|
Post by pyrroz on Feb 12, 2021 12:37:57 GMT -5
Hello dear ppl, it is time to hunt down some serious EMF in our flat, and protect my daughter and son any way I can. It all started back in 2012 with an EMG 81/60 guitar I bought which mooed like a cow. At specific directions it got very noisy. But this I learned (0.2-0.3μT) is with in the "limits" considering health standards. What seems way off is the EMF around my son's computer equipped with wifi (unfortunately) and daughter's head (might be reflections from outside). I also have electric field around my son's pillow due to a cable running from the socket under his bed to his computer, so I ask if there is any way to shield this. Does regular (i.e. guitar-wise) shielding work with AC fields? thanks!
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Feb 12, 2021 12:49:47 GMT -5
probably have a ton of emf from the wiring in the walls/floor/ceiling.... i suppose you could cover every surface with foil but you may be referred for a psych eval
|
|
|
Post by pyrroz on Feb 14, 2021 3:39:11 GMT -5
probably have a ton of emf from the wiring in the walls/floor/ceiling.... i suppose you could cover every surface with foil but you may be referred for a psych eval
foil does nothing to the LF magnetic fields (50-60Hz), the ones who make single coils moo like a cow.
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Feb 14, 2021 12:27:21 GMT -5
The way to reduce EMI fields is traditionally to twist wires (cancels magnetic field portion of the EM wave) and surround the twisted wire with a shield (grounds out electric field portion of the EM wave). This works in both directions, making emissions lower and reducing the ability for it to pick up waves from other emitters. The shield has to be grounded to the amplifier or other receiver's reference, or earth ground.
For a guitar, which is a relatively high impedance signal, shielding is the usual method and twisting like microphone cables use for their lower impedance signals is not done. You do not generally want to have a lot of capacitance to the guitar signal because of its high impedance, which starts to lose high frequencies more with capacitance than a low impedance mic signal.
It sounds like your concern is also for health and safety, and for that you also need to consider the frequency of the EM fields, too. For 50/60 Hz the wavelength is very long ( several kilometers for a difference between, say, human tissue and earth). The thing is, nobody's body is large enough for this to create a voltage difference *across* the tissues of it, so our entire body goes along with the voltage wave up and down like a boat floating on large water waves with little or no difference across it. It is almost the same as DC fields. Much higher frequencies, like those of a microwave oven or your smartphone/wifi, are on the order of 6-12 cm so even that does not create a potential difference across cells - but what it does do is warm up the dielectrics of water and fats (cooking the food, or tissues). When we test for the effect of emissions on tissues in labs for health and safety it is measured in terms of the heating effect. Strong fields are not a good thing, but your daughter's brain gets much warmer locally by using a hair dryer than by using a smart phone.
The debate rages on about the health effects of EMI, and there are lots of myths and misinformation out there (like smartphones hard-boiling an egg). If EM fields were truly a significant health concern there would be irrefutable evidence by now given the ubiquitous presence of it, and we simply do not see that.
|
|
|
Post by pyrroz on Feb 14, 2021 13:02:41 GMT -5
blademaster you seem like you know what you are talking about, and thanks for your contrubution to my questions. I got the wavelength explanation, but it is OBSERVED that infants under 2 tend to develop leukemea twice as much when exposed to magnetic LF fields stronger than 0.4μΤ . So.. it seems the evidence is there. Guitar pickups have wires of about 1Km and they can pickup the 50Hz/60Hz noise pretty nicely, why couldn't the human body with 60km of nerves and 160 000 Km of blood vessels?
What I know for sure is that the living organisms are FAR too complicated to be studied in such shallow ways. In most cases there has to be some genetic predisposition plus some triggers enviromental / social etc for some disorders to work their way.... 1 in 5 kids are problematic today in western countries, 1 in 200 have some wierd auto-immune condition, and the list goes on. The increase is almost exponential with time. This cannot be simply bad luck. ok, EMF (among other "achievemts" of modern life) wont affect a prety large percentage of the populace (or so some ppl think), but a certain percentage is left alone to face hospitalizations, institutinalizations, psych wards and a miserable life. In other words, most of us feel safe till something (such as truth) bites us, and then we start to care when it is too late.
The academic literature about the consequences of EMF is there and it is huge.
rats' brains (BG - BBB) affected : "THE INFLUENCE OF EXTREMELY LOW-FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD ON THE BASAL GANGLIA STRUCTURES OF THE RAT BRAIN" :
compromised BBB + enviromental induced auto-immunity --> mental symptoms which the fine trained "eviidence"-based traditional psychiatrists will attribute to disfunctional families problematic family relations, anxiety, etc etc etc etc
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Feb 14, 2021 19:51:07 GMT -5
Well I would never make a claim if evidence suggested to the contrary. What I was stating was the facts (physics and what is currently done for testing), plus what I believe is defendable statement that if risk was very high we would be looking at far higher correlation than we currently see.
I will look at the other articles you linked.
The path length of blood vessels, or wires in a pickup, needs to translate to a wavelength for resonance and absorption so it does not immediately translate one for one between the two.
