I wish to thank Tom Engel for acknowledging the hazards of electro-magnetic radiation (EMR) and suggesting remediation for the most ubiquitous offender, the cell phone.

Experts in this field, however, disagree with Mr. Engel’s claim about power being one of the two main concerns around this technology. Drs. Beverly Rubik, Paul Héroux, Magda Havas, Devra Davis and other notable authorities have stated unequivocally that it is the pulse (and cumulative measure of those pulses), not the power, that is the source of biological harms caused by non-ionizing EMR. The Environmental Health Trust website’s ‘Science’ tab links to volumes of research on the topic. (EHTrust.org)

Consumer Reports does a reasonable job evaluating consumer products, but they don’t have a stable of primary research scientists looking into EMR. It would be peculiar to give preferential weight to CR’s ‘review’ over the analyses of the scientists referenced above, or the ground-breaking research of Drs. Martin Pall, Henry Lai and others behind the BioInitiative Report. (bioinitiative.org)

There are also the 2,200+ studies presented by the U.S. Naval Medical Research Institute in 1972, which link weak wireless signals to more than 122 biological effects. (tinyurl.com/yxgkv5bz) From that abstract: “Particular attention has been paid to the effect on man of non-ionizing radiation at these frequencies.”

According to WirelessEducation.org, “The science documenting negative health effects of smart meters and wifi are also emerging…  The science on EMF’s has existed for decades, and other countries have already established more protective radiation exposure limits.”

In a 2016 expert report by Dr. Andrew Marino to the Pennsylvania PUC, he stated: “… chronic exposure to the electromagnetic energy from smart meters causes risks to human health that go far beyond the capability of the energy to trigger hypersensitivity reactions in sensitive persons.”

It’s past time to employ the precautionary principle.

Annette Huenke
Port Townsend