The post Do Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer? appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>
At least one prestigious scientific body thinks so. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified mobile phone use and other radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a possible carcinogen (group 2B). The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5 billion globally.
The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use. Over the last few years, there has been mounting concern about the possibility of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by wireless communication devices.
Both IARC and NCI recommend continued monitoring of both brain cancer trends and new evidence from studies in humans and laboratory animals. In particular, it will be important to assess risk after long-term use, and for younger users.
IARC further recommends specific actions to reduce exposure (e.g. hands-free use and texting) as further studies are undertaken. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is leading the largest laboratory rodent study to date on cell phone radiofrequency exposures. The NTP studies will assess the potential for health hazards from exposure to cell phone radiation. The studies are designed to mimic human exposure and are based on the frequencies and modulations currently in use in the United States.
Blog by EMF Testing USA
The post Do Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer? appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>The post Coal Mine EMF Case Study appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>
A survey was done for electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency fields by Stuart Bagley, MS, CIH of EMF Testing USA with the assistance of personnel from Buckingham Coal Company. Results indicate a number of the field measurements taken at The Buckingham Coal Mine exceeded Medtronic CRDM Guidelines for cardiac devices as shown in the tables below.
|
Outside of Mine No. 6 |
Mining Machine |
EMI Monitoring Results
| Areas Exceeding Guidelines | ||
| Building or Department | Work Station | Safe Distance |
| Prep Plant | Flock Pumps | 12 inches |
| Prep Plant | Welder Floor is Ground Plane | off limits |
| Shop | Welders Mug and Stick | off limits |
| Shop | Portable AC or DC Tools Drills/Grinders | off limits |
| Shop | Hand Held Radio Motorola CP200 | 12 inches |
| Shop | Mine Site Radio | 12 inches |
| Pit 6 NE Underground | #2 Belt Transformer 7200 VAC/480 VAC | 12 inches |
| Pit 6 N2 Section 1 | Feeder Cable 480 VAC | 12 inches |
| Pit 6 N2 Section 1 | Feeder Cable | 12 inches |
| Pit 6 N2 Section 1 | Fault Wizard | 12 inches |
| Pit 6 N2 Section 1 | Bread Crumb | 12 inches |
The following are three principal types of interference with implanted cardiac devices:
1. Conducted interference occurs when the affected employee is in direct contact with the electrical source. The most risk and actual accounts have occurred from poorly maintained electrical equipment. Conducted currents should be avoided. Physical interaction or manipulations with live circuits or switches is not recommended for anyone with a cardiac implanted device.
2. Radiated fields are those signals which propagate through the air and may potentially induce current that can be detected by the implanted device. Common sources of these fields include high-voltage power lines, radio transmission towers, or two-way wireless communication equipment.
3. Static magnetic fields are those produced by a permanent or direct current (DC) electro-magnet. None were encountered on this visit.
Normally equipment is operated with protective covers and shielding in place. Energized equipment will tend to produce higher readings (both EMI and RF) when protective covers and other shielding are removed. For purposes of estimating potential employee exposure to EMI, similar types of equipment not tested should be assumed to produce approximately similar results to those tested.
1. The affected employee must take reasonable precautions or be restricted from entering the areas exceeding guidelines shown in the facility, based on EMI survey results. At a distance exceeding the safety distances listed in the tables, the employee is considered to be at a safe distance from the above sources. Caution signs “Danger to Cardiac Pacemaker” can be placed on those machinery or components that exceed Medtronic CRM Guidelines in order to provide a warning to the affected employ.
2. Because of the nature of electrical work, physical interaction or manipulations with live circuits or switches that have the potential for any electrical shock or inducing electrical current passing through the human body must be handled with adequate precautions such as protective gloves, etc.
3. Discuss this report with the affected persons including the employee and his physician. Train the employee on the effects of exposure of his implanted cardiac device to strong electromagnetic and radiofrequency fields. Training should include how to minimize EMF exposures during the course of their work such as maintaining adequate distance from the source as well as de-energizing and locking out of equipment.
4. If these measures are not adequate to modify their job duties so that they may avoid overexposure or it may be necessary to permanently reassign the employee to a position or job task where they will not have exposure to strong electromagnetic fields.
