Opinions on the dangers of EMF

Status
Not open for further replies.
mark32

mark32

Senior Member
Location
Currently in NJ
Hi there, recently I took a job that places me, at times, in a vault(s) of CCR's (Constant Current Regulators) that power runway and taxiway lights at an airport. I was wondering of the dangers in such locations, typically I'm in there less than five minutes but up to an hour on occasion. I did some research online and for every 25 "Pages" denying the connection between EMF and illnesses, there are 25 "Pages" that make a connection between EMF and illnesses. It also seems that every site that claims the dangers of EMF are real also promote some type of EMF protector/blocker product. So I'm curious as to what the brilliant minds (I'm serious) here at this forum have to say about this topic.
 
I suspect that there are few of us (maybe none) who have any real knowledge of the medical effects of low levels electromagnetic fields on humans. By low levels, I mean below the levels that contribute measurable heating to the human body.

If I were concerned about it, I would try to find reports from recognized research universities or medical organizations. There is a process where papers submitted for publication by reputable organizations are submitted for "peer review" by people who understand what the authors are writing about. Try to find papers published by Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech, the American Medical Association, The Lancet, the World Health Organization, and other credible sources. You might also look at what the Center for Disease Control has to say, even if you don't trust the government.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs226/en/ WHO on health effects at high frequencies

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs205/en/ WHO on health effects at power line frequencies.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/is_emf.htm Australian paper on effects of EMF

Another class of papers in that area would be associated with studies of the effects of radar on personnel, which is a pretty strong electromagnetic field. Crews of aircraft carriers are subject to pretty substantial electromagnetic fields.

I would not give a lot of weight to web pages for which the only qualification is $100 a year for a web site, an axe to grind, knowledge of the appropriate buzz words, and skill at a keyboard.
 
Last edited:
FWIW The WHO (world health org) says it is a problem.

I have no personal opinion as I have no knowledge of the subject.

That said it will not surprise if there is a connection.
 
Karl Riley, one of our moderators, is a leading expert on EMF. I'll send him a PM and ask him to reply to this thread.
Also there was an interesting article on EMFs in the latest issue of EC&M.

Karl did a study for the State of California about ten years ago regarding EMFs in schools, he found most high levels of EMFs are due to electrician errors:
1. Using the wrong neutal
2. Downstream neutral to case bond in panelboards.
 
I think the current state of knowledge in this area is a lot like the current state of knowledge on global warming.

It appears to me that both subject areas suffer from way too much politics in the mix to trust what little research there is.
 
First I'd like to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Second, thank you all for your responses. Bob NH, thanks for the links and your input. Bob (iwire) I'm glad you stopped by as I think your answers are always on the money. Mr. Baker, I thank you for your time and contacting this specialist for me. Petersonra I agree with your view, there's more talk than action regarding these matters, especially global warming. I may be moving next year so I won't be in this environment too much longer, but I think this subject would be of interest to us in the trade.

Mark
 
Seems to me that if there were much damage caused by EMF there would be plenty of conclusive studies proving it.

I vaguely recall a study that claimed increased cataracts in pigeons that lived on 10,000 watt radio transmitters.
That struck me as a mild symptom for such an extreme situation.

When you consider the geometric reduction in intensity, as distance from the source increases and the lack of conclusive studies,
it?s hard to give the purported dangers much reverence.
 
That's a good one

That's a good one

Hi Al, thanks for the laugh. Of course what I meant was if I move I will no longer be employed at this particular location. Maybe I'm paranoid but this all snowballed from a news story I heard last week concerning fertility problems linked to cell phone usage and I'd like to be a dad someday. Hell, I stopped drinking Mountain Dew when I heard that stuff could make you sterile as well. I'm rather gullible.
 
mark32 said:
Hi Al, thanks for the laugh. Of course what I meant was if I move I will no longer be employed at this particular location. Maybe I'm paranoid but this all snowballed from a news story I heard last week concerning fertility problems linked to cell phone usage and I'd like to be a dad someday. Hell, I stopped drinking Mountain Dew when I heard that stuff could make you sterile as well. I'm rather gullible.
Click to expand...

I would not be all that concerned about things you read in the news media. many of these so called "studies" are nothing more than statistical anomalies. There is considerable belief in some sectors of the scientific community that statistical anomalies always mean something. There is no actual evidence to support that belief, but it is widespread, and held with near religious fervor.

It was not all that long ago that there was a widespread belief that salt was a major contributor to high blood pressure. There was statistical evidence to that effect, and there were all kinds of theoretical explanations as to why it might be so. It turned out to be mostly bunk.

We think we are so smart, yet there is almost nothing that we really know. We have the capability to observe and come up with empirical expressions of how nature works, but there is not much that we really actually understand.
 
Last edited:
Environmental Stressors

Environmental Stressors

Mark,

I've been reading about EMF for a while now. Since the late '80s. I believe there is some real cause for concern.

One significant Federal source of information is the National Institute of Environmental Health Science

There are other sources. You've mentioned the World Health Organization. The State of California is another. I don't have the ususal list of links to post, as I'm at a friends terminal.

