February 4th, 2017 – NEWS 10 (WILX) is a tv station serving Lansing and Jackson. Their reporter, Clayton Cummins, just posted yesterday a story headlined as “Consumers Energy blames cold winter for spike in bills”. In this story he interviews a number of people who saw their electric bills double or triple soon after installation of a smart electric meter. He then presents Consumers side of the story – that these sharp increases are caused by the unusually cold winter in December.

Pam and Dee are urging any of you who have a similar story about sharp increases in your electric bills, to send your story to reporter Cummins. There is the possibility that if he hears from enough of us he might do a followup story. His email is:

Please be respectful and on-point with your comments meaning that this specific story is about the “increased bill” aspect of things, not the whole smart meter issue itself- When we stick to the point at hand, we think we have a better chance at making larger initial impact and the fuller story can emerge from there….




Editor’s Note: We reproduce below an appeal
for all who can to attend a court proceeding
that may have far reaching consequences
for those who want to go ‘off grid’.

December 20th, 2016 – There is a hearing tomorrow in the case of Dr. Georgetta Livingstone versus her homeowners association.

For those of you who don’t know, Georgetta had her electrical power cut off by DTE over two years because of her inability to have an advanced meter on her home due to a documented health condition. Because electrical power is a necessary resource and one we cannot live without, she was forced to invest in and utilize alternative energy choices for electric power, solar, wind turbine and generator to power her home.

Georgetta’s home is in a subdivision with a neighborhood association. Both the association and some neighbors who were not happy with her choices for power are suing her. There were no rules in the association’s bylaws that prohibited the modifications that Georgetta  made to her home but they still have carried through with the suit.

This is a very important, precedent setting case as it will lay the foundation for our ability to pursue alternative energy choices for our homes in the state of Michigan either in response to the advanced utility meters or just in general. The ruling will have a high impact on our rights.

Georgetta and her attorney have recently taken part in unsuccessful mediation with the association and tomorrow’s hearing takes the next step towards the trial. The association is seeking to impose very high fees on Georgetta for taking the actions she needed to have electrical power in her home.

If you are able to attend this hearing, it would be helpful both for support and in making an impression on the judge in showing support for analog and alternative energy choice here in MIchigan. We know this is very last minute but if you do have some time tomorrow morning and can make it, it would be very helpful. The hearing should be very brief.

The hearing is at 8:30 A.M. December 21st  at the Oakland County Court House 1200 Telegraph Road in Judge Hallajarbou’s chamber.

Thanks so much for your continued help and support,

Pam and Dee



By William Bathgate, Electrical Engineer
October 12th, 2016
Revised October 13th, 2016

Editor’s Note: In the following article, originally written as a public comment to the Michigan Public Service Commission, Mr. Bathgate considers safety issues with the new electric meters as related to our current discussion of a proposed rule change concerning emergency shutoffs for “hazardous conditions.” Revisions to this article are indicated in blue and consist mainly in the addition of a section dealing with the lack of lightning arrestors in the AMI meters.

Case No. U-18120
Proposed Rule 460.137 — 37(1)(a) & 37(1)(i)

 A utility may shut off or deny service to a customer “without notice, if a condition on the customer’s premises is determined by the utility or a governmental agency to be hazardous.”

I hold an electrical engineering and mechanical engineering degree and previously was employed through late 2015 for 8 years at the Emerson Electric Company. While at Emerson Electric I was the Senior Program Manager for Power Distribution Systems and in charge of an RF and IP based digitally controlled high power AC power switching system product line in use in over 100 countries and I was also directly responsible for product certifications such as UL, CE and many other countries electrical certification bodies. I am very familiar with the electrical and electronic design of the AMI meters in use because I was responsible for very similar products with over 1 Million units installed across the world.

