EMF Exposure

[Sirius]

So far, turning 4 breakers off and having no wireless phones will keep the EMF below 4 uW/m2 through the house.

Probably from cellphone towers or neighbours. Do you know the source? Note that most radiation enters the rooms through windows similar to light. If you can shield them, maybe you get lower levels. With your friend's measuring devices it should pe possible to detect that.

Now the electric fields are a bit high at some places, or so he says (like at head level in the beds due to wires) so here perhaps insulated wires could help. My uncle's bed will be exposed to a 24-37.5 V/m electric field w/breakers on and my aunt's from 26.5-46 V/m. With breaker off, it stays in a 6-10.4 V/m which is still a little high. These fields come mainly from downstairs.

Yes, this is certainly too high for sleeping, especially for the head region.

He also sells tissue/clothing that can help protecting oneself.

Such things are in most cases useless. How do you going about shielding your head which is the body's must crucial part? It is important to concentrate on one's environment.

Silk seems to be very good at that and I remember the C's talking about it as well. Also sells tissues for beds and various devices. He sells them at minimal costs and do not make any 'real' money out of all this.

Silk may be good for several reasons. However, it will not mute the radiation. I do not consider it being a solution. It is cute for underwear etc. but it will hardly protect one physically. Read my last article there: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,11560.135.html

When he came, he only had time to check for the main zones where we are hagning inside the house. He didn't want to charge us but my aunt slipped 100$ in his little food basked (she prepared him a small snack since he was in a rush). Last year, he worked 51 weeks, average of 60 h/week and barely made 17,000$ in the whole year. He just wants to help and don't want to prevent less fortunate people from such a service. Also he dosen't want to charge people who are engaged in this 'battle' and does everything he can to reduce the exposition with minimal money spending from the owners.

Yeah, he is a good man.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Probably from cellphone towers or neighbours. Do you know the source? Note that most radiation enters the rooms through windows similar to light. If you can shield them, maybe you get lower levels. With your friend's measuring devices it should pe possible to detect that.

Hummm, we live in the woods/mountains about 100 km north of Maine. Cellphones do not work very well here and there is no towers near the house. Closest one is in the village, about 10-15 km away from here. We have two neighbors, one who is never there and the other (other aunt) has a similar house as we have but it is about 200 m from ours. I'd have to check more in detail with Stéphane (the guy) for actual sources.

Yes, this is certainly too high for sleeping, especially for the head region.

That's what I thought as well.

Silk may be good for several reasons. However, it will not mute the radiation.

Good to know. Makes sense actually. Problem should be worked on at the actual soucre(s) of radiation to begin with.

It is cute for underwear etc.

I can immagine myself saying to a girl ''hey, these underwear are very sexy but did you know that they don't really protect you from electromagnetic radiations''? She'd probably leave at that point though...

Read my last article there: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,11560.135.html

Will do. Thanks for the link.

Yeah, he is a good man.

Yes. He is the one that charges the less (and by very far) for those services through the entire province. Does it for free a lot as well - hence his very low incomes despite the fact his business has doubled it's profits during the last year. He also gives a lot of money to trustworthy non-profit organisations and to help with related studies/research.

Also, he has app. 5,000$ worth of (german) equipment that is as precise as Hydro-Québec's 35,000$ worth of hi-tech devices (for the same measurments). He has been tested and had the best results one can have (so to speak).

Thanks!

Peace.

 

[LQB]

300 is not bad considering how high it can go. Sounds like just a few well-placed filters may fix you right up. There is another company now making the filters called Greenwave (greenwavefilters.com). I talked with one of the partners there - they claim to filter up to 500MHz. These filters are 3-prong and also filter any current on the ground circuit. The also have a 3-prong receptacle so you don't lose one to the filter. I have some but I haven't had a chance to test them yet. Greenwave will have their own meter coming out shortly.