No one wants to take risks with their family's health, and I would certainly take heed if evidence was strongly supporting that 0.4uT was harmful, but I would still need to ask what frequency/wavelength is represented by that - there is a plethora of incorrect and misleading information out there. Long wavelengths like heat/IR would represent very different risks compared to shorter wavelengths like RF, microwaves or X-rays at the same field strength. By comparison, I still understand that 60Hz is almost DC and that health risks are pretty minimal if not nonexistent.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 14, 2021 20:44:10 GMT -5
but it is OBSERVED that infants under 2 tend to develop leukemea twice as much when exposed to magnetic LF fields stronger than 0.4μΤ . So.. it seems the evidence is there A statistical correlation does not imply (much less prove) causation. It does mean that further study should be done. To truly have a hypothesis here, one would need to be able to explain the mechanism by which that level of EMI damages cellular biology to an extent necessary to cause leukemia. (And, we only imperfectly understand what causes different types of leukemia to0 begin with).
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Feb 14, 2021 23:39:10 GMT -5
Hmmmm:
"It is generally recognized that neuronal cells are very susceptible to oxidative injury and, in addition, some studies have evidenced greater incidence of tumors in human nervous system after exposure to ELF-EMF (re-viewed by Fe y c h t i n g et al., 2005). Results of Fa l o n e et al., (2007) sup-port redox-mediated ELF-EMF biological effects. They observed a positive modulation of antioxidant defenses as well as a shift of cellular environment towards a more reduced state after exposure to these fields. The results obtained in this study may be significant in the light of evidence that Parkinson’s disease causes reduction in total number of cells in basal ganglia. Nowadays, Parkinson’s disease almost becomes epidemic and cannot be interpreted only by extended life span of human race, but also by drawing attention to the environmental factors, such as electromagnetic fields present in highly urban society."
This was caused by 50-500uT exposure for 7 hrs/day, 5 days/week, which is 100x to 1000x the 0.4uT field strength that you cited, which came from a paper that said something like this I presume:
" ... 0.4 μT represents a very weak field strength, especially when compared with the Earth's 100 fold stronger static magnetic field, to which all of us are exposed all the time. Second, a doubling of the relative risk represents only a weak association in epidemiological terms. For example, Doll & Hill's (1964) epidemiological study of the link between smoking and lung cancer revealed at least a 10 fold greater relative risk. To express a doubling of the risk of childhood leukaemia in another way, this corresponds to an extra two cases each year in addition to the UK's annual average of 500 cases .... two scientific insights need to be factored into this discussion. The first of these is that there is no known direct physical mechanism by which a field strength as low as 0.4 μT can invoke a biological response. That is not to say that such a mechanism does not exist, but if it does, we currently have no knowledge of it. The second insight concerns the quality of the data and conclusions derived from a host of laboratory experiments that have sought to determine whether ELF-EMFs induce biological responses."
That last sentence gently implies a possible confirmation bias in the research.
Nonetheless, any result that suggests a biological response is interesting since it is not at all clear what is happening in the body. From the above, I am not inclined to be terribly concerned for my family's health but it does bear some further research into the topic.
Thank you for pointing me to this eye-opening information.
|
|
|
Post by pyrroz on Feb 15, 2021 8:07:04 GMT -5
but it is OBSERVED that infants under 2 tend to develop leukemea twice as much when exposed to magnetic LF fields stronger than 0.4μΤ . So.. it seems the evidence is there A statistical correlation does not imply (much less prove) causation. It does mean that further study should be done. To truly have a hypothesis here, one would need to be able to explain the mechanism by which that level of EMI damages cellular biology to an extent necessary to cause leukemia. (And, we only imperfectly understand what causes different types of leukemia to0 begin with).
In medicine there is no proof. Or in physics. Proof exists only in artificial/human-made/deterministic sciences like mathematics. For the rest there is evidence and unbiased statistics and overall clear results regarding improvement towards a certain goal (e.g. less hospitalizations, less relapses , less recurrence etc..)
And because for many modern diseases (such as cancer which has exploded as of late) there is yet no known definite cause, this leaves us with the statistical studies, this is one reason more to act proactively towards prevention rather than wait for the magic publication that proves the mechanism, (letting so many dead kids in the meantime while waiting for the magic proof).