I have just reviewed the transcripts of the hearing held in Lansing on this subject and came to realize there were many comments regarding the issues identified from the effects of both the RF emitting AMI meter and the non RF emitting AMI Opt-Out Meter. I have personally tested the RF emissions from the AMI meter and measured that the meter does not send data just a few times a day as the utilities publish. It actually sends an RF pulse about every 4-5 seconds constantly and a longer duration RF emission after midnight running about 3-5 minutes. There is no need for the AMI meter to send a pulse every 4-5 seconds all day just to synchronize and time stamp the clock inside the meter, the meter only needs to send data once a day for 3-5 minutes. All these pulse transmissions the AMI meter is doing is a complete waste of energy and because it is a short but frequently pulsing signal that is not needed to measure power consumption, it is creating needless health effects and is impacting consumers as evidenced in the testimony. Some consumers have been affected to the point of near death experiences. The Mesh Network design is saturating the environment with RF transmissions mostly for the purpose of the network synchronization not the consumption measurement of power. I could not think of a worse network design for a power measurement device.

After reading the transcripts of the hearing I noticed quite a few comments from people affected to a terrible effect by the RF based AMI meter, and interestingly also the RF turned off Opt-Out Meter. It begs the question why do people also seem affected by the Opt-Out meter? Well I went out and purchased an ITRON

Open Way meter identical to the meter being deployed by DTE. I took the unit apart to examine the circuit design of the three boards inside the meter. Generally the boards seem well made with several important elements lacking or missing.

The switching mode power supply circuit is lacking effective Ground References, Lightning Protection and “Common Mode” EMI filters. The circuit boards are lacking a direct local connection to a Zero voltage potential ground at the meter to sink (ground) the current and voltage oscillations of the circuit boards.

Ground References:

Depending on the soil conditions and a solid or not solid low impedance connection ground point or surface, the ground plane reference (called a rotating return) of the circuit boards may be floating over a Zero voltage potential condition. This will create Electro-Magnetic Interference (EMI) via oscillation of the ground reference return paths. The use of no direct ground reference as in use today is a poor electrical practice with the AMI meter given all the environmental variables leads to a floating ground potential that could cause strong voltage and current ground potentials varying from zero to a worse case of 240 AC volts (due to a direct short). If there was a direct short of the feed wire because of a voltage surge on the input power from a power surge or lightning strike at the pole or where the two feed lines cross each other from a downed tree limb I would fully expect the circuit boards to likely explode or melt.

I have tested several homes for EMI created by the AMI meter and found that the ground environmental conditions dramatically affected the amount of EMI present. In one home I tested it had as a ground reference the copper water line feed from the city water supply. In this home there was very little EMI present as shown on my oscilloscope. In several another homes that had a standard 8 foot ground rod as the ground reference the EMI measured much, much higher. So there is a relationship of the AMI meter to the environmental reference to ground and EMI even though the circuit boards are not directly connected to a ground rod or ground reference. There was likely a magnetic coupling to earth ground taking place at the home using the water main as a ground reference. In all these homes all other lights, TV’s, PC’s, phone chargers etc. were disabled so I could avoid other variables affecting the readings. It goes to show that environmental variables can be very different from the test lab to the field environment.


First I have to say from my prior and current experience in very tall and large antenna arrays for the common house and business; lightning is very unpredictable and it is very costly to install effective lightning protection. Thankfully direct lightning strikes that are affecting the power feed and service entrance is random and less frequent. No commercial circuit board was ever designed to withstand a direct lightning strike. The US DoD has such designs but is very expensive to purchase. TV or commercial radio facilities have as much as $500,000 or more invested in lightning protection in order to stay on the air during a severe storm. All licensed amateur radio antennas are required by the FCC to have effective ground protection at the base of a tower to shunt a strike to ground. You are actually safer from lightning to be living close to a large metal antenna array because as a general rule lightning tries to reach ground via the shortest and lowest impedance electrical path. It is not uncommon to see a lightning trace zigzag across an electrical path as it seeks the lowest impedance and shortest path to zero potential ground. Note I did not mention the potential for RF exposure which is a separate issue altogether! A neighbor’s tall (over 30 Feet) metal antenna will be a shorter path to ground for lightning than your house next door.

