By Alex Quinn
Particularly now that wireless communications are so closely integrated into our daily lives, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are all around us. Our cities, especially the larger ones, are perpetually shrouded in an invisible electrosmog, a ‘sea’ of EMFs through which we swim every day. But does this momentous development in civilisation come with health effects – and if so, can we do anything to reduce them?
What is ELF-EMF and what are its sources?
It’s important to realise that there are two main forms of EMF: radiofrequency (RF)-EMF and extremely low-frequency (ELF)-EMFs. The frequency range of ELF-EMF is 1–300 Hz, and the Earth’s natural geomagnetic field strength varies from around 60 μT (microtesla) at the magnetic poles to around 30 μT at the equator.
Many man-made sources of ELF-EMF exist. Prime among these artificial sources are power lines and electronic appliances, with vacuum cleaners, electric can-openers, microwave ovens, shavers and hair dryers among the most powerful. These appliances emit ELF-EMF at field intensities ranging from 17.44 to 164.75 μT, measured from 5 cm away. Since the intensity of magnetic fields decreases dramatically with increased distance from the source, the corresponding range of magnetic field intensities at 50 cm is 0.12–1.66 μT.
Table 1. ELF-EMFs produced by domestic appliances. Taken from IARC Monograph Volume 80 (2002).
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (INCIRP) has set limits of 1 mT (millitesla) for occupational exposure to ELF-EMF, and 200 μT for general public exposure. While these limits are not breached by individual man-made sources, additive effects must also be considered, as we shall see.
What is RF-EMF and what are its sources?
The frequencies of RF-EMFs are considerably higher than ELF-EMFs, ranging from 100 kHz to 300 GHz. As its name suggests, the main uses of RF-EMF are in broadcasting information. In today’s data-driven world, this means that RF-EMF is constantly around us: it is produced by things such as mobile phone base stations, cordless phones, utility ‘smart’ meters, remote control toys, wireless networks, radar and baby monitors. In addition, there are various natural sources of RF-EMF, including the Earth, the Sun and other black body radiators.
Here’s a shocking statistic: did you know that having a cordless phone base station in your house can expose you to the same level of RF-EMFs as having a mobile phone mast in your back garden?
Do EMFs pose health problems?
The mainstream view is that the only potential danger from EMFs stems from their heating effects on tissue, in the case of RF-EMF, or of electrical currents induced in the body for ELF-EMF. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that the athermal effects of ELF- and RF-EMFs also contribute to various health problems.
Childhood leukaemia
According to the BioInitiative report, evidence indicates that risk of childhood leukaemia in young boys doubles when they are exposed to ELF-EMF levels of 1.4 mG (milligauss), while other studies indicate that leukaemia risks begin at 2, 3 and 4 mG. This occurs in the context of an ICNIRP limit of 1000 mG.
The BioInitiative report also found that ELF-EMFs interfered with recovery from childhood leukaemia: if a child was exposed to levels of ≥2 mG during recovery, their risk of death increased by 300%, while at levels of ≥4 mG that risk increased to 450%.
Alzheimer’s disease
ELF-EMF has also been found to increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by increasing levels of a protein called amyloid beta, a leading risk factor for Alzheimer’s.
Melatonin
EMFs have also been found to decrease the levels of melatonin in the body. Melatonin is produced in the pineal gland of the brain, which produces melatonin when it directly or indirectly detects low light levels. EMFs may interfere with this mechanism because the brain confuses them with light waves, thus suppressing the pineal gland’s melatonin production. Melatonin is an absolutely vital hormone. It acts as a powerful antioxidant, and has been found to aid in the prevention of Alzheimer’s, depression, cardiovascular diseases, insomnia, mood disorders, tinnitus and various cancers.
Brain and auditory nerve cancers
RF-EMFs have been given a 2B classification – possibly carcinogenic – by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). They have been found to be possible causes of acoustic neuromas and brain tumours called gliomas. Studies have shown that using cordless phones, which produce RF-EMFs, can increase the risk of brain tumours by up to 470% after ≥10 years of use when habitually used on one side of the head. Mobile phones, in the same scenario, can increase the risk by up to 200%. Both mobiles and cordless phones can trigger reactions in people who suffer from electrohypersensitivity.
