A few years ago, I asked my power company to survey the EMF levels in my house, a typical suburban one-family home. When the engineer arrived with his meters, we started at the transformer on the power pole 300 feet away and walked back toward the house. As expected, the EMF levels decreased as we proceeded farther and farther away from the transformer. We then entered the house and began measuring levels inside. Once again, as expected, EMF radiation continued to decrease as we increased the distance from the transformer.
Then, as we approached the middle of my home, we were surprised to find increasing levels of EMF. We investigated and discovered that the elevated readings stemmed from a power distribution line located on the street running along the other side of my house (which was on a corner and thus close to power lines on two intersecting streets).
One can make educated guesses about one’s exposure, but as the sources of EMF can often be obscured or hidden, it is simply impossible to know for sure without measuring. In approaching the task of minimizing one’s risk of negative health effects from EMF, it is important to understand that EMF doesn’t always come from obvious sources. It’s not just cell phones or WiFi networks (though those are important). There are EMF-generating technologies all around you—particularly in urban and suburban areas.
A colleague in England found this to be true when he investigated the case of a child diagnosed with leukemia. It turned out that the wall along which the child’s crib was located was immediately behind the circuit panel with the breakers for the home’s power, which is a source of very high levels of ELF emissions. Taking measurements is the only way to really know what your exposure is. Fortunately, once you do, you can take steps to minimize your exposure.
WHY BOTHER?
Mark Twain is often credited with the wisecrack “there’s no getting out of life alive.” A former chairman of my department, a physician by training, restated the same idea (albeit with less humor) when he explained that “you’ve got to die of something.” Living organisms have predefined limits. Disease and disability are part of life. We go about our lives exposed to risks. We usually try to minimize and control these risks, but we cannot avoid them entirely. Encountering forces that result in negative health effects in biological organisms is a part of everyday life.
Humanity today faces a significant number of challenges to the stability of the planet and modern civilization: population growth, air pollution, limited clean drinking water, deteriorating food and soil quality, massive deep water oil spills, a floating mass of discarded plastic in the Pacific Ocean the size of a small continent, rising sea levels, climate change—to name just a few. In the face of such overwhelming challenges, it is tempting to either ignore the risks or surrender to one’s fate. This is especially true with the risks of EMF, which are invisible, odorless, poorly understood by the public, and generated by the tools and technologies that we love, and on which we rely to perform our basic everyday activities and functions.
However, the EMF issue is different from many of the other challenges we face as a species. Responding to climate change requires a global effort, as does creating a food-supply chain and water sources capable of supporting more than seven billion human beings. It is simply impractical to think that one can have a significant impact on any of these issues as a single individual.
EMF exposure, on the other hand, is more within our control. While the scale of EMF radiation in our atmosphere is massive, it also rapidly dissipates with distance from the many different sources, such that a four- or six-foot spread between you and the EMF source is often enough to significantly reduce your exposure. EMF (to our knowledge) does not disseminate and linger in the atmosphere (as do, for example, carbon emissions), impacting air quality thousands of miles away (though Milham’s theory of dirty electricity does explain that some EMF emissions are conducted and spread over the power grid, far beyond the reach of the original source of the polluting radiation).
Similarly, EMF does not remain in landfills for decades—when the source is shut off, the EMF emissions immediately stop and disappear. Due to these characteristics of electromagnetic radiation, it is possible to significantly reduce one’s exposure (leading to reduced risk of the negative health effects discussed in this book), without giving up technology or waiting for regulatory agencies to reformulate safety standards.
MINIMIZING EMF EXPOSURE
Contrary to the propaganda from the wireless industry, one need not be a Luddite to successfully minimize EMF exposure. The use of seat belts in automobiles is just one example of how society can reasonably approach risk management in daily life. There are about 40,000 fatalities on the road each year in the United States, but I won’t give up driving my car. I have a car with antilock brakes and air bags, and when I get in, I fasten my seat belt and keep to the speed limit, thus reducing (though certainly not eliminating) my risk of dying or being injured in a car accident.
There are similarly simple ways to mitigate one’s risk associated with EMF exposure. The two key principles for reducing risk are:
Reduce your EMF Exposure in every possible way!
This advice is essentially an elaboration of the policy of Prudent Avoidance advocated by the US Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the late 1980s and through the 1990s regarding exposure to power lines, cell phones, and cordless phones.1 Prudent Avoidance recognizes that usage of EMF-generating technologies is increasingly unavoidable, and in the face of unknown potential health effects from them, it is prudent to avoid unnecessary exposure.
I wish to emphasize that we still do not know what a “safe” level of EMF exposure is (though, in some cases, we do know what an unsafe level of exposure is). Recall from earlier chapters that research studies have demonstrated biological effects of EMF exposure at even very low levels of radiation. Neither do we know what a “safe” distance is from these sources, which is another way of thinking about the level of radiation. Until these questions are answered, the only real rule is to keep as far away as possible. And until safety standards recognize nonthermal effects of EMF, you should not trust them or rely upon their assurances.
Prudent avoidance is possible when one knows the source of the EMF exposure. It is easy to reduce usage of the microwave oven and to ensure that you aren’t in the kitchen when it’s in use. Similarly, we can control how much time we spend on our cell or cordless phones.
