understanding radiofrequency (rf) waves and smart … · understanding radiofrequency (rf) waves...

Understanding radiofrequency (RF) waves and Smart-Meter health effects

Peter Valberg, Ph.D. Public Health and Health Risk Assessment Gradient 20 University Road Cambridge, MA 02138

Presentation to EWEB on RF Safety and Smart Meters July 23, 2013

3 Copyright Gradient 2013

What RF intensity adverse health effects? What are electric and magnetic fields, and what do they do?

What are radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic waves ?

How do different electromagnetic waves compare ? What determines RF dose and biological response to RF? What RF levels are associated with Smart Meter operation ?

What lines of investigation are used to gather evidence regarding the health effects of RF ? What scientific expertise is needed to design experiments and interpret results ?

How does scientific data get summarized and integrated ? What are public-health review-group conclusions ?

Importance of examining strength and weight of evidence.


Electromagnetic (EM) waves are electric and magnetic fields that

change (oscillate) in time What are electric fields and magnetic fields? electric fields force on electric charges magnetic fields force on moving electric charges

"and nothing else"


Scientists have studied electromagnetic (EM) waves for more than 150 years

1860s James Clerk Maxwell predicted how EM waves can be created by electric charges, and how EM waves interact with matter; he showed that EM waves will travel at the speed of light

1880s Heinrich Hertz experimentally demonstrated the existence of electromagnetic waves

1909 Guglielmo Marconi awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for inventing radio, i.e., he used EM waves to transmit information without wires; "wireless" communication has proliferated

2013 Notably, with the addition of quantum mechanics, no exceptions to Maxwell's Equations for EM have been found, and no unexplained electromagnetic phenomena have been encountered


Different types of EM waves make up the electromagnetic spectrum, where electric and magnetic field oscillation [cycles per second (Hz)] ranges from low frequencies to high frequencies


For EM waves, frequency (cycles per second = Hertz = Hz) determines photon energy

Ionizing radiation can alter molecular structure, non-ionizing radiation cannot, because photon energy is too low

The "ionizing radiation" of x-rays has a frequency greater than 100,000 trillion cycles per second (100,000 THz)

Smart-meter radio waves have a frequency in the range of 1,000 million cycles per second (1,000 MHz)

That is, smart-meter RF is more than 100-million-fold lower in frequency than ionizing radiation


For electromagnetic (EM) waves, frequency determines what biological effects can occur

First, note EM-wave oscillation frequency, high or low ? Gamma Rays, Cosmic Rays, Nuclear Radiation ("ionizing") Medical X-rays, far Ultraviolet Light ("ionizing")

Visible light ("non-ionizing")

Infrared light ("non-ionizing")

Microwave and Radiofrequency waves, smart meters ("non-ionizing") o Electromagnetic Fields from power lines ("non-ionizing")


Absorption and emission of EM waves is by photons; with increasing frequency in the EM spectrum, the "electron-volt" (eV) energy of the photons goes up

soft x-rays 1,000 eV disrupt chemical bonds

UVB ultraviolet 5.0 eV ionize molecules

visible light 2.0 eV bend molecules

infrared waves 0.02 eV vibrate molecules

millimeter radar 0.0002 eV vibrate molecules

smart meter RF 0.000002 eV weakly push on ions


For electromagnetic (EM) waves, the intensity determines rate at which biological effects occur

Radio wave emission power, high to low (proximity is key) Commercial AM & FM Radio, Analog and Digital Television Military radar, aviation & marine radar, weather radar

Medical emergency, fire, and police dispatch services

Microwave ovens, cellular / cordless telephones, base stations

"walkie-talkies," baby monitors, routers, cordless-phones, -alarms, -etc. o Smart Meters , TV sets, radios, computers


We use radiofrequencies (RF) in many society-wide contexts and consumer applications

RF energy comes into our homes from broadcast TV and commercial radio stations, CB radios, and communications services for: fire, ambulance, police, marine, aircraft, & military

Inside our homes, we have Wi-Fi routers, cordless phones, garage door openers, radios & TVs, TV remotes, video game remotes, cell phones, i-Phones, microwave ovens, security systems, childrens walkie-talkies, & baby monitors

Low levels of RF can come from appliances with electric motors, such as refrigerators, dish washers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, electric shavers, and electric mixers