What about interactions between EMFs and other factors?
Of course, EMFs don’t affect us in isolation: everyone living in a city, for example, is bombarded by numerous chemical toxins and other environmental pollutants, and many of them take multiple pharmaceutical drugs – in addition to constant EMF exposure. We are at an early stage of investigating and defining these complex interactions, but existing research indicates that these combinations can have both beneficial and adverse effects. For example, in vitro DNA damage was caused by a 7 mT magnetic field in combination with ferrous chloride, but not with either agent alone. Other combinations of EMFs and agents enhanced analgesia and neural performance.
Call to action: Reduce your EMF exposure!
Thus, you should take as many steps as possible to reduce your exposure to EMFs. Suggested strategies include:
- Using fibre-optic cables for your broadband
- Using wired connections whenever possible
- Keeping mobile and cordless phones away from your body
- Using wired baby monitors: children are more effected by EMFs than adults
- Keeping wireless routers or cordless phones out of regularly used bedrooms or children’s bedrooms
- Reducing time spent in calls when using mobile or cordless phones
- Reducing children’s exposure to wireless devices as much as possible
- Avoiding using microwave oven
- Avoiding placing wireless computers on your lap
- Avoiding allowing your children to use remote-control toys for long periods of time, if at all
Comments
your voice counts
16 May 2013 at 12:23 am
Thank you Alex for your research, I think you have done a great job. Two years ago we decided to move from UK to Nicaragua, one of the reasons being how ill I was feeling in our house in UK. At night I could pick up 15 wi-fi signals from neighbours in our bedroom - we also lived very close to the police station and I think they were using the tetra net. In the end I could hardly sleep for the pain in my head and then by the morning the pain was so bad I couldn't get going and was surviving on painkillers. Every time we were away from the house the pain was not in my head, once we realised that we decided we needed to move. I hope your article alerts others to the dangers of EMF exposure, for many the symptoms won't be as obvious as mine. Keep up the good work Alex. Best wishes, Tina
21 May 2013 at 10:56 am
Quinn states that we should use fiber-optic cables. But they invite Big Brother into our house and will in the future be used also for "Smart Meters" and various kinds of surveillance through recording activities, with hidden cameras and microphones, and to control certain activities with various kinds of equipment.
21 May 2013 at 5:28 pm
"However, there is strong evidence to suggest that the athermal effects of ELF- and RF-EMFs also contribute to various health problems."
Could you provide the references for this strong evidence please? The link provided only leads to a definition of 'athermal'.
Many of your health claims seem to rely on claims from a single source the BioInitiative Report. This is a self published document which has been widely criticised by independent and government research groups, who noted its littered with conflict of interests. It cherry picks the studies only which support its pre-determined conclusions.
"Both mobiles and cordless phones can trigger reactions in people who suffer from electrohypersensitivity"
I wonder what evidence ANH has for this statement? since the most up to date systematic reviews
Röösli M (June 2008). "Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: a systematic review". Environ. Res. 107 (2): 277–87. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2008.02.003. PMID 18359015.
Rubin, James; Rosa Nieto-Hernandez, Simon Wessely (January 2010). "Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance Attributed to Electromagnetic Fields". Bioelectromagnetics 31 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1002/bem.20536. PMID 19681059.
conclude the exact opposite.
23 May 2013 at 6:05 pm
Hi Slipp, we wondered what had happened to you! Thanks for your comment.
The BioInitiative report may be only a single source, but it is an unparalleled compilation of information on EMFs. The 2012 update contains over 1800 new studies published since the first edition of the report that came out in 2007, in addition to the thousands of studies it brought to public attention the first time around. How is this “cherry picking”, please? Are you aware of specific examples of studies it has ignored? And are you proposing that the international community simply ignores all of this evidence?
As for conflicts of interest, we’d point out that it was written by, “29 authors from ten countries, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MSc, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full members of BEMS. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency”. We’re not aware of any serious conflicts of interest among the authors, but perhaps you can enlighten us. Pointing out that one of the co-editors, Cindy Sage, is a consultant, as certain skeptics have done as a justification for dismissing the report, simply won’t do.