In the AMI meter the circuit board that powers the solenoid actuator for the remote power disconnect feeding the power blade connection at the meter box is susceptible to the effects of lightning. When the low voltage DC power source on this circuit board becomes disrupted by a lightning strike and provided that the circuit boards survive the strike at all, this circuit board driven solenoid is subject to highly rapid disruption with a high frequency opening and closing of the remote disconnect contacts causing arcing and burnt contacts within the meter. This is completely undetectable by the consumer and may or may not manifest itself with flickering or dimming lights etc. The lightning may strike from two common sources; at the power pole or/and the surrounding ground area of the business or residence. The common person or business owner may not realize that the home or business ground rod reference wire runs in the middle between the two 240 volt AC power connections within the meter box and continues on to your entrance breaker panel. This is a minimal form of lightning protection because if the power pole gets hit by lightning the surge will likely jump the air gap between the two power line connections within the meter box and will shunt the lightning via the ground wire to the ground rod. Of course the meter and meter box itself may be damaged from this along with some of your internal house appliances etc. This ground connection was never meant to protect the meter box or your house internal wiring to survive a lightning strike; it is a power safety ground in case your internal house wiring or appliances have a direct short. Though not well known is that lightning can enter a building or home via your phone, DSL or Cable connections. I have learned from several catastrophic events by having my internet connections, TV’s and PC’s destroyed by a lightning strike many blocks away traveling these connections into the home. While I could not protect the DSL modem or cable modem from damage I could isolate the rest of my network with Ethernet Fiber Media converters. Once I did this I only lost the modem and nothing else downstream from it.

Analog Meters contained no electronic circuit boards and while not 100% immune from the effects of a lightning strike, they are much more tolerant than the AMI meter.    

Common Mode EMI:

A “Common Mode” filter attenuates high frequency currents. A common mode filter in this case would look like two coils wrapped around an iron or iron ferrite core either in the shape of a donut or a small cookie bar. This filter is not present in the current circuit design and if it was there the switching circuit which converts 240 Volts AC to 5-10 volts DC would be prevented from sending EMI oscillations back onto the 240 Volt AC wires entering the home.

I am very familiar with the design elements of a switched mode power supply because I had to include “Common Mode” filters into the products I was responsible for while at Emerson Electric to minimize the Electro-Magnetic Interference (EMI) coming from the switching integrated circuit back onto the feeding input AC circuit and the output AC circuit. A clean 50 or 60 Hz is needed and the AC input and AC output had to be void of any oscillation introduced by the switching circuit. I would not have been able to sell the same ITRON switched mode circuit design with the products I managed. I would have been fired for allowing such a condition.

If DTE (or any Utility) was to demand of ITRON, their supplier, to provide a “Common Mode” filtering circuit and tested this design for elimination of EMI and of stray capacitance present in the current design, I believe the troubles with people becoming ill from the Opt-Out AMI meter could be significantly mitigated. This should not be ignored or taken lightly. There could be a solution to help the people affected by the high frequency oscillations created by the switched mode power supply.

In short lacking a redesign of the AMI meter switched mode power supply the solution for people affected by the AMI meter program is very simple and costs nothing, allow those affected residents and business to retain an Analog meter which is readily available and meets all ANSI and other applicable standards.


The MPSC has been asked to grant the Utilities the ability to turn off power to people and businesses without notice for “Dangerous or Hazardous” conditions. Based on my professional examination of the metering technology deployed with AMI meters, the meters themselves are “Dangerous or Hazardous” due to their Lightning vulnerabilities, EMI and RF emissions. There has been a disregard for the health and safety effects of these AMI meters on the general population by the utilities and their AMI supplier. So by their own lack of definition of “Dangerous or Hazardous” all AMI meters deployed at present need to be subject to shut off of service without notice due to “Dangerous or Hazardous” conditions. This may be silly logic on my part but the logic of the proposed rule is equally silly logic and the rule change request should be denied due to lack of definition of what is “Dangerous or Hazardous”. Based on my analysis of the AMI meter and the Analog meter the AMI meter is far more dangerous to the general population than the Analog meter.

