demonstrated cell damage from low levels of non-ionizing radiation.

Then I further read the peer reviewed publications that supported it. Then I contacted universities where the report authors worked and checked on their current status and history. Each had top-notch reputations within the university and within the greater university system within their country and beyond, when I took the time to check that also. Then I did the same on the Editors of the publications that both published the work and those who published the peer-reviewed publications that support the work.

Then I checked with a half dozen physicists who confirmed their belief that it wasn't true, the same story I learned in physics in college. But I also confirmed that the physics beliefs were only a theory and that not a single incident existed to prove the theory. Way over simplified - physics felt that if the radiation couldn't heat the cells, it couldn't affect the cells. And of course not a single physicist that I spoke or wrote to had ever actually done any testing in that area, but they had believed it since high school and college and their first Physics class. Old thoughts die hard.

And finally, I went to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco and heard from about a dozen or more or the scientists who had actually done the tests and seen the cell damage, and others who had done the epidemiology tests and seen the higher levels of cancer and other lesser symptoms from those with greater exposure to common wireless radiations.

Without the cell damage, the epidemiology alone can't demonstrate indication of cause, only association. But with the cell damage witnessed by numerous scientists, and supported by a whole line of integrity, the epidemiology associations now have a cell-damaging mechanism to support cause at a far greater level than many other dangers that are LESS supported, yet we still have public policies for avoidance.

You don't need to be certain that a car will hit your child when you don't allow him/her to play in the street, etc.

So those who were once thought crazy because they believed what science is now demonstrating to be correct are owed at minimum a sincere apology.

This does not mean that the industry groups won't deny for many more years and decades, and make up slogans that lead people away from the truth. Hey, cigarette companies lied for over 50 years and they still lie outside the U.S. where there is less oversight.

But for those of you who believe what you believe because your mind has thought that for a long time, good luck to you.

For others willing to consider something different than what you have been told, consider the following three-minute TV news video that tells why insurance companies will NOT insure damage from wireless devices:

http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=382