New Life Journal article:
Electromagnetic Fields

Electromagnetic Fields: The Invisible Invaders
by Erin Everett

Recently, at long last, U.S. citizens received public affirmation from the scientific community that tobacco use can kill. The end of the lengthy process left Americans wondering, how many more health threats stemming from our modern lifestyle are just as dangerous, yet are being sidelined because of lack of “conclusive proof”? The cancer rate is still rising, not to mention remarkable increases in other health problems like Alzheimer’s disease, learning disabilities, birth defects, and reproductive problems. Where do we look for the cause? Obviously, smoking is one factor, and chemicals like PCBs and dioxin appear also to be contributors. One potential cause is a slightly more elusive one: not only is it invisible, but it’s silent, odorless, and virtually undetectable without the use of special instruments.

Electromagnetic radiation is everywhere in our modern society, and, since electricity for power has only been used widely since the early part of this century, and its use has only increased since then, we have never before had the opportunity to observe the effects of such long-term, heavy exposure to manmade EMFs (electromagnetic fields) on human health. Each one of us is exposed to EMFs on a daily basis. They emanate from most appliances and other electric devices, and they create an invisible cloud around power lines and cellular telephone towers. They bombard us from our computer monitors, and they penetrate into our bodies as we sleep under electric blankets.

The human body is itself an electromagnetic organism, with its own small, but measurable, field. Studies indicate that exposure to other, stronger fields can interfere with the subtlest of bodily processes, like bone growth, brain chemistry, and cell adhesion, growth, and division. A 1989 Office of Technology Assessment report states, “It is now clear that 60-hertz and other low-frequency electromagnetic fields can interact with individual cells and organs to produce biological changes. The nature of these interactions is subtle and complex. The implications of these interactions for public health remain unclear, but there are legitimate reasons for concern.” Ten years and numerous studies later, the concern remains, and so does the lack of clear answers.

Electromagnetic fields are a complex area of study for researchers for many reasons. For one, unlike chemical exposure, sometimes weaker EMFs cause problems that stronger ones don’t. In some tests, extremely low frequency fields (ELFs) cause biological effects that fail to occur when the field is increased. Another problem for EMF researchers is that it’s relatively impossible to find a good control group for their studies. Studying a group of smokers relative to a control group of non-smokers is one thing, but where do you find a group of people not exposed to EMFs? Scientists describe electromagnetic fields as “ubiquitous,” and indeed they are. Your kitchen is full of them, walls don’t stop them, your body can be affected by them as you drive under a low power line.

EMFs definitely cause measureable biological effects, but scientist argue over the extent and repercussions of those effects. Many studies have brought remarkable results, like the Johns Hopkins study that found the incidence of leukemia among telephone cable workers to be seven times greater than among other telephone company employees, or the University of North Carolina study that showed a doubling of expected breast cancer rates in women aged 45 to 54 in electrical trades (Loomis and Savitz study, Microwave News, Nov/Dec 1993). A study by the Finnish Occupational Institute mentioned in the July 1993 Byte magazine showed that “pregnant women exposed to fields of over 3 milligauss were three times as likely to miscarry as others exposed to less than 1 mG.” The study was based on 585 women exposed to VLF and ELF [very low frequency and extremely low frequency electromagnetic] radiation daily in the workplace. Many computer monitors, also known as video display terminals (VDTs), emit levels of ELF and VLF radiation far higher than 3 milligauss.

Human and animal studies have associated EMFs with a long list of other health problems, including childhood leukemia, Alzheimer’s, learning disabilities, embryo abnormalities, prostate cancer, reduced testicle weight, brain chemistry changes, malignant lymphomas, sleep disturbances, headaches, facilitation of tumor growth, and increased resistance of cancer cells to the human immune system. Although many health effects are strongly suspected to be contributed to or caused by electromagnetic radiation, the complexity of EMF research has, thus far, prevented “conclusive proof” in most cases.

Public pressure encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and evaluate EMF research literature, including at least two dozen epidemiological studies on humans indicating a connection between EMFs and serious health effects. Their draft report, released in March 1990, recommended that magnetic fields be classified as a Class B carcinogen, a category of “probable human carcinogens” that includes formaldehyde, PCBs, DDT, and dioxins. A revised report issued later removed its carcinogen status, instead claiming that classification of EM fields as carcinogenic was “not appropriate because the basic nature of the interaction between EM fields and biological processes leading to cancer is not understood.” Strangely enough, the same report admits that cancer-EMF studies “show a consistent pattern of response that suggests a causal link.”