In addition I think the MPSC should have a more active role in the technology decisions made by the utilities themselves. In the case of AMI meters the MPSC overlooked this responsibility to assure the utility monopolies are providing a safe metering technology to the consumer and businesses. Based on the effects on the population with people reporting near death experiences and crippling of their bodies with the AMI meters, this decision should be revisited by the MPSC in unison with the various groups that have reported serious issues with this technology. Otherwise the affected population at some time in the future will hold the MPSC directly accountable in a class action law suit which would have to be defended by the State of Michigan using scarce tax dollars for legal expenses. In the Flint Water Crisis the State of Michigan failed to provide proper governance and oversight of the water decisions in Flint costing the State of Michigan many hundreds of millions of dollars and it is far from settled yet.

Does the MPSC not see the similarities of Flint here with the AMI technology that has serious issues that can be simply solved? I do not want my tax dollars spent on defending the MPSC from a class action lawsuit. This requested rule set request is both deceptive and it is also obvious that the utilities want this rule provision to force every person to comply with whatever they want and bypass the MPSC to do it. This will permit the Utilities to use Social Media posts and other forms of protest criticizing them as a condition that is “Dangerous and Hazardous” and turn off power to shut people up and use the intimidation of shutoff of their power service without notice to deny them their first amendment rights. The public is not that stupid, significant numbers of the public knows the Utilities are going to use this tactic to force every home and business to have an AMI meter or else they will shut off their power without notice, even though there is no Federal or State law that specifically calls for an AMI meter. This AMI technology is specified in Federal law as a voluntary option for consumers not mandatory.

Forcing 100% compliance to AMI metering is not the solution; this will only lead to big legal troubles for the MPSC as a whole and direct legal liability to all individual MPSC members. Based on the testimony already made regarding AMI meter health issues the MPSC needs to step up and fulfill its charter to the residents of Michigan to provide SAFE and reliable power and not leave this to the sole discretion of the utilities. The current AMI meters are not safe, as evidenced of the dramatic testimony of residents that are suffering terribly and the engineering analysis such as I and many others in this field have performed.

If the MPSC approves these rule changes, then the MPSC should disband because your role in governance is of no value, merit or benefit to the citizens of the State of Michigan who are paying your salaries. You would have abrogated your governance role to the utilities to do as they see fit for their own exclusive benefit and no one else.








The quantity and quality of public comments in the recent rules hearing of the Michigan Public Utilities Commission was quite remarkable. In the interest of getting a wider public hearing for these comments we publish them in full.  Click here




By David Sheldon

September 24th, 2016 – Dramatic testimony was heard at a five hour-long hearing of the Michigan Public Utilities Commission on September 22nd. This was about the Commission’s completely revised rules for utility service, proposed under Case U-18120. Participation was amazing – both as to the numbers of people who participated and the quality of their comments. We estimate that there were about 60 protesters present of which some 35 took their turn to testify. Also present were an MPSC staff attorney and a few MPSC staffers. Presiding was an administrative law judge who listened very intently to everything that was said. Though the commissioners were not present, the judge assured us that the commissioners will be reading the transcript.

Everyone who spoke did so with courtesy and stayed on point, relating their personal views or experiences to one or more rules that needed changing or needed to be added. At the same time the vast majority of those who spoke clearly stated that the Commission had not, in their view, been doing its job of protecting the public from bullying utility companies. Many made the point that the Commission has a responsibility under the law to assure safe and adequate utility service to all customers, not just to the majority who are currently not objecting to smart meters. John Tatar made this point very well when he reminded us all that we are living under a republic and not a democracy, so that the rights of all must be taken into account.