But, as the example with which I started this chapter demonstrates, prudent avoidance is not always so simple and clear-cut. It’s hard to avoid what one does not know exists. However, in many cases it is possible to overcome our inability to detect EMF with our senses by learning to use measurement tools.
MEASURING SOURCES OF EMF
Some measurement tools are very expensive, but simple (though somewhat less accurate) devices are satisfactory for the purposes discussed in this chapter. We only need a tool to detect the fields, to determine where they are high and whether we can lower the exposures with increased distance or EM-shielding.
You may actually own a crude RF meter already. If you still possess an old-fashioned portable AM radio, simply tune it to either end of the dial (where there are no stations broadcasting), raise the volume to the maximum, and walk around. Listen for audio static; you will notice that the static levels change as you move. That static is an audio measure of the ambient RF being picked up by the radio. The louder the static, the higher the RF being picked up around you.
To get more scientific measurements and objective readings of EM levels in the non-ionizing range of the EM spectrum, you can purchase or rent a relatively inexpensive electromagnetic (EM) meter. Of the different types of EM meters available, there are two that are relevant to the type of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation discussed in this book.
The first is called a gaussmeter, which measures ELF radiation in the power-frequency range (which is emitted by power lines, the electrical wiring inside of your home, as well as the power sources for appliances and tools such as your microwave oven and hair dryer). When measuring EMFs from power lines, transformers, electrical substations, and appliances around the home, the gaussmeter should be set to read at 60 Hz (or 50 Hz, if you are in a country where that is the frequency used by the power grid) and be able to measure fields as low as 0.1 mG (milligauss). Many modern smart phones include these magnetic sensors (it’s what powers the compass functionality included in many of these devices). If you have an iPhone or Android phone, you can download free apps that turn your phone into a gaussmeter (though there are reports of varying levels of accuracy with these tools). But to reiterate, gaussmeters measure only ELF from power lines and other AC sources—not RF/MW radiation from cell phones, WiFi networks, and other wireless communication.
In order to measure the level of radiation in the RF/MW range of the EM spectrum, we use a power-density meter, which detects EM radiation levels in the RF/MW range. (Some meters include both gauss readings for ELF radiation and power density readings for RF/MW radiation.) For our purposes, your power-density meter should be able to detect fields as low as 0.01µW/cm2 (microwatt per centimeter squared).
The detector in any EM meter is a wire coil. Because magnetic fields have a direction like a compass needle, the ability of the wire coil to detect a magnetic field changes as you tilt the device. Certain more expensive models include a triple-axis meter, which has three coils to compensate for this effect. I recommend purchasing a triple-coil version if funds permit. As with all new gadgets, you have to learn how to use them, but this is relatively easy for our purposes, where precise measurements are less important than qualitative assessments (to determine whether exposures are high or low).
The versatile TriField meter, with its three scales (ELF electric field, ELF magnetic field, and RF electromagnetic field) is quite handy and sufficiently accurate.
It is always good to start by getting advice from people who know how to measure EMF. There are many sites on the Internet that provide useful information and also sell equipment. It is best to consult these sites and get a feel for what is available and how much the devices cost. Remember, you only need to get an idea of where the fields are and what their strengths are so that you can avoid them. There are many sites on the Internet to help you get started. I have found one URL that conveniently compares many types of EM meters: http://www. emfcenter.com/metrsale.htm. Some other useful references include the following:
SOME BEST PRACTICES
To get really accurate measurements of your exposure, consider hiring a specialist. But there are a few guidelines to help you create better self-assessments using these consumer EM meters. First, as I said above, it is best to invest in a triple-coil gaussmeter for ELF; otherwise, your measurements will vary as you tilt the meter. (If you have a single-coil meter, the correct value will be the highest reading as you rotate the meter.) For RF, use a power-density meter.
You will want to ensure that you take measurements that reflect your daily habits. For example, if you are generally away from your home during the day, daytime measurements of your home may not reflect your actual exposure. It is possible, for example, that there is a nearby business that produces high levels of EMF from its machinery in the day and none at night. Instead, you will want to take the measurements at a time that matches your normal schedule.
You should take multiple measurements to accurately gauge your exposure. Cell phone companies, for example, can change their transmission frequencies during the day. Similarly, throughout the day, nearby WiFi networks can be turned on and off, and if you live in an apartment, EMF levels can shift frequently, as others in the building use different tools, devices, and appliances. Single measurements can help illuminate potential dangers, but extended exposure measurements are really required to gauge one’s overall risk. The more measurements you take, the more accurate your assessment will be.
Finally, you will want to ensure that you measure EM levels from your own appliances when they are both on and off. Many devices these days are never truly turned off, but even if they are, these devices and their power cords can still conduct some electrical flow. Measuring EMF levels from devices when they are both on and off gives you a better idea of your exposures in daily life.
RISK-BENEFIT
Once you have a better understanding of your EMF exposure from the EM meter measurements, you can start to formulate a plan. Your plan should be based on a personal evaluation of the risks and benefits involved in the trade-offs: how much are you willing to change your behavior and at what perceived cost?
