So I came across this article here:

http://www.biotele.com/EMI.htm

which is an interesting reads, that make me think, what's the latest research in EMI and human health? (the article is written in 2007)

Good? Bad?

what do you know about it? or what do you think?

 

The first thing to look for when reading any potentially arguable hypothesis is citations. That page gave no citations at all. Don't believe something said by one person, make sure other people knowledgeable in the field agree before you believe the argument.

 

Total BS. If EMI had any ill effects every two way radio tech in the USA would have cancer. Myself and thousands of others have spent many hours on the roof of buildings with 1000's of watts being transmitted all around us.

To the best of my knowledge two way radio techs do not have any higher cancer rate than the rest of the population.

 

The IET (Institute of Engineering and Technology) is the UK's professional body for engineers and they keep a rigorous track of the current state of research on this. Every now and then they release a position statement which summarises where we're at. They publish it as a pdf which you can find here:

http://www.theiet.org/factfiles/bioeffects/emf-position-page.cfm

It's an worthwhile read but the money shot is:

"BEPAG has concluded that the balance of scientific evidence to date still does not indicate that harmful effects occur in humans due to low-level exposure to EMFs. This conclusion remains reassuringly the same as that reached in its previous position statements, the last being in May 2010, and has not been substantially altered by the peer-reviewed literature published in the past two years"

 

Also, the OP's link is full of utter horsesh*t

 

http://www.emwatch.com/EMF Effects.htm

http://www.aaemonline.org/emf_rf_position.html

http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303201129

 

Total BS. If EMI had any ill effects every two way radio tech in the USA would have cancer. Myself and thousands of others have spent many hours on the roof of buildings with 1000's of watts being transmitted all around us.

In addition to the above, amateur radio operators have no increased levels. Until the 70's, radio and TV stations had to post engineers at the transmitter sites. Nothing there either.

This subject appears every 3 or 4 years. OSHA covering all of this. However, all the info is based on maximum exposure levels, but were all arbitrary in the implementation. It appears the 150 MHz 2 meters is a resonant frequency for humans, this could be because the height of a human is in this range. There is no scientific basis for any of the standards, until you reach "microwave" frequencies. These are above 2 GHz, 15 centimeters or so.

 

There was a case on the factory floor of Collins Radio for radio land links (around 2.4Ghz) where they noticed the young guys weren't having kids. The floor did have a higher concentration than normal, we had a lot of large racks transmitting. The argument was that that frequency will cause temporary sterility in guys (but not women). So they negotiated those folks still trying to have children got to move to other depts.

I have no clue if there is any merit to the argument, the tech is mostly obsolete now, though it is used in a few places.

 

Emi seems to be a non-story until you get to the microwave region.

Unfortunately, everything seems to be running at 2.4GHz lately. I like JMWs reference to human dimensions as possible resonant frequencies, remember that human skulls are right in that 12.5cm range (left to right)... Now, how do I use the speaker phone feature instead of holding this to my ear?

EDIT: Bill, there are many studies showing lower sperm counts in men that keep their phones in their pockets vs on a belt clip (or don't carry a phone at all).

 

If you believed those people stating the waves are deadly, people would be dead/crippled/sterile after an MRI (if they live through the MRI, that is).

 

Put a raw hamburger in a microwave oven at the lowest possible setting and let it stay there for a few days. You will come out with a cooked hamburger. USN radar techs flying in AEW radar planes have a larger % sterility in the population than average (determined by vets organizations). Madam Curie assured everybody that xrays were harmless, if fact she inferred that they had curative powers, but she died from xray poisoning. Be careful if you aren't sure. There is research being done to determine if there is a connection between EMI and autistic children. Beware!

 

Put a raw hamburger in a microwave oven at the lowest possible setting and let it stay there for a few days. You will come out with a cooked hamburger. USN radar techs flying in AEW radar planes have a larger % sterility in the population than average (determined by vets organizations). Madam Curie assured everybody that xrays were harmless, if fact she inferred that they had curative powers, but she died from xray poisoning. Be careful if you aren't sure. There is research being done to determine if there is a connection between EMI and autistic children. Beware!

So what is your point? Several posters, myself included stated that there were no safety issues below "microwave" frequencies. Generally considered to be below 15cm (above 2GHz). While there are RADAR in the HF and VHF ranges, they are not part of this discussion. As for causing autism, former Presidential nominee John Edwards and his deceased spouse, made millions convincing jurors that autism could be prevented by having C section deliveries. They even had MD's testifying for this charade. These "studies" you refer to, including the cell phone scares, are all funded by various trial lawyer groups, (like the Edwards) looking for the next asbestos or tobacco windfall. Sadly there will be technicians and "engineers" who will fall prey to this and become part of the "expert" witness scam. As for Ms Curie, I thought it was radiation poisoning from radium. Not to say that X-rays are harmless. Tesla and Edison both studied X-rays with no discernible ill effects. Nevertheless Xrays are orders of magnitude shorter than microwaves and fall into the category of ionizing radiation.
One poster mentioned MRI's as being a source, they generate no radiation, CT scans on the other hand are quite powerful. In addition, I think EMI (Electro Magnetic Interference) is the wrong term. It should be Radio Frequency Electro-Magnetic Radiation.

 

My point is don't trust what you don't know unless you have to.

 

MRI and NMR (same thing as MRI except used for chemical analysis) use 300 to 900MHz. I sat next to one for years. I feel fine but my kids think I'm strange. I always tell them it was the superconducting magnets on the NMR. Seriously, no problems at those frequencies.

I have seen a waveguide in military microwave communication antenna where the aluminum had serious hot spots (receiver). The designer said the absorber cone was cracked and didn't do its job. The concept that transmitting power could really mean "power" never occurred to me before that.

 

Madam Curie assured everybody that xrays were harmless, if fact she inferred that they had curative powers, but she died from xray poisoning. Be careful if you aren't sure. There is research being done to determine if there is a connection between EMI and autistic children. Beware!

Actually, Curie died of ionizing radiation illness complications. Similar to the issues people putting radium paint on watch dials contracted, especially when they licked their brush to make a fine line with the glowing radium.

Natural radiation is ionizing. X-Rays are not as powerful as gamma/beta rays. X-Rays have enough energy to cause slight tissue damage, vs higher energy particles actually kill the cells they contact.

Energy level decides the type of particle, and one receives about a chest X-rays worth of ionizing radiation for every flight from LA to New York (or across the Pacific, or across the Atlantic). At the altitudes airliners fly at, the atmosphere hasn't absorbed all of them, and even at ground level, several get through.

Where do you draw the line? Limiting somebody to 5 chest X-rays per year is pointless if they fly cross country every week. This is the type of data that causes many studies to be inconclusive or contain confirmation bias.