Stuart Bagley is a senior consultant from EMF Testing USA, a consulting firm in the area of electromagnetic fields. Mr. Bagley has extensive knowledge of heart device guidelines and policies. He has conducted numerous electromagnetic field investigations at client sites throughout the United States.
Mr. Bagley is a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) and a Certified Safety Professional (CSP) with 25 years of experience in environmental health. He has a Master of Science degree in Occupational and Environmental Health from Wayne State University and a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from the University of Michigan.
The post Coal Mine EMF Case Study appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>The post EMF Power Line Case Study appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>
- Chicago, IL
An electromagnetic field (EMF) and radiofrequency field (RF) survey was requested for a home located in Chicago, IL. The area is in close proximity to high voltage overhead power lines. The survey and report were done by Stuart Bagley, MS, CIH, CSP of EMF Testing USA . The results indicated that there were only a few instances of exceeding of other states’ guidelines (The State of Illinois does not have guidelines. See state guidelines below).
State Transmission Power Line Guidelines
The following state transmission power line standards for EMF exposure are in effect. There is no power line standard for the State of Illinois
| State Transmission Power Line Standards | ||||
| Electric Field | Magnetic Field | |||
| State | On R.O.W.* | Edge R.O.W. | On R.O.W. | Edge R.O.W. |
| Florida | 8 kV/ma 10 kV/mb |
2 kV/m | - | 150 mGa (max. load) 200 mGb (max. load) 250 mGc (max. load) |
| Minnesota | 8 kV/m | - | - | - |
| Montana | 7 kV/m | 1 kV/me | - | - |
| New Jersey | - | 3 kV/m | - | - |
| New York | 11.8 kV/m 11.0 kV/mf 7.0 kV/md |
1.6 kV/m | - | 200 mG (max. load) |
| Oregon | 9 kV/m | - | - | - |
| *R.O.W. = right-of-way (or in the Florida standard, certain additional areas adjoining the right-of-way). kV/m = kilovolt per meter. One kilovolt = 1,000 volts. a For lines of 69-230 kV. b For 500 kV lines. c For 500 kV lines on certain existing R.O.W. d Maximum for highway crossings. e May be waived by the landowner. f Maximum for private road crossings. |
||||
EMF Monitoring Results
Readings taken usually represent the peak reading at the location tested. Using this table, the lowest acceptable exposure to low frequency power sources magnetic field is 150 mG measured at the edge of the Right of Way and 1 kV/m or 1000 volts per meter for the electric field. This is the lowest published guideline for power line exposure in the table below.
The United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) references a study indicating health issues at 3 to 4 MilliGauss (WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health, Electromagnetic fields and public health, Exposure to extremely low frequency fields, Fact sheet N°322 June, 2007). In 2002, IARC published a monograph classifying ELF magnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. This classification is used to denote an agent for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals (other examples include coffee and welding fumes). This classification was based on pooled analyses of epidemiological studies demonstrating a consistent pattern of a two-fold increase in childhood leukemia associated with average exposure to residential power-frequency magnetic field above 0.3 to 0.4 µT. (which equals 3 to 4 MilliGauss (mG)).
Uncertainties in the hazard assessment include the role that control selection bias and exposure misclassification might have on the observed relationship between magnetic fields and childhood leukemia. In addition, virtually all of the laboratory evidence and the mechanistic evidence fail to support a relationship between low-level ELF magnetic fields and changes in biological function or disease status. Thus, on balance, the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal, but sufficiently strong to remain a concern.”
|
|
|
|
Results
A number of measurements exceed the WHO level but not the “Seven states” Guidelines. The WHO guidelines are in reference to an average exposure level, not the peak levels we measured. “Average magnetic field exposures above 0.3 μT (3 MilliGauss) in homes are rare: it is estimated that only between 1% and 4% of children live in such conditions.” It’s very unlikely that family members exceed WHO Guidelines based on their average exposure to EMF.
About EMF Testing USA
Stuart Bagley is a senior consultant from EMF Testing USA, a consulting firm in the area of workplace health and safety. He is a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) and a Certified Safety Professional (CSP) with 27 years of experience in environmental health. He has a Master of Science degree in Occupational and Environmental Health from Wayne State University and a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from the University of Michigan. He has conducted numerous electromagnetic field investigations at client sites throughout the United States.