The areas of greatest concern were health, privacy and fires. It was brought out that the majority of published peer reviewed research by scientists independent of the industry was to the effect that the type of radiation given off by smart meters is immediately injurious to a small percentage of the public and likely to cause cancer or neurological illnesses over a period of years for nearly all utility customers.

The three rules of greatest concern to participants were (1) Rule 37(1)(a) which outrageously allows a utility to declare any situation “hazardous” at their sole discretion, and to immediately shut off service with no notice and apparently no recourse, (2) Rule 37(1)(i) which allows a utility to shutoff power with suitable notice “where the customer has refused to arrange access … for .. replacement of equipment …” and (3) the lack of any rule requiring the utility to offer an analog opt-out choice. Many pointed out that the ‘hazardous’ designation was being misused by DTE to shutoff customers without notice who had refused a smart meter and padlocked their meter enclosure.

Much of the testimony was highly emotional, detailing the suffering many have endured at the hands of DTE or Consumers Energy. Particularly poignant was that of Jaime Chimner of Cheboygan who had lost the ability to walk because of a digital electronic meter installed by Consumers Energy. Replacing that digital meter with an analog meter allowed her to walk again! But Consumers Energy would not allow her to have the kind of meter that would allow her to walk! They were not interested in letters she presented from two doctors. They said “either let us reinstall the digital meter or we will turn your power off”. This obviously was not an option, so the next day power was turned off and the Chimners endured a winter with no electricity and minimal heat. They will soon be enduring another such winter with no long term remedy in sight!

Another spoke of an elderly lady in the Muskegon area whose uninsured house burned to the ground from a fire the local fire department had identified as caused by a smart meter! The burned out meter that caused this fire was exhibited. Quite a number of others spoke of having been forced to survive on generators for a year or more, or endure a winter without heat, because DTE cutoff of their service on that ‘hazardous’ pretext.

Of the 35 who spoke, only one, representing the Michigan Environmental Council, was in favor of smart meters. Her comments were effectively countered by an engineer from the Muskegon area, who made the point that energy conservation could be accomplished far more effectively by lighter colored roofs on homes and better insulation.

There is still ample opportunity to submit comments on this case, whether you participated in the hearing or not. The Commission will allow public comments and exhibits to be posted to Case U-18120 until 5 pm on October 13th. After that date the Commission will make its decision whether to proceed with these rules or to modify them in response to public objections.

With any new comments that are submitted by writing, it would be wise to refer back to any of the MPSC rules, such as Rule 37(1)(a), Rule 37(1)(i) discussed above, or to Rule 30 on medical emergencies, or Rule 38 with special provisions for senior citizens. These rules (30 and 38) currently do not allow for medical emergencies for senior citizens that want an analog meter.  We will have to make that point.  We must show the inadequacy of the proposed rules.  If folks want to comment about fire safety, privacy or liberty, please try to find a rule to tie the comment to. 

As Richard Meltzer reminds us, it would be good to mention, in any health-related comments specific BCBS codes or other medical insurance codes for electrosensitivity, as well as any references to the United States Access Board and The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).  These documents mention accommodation for ElectroSensitivity based on the Americans with Disabilities Act.   Referencing the National Toxicology Program Study on Cancer, released in May would also be very good.

If we can back up our comments with governmental or industry acknowledgement/accommodation of electrosensitivity and cancer risk, then they cease to be just our opinions.

This commission has not shown itself to be at all conscientious about protecting the public. The Governor, who is pushing hard for smart grid, appointed them. The Commission also includes one who was recently the lobbyist for Consumers Energy, a clear conflict of interest. So nobody should naively believe this Commission is highly likely to do the right thing. If they were smart they would get out in front of all this and introduce some good changes to the rules. That might benefit them by reducing the chance we have to persuade the legislature to enact reform. But they are far more likely to do what they have always done – the bidding of the utilities, Governor Snyder and other powerful moneyed lobbyists.

