Sunday, 27 February 2011

Detecting Electromagnetic Radiation and Minimizing its Health Risks

Many scientific reports have indicated that the health risks associated with electromagnetic radiation are much higher than initially understood. Governments have responded by lowering the allowed exposure limit for humans from electromagnetic radiation. Yet at the same time the proliferation of electromagnetic radiation emitters escalates an alarming rate. Beyond conventional high tension power transmission lines crisscrossing the landscape, we now contend with high density cell networks, LAN and WIFI systems, all operating in the microwave region. Because there are long term health risks associated with electromagnetic radiation, it is prudent to locate areas of exposure. Many electromagnetic radiation sources investigated in this report are quite common, though less known sources merit attention especially due to the practice of concealing emitters.Figure 1 shows the portion of interest of the electromagnetic spectrum with the red line indicating ANSI exposure limits:electromagnetic ANSI exposure limits
Figure 1

Sources of Radiation

Very low frequency AC fields, such as from power lines, drop off rapidly as you move away from the source following the inverse square of the distance. This is not the case with radio waves that decrease quasi-linearly with distance. Cell transmissions and microwaves also fall off somewhat linearly but may be directed to keep their intensity over large distances. In practice the fields around electromagnetic sources are much more complex due to the landscape, atmospheric conditions and antenna geometries. Proximity to the ground, being inside structures with significant amounts of metal are factors which can also reduce the field strength.

Measurements Inside the Home

The AC electrical wires inside a house or apartment surround the occupants with an almost uniform very low frequency electromagnetic field. The AC voltage in relation to ground may be at a very high level inside a house (180V peak) but variations in the field will be much smaller. These variations are perhaps a few volts and will result in readings of about 0.1µW/cm2. The actual electromagnetic power density between head and foot for a human might actually be over 1mW/cm2.Several appliances and electrical fixtures tend to produce large amounts of electromagnetic radiation. The worst offenders are usually microwave ovens, compact fluorescent light bulbs and televisions. Wireless phones have low output but their frequency of operation is typically in the most dangerous region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Cell phones are especially hazardous since the microwave radiation they emit is close to the user's head. The newer digital phones however have less average power than the analog types. In any case it is always prudent to use an external headset to keep the antenna away from the body. Exposure is also cumulative therefore short conversations give less radiation. When cell and wireless phones are waiting for calls, the radiation levels are very low on average and are not dangerous.
Compact fluorescent light bulbs are widely considered an environmental solution to replace the ubiquitous incandescent light bulb. Yet few consumers are aware that compact flourescent bulbs have a noisy high voltage, high frequency circuit inside to trigger and maintain their glow. Since the operating frequency of these bulbs is below the AM radio band, there are no restrictions on the amount of electromagnetic radiation that they can generate. Manufacturers have strived to make the lowest cost bulbs using unshielded circuits that generate very high field levels. An example of a compact fluorescent bulb is shown in figure 2a. Figure 2b shows that the field strength within one inch of the bulb is an incredible 100mW/cm2.
compact fluorescent bulbelectromagnetic emission from a compact fluorescent bulb
Figure 2aFigure 2b

Televisions and computer monitors are in the process of being superceded by LCD technology as the quality and cost of these new devices improves. Nonetheless many consumers still use cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions and monitors in their homes and at work. A CRT contains a high voltage power supply and electron gun that beams electromagnetic radiation and x-rays into the surrounding environment. Some manufacturers have managed to reduce emissions in their CRT products, though many models still spray large amounts of electromagnetic radiation. Here are measurements from three examples of CRT type TV and monitors.
In Figure 3 the 27" TV has a high electromagnetic radiation emission in the first 12 to 15" from the front of the screen. The safe watching distance is beyond the lime green line at 43".
27 inch TV
Figure 3

The monitor in Figure 4a is an old 13" made by TTX. It has no emission reduction on the face of the screen. A person using this monitor should sit at least 19" back from the screen to reduce their exposure to a safe level. The Viewsonic 17" monitor in Figure 4b is a low emission type. The radiation level is safe beyond 10".
TTX 13 inch monitorViewsonic 17 inch monitor
Figure 4aFigure 4b

Surveying the Outside Environment

Our cities have now become a network of microwave generators on towers, clustered on top of apartment buildings, on transmission line towers, hanging on everyone's belt or in their purse. Add to this the myriad of emergency and safety transmitters, TV and radio broadcast towers, airport navigational and communication systems, amateur radio operators and military communications. To make matters worse, each cell network provider has their own network, multiplying the exposure by the number of providers. In many urban centers, especially around major highways and the downtown core, the radiation levels can be dangerously high. The same now is true for heavily traveled rural routes where nature is routinely interrupted by a cell tower in a farmer's field. Electromagnetic radiation from FM radio stations, aircraft and police communications and TV stations are the most dangerous due to their resonance with the human body. This range is generally accepted as being between 30 and 300 MHz. Radio and TV towers are often located on top of tall buildings, on fixed towers or phased array tower farms. Because of their high power (often tens of thousands of watts) and long range care must be taken in their presence.The CN Tower in Toronto, Canada is a good example of a multi-use tower containing broadcast and communications of almost every type. Residents are obviously familiar with the antenna mounted on the top. Somewhat less well known are the microwave transmitters beneath an air inflated radome below the main observation deck as revealed in figures 5a and 5b.
CN Tower air inflated radomemicrowave transmitters inside CN Tower air bag
Figure 5aFigure 5b

Figure 6a shows the radiation pattern around the CN Tower (figure 6b). The highway that runs just south of the CN tower is about 20 feet above ground. The readings on the highway are 10 times higher than at ground level.
CN Tower emm readingsCN Tower
Figure 6aFigure 6b

Cell phones operate in the 800-900MHz frequency range with some services being provided around 1.8 to 1.9 GHz (PCS). Cell phones transmit between 0.1 and 1 watt depending on the service. Cell towers are typically limited to 500 Watts of effective radiated power (ERP) per channel for large towers and less than 100 watts for smaller towers in urban areas. Micro and pico installations on the sides of buildings or between floors may have ERPs of less than 10 watts per channel.
A typical tower may have 63 channels with an effective power of 6.3kW. Figures reported from government1 or industry sources claim that radio frequency levels at the base of cell towers are very low, perhaps 1µW/cm2. While this is true it is also somewhat misleading. Cell tower antennas are directional and aimed so that their maximum power density will hit the ground at some distance from the tower, usually several hundred yards away from the base. To understand the strength of the electromagnetic radiation around a tower, it is important to take readings at several distances and at different heights if possible. Figures 7a and 7b shows an example of a twin tower installation.
twin tower emm readingstwin towers
Figure 7aFigure 7b