The post EMF Power Line Case Study appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>The post Boise Paper Case Study appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>
- Boise White Paper, LLC., International Falls, MN
International Falls, Minnesota is the coldest city in the mainland USA. But that is just the temperatures. It’s a bit warmer inside at Boise White Paper, LLC in Int’l Falls, MN. They requested a survey be done for electromagnetic field (EMI) and radiofrequency field (RFI) with regard to potential for interference with the proper functioning of a Boston Scientific cardiac defibrillator or pacemaker. The survey and report were done by Stuart Bagley, MS, CIH, CSP of EMF Testing USA.
Boston Scientific CRDM, the cardiac device manufacturer, states that electromagnetic field exposures should not exceed limits as shown in the table below. These limits were used to establish a benchmark for exposures acceptable to Boston Scientific CRDM.
| Boston Scientific Guidelines for Electromagnetic Fields for a Pacemaker or Defibrillator | |||
| Field Description | Field Type | Unit of Measurement | EMI Limits |
| E-Field Strength | AC | kilovolts / meter (kV/m) | 1000 V/m |
| DC Magnetic fields | DC | Gauss (G) | 10 Gauss |
| AC Magnetic Fields | AC | Gauss | 1 Gauss |
| High frequency E-fields (500 kHz to 6 GHz) | Radio | Volts / meter (V/m) | Up to 8 Watts at the source |
- Log Debarker
Results of the survey indicated some of the field measurements taken at the Boise Paper Solutions exceeded Boston Scientific CRDM guidelines for cardiac devices. In addition, small AC motors of less than 50 HP are rarely above acceptable limits (excepting for power tools) and are therefore routinely not measured. DC motors are more likely to exceed guidelines.
There are a number of locations exceeding Boston Scientific CRDM Guidelines. Note that the highest readings are taken at or near the electromagnetic field source and that readings drop off rapidly with distance from the component. Generally a one foot distance from the source provides an adequate margin of safety for the affected employee. The readings taken represent current day exposures. The exposure levels may be subject to change depending on the type and operating condition of the equipment.
Normally equipment is operated with protective covers and shielding in place. Energized equipment will tend to produce higher readings (both EMI and RF) when protective covers and other shielding are removed. For purposes of estimating potential employee exposure to EMI, similar types of equipment not tested should be assumed to produce approximately similar results to those tested.
The impact to device function is typically temporary; if the employee/patient moves away from or turns the EMI source off, the implanted device resumes its normal mode of operation. In rare instances, the impact to the device may be permanent such as memory corruption or reversion to Safety Mode operation.
Recommendations Recommendations are made in an effort to comply with Boston Scientific CRDM Guidelines. They are designed to prevent the subject employee with an implanted cardiac device from coming in contact with strong electromagnetic or radio frequency fields. The final course of action with regard to the employee in the workplace is at the discretion of the employer, physician and employee.
Stuart Bagley, MS CIH CSP is a senior consultant and owner of EMF Testing USA, a consulting firm in the area of electromagnetic field testing. Mr. Bagley has extensive knowledge of heart device standards and potential problems resulting from excessive EMF. He is a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) and a Certified Safety Professional (CSP) with 25 years of experience in environmental health. He has a Master of Science degree in Occupational and Environmental Health from Wayne State University and a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from the University of Michigan. He has conducted numerous electromagnetic field investigations at client sites throughout the United States.
The post Boise Paper Case Study appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>The post Case Study: Electromagentic Interference for Heart Device in Work Setting appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>
Chrome Plating Company employee at plating tanks
A Chrome Plating Company requested a survey be done for electromagnetic field (EMI) and radio frequency field (RFI) with regard to potential for interference with the proper functioning of a Medtronic implantable cardiac defibrillator or pacemaker.
Summary A survey was done for electromagnetic fields and radio frequency fields by Stuart Bagley, MS CIH CSP, of EMF Testing USA with the assistance of personnel from the Chrome Plating Company. Results indicate a number of the field measurements exceeded Medtronic CRDM Guidelines for cardiac devices. These areas require precautions for employees with cardiac implants.
There were 6 types of machinery where Medtronic CRDM Guidelines were exceeded or likely to be exceeded at the Chrome Plating Company. Note that the highest readings are taken at or near the electromagnetic field source and that readings drop off with distance from the component. The readings taken represent current day exposures. The exposure levels may be subject to change depending on the type and operating condition of the equipment.
