Written evidence submitted by Mr J R Harwood (SMB02)
I write to propose that the public be informed of the truth about smart meters. The only driving force for their installation is to boost profits for manufacturers and save money for power companies. The evidence of real and serious harm from smart meters is overwhelming. The following links below all show reasons why smart meters are a bad idea for the public, yet the media allows the public to be misled. Even the body who should regulate the level of emissions in the UK, Public Health England, is dragging its heels over the issue by basing its decisions on out of date information.
I also propose that the smart meter roll out be reversed to preserve public health.
1. There are major health concerns. ‘Smart’ Meters emit a continuous stream of pulsed microwave radiation, (we all know what microwaves do) 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These fields are intensely bio-active and affect the people and natural ecology in and around each home as well nearby. Mechanism for harm to Human Health include activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) and cellular communication interference which leads to the production of free-radicals and DNA damage (Prof. Martin Pall, 2014) EMF waves are especially dangerous to the cells, DNA and organs of young children, babies and foetuses.
2. There are cheaper, less intrusive, ways of monitoring energy Germany has rejected ‘Smart’ Meters, citing a “lack of savings” for customers. In the UK, ‘Smart’ Meters are being publicised and promoted as “putting consumers in control of energy”. If that were true, UK consumers would be given an inexpensive energy monitor – available for just £15 – to assess their own energy/appliance use. Instead, ‘Smart’ Meters are designed to transmit private data to energy companies and allow them to remotely disconnect supplies and perform “Active Demand Management” – where appliances can be controlled by the energy company (Ofgem 2014). These facts are not being explained to the public.
3. They do NOT reduce energy/utility consumption Consumers can only save energy – when they chose to change their behaviour. If saving measures are not taken, Smart Meters will actually lead to higher bills to pay for the total program cost of £12bn – representing a cost to each home and small business of at least £400. Energy bills shot up in December 2013 – as energy companies looked to maximise profits.
4. Security vulnerabilities. The proposed ‘Smart’ Meter infrastructure is inherently insecure and will leave UK homes, in the words of GCHQ, “open to terrorist [cyber] attack”. A plan to place our entire domestic and small business energy and water supply online is at best reckless and at worst openly inviting trouble – whether that threat lies abroad or closer to home. ‘Smart’ Meters also increase the impacts of grid security threats from electromagnetic pulse attacks (Jamieson 2012)
5. Privacy intrusions and profiling. Smart Meters harvest vast amounts of private data about occupant’s lives and behaviours at home – allowing corporations and agencies to analyse our habits, profile our behaviours and monetise our private lives. We are aware that access to our medical data and tax data is already being passed on to third parties – we have no doubt that the valuable data gathered by ‘Smart’ Meters will follow.
6. They are a poor investment of OUR money Smart Meters will COST THE PUBLIC AT LEAST £12 BILLION with no guarantee of any savings being returned by Big Energy. And because of the significant project risks and problems, the bills is likely to be far, far higher.
7. They are neither ‘green’ nor “clean” – and could become the basis for unaffordable remediation costs Many countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Austria, Russia) have taken great steps to limit or remove sources of RF/MW pollution – especially for children – due to the now 5,000+ studies now showing harm from artificial sources of EMFs. The UK, however, seems oblivious to now established mechanisms for harm and is therefore not taking a precautionary approach in its continued implementation of a wireless “Smart” Grid. While UK standards were overwhelmingly voted “out of date and obsolete” in an EU parliamentary motion in 2008, they remain in place despite PHE’s inability to categorically confirm that non-thermal EMF exposure is “safe”. Simultaneously, the WHO now categorises RF EMFs as a 2B possible cancer causing agent.
8. They are likely to disappoint and further disenfranchise hard-working consumers A one year study by Toronto Hydro showed that 84% of people’s bills went UP after ‘Smart; Meters had been installed – often by more 50%+. There is no guarantee of any savings from ‘Smart’ Meters. Instead, Ofgem’s recent ‘Smartgrid Routemap’ promotes the introduction of lucrative “Time of Use” tariffs which will require people to take significant steps to avoid being penalised for using appliances at busy times.
Many pilot studies show that Smart Meters do NOT lead to sustained energy savings – ComEd’s pilot in the US showing “zero statistical difference” in usage.
Who will benefit when users make no energy savings, but Big Energy and the Government has the means to exploit private data and take control of our appliances? Whoever it may be, it will not be the UK public.
We therefore want this £12bn program STOPPED.
The following links all show reasons why smart meters are a bad idea for the public.
