American Cancer Society on smart meters: cancer risk very unlikely, while IARC classification and research gaps remain

American Cancer Society reports: The ACS has revised its consumer page on smart meters (last updated 6 August 2026), following its recent update of the cell phone cancer-risk page that EMF Signal covered earlier. The page concludes that a smart meter increasing cancer risk is very unlikely, while acknowledging it would be hard to do a study that could prove or disprove a link. It also records that IARC classifies RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans, that some NTP rat studies suggested a possible link at high exposure, and that experts say more research is needed. On exposure reduction, the ACS notes opt-out schemes exist in some places but not everywhere.

Note: ACS's own consumer information page; ACS states it does not itself classify carcinogens and defers to IARC, NTP, FCC, FDA and CDC.

"Most people are exposed to much less RF radiation from a smart meter than from using a cellphone. Based on what we know today, it’s very unlikely that having a smart meter increases your risk of cancer."

— American Cancer Society, Smart Meters page

"classifies RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” This is based on the finding of a possible increase in risk for a specific type of brain tumor among cellphone users."

— American Cancer Society on the IARC classification

"Some NTP lab studies in rats suggested a possible link between cancer and high levels of RF radiation, but other animal studies have not shown such a link."

— American Cancer Society, Smart Meters page

"It would be hard to do a study that could prove or disprove a link between smart meters and cancer."

— American Cancer Society, Smart Meters page

"In some places where smart meters are being installed, people have the choice to opt out of having them, but this isn’t an option everywhere."

— American Cancer Society, Smart Meters page

🧾 American Cancer Society on smart meters: cancer risk very unlikely, while IARC classification and research gaps remain

Source

More on this topic