A variety of factors can influence such decisions. Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman expounds at length on this topic in his latest book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Among the points Kahneman makes, media coverage heavily influences the public perception of risk. This is why, for example, tornadoes are seen as bigger killers (and, therefore, a bigger risk) than asthma, when the reverse is true; or why the public thinks that accidental death is more likely than death by diabetes, when again, the opposite is the case.2 The more a risk is covered in the media, the greater the public’s perception of that risk. As EMF, and the risks of EMF exposure, are chronic and therefore relatively sparsely covered in the media, this contributes to a public-wide underassessment of risk from electromagnetic radiation.
While media coverage is important, there are many other factors that should not, but do, influence human perception of risk. For example, Kahneman cites a study by Paul Slovic, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon, in which the units of measurement used when relaying risks heavily influenced the public’s perception of that risk (comparing, for example, “death per million people” and “death per million dollars of product produced”). As Slovic explains:
“Risk” does not exist “out there,” independent of our minds and culture, waiting to be measured. Human beings invented the concept of “risk” to help them understand and cope with the dangers and uncertainties of life. Although these dangers are real, there is no such thing as “real risk” or “objective risk.”3
CONSUMPTION HABITS
Further complicating one’s ability to perform rational risk-benefit calculations is our increasing reliance on the tools and technologies that are the source of bioactive EMF radiation. Humans didn’t always find their way to restaurants with GPS maps on their iPhones, or shop online, or prepare their meals in microwave ovens. Just over a generation ago, in fact, none of these modern, EMF-fueled conveniences existed. And even just 20 years ago (when relatively few people had cell phones, the Web was only recently created, WiFi did not yet exist as a consumer product, and the tethered Internet was still primarily the domain of the military and academia), our daily behaviors were quite different, absent our persistently connected devices. Very quickly, technology has redefined the way we live, think, communicate, and interact.
Indeed, recent research from Dr. Betsy Sparrow at Columbia University reveals that our persistently connected world is literally altering how our brains work. In a paper entitled “Google Effects on Memory,” Sparrow finds that we increasingly outsource our memory to the Internet:
The results of four studies suggest that when faced with difficult questions, people are primed to think about computers and that when people expect to have future access to information, they have lower rates of recall of the information itself and enhanced recall instead for where to access it. The Internet has become a primary form of external or transactive memory, where information is stored collectively outside ourselves.4
Research such as Sparrow’s indicates that people are becoming dependent on EMF-generating technologies for functions that had been previously handled by our own brains. And we increasingly see this in the behavior of many of our peers (especially, but not only, among younger age groups), as MIT professor Sherry Turkle describes:
At home, families sit together, texting and reading e-mail. At work executives text during board meetings. We text (and shop and go on Facebook) during classes and when we’re on dates. My students tell me about an important new skill: it involves maintaining eye contact with someone while you text someone else; it’s hard, but it can be done.5
The behavioral dependence on cell phones has been termed nomophobia (a contraction of “no-mobile-phone phobia”) and is characterized by compulsively checking your phone, worrying about losing it (even if it is in a safe place), and never turning it off. A 2012 survey in the UK revealed that 66% of respondents felt they had nomophobia (up from 53% just four years prior).6 Respondents reported checking their phones an average of 34 times a day—and 75% report bringing their phones with them to the bathroom.7 As we repeatedly check our mobile phones for messages, the habit transforms into an unconscious behavior. We hardly realize we are doing it, because it has become programmed into our reflexes.
Of course, the broad range of sociological, physiological, and neurological changes accompanying this evolution in our usage and consumption of tools are significant, and the subject of increasing amounts of research. However, from the perspective of EMF exposure, this is a concerning trend. This degree of reliance on the devices that generate EMF hampers one’s ability to make rational decisions about EMF exposure.
PERSONAL CALCULATIONS
Each time you are exposed to man-made non-ionizing EMF that exposure carries a risk in the form of increased possibility of health problems in the medium to long term. Risk, of course, is only half of the risk-benefit calculation.
Some EMF exposures—such as from your neighbor’s WiFi network, or a nearby cell tower—bring you no direct benefit at all. These may be easier to give up but are more difficult to avoid. Sometimes, though, we are exposed to EMF from a device or activity that does yield tangible benefits. For example, when you want to leave the office for the day and still be able to take your customers’ calls, a cell phone is invaluable. In such instances, you should be able to place a value on the benefit received from the EMF exposure.
In my case, although there may be an increased risk of disease associated with the EMF radiating from my computer, I will not give up using it. It’s a fantastic device that I use for work and for news, communication, and entertainment. I do, however, try to limit my exposure time, I refuse to use WiFi in my home, and I never keep my laptop on my lap for obvious reasons. On the other hand, I do not own a cell phone. My wife owns one that she keeps in the glove compartment of our car, but it is for emergency use only and is never on. We have a corded phone connected to a landline, and also use VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) services that have some of the advantages of mobile devices.
I could continue down a longer list of trade-offs and calculations that I have made, but you see where I am going. I have made my risk- benefit calculation, and I know what I am prepared to risk. But one size does not fit all. As with so many beloved habits that we know are bad for us—eating certain foods, for example—we must acknowledge the good with the bad. If too much of a good thing really can turn bad, laptops and cell phones must be used in moderation. Each individual must do a personal risk-benefit calculation, and communities must also start thinking the same way when they confront major changes associated with new wireless technologies, such as the introduction of WiFi in schools or the deployment of smart meters for measuring and reporting on energy use. Both of these relatively new technologies come with significant enhanced risk to the exposed populations, even though there may be other ways to achieve the benefits. For example,schools can use cables to connect to the Internet to avoid exposure. Regarding smart meters, the immediate benefits are to the companies who no longer have to hire meter readers.
