U.S. doctor condemns smart meters
A seemingly well regarded doctor from the U.S. condemns smart meters like those Hydro-Quebec is installing as bad for the health. He says the counterclaims that they’re harmless are based on the premise that the emissions are not strong enough to heat up the human body but that damage can be done below that level. Le Devoir even has the PDF version of his submission (which is in English).
Adam Hooper 01:02 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
The papers he cites (which he and some colleagues wrote) are not peer-reviewed. That means they are not published in a scientific journal. Three likely reasons: either he never applied, journal editors rejected his papers (conspiracy-theory), or independent scientists do not agree that he is unbiased.
In fact, independent reviewers have said quite the opposite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinitiative_Report#cite_note-PathoMBlank-1
This Devoir article presents nothing new at all–it’s just quoting one of the few scientists who was at the root of all the fearmongering in the first place. Plus, it doesn’t look to independently validate the scientist’s assertions. As several comments correctly state, it’s bad journalism.
Maybe science is wrong about these hydro gizmos. The global scientific community does get some things wrong–sometimes using valid science. But why should we base our distress on *invalid* science?
Faiz Imam 01:30 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
For reference, here is the key point Dr Carpenter is quoted on in all the stories:
“while no one has actually done human health studies in relation to people living in homes with smart meters, we have evidence from a whole variety of other sources of radiofrequency exposure that demonstrates convincingly and consistently that exposure to radiofrequency radiation at elevated levels for long periods of time increases the risk of cancer, increases the damage to the nervous system, causes electrosensitivity, has adverse reproductive effects, and a variety of other effects on different organ systems.”
This whole discussion boils down to “elevated levels for long periods of time” According to the vast majority of experts, such levels are much higher than actually occur with smart meters, routers, microwaves, etc. Even cell phones, which are nukes in comparison with the other items, are generally considered safe (though there is some legitimate debate still)
MB 03:09 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
Le Devoir should be ashamed of publishing pseudo-science…but then again, bidness is bidness, isn’t it? (Hullo global warming “debate.”)
Marc 05:38 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
Just because something is in Le Devoir doesn’t mean it’s true. Dr. David Carpenter drank the KoolAid, it seems. The smart meters operate at 900 MHz and the amount of power that can be emitted at that frequency doesn’t have anywhere near enough energy to damage chemical bonds. 900 MHz is what cordless phones operated on for many years.
Kevin 05:44 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
When will know-nothings start doing research instead of going: that newfangled stuff MUST be dangerous!
Chris 07:47 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
Society bends over backwards to accommodate the biggest non-science ever: God & religion. Given that, I don’t see why these meters can’t be optional.
Kevin 07:50 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
@Chris They are optional — but you have to pay $17 a month (or something like that) for the privilege of remaining ignorant.
Chris 08:03 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
There are other reasons to not want these meters:
A) Wireless devices are easy to hack, and criminals have started:
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/04/fbi-smart-meter-hacks-likely-to-spread/
B) Wireless devices can interfere with other wireless devices:
http://www.securityweek.com/smart-meters-interfering-home-electronics
C) Smart meters can weaken your privacy:
http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Smart-meters-reveal-TV-viewing-habits-1346385.html
These criticisms are decidedly hi-tech and easily testable hypotheses. If you ask me, you have to pay $17 as a penalty for not being ignorant.
Anto 08:15 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
@Chris: The new meters will allow Hydro Québec to charge more for electricity used during rush hours.
Jack 08:17 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
Right on Chris, the Smart meters are more about who is complaining.@Anto we should pay more for Hydro, that is the only way will constrain our consumption and leave the First Nations rivers alone.
Anto 08:21 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
@Jack: I was not complaining, just explaining why the meters can’t be optional.
Chris 08:30 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
It is possible to hold conflicting views. :) For example, I agree electricity should cost more during peak hours. (In fact, I think electricity should be much more expensive than it is now, at all times.) At the same time I dislike smart meters, for the reasons above. I want to have my cake and eat it too. :)
Kate 08:43 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
Maybe I should assure you guys that I didn’t post that link because I buy the doctor’s theory, but because it’s an issue that’s not going away here and we’ll be hearing more about it.
qatzelok 09:20 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
What could possibly be wrong with introducing new chemicals, radio waves, or other unnatural things into our environment? New technologies are miracles. Can’t wait for my flying saucer to be ready – as long as it’s a hybrid.
/Faith in gadgets
Kate 09:43 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
Well, it goes both ways. People are always suspicious of new technology. But new technology has quite often turned out to be bad for us. The only thing to hang onto here is science. I’m willing to bet there’s an 95% chance the RF from those meters is harmless (maybe unless you sleep cuddled up against one) but if legitimate studies begin to show they have statistical risks then we would be the stupid ones to go on maintaining they must be safe.
(I’m also aware of the difficulty of getting truly unbiased studies on stuff like this, a further complication.)
Faiz Imam 13:21 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
In contrast to the safety concerns, The security ones are very much valid. Consider the new high tech RFID driver licences and passports we have, anyone can get a professional scanner off ebay, and relatively low level clearance in needed into customs canada databases to connect it to all our info.
In the case of smart meters it is a 100% software issue. The reality is that all new software has bugs in it, and as soon as there is a reason to do so, you can be sure these meters will become as vulnerable as Windows XP.
Kate 16:51 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
Faiz Imam, maybe I’m lacking in evil imagination, but what can a random hacker do with information about how many kilowatts I’m using and when?
Chris 20:59 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
For one, he could deduce if you are home, and therefore know when a good time to rob you is.
Kate 21:59 on 2012/05/08 Permalink
If he’s a good hacker he already has better hardware than I’ve got.
But I take your point.
Faiz Imam 00:17 on 2012/05/09 Permalink
Kate you do have a point, currently the risks are quite minute.
But remember that the “smart home” is gonna get pretty damn smart.
Soon large appliances like dryers and dishwashers and electric cars will connect and communicate directly with the smart meter so that they can work at off peak hours.
And its quite conceivable that all manner of smaller(smarter) devices will also communicate this way. And inevitably, the fact is all methods of communication can be co-opted.
Thus a full inventory of the tech in your home, plus access to your local computer network is not inconceivable. And who knows? at some point I could imagine a plug-in hybrid being unlocked and stolen via a security hole of this kind.
My overall point is, once everything is connected, every vulnerability becomes exponentially more valuable.
I know for a fact that a luxury car of some kind had its security compromised by wiring a computer into a unremarkable sensor(maybe a brake wear sensor?) because auto engineers are simply not trained to think of security. The problem is neither are hydro workers…