Not so bad? Good to hear. But a filter would still be a good idea. Better to be safe that sorry (or however you say that).

Not so bad considering how bad it is for many others - and they have no idea. You're in an excellent situation because you can fix the worst of it and be much better off wrt EMF stress. It would be good if you could reduce that level to 30 because that noise power will manifest through the magnetic and electric fields. As I mentioned above, "acceptable" levels of these fields depend on what the dirty noise power is - all must be worked in concert. I tend to agree with Elizabeth Rauscher (in the video interview I linked to above) - a CW (sinusoidal) EM field is much less harmful, even at high levels - it is the pulsed noise that has the harmful bio-effects. So, if you can get the power noise down, you can stand higher levels of EM readings.

So far, turning 4 breakers off and having no wireless phones will keep the EMF below 4 uW/m2 through the house. Magnetic fields then vary from 14 to 15 nT (0.014-0.015 uT) and electric fields range from 0.3 to 10.4 V/m. Only downside is that those breakers are the 2nd floor's circuits so when going to bed upstairs, one will need a flashlight. But it's all a matter of choise. Convenience vs health. I do not sleep on the 2nd floor but the wires there (especially in the ceilling) are very old and very poorly insulated.

Those are good mag field readings but keep in mind they will vary depending on the load on offending circuits (like when electric heaters are fired up in winter). High elec fields are usually due to proximity to wiring (in the walls and floor/ceiling).

Now the electric fields are a bit high at some places, or so he says (like at head level in the beds due to wires) so here perhaps insulated wires could help. My uncle's bed will be exposed to a 24-37.5 V/m electric field w/breakers on and my aunt's from 26.5-46 V/m. With breaker off, it stays in a 6-10.4 V/m which is still a little high. These fields come mainly from downstairs.

The powerwatch.org folks suggest a max of 6 V/m, but again, the harmful level depends on the dirty noise power at the circuit and location. One thing you can do is move the beds off the walls and keep bodies (especially heads) well off the walls where the wiring is. Insulating the wiring will do nothing to the elec field readings. If you were to replace the wiring with metal shielded wires, then yes, the field would come way down. I'm not sure why you are getting such high readings unless there is a high voltage source that you are not aware of.

He also sells tissue/clothing that can help protecting oneself. Silk seems to be very good at that and I remember the C's talking about it as well. Also sells tissues for beds and various devices. He sells them at minimal costs and do not make any 'real' money out of all this.

I agree with Sirius - this is not a good solution unless you were to go with a full up canopy like a faraday cage (expensive). And even then, its hard to say how much improvement you might get at such low frequencies.

Anyhow, he'll come back someday to make a much more profound and detailled analysis (I will have moved by then though). When he came, he only had time to check for the main zones where we are hagning inside the house. He didn't want to charge us but my aunt slipped 100$ in his little food basked (she prepared him a small snack since he was in a rush). Last year, he worked 51 weeks, average of 60 h/week and barely made 17,000$ in the whole year. He just wants to help and don't want to prevent less fortunate people from such a service. Also he dosen't want to charge people who are engaged in this 'battle' and does everything he can to reduce the exposition with minimal money spending from the owners.

Very good guy! - He's doing a great service.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Thanks LQB! That's very informative!

 

[LQB]

As part of some e-mail comms with a new (and competing) home grid filter manufacturer, we touched on the health effects. The following is whaat I wrote expressing my current thinking:

On the health effects of the noise coupling to the body, we know that there is a very wide spectrum of chronic disease conditions and systemic function that is effected (by EMF in general). The likely mechanism lies in the energy factories in all of our cells – the mitochondria. These guys are responsible for the energy that drives all systemic function. They use ions to set up millivolt level potentials over very small distances to control the chemical reactions that generate ATP (and mop up the byproducts like ROS). Converted to volt per meter, these fields are huge and explains why a large static E field is not a problem. A rapidly varying transient field apparently does interfere at this level of energy production in the cell (non-linear due to rate of change), so all pulsed EMF will mess up those fine energy machines. As you mess with them over long periods, they decay and lose function (including damaged mtDNA) – it’s a slow process that finally results in one chronic disease or another depending on genes and other exposure factors associated with diet and chemicals. That is why health these days depends on 3 things: diet (good foods), toxic chemical exposure (detox methods) and EMF exposure (mitigation). All of these put pressure on the mitochondria. Notice that 150 years ago we only had the first one to deal with. So today it is very important to address all three – if being free of chronic disease is a concern. For most it is no concern until it happens.

 

[Sirius]

That is why health these days depends on 3 things: diet (good foods), toxic chemical exposure (detox methods) and EMF exposure (mitigation).

Exactly, that's it in a nutshell.

Just a technical question: Do you know what causes EM noise within a monitor cable during data transfer? I've noticed this a while ago. I have one of those new, huge HD external computer screens with LED background lighting. The monitor isn't the problem itself (it seems); but while it is connected to the computer, I can detect some RF noise passing out the connection cable. The cable is Mini DisplayPort to DVI. I've tried MiniDP to HDMI first but the result was the same. So it's a pure digital link, technically. The frequency detected must be somewhere between 800 MHz and below 2.4 GHz. I don't know whether it is also present in deeper regions. It's not that strong: Less than 6 µW/mˆ2 on critical points (measurements may be inaccurate due to closeness) and less than 1 µW/mˆ2 a few decimetres away, maybe 0.1-0.3 µW/mˆ2 50 cm away. Where it is particularly strong (and maybe the only source) is where the male connecter enters the monitor slot and additionally somewhere at the cable's half length. Do you know what the issue is, LQB? Would a VGA cable help (with an adapter)? I will try the last thing and send the adapter back if it doesn't work (I mean reducing or avoiding the noise).

 

[LQB]

That is why health these days depends on 3 things: diet (good foods), toxic chemical exposure (detox methods) and EMF exposure (mitigation).

Exactly, that's it in a nutshell.

Just a technical question: Do you know what causes EM noise within a monitor cable during data transfer? I've noticed this a while ago. I have one of those new, huge HD external computer screens with LED background lighting. The monitor isn't the problem itself (it seems); but while it is connected to the computer, I can detect some RF noise passing out the connection cable. The cable is Mini DisplayPort to DVI. I've tried MiniDP to HDMI first but the result was the same. So it's a pure digital link, technically. The frequency detected must be somewhere between 800 MHz and below 2.4 GHz. I don't know whether it is also present in deeper regions. It's not that strong: Less than 6 µW/mˆ2 on critical points (measurements may be inaccurate due to closeness) and less than 1 µW/mˆ2 a few decimetres away, maybe 0.1-0.3 µW/mˆ2 50 cm away. Where it is particularly strong (and maybe the only source) is where the male connecter enters the monitor slot and additionally somewhere at the cable's half length. Do you know what the issue is, LQB? Would a VGA cable help (with an adapter)? I will try the last thing and send the adapter back if it doesn't work (I mean reducing or avoiding the noise).

High speed (GHz) digital signals will radiate from lines and cables that "look" like resonant antennas at those frequencies. The geometries/reflections/etc that cause the resonances are almost always a surprise. It sounds like you are getting dipole type resonance (possibly higher order modes) between the monitor and computer. If this is the prob, a shielded cable should take care of it. You could test this by wrapping the cable in foil and see what you get (get the ends well-covered if you can).

If you're getting a resonant radiation, then very close to the source there will be a significant radial component to the EMF. In my thinking, it is this radial component (at close range) that is the most health-damaging. This is consistent with the horrendous damage that can occur - from cell phone use - to the corresponding side of the head. [On a side note: this is why holding a cell phone a couple of feet from the head (and using the speakerphone) works so well - just a couple of feet is sufficient to greatly attenuate the radial component AND reduce the power density to the head by a factor of about 100]. So, staying a couple/three feet away will be good to avoid the radial component of the EMF.