EMF EXPOSURE MINIMIZATION TACTICS
Once you have considered the types of changes you are willing to make in your daily routines, here are some suggested tactics that you may adopt to minimize your personal EMF exposure.
Reduce Concurrent Exposures
An important consideration when calculating the risks and benefits of EMF exposure is concurrency of exposures—or simultaneous exposure from multiple sources. Virtually all of the scientific research into the bioeffects of EMF exposure focuses on a specific source of electromagnetic radiation. For example, some studies research the effects of ELF radiation, others research the effect of cell phones, and still others investigate the health impact of microwave ovens.
In real life, however, we are usually exposed to electromagnetic radiation across multiple frequencies in the EM spectrum. The science does not inform the question of health effects resulting from this type of concurrent exposure. I would recommend, per the Precautionary Principle, that it is much safer to assume that concurrent exposures bear unknown negative health outcomes that are likely to be additive. Concurrent exposures should definitely be considered and minimized. Thus, as just one example, if you do use a microwave oven, don’t also use a cell phone at the same time; if you spend time on your cell phone, try to do so out of reach of a WiFi network; and so on.
Do Not Live Near High-Voltage Power Lines
There is no “safe” distance, though increased risk of health effects has been demonstrated at up to 1,200 feet from high-voltage power lines (generally transmitting 100–700 kV as opposed to 15–30 kV in distribution lines). If you live near sources of very high EMF, you should consider moving.
keep Away from Transformers
The EMF near a transformer can be quite high, but the field strength diminishes quickly with distance and is generally not a source of concern. Some residences are, however, very close to these transformers. And remember, if you have a yard, take measurements there too (you may have a transformer closer to your yard than to your home).
Three transformers on a neighborhood power distribution line.
live as Far from Cell Phone Antennas as Possible
Unlike the ELF transmissions from telltale cylindrical transformers on poles or high-voltage power lines, RF antennas are found in many different places and are frequently hidden or camouflaged. The EMF signals they emit are said to be very low, but that is a small comfort if the antenna is located on your apartment building’s top floor, just above your bedroom (where you are continuously exposed as you sleep). Check your building and your neighborhood for these antennas and take a little time to measure the EMF coming from them.
Don't Use Electric Blankets and Heated Waterbeds
Electric blankets create a magnetic field that can penetrate about 15 cm(6–7 inches) into the body and emit an electric field when connected, even when not actively heating. Epidemiological studies have linked exposures to electric blankets with miscarriages and childhood leukemia. Similar health effects have been determined for water bed heaters.
Changes in the wiring in recent models of these devices have minimized the EMF while maintaining the ability to heat. This was done by simply doubling the length of the wire carrying the current and having the wire double back on itself. This design results in two adjacent wires carrying current in opposite directions, so their magnetic fields are in opposite directions and tend to cancel each other out. This way of minimizing EMF by having the fields from adjacent cables interfere with each other is also used to design optimal arrangements for cables in power transmission lines. As a general precaution, disconnect even these improved electric blankets at night.
Run Extension Cords Clear and Away
Extension cords are very handy, but they generate ELF fields. You want to ensure that you run extension cords in locations away from furniture. Running an extension cord under your bed or couch will lead to much higher levels of ELF exposure to family members resting on the furniture. Ensure extension cords are laid straight and do not double back or loop, as such configurations can lead to unpredictably higher levels of ELF emissions. Do not cross other power cords with your extension cords; if you must, lay the cords at perpendicular angles.
Keep Cords Organized
Along the same lines, you should keep all of your power cords organized. When you use several separate electrical appliances and tools plugged into the same or nearby locations, it is easy for their cords to overlap or cross each other. As with extension cords, overlapping power cords can lead to unpredictably increased ELF emissions from the cords. Keeping them organized keeps these emissions more stable and predictable.
Switch from Electric to Battery Alarm Clocks
Electric clocks that plug into power outlets have very high magnetic fields—as much as 50 mG directly at the source and 30 mG one foot away, with high levels extending up to three feet away. These devices are particularly dangerous precisely because so many people sleep with them right next to the bed. If you use a bedside clock, you could be exposing your head to EMF equivalent to that of a neighborhood distribution line every night while you sleep. Switching to battery-powered alarm clocks eliminates ELF emissions, and in general it is wise to place all clocks (as well as all other electrical devices) at least six feet from your bed.
Efficiency Matters
Energy-efficient appliances are valuable because they consume less electricity to get the same amount of work done. Thus, they generate less pollution than older, less efficient models. This also means that energy-efficient appliances tend to generate less EMF radiation to accomplish the same amount of work as less efficient models.
Don’t Use Fluorescent Lights
Fluorescent and compact-fluorescent lights produce much more EMF than incandescent bulbs. A typical fluorescent lamp on an office ceiling can have readings of 100 mG six inches away (by comparison, a single incandescent bulb can emit a field of 6 mG at a distance of six inches), but that decreases rapidly with distance. However, this is only a small part of the EMF dangers associated with fluorescent lamps. Unlike incandescent bulbs, in which the electric current causes a high-resistance wire filament to glow and emit light, fluorescents use high voltage to ionize the gas in the bulb and make it glow. Unfortunately, this adds RF frequencies to the EMF generated (generating dirty electricity, as discussed in chapter 3).