The human biological influences observed associated with EMF are, surprisingly, not so associated with large or strong fields. The usual notion that more is worse, is not true with EMF, with some exceptions. Low frequency (~60 Hz) low level magnetic fields in the presence of voltage stresses of about 12 Volts per foot have been quantified as causing micro physiological reactions.

One's unique genetic mix, coupled with all the other environmental stressors of one's usual life complicate the study, as one person will get sick and another will not.

Regardless of the politics, there is enough hard data in the published and peer reviewed scientific literature that it is clear something is happening.
 
I've not looked at this for years, so take the below as meandering thoughts:

1) Unless you want to make a deep study of this stuff, I'd recommend looking for 'review articles' in well respected journals. Trying to look at individual studies will drive you crazy. As part of a statistics course, I remember a review article in "The Mathematical Intellegencer" sometime around 1990. I am certain that there will be more recent works!

2) If there are real dangers from EMF, they are still very low risk dangers. For example, if you _double_ the risk of an extremely rare disease, it is _still_ extremely rare. Because the risks are so small, it takes very extensive studies to separate the real risks from simply random noise and variation.

3) One of the studies that I do remember was of telephone company workers. The workers we divided into three groups: low exposure (billing people), medium exposure (primarily outside line workers), and high exposure (switching office workers). The group that showed a significant risk increase: the medium exposure group. The theory was that the outside line workers were being exposed to _chemicals_, eg transformer PCBs while doing their work, and that this totally swamped any risk difference cause by the EMF exposure. IMHO before worrying about the spooky 'EMFs', it is more important to be on the lookout for known real dangers at the locations you are working in. Do these constant current transformers use insulating oil? Is it known to be PCB free?

4) One oft repeated chestnut is that the energy levels associated with EMF are too low to cause cellular damage associated with cancer and other diseases. This is true. To break bonds associated with DNA, you need high energy photons or particulate radiation (x-rays, neutrons, etc.) There is no way that electrical power EMF can get to these energy levels unless you have such high total flux levels that you get actual _heating_ (yes, a big enough 60 Hz field won't produce photons that break DNA, but it could heat you enough that you _cook_). My _guess_ is that as research uncovers the real issues, they will find the connection between EMF and harm comes about through unexpected links.

-Jon
 
I used to spend significant amounts of time in rooms full of runway and taxi-way transformers and theres nothing wrong with me - that I know of.... I assume it was my tin foil long-johns. ;) Great place to take a nap as well... Ah the warmth and soothing hum....

The only substantial way to get away from EMF is to situate yourself as close to either pole of the earth - but you will be exposing yourself to the many real dangers of radiation that the earths natural EMF protects us from. :rolleyes: IMO you are probhably being exposed to more EMF from the computer screen you are looking at right now than you would from a few transformers cased in 14 ga steel for a few minutes a day. However, I have heard of reliable studies of schools near high-voltage lines where leukemia rates were higher. It too was roughly debunked...
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/151/5/512

I think the science and politics are still out there on this one....
 
In the last 100 years we have gone from practically no man-made EMF to what we have now. But yet human life expectancy has almost doubled. Average male in 1900 lived to 50 something. Today the average male lives to 70 or 80 something. According to physics the entire universe is made possible by electromagnetic waves. Even visible and invisible light is electromagnetic. If you leave the planet's atmosphere you are exposed to cosmic rays. If you go to the beach you're exposed to ultraviolet. Even the nerves in our bodies use electric impulses to communicate with the brain. I think the whole thing is a scam. Most of the web sites I've seen are trying to scare you so you will buy something to protect yourself. And these devices are not UL listed and are probably equal to a rabbit's foot technology. My opinion is not worry about it because we are all going to die anyway. Automobiles, guns, and drugs are a lot more dangerous than EMF radiation.
 
I agree with Al H. I have Karl Rileys book on EMFs, and there are many studies that document the hazard from EMFs. His point is we create most of the high EMFs by poor wiring.
Some day I am going to buy an EMF meter and do some surveys. You can have high levels of EMF in a building wired in EMT, due to net currents.
 
I think it's bunk also. And what is the difference between magnetic fields around an energized conductor and magnetic fields around a magnet?? And why are people trying to keep me away from emfs and then trying to sell me magnets to fix everything that ails me??? I'm all ears.
 
Just because something exists that is undesirable does not mean it is harmful. The science on this subject is not well settled. If it bothers you, get your tin foil out. If not, worry about your taxes going up in January.
 
settled science?

settled science?

IMHO,

I think that the study of EMF has been well covered, and that politicians keep beating a dead horse for their own benefit.

Thank God (personal feelings) for the natural field that we have around our planet, protecting us from solar winds and other such natural phenomena :) Did you know that the earth switches polarity every ten-thousand years or so? So, the north pole is not/has not always been the north pole.

As for the man-made fields, someone (a professor that worked for EPRI for a number of years) recently told me that a person is exposed to larger fields by standing over a stove-top, or sleeping next to a digital alarm clock at night.

After all, I still think that it is very important to consider the effects of EMF when designing or building an electrical device or any other component.

Matt
 
Tin foil long-johns :)

Tin foil long-johns :)

I do appreciate everyone's time and insight on this matter. I'd summarize this subject as EMF likely has an undesirable impact on a human body but the dangers are, for practical purposes, negligible. I'll sleep better tonight, thanks again.

Mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top