|
|
|
Post by pyrroz on Feb 15, 2021 8:13:39 GMT -5
Hmmmm: "It is generally recognized that neuronal cells are very susceptible to oxidative injury and, in addition, some studies have evidenced greater incidence of tumors in human nervous system after exposure to ELF-EMF (re-viewed by Fe y c h t i n g et al., 2005). Results of Fa l o n e et al., (2007) sup-port redox-mediated ELF-EMF biological effects. They observed a positive modulation of antioxidant defenses as well as a shift of cellular environment towards a more reduced state after exposure to these fields. The results obtained in this study may be significant in the light of evidence that Parkinson’s disease causes reduction in total number of cells in basal ganglia. Nowadays, Parkinson’s disease almost becomes epidemic and cannot be interpreted only by extended life span of human race, but also by drawing attention to the environmental factors, such as electromagnetic fields present in highly urban society." This was caused by 50-500uT exposure for 7 hrs/day, 5 days/week, which is 100x to 1000x the 0.4uT field strength that you cited, which came from a paper that said something like this I presume: " ... 0.4 μT represents a very weak field strength, especially when compared with the Earth's 100 fold stronger static magnetic field, to which all of us are exposed all the time. Second, a doubling of the relative risk represents only a weak association in epidemiological terms. For example, Doll & Hill's (1964) epidemiological study of the link between smoking and lung cancer revealed at least a 10 fold greater relative risk. To express a doubling of the risk of childhood leukaemia in another way, this corresponds to an extra two cases each year in addition to the UK's annual average of 500 cases .... two scientific insights need to be factored into this discussion. The first of these is that there is no known direct physical mechanism by which a field strength as low as 0.4 μT can invoke a biological response. That is not to say that such a mechanism does not exist, but if it does, we currently have no knowledge of it. The second insight concerns the quality of the data and conclusions derived from a host of laboratory experiments that have sought to determine whether ELF-EMFs induce biological responses." That last sentence gently implies a possible confirmation bias in the research. Nonetheless, any result that suggests a biological response is interesting since it is not at all clear what is happening in the body. From the above, I am not inclined to be terribly concerned for my family's health but it does bear some further research into the topic. Thank you for pointing me to this eye-opening information.
For one person it might be EMF, for another heavy metals, for a third one mold or mycotoxines, for a 4th one lack of sun exposure or zinc, or processed foods, in isolation for every one of those natural interventions , one (politician) could cook the stats to seem insignificant , but overall the sad reality is too large to be hidden.
The unfortunate result is that auto-immune disorders and the related mental symptoms have skyrocketed. As I said we all feel safe until we get the fatal bite that will change the way we think about this earth.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 15, 2021 8:43:13 GMT -5
Proof of a theory in medicine is not the same as a mathematical proof, that is certainly true. But, as blademaster noted, statistical proofs, if significant, can be valid. The unfortunate result is that auto-immune disorders and the related mental symptoms have skyrocketed. Auto immune disorders are related to mental disorders? For one person it might be EMF, for another heavy metals, for a third one mold or mycotoxines, for a 4th one lack of sun exposure or zinc, or processed foods, in isolation for every one of those natural interventions Estimates are that up to 70% of cancers are environmentally caused, and as you note, there could be multiple environmental exposures at play. But we can cull that list down by looking at factors which are more probable than others. For example, the mutagenic effects of heavy metals are well established, we know the mechanisms at work, and we may not know the lower limits of a safe exposure. Heavy metals are thus much higher up the list of likely candidates than EMF, and it therefore makes sense to try to avoid such exposures. But one cannot prevent all such exposures and still live in the modern world. We also have the fallacy of speaking of this or that as "causing cancer", as if cancer were a singular entity. It is not, it is a collection of different diseases that share certain characteristics (unregulated cellular growth, etc.). Malignant mesothelioma, for example, is one of the few cancers where we know definitively what causes it (inhalation of asbestos fibers in sufficient concentrations), but that's a rare exception, for the most part causation of various cancers seems to be multifactorial, with genetics playing a significant role.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Feb 15, 2021 10:08:53 GMT -5
This was caused by 50-500uT exposure for 7 hrs/day, 5 days/week, which is 100x to 1000x the 0.4uT field strength that you cited, I believe the citation was for a field strength of greater than 0.4uT. This is an undefined quantity, since we don't know the upper limit of what's included. 0.41uT ~ 0.5uT satisfies the >0.4uT specification. 0.41uT ~ 500uT also satisfied the same specification. Without defining an upper limit, that data point is rather meaningless. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569497/Also from that article (with Bold added by me):
|
|
|
Post by unreg on Feb 15, 2021 13:19:32 GMT -5
In medicine there is no proof. Or in physics. Proof exists only in artificial/human-made/deterministic sciences like mathematics. hello pyrroz sir, have you ever taken a college level physics course? Physics is rooted in math; I remember making mathematical Physics proofs. My Physics textbook talks about Trigonometry and lists tons of numbers in its first chapter. The textbook is thick. Lots of ways mathematical proofs can be used with Physics. (mathematics is God made He gave man those ideas.) I will crawl back under my box now... the EMI conversation is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Feb 15, 2021 23:30:32 GMT -5
emi makes me think of (sorry about the language on a family-friendly forum)
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Feb 16, 2021 0:39:38 GMT -5
True, the 0.4uT was the lower limit of the reported concern but I took it to at least strongly imply that the level of sensitivity for health concerns was on that order.
It certainly seems from the few papers I scanned that levels that low are not at all well correlated to any negative health effects, and again I would want to see levels versus wavelength in order to see what type of emissions are of a concern.
|
|
|
Post by pyrroz on Mar 20, 2021 14:26:33 GMT -5
About autoimmunity and mental problems : there are many of them. Heart tissue, bone tissue, brain tissue, basal ganglia tissue, it does not make any difference once those antibodies go completely out of their natural course.
|
|
|
Post by pyrroz on Mar 21, 2021 11:23:13 GMT -5
|
|