[Home] | [Forum] | [Library] | [Links] | [Whats New]

EMF Basics

EMF stands for ElectroMagnetic Field. An electromagnetic field is:

"... a field of force that is made up of associated electric and magnetic components, that results from the motion of an electric charge [current], and that possesses a definite amount of electromagnetic energy."

-- Webster's Third New International Dictionary.

Electromagnetic fields can be "steady-state", like the North-South of a magnet, or they can oscillate at any frequency, from nothing, up through the frequencies of ELF powerline fields at 50 and 60 Hz, through radio and communication frequencies, cellular telephones, microwave ovens, satellite links, and on into visible light. Beyond visible light, the radiation is said to be ionizing, below visible light it is said to be non-ionizing.

Comparing a 100-Watt microwave transmitter to a 100-Watt light bulb is not a valid comparison. Their spectral distribution of emitted radiation is very dissimilar. You do not need an FCC License to operate a light bulb.

Although numerous biological effects have been observed at various frequencies and exposure levels, the controversy over the safety or hazard of EMFs continues.

Reliable epidemiological data exists to show there are correlations between exposure and disease states. However, because the mechanism of action is not understood, it is easy to sidestep responsibility with assertions that "there is no proof that EMFs are unsafe, therefore they are safe."

Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation

Technically, what we are talking about is NIEMR Bioeffects; the Effects of Non-Ionizing Electro-Magnetic Radiation on Biological systems, (like humans.) There is currently a great deal of controversy surrounding this subject. NIEMR covers a broad spectrum of electro-magnetic (EM) radiation, from frequencies below your 60Hz house current, to the frequencies used for radio and television broadcast, cell phones, satellite communications, and on through visible light. Except for visible light, these are exotic types of electromagnetic radiation, completely different than earth's natural magnetic environment. Different parts of the EM spectrum are the subjects of several debates on biological effects; particularly the extremely low frequencies, (ELFs) associated with power distribution systems, and the radio-frequencies, (RF) associated with communications equipment such as cellular telephones.

There is a fundamental distinction made between IONIZING radiation, which has enough energy to physically break chemical bonds at the molecular level, and NON-IONIZING radiation, which does not. Therefore the mechanism ELF EMFs might use to affect tissue is unclear, and challenges our current mechanistic interpretation of how EMFs might affect biological systems. This is one major factor in the controversy. One group of scientists, represented by the American Physical Society is saying, it is impossible for ELF EMFs to have any biological effect, while another group, whose views are perhaps represented by Paul Brodeur, is saying, look at the epidemiological evidence - something is going on, and we need to research it.

I am not quite sure how Physicists, which primarily study inanimate matter are qualified to make such an assertion. Perhaps it is in indication of the sad state of Science today. Of course, Physics underlies our Sciences; it is fundamental. However, if your child was to undergo an operation, would you want a Pysicist to perform the operation? Of course not. You would want a Medical Doctor that has been trained in biology: there is additional knowledge required. Another analogy I like is: a Physicist will tell you that a ton of Mercury will crush you; but can they tell you that ingesting minute quantities over a long period of time will lead to nerve damage, and eventually death?

Research has been done on the relationship between exposure to Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMFs), and a number of diseases, including: depression, childhood leukemia, central nervous system cancer, melanoma, breast cancer, and others.

There are problems being encountered with the reproducability of many of the experiments in EMF Bioeffects research. Because our understanding of the interaction of EMFs with cellular biology is in it's infancy, it is difficult to be sure we are controlling all the right factors. Also when dealing with disease states that normally occur in 1 of 20,000 people, an almost absurd sample size is required to get statistically relevant figures; most research has not come close to using a large enough sample. The studies that do end up with large sample sizes are frequently epidemiological studies.

There are problems in finding proper controls for any type of study, as EMFs are so ubiquitous. In a world bathed in electromagnetic radiation, where do you find individuals who have not been irradiated, in order to be able to make a valid comparison of exposed vs. non-exposed? Read Roy Beaver's Ugly Secret essay, about how the epidemiological studies are misleading us -- things are really worse than they seem.

There are problems encountered because biological systems themselves are electro-chemical machines, and our environment has varying electromagnetic characteristics. The ambient level of EMFs may contaminate experiments; and failure to detect electromagnetic phenomenon not calculated to effect experiment outcome, might also introduce problems.

There are also problems encountered because this is inherantly a multi-disciplinary effort: in order to have a good understanding of what is occurring, the researcher must have cutting-edge knowledge in several unrelated disciplines. Molecular Biologists are usually not also Electrical Engineers, and vice versa. Therefore, each sides' attempt at understanding the issues involved is, at best, limited.

And finally, and most importantly, there are problems with research funding. As I write this update [5-15-99] Dr Henry Lai is within months of closing his lab from lack of funding. I have been told this is for all practical purposes the end of research in the US. Special Interests have prevailed; when they didn't like the conclusions the data suggests, because they own it, they can simply fail to publish it. More important: they can prevent the Scientist from sharing his findings. This is so counter to the idea of Science that I grew up with, it is ludricrous.

Personally, I am convinced there is something to this. However, it appears that statistically, the number of people affected is low. Statistics are a nice abstraction until something happens to you, your family, or friends; then it becomes a personal tragedy. You can't talk statistics with someone whose child was just hit by a car, or diagnosed with leukemia; maybe the real question here is - how civilized are we if we consider it acceptable to knowingly harm members of our communities so others can have electrical power at lower cost? We make laws to protect ourselves from automobiles, so why not laws based on more current research, to protect ourselves from electromagnetic fields? Instead, our federal government passes laws (telecommunications act) to aid rapid proliferation of these technologies (ie: cellular telephones) right at a time when there is an incredible amount of evidence that we should be taking a closer look at the issue of EMF Bioeffects.

Let's remember that some epidemiologists were convinced of a link between tobacco and cancer for decades before it really influenced public policy, because of much the same argument; against a growing mountain of epidemiological evidence, ignorance of the mechanism allowed the tobbacco pushers to continue with their smarmy peddaling of death. Such was the power of the tobacco industry, and were perhaps the shortcomings of public risk management. It is impossible to prove something is safe, a fact that is used to advantage every day by corporations that want to generate revenue by selling you unsafe products or services. However, just because you cannot currently prove otherwise, that does not mean that it is safe.

While it is a logical fallacy to equate "biological effect" with "harmful effect," it is equally fallacious to equate "not proven harmful" with "safe."

[Home] | [Forum] | [Library] | [Links] | [Whats New]

---