The electromagnetic radiation is very intense in the immediate vicinity of the towers on the elevated highway and peaks again almost 800 yards south of the towers. Since the electromagnetic resonance in the head ranges from 400MHz for adults and 800MHz for infants, dangerous exposure can occur close to cell towers especially over prolonged periods of time.
In addition to the cell transmissions, microwave communications are often installed on the same towers typically appearing as dishes or drums. A new alarming trend is the so-called stealth tower installations. Cell transmitters are creatively hidden in fake trees, cactus, water towers, grain silos, church steeples and elsewhere. They also can be located inside buildings such as casinos and amusement parks close to ground level. Figure 8 reveals a few examples.
antennae in fan palmantennae in belltowerantenna in cactus
Figure 8

A series of communication antennas was found on the Niagara escarpment, adjacent to the Bruce Trail hiking path. A sign at the site entrance clearly warns that there are dangerous levels of radiation in the area. Our survey found that the radiation level just above the ground was in excess of 1mW/cm2 everywhere on the antenna property as shown by the dashed red line in figure 9a. The radiation level along the road and at the entrance to the trail head was between 0.05 and 0.1mW/cm2. All of these levels are around the maximum allowed limit.
antenna farm emm readingsantenna farm
Figure 9aFigure 9b

High voltage AC transmission lines are usually strung on towers at various levels above the ground. Due the high voltage, the ELF (extremely low frequencies) electromagnetic field around these structures is intense. Figure 10b shows a segment of a transmission line containing two parallel sets of lines.
high voltage AC line emm readingshigh volatage AC line
Figure 10aFigure 10b

The red lines are directly below the high tension wires. The radiation from AC power drops off very rapidly as you move away from the lines but levels off at 0.01mW/cm2 over highway 407 and the adjacent residential neighborhood. The green line, indicating a level of 1µW/cm2 begins at 1.5km from the power lines.
Measurements were taken around the Stirton transformer station and the incoming high tension feed lines in Hamilton, Ontario. The feed lines are closest to the ground immediately before they enter the station at point #4 where the AC electromagnetic field is 1mW/cm2. The high tension lines pass over Powell park with a reading of 0.1mW/cm2. The residential neighborhood immediately to the right of the power lines drops off to 0.01mW/cm2 by the time it reaches the rear of the backyards. On the opposite side of the transformer station where the voltage has been stepped down to residential levels, the levels are much lower at 0.001mW/cm2 or less. An aerial photograph of the station and feed lines is shown below in Figure 11a.
emm measurements at Stirton transformer stationStirton transformer station
Figure 11aFigure 11b
The residential neighborhood immediately to the right of the power lines drops off to 0.01mW/cm2 by the time it reaches the rear of the backyards. Properties close to high tension lines and cell towers will increasingly be perceived as hazardous and consequently have a lower property value.
The safe exposure limit for ELF AC from power lines has been set at 100mW/cm2 by IEEE for thermally induced cell damage. Exposure to AC fields much below this limit may cause non-thermal cell damage or immune disfunction. This is the subject of much scientific research to determine the possible health hazards2.
Mounting evidence, especially from the recent Swedish study3showing that cell radiation causes nerve damage at very low doses, are beginning to draw our attention to the potentially dangerous electromagnetic radiation in our environment. It is possible to limit the exposure by selecting low emission products such as LCD displays and shielded lighting solutions. Other options include careful selection of an electro-magnetically surveyed residential property as well as the careful placement of office equipment in the workplace. Using external car antennas and hands free attachments with cell phones also aid in keeping the radiation away from the body. The best advice is to be aware of the sources of radiation around you.


Electromagnetic radiation health should be a big concern to each and every one of us whether we think we're being exposed to these waves or not. The reality is we're all being exposed to electromagnetic waves no matter where we live or where we go.
There’s a new wave of technology hitting us all: radio-frequency identification tags. RFID tags are small computer chips that can be implanted and embedded almost anywhere, including in the human body.
Currently, RFID chips are mostly used in objects, such as in our ID cards and in goods that need to be tracked. However, in just a short amount of time we’ll all be encouraged by the banking cabal to allow them to embed microchips into our bodies.
We’ll be told RFID is a great way to eliminate the need to carry ID cards. Or, it’s a great way for parents to keep track of where there children are. But what the banking cabal really want to use RFID for is to transmit data and images into our brains.
You can be assured that once microchips are in our bodies, electromagnetic radiation health will become a huge issue for us as we find ourselves falling under the complete control of the banking cabal.
The American government, at the bequest of their banking cabal puppet masters, has been experimenting with electronic warfare for many years now. Most people have been quick to jump on the bandwagon and support this type of weapon in the name of protecting themselves and this country. This is exactly what the banking cabal have been counting on.
By first creating a crisis of terror in the United States, the banking cabal have been counting on our fear to allow them to do many things. Using electromagnetic waves for warfare is just one of the things we’ve agreed to.
The real reason the banking cabal have gotten us to accept electronic warfare is that when they make the push for using electromagnetic waves in other areas of our lives, we’ll be completely open to the idea. For this very reason we should all be concerned about electromagnetic radiation health issues.


The banking cabal have spent millions of dollars researching the use of RFID chips to control us. They already use propaganda and social engineering to get us to believe what they want. So why stop there?
The banking mafia are building a New World Order in which the only role they want us to play is one of slaves. They want us to make them rich. They want us to do their bidding. But they also need to ensure that there aren’t too many of us around. RFID is one way the banking cabal intend to control the world’s population.
They want to impair us by creating electromagnetic radiation health problems for us. They want thousands of us to get sick, both mentally and physically, so they can reduce the world’s total population count. What better way to control us without our ever knowing it than by transmitting thoughts and feeling into our brains that make us react in certain ways?


Mind manipulation techniques have been around for a long time, whether we choose to believe this or not. But why are the banking cabal so interested in our minds? Because they know the mind is a powerful weapon that can be used against them. They need to be sure of our compliance if they want to achieve world domination.
The time has come for us to wake up and recognize what the banking cabal are doing to us and what they have planned for the future. We need to learn as much as we can about electromagnetic radiation health problems and what they mean for us.
Don’t allow yourself to be convinced that RFID is a new technology we can’t do without. This is exactly what the banking mafia want us to think so they can take the next step and implant RFID microchips in our brains. Say no to mind control before we don’t have the strength to say no at all.

Electromagnetic Radiation and Your Health

Electromagnetic radiation is perhaps the most serious form of environmental pollution we face in modern times. Electromagnetic energy interacts with our bodies in powerful ways, and the effects of em radiation have profound and serious consequences for all life on our planet.


What is EM Radiation?

There are two forms of electromagnetic energy also referred to as electromagnetic fields:

  • Ionizing – such as gamma waves and which can remove electrons, creating ions
  • Non-Ionizing – which make atoms vibrate, but cannot remove electrons from atoms

Public health authorities have led us to believe that non-ionizing radiation is not harmful. In terms of human health, things are not quite that simple. Common sense and a little knowledge of how cells function tells us that this is not true!

There are both natural and man made sources of electromagnetic radiation:

  • Natural – thunderstorms, Earth’s magnetic field, geopathic stress
  • Man made – X-rays and other diagnostic equipment, electricity, radio waves, microwaves, cell phones, computers and other household appliances

There are two types of fields:

  • Electrical fields - are produced by changes in voltage
  • Magnetic fields – are produced by flow of electric current

Electromagnetic Radiation – How it Affects Us

Authorities claim that non ionizing radiation is not harmful because it cannot break chemical bonds. This is like saying that blows to the body are not harmful if they do not break the skin.
We have well over a trillion cells in the human body. Each of these has a nucleus where our DNA (the genetic blueprint for our body) resides. DNA is known to be receptive to resonant frequencies in much the same way as a radio antenna.
Cells have bioenergetic and electrical properties. The cell membranes in the mitochondria have varying electrical voltage potentials and capacitance to transport ions in and out of the cell through what is called the electron transport chain.
This is how your cells produce the energy that keeps you alive. Strong electromagnetic fields can disrupt the delicate balance of the electron transport chain and interfere with energy production in your cells.
Since DNA requires sufficient amounts of cellular energy to transmit information when our cells divide, electromagnetic radiation can cause encoding errors that may result in a cell becoming cancerous.
This is a simplistic explanation, but I think you get the picture. There are two things you want to do to protect yourself, limit your exposure to electromagnetic fields and use effective nutrition to protect yourself from the inside as well.

Detecting and Measuring EM Radiation

There are a number of instruments for measuring electromagnetic fields, such as gauss meters, and magnetometers. For our purposes, a relatively inexpensive gauss meter is sufficient.
With the gauss meter you can detect electromagnetic fields in your home and arrange your living space and it’s electrical appliances so that you are not constantly exposed to strong electrical fields that can adversely affect your body.

Nutritional Strategies

Following a healthy diet for your blood and metabolic type helps a great deal. This will keep toxins and free radicals to a minimum, alter gene expression favorably, and help keep your immune system strong to protect against DNA damage.
To this you should add an antioxidant formula, which will further protect against oxidative stress and free radicals that can result from electromagnetic energy in your environment.

Protect your health from Electromagnetic Radiation

Protect Yourself from Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) hazards by supporting the BioInitiative Report recommendations on EMR exposure limits.

The EMR Policy Institute is putting forward this petition to endorse the recommendations of The BioInitiative Working Group Report. We are seeking support from other organizations whose missions call for responsible public health policy for children, for workers and for the general public both where they work and where they reside. We are also seeking the endorsement of individuals to call for tougher EMR safety policy globally as spelled out in the report: BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF).

Following the Petition language is the statement of support for The BioInitiative Report that was issued on September 17, 2007, by the European Environmental Agency (EEA). It summarizes the importance of the BioInitiative Report and the EMR safety actions it recommends.

We, the undersigned, find that current government limits do not protect the public from adverse health effects from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating from devices such as power lines, cell phones and wireless internet devices and their associated antenna sites, TV and FM broadcast towers and radar.

Most of the existing limits on this form of radiation are 1 to 4 thousand times too lenient to prudently protect humans from adverse health effects ranging from Alzheimer\'s and other neurodegenerative diseases, reproduction problems, sleep reduction, learning, memory, slowed ability of the body to repair damage, interference with immune function, cancer and electrohypersensitivity.

Based upon the scientific evidence set forth in The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) and a large body of additional research, we recommend that the following limits of electromagnetic radiation be set to not exceed:

I. Extremely-low frequency (ELF). Power Lines, appliances, interior electric wiring and other ELF-radiating devices: 
A. Homes, schools and places where children spend large amounts of time: 1 milligauss *(1mG) for new construction; 1 milligauss (1mG) for all existing occupied space retrofitted over time.
B. All other construction: 2 milligauss (2mG) 

*A milligauss is a measure of ELF field strength used to describe magnetic fields from appliances, power lines, interior electrical wiring,etc. A milligauss, abbreviated, is mG. Just as the power density of high frequency RF fields can be described in µW/cm2 or the corresponding electrical field in V/m, the parameter most easily measured for ELF is the magnetic field.

II. Long-term (cumulative) Radiofrequency Radiation*(RF) 
A. Outdoor Pulsed- such as cell phone antennas, radar, TV and FM broadcast antennas, wireless internet antennas: One tenth of a microwatt per centimeter squared or 0.614 volts per meter. * (0.1 µW/cm2 or 0.614 V/m)

*Radiofrequency radiation (RF) power density is measured in microwatts per centimeter squared or volts per metmer and abbreviated (µW/cm2)or (V/m).
Radiofrequency Radiation is used when talking about emissions from broadcast, radar and wireless facilities, and when describing ambient RF in the environment. In the United States and Canada, for example, the amount of allowable RF near a cell tower is one thousand microwatts per centimeter squared (1000 µW/cm2) for some cell phone frequencies.

B. Indoor Radiofrequency Radiation (RF) such as cell phones, wireless internet equipment and the radiation that permeates buildings from outdoor sources. One hundredth of a microwatt per centimeter squared or 0.194 volts per meter (0.01 µW/cm2 or 0.194 V/m). Typically, RF power density from higher frequency outdoor sources such as UHF television or cell phone antenna base stations drops by a factor of ten when it permeates buildings. Lower frequency signals such as lower channel VHF TV and FM are not as severely attenuated as the higher frequencies.

Future research may demonstrate that these recommended levels are not protective enough; therefore, public policy makers should remain open to lowering them as the scientific evidence accumulates.

A new report raising concerns about the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on human health calls for tougher safety standards to regulate radiation from mobile phones, power lines and many other sources of exposure in daily life. The "BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) was compiled by the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals. The EEA has contributed to this new report with a chapter drawn from the EEA study, \"Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000\"
The EEA study reviews the histories of a selection of public and environmental hazards, such as asbestos, benzene and PCBs, from the first scientifically based early warnings about potential harm, to subsequent precautionary and preventive measures. Cases on tobacco smoking and lead in petrol are forthcoming.

Although the EEA does not have specific expertise in EMF, the case studies of public hazards analyzed in the publication show that harmful exposures can be widespread before there is evidence of harm from long-term exposures, and biological understanding of how that harm is caused. 

"There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives. We must remember that precaution is one of the principles of EU environmental policy," says Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director of the EEA.

Current evidence, although limited, is strong enough to question the scientific basis for the present EMR exposure limits, according to the BioInitiative Working Group.