Emitted power (in Watts) of some typical sources of electromagnetic (EM) waves

Infrared radiation from our body: about 100 watts Flashlight: 2 to 4 watts Smart Meters, when "on: to 1 watt

AM, FM Radio Transmission

Antennas

UHF TV versus

Cell Towers

Military Radar

Infrared Heaters versus

the Human Body

100,000 W 1,000,000 W versus 200 W 600,000 W

(pave paws) 5,000 W

versus 100 W


Thermodynamic facts about our body at 37 C, which operates in a bath of infrared EM waves

Our bodies radiate EM waves, primarily in the infra-red (IR), a part of the spectrum seen with "night vision" goggles

We lose IR heat energy at about 100 Watts

Thus, our bodies, organs, cells, and molecules function in a 100 Watt bath of IR photons (with much more energy than RF); hence, 1 to 2 Watts at radio-wave frequencies (i.e., lower photon energies) is small in total energy and per photon energy

Molecules in our body move at ~2,000 mph, undergo about 1,000 billion collisions each second, and experience strong electric fields during each collision


Visible light is the major source of electromagnetic energy in our environment

Is electromagnetic wave intensity, high or low ?

Sunlight at the earth's surface

(noon, summer day)

FCC Public Safety standard

@ 910 MHz

RF levels near (~3 feet distance) smart meters,

when transmitting

1 kilowatt per square meter 610 W/cm2 ~ 4 W/cm2

Intensity of EM waves reaching our bodies (and possible biological effects) varies widely


Peer-reviewed articles report Smart Meter RF levels Tell RA, et al. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. August 2012 .

151:17-29. Radiofrequency fields associated with the Itron smart meter.

1.2 W/cm2

The guideline for general public exposure at smart meter frequencies (900 MHz), the MPE, is 600 W/cm2 and 0.2% of the public RF guideline would be 1.2 W/cm2

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Tell RA[Author]&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22234423http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Sias GG[Author]&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22234423


Peer-reviewed articles report Smart Meter RF levels

Between four and six times per day, for periods on the

order of milliseconds, the smart meters transmit data on energy consumption (when transmitting, max power is 1.5 watts @ 900 MHz)

The RF transmitters in wireless-equipped Smart Meters

operate at similar power levels and in similar frequency ranges as many other digital communications devices in common use, and their exposure levels are very far below U.S. and international RF allowable-public-exposure limits.


In Jan. 2013, the Vermont Department of Public Service reported RF levels for Smart Meters

[1.2 W/cm2]

Guideline for general public exposure at 900 MHz smart meter frequencies:

MPE = 600 W/cm2

Thus 0.2% of the MPE guideline would be

Results are shown on p. 32 and p. 37. Peak RF fields are expressed as a percent of the FCC MPE for general public exposure


Measured peak RF fields of 900 MHz emissions observed at two meter banks (one with 5 meters and the other with 36 meters).

1.2 W/cm2


What knowledge areas are necessary to do reliable scientific research on RF health effects ?

Understand physics of RF / know all sources / interferences Develop RF dose-response / homogeneity of RF exposure Markers: genetic, molecular, cell biology / biochemistry Lab. animal behavior / physiology / noise & temp. responses Human pops., epidemiology / statistics / Hills Criteria / bias


RF wave exposures What lines of health-effect scientific evidence are available?

Population studies (epidemiology) broad-based, general public cell-phone use high exposure levels in RF occupations

Laboratory RF studies: multi-species, acute,

sub-chronic, and lifetime studies in animals

"in vitro" exposure, tissue and cell studies, and biophysical "mode of action" research


The strength of each line of evidence must be evaluated: like the stability of a three-legged stool


Be alert for sources of error and cognitive bias when interpreting validity of results and evidence

"Microcosm effect" focusing on a single explanatory factor behind multiple risk "association studies

Selective attention to positive studies, lack of focus on null results and negative findings (publication bias)

Disregard of possible internal errors (un-blinded, confounding, multiple comparisons, lack of controls, exposure error, recall bias, )

Coherence of relevant data (dose, mechanism, co-exposures, time duration, statistics, replication, )


Types of expertise needed to judge validity of published studies on RF biological effects