The following are three principal types of interference with implanted cardiac devices:
- Conducted interference occurs when the affected employee is in direct contact with the electrical source. The most risk and actual accounts have occurred from poorly maintained electrical equipment. Conducted currents should be avoided. Physical interaction or manipulations with live circuits or switches is not recommended for anyone with a cardiac implanted device.
- Radiated fields are those signals which propagate through the air and may potentially induce current that can be detected by the implanted device. Common sources of these fields include high-voltage power lines, radio transmission towers, or two-way wireless communication equipment.
- Static magnetic fields are those produced by a permanent or direct current (DC) electro-magnet. None were encountered on this visit.
Normally equipment is operated with protective covers and shielding in place. Energized equipment will tend to produce higher readings (both EMI and RF) when protective covers and other shielding are removed. For purposes of estimating potential employee exposure to EMI, similar types of equipment not tested should be assumed to produce approximately similar results to those tested. EMI of sufficient strength may lead to the following temporary device behaviors:
| Potential device behaviors | ICDs /
CRT-Ds |
Pacemakers / CRT-Ps |
| Asynchronous pacing (pacing independent of underlying cardiac activity) | ■ | ■ |
| Inhibition of pacing (pacing therapy not provided when needed) | ■ | ■ |
| Ventricular pacing at Maximum Tracking Rate | ■ | ■ |
| Inhibition of tachyarrhythmia therapy (shock therapy not provided when needed) | ■ | |
| Inappropriate shocks (shock therapy provided when not needed) | ■ | |
| Deactivation of tachyarrhythmia therapy* | ■ |
Recommendations
Recommendations are made in an effort to comply with Medtronic CRDM Guidelines. They are designed to prevent the subject employee with an implanted cardiac device from coming in contact with strong electromagnetic or radio frequency fields. The final course of action with regard to the employee in the workplace is at the discretion of the employer, physician and employee.
Recommendations are as follows:
- Because of the nature of electrical work, physical interaction or manipulations with live circuits or switches that have the potential for any electrical shock or inducing electrical current passing through the human body must be handled with adequate precautions.
- Maintain a safe distance from EMF sources exceeding guidelines.
- The affected employee must take reasonable precautions or be restricted from entering the areas exceeding guidelines shown in the facility, based on EMI survey results.
- At a distance exceeding the safety distances listed in the table, the employee is considered to be at a safe distance from the above sources. Caution signs “Danger to Cardiac Pacemaker” can be placed on those machinery or components that exceed Medtronic CRDM guidelines in order to provide a warning to the affected employee.
- Discuss this report with the affected persons including the employee and his physician. Train the employee on the effects of exposure of his implanted cardiac device to strong electromagnetic and radiofrequency fields. Training should include how to minimize EMF exposures during the course of their work such as maintaining adequate distance from the source as well as de-energizing and locking out of equipment.
If these measures are not adequate to modify their job duties so that they may avoid overexposure or it may be necessary to permanently reassign the employee to a position or job task where they will not have exposure to strong electromagnetic fields.
Stuart Bagley, MS CIH CSP is a senior consultant at EMF Testing USA, a consulting firm in the testing of electromagnetic fields. Mr. Bagley has extensive knowledge of heart device standards and potential problems resulting from excessive EMF. He conducts electromagnetic field investigations at client sites throughout the United States.
The post Case Study: Electromagentic Interference for Heart Device in Work Setting appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>The post Cell Towers and EMF, A Case Study appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>In the case of cellular and PCS cell site transmitters, the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines recommend a maximum permissible exposure level to the general public of approximately 580 microwatts per square centimeter (1000 uW /cm2 for PCS). This limit is many times greater than RF levels typically found near the base of cellular or PCS cell site towers or in the vicinity of other, lower-powered cell site transmitters, according to the FCC.
Conclusion
Precautions are necessary when in the direct path of the broadcast signal and within five feet from it. We only saw one instance where the Guidelines were exceeded. Most areas as measured do not present a hazard to workers or building occupants or exceed FCC guidelines.
The post Cell Towers and EMF, A Case Study appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>The post Report: EMI a Long-Term Risk in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>Inappropriate shocks occur because of supraventricular arrhythmias with rapid ventricular rates, T wave oversensing, lead malfunction, or electromagnetic interference. Inappropriate shocks occur in 12-36% of patients, with children having a higher likelihood (up to 47% in some series). Although rare, it has been associated with death, according to the report.