Non-Thermal Effects

The first experiment on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields dates from the end of the nineteenth century when Russian scientist Danilevsky observed effects of radio-frequency fields on a muscle preparation that included the nerve supplying the muscle. Investigations peaked simultaneously with the development of radar between 1930 and 1940, but ended abruptly with World War II.
Interest in the subject was rekindled by the discovery that animals and plants failed to thrive and even died in areas exposed to radio waves beyond a certain minimum power density; and also by complaints of workers at radar stations. Research resumed in the 1950s in the former Soviet Union and the United States, as well as in Poland, Italy, and later, Britain.
Public debate over the health hazards of electromagnetic fields began in the United States. In 1973, biologist Robert Becker was approached by the US Navy Commander Paul Tyler to serve on a panel of experts to evaluate some experiments that the Navy had funded. These were in connection with an antenna system the Navy was planning to build in northern Wisconsin that involved grids of buried wires that would extend over thousands of square miles of land. It was to be used for communication with submerged submarines.
Because of the large size of the antenna system, and fears that the non-ionising electromagnetic radiation (NIEMR) it would emit might have impacts on health and the environment, Congress had ordered the Navy to carry out the studies.
The New York Academy of Sciences had sponsored a conference on "Electrically Mediated Growth Mechanisms in Living Systems", and Becker had delivered a brilliant keynote paper that summarised his work up to then, which revealed how electrical fields and currents produced by the body are controlling growth and regeneration. By the 1960s, Becker had already proposed a theory that an electrical communication system exists within all living things, and also showed that externally applied fields could influence the processes of growth and regeneration.
But Becker was also worried about the undesirable, harmful effects that could come from exposures to external electromagnetic fields that were often orders of magnitude stronger than the fields within the living body. He had taken on a graduate student, Andrew Marino to conduct some studies on mice and rats.
Marino had indeed found that animals exposed to NIEMR suffered adverse effects, when Becker was asked to review the studies that the Navy had funded.
There were seven scientists on the panel reviewing more than 30 studies. Nearly two-thirds of the studies had found biological effects from exposure to NIEMR; and these were in a variety of species, including slime-mould, rats, birds and humans. The upshot was that all the panel members thought the proposed antenna was a potential hazard to human health, and they drew up a long list of recommendations and further studies.
In the middle of deliberations, someone pointed out that the Navy’s proposed antenna produced NIEMR similar to that produced by high-voltage powerlines, and that in the largest lines carrying 765 000 volts, the strength of the NIEMR might be as much as a million times stronger. That threw the panel into disarray. The discussions became heated, but eventually, the scientists agreed they had to recommend some action: that the Navy should inform a special committee advisory to the President that many Americans might be "at risk" from NIEMR from power lines.
Marino, who told his story in a book published years later had no idea that he and his supervisor were about to be drawn into one of the most acrimonious and lonely battle against the industrial-military complex, and prominent figures in the scientific establishment were to play the key role in victimising him and his supervisor. When it was all over, Becker would lose all grant support, and would have to close his laboratory in Syracuse, New York, after 20 years of pioneering research on the electromagnetic basis of living organisms.
Marino had found that animals exposed to NIEMR of 60Hz from the wall outlet gained less weight and drank less water. The exposed animals also had altered levels of blood proteins and enzymes. That was precisely the same NIEMR that would come from power lines. He had repeated the experiment twice, with the same results.
By then, at least two 765 000 volt lines were being planned, and Marino and Becker were called to give evidence at a powerline hearing which arose from Becker’s warnings. Their experiments had confirmed what the Navy’s own studies had found. Becker had no doubt that the power line was a potential health risk.
Unfortunately, they were up against Herman Schwan and other scientists who would be defending the industry and their own prestige in the scientific establishment.
Schwan had come to United States from Germany in 1947 under Project Paperclip, a controversial government programme to import German scientists after WWII. He worked for the US Navy until 1950 when he became a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Schwan had done some research on NIEMR in Germany during the war. After arriving in the US, he began to publish papers saying that ‘the laws of physics’ showed that the only effects of NIEMR on living things would be through heating or electric shock.
Schwan’s writings were bound up with the federal government’s concern, which surfaced in the 1950s, over military employees who were reporting various injuries from working around radar – eye injuries, temporary and permanent sterility, internal bleeding and other problems. In response to these complaints, an Air Force surgeon, Colonel George Knauf was asked to determine how much NIEMR was safe. Knauf and Schwan began to work together, with Schwan being the expert on biological effects.
Schwan regarded the stories of non-thermal injuries anecdotal and unreliable. Accordingly, he regarded NIEMR safe if it did not cause heating. What was the maximum level? Schwan ‘s answer was that the body could handle a certain amount of heat, for example, by sweating, but if the heat reached the point at which the body’s regulatory mechanisms broke down, temperature would rise and injury would result. According to his calculations, the ‘safe’ level would be 10 milliwatts per square centimetre (mW/cm2).
This level was adopted provisionally by the Department of Defence in 1955, and Knauf got the go-ahead to fund a series of animal experiments to verify Schwan’s calculations.
One of the researchers funded was Solomon Michaelson at the University of Rochester, who used beagle dogs as a test animal, and, "in a revolting series of experiments, he literally cooked dogs alive with NIEMR at levels of 50 to 100mW/cm2". He recorded burns, fluid oozing from the brain and eyes and body temperatures rising to 106-108F.
Other investigators confirmed Michaelson’s work. Gross acute effects had been observed at NIEMR levels only slightly above the safety limit set by Schwan. There was not one instance of an experiment funded by the programme that was conducted at power densities below the limit. In other words, non-thermal effects were never investigated.
Schwan was subsequently appointed chair of a committee of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), whose goal was to set a NIEMR limit or industry. It came as no surprise that ANSI accepted Schwan’s position and 10mW/cm2 became the "safe" level for such industries as radar and radio and others whose employees would be exposed to electrical equipment.
Over the next twenty years, Schwan published dozens of papers and gave hundreds of lectures, which culminated in his election to the National Academy of Engineering.
What Schwan said in most of his papers was that there were no known biological effects of NIEMR below 10mW/cm2. There were in fact such reports, particularly from the former Soviet Union, that were never acknowledged by Schwan. Schwan’s limit came solely from calculations based on non-biological models, or dead tissues; and all subsequent experiments were simply rationalisations of it, as Marino pointed out.
Michaelson, too, declared that so long as NIEMR levels were below Schwan’s limit, they were completely safe. He was especially critical of Soviet scientists who found non-thermal effects below that threshold, and had set safety limits far more stringent that that in the US. He said that the harm done to industry and the military from such stringent limits would outweigh any proposed public-health benefit.
In 1965, the safe exposure limit set for the general public in Czechoslovakia was in the range of microwatts/cm2, ie, a thousand times smaller than that in the United States.
Michaelson’s public declarations brought him many important appointments to committees of the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, President’s Office of Telecommunication Policy, Electric Power Research Institute, etc.
Both Schwan and Michaelson were to be major witnesses on behalf of industry against Marino and Becker.
It turns out that in the mid-1960s, the power industry in the US had already obtained copies of Soviet studies on the biological effects of NIEMR from powerlines. The American Electric Power Company (AEP), one of the largest in the US, commissioned a study by scientists in Johns Hopkins University, the results of which were released in 1967. In a survey involving 11 linemen, two were found with reduced sperm count. In a second study, mice exposed to NIEMR were not harmed, but their offspring, which were not exposed, were stunted. No more follow-up studies were carried out, and request by the John Hopkins team for further funding was turned down.
At an international conference on high-voltage powerlines in Paris in 1972, Soviet engineers announced for the first time to the West that they had performed investigations on the effects of NIEMR on workers and concluded they needed protective clothing. They reported reduced sexual potency and adverse effects on the central nervous system, the heart and circulatory system.
The power industry released translations of the Soviet reports, which were prefaced by Howard Barnes, an engineer for AEP involved in the John Hopkins studies. The Soviet scientists had studied hundreds of linemen, compared to the 11 in the American study. And while the American study involved only physical examinations, the Soviets had performed psychological and neurological tests as well.
But Barnes, in his introduction, invoked an argument that’s all too familiar in the current GM debate. He pointed out that there were then 500 000 miles of high-voltage lines in the US, and there wasn’t a single report, not one confirmed case, of anyone being killed or made ill by the NIEMR from such lines, so they must be safe.
As in the case of GM food, that statement was based on there having been no studies on the effects of living near the power lines.
The story that unfolded makes riveting reading. Research findings were suppressed and falsified. Important scientific witnesses failed to turn up or were not contactable. Committees were stacked with industry-friendly scientists.
Marino, Becker and citizens won in the end, at tremendous personal costs to themselves. They prevented one of the two big power lines from being built, and the company that built the first announced it would not build another 765 000 volt line.
Most revealing in the entire episode was the way Schwan defended the indefensible orthodoxy. He denied all scientific evidence that went against his a priori calculation based on the ‘known laws of physics’ and the utterly false assumption that the living organism was to be regarded as no different from dead or inanimate matter.
As Marino wrote, "..Schwan seemed to view the studies [reporting non-thermal NIEMR effects] as weeds in the garden of known physical laws. Because the know laws did not predict the results of the studies, Schwan’s reaction was to denigrate them, rather than assume that there existed unknown laws, or unknown interpretation of known laws.."
Schwan was not alone, the scientific establishment had thrown its weight behind his position until it became untenable. But there has been little change in scientific outlook since.
To this day, the ‘safe’ exposure limits recommended by the international authority, International Committee for Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP) take no account of non-thermal effects, despite the mounting evidence of health hazards from such effects.
By the 1980s, Marino could already point to the studies reporting NIEMR links to depression and suicides in England, to cancers in both children and adults in Colorado in the United States. Housewives in Oregon who lived in houses with radiant electric heating were subject to increased cancer risk. In Sweden, a correlation was reported between cancer in juveniles and proximity to high-voltage power lines in the Stockholm area. A cluster of rare and lethal ovarian tumours was found in five young girls living near a 69 000 volt line in Florida.
Similar association between NIEMR and cancer was reported in Wichita, Kansas. Men and women living in counties containing cities near Air Force bases were more likely to get cancer than people in similar counties not located near Air Force bases.
Finally, a correlation between electric blankets and miscarriages was also reported.

Mobile Phones & Cancer

After 24 hours of continuous exposure to the radio waves, the researchers found that certain ‘suicide genes’ were turned on in far more leukaemia cells than in a control cell population that had not been exposed, and 20 per cent more exposed cells had died than in the controls.
But after 48 hours exposure to the radio waves, the apparently lethal effect of the radiation went into reverse. Instead of more cells dying, the exposed cells were replicating furiously compared to the controls. Three genes that trigger cells to multiply were turned on in a high proportion of the cells. The cancer, although briefly beaten back, had become more aggressive.
Marinelli presented the results at the International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on the Greek island of Rhodes.
He suspects that the radiation may initially damage DNA, and that this interferes with the biochemical signals in a way that ultimately triggers the cells to multiply more rapidly.
Meanwhile, a research team in the University of Florence reported that normal human skin fibroblasts, placed over an active cell phone for 1 h, also showed significant changes. The fibroblasts shrivelled up, and several genes indicative of stress response became expressed, that are involved in cell proliferation, growth inhibition and cell death. There was a significant increase in DNA synthesis and in key molecules that signal cell division. These findings are similar to those reported earlier from yet another laboratory.
Dariusz Leszczynski at the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Helsinki found that one-hour exposure to mobile phone radiation caused cultured human cells to shrink.
Leszczynski believes this happens when a cell is damaged. In a person, such changes could destroy the ‘blood-brain barrier’ that normally prevents harmful substances in the bloodstream from entering the brain and damaging it.
Radiation-induced changes in the cells could also interfere with normal cell death when the cell is damaged. If cells that are ‘marked’ to die do not, tumours can form.
This research is particularly important, Leszczynski said, because it demonstrates that mobile phone radiation too weak to heat up the cells can still affect them.
David de Pomerai, molecular toxicologist at the University of Nottingham, provided the first clear evidence on such non-thermal effects of mobile phone radiation. He found that nematode worms exposed to radio waves had an increase in fertility - the opposite effect from what would be expected from heating.
De Pomerai also insisted that a consensus is emerging that electromagnetic waves such as those used in mobile phones can indirectly damage DNA by affecting its repair system without heating the cell. "Cells with unrepaired DNA damage are likely to be far more aggressively cancerous," he said.
Non-thermal effects due to weak electromagnetic radiation are at the heart of the debate on the health hazards of mobile phones and other electrical installations in the environment.
These recent results should be seen in the light of the report released in March 2002 by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which concluded that children exposed to high levels of electromagnetic radiation in the home could be doubling their risk of leukaemia (see "Electromagnetic fields double leukaemia risk". This series).
One doesn’t have to be a cell-phone user to become exposed to the radiation. You could be living near a base-station that’s beaming the radio waves at you (see Box 1). Or you could be exposed as a passenger on a crowded train full of mobile phone users.
Tsuyoshi Hondou, a physicist from Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan, currently working at the Curie Institute in Paris, calculated that in a typical Japanese railway carriage with mobile phone users surfing the net, the radio waves rebounding from the metal wall of the carriage would give an electromagnetic field that could exceed the maximum exposure level recommended by the International Committee for Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP), even when the train is not crowded.
Hondou’s calculations show that it is possible to exceed ICNIRP exposure limit if 30 people, each with a mobile phone that emits radio waves at a power of 0.4 watts, all use their phones at the same time.
The ICNIRP limits have already been severely criticised for being set far too high, and are aimed at protecting people from acute heating effects only, and take no account of non-thermal effects.
An inquiry in April 2000 by the British government found no evidence of any health risks from mobile phones. But the report nevertheless recommended a precautionary approach until further evidence emerged. In particular, it suggested children should not use mobile phones excessively.
Box 1How do mobile phones work?
Mobile telephony is based on radio communication between a portable handset and the nearest base-station. Every base-station serves a ‘cell’, varying in radius from hundreds of metres in densely populated areas to kilometres in rural areas, and is connected both to the conventional landline telephone network, and by tightly focused microwave links to neighbouring stations. As the mobile-phone user moves from cell to cell, the call is transferred from one base-station to the next without interruption.
The radio communication depends on microwaves at 900 or 1800 megahertz (MHz) (a million cycles per second) to carry voice information via small modulations of the wave’s frequency. A base-station antenna typically radiates 60W and a handset between 1 and 2 W (peak). The antenna of a handset radiates equally in all directions, but a base-station produces a beam that is much more directional. In addition, the stations have subsidiary beams called side-lobes, into which a small fraction of the emitted power is channelled. Unlike the main beam, the side-lobes are located in the immediate vicinity of the mast, and, despite their low power, the power density can be comparable with that of the main beam much further away from the mast. At 150 to 200m, the power density in the main beam near the ground level is typically tenths of microWatt/cm2.
A handset in operation also has a low-frequency magnetic field associated, not with the emitted microwaves, but with surges of electric current from the battery that’s necessary to implement ‘time division multiple access’, the system used to increase the number of people who can simultaneously communicate with the base-station. Every communication channel has 8 time slots (thus the average power of a handset is 1/8 of the peak values, ie, beween 0.125 and 0.25W), which are transmitted as 576 microsecond bursts. Together, the 8 slots define a frame, the repetition of which is 217 Hz. The frames transmitted by both handsets and base-stations are groups into ‘multi-frames’ of 25 by the absence of every 26th frame. This results in an additional low frequency pulsing of the signal at 8.34Hz, which, unlike that at 217 Hz, is unaffected by call density, and is thus a permanent feature of the emission. With handsets that have an energy-saving discontinuous transmission mode (DTX), there is an even lower frequency pulsing at 2 Hz, which occurs when the user is listening but not speaking.
Thus, the fields to which users are exposed can be quite complex.
A review published in The Lancet the same year by Gerard Hyland, physicist at Warwick University, listed numerous studies over the past 30 years that showed microwaves do have a range of non-thermal effects (see Box 1 and Box 2).
Some of the findings, such as increases in chromosome aberrations, DNA single- and double-strand breaks, promotion of cancer in cells, and in transgenic mice, are all consistent with the recent reports. Hyland is extremely critical of the current exposure limits set by the ICNIRP.
Box 2In vitro nonthermal effects of microwaves
  • Elicits epileptic activity in rat brain slices in conjunction with certain drugs.
  • Affects cell division of yeast and on the genome conformation of E. coli.
  • Synchronises cell division in yeast, S. carisbergenis.
  • Switches on l-phage and colicin synthesis in bacteria.
  • Alters ornithine decarboxylase activity in cultured cell line.
  • Reduces T lymphocyte cytotoxicity.
  • Increases permeability of red blood cell membrane.
  • Affects calcium efflux in brain cells.
  • Increases chromosome aberrations and micronuclei in human blood lymphocytes.
  • Promotes cancer synergistically with cancer-promoting drugs such as phorbol esters.