1. United States Naval Medical Research Institute – “Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘effects’) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed To Microwave And Radio-Frequency Radiation“. Z .R Glaser PhD, LT, MSC, USNR (Project MF12.524.015-00043, Report No. 2) (4 October 1971, revised 20 April 1972). More than 2,300 references on the biological responses to radio frequency and microwave radiation, published up to April 1972.
2. United States Defence Intelligence Agency Medical Section declassified document – “Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves) Eurasian Communist Countries” – DST-1810S-076-76 (March 1976).
4. The United Kingdom “Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones” issued a report underscoring concern that standards are not protective of public health related to both mobile phone use and exposure to wireless communication antennas (May 2000).
5. The 7-nation European REFLEX study (Using Sensitive in vitro Methods). The researchers showed that exposing cells to ELF and RF electromagnetic fields could cause DNA to break apart and thus affect how cells develop. (2004)
6. The ICNIRP safety standards which the UK Govt. and PHE continue to use fail to recognise the non-thermal, biological effects of microwave radiation. These standards were voted obsolete by the European Parliament, 522 to 16 votes (4 September 2008). 
7. Non thermal effects and mechanisms of interaction between EMF and living matter: a selected Summary ICEMS, eds. Guiliani, L. & Soffritti, M.: Ramazzini Institute, European Journal of Oncology, Library, Vol. 5, (2010).
8. As demonstrated by Daniel Hirsch, Senior Nuclear Policy Lecturer at University of California Santa Cruz. Smart “Meters” can expose the body to 160x to 800x times as much microwave radiation as mobile phones. Furthermore, Smart “Meters” can emit intense pulses of radiation up to *190,000 times every day [Basis: *Mesh Network Message Management] (January/March 2011).
9. Council of Europe – Resolution 1815. Report issued titled “Potential dangers of EMFs and their effect on the environment“. Hundreds of studies identify stress reactions and genetic problems in plants, trees, animals, birds, bees and insects. The Council advocates a precautionary principle be applied to wireless emissions to prevent public health disaster (May 2011).
10. The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorised RF EMFs as a Possible CARCINOGEN (Group 2B), the same as lead, DDT, chloroform & methylmercury (31 May 2011). 
11. Dr Andrew Goldsworthy’s research warned that electromagnetically-conditioned water flow could strip lead from pipes (after firstly removing limescale) leading to lead poisoning. N.B: Lead is a Group 2B carcinogen (1998, 2007, 2012 and 2016).  Yamabhai, Chumseng, Yoohat and Srila, Thailand. Results suggest that electromagnetic-treated water can have diverse biological effects on both animal and plant cells. Findings warrant further investigation (2013). 
12. American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) – “Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health” position statement. Recommendations include an immediate caution on Smart “Meter” installation due to potentially harmful RF exposure and the use of safer technology such as hard-wiring. The AAEM report non-thermal effects and express concern regarding significant, but poorly understood quantum field effects of EMF and RF fields on human health (April 2012).
13. The BioInitiative Report. The latest report covers about 1,800 new studies reporting bioeffects and adverse health effects of EMFs and wireless technologies. Includes studies that report effects at non-thermal, low intensity ELF and RF exposure levels. The BioInitative Report recommends more stringent safety limits (2012).
14. Cerenat – Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study, France. Studies support previous findings (see 10. above) concerning a possible association between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumours (2013). 
15. Dr L Hardell (“Hardell Group”), Sweden.  New study – tripled brain tumour risk for long term cell phone users (2013, 2014). 
16. Dr M Pall et al, USA – “Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects“. Non-thermal effects. Activation from extremely low RF EMFs (2013).
17. Dr I Jamieson, UK. Between 3-6% of the population may be Electro-hypersensitive. Will place pressure on the NHS (2014). 
18. Dr A Lerchl, Germany; [Dr T. Tillman, Germany (2010)]. Studies confirm Tillman’s discovery that tumour-promoting effects are found well below the accepted standard of 4W/kg (as low as 0.04W/Kg) in mice. Non-thermal effects (2015). 
19. Competence Initiative, Germany (Professor K. Hecht) – “Health Implications of Long-term Exposure to Electrosmog” (2016).
20. US National Toxicology Program (NTP) US$25m Rodent Study – Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd  : Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposures) (2015 – to date). 
21. Scientists questioning the official assessment of Radio Frequency safety. 
22. Non-thermal effects include chromosomal instability, altered gene expression, gene mutations, DNA fragmentation and DNA structural breaks, leakage of blood-brain-barrier, early dementia, autism, loss of fertility and cancer (see above).
23. Tree deaths, plant die-offs and bee colony collapse disorder cases have also been reported shortly after Smart “Meter” installation/activation in the United States. 