On satellite systems that I have worked on, this can be a major problem. In fact a huge part of the budget goes to EMI and thermal guys to make sure that high speed digital lines/connections (and other things) do not interfere with other sensitive mission electronics and that the shielding does not create thermal problems that shorten mission life.

 

[Sirius]

The geometries/reflections/etc that cause the resonances are almost always a surprise. It sounds like you are getting dipole type resonance (possibly higher order modes) between the monitor and computer. If this is the prob, a shielded cable should take care of it. You could test this by wrapping the cable in foil and see what you get (get the ends well-covered if you can).

That's what I already tested. The cable is labeled as double shielded but that's obviously not enough. I could reduce it somewhat. I will try the VGA cable.

 

[monotonic]

Ferrite bead/choke?

 

[LQB]

The geometries/reflections/etc that cause the resonances are almost always a surprise. It sounds like you are getting dipole type resonance (possibly higher order modes) between the monitor and computer. If this is the prob, a shielded cable should take care of it. You could test this by wrapping the cable in foil and see what you get (get the ends well-covered if you can).

That's what I already tested. The cable is labeled as double shielded but that's obviously not enough. I could reduce it somewhat. I will try the VGA cable.

If the shield itself is acting like the antenna (via coupling), then you might try grounding it. Not sure what else to try other than the VGA like you say.

 

[paralleloscope]

As part of some e-mail comms with a new (and competing) home grid filter manufacturer, we touched on the health effects. The following is whaat I wrote expressing my current thinking:

On the health effects of the noise coupling to the body, we know that there is a very wide spectrum of chronic disease conditions and systemic function that is effected (by EMF in general). The likely mechanism lies in the energy factories in all of our cells – the mitochondria. These guys are responsible for the energy that drives all systemic function. They use ions to set up millivolt level potentials over very small distances to control the chemical reactions that generate ATP (and mop up the byproducts like ROS). Converted to volt per meter, these fields are huge and explains why a large static E field is not a problem. A rapidly varying transient field apparently does interfere at this level of energy production in the cell (non-linear due to rate of change), so all pulsed EMF will mess up those fine energy machines. As you mess with them over long periods, they decay and lose function (including damaged mtDNA) – it’s a slow process that finally results in one chronic disease or another depending on genes and other exposure factors associated with diet and chemicals. That is why health these days depends on 3 things: diet (good foods), toxic chemical exposure (detox methods) and EMF exposure (mitigation). All of these put pressure on the mitochondria. Notice that 150 years ago we only had the first one to deal with. So today it is very important to address all three – if being free of chronic disease is a concern. For most it is no concern until it happens.

Do you mind me posting this on a closed FB group for the local EHS community? I've been trying to make some points about diet and cell protection but the complexity and disinformation curtain on this (and other areas) seems very heavy, perhaps your perspective presented as from an engineer (from an unnamed board that I frequent) would make way for some connective thoughts.

You mention that you make grid-filters, would that be for dirty electricity? I got a book from british electro-engineer Steven Magee that has a diagram of a fuse board filter but must admit it's a bit to steep a project for my skills atm, but could perhaps build the simple plugs he presents in below video (a plug with a 1kv capacitor and a 1Mohm resistor in parallel and that's it), could I ask your thoughts on such a setup? (I'm basically looking for a much cheaper alternative to the GStetzer/Greenwave filters)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc8gC0DhqbQ

 

[mcb]

Do you mind me posting this on a closed FB group for the local EHS community? I've been trying to make some points about diet and cell protection but the complexity and disinformation curtain on this (and other areas) seems very heavy, perhaps your perspective presented as from an engineer (from an unnamed board that I frequent) would make way for some connective thoughts...

