In a recent Perspective article (Leader, July 16), Luke Mason wrote that, as a result of his research during the past six months, he has concluded that electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is a toxin. He proceeds to say that “Of particular concern are wireless technologies—cell-phones, WiFi, cordless phones, RF utility meters, Bluetooth, and various ‘Smart’ devices.”

I think that Mr. Mason’s view differs markedly from that held by the majority of scientists who work in this area and, as a result, he far overstates risks from EMR.

My opinion is that the current EMR safety guidelines in the U.S. are based on solid science and protect us from demonstrated hazards. Let me explain why I think this is the case.

First my credentials: I am a retired physicist (Ph.D, 1973, Stanford University) who spent his working career collaborating with biologists and epidemiologists studying whether there are biological and/or health effects resulting from exposure to the electric and magnetic fields produced by our electric power system.

During my 26 years in the field, I regularly attended scientific meetings of the Bioelectromagnetics and other Societies and met and talked to many scientists involved in research related to EMR safety.

The Federal Communications Commission has established safety guidelines for EMR exposure. In setting these guidelines they reviewed recommendations from the National Committee on Radiation Protection and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The guideline they constructed is based largely on the work of the NCRP (Report #86). I knew every member of this committee and hold high opinions of the scientific integrity of nearly all of them. All of the wireless sources mentioned by Mr. Mason meet the FCC guidelines.

In our country, safety guidelines are written to protect against established safety hazards. Mr. Mason argues that EMR is the cause of numerous neuropsychiatric effects, causes sterility, and “…might be the most potent carcinogen that we are in common contact with.”

If there were scientific studies that clearly demonstrated such effects, safety guidelines would have been modified to protect against them. This has not happened because there is no scientific consensus supporting such concerns. It is true that there are individual research studies that suggest some of these concerns, but there are also related studies that find no cause for concern. One thing I learned working with biologists and epidemiologists is that these kinds of studies are not like physics where you get the same result every time. Biological and epidemiological studies often contradict other similar studies. I learned to be skeptical of any biological or epidemiological result until I see a body of consistent work that shows this effect.

I think it is reasonable to limit exposure from cell phones because they are typically used close to the head and can produce localized worst-case exposures closely approaching the FCC guideline. I limit my exposure by using the Bluetooth signal from my phone to communicate to my hearing aids.

However, many of the other sources mentioned by Mr. Mason produce much weaker exposures.

During the last several years, members of our community have raised concerns about the RF transmissions from the utility power meters on nearly all of our homes. I have measured exposure in my office from my current power meter to be about 0.00000001% of the FCC guideline. If I were to stand directly in front of and 3 feet from my meter, my exposure would rise to 0.00004% of the FCC Guideline.

These exposure values are so small that it is very difficult for me to believe that they constitute a threat to my health.

(Kaune holds a Ph.D., in Physics from Stanford University and is founding chairman and member of IEEE Working Group on the Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields .)