The Editor,
Re: "Government ignores WHO," Letters, May 11.
The author of the letter may be confused between a substance that is toxic versus carcinogenic. She stated since DDT and mercury are generally considered toxic and listed as WHO class 2b carcinogen, this supports the fact that radiofrequency emission - also a class 2b carcinogen - must therefore be bad for our health. In fact, many substances can be toxic, but not particularly carcinogenic.
When you consider that coffee is also a WHO class 2b carcinogen, then you realize one needs to differentiate between acute toxicity versus carcinogenicity. Just as being included on the same list as coffee does not make radiofrequency emission a useful pick-me-up in the morning, being on the same list as mercury does not make radiofrequency emission as grave a health concern as mercury poisoning. In fact, we know very few substances that can definitely cause cancer.
Also, the WHO only found six human studies and all were concerned with mobile phones and brain tumours. In the largest study involving 13 countries, the overall conclusion was that there was no increased risk of brain tumour with mobile phone use of more than 10 years (http: //jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/23/1707).
Finally, to put this into context, we're not likely to hold the smart meter anywhere near our head as with our mobile phone. Given that the exposure level drops off exponentially as you move away from the meter, at the average distance (less than two feet) from the meter, the exposure would be about 15,000 times less than the known thermal (rise in temperature) hazard level.
And brain tumours are rare - they account for only two per cent of all cancers. So if I want to worry about cancer, I would pay more attention to applying sunscreen than smart meters.
Mark Lee Richmond