I am getting a very bad feeling about the risks of EMF exposure. I have a very limited understanding of RF/microwave phenomena and only a high school background in biology, but when I started reading about the details of mitochondrial function, from the references given in the KD topic, the problem leaped out at me. And not surprisingly, the authors that are warning about cell phone dangers (never mind all the other sources of exposure) are pointing to metabolic disruption as a major effect.

This problem should be apparent to anybody with a functioning conscience that is half awake and has a basic understanding of the physics and chemistry involved. We are not hearing about it through regular information channels because it is being suppressed.

 

[paralleloscope]

I am getting a very bad feeling about the risks of EMF exposure. I have a very limited understanding of RF/microwave phenomena and only a high school background in biology, but when I started reading about the details of mitochondrial function, from the references given in the KD topic, the problem leaped out at me. And not surprisingly, the authors that are warning about cell phone dangers (never mind all the other sources of exposure) are pointing to metabolic disruption as a major effect.

As the Austrian medical association points out:

There is increasing evidence that a main effect of EMF on patients is the reduction of oxidative and nitrosative regulation capacity.

http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/EMF-Guideline.pdf

There you have it, the parallels from a carb diet. Endorsing a KD with IF and resistance training is probably too radical for most, even sequestered EHS people. Or so it seems from my EHS group, but regulating metabolism with a diet high in fats would go a long way towards cell protection, OSIT. I haven't found any studies yet showing direct relations on well fed cells and their protection against EMF but it makes a sense that just having a strong cell membrane will withstand a good deal of the stresses. Then if you had a well regulated metabolism and updated mtDNA what difference in protection would that not make.

5 years ago I fled my apartment in the city, for many reasons, but one was that I was developing EHS. I lived on a boat and autocamper to get away from 'the pulses', but never connected it to that condition, was rather listening to all the other elements of fear going on at the time. At the time I was vegetarian but started paleo with the forum and have since gone KD. Since doing paleo I have moved into a less EMF dense suburban area, but with a lot of exposure to bad fields in school. I've found my resistance has particularly bettered on paleo, and especially since KD. When I started paleo I still called myself electro sensitive (not hyper), today I can still not be too close to a heavily radiating device but can manage great general exposures without too much irritation. I can't say directly how my cells are doing but by my overall feel and state of mind I'd say they have vastly improved their chances in an EMF environment.

 

[lostinself]

there is an online book that may be of interest regarding the topic:

ELECTROMAGNETISM & LIFE
Robert O. Becker and Andrew A. Marino

http://www.biotele.com/EL/ELTOC.html

i'm not sure if it has been already mentioned somewhere on the Forum. searching for authors didn't provide any results.

PS. now i see the book is not new as it was published in 1982. it may still contain some valuable information though.

 

[mcb]

...Endorsing a KD with IF and resistance training is probably too radical for most, even sequestered EHS people. Or so it seems from my EHS group, but regulating metabolism with a diet high in fats would go a long way towards cell protection, OSIT. I haven't found any studies yet showing direct relations on well fed cells and their protection against EMF but it makes a sense that just having a strong cell membrane will withstand a good deal of the stresses. Then if you had a well regulated metabolism and updated mtDNA what difference in protection would that not make...

A KD might promote faster repair or cleanup after EMF damage has occurred, and possibly help avoid cancer, but I haven't seen so far that using fats and ketones as inputs would make us less vulnerable. A stronger cell membrane might be able to withstand more abuse but it can't stop EMF, I don't think, and if what's inside the membrane has just been cooked, it's over for that cell.

The metabolic cycle is only part of the problem. The electrical aspects of cell function in general are likely to be disrupted by EMF, and those seem to be woven throughout all cell processes. That's what happens when you design on a molecular level, I guess.

And of course this adds to light and chemical pollution and all of the other factors that can act against maintaining good health. It's not a very nice picture. To me it says, reduce the exposure while you work on what is most important for you to work on, but you can't avoid it all.