Opinions on the dangers of EMF

[Rockyd]

Try this link yet?

Lots of linkage there.

 

[LarryFine]

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.

Hmmm. Now that we know the earth is AC, I wonder what the power factor is.

 

[George Stolz]

Since Karl has not been by, let me post a quote from another thread until he does drop by.

Originally Posted by Karl Riley, 02/08/2005:
I've been out of state on a job which I will report in a separate posting, but I better get my comments in here. Better late than never.

About the science. One poster said there is no scientific evidence for health effects. There are thousands of scientific papers reporting health effects. It is a real battle out there, with all kinds of special interests fogging the scene, and a lot of money to spin it their way.

The bottom line at present was the WHO report after reviewing the large body of data this conservative organization specified an increase risk of childhood leukemia at 4 mG. Other less conservative bodies, like the California Dept of Health, which conducted a multi-year multi-million dollar review of the evidence, puts it at closer to 2 mG and includes some adult diseases also.

Now as far as Code goes, following Code eliminates almost all of the possibilities of high emfs from wiring. Separation of conductors in a circuit is the cause, either through neutral to ground out in the circuits or neutral to neutral when two feeds share a junction box. Or loosing a neutral or hot and grabbing it from another circuit, etc.

You have to keep all conductors together when using conduits. The last Code (2002) made a retrograde decision and excepted non-metallic conductors, but with certain requirements: if the separated conductors pass through metal, a slot must be cut joining the holes for the conductors. If they enter a breaker box through separate connectors, one would have to cut a slot in the box, violating listing, so this invalidates the use of the exception. So my opinion is: why allow separation in NM? Why not just follow the sound principle of keeping all conductors of a circuit together?

One exception is for heating purposes, and this brings in floor heating. The fields created as described would not only subject any child on the floor to an exposure many times the level associated with leukemia, but it would also cause standard computer monitors and other equipment to jitter unacceptably.

Electric blanket manufacturers used to wire blankets in this way until the emf concern became known. Then they quietly (who wants to be sued) changed the circuits so that hot and neutral run together. I believe US floor heating probably made the same change for the same reason, but I don't know this for sure.

Computers responded by adding a 99 cent counter coil to cancel the field from the coil around the neck of the tube, so that they could sell their madels to Europe, which has an emf standard.

About other sources such as fans. Anything with a coil, transformer or motor, gives off a high field. However because it is a coil it acts as a point source and the field weakens fast, by the cube of the distance. In other words, double your distance and the field weakens by 7/8th. In the case of wiring from separated conductors the field weakens slowly, doubling distance you still have 1/2 the field.

So you can keep your distance from small appliances with motors and you are OK.

The high fields I am called in to trouble shoot are almost all from violations of Code. So this is not a fringe issue, it's a basic issue of good wiring and a sensible attitude toward the exceptions in 300-3(b).

Karl

And then, later on, the post I was looking for, the little nugget that was eluding me:

Originally Posted by Karl Riley, 02/09/2005:
Wayne, I do happen to have an instance of human response to canceling fields. I was called in to the residence of a health practitioner who is sensitive to magnetic fields over about 2 mG. She would not use the lights in the bedroom/bathroom since she was disturbed by the effect.

I found high fields, up to 30 mG in those areas. The cause of the fields was that the feed supplying the bathroom light switch box was jumped from the receptacle circuit, but only the hot was used. Why? The original feed's hot had been capped off at the breaker box. I found continuity to ground: probably shorted from a sheet rock nail or whatever. The original electrician had capped it off, but did not also cap off the neutral. Instead he used the hot from the recept circuit but not its neutral.

So he had the hot coming in around the bedroom and the neutral going back directly through the floor down to the entrance. This set up a net current loop creating the high fields.

Now to get to your question about whether balancing the fields still does not remove the effects on humans: the sensitive lady was in the room when we were working on the problem. The electrician switched on one light. She exclaimed, "that's better". The electrician grinned (he was typically skeptical) and said, "I turned it on, not off". He thought he had her. I measured with a gaussmeter and a clamp-on ammeter. His turning the light on actually reduced the field and net current since we were dealing with a 3-wire circuit and there was some balancing.

The physics of balancing of magnetic fields is that they do actually cancel. Just as in the sea with waves from two directions, if a crest and trough coincide you get no wave. Gone.

And just a note on shielding net current fields. No material shields net current fields. Only balanced fields can be shielded.

Karl

Edit to add second quote, and the following:

While the truth may be yet to be fully known, it remains my opinion that EMFs are easy enough to avoid that avoiding them to the best of our ability is still a good idea.

 

[George Stolz]

I'm replying to this comment here, because this thread is probably the more appropriate spot.

I'm very skeptical of that account. Why? Because walking down a hallway (because it's narrow) would expose her to strong fields from any wires running over the ceiling or down the walls. Using a hair dryer, being in the same room with a washing machine or dryer, sticking her face in the fridge while running (because she'd be close to its motors), etc.

It's always the "correctable" problems. Wonder why that is?

I think Karl addressed this in the first post I quoted:

About other sources such as fans. Anything with a coil, transformer or motor, gives off a high field. However because it is a coil it acts as a point source and the field weakens fast, by the cube of the distance. In other words, double your distance and the field weakens by 7/8th. In the case of wiring from separated conductors the field weakens slowly, doubling distance you still have 1/2 the field.

So you can keep your distance from small appliances with motors and you are OK.

 

[tallgirl]

I'm replying to this comment here, because this thread is probably the more appropriate spot.



I think Karl addressed this in the first post I quoted:

I understand all that. However, as many others have said, one experiences more EMF from the alarm clock next to their bed (assuming it has a transformer inside it ...) than the xyz-something-else.

So, I'll ask the question again -- did you read the WHO articles?

 

[iwire]

So let me get this straight.

An IT person who spends their time at wickapedia has a better grip on this than Karl who has actually written a book on the subject and earns a living working on this issue?

I ask because it is just to implausible to believe.

Shoot I thought I had the largest ego here.

 

[George Stolz]

Shoot I thought I had the largest ego here.

Hey, I'm in contention for that spot, you know.

That kinda sums up my sentiment (albeit a bit rougher than I would have put it at this point).

I've never used a gaussmeter, either for professional or recreational use. It would be an interesting tool, like having a ground rod clamp on tester, but it is not necessary for my work, so I don't own one. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the phenomenon, and I'm not too inclined to study up on it, because there are more relevant topics to my life to learn and comment on.

I'm sure as hell not going to call someone who writes books and works in that field for a living a liar and a carpetbagger based on my small knowledge of the craft, but hey, that's just me. FWIW, there are much more self-promoting, self-important people in this industry than Karl, who toot their own horns to pay their bills a far cry louder than he does. There are more profitable ways to make a living than the one Karl has chosen, no doubt. I doubt screwing people out of their money is his motive.

By saying, "It's always the "correctable" problems. Wonder why that is?" you are implying just that.

From what I've read and seen, I believe him to be on the level with his experiences and statements. I trust his input, which was why I went looking for a semblance of it to post in this thread.

 

[tallgirl]

So let me get this straight.

An IT person who spends their time at wickapedia has a better grip on this than Karl who has actually written a book on the subject and earns a living working on this issue?

I ask because it is just to implausible to believe.

Shoot I thought I had the largest ego here.

Did YOU read the WHO article? I'd like to know if the woman ever had an X-Ray, mammogram, MRI, CAT scan, etc and her reaction. I'd like to know here feelings on the subject of overhead power lines, buried power lines, etc.

And watch out for my self-deprecating sense of humour. It can bite you in the xxx.

And since I live on a steady diet of Wikipedia -- here's another on something called the "Placebo Effect".

 

[iwire]

Did YOU read the WHO article?

Nope, don't intend to either.

I'd like to know if the woman ever had an X-Ray, mammogram, MRI, CAT scan, etc and her reaction. I'd like to know here feelings on the subject of overhead power lines, buried power lines, etc.

I don't see your point.

Is your point that if my health is already adversely effected by my alarm clock that it is than a waste of time to fix wiring mistakes that are causing high gauss readings?

If you where around here when Karl used to post you would know that he never preached the health hazard angle, he would provide links that 'prove' both sides of the issue.

What was a fact is he might go to an office building because a bunch of CRTs where flickering and he would find high gauss levels due to basic wiring errors.

 

[tallgirl]

I'm sure as hell not going to call someone who writes books and works in that field for a living a liar and a carpetbagger based on my small knowledge of the craft, but hey, that's just me. FWIW, there are much more self-promoting, self-important people in this industry than Karl, who toot their own horns to pay their bills a far cry louder than he does. There are more profitable ways to make a living than the one Karl has chosen, no doubt. I doubt screwing people out of their money is his motive.

I don't think that everyone who jumps on Fad du Jour bandwagon is a crook, if that's what you're suggesting.

As for grabbing a gauss meter and doing surveys, I'd suggest those of you who believe the EMF hype do exactly that. I'd also suggest you read this.

 

[iwire]

I'd also suggest you read this.

Again the point being we gonna die anyway so lets ignore a new possible risk?

I don't have an opinion on if EMF is a hazard or not, I am not qualified to decide that....and neither are you.

To stick ones head in the sand and simply dismiss it as another fad is rather short sighted.

Many things we have taken for granted in the past have proved to have long term consequences, (PCB, Dioxin Radioactivity, Mercury it's a long list) if EMF does or not remains to be seen.

 

[tallgirl]

I don't see your point.

Is your point that if my health is already adversely effected by my alarm clock that it is than a waste of time to fix wiring mistakes that are causing high gauss readings?

No, it's that people will believe "I found a woman who is sensitive to high gauss fields" without then questioning what science was done to find out if she was, in fact, sensitive to something else about the environment.

If you where around here when Karl used to post you would know that he never preached the health hazard angle, he would provide links that 'prove' both sides of the issue.

What was a fact is he might go to an office building because a bunch of CRTs where flickering and he would find high gauss levels due to basic wiring errors.

Right, so people are getting "headaches" from the flickering CRTs, someone mentions the high gauss fields, people who don't understand correlation and causation say "EMT causes my headaches!!!" and then we are all issued tin foil hats. Of course, these fields are produced by bad wiring, the bad wiring is fixed, the flickering stops, so do the headaches, and the next thing you know a paper has been published on how high EMF in office buildings causes headaches.

I'm not a professional cynic for nothing. It's hard work. Someone has to do it.

 

[George Stolz]

Okay, so now I've read the WHO factsheet that was linked to on page one. I did not see any hard and fast statement that "EMF is a bunch of hooey, pick up your toys and go home."

I read many statements that say that no conclusive health risk has been ascertained. That says to me that all indications are that there is not a compelling health risk, but reasonable measures to minimize the amount of exposure is warranted.

I also saw that they still have their ears perked at the childhood leukemia angle, and are awaiting further data on that aspect.

I don't see why good wiring practices that effectively prevent EMF should be scoffed at due to lack of conclusive evidence either way. In fact, according to the WHO,

What should be done while research continues?

• Strict adherence to existing national or international safety standards: Such standards, based on current knowledge, are developed to protect everyone in the population.
• Simple protective measures: Fences or barriers around strong ELF sources help preclude unauthorised access to areas where national or international exposure limits may be exceeded.

...simple protective measures are reasonable. I would say that not configuring wiring in goofy ways is a simple protective measure.

 

[iwire]

I'm not a professional cynic for nothing. It's hard work. Someone has to do it.

It is a fine line between cynic and blowhard.

It just staggers me that you can figure out what many scientists can not. Why are you wasting your gift in an IT room?

But hey....it's America everyone has a right to their opinion.

 

[tallgirl]

Again the point being we gonna die anyway so lets ignore a new possible risk?

No, let's try to quantify the risk.

I don't have an opinion on if EMF is a hazard or not, I am not qualified to decide that....and neither are you.

I think we'd have to define "hazard" before you can tell me that I'm not qualified to decide if EMT is a "hazard".

To stick ones head in the sand and simply dismiss it as another fad is rather short sighted.

EMF has been a "Fad" for decades. It's invisible, it can't be gotten rid of, it supposedly kills people with rare diseases, etc. I've had a long time to dismiss EMF as a risk. I wouldn't call that "short-sighted" at all

Many things we have taken for granted in the past have proved to have long term consequences, (PCB, Dioxin Radioactivity, Mercury it's a long list) if EMF does or not remains to be seen.

And I'm sure that many things we'll take for granted in the future will later be found to be dangerous, some of those things that people think of as "dangerous" others will debunk and prove to have been safe, and life will just keep marching on.

My solution is a mandatory science education for everyone. Keep people in school (chain them to their damned desks ) until they understand the scientific method and skeptical inquiry.

 

[George Stolz]

I'm not a professional cynic for nothing. It's hard work. Someone has to do it.

It's one thing to be cynical. You have an out no matter how the facts unfold. It's another thing to loudly proclaim something as a myth when the facts have not all been collected yet.

I don't think that everyone who jumps on Fad du Jour bandwagon is a crook, if that's what you're suggesting.

Not everyone, but Karl?

It's always the "correctable" problems. Wonder why that is?

How is that not outright saying that he intentionally skews the information given to his clients, to make it seem he has corrected the problem when in fact he's left the lion's share untreated?

 

[George Stolz]

Right, so people are getting "headaches" from the flickering CRTs, someone mentions the high gauss fields, people who don't understand correlation and causation say "EMT causes my headaches!!!" and then we are all issued tin foil hats. Of course, these fields are produced by bad wiring, the bad wiring is fixed, the flickering stops, so do the headaches, and the next thing you know a paper has been published on how high EMF in office buildings causes headaches.

I assume you're referring to this paper, in which the author writes:

What causes clients to know they have a magnetic field problem? For commercial buildings and particularly offices, the most common symptom is that the computer screens ?jitter?. Often by the time I get there the office has been cleared out because too many operators have gotten headaches, and the area is now considered possibly unsafe.

I don't see that the author is blaming the EMF, as opposed to the jittering, for the headaches.

 

[iwire]

I think we'd have to define "hazard" before you can tell me that I'm not qualified to decide if EMT is a "hazard".

Amazing.

Lets talk about what the definition of 'is' is.

What is your training in the health field?

I am done here.

 

[tallgirl]

It's one thing to be cynical. You have an out no matter how the facts unfold. It's another thing to loudly proclaim something as a myth when the facts have not all been collected yet.

Okay, show me the stack of dead bodies. Might as well roll up my sleaves and start figuring this stuff out.

Not everyone, but Karl?

You're the one who's fixated on Karl. I don't know if Karl is out promoting electrical safety, or "the evils of EMF" or "this woman really can sense a 5milligauss field", or what.

How is that not outright saying that he intentionally skews the information given to his clients, to make it seem he has corrected the problem when in fact he's left the lion's share untreated?

Simple -- I don't know if he's doing it intentionally or not, and I don't know what he's actually telling his clients. I also never said he's leaving anything untreated.

What I do know is that there are ways to conduct experiments and "we changed the wiring and the problem went away" is not one of them.

When I was little -- I think 6 or 8 years old -- my mother (she had a degree in a real science ...) taught me about perception:

A man walks into an art shop and asks the owner if he could fix a painting which had mildew on it. The owner explains that this is a very expensive process, and very time consuming as well. So, the man asks the owner to only fix the ten worst spots and is told to return in a week. He leaves the painting, goes home and comes back the next week. When he looks at the painting, the man says that nothing has changed -- why, here are ten really bad spots and they are still there! The owner apologizes, the man leaves, and then returns in a week. Again the man looks at the painting and again he accuses the owner of doing nothing because, look, here are ten really bad spots.

Tens of thousands of people die every year in this country from car accidents. How many do you think die from shark attacks? Do you think people react the same when getting in their car as swimming in the ocean? I'm a licensed SCUBA diver (no, really -- I do everything, I never actually sleep) and people think it's just so scarey, swimming in water with sharks.

Do you think the people clamouring to have their transformers buried, or electric transmission cables outlawed (heh), are half as enthusiastic about the changes it would take to make DRIVING safe?

 

[George Stolz]

Simple -- I don't know if he's doing it intentionally or not, and I don't know what he's actually telling his clients. I also never said he's leaving anything untreated.

My apologies. Could you clarify this statement?

It's always the "correctable" problems. Wonder why that is?

If I misunderstood, I'd like to know what that really meant.

When I was little -- I think 6 or 8 years old -- my mother (she had a degree in a real science ...)

Well, you come from fine stock. My dad is a currently unemployed truck driver, and my mother works for a finance company chasing deadbeats who skip out on their car payments. Therefore, I am unqualified to speak or form an opinion about scientific matters.

Tens of thousands of people die every year in this country from car accidents. How many do you think die from shark attacks? Do you think people react the same when getting in their car as swimming in the ocean? I'm a licensed SCUBA diver (no, really -- I do everything, I never actually sleep) and people think it's just so scarey, swimming in water with sharks.

Do you think the people clamouring to have their transformers buried, or electric transmission cables outlawed (heh), are half as enthusiastic about the changes it would take to make DRIVING safe?

To pull this back into perspective, who here has advocated buring electrical equipment, slaughtering a fatted lamb, or whatever else due to this issue?

For me, I simply said it seems prudent to avoid goofy wiring to avoid the problem. You yourself do not advocate goofy wiring. So why the adamant refusal to acknowledge that EMF has some bad effects, and should be avoided if practicable?