Beginning in 1994, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) teamed up on the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information Dissemination Program (EMFRAPID). The project was mandated in the 1992 Energy Policy Act and received its funding from the U.S. government and the electric industry. Many of the studies sponsored by EMFRAPID indicated possible correlations between EM fields and human disease. A working group composed of 29 experts was asked to analyze the data from the four-year research project. Their June 1998 report states, “The Working Group concluded that ELF EMF [extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields] are possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The report also indicates that further research should be done to determine a true cause-effect relationship between EMFs and cancer. Despite the Working Group’s recommendation, the final draft report submitted by the NIEHS several months later concluded that the project found no data supporting a link between EMF exposure and cancer. This report marked the end of the U.S. government’s EMF research funding obligations, and the end of current U.S. government funding for EMF health research.

Concern about the effects of EMFs continues, however, especially as those effects become increasingly difficult to ignore. More and more studies link cancers, expecially brain tumors and childhood leukemia, with exposure to high-voltage power lines and cellular phone towers. Two such studies, reported by the PR Newswire in February 1998, were conducted by collaborating scientists in Missouri, California, Connecticut, and Japan. Those studies provide “conclusive evidence that inside cells electromagnetic fields can activate certain signaling pathways that have been associated with cancer.” A trial in Great Britain in November of last year brought that country closer to mandatory warning labels on cellular telephones, which would be similar to labeling on cigarettes. In March of this year, the BBC News also reported that several respected scientists cut their own mobile phone use and made statements indicating their concern about the effects of cell phone radiation. Studies have linked cell phone use to short term memory loss, fatigue, headaches, immune system suppression, and cancer, including brain tumors and lymphomas of the neck. “It has been repeatedly shown that a few minutes exposure to cell phone type radiation can transform a 5% active cancer into a 95% active cancer for the duration of the exposure and for a short time afterwards,” stated electronics expert and researcher Alisdair Phillips during the British trial.

Forty years from the time of the first epidemiological study indicating the health hazards of smoking, the scientific community finally came to an agreement that smoking causes lung cancer. Many people didn’t wait until the final determination to quit smoking, instead finding the volume of data and the cautions of experts to be evidence enough. Limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields has a different set of challenges, however. Although EMFs are not physically addictive like cigarettes, many of us are very comfortable with the conveniences of our lives. Although limited exposure is probably not detrimental, many if not most Americans are chronically exposed to EMFs. Many experts are advocating “prudent avoidance” of electromagnetic fields, including minimizing high-level or long-term exposure to electromagnetic radiation. EMFs are virtually undetectable without a measuring device like a tri-field meter or gauss meter, and such devices are well worth their cost (between $50 and $200). Most experts agree that a level of one milligauss or lower is safe. Even without measuring the EMFs in your home or workplace, however, several precautions can be taken that should significantly reduce exposure for you and your family.

Protect yourself from EMFs! Here’s how:

• Be aware of the distance between your residence and cell phone towers and high-tension power lines.
• Reduce or eliminate cellular telephone use. Mobile telephones using digital technology are also being studied for their potential health effects.
• Studies show that EMFs interfere with melatonin activity and disrupt sleep patterns, so sleep EMF-free. Move clock radios and other electrical devices at least five feet from your bed. Better yet, use a battery-powered alarm clock, as DC power generally emits only very low radiation. Eliminate wires underneath your bed. Check on the other side of bedroom walls to make sure that high-emission appliances aren’t there. If they are, move the appliance or your bed.
• Move your computer monitor arm’s length from your body (about 28 inches away). Also, make sure you are not spending time within 48 inches of the back of a monitor, even if it is on the other side of a wall. A better solution would be to buy a monitor that conforms to the latest Swedish standards for ELF and VLF radiation. (Most monitor shields do not reduce these types of radiation.) The very best solution would be to purchase a zero radiation LCD display, which are becoming more affordable. (Be sure to test the radiation levels before purchasing; some LCD screens are not EMF safe.)
• Keep your distance from fluorescent lights, TVs, and microwave ovens. Avoid lamps or lights with three-way or dimmer switches.
• Don’t sleep under an electric blanket or on a waterbed. If you must use an electric blanket, unplug it before getting into bed. (Turning off appliances doesn’t necessarily eliminate their EMF output.) Don’t use electric hot pads; use a hot water bottle instead.
• Don’t spend time in the area where electric lines enter your house from outside.
• Reduce your use of cordless appliances like electric razors or toothbrushes. They emit very high fields. Electromagnetic fields, although potentially very dangerous, are being used therapeutically, as well. For example, in hospitals, certain frequencies of AC electric fields are used to promote growth in fractured bones, and MRIs are very useful in detecting tumors and aneurysms. More experimentally, specific electric frequencies are used by alternative practitioners and health clinics to target specific pathogens and eliminate them. Although evidence from the studies on EMFs that are being conducted across the world have not yet given “conclusive proof” to satisfy the United States scientific community, there is certainly enough proof to be cause for alarm. As cancer rates rise throughout the developed world, do we have time to wait? For more information on EMFs, see the websites and other resources listed below.

Erin Everett is the editor of New Life Journal. She can be contacted at editor@newlifejournal.com.