LED bulb technology generally emits lower levels of EMF radiation than fluorescent or incandescent bulbs, but in practice LED lamps powered by AC electricity can emit EMF with widely varying strengths, depending on how the lamp is wired.
Don’t Use Dimmers, Three-Way Switches
Dimmers can be a nice feature in many homes, allowing inhabitants to
set specific lighting levels depending on activity, time of day, and mood. Dimmers also generate a significant amount of additional ELF, due to their manipulation of voltage to provide variable levels of power to the bulbs. Remove all dimmers. If desired, replace them with three-stage lamps (which have different discrete levels of illumination, rather than the continuous spectrum of options afforded by a dimmer).
Three-way light switches (in which multiple switches control the same lighting fixture) can also generate significantly increased levels of ELF emissions, due to the fact that the wiring must often be installed in a configuration that enhances ELF fields within the home. Remove or disable such three-way switches.
Don’t Use Radiant Electrical Floor Heating
Electrical heating by wires embedded in flooring can result in EMF levels over 100 mG at the floor and 30 mG at waist height! And, of course, that is throughout the entire area where the heating is installed. It is best to avoid these systems.
Don’t Use Microwaves
There was a time not too long ago when everyone got by without microwave ovens. Sure, they make certain things very convenient. But it is worth noting that the safety limit for microwave leakage in the United States is at a power density of 5 mW/cm2—about 500 to 5,000 times higher than in many European countries. But this is only part of the EMF from microwave ovens; the ovens also emit ELF fields of about 200 mG. Although the ELF exposure falls off rapidly with distance, the fields near microwave ovens are dangerous. Use microwaves very sparingly and from a healthy distance or not at all.
Take Care with Microwaves
Despite what I just wrote, many of you will no doubt continue to own and use microwave ovens because of their convenience. If you do, please do so responsibly. This largely means two things. First, get out of the kitchen when the microwave is on. EMF emissions drop off rapidly with distance, so the farther away one is from the microwave,the less EMF exposure results when the oven is on. And second, service your microwave. Despite their ubiquity, rarely do people have their microwave ovens serviced. The FDA’s leakage limit of 5 mW/cm2 is based on when the oven leaves the store. After months or years of usage, the oven will leak more and more microwave radiation. Proper servicing will reduce the emissions.
Position High EMF Appliances against Outer Walls
Many high-EMF-emitting devices are designed in a manner that the strongest electromagnetic fields emanate from the rear of the device. This is the case, for example, with refrigerators and many televisions. Place such major electrical appliances against outer walls, so as to not create EMF in any adjoining rooms in your residence. Of course, if you are in an apartment building, your outer wall may be someone else’s bedroom or living room, and consideration should be afforded to your neighbors as well.
Airplane Mode Isn’t Just for Airplanes
Most cell phones include an “airplane” mode where all wireless communication is disabled. This is for use in airplanes, so that the RF/MW radiation from passenger devices does not interfere with the airplane’s equipment.
When not in airplane mode, your phone is in constant communication with network towers, continually transmitting RF/MW radiation (even more so if your smart phone has a WiFi connection, too). This is true regardless of whether you are on a telephone call. If you turn off your phone’s data connections, however, the phone stops such emissions. When you don’t need to make or receive calls, turn your phone into airplane mode.
And, of course, don’t forget that you can also turn your cell phone off completely—which you should always do every night before bed.
Pockets Aren’t for Cell Phones
Many people keep their cell phone in their pocket, particularly their pants pocket. I cannot emphasize enough how dangerous this is. Remember: your cell phone is a microwave communication device, and unless it is turned off, it is constantly sending and receiving MW signals. Your pants pocket is very close to your reproductive organs. Place your phone in your laptop case, handbag, briefcase, or backpack— but never in your pocket, unless it is turned off.
SAR Is Virtually Useless
In chapter 3, I discuss many of the limitations of the SAR (specific absorption rate) measurement given by cell phone manufacturers and the FCC for all cell phones. As a result, this metric is essentially useless as an indication of safety and should never be relied upon as a basis for any decisions regarding personal health.
Not All Cordless Phones Are Made Equal
Cordless phones emit the same type of damaging radiation as cell phones. But cordless phones can be even worse than cell phones, as the base stations are located in the units that hold the receivers and therefore fill your homes with MW transmissions all the time. If at all possible, do not use cordless phones with your landlines. Alternatives exist, such as extended phone cords and extended wired headsets.
If you do use a cordless phone, realize that models with DECT (Digitally Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) continuously radiate MW, whether or not the phone is in use. Try to buy a non-DECT model. And, I would also recommend buying a cordless phone that transmits over a lower frequency if possible (such as 900 MHz instead of 5.8 GHz).