24. Swiss Re has classified RF EMFs as “Overall Impact: High” and “Timeframe: >10 years” (June 2013: SONAR Emerging risk insights).  CFC Underwriting (a member of Lloyds of London) has a general insurance exclusion (Clause 32) on RF EMFs (2015). 
25. Smart “Meters” monitor household activity and occupancy in violation of our rights to privacy and domestic security:
I) Data about our daily habits and activities are collected, recorded and stored in permanent databases which are accessed by parties not authorised or invited to know and share that private data by those whose activities were recorded;
II) It may be possible with analysis of certain Smart “Meter” data for unauthorised persons to determine medical conditions, sexual activities, physical locations of persons within the home, vacancy patterns and personal information;
III) Those with access to the Smart “Meter” databases can review a permanent history of household activities complete with calendar and time-of-day metrics to gain a highly invasive and detailed view of the lives of the occupants;
IV) Those databases may be shared with, or fall into the hands of criminals, blackmailers, corrupt law enforcement, private hackers of wireless transmissions, utility company employees, and other unidentified parties who may act against the interests of the occupants under metered wireless surveillance;
V) In a wireless Smart Grid, my entire home will become a node on the Internet. This means my home and device usage will become available to hackers, who can use the data to analyse when certain people are at home, e.g. young children;
VI) Ethical hackers in Germany (2011) and Spain (2014) have revealed how easy it is to hack into Smart “Meters”; 
VII) National Security Agencies, namely GCHQ (March 2016)  , FBI (2010, 2012)  and CIA (2012) have criticised Smart “Meters” as a major security risk. Former CIA Director James Woolsey has called the Smart Grid a “really, really stupid idea”. 
VIII) Smart “Meters” will make it far easier to disconnect customers remotely; “Who controls the off-switch?” by R. Anderson and S. Fuloria of the Cambridge University Computer Laboratory (2012).
IX) Smart “Meters” are not protected from EMP attacks, large EMP or localised EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulses)  ; and
X) Utility companies and Government agencies do not have the lawful right to monitor, manage and control my utility usage. 
26. In North America, Smart “Meters” have been shown to explode, cause fires  , and can interfere with sensitive electrical devices. 
27. A one year study in Toronto, Canada, showed the energy/utility bills have gone up in 80% of cases, many by more than 50%. 
28. The UK Government has said Smart “Meters” will cost more than £11billion for estimated savings of just £25 per home/year – and that saving will only possible if customers have at least two Smart “Meters” and succeed in changing their own behaviour to create the savings. Not only will there be a need for this £11billion to be clawed back, in part, through my energy/utility bills, but many new Smart “Meters” only have a 10-15 year lifespan before requiring replacement – which is a shorter lifespan than current Analogue Meters (typically 40 years). They will potentially require more regular servicing too. 
29. Scientists have widely refuted claims that Smart “Meters” are “green”. 
30. Smart “Meters”, in tandem with In-Home-Display units, are likely to consume far more energy than the old analogue meters do.
“Just say no to Big Brother’s Smart Meters – The latest in Bio-Hazard Technology” – By O. Koehle (see Page 7). 
31. The Commons Science and Technology Select Committee Inquiry on Smart “Meters” (2015/16)  has written evidence that is critical of the £11 billion UK Smart “Meter” Programme, including:
I) Human Rights issues;
II) “Time of Use Tariffs” (aka Peak Demand Pricing) could cause higher bills;
III) The Smart “Meter” programme is Poor Value for Money (the Institute of Directors want the programme scrapped);
IV) Customers need to be Consulted; and
V) Security Risks (see 23. above).
32. Smart “Meters” are not compulsory. 
Mr. J. Harwood.
 http://www.iemfa.org/news/conflicts-of-interest-among-the-members-of-the-international-organization-icnirp/, https://www.emfscientist.org/, https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10910251701394/EUROPAEM%20EMF%20Guideline%202016%20for%20the%20prevention%20and%20treatment%20of%20EMF-related%20health%20problems.pdf and https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-4/reveh-2016-0060/reveh-2016-0060.pdf
 See http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/bees-birds-and-mankind-how-wireless-radiation-is-destroying-the-natural-world-order/, http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/plants-wont-grow-near-wi-fi-routers-experiment-finds/ and https://phys.org/news/2010-11-dutch-wi-fi-possibly-trees.html
 See https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/01/08/28c3-smart-meter-hacking-can-disclose-which-tv-shows-and-movies-you-watch/ and http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/researchers-reveal-security-vulnerabilities-in-smart-meters/
 See http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/category/privacy/, http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/category/hacking/ and http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/how-smart-meters-invade-your-privacy-a-comprehensive-report/