We’re aware that the literature is presently inconclusive on electrosensitivity. However, we do wonder whether the limited experiments that have been conducted so far on self-reported electrosensitives have replicated the exact frequencies that cause electrosensitive symptoms in each patient. We suspect not, particularly as this is an emerging field of enquiry. Also, as Alex Quinn’s article points out, EMFs are not the only form of pollution that everyone, including electrosensitives, encounters on a daily basis. Combination effects must be considered, another factor that has not yet been studied in any great depth.
And since EMFs as a whole represent an important emerging field of enquiry, we wonder why skeptics such as yourself are so keen to dismiss huge amounts of scientific data that indicate adverse health effects of EMFs and mechanisms beyond tissue heating and electrical conductance? Surely, true scientific enquiry is about pursuing the evidence - not ignoring it?
03 February 2014 at 5:51 pm
Do you know what frequency would cancel out these EMF frequencies & can it be generated by a device such as Rife, Mora or similar? If a cpu is 300 hz for instance, would 400 or higher cancel it out or how would that work? What cancels out the EMF (radio or sound frequency) that makes it so?
Same question for radiation, such as on smart readers.
Thanks
06 March 2014 at 5:31 pm
Hi Carri, I’m afraid we don’t have the answers to your questions. There are many devices supposedly protective against EMFs, but we aren’t in a position to recommend any of them. We’d recommend doing some research and trying some products out, and sticking with whatever works for you. This person has done exactly that, for example: http://www.electrical-sensitivity.info/HealingAids4.html. We’d say that prevention is better than cure with EMFs; whatever you can do to reduce EMFs in your home and workplace is surely easier than trying to cancel out or block existing radiation. The ideas given above, plus those in our earlier article - http://anhinternational.org/news/should-you-be-concerned-about-electromagnetic-radiation - are a great start. And, of course, joining the campaign to stop smart meters one of the best way to help others: http://anhinternational.org/Time+to+say+NO+to+smart+meters.
22 May 2014 at 7:02 pm
Great read. Thanks for sharing.
20 October 2014 at 5:31 pm
To your reply to Slipp. First you reference documentary movie as a source? EMF protection arent big industry? they dont fund studies? example Grish Kumar leading expert with emf radiation whats his daughter doing? sell emf protecion.
Why anti-radiation lobby is so powerfull why this study shows this results? because if you want get addictional funding you must shows some results if studies will shows no effects of radiation then there will be no funding. Trust me the biggest fight in past was between anti-smoking vs anti-obese researchers who gets more funding and this is only example in anti-radiation there is the same pattern. So when person talk about conflict of interest he forgot about second site of the coin.
If you want to answer me give some reference but first read this
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124
also read about hormesis after that this:
http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/scott.pdf
"Wireless technology is unregulated and never been proven safe for children and the unborn." and never be proven to cause any adverse effects.
But first person should look how many children use phones which are 100x times higher in power than wifi.
When you will give reference please spare me BioInitiative Report
here is good article about http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/picking-cherries-in-science-the-bio-initiative-report/
or citing like many incompetent people some navy reports which measure very high amounts of energy mostly in-vitro.
Bioinitiative Report present a re-hashing of old science and try to make their case that there is such a thing as EHS and that we should be worried about low-level microwave radiation whats more they use many times more power than you can be exposed in normal use.
Good example of so called activist is Magda Havas
Havas.
She hasn't published any good research of her own, rather she tirelessly cites these few fringe studies over and over again to promote the idea that radio is harmful. To find such studies, you have to dig past hundreds of studies that contradict her desired results. It's hard to imagine that Dr. Havas is unaware that she's promoting science that's in direct conflict with what virtually everyone else has found. You have to wonder whether her students accept her claims at face value, or whether they view it within the context of the scientific consensus. She says that other researchers bullying her. Double-blind studies show her results about HVR are flawed. She was requsted to do her studies in room available that is totally electronically shielded and the set up of an experiment to test any subject you claim suffers from electrosensitivity. She refused.