Box 3In vivo non-thermal effects of microwaves
  • Causes epileptic activity in rats, in conjunction with certain drugs.
  • Depresses chicken immune systems (melatonin, corticosterone and IgG levels).
  • Increases mortality of chick embryos.
  • Affects brain electrochemistry (dopamine, opiates).
  • Increases DNA single- and double-strand breaks in rat brain.
  • Promotes lymphomas in transgenic mice.
  • Synergeistic effects with certain psychoactive drugs.
  • A delayed increase in spectral power density (particularly in the alpha band) corroborated in the awake EEG of adults exposed to mobile phone radiation. Influences on the asleep EEG include a shortening of rem sleep during which the power density in the alpha band increases, and effects on non-REM sleep.
  • Exposure to mobile phone radiation also decreases the preparatory slow potentials in certain regions of the brain and affects memory tasks.
  • Resting blood pressure was found to increase during exposure to radiofrequencies.
Dr Zenon Sienkiewicz, a radiation biologist at the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), told BBC News Online that there was still no hard evidence that showed mobile phones causing harm in real humans, rather than human cells in a test tube.
He said: "The bottom line is there are no known mechanisms by which mobile phone radiation can increase the risk of cancer."
Hyland disagrees. He points out that mobile phone radiation has been found to affect a wide variety of brain functions - such as electrical activity (EEG) electrochemistry and the permeability of the blood/brain barrier - and to undermine the immune system.
Although the precise mechanisms are unclear, Hyland pointed to an "undeniable consistency between some of these non-thermal influences and the nature of many of the health problems reported", such as headache, sleep disruption, impairment of short term memory, increases in the frequency of seizures in some epileptic children when exposed to Base-station radiation, and of brain tumours amongst users of mobile phones.
Thus, reports of headache are consistent with the effect observed on the dopamine–opiate system of the brain, and the increase in permeability of the blood-brain barrier, both of which have been medically connected with headache. The reports of sleep disruption are consistent with the observed effect of the radiation on rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and on melatonin levels; whilst memory impairment is consistent with the finding that microwave radiation targets the hippocampus. Epileptic seizures are known to be induced by visible light flashing at a certain low frequency, and there is no reason to suppose that microwave radiation, which can access the brain directly through the skull, flashing at a similar frequency, cannot cause the effect. Indeed, exposure to such microwave radiation is known to induce epileptic activity in certain animals; and there have been reports of increased seizures in some children suffering from epilepsy that were exposed to base-station radiation.
Finally, mobile phone users show statistically significant increase (by a factor of between 2 and 3) in the incidence of a rather rare kind of tumour (epithelial neuroma) on the side of the brain nearest the mobile phone.

Electromagnetic Fields Double Leukemia Risks

The radiation emitted by power cables, pylons and electrical appliances in the home may be causing cancer in two children in Britain every year, according to new epidemiological evidence.
The study, commissioned by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) concluded that one in 200 British children are exposed to high levels of electromagnetic radiation in the home and that this could be doubling their risk of leukaemia.
Dispute over the possible links between electromagnetic fields and cancer goes back to the 1970s in the United States and before. A series of laboratory and epidemiological investigations worldwide came up with contradictory and inconclusive findings.
But the argument has dramatically shifted in favour of there being a causal link with the publication in March 2002 of the long-awaited report by a team of scientists headed by Richard Doll of the Cancer Studies Unit at Oxford. Doll is renowned for his role in proving that smoking is the principal cause of lung cancer.
The danger occurs with exposures to electromagnetic fields of 0.4 microTeslas (or 4 milliGauss) and greater, levels that the NRPB says one in 200 children in Britain - and many abroad - receive in their houses.
For comparison, the earth’s magnetic field is about 50 microTeslas. The earth’s field, which includes other natural frequencies, has been with us since life began. And many organisms are adapted to it. Birds, for example, use the earth’s magnetic field to navigate long distances in their annual migration.
Since the discovery of electricity and the invention of radar in the 1930s, human beings have been saturating our everyday environment with a spectrum of artificial electromagnetic radiations (see Box 1), the harmful effects of which have become increasingly apparent.
Electromagnetic waves and the electromagnetic spectrumElectromagnetic waves propagate through empty space at the speed of light, ie, 300 000 kilometres per second, and include the light that enables us to see, which vibrate at frequencies of about 1014 cycles per second. They have both an electrical component and a magnetic component vibrating at right angles to each another.
The entire electromagnetic spectrum is extremely wide, ranging from waves that vibrate at less than one cycle per second, or one Hz (Hertz) – named after Heinrich Hertz, the German physicist who discovered electromagnetic waves in 1888 – to 1024 Hz. The corresponding range of wavelengths – speed/frequency – is from 3 x 108 metres to 3 x 10-15 metre.
Above the visible spectrum are the ultraviolet rays, X-rays and g-rays, the ‘ionising’ radiations that break molecules up into electrically charged entities, and can damage DNA, causing harmful mutations.
Below the visible spectrum, are the ‘non-ionising electromagnetic radiation’ (NIEMR), emitted by electrical power stations, transmission lines, radio and TV towers, mobile phone base-stations, microwave ovens, radar, electric blankets, radios, TVs, computers, mobile phones, and other electrical appliances.
The report reveals for the first time that less than half of the exposures are due to nearby high-voltage power lines and electricity sub-stations. The remainder are probably from a combination of wiring, computers, televisions and other electrical equipment, but needs further research.
The effect is too small to have been detected in the UK Childhood Cancer Study conducted in 1999.
However it was spotted in a pooled analysis of 3,247 cases of childhood leukemia in Europe, North America and New Zealand published last year.
The report stops short of drawing any firm conclusions because of the absence of any proven biological mechanisms by which such low levels of non-ionising electromagnetic radiation can trigger cancer.

What is Electro Magnetic Radiation or EMR ?

Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) covers a wide spectrum of non-ionising (ie non-radioactive) electromagnetic fields including visible light, infra red & ultra-violet light, radio, radar, microwaves, etc.

