Energy and Climate Change CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Dr Andrew Tresidder (SMR29)

Are consumers’ concerns about privacy and health being addressed adequately?

There is only one small but important point to make here.

The roll-out is being made, and the whole consultation exercise, with a presumption.

That presumption is the

Presumption of no harm

This presumption is already proving to be false, and in my GP practice I have seen a number of people made ill by transmitting technology, such as cordless phones, mobile phones, baby alarms and wireless routers.

Already in 2012 a paper has been published (Carlsberg and Hardell) showing that long term mobile phone and cordless phone use is associated with a marked increase in same side malignant brain tumours. Currently the UK Health Protection Agency tends towards the argument that the vast majority of symptoms suffered by people are psychosomatic, and uses safety limits based on whether the technology actually heats your body or not. This approach is not shared by others, not least the Austrian Medical Association current guidelines (link attached) http://www.aerztekammer.at/documents/10618/976981/EMF-Guideline.pdf

The military well know from the development of such technology as offensive weapons that considerable and at least temporarily disabling harm can be caused by judicious use of transmitting technology at relatively low levels.

The problem with Smart Meter universal coverage, with a high power pulsed signal every few minutes, is that it will contribute greatly to electrosmog to everyone, will result in serious harms to many people, who are thus part of an uncontrolled experiment. US and Canadian experiences show many people whose illnesses and debility is initiated when Smart Meters were installed. The average signal level may not be high—but the power of the pulses can cause severe symptoms for some. An analogy would be that a split second blood –curdling scream every few minutes on average is insignificant over the 24 hours—those who hear it might beg to differ. Biological systems are affected by such signals, mediated through cryptochromes, with disastrous long term effects now being revealed by research.

Sensitive people (who may soon reach 20% of the population according to some research), will find whole cities and neighbourhoods to be no go areas because harmful symptoms are triggered—and will be unlikely to find refuge anywhere easily as “saturation roll-out” continues

I attach a short paper, already copyright, that you may wish to consider, though I do understand that the Select Committee may not wish to consider this sort of evidence—and that the timing of such concerns is probably 3–5 years ahead of the curve of general understanding and acceptance.

It is likely that this issue will be ignored by many, including those in authority, as society slowly traverses the curve of “there is no problem, there is no problem, there is no problem, there can’t be a problem, well perhaps there might be a problem, well I admit there is a problem but it’s very small, to Oh My God, we have a problem”. Smoking, asbestos, lead in petrol, hydrogenated oils and fats are all recent instances of this approach to understanding harms.

http://www.drandrew.co.uk/articles/93/transmitting-technology-the-mistaken-presumption-of-no-harm is the reference of the article, and it is attached for clarity

However, I am grateful to the Committee for considering the issue, and taking full responsibility for proper consideration of the issue

Engineered solutions with no harm ARE available—but have to be commissioned and designed as such, taking notice of people who are severely affected. Fibre optic communication, or use of utility mains cabling for signalling are safer wired alternatives. Outmoded safety levels are insufficient to protect large numbers of the population.

I would respectfully advise that the harms have not been adequately evaluated, and am pleased to advise on skilled and knowledgeable resources if desired.

February 2013