Read more from AccessMedicine.
The post Report: EMI a Long-Term Risk in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>The post Can Live Electrical Currents Affect My Pacemaker? appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>According to Medtronic CRDM: Conducted interference occurs when the patient is in direct contact with the electrical source. The most risk and actual accounts have occurred from poorly maintained electrical equipment. Conducted currents should be avoided.”
Workers in industrial plants who have a heart device should avoid throwing large disconnect lines or “knife switches” and where there is a risk of an arc flash as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Household and other 110 V switches are not likely to cause conducted interference with pacemakers or defibrillators.
Contact your heart device manufacturer for further information:
Medtronic CRM
Boston Scientific CRM
St. Jude Medical
The post Can Live Electrical Currents Affect My Pacemaker? appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>The post Electromagnetic interference with pacemakers caused by portable media players appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>
Thaker JP, Patel MB, Jongnarangsin K, Liepa VV, Thakur RK.
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Comment in: Heart Rhythm. 2008 Apr;5(4):551-2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electromagnetic fields generated by electrical devices may cause interference with permanent pacemakers. Media players are becoming a common mode of portable entertainment. The most common media players used worldwide are iPods. These devices are often carried in a shirt chest pocket, which may place the devices close to an implanted pacemaker.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if iPods cause interference with pacemakers.
METHOD: In this prospective, single-blinded study, 100 patients who had cardiac pacemakers were tested with four types of iPods to assess for interference. Patients were monitored by a single-channel ECG monitor as well as the respective pacemaker programmer via the telemetry wand. iPods were tested by placing them 2 inches anterior to the pacemaker and wand for up to 10 seconds. To simulate actual use, standard-issue headphones were plugged into the iPods. To maintain consistency, the volume was turned up maximally, and the equalizer was turned off. A subset of 25 patients underwent testing on 2 separate days to assess for reproducibility of interference. Pacemaker interference was categorized as type I or type II telemetry interference. Type I interference was associated with atrial and/or ventricular high rates on rate histograms. Type II interference did not affect pacemaker rate counters. Electromagnetic emissions from the four iPods also were evaluated in a Faraday cage to determine the mechanism of the observed interference.
RESULTS: One hundred patients (63 men and 37 women; mean age 77.1 +/- 7.6 years) with 11 single-chamber pacemakers and 89 dual-chamber pacemakers underwent 800 tests. The incidence of any type of interference was 51% of patients and 20% of tests. Type I interference was seen in 19% of patients and type II in 32% of patients. Reproducibility testing confirmed that interference occurred regardless of pacing configuration (unipolar or bipolar), pacing mode (AAI, VVI, or DDD), and from one day to the next. Electromagnetic emissions testing from the iPods demonstrated maximum emissions in the pacemaker carrier frequency range when the iPod was turned “on” with the headphones attached.
CONCLUSION: iPods placed within 2 inches of implanted pacemakers monitored via the telemetry wand can cause interference with pacemakers
The post Electromagnetic interference with pacemakers caused by portable media players appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>The post Are Insulin Pumps a Concern for EMF Exposure? appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>
Insulin Pump on a Patient, EMF expsure is minimal
Are Insulin Pumps a Concern for EMF Exposure?
This question was recently posed by a concerned diabetic patient with an insulin pump.
The amount of EMF from an insulin pump is tiny because the motor is tiny, and because the pump is worn on the outside, in a small self-contained housing. The glucose sensor puts out a very low power radio frequency signal. Today’s insulin pump is the size of a calculator, usually worn near the waste on a belt. Therefore the tiny motor is well-shielded by the pump housing itself. The amount of measurable EMF on the outside of the device is very tiny and fleeting (very fast). The pump only operates for short periods of time, only when insulin is called for by the glucose sensor. The value of this device is great to the diabetic patient as it closely regulates the insulin dose in the bloodstream, while the risk from EMF exposure is virtually non-existent.
Ask the Expert: More questions on EMF?
Stuart D Bagley, MS CIH CSP
Consulting Expert
The post Are Insulin Pumps a Concern for EMF Exposure? appeared first on EMF Testing USA.
]]>