The two authorities who set what are regarded as being “safe” levels of electromagnetic radiations (largely, microwaves), from mobile phone masts and other sources in the UK are:

NRPB – the National Radiological Protection Board
ICNIRP – the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.
Any emitter which complies with these regulations is accepted by the UK Government as being inherently safe, yet in many instances, even these two august bodies cannot agree between themselves on just what constitutes a “safe” level of electromagnetic radiation and, worldwide, the regulating bodies in each country suggest wildly differing acceptable levels of electromagnetic radiation.

Meanwhile, many sources worldwide – physicists, doctors, researchers & others are casting doubt on these supposedly “safe” levels of electro magnetic radiation (EMR) and are pushing for lower radiation limits, the reduction of use of mobile phones (especially by children), the use of caution, sensible siting of mobile phone masts and the presumption of a possibility of danger from those mobile phone masts unless conclusively proven otherwise.

Some experts in the electro magnetic radiation (EMR) field are of the opinion

that the current levels of “acceptable” electro magnetic radiation are set 1000 times or even maybe 10,000 times too highly for safety.
A part of the reason for this discrepancy, even between the opinions of experts in the field, is that the only effect taken into consideration when evaluating a safe level of microwave radiation was that level at which there was a perceptible heating effect on biological tissues, but that some experts are of the opinion that there are demonstrable deleterious biological effects at MUCH lower microwave levels than these.

Little agreement on what is a safe level of electro magnetic radiation (EMR)

This is a contentious issue & there is little agreement, even between experts, as to what constitutes a “safe” level of electromagnetic radiation, but logically, it could be argued that it is better to err on the side of caution until there is concensus, but the government & related bodies continue to approve unabated the siting of – and the emission levels of – mobile phone masts, Tetra masts, 3G masts, network rail masts, GSMR masts and other such sources of electromagnetic radiations including microwave emitters. Such contentious siting has included obviously “problematic” areas such as on, inside, or near -
schools, colleges,
and other localities where the general public, and in particular, children, may often have very close contact.

Other Emitters of electrical field radiations (EMR)

Related to this, the siting of electricity pylons has been contentious for many years & continues to be so. Whilst such pylons do not emit electromagnetic radiations such as microwaves, they do still emit what are widely known as electrical field radiations – ELF or VLF radiations - as do all types of electrical equipment.

These electrical field radiations are also thought to be harmful to humans & other lifeforms & there is significant strong evidence of a preponderance of cancers, especially leukaemia, in the immediate geographical vicinity of these electricity pylons and electricity substations.

Whose health is at risk from EMF radiation?

To a degree, everyone who is exposed to EM radiation bears an increased health risk.

In fact it appears there is no safe level of electromagnetic radiation, either for low frequency (ELF & VLF) or Radio/Microwave fields. 

For example, biological effects have been observed with low-frequency EMF (50/60 Hz) at levels as low as 0.2 mG, which is far lower than a typical urban dweller's average exposure level. 

But that doesn't mean that we are all doomed to get sick. It means that we need to understand and manage our risk. The good news is that

Whatever your present EMF health risk category, reducing your electromagnetic radiation exposure will reduce your risk of becoming sick.

EMF Health damage - High risk group #1

Given the same EMF exposure, some people are more likely to suffer EMF health effects than others, because of their own biology:
    Children are particularly at risk for several reasons. They are biologically more vulnerable - their skulls are thinner, their tissues - including their brains - are not fully developed. 
    Children will accumulate higher lifetime levels of radiation than older people because they have entered the world at a time when electromagnetic pollution levels are much higher than was the case when their parents were young.
    Children are also at risk because they may not be able to control how much they use cell phones, how long they play on computers or watch TV and how close they sit to the screen.
    Pregnant women should be especially conservative when evaluating their risk from electromagnetic fields because any cellular damage in a developing embryo may have magnified consequences for the child. They should avoid electromagnetic exposure as far as possible, by keeping away from high EMF sources and by minimising the duration of any electromagnetic exposure.
    It has been demonstrated that pregnant women are at risk of miscarriage if they are subjected to high intensity EMFs during pregnancy. Miscarriage is an extreme (and tragic) response to a high level of EM radiation exposure. Lesser EMF levels may still damage the foetus while not causing an actual miscarriage.
    Nutritionally Compromised Persons. As with all biological stresses, EMF-induced stress does not occur in isolation. The cumulative effect of electromagnetic stress combines with other biological stresses and lifestyle factors.
    Nutritional status almost certainly has an effect, either for good or otherwise, on the amount of cellular damage caused by electromagnetic radiation and on the extent to which the body can repair it.
    People who are already suffering from chronic degenerative conditions. If you are sick then your body is already using all its available energy to heal itself. It is unlikely to have much energy to spare for repairing the damage done by electromagnetic radiation. 
    Also consider that electromagnetic pollution may have been a contributing factor to your illness. If so, you may be dealing with an actual cause of your illness, not just its symptoms, when you reduce your exposure to electromagnetic pollution.

EMF Health damage - High risk group #2

These people are more likely to suffer EMF health effects than others, because of their heavy EMF exposure:
    Workers are at risk if they work in close proximity to electrical machinery (e.g. computers including laptops, electric ovens, sewing machines). 
    People who work with very strong electromagnetic fields like welders, power line technicians, subway workers, cell phone network operating equipment technicians, electric train drivers and others like them, may be strongly at risk and should carefully follow all sound guidelines and safety procedures to reduce their electromagnetic exposure. Even so, they might incur less risk if they were able to change their trade. 
    Appliance Users. People who spend more than a few (ten?) minutes a day talking on a cell phone (pressed to their ear), or standing next to a microwave oven or other high-EMF electrical appliance (see EMF Table), especially if they do this every day for years.
    People who live in a high-EMF Neighbourhood. Anyone who lives within range of electric power lines or cell phone towers for several (five?) years or more (and especially children). The range depends on the electromagnetic field strength and distribution pattern. Generally 400 metres or more seems to be a safe distance for most power lines. An EMF meter (gauss meter) can determine the effective EMF strength at different times of the day. (There is no authoritative safe level, but I would not want to live so close to an electromagnetic source that I was subjected to a constant electromagnetic field of 0.3 milligauss or more).
It's worth noting that when the body is overwhelmed by too much electromagnetic radiation, health effects can occur many years later. For instance, exposure to power line EMF in childhood can predispose a person to certain types of cancer later in adult life, according to one study.