Use a Headset—but Don’t Delude Yourself
The cordless and cell phones discussed in chapter 3 are often used with headsets, some of which are wireless. Wireless headsets should be avoided, as they replace one microwave transmitter with another. Wired headsets help by increasing the distance between one’s brain and the source of the microwave radiation. But this is only helpful if one keeps the phone away from one’s body (and not, for example, in the front pocket of one’s trousers). There are suspicions that wired headsets (which tend to dangle alongside the body when in use) may function as antennas for the EMF radiation generated by the phones to which they are connected, increasing the area of the body exposed to RF/MW radiation.
One can now find “airtube” headsets for sale on many websites. Such headsets rely on the vibrations of air, instead of a wire connected to a speaker. Many claim that such headsets reduce, or perhaps eliminate, the radiation to which one is exposed by standard headsets.
Unfortunately, the science is just not that well understood, and once again, the best advice is to minimize use of these wireless communication tools. Barring that, use a wired or airtube headset, but do not assume that this eliminates your MW exposure.
Laptops Tablets Aren’t for Laps
Despite their name, laptops are not for laps. And despite Apple’s advertisements with comfortable consumers lying on couches, browsing iPads nestled in their laps, neither are WiFi-enabled tablets. First, many laptops and tablets get very hot, leading to the type of thermal biological effects discussed earlier in this book and against which FCC safety standards are designed to protect. This heat may be acceptable if the laptop or tablet is on a table but not if the device is in your lap. If the computing device is running on battery power (which is DC), it is actually possible that it is not generating any noticeable levels of the type of EMF radiation discussed in this book. However, if your laptop is plugged into the wall (AC power) or if your tablet is plugged in through a docking station to wall power, the device generates ELF. Again, one does not want ELF radiation sources directly adjacent to one’s reproductive organs. And, of course, all laptops and tablets have WiFi cards. If that card is enabled, the device emits microwave transmissions to communicate with the wireless router, regardless of whether plugged into the wall or running on battery power.
Computers and mobile computing devices are just not for laps. Like all EMF emitters, they should be kept as far away as possible when in use and they should be powered down when not in use. Similarly, WiFi cards should be disabled when not in use.
Evaluate Options for Electric Razors and Hair Dryers
As we saw in chapter 3, electric razors and hair dryers emit tremendous levels of EMF—up to 20,000 mG within four inches. Both are designed to be used in close proximity to the head, making it difficult to maximize the distance between the source and the brain. With electric razors, fortunately, there are options. If you use an electric razor like a clipper (to cut, rather than shave, one’s hair), you can purchase a rechargeable razor. Rechargeable razors, unlike those plugged directly into the wall, generate DC fields, not AC. Alternatively, if you use an electric razor to shave, you can consider the new class of razors powered by AAA batteries.
Hair dryers are more difficult as there are no lower-powered replacements. Even if they did exist, their use would not be particularly optimal, especially for women who have long hair, live in cold climates, or have a schedule that does not permit enough time to allow their hair to dry naturally. While there are no models of hair dryers that emit anything close to “safe” levels of EMF, there are models of wall-mounted hair dryers that allow you to keep the motor (which is the source of the high ELF) at a safer distance. You want to look for a wall-mounted hair dryer in which the motor is part of the wall-mount; a vacuum-style hose then carries the heated air to your head. (In many wall-mounted hair dryers, such as those commonly seen in hotels, the motor is part of the extendable attachment, keeping the ELF emissions close to your head during use. This is to be avoided.) Another possibility is the Dryer Bonnet that fits over your head and is connected by a hose to the heater. In such devices, a long hose keeps the EMF source away from your head.
Unless you install a solution such as this, however, it is wise to minimize the use of hair dryers or not use them at all. And hair dryers should probably not be used at all on children as the high fields are held close to their rapidly developing brain and nervous system.
Ethernet Cables Still Exist
WiFi is convenient, but do you actually need it? Do you move your computer around a lot? Do you use a WiFi-enabled tablet at home? Or does your computer sit in one location? With the increasing power and speed and decreasing cost of WiFi technology (along with the absence of unsightly Ethernet cables), WiFi has become the de facto option for many home networks. But in many cases, such as individuals with desktop computers that tend to remain in a single location, relying on Ethernet instead of WiFi sacrifices no functionality.
Also, remember that Ethernet cables come in any length—up to hundreds of feet. Relying on Ethernet does not mean that you cannot get network access from multiple disparate locations in your house. Consider wiring your home with Ethernet (just as you would a telephone land-line) and using that in place of WiFi. You can still have a WiFi router that you plug in on occasion, when wireless Internet may actually be required.
Learn How to Use Your WiFi Router’s “Off" Switch
For some reason, we’ve developed a habit of keeping WiFi networks on at all times of the day. In fact, I’ve seen many WiFi network routers that do not even have an “off” switch—these devices must be physically unplugged to be powered down. I know very few people who turn these networks off when they are not in use. However, when they are on, WiFi networks continually broadcast microwave radiation into our homes and offices. That makes for some very convenient Internet access—and it also makes for a lot of extraneous radiation exposure. Turn off your WiFi network when it is not in use.
Devices That Don’t Turn Off Can Be Plugged Into Power Strips That Do
Many electronic products these days don’t fully power down, even when you supposedly turn them off. However, such products easily plug into power strips that do have “on/off” switches. When a device is plugged into a power strip and the power strip is set to “off,” your device gets no power. You can plug your WiFi router, your television, your cordless phone base, and any other devices without “off” switches into power strips and turn them all off at once—completely off—with the simple press of a button. Power strips are inexpensive and commonly available, and make turning off your devices (and ceasing their EMF emissions) quick and easy.