Physics expertise in RF sources, RF interference, RF propagation, and RF absorption by matter (tissue)

Laboratory animal and cell culture expertise needed to control all variables potentially affecting the outcome

Expertise in outcome interpretation (genetic changes, cell and organ pathology, molecular biology, biochemical markers for disease diagnosis and classification)

Statistical and experimental design expertise to determine if results could have arisen by chance, or investigator bias, or from systematic error


None of the 3 "Legs of Evidence support weak RF exposures being hazardous to health

Epidemiology of RF-exposed worker populations is not supportive of health effects below RF standards

Epidemiology of cell phone users ("INTERPHONE) does not support an RF adverse-health impact

Bio-effects reported in cells and animals exposed to RF are of uncertain relevance and lack reproducibility

Despite focused attention, scientists have not found biophysical mechanisms by which weak RF could disrupt cells and biological molecules (e.g., DNA)


Mechanism: Can RF waves, pushing and pulling on electric charges, modify biological function ?

Possibly yes, because,

But, more likely not, because,

+ charged ions, molecules, structures are present + at the molecular level, interactions are electrical in nature + electrical phenomena are integral to normal body function

- weak forces caused by RF cannot be detected in the "noise" of existing electrical activity in living cells

- RF forces average to zero, and no "effect" can accumulate - a mechanistic basis for living cells responding to weak RF

has not been found - molecules collide with each other at about 1,000 GHz


In order for RF exposure to be the cause of an adverse health effect, all links in the causal chain need to be complete


Scientific consensus groups work to integrate the lines of evidence into protective RF standards

Expert Panel

Synthesis

Critical Reviews of Studies

Individual Research Studies


Evidence on RF disease risk remains speculative (1)

no coherent pattern of disease risk has emerged from epidemiologic studies

animal studies have not uncovered a causal chain between RF exposure and disease risk

a mechanism of action for RF has not been found by physicists, chemists, or biologists

aspect of low-level RF that leads to health risk, if any, (e.g., frequency, amplitude, polarization, modulation, resonance, ) is unknown


Weve used RF in densely populated regions for more than a hundred years, and we've no indication that such RF exposure has increased human disease.

Research studies on the biological effects of RF have been ongoing and published for many decades (~1950s onward), so RF has, and continues to be addressed.

Independent scientific consensus groups, composed of research, engineering, medical, and public health scientists, have reviewed the data and examined all aspects of RF safety.

These groups have developed guidelines for safe levels of RF exposure that take into account all the scientific literature.

Evidence on RF disease risk remains speculative (2)


IARC and mobile phone use, 2011 (3) The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) periodically

reviews the science on chemicals and things people are exposed to and classifies them into categories:

Group 1, known human carcinogens 111 Group 2A, probable human carcinogens 66 Group 2B, possible human carcinogens 285 Group 3, unknown carcinogenicity 505

IARCs ranking of heavy cell phone use as Group 2B was not directed at smart meters, and IARCs Group 2B category includes everyday items (carbon black [car tires], coffee, carpentry, talc, nickels, iron pills, pickled vegetables, mothballs, some teas, etc.).

Notably, IARC classifies both sunlight and sand at much higher risk rankings, namely, Group 1, as "known" human carcinogens. Yet, we dont keep children off of sunny beaches because of these IARC classifications with regard to sunlight and sand.


Public health agency consensus views (4) RF guidelines for safe-exposure levels are not based on "non-

thermal" effects, because such effects remain speculative and have not been demonstrated to lead to disease.

The World Health Organization, June 2011, stated: "To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by [RF from] mobile phone use"

Great Britains "Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation" concluded in 2012: "Although a substantial amount of research has been conducted in this area, there is no convincing evidence that RF exposure below guideline levels causes health effects in adults or children"

Recommended approach: rely on legitimate public health agencies: None of the blue ribbon scientific review groups has determined that RF levels from smart meters are harmful to health.


Oregon, Health Authority, conclusion (5)

Oregon Health Authority, Public Health Division, Office of the State Public Health Director (July 17, 2012) letter to EWEB from Dr. Katrina Hedberg, MD, MPH, State Epidemiologist, Oregon Public Health Division.

