Today's pace of increasingly rapid
technological change fosters all kinds of psychological and social
dislocations and nowhere is this more true than with the advent of
the smart grid, which requires digital smart meters to be installed
at every customer's location. The worries spawned by the devices,
which feature two-way radio or RF communication features, seem to be
growing,
with dozens of campaigns underway to block or at the
minimum allow customers to opt-out out of the meter installations.
Over the past month, developments have
pushed the issue of smart meter threats more clearly onto the national
radar screen. Last week, Maine's highest court ruled
that the state's public utility commission failed to adequately
address potential health risks associated with the meters and urged
the regulatory authority to give smart meter detractors an
opportunity to air their concerns.
At the end of June, staff at the
Michigan Public Service Commission issued a report
concluding that although they believe smart meters do not pose health
risks, ratepayers should be given the right to opt-out of the
devices. And from Vermont to Texas
to Maryland to
Hawaii,
anti-smart meter groups are pushing to get mandatory smart meter
installations overturned or modified to allow for opt-outs.
Three fears are fueling the smart meter
fire: fear over purported health risks, fear over potential privacy
invasion and fear of increased cyber security threats. While
everyone agrees that smart meters do in fact raise legitimate privacy
concerns due to the increased data generated by the devices, and no
one doubts that the nation's electrical infrastructure is more
vulnerable to cyber threats now that digital technology is part of
the power grid, the issue of health risks caused by meters is
hopelessly muddled.
Scientific Researchers Can Find No
Evidence of RF Risks But Won't Rule Them Out
On the one hand, industry groups,
engineers and mainstream scientists make a solid case that no
scientific evidence exists that smart meters cause any of the health
problems attributable to RF “radiation,” from cancer to
neurological conditions such as depression to heart disease to ocular
burning. Virtually all of the commonly accepted scientific research
cited by anti-smart meter advocates ties back to research on cell
phones and the potential of these mobile devices to cause
electromagnetic illnesses.
But even here the evidence is weak and
can't be applied to smart meters. The amount of RF radiation from
cell phones dwarfs any possible exposure from smart meters and can't
be used as a comparison, experts say, adding that few people plan to
hold their smart meters against their heads or near their bodies
anyway, as they do with cell phones. Virtually all generally accepted
scientific research on cell phone radiation concludes that
insufficient evidence exists to link electromagnetic illnesses with
the devices.
However, a few generally accepted
scientific studies
have been unable to rule out the adverse effects of cell phones,
using careful and qualifying language that anti-smart meter advocates
have pointed to as “proof” of the potential problems that could
be caused by smart meters. A widely reported and respected study
conducted by the World Health Organization concluded that no evidence
exists that mobile phones cause certain kinds of brain cancer, as has
been alleged. But, this same study did conclude that there were
“suggestions” that the incidence of a particular kind of brain tumor, glioma,
increases with mobile phone use. “The possible effects of
long-term, heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation,”
the report concluded.
The couched, careful language of
science, which rarely wanders far from the evidence, doesn't help
quell fears when it comes to proving that smart meters pose no health
risks. As another example, in a presentation
to the Michigan PSC earlier this year, researchers at the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory kicked off their talk with the
following double-edged conclusion:
While scientific evidence overwhelmingly concludes there are no problems related to smart meter RF exposure, health science cannot conclude that individuals will not experience negative side effects.
Smart Meter Opponents Don't Necessarily Have Science on Their Side...But They're Effective
Smart
meter opponents often rely on research, or sometimes just arguments
and assertions, that don't hold water among traditional scientists.
A frequent source of substantiation on the adverse effects of smart
meters is the American Academy
of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), an organization backed by
doctors concerned about environmental illnesses.
In
April, The AAEM released a position paper, one of many, that called
for “immediate caution regarding smart meter installations,” saying that
“significant harmful biological effects occur from non‐thermal RF
exposure.” Although impressive sounding, the AAEM is not
recognized by traditional medicine organizations and has been labeled a
“questionable” organization by Quackwatch for often venturing into unchartered alternative therapy territory.
What
smart meter opponents lack in hard science, however, they make up for
in energy and passion. And thus far they have been very effective in
changing how smart meters get deployed.
Smart meter opponents were a driving force behind the California' PUC's decision earlier this year to give PG&E customers opt-out rights, which has sparked a chain reaction of opt-out requirements throughout the state. In May, Vermont took the issue a step forward and eliminated utility-requested fees that customers had to pay in order to opt out. The Maine court decision last week stemmed from appeal efforts mounted by smart meter opponents.
Smart meter opponents were a driving force behind the California' PUC's decision earlier this year to give PG&E customers opt-out rights, which has sparked a chain reaction of opt-out requirements throughout the state. In May, Vermont took the issue a step forward and eliminated utility-requested fees that customers had to pay in order to opt out. The Maine court decision last week stemmed from appeal efforts mounted by smart meter opponents.
From Arizona to Wisconsin, there are 48 separate and active stop-metering groups bird-dogging smart meter roll-outs. Anti-smart meter organizations are in Canada, Australia, Europe and Japan. There are anti-smart metering consultants, experts (many of whom have scientific credentials), websites, videos and even feature films. Including independent groups that are concerned about "electrosmog" problems generally, at least 70 active groups are writing, advocating against or organizing against smart meters globally.
For reasons having to do more with privacy and cyber security than health risks, Tea Party activists are taking up the anti-smart meter flag in many areas of the country, applying the political skills learned during the heyday of that movement to advance another agenda. Aggressive Tea Party efforts have stoked such fervent concerns in Nevada that the Public Utility Commission felt it had to hire armed guards for a smart meter hearing.
Even if some of the smart meter opponents have political smarts, most seem to be genuinely concerned about the ramifications of having so many electromagnetic waves buzzing around us and through us, particularly those among us who are “electromagnetically sensitive.” They intuitively and strongly believe that the smart meter is very much an unwelcome visitor into their homes, and are even concerned about being surrounding by homes served by smart meters.
Utilities, which seem surprised by the fervor of the anti-meter groups, worry that if too many people opt out of smart meters, the scale economics dictate higher deployment costs, and potentially higher costs for manually reading the old analog meters. Opt-out rates in California were initially below 1%, although PG&E believes that ultimately 150,000 of its 5 million customers, or around 3%, may opt out of the meters.
Utilities are trying to hold back the tide of concern through various individual consumer outreach efforts. The industry-backed Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative is trying to serve as a broader clearinghouse for listening to consumer and advocate issues and disseminating what information it can.
But at this point, the passion of smart meter opponents is unwavering and unresponsive to the somewhat traditional, rational responses these industry efforts put forth. In a way it almost resembles the irresolvable debate between faith and science, with one side rooted in passionate belief and the other reliant on cold, hard scientific facts, baffled by the believers.