It’s Smart to Avoid Smart Meters
Increasingly, power utilities around the country are encouraging the switch to smart-meter technology. Smart meters save on labor costs, eliminating the need for utility workers to visit your home to take readings of your power consumption. Smart meters are also much more efficient, enabling the utility to take measurements on a continuous basis. This, in turn, provides power companies with improved real-time data on power consumption across all of its customers, enabling them to make better decisions on how to manage the grid. And when a smart meter system, which includes an RF display unit connected to many appliances, is fully installed and enabled in a home, residents have access to data that allows them to monitor and regulate their own power consumption. The system also gives the power company the ability to turn off high-consuming devices during periods of peak consumption—again, helping to reduce energy consumption and increase the stability of the power grid. For these reasons, smart meters are widely perceived as a “green” technology.
However, this technology relies on RF transmissions. Precise levels of exposure from smart meters are difficult to ascertain since power companies do not typically provide clear information about how often the meters send RF transmissions (reportedly anywhere from every 30 seconds to every four hours). The power companies claim that the RF radiation from these devices is well within FCC limits. Those claims, however, are not independently verified. And even if they are correct, we’ve seen how FCC standards are insufficient to protect against disease resulting from long-term, repeated exposures. Smart meters are just one more source of RF radiation increasingly common in homes—and, unlike cell and cordless phones, smart meters are never turned off. Imagine your exposure if you live in a multiple dwelling and your apartment is close to where the meters are installed and transmitting regularly!
If your local utility or municipality is considering deploying smart meters, you should strongly consider participating in the opposition to the project. This is brand-new technology, and it is simply impossible to know the long-term health effects. These meters provide utilities with a significant savings in labor costs, but this comes at a significant risk to the users, who will be exposed to a radio transmitter operating around the clock on their home. Privacy issues have also been raised. In any case, the science we do know gives us significant cause for concern.
Switch to Plastic Eyeglass Frames and Foam MattressesMany metals conduct EMF and function as antennas. For this reason, if you wear eyeglasses, you should opt for plastic, as opposed to metal, frames. Metal eyeglass frames can serve as an antenna and focus radio and cellular phone waves directly into your brain. Similarly, it is likely safer to sleep on a foam mattress, instead of a traditional-style mattress, which includes metal springs that can act as antennas focusing EMF into the body during sleep. These springs may result in a double dose of broadcast EMF by adding a reflected beam of radiation.
EMF Exposure Minimization Tools
I have already discussed EM meters and certain other specific devices for purchase (such as the wall-mounted hair dryer, specially designed to reduce EMF exposures). By and large, however, the aforementioned tactics don’t require the purchase of new gadgets. For those who are interested, however, there are products available for purchase to aid in the process of reducing one’s EMF exposures.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that there are many sham products out there, marketed and sold by charlatans seeking to profit on fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Always examine the underlying scientific claims of such products. Can these companies point to specific claims (such as, “this product will reduce ELF fields by a specific percentage”), and are those claims backed by any research? If not, move along and do not buy. Fortunately, many sites (such as those URLs referenced earlier in the chapter) can provide guidance and assistance in your product search, helping to ensure that you purchase only quality products that do what they claim.
EMF Shielding
One popular set of products are those that shield EMF emissions. While magnetic fields can penetrate a lot of materials and substances,they cannot penetrate everything—it is possible to shield electromagnetic radiation. You can shield the source of the radiation (reducing the range of the EMF), or you can shield yourself (reducing absorption of EMF by the body).
If you Google “EMF shielding,” you will see that many of the results are for scientific equipment. A lot of high-tech tools used by scientists and researchers are very sensitive to elevated levels of EMF, so EMF shields exist to protect this research equipment. These are generally different types of Faraday cages. A Faraday cage is a metal cage in which the holes in the wire mesh are of a specific size designed to repel specific frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Faraday cages are likely impractical and/or undesirable for most of you; however, if you work in an environment with high levels of EMF generated by special equipment, you may ask your employer to install Faraday cages around that equipment for the health and benefit of the employees.
Other EM-shielding products are available to consumers. For example, you can purchase EM-shielding fabrics, which you can drape along walls (for example, if your neighbor’s refrigerator backs onto your apartment) to suppress EMF emissions or to make clothing. You can also purchase premade clothing, such as hats and baseball caps, that repel RF EMF. Levi’s line of Dockers clothing for men even sells a pair of pants with a “cell phone pocket” made of RF-repellent fabric. You can paint your walls, ceilings, and/or floors with EMF-shielding paint, which suppresses EMF emissions.
Please remember that all such shielding products only block particular frequencies of EMF—generally in either ELF or RF/MW frequencies. These shields cannot block all EMF.
Stetzer Filters
Graham-Stetzer Filters (commonly referred to as Stetzer Filters) are devices that filter out dirty electricity (discussed in chapter 3). Stetzer Filters do not eliminate ELF emissions from your electrical wiring, but they reduce your exposure to higher-frequency errant EMF emissions from the electrical wiring in your home or office. The efficacy of Stetzer Filters (regarding both the technical merits of the product, as well as demonstrated positive health outcomes from use of the filters) has been documented in peer-reviewed published studies by Dr. Sam Milham. For more information on Stetzer Filters, visit www.stetzerelectric.com.