"The Oregon Health Authority's Center for Health Protection

reviewed recent, peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject of health effects from radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure. [] Based on our review of these reports, evidence from the scientific literature, and consultations with radiation experts, we conclude at this time that the implementation of smart meters will not adversely impact public health."


The Internet gives us all sorts of views: What about claims of adverse effects from RF?

Examine accuracy (strength) of evidence

Examine consistency (weight) of evidence

Examine coherence of evidence, i.e., do public health agencies act upon the claims or articles cited ?


This chart says Robinette, 1980, found radar exposure increased disease. But, look at the original article.


Abstract, p. 39: [In a study of 40,890 veterans] "No adverse effects were detected in these indexes that could be attributed to potential microwave radiation exposures during the period 1950-1954." Conclusions, p. 51-52: "Differential health risks attributable to occupational exposure to radar in the Navy over 20 years ago are not apparent with respect to long-term mortality patterns or hospitalized illness around the period of exposure, two endpoints for which there is virtually complete information for the total study group."


p. 45 of Robinette et al., 1980.


Groves et al., did a follow-up study in 2002, which looked again at the same group as Robinette et al., 1980.


Groves et al., 2002, "Cancer in Korean War Navy Technicians Mortality after 40 Years"

Abstract, p. 810:

"This study reports on over 40 years of mortality follow-up of

40,581 Navy veterans of the Korean War. "

"Deaths from all diseases and all cancers were significantly below expectation overall and for the 20,021 sailors with high radar exposure potential. There was no evidence of increased brain cancer in the entire cohort or in high-exposure occupations."

"No significant excesses were seen for lymphoid malignancies."


Thus, the bar chart does not accurately portray Korean War Navy veteran health outcomes

relative to their RF exposure

What about whether long-term use of cell phones is known to increase brain tumor risk ?

(2009)

What did Ahlbom et al. state in 2009 about cancer risk and long-term cell-phone use?

Epidemiology (2009); 20(5):639-652. (Karolinska Institute, UCLA, Mt. Siani School of Medicine, Institute of Cancer Research, ICNIRP)


p. 642. Glioma: "The pooled analysis of Nordic and UK Interphone studies, which to date includes the largest number of glioma cases, found an OR of 1.0 (0.71.2) based on 143 exposed cases, among persons who started to use a mobile phone 10 or more years before diagnosis." p. 646. Meningioma: "The largest study so farthe pooled analysis of the Nordic and UK Interphone studies found an OR of 0.9 (0.71.3) for long-term use. Pooling all original studies gave risk estimates close to or below unity." p. 647. Acoustic neuroma: "For long durations of exposure (10 years or more), the Nordic-UK pooled analysis included the largest number of cases, and reported an OR of 1.0 (0.71.5)." "Pooling all studies gave summary risk estimates of 1.2 (0.8 2.0) for long-term use, and 1.1 (0.8 1.4) for ever-use." p. 650. Salivary gland tumors: "There is no consistent evidence of an increased risk of salivary gland tumors among mobile phone users"


What did Ahlbom et al. say about long-term cell-phone use and brain tumor risk in a follow-up review in 2011? "In the linked cohort study, Frei and colleagues found no evidence that the risk of brain tumours was raised in 358,403 Danish mobile phone subscribers. This was also true when the cohort was restricted to people who had been subscribing for more than 10 years"

And what about trends in brain cancer risk over time ?

(2011)


How did time trends in brain cancer rates change in the 25 yrs after widespread introduction of mobile phones in Sweden ? (Ahlbom & Feychting, British Medical Journal, 2011)


National Cancer Institute study in US: Little MP, et al., 2012

Figure 1 Mobile phone subscriptions per capita in the US by year

Figure 2 Projected and observed rate of glioma (number per 100,000 per year)


What about claims of RF causing nervousness, fatigue, headaches, dizziness, sleeplessness, etc.?

Examine accuracy (strength) of evidence

Examine consistency (weight) of evidence

Such claims generally rest on single studies of local populations, poorly controlled for confounding factors. Thus, key is to look at critical reviews and integrative analyses prepared by public health agencies.


