What is in the old hydro meters that cause cancer

1. What the sources actually focus on: RF from smart meters, not "toxic guts" of old meters

Most items in the supplied reporting treat the controversy as one about radiofrequency radiation emitted by wireless smart meters — how often they transmit, the power of those signals, and whether chronic low‑level exposure could be harmful — rather than claims that antique or analog hydro meters contain chemical or radioactive agents that directly cause cancer ^{[1] [2] [6]}. Utilities and public‑health summaries repeatedly note smart meters operate intermittently at low power and produce exposures far below national guidelines ^{[2] [7]}.

2. Official, mainstream view: risk from smart‑meter RF is extremely low or unproven

Regulatory and mainstream scientific commentary cited in the reporting—examples include Health Canada’s Safety Code guidance referenced by a utility and the American Cancer Society cited in an industry article—conclude that health risk from smart‑meter RF is likely extremely low and that existing exposure limits provide a margin of safety ^{[2] [1]}. The American Cancer Society specifically is quoted as saying "the actual risk of harm, if it exists, is likely to be extremely low" and that it would be nearly impossible to link living with a smart meter to cancer because of multiple RF sources ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Dissenting voices: researchers and advocacy groups insist on a cancer connection

A steady countercurrent of advocacy groups and some scientists argue that RF exposure can cause biological effects and potentially increase cancer risk; sources cite opinion and selective studies, and organizations such as Environmental Health Trust and Global Research amplify concerns that smart‑meter emissions are harmful and inadequately regulated ^{[4] [5]}. Testimony and reviews referenced in those outlets assert a "strong body of evidence" linking RF to cancer and other effects, and they call for tighter limits or opt‑out options ^{[5] [8]}.

4. Evidence gaps and methodological limits in the reporting

The documents supplied reveal a core limitation: there are no direct, large‑scale epidemiological studies tying smart‑meter exposure to cancer, and major authorities note that isolating one small RF source against many household exposures makes causal proof extremely difficult ^{[3] [1]}. Several advocacy pieces point to laboratory or observational findings suggesting non‑thermal effects at low doses, but the reporting also shows disagreement over the quality and interpretation of that evidence ^{[4] [8]}.

5. Practical implications: what "causes cancer" claims really mean for old meters

None of the provided sources report that older analog hydro meters contain carcinogenic chemicals or radioactive sources; the controversy in these materials is about wireless smart meters and RF exposure, not toxic contents of analogue meters ^{[1] [2]}. Where risk is discussed, it is framed around emissions, compliance with exposure guidelines, and whether those guidelines adequately address long‑term, low‑level biological effects — a debate reflected in utilities’ safety pages and in activist critiques alike ^{[2] [7] [5]}.

6. Bottom line and where reporting is silent

Based on the supplied reporting, there is no documented claim within these sources that "old hydro meters" contain substances that cause cancer; instead, the reporting frames the public dispute around smart‑meter RF emissions, with mainstream agencies deeming risk minimal and advocacy outlets urging precaution and further research ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The sources do not provide direct chemical analyses of analogue meter internals or epidemiological proof linking any meter type to cancer, so definitive statements beyond what the reporting covers cannot be made from these materials ^{[1] [5]}.