Shielded Power Cables
As mentioned above, you want to use extension cords with the best insulation (i.e., shielded cables that can be grounded) to suppress ELF emissions. The same holds true for the power cords that plug into these extension cords, power strips, or directly into wall outlets. Measuring EMF levels from these cords will tell you which are the worst offenders. In such cases, you can attempt to shield the cords (using shielding products, such as those discussed above), or you can actually replace the cord entirely. Some EMF sites sell power cords with enhanced ELF shielding that can be used to replace those that come with your products. Because of the potential danger when working with such equipment, all such power cords should be installed by a licensed electrician.
At Work
At work, we experience many of the same kinds of exposure that we do at home from computers and appliances. Office machines, such as copiers and faxes, are also sources of repeated exposure. Virtually everyone is exposed to sources of dangerous EMF emissions in the workplace. But some individuals in specific careers face increased health risks. Electricians, power-line and cell-tower workers, welders, seamstresses, flight attendants, rail line workers—all of these are examples of careers with documented increased health risk stemming from exposure to increased levels of man-made and natural electromagnetic radiation.
Any risk-benefit calculation on personal EMF exposure must consider workplace exposure. But, of course, you have less control over your work environment than your home. While it may be tempting to simply accept the EMF levels at work, it never hurts to try to have them reduced. Oftentimes, this is simply a matter of education.
My Own Workplace Experience
When my laboratory at Columbia University Medical Center was
moved to a different area in the same building, near the Facilities Management Department, I used my EM meters to measure the levels of electromagnetic radiation. I noted much higher levels than I had anticipated. I did a survey of the rooms in the immediate vicinity and found some unusual sources, such as a broadcasting antenna used to contact repair technicians anywhere in the building.
I spoke to the head of Facilities Management, who became interested in my measurements. I asked if I could do a quick survey of the area, and he agreed. There were indeed some hot spots in the area, especially where the ELF cable from the power company entered the building and also where the RF broadcasting antenna was located. I presented the results to him and explained the known science. Fortunately, he was interested and concerned. But at the time he didn’t appear able, or willing, to do anything about the issues I raised.
About a year later, though, the University started a construction project during which personnel who worked in the area with high EMF readings were relocated and the area was converted into a storage unit. I met with the supervisor of that construction project, and he permitted me to do a follow-up EMF survey of the same space I had done earlier. The University had, in fact, lowered the EMF levels (probably by increasing insulation, rerouting cables, and other similar practices) and minimized the exposure of personnel in the area. I sent a report of my survey to the supervisor.
EMF Measurement Report, July 1, 2009
Here’s a quick summary of the 60 Hz and RF (0.5 MHz–3 GHz) measurements that I made along the outer wall of the Black Building and in the basement hall. They are spot measurements and apt to vary during the course of the day, but I chose the same day of the week and roughly the same time. (Lunchtime should also be a relatively quiet time.)
I list three sets of measurements in order, going from the old Telecommunications Office end to the old Facilities Management end of the building, with one measurement about halfway in between. The values are listed as new/old (new being the measurements taken on Monday, June 29,at 12:30 pm and old being those taken on Monday, December 1, 2008, at 12:30 pm).
You’ll be glad to know that all but one of the EMF values was reduced. (The single exception—2.8 / 1.9—is virtually identical.) As expected, the outer wall showed much greater mitigation of 60 Hz EMF, but the RF remains quite high, especially in the telecom corner.
The University is almost always engaged in remodeling labs, so I’m not sure if there was any direct connection between my earlier report and the changes made during construction. However, the facilities did not appear to require renovation, and I would like to believe that once the authorities were informed, they did the right thing when they had an opportunity. Certainly, it can’t hurt to approach your employers or coworkers with this type of information in a nonconfrontational manner in order to educate and inform them of the risks of EMF exposure. At best, you may end up making a significant reduction in your own exposures, as well as the electromagnetic radiation levels to which your coworkers are exposed. At worst, you will have helped inform others about the invisible and poorly understood risks of EMF exposure.
SUMMARY
I recommend that you practice prudent avoidance with all EMF-generating technologies. This certainly includes cell phones and WiFi, but also microwave ovens, hair dryers, televisions—every device that runs on AC power or that uses wireless communication as a source, and your exposure to that source should be minimized. Because of the rapid decrease in EM field strength corresponding to increased distance from the source of the radiation, stay as far away from the source of EMF radiation as possible in order to dramatically reduce your personal exposures.
The tactics covered in this chapter are not comprehensive, but instead represent a starting point for you to consider your own personal risk-benefit calculation when it comes to EMF exposure. As you start to think about the issue more and consider your personal exposures (as well as your relationships with EMF-generating devices), you will think of other options and alternatives to minimize your personal risk from the electromagnetic radiation that seems otherwise inseparable from modern civilization.
While prudent avoidance is a useful approach, there are groups of people who are far more vulnerable to EMF than most and for whom such practical techniques are insufficient. These individuals, discussed in the next chapter, must go to much greater lengths to reduce exposure to non-ionizing EM radiation.