Dr. Havas cites one such study that she says showed mobile phone signals break down the blood brain barrier. In fact, this study was a single in-vitro (petri dish) experiment, and the authors only hypothesized that one potential effect might be to increase the blood brain barrier permeability. In other words, nobody has ever observed such an effect.
Another study is often cited as showing that non-ionizing microwaves have been found to cause single and double strand DNA breakage. While this study was interesting, it was very small — only four groups of rats —and has not been replicated by any other researchers. In addition, it exposed the rats to a type of signal not found in either nature or in electronic devices (a powerful, continuous 2.5 GHz tone) and the effects disappeared when the signal was augmented with background noise. The lead author, Dr. Henry Lai, is the co-editor of Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, a journal dedicated to the promotion of alleged biological harm from radio.
The third study the anti-radio activists promote most often is said to show that radio signals increase blood sugar, leading to diabetes. If you're wondering why so many of us live in a radio-soaked world but don't have diabetes yet, the answer lies in the quality of this study. It was Magda Havas' own research, in which she published the self-reported results of four people who identified as being both diabetic and "electrosensitive", and who said they felt better after moving away from their electronic devices. The study has essentially zero scientific validity. What was the only journal that published her article? Dr. Lai's Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine.
Here is article about her http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cfls-dirty-electricity-and-bad-science/
From where she gets funds? Who funds her studies? Anti-Radiation Industry. Havas has co-authored some of her papers with David Stetzer who manufactures and markets the "Graham-Stetzer filters" used in these studies. These highly questionable studies are being used as a sales pitch for the filters on the web sites of a number of resellers.
There are many studies funded from sources national research funding and they dont need funding from industries.
The one biggest error from activist is that the alarmists demand that scientists prove that EMF is safe. Any scientist know that science can never absolutely prove a negative. For instance, science cannot prove with 100% certainty that ordinary drinking water is safe. Reports from mainstream scientific bodies often say that more studies are recommended even though no harm from EMF has been found. Alarmists seize upon this standard scientific conservatism to exaggerate the degree of scientific uncertainty. They keep promoting many of the same questionable or poorly executed "scientific" studies, while ignoring far more comprehensive and rigorous studies that show no harm.
30 January 2015 at 12:24 pm
Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Clearly we have a difference of view on a number of areas relating to this area of emerging science. This is to be expected given that there is so much more to be learned about biological/EMF interactions, both positive and negative. One of the reasons that researchers, among those who have made contributions to the BIR, continue their work is that they have been introduced to many individuals who apparently respond very negatively when around elevated levels of RF-EMFs (low and high levels). They then recover when in a 'Faraday cage'. This kind of clinical work does not find its way into the peer review, but nevertheless triggers further research on the issue among those who are able to and prepared to find funding. This also creates an imbalance in the research, but it's not abnormal in emerging science which works against particular industrial sectors.
20 October 2014 at 7:40 pm
"The BioInitiative report may be only a single source, but it is an unparalleled compilation of information on EMFs. The 2012 update contains over 1800 new studies published since the first edition of the report that came out in 2007, in addition to the thousands of studies it brought to public attention the first time around. How is this “cherry picking”, please? Are you aware of specific examples of studies it has ignored? " are you joking?
The reportcalled BioInitiative supports its calls for lower exposure standards by pointing to more than 1,800 scientific papers published since the group’s first highly criticised report was produced in 2007.
Of the more than 30 independent expert reviews(http://www.amta.org.au/newsletters/EME.Update.March.2013?Article=38800) of all the scientific evidence on EMF and health published in recent years, all have concluded that there is no credible evidence to suggest a health hazard – except for the BioInitiative group’s 2007 report.
Selective attention to data, colloquially known as “cherry-picking” or more technically as confirmation bias, is a failure in reasoning that affects all aspects of life. The authors of the BIR commit exactly this error with EMF bioeffects studies, by speculating at length about possible implications of studies reporting effects of EMF while saying little about studies that failed to find effects.
28 January 2015 at 2:18 pm
I have often woundered has this had a effect on my hearing. So much floating around in the air that we dont really know its effect on our health long term. Nice article i enjoyed reading it. Thanks
28 January 2015 at 10:14 pm
An increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease this is pretty scary to hear this. I really make me worry about what we expsose ourselves too.
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences