Subject: (Woodley) What are safe EMF levels???....
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 104828 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
......In response to a query from one of his readers, Richard
Woodley has tackled the $64,000 question below. We receive this
question often -- as most of you know.....
There is nothing "wrong" about Richard's answer. But, still, it may
not be satisfactory to those who want something "more precise" --
something "in numbers" perhaps....
Guru would like to add a few thoughts (which I have stated before), but
which seem to bear repeating as we get more and more new people on the
list:
(1) RESPONSIBLE "standards" of exposure ... require that RESPONSIBLE
"science" and government do their job!!! They are not!!! That is one of
the main purposes of this list. To point that out, and to continue to
SHINE THE LIGHT on "them".....
(2) When responsible "numbers" are finally established, they are likely
to be frustratingly imprecise and hedged by many "ifs, ands and, buts."
That is simply the nature of the problem.....
(3) In the beginning, we are likely to have to start taking evasive
actions BEFORE we have some of the answers to the questions ... that we
ultimately will need to have answered..... Still, the history of other
examples of environmental health hazards (lead, dioxin, asbestos, etc.)
surely has taught us that once the epidemiology has established a
consistent pattern ... nothing is gained except heartache and future
greater cost if we postpone the implementation of defensive measures....
(4) The "vested interests" -- the telecom and electrical industries
(primarily) in this case -- want us to wait until all of those questions
have been answered.... Until "all the dots have been connected" they
say.... The "dots" in this case being the 'unknown' about what happens
within the body between the exposure and the ultimate manifestation of a
disease (like brain cancer, for example, in the cell phone case ... or
leukemia in the power line case)..... If you believe THAT is good public
policy ... not only are you a Republican ... you are UNchristian as
well!!!!
(5) Let's try a new tack in answering this $64,000 question -- let's
ASK some questions instead.....
-- How many cigarettes must you smoke before you are likely to
experience emphysema or lung cancer?
-- How much alcohol must you consume before you are in danger of
becoming a drunk or consumed by liver problems?
-- How much DDT was required to so contaminate our world that even
the birds and animals became the victims? (As Rachel Carson wrote.)
-- How much "smog" and carbon dioxide air contamination is required to
so contaminate our atmosphere as to degrade the "air quality" sufficient
to produce the acid rain pollution and the breakdown in ozone levels that
is capable of destroying, not just "quality of life," but life itself????
Do you get my point???
We (society) think we have a few "answers" to some of the above.... But,
I submit, mostly we are still guessing..... And so it will be with the
hazards of EMF/EMR for many years to come.....
IF THEY ARE HONEST IN THEIR MOTIVATION to protect **the public** rather
than the "vested interests," I would prefer that someone (agency?) who
is more qualified than ANY OF US ON THIS LIST ... provide the answers.....
It is the failure of such RESPONSIBLE (governmental/science) activity that
we so decry here..... (And we also decry the failure of our 'system,'
when it considers these issues and makes the decisions with no public
representation at the table..... That has become particularly important
as more and more of us lose confidence in a governmental/science process
that **openly** responds to the $$$$$$ of industry with higher priority
than the health or lives of the people.....)
Cheerio.... (Richard has a good answer below, too)....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at:
EMF-L archives can be found at:
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 21:17:11 -0400
From: "Richard W. Woodley"
To: Jacob itzikowitz
Cc: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: re: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/bridlewood-emfinfo/
At 04:27 PM 1999-06-06 +0300, you wrote:
>
>Hello,
>Thanks for the info. however, i m not sure from the site
>1. what is to consider an alarming level of EMF field.
> please advise as it is very important to me.
>2. which are the better measuring instruments for EMF areas?
>
>Thank you very much.
>Jacob Itzikowitz
>>
Your first question is one that I have received many times. There is no
easy answer. But I have decided to draft somewhat of an answer to it (see
below) to include on the Bridlewood EMFs website - you will be the first to
read it. I am also copying it to the EMF-L mailing list for comments before
I revise it and post it on the website.
I suspect the answer to your second question might be - with some
exceptions the more expensive instruments are the more accurate ones - but
perhaps some of the experts on the EMF-L list may have some comments on
that question.
What Are Safe EMF Levels
The most common and the most difficult question I get asked is whether
someone should buy a home or move from a home because of the EMF levels.
The basic question they are asking is "what are safe EMF levels".
There are a couple of easy responses available to me. One is that I am not
an expert and not qualified to answer the question. The other is that we
don't know. Both are true and both are not very useful responses to people
with difficult decisions to make.
I may not be an expert but I am certainly an informed observer of the EMF
situation. If I am going to disseminate information on the subject, I owe
those that ask for help more than just "I don't know". So, in that spirit,
I will try to provide, not advice, but some informed comment on the situation.
The first thing I look to for guidance in this question is the
epidemiology. There have been a fair number of epidemiological studies in
the area of childhood brain cancer and leukemia all of which indicate an
association with EMFs - two to three times the number of cases - at
magnetic field levels above 2-3 milliGauss (mG). This implies, of course
that EMF levels below that are safer than levels above that. However other
have suggested guideline levels of 1 mG or even 0.65 mG.
The fact is none of the studies compared exposed subjects to unexposed
subjects but only compared relative levels of exposure - because there are
no unexposed people in our wired world. For all we know, all cases of
childhood leukemia and brain cancer may be related to EMFs. We also do not
know for certain whether long term chronic exposure is a key factor -
although it certainly appears to be. And we do not know the role that such
electrical events as power spikes and transients, etc., may play.
We do know however that for power line fields most people that are exposed,
even to relatively high levels, do not seem to be affected. It is not a
simple cause and effect relationship. In fact many, myself included,
suspect that EMFs may not be a cause of cancer, but a promoter that acts
when other factors such as exposure to other environmental pollutants, or a
genetic disposition are present.
These are all factors that need to be studied. If the scientific and
political community would accept the obvious facts - that there is indeed
an association between EMFs and higher levels of cancer and other diseases
and disabilities then we could get on with the important research in
finding what the key factors are.
So where does that leave us. Most of us cannot run off to a desert island
with no electricity or radio transmission. What we can do is reduce our
exposure as much as possible. We can start with personal exposure. Most
appliances have high levels of EMFs that drop off very quickly and we are
not exposed to them for long periods of time. But there are some exceptions
where we can take avoidance measures such as not using electric blankets or
keeping electric clocks right beside our beds or placing our children's
beds in the bedrooms with the lowest EMF levels. We can also check our
homes for hot spots - in some cases improper grounding systems can cause
high EMF levels that can easily be corrected.
And we can be cautious when buying a home - including a satisfactory EMF
inspection requirement in the offer to purchase and avoiding homes with
levels above the 2-3 mG magnetic field level.
I have not referred to electric field readings simply because most of the
studies have looked at magnetic fields and most of the meters available to
the general public at reasonable cost measure magnetic fields. [A NOTE TO
THE EXPERTS READING THIS - WOULD THE FOLLOWING BE AN ACCURATE STATEMENT: As
well, since higher magnetic fields indicate higher relative electric
fields, by measuring the magnetic field you are also getting an indication
of the relative size of the electric field.]
I have also not referred to radio frequency or cellular telephone fields
because I am not as familiar with that area which is very complicated with
research just being begun in that area.
********************* Richard W. Woodley *********************
woodley@igs.net *********** http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ab190/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bridlewood Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Information Service
http://www.ncf.ca/bridlewood-emfinfo/
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html