Rsli M., et al. (2004, 2008, 2011, 2012) Swiss Tropical & Public Health Institute individuals who claim to be able to detect low level RF-EMF are not able to do so under double-blind conditions none of the studies showed that individuals with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity were more susceptible to RF-EMF than the rest of the population we did not observe an association between RF-EMF exposure and non-specific symptoms

Mohler et al. (2010, 2012) Swiss Tropical & Public Health Institute The results of [our] large cross-sectional study did not indicate an impairment of subjective sleep quality due to exposure from various sources of RF EMFs in everyday life. We did not find evidence for adverse effects on sleep quality from RF-EMF exposure in our everyday environment.

Norwegian Inst. of Public Health (March, 2012) Low-level RF fields and health A large number of controlled experiments have been carried out on groups of individuals with adverse health effects that they attribute to electromagnetic fields. The relatively extensive literature provides no evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields is the real cause of the health problems that individuals attribute to electromagnetic fields. Blind trials show that symptoms also occur when subjects are not exposed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Mohler E[Author]&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20726726http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Mohler E[Author]&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20726726


Interpreting the RF scientific literature (the end)

Scientists look for "effects," so, lack-of-effect (negative) results are less often published, and rarely the subject of media attention

Publication is the beginning of the scientific review process, not the end result

Scientific studies cannot prove there is "no-effect" Replication, consistency, dose-response, coherence, and

biological plausibility are the key criteria in assessing evidence for RF effects

No public health agency states that RF levels from smart meters are harmful to health: "The evidence to date suggests exposures to the radio waves produced by smart meters do not pose a risk to health" (UK, HPA, 2013)


Electromagnetic spectrum, wavelengths, frequencies, and photon energies

nm = nanometers = 10 9 meter = one-billionth of a meter GHz = gigahertz = 10 9 Hz = one thousand million cycles per second THz = terahertz = 10 12 Hz = 10 12 cycles per second eV = electron volt = energy gained by electron accelerated through 1 volt potential difference

AM Radio, FM Radio

UHF TV, Cell Phones,

Smart Meters

Microwaves and

Radar

Radiant Heating, Infrared

Sunlight, Yellow Light

Medical x-Rays

-, -, - Rays

300 m 0.001 GHz

4 neV

30 cm 1 GHz 4 eV

3 mm 100 GHz

0.0004 eV

6,000 nm 50 THz 0.2 eV

600 nm 500 THz

2 eV

0.3 nm 10 18 Hz

4,000 eV

0.0003 nm 10 21 Hz 4 MeV

smart meters, ~ 0.91 GHz

body heat

vision cosmic rays

Non-Ionizing Ionizing

(RF heating currents) (photo chemistry) (molecular damage)


Comparison of RF levels from various sources in W /cm2. The smart meter is always on, whereas upper 99.9%-ile duty cycle is


Harvard University, School of Public Health, Mobile Phones seen as Boon to Health

"Mobilizing a Revolution: How Cell Phones are Transforming Public Health" Harvard Public Health Review. Winter 2012. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hphr/winter-2012/mobilizing-a-revolution.html

Dr. Nathan Eagle, Department of Epidemiology, HSPH.

2012. "Using Cell Phones for Public Health" http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/features/eagle-cell-phones-public-health.html

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hphr/winter-2012/mobilizing-a-revolution.htmlhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hphr/winter-2012/mobilizing-a-revolution.htmlhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/features/eagle-cell-phones-public-health.htmlhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/features/eagle-cell-phones-public-health.html

