Will Electromagnetic Radiation Hurt You?

By Casey Adams, Ph.D.

Today our environment is saturated with a plethora of artificial electromagnetic pulses. We are bombarded by electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) from our appliances, power lines, medical x-rays and CT scans—all of which emit varying degrees of radiation. Our buildings are wired for electromagnetism. Most of us spend multiple hours in front of our computers and televisions, absorbing electromagnetic outpourings. Many of us absorb additional EMFs directly from contact with cell phones, MP3 players and laptops. So is electromagnetic radiation harmful? Well, yes and no.

There are two basic forms of radiation: Ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation.

Ionizing radiation is capable of disrupting atomic, molecular or biochemical bonds. This radiation interferes with the electromagnetic bonds that hold our body’s molecules together. This interference causes bonds to break, resulting in unstable ions or otherwise unbalanced molecules. These can become oxidative species, which can lead to cell injury and possibly mutagenic damage. Mutagenic damage can result in cancer and various other disorders if not corrected by the body’s immune system.

According to a 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences on ionizing radiation, about 82% of ionizing radiation comes from natural sources: the earth, sun, space, fire, food and air. The rest—18%—comes from industrial origin. The bulk of industrial radiation comes from medical x-rays and CT scans. Medical radiation accounts for close to 80% of the 18%. Other sources of ionizing radiation come from appliances, toxic water, occupational exposure, and nuclear power plants.

Non-ionizing radiation also can be split into natural and synthetic versions. Natural versions include sound, light and radiowaves. Most scientists also categorize radiation from electrical power lines, electricity generating or transfer stations, appliances, cell phones, cell towers and other shielded electricity currents as non-ionizing radiation. Microwaves are also considered non-ionizing. Most medical experts assume non-ionizing radiation is not harmful. This assumption, however, has undergone debate over the past few decades.

The National Academy of Sciences, also concluded, after studying most of the available research regarding non-ionizing radiation, that even low doses below 100 millisieverts were potentially harmful to humans and could cause a number of disorders from solid cancer or leukemia. This jolted the scientific community, because for many years researchers thought that small doses of non-ionizing radiation were not that harmful.

A rem is one unit of radiation dose in roentgens. An mrem is one thousandth of a rem. One hundred rem equals one sievert. One sievert equals one thousand millisieverts. Ten sieverts (10,000 mSv) will cause immediate illness and death within a few weeks. One to ten sieverts will cause severe radiation sickness, and the possibility of death. Levels above 100 mSv can bring the probability of cancer, and 50 mSv is the lowest dose that has been established as cancer causing. 20 mSv per year has been established as an upper limit for radiological workers. About one to three mSv per year is the typical background radiation received from natural sources, depending upon location and surroundings. About .2 to .7 mSv per year comes from air. Soil sources are responsible for about .8 mSv. Cosmic rays give off about .22 mSv per year. Japanese holocaust victims received .1 Sv to 5 Sv from the hydrogen bomb.

Dangerous medical devices

Britain’s National Radiological Protection Board estimates that the national ionizing radiation exposure for the average Brit is 2.6 mSv, with an estimated 50% coming from radon gas (primarily from the earth), 11.5% coming from foods and drinks, 14% coming from gamma rays, 10% coming from cosmic rays and 14% originating from appliances—primarily medical equipment.

Recent research indicates that radiation from medical equipment is increasing. This is driven by the growing use of CT scans, which generate a larger dose of radiation than the more traditional x-rays. About sixty-two million CT scans are given per year in the U.S., contrasting three million per year in 1980. In 2007, Brenner and Hall reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that a third of CT scans given today are unnecessary. The article also estimated that between one and two percent of all cancers are caused by CT scan radiation exposure.

For comparison, the maximum radiation a nuclear electricity generating plant will emit at the perimeter fence is about .05 mSv per year. A set of dental x-rays will render a dose of about .05-.1 mSv. A CT scan will render a dose of about 10 mSv—over a hundred times the dose of a medical x-ray.

Power line ambiguity

The American Physical Society, an association of 43,000 physicists, claimed in a 1995 National Policy (95.2) statement, “….no consistent significant link between cancer and power line fields….” This statement was reaffirmed by the APS council in April of 2005.

Between 1970 and 2000, fourteen international studies analyzed the potential link between power lines and cancer among children. Eight of those studies showed a link between childhood cancer rates and power line proximity, with four associating power lines with leukemia. Following the release of these studies, a number of governments took steps to warn housing developers of the potential risks of building close to high frequency power line hubs. In some municipalities across Europe and the U.S., building departments have even taken steps to dissuade or ban developments close to larger power lines.

Adult cancer studies have yet to illustrate as large a correlation between power line proximity and cancer rates. Still a few have been significant enough to confirm the need for concern. While some studies showed increased rates of all cancers, the increase was not within the realm of what medical experts consider significant. However, other studies have shown increased rates of lung cancer and leukemia. Another study showed correlation with Hodgkin’s disease.

It must be noted that these studies are epidemiological. They are population studies where groups living in close proximity to high frequency power lines are compared with groups living further away. The problems that can occur with these studies focusing on cancer are several. In cancer pathology, there can be a two to twenty year delay between exposure and cancer diagnosis. While some of the populations involved in these studies might have been living in a particular house for many years, most may have only lived there for a year or two at the most. In addition, some of the studies limited the disease group population, restricting the usefulness of the information. Cancer is seen primarily in the elderly and middle-aged, where there may be a host of various types of exposures, including smoking, alcohol consumption, occupational exposure, chemical toxins, and so on. For these reasons, power line studies can be difficult to measure in terms of ‘significance.’

Nonetheless, power line issues are increasingly a problem for both homeowners and utility companies. In the mid-nineties the New Jersey Assembly enacted legislation requiring disclosure from home builders of vicinity transmission lines and transformers in excess of 240 kilovolts (kV). Other states have followed with similar disclosure laws. Lawsuits have followed on power line proximity issues between schools, buyers, builders and utility companies. Significant developments for “no consistent significant link.”

An issue of magnetism

Power lines emit electromagnetic radiation at ELF or extra low frequency levels. Power lines typically release about 50 hertz of pulsed radiation. While these weak frequencies may not be ionizing, magnetic fields move out perpendicular to electronic pulses. While electricity can shock or burn the body, magnetic fields create more subtle yet lasting influences upon the body’s natural biowave systems—such as brainwaves, biorhythms, hormone production and so on. The evidence suggests that while their affects are more subtle, magnetic fields may substantially disrupt our immune systems.

Most home wiring and appliance power cords have double wires (hot and ground), which effectively cancel the magnetic fields created by their current. An increase in wire separation will increase magnetic field strength. This occurs in most power lines, where conductors are typically separated by poles and shields for fire protection.

Still we must examine the relative magnetic field impact of power lines with other EMF sources. A typical power line located 50 to 100 feet away will range from .5 to 1 mG in magnetic field strength. In comparison, a typical kitchen or office will range from 3 to 10 mG in magnetic field strength. We can conclude that the magnetic field strength from home and work appliances at close range is significantly greater than the strength coming from a power line 50-100 feet away. A typical shielded microwave oven might cause a magnetic field exposure of 15-50 mG, which can be reduced to a 3-4 mG simply by stepping 10-20 feet away. As we compare the scope of these numbers, it is significantly easier to reduce magnetic exposure in our kitchens and offices than it is to sell the house.

Epidemiological studies involving electrical appliances have been limited. They are more difficult because of control parameters. Nonetheless, a few appliances have undergone controlled studies over the years. Electric blankets have undergone several studies. Some illustrated significantly increased risk factors for some cancers and congenital defects.

A simple magnetic field test illustrates that our televisions, laptop computers, electric blankets, electric stoves and clock radios all emit magnetic fields in the range of 5-15 mG at close range. These levels will reduce to 1-3 mG at only a few feet away. Standing back from our appliances is one of the easiest and most effective ways to reduce our EMF load. We can also substantially decrease our exposure by minimizing direct skin contact with laptops, cell phones and other appliances. Avoiding CT scans unless an absolute medical necessity exists is probably a good idea as well.