You might ask, with such long odds, why did we bother to come to this hearing. The short answer is that if we did not the utilities and MPSC staffers would be telling legislators that they gave us a chance to voice our objections and hardly anyone showed up. That would hurt our chances of getting the legislature to pass HB 4916, the meter choice bill. It might also hurt our chances in any court cases, particularly since there is a doctrine of exhausting administrative remedies before coming to court. But as matters now stand, legislators will be hearing through the grapevine what a high level of participation we showed.

If the Commission decides to proceed with the rules in their present form, they will go next to a joint committee of the legislature which will have the power to stop the new rules, pending possible further action by the full legislature. This committee is called the “Joint Committee on Administrative Rules” or JCAR for short. Two of the cosponsors of our proposed meter choice bill, HB 4916, sit on that committee. Stay tuned for further details as they develop.


The original call to attend this hearing, by Utility Meter Choice 4 Michigan, together with many comments on that, may be viewed here:

From the Commission Order opening this case: “Written and electronic comments may be filed with the Commission and must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 13, 2016. Written comments should be sent to the: Executive Secretary, Michigan Public Service Commission, P.O. Box 30221, Lansing, Michigan 48909. Electronic comments may be e-mailed to If you require assistance, contact Commission staff at (517) 284-8090 or by e-mail at All information submitted to the Commission in this matter will become public information available on the Commission’s website and subject to disclosure. All comments should reference Case No. U-18120. Please do not include information you wish to remain private.”

Those wishing to review all the new proposed rules for comments will find them all here:










Urgent Message to All Michigan Meter Choice People: The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) will be holding a public hearing next Thursday, September 22nd in Lansing. The purpose of the hearing is to allow for public comment on a new set of proposed rules for gas and electric utilities, to replace all the existing rules. The hearing is at 9 am, 7109 West Saginaw Street, Lansing. This is Case U-18120. The Commission will also accept written or emailed comments from the public up until 5 pm October 13th.

This is a legislative hearing the Commission is required by law to hold before it can put new rules into effect. Any member of the public may attend and will be given an opportunity to speak, probably limited to a few minutes for each person. A further step the Commission must follow is to submit the final version of its proposed rules to a joint House/Senate committee of the legislature for final approval. Once the new rules become law, they will regulate nearly every aspect of utility service to the public whether you are in DTE territory or Consumers territory or that of any other privately owned utility the Commission regulates.

Again this is a hearing about the rules for utility service. It is not a hearing about smart meters as such, but it does provide us an opportunity to comment on the current rules that govern smart meters, or to propose any new needed rule. If you speak at the hearing, to get your full time and best response from the Commission, it will be important to stay on point, be professional, respectful and address the issues at hand. The Commission regards its past decisions to allow smart meters and to require opt-out fees to be settled issues. That said, anyone may propose:

1) That a new rule should be included to specify that utilities deploying smart meters must provide an analog or mechanical alternative meter for those who have concerns about digital electronic meters. The point can be developed by briefly relating a personal experience or citing the many thousands of cases in Michigan where customers are not accepting the current opt-out meters, leading to confrontations between the utility and its customers and leading to shutoffs – even to people who are medically vulnerable. Such a point can be further bolstered by pointing out that there are 20 states now that do have such a rule or requirement for their utilities – most on a cost of service basis.

2) That the proposed new rule concerning shutoffs only addresses shutoffs for customers with unpaid bills, and needs to be broadened to provide similar due process or accommodation for those whose bills are paid but who have resisted the installation of a smart or electronic meter they believe will cause them immediate harm.

3) That there are other problems with some of the proposed new rules or with old rules the MPSC proposes to drop which should be retained.