Slide Number 1Understanding radiofrequency (RF) waves and Smart-Meter health effectsWhat RF intensity adverse health effects?Electromagnetic (EM) waves are electric and magnetic fields that change (oscillate) in timeScientists have studied electromagnetic (EM) waves for more than 150 yearsDifferent types of EM waves make up the electromagneticspectrum, whereelectric and magnetic field oscillation [cycles per second (Hz)] ranges from low frequencies to high frequenciesFor EM waves, frequency (cycles per second = Hertz = Hz) determines photon energyFor electromagnetic (EM) waves, frequency determines what biological effects can occurAbsorption and emission of EM waves is by photons; with increasing frequency in the EM spectrum, the "electron-volt" (eV) energy of the photons goes upFor electromagnetic (EM) waves, the intensity determines rate at which biological effects occurWe use radiofrequencies (RF) in many society-wide contexts and consumer applications Emitted power (in Watts) of some typical sources of electromagnetic (EM) wavesThermodynamic facts about our body at 37 C, which operates in a bath of infrared EM wavesVisible light is the major source of electromagnetic energy in our environmentPeer-reviewed articles report Smart Meter RF levelsPeer-reviewed articles report Smart Meter RF levelsIn Jan. 2013, the Vermont Department of Public Service reported RF levels for Smart MetersMeasured peak RF fields of 900 MHz emissions observed at two meter banks (one with 5 meters and the other with 36 meters).What knowledge areas are necessary to do reliable scientific research on RF health effects ?RF wave exposures What lines of health-effect scientific evidence are available?The strength of each line of evidence must be evaluated: like the stability of a three-legged stoolBe alert for sources of error and cognitive bias when interpreting validity of results and evidenceTypes of expertise needed to judge validity of published studies on RF biological effectsNone of the 3 "Legs of Evidence support weak RF exposures being hazardous to healthMechanism: Can RF waves, pushing and pulling on electric charges, modify biological function ? In order for RF exposure to be the cause of an adverse health effect, all links in the causal chain need to be complete Scientific consensus groups work to integrate the lines of evidence into protective RF standardsEvidence on RF disease risk remains speculative (1)Slide Number 29IARC and mobile phone use, 2011 (3)Public health agency consensus views (4)Oregon, Health Authority, conclusion (5)The Internet gives us all sorts of views: What about claims of adverse effects from RF?This chart says Robinette, 1980, found radar exposure increased disease. But, look at the original article.Abstract, p. 39: [In a study of 40,890 veterans] "No adverse effects were detected in these indexes that could be attributed to potential microwave radiation exposures during the period 1950-1954."Conclusions, p. 51-52: "Differential health risks attributable to occupational exposure to radar in the Navy over 20 years ago are not apparent with respect to long-term mortality patterns or hospitalized illness around the period of exposure, two endpoints for which there is virtually complete information for the total study group."p. 45 of Robinette et al., 1980.Groves et al., did a follow-up study in 2002, which looked again at the same group as Robinette et al., 1980.Groves et al., 2002, "Cancer in Korean War Navy Technicians Mortality after 40 Years"Slide Number 39What about whether long-term use of cell phones is known to increase brain tumor risk ?p. 642. Glioma: "The pooled analysis of Nordic and UK Interphone studies, which to date includes the largest number of glioma cases, found an OR of 1.0 (0.71.2) based on 143 exposed cases, among persons who started to use a mobile phone 10 or more years before diagnosis."p. 646. Meningioma: "The largest study so farthe pooled analysis of the Nordic and UK Interphone studies found an OR of 0.9 (0.71.3) for long-term use. Pooling all original studies gave risk estimates close to or below unity."p. 647. Acoustic neuroma: "For long durations of exposure (10 years or more), the Nordic-UK pooled analysis included the largest number of cases, and reported an OR of 1.0 (0.71.5)." "Pooling all studies gave summary risk estimates of 1.2 (0.8 2.0) for long-term use, and 1.1 (0.8 1.4) for ever-use."p. 650. Salivary gland tumors: "There is no consistent evidence of an increased risk of salivary gland tumors among mobile phone users"What did Ahlbom et al. say about long-term cell-phone use and brain tumor risk in a follow-up review in 2011? "In the linked cohort study, Frei and colleagues found no evidence that the risk of brain tumours was raised in 358,403 Danish mobile phone subscribers. This was also true when the cohort was restricted to people who had been subscribing for more than 10 years"And what about trends in brain cancer risk over time ?Slide Number 43Slide Number 44What about claims of RF causing nervousness, fatigue, headaches, dizziness, sleeplessness, etc.?Slide Number 46Interpreting the RF scientific literature(the end)Electromagnetic spectrum, wavelengths, frequencies, and photon energiesExpanded radio-wave frequency bandsAgencies evaluating RF exposureAgencies evaluating RF exposureAgencies evaluating RF exposureAgencies evaluating RF exposureAgencies evaluating RF exposureAgencies evaluating RF exposureHarvard University, School of Public Health,Mobile Phones seen as Boon to HealthPeer-reviewed articles report Smart Meter RF levelsDoes exposure adverse health effects?Slide Number 59

understanding radiofrequency (rf) waves and smart … · understanding radiofrequency (rf) waves...

Documents