Another focus of this hearing will be what new rule or modified rules are needed to protect “critical care customers”. “A critical care customer is one who requires home medical equipment or a life support system and would be at risk if an interruption of service prevented use of that equipment or system”. Existing rules allow such customers to register with the utility and be assured of a 21 day hold on any shutoff due to non payment of a bill. This hold can be extended twice for a total of 63 days hold. Many, however, were not informed of this option or experienced the run around when they tried to apply to DTE for this protection.

This announcement is specifically for any of you who have endured a shutoff or other mistreatment from DTE or Consumers Energy over a smart meter issue. If you were forced to take a smart or electronic meter to keep your power on, even after notifying the utility of your well founded concerns, this announcement is for you! If you padlocked your analog meter and had your power turned off without the required 10 day written notice, this announcement is for you! If someone in your home is medically vulnerable to a shutoff this is also for you! If you were denied an opportunity to register with the utility as a “critical care customer” this is for you!

We believe it is important that as many aggrieved customers as possible turnout for the hearing next week – whether you intend to speak or just swell the ranks of us monitoring the hearing. Those who notify us they plan to attend the hearing will be provided with a concise summary of the changes in the rules with suggestions as to which of these changes should be challenged. If you intend to talk it is vital you signup to do so on a sheet they provide just before the start of the meeting. Persons will probably be called in the order listed on this signup sheet and could be denied opportunity to speak if they did not signup. Again, when you do speak it will be important to be polite, respectful, and thereby reflect well on our entire analog choice movement.

We are already working with analog choice leaders around the state to mobilize people for this hearing. If you plan to go, please contact one of us with your phone number no later than Tuesday. We may provide assistance with car pooling or with a listing and explanation of the critical rules that could be mentioned when you speak. If you live in DTE territory please contact David Sheldon at (248) 629-7838. If you live in Consumers territory please contact Jeanine Deal (269) 979-3019 or John Kurczewski (231) 203-3559.

Your help is needed! A good showing at this hearing may help us ultimately persuade the legislators that a meter choice bill is needed.!

Utility Meter Choice 4 Michigan



from Merrymeeting News, Spring 2016

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) under the National Institutes of Health has completed the largest-ever animal (rats and mice) study on non ionizing radiation and cancer. Partial results released on May 26th confirm whole body exposures to low level radio frequency radiation (RFR) of the type emitted by cell phones, smart meters and other wireless devices and within currently allowable safety limits, are the “likely cause” of brain and heart cancers in these animals, according to Dr. John Bucher, Associate Director of the NTP.

The $25 million dollar study planned since 1999 showed one in twelve (12) male rats (8.3%) developed either malignant cancer (brain and rare heart tumors) or pre-cancerous lesions that can lead to cancer. Tumors called schwannomas were induced in the heart, and in the same kind of brain cells that have led to acoustic neuromas seen in human studies. The NTP says it is important to release these completed findings now given the implications to global health. No cancers occurred in the control group.

Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD of Sweden’s Orebro University and an expert witness in the Maine Smart Meter Health Investigation says “
(T)he animal study confirms our findings in epidemiological studies of an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma among people that use wireless phones, both cell phones and cordless phones (DECT). Acoustic neuroma is a type of Schwannoma, so interestingly this study confirms findings in humans of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. In 2013 we called for upgrading the risk in humans to Group 1, the agent is carcinogenic to humans. It is now time to re-evaluate both the cancer risk
and other potential health effects in humans from radio frequency radiation and also inform the public,” says Hardell. “This NTP evidence is greatly strengthening the evidence of risk, is sufficient to reclassify cell phone radiation as a known cancer-causing agent,and confirms the inadequacy of existing public safety limits.”
Dr. Christopher Portier, formerly with the NTP commented this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear.“I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure. This is by far—far and away—the most carefully done cell phone bio assay, a biological assessment. This is a classic study that is done for trying to understand cancers in humans”  More(scroll down to page 4 of Merrymeeting News)