None of those were about EMF issues.
You too!
A list of cherry picked studies is not going to give you the full picture, unfortunately.
1 Like
Went to the dentist this morning, and they sent me home with a Lindor truffle and a new toothbrush. Methinks they want return business.
5 Likes
Good plan!
Well, these interactions give me a full picture of scientists who deny my claim that EMF exposure causes harm based on the knowledge already in their head which is probably biased and/or out of date with, apparently, no interest in looking at studies that back up my claims. Got it. Enjoy your echo chamber as the rest of us settle a little deeper into our distrust of “scientific” community.
Wow! I’ve never gotten anything more than a cheap toothbrush. I bet the dental business was hard hit by the pandemic. I know I am overdue for a cleaning. I suspect dentists are strongly pro-vaccine, though I know a couple that are into sorta questionable alternative practices, but I think they are still pro-vaccine though.
2 Likes
My hygienist wore both mask and face shield, and their office kept themselves quite isolated, so I’m current. (My dentist is my nearest neighbor, and his two daughters work in the office – one of them is also a dentist.)
The massive difference in energy between visible light photons and radio wave photons is neither biased nor out of date.
The second study in your list states:
However, top cancer research institutes strongly reject these findings.
I tend to give more weight to the National Institutes of Health than a website called “EMF Empowerment” that was founded by a young man who doesn’t appear to have any scientific or medical training.
2 Likes
Of course, if EMF exposure is a real threat, workers who are exposed to massive amounts in the course of their workday should be a great group to study (electrical workers, power line repair guys, anyone who sits at a computer all day etc. I am not aware that those studies have been done.
Like any science, nutrition science makes progress. In the same manner, animal nutrition has made tremendous progress. E.g. grain-free diets for dogs is now suspected to cause heart disease. If dogs get too much fat they can die from acute pancreatitis (there is a spike in this at vet clinics the day after Thanksgiving).
Horses have particularly sensitive digestive systems.You can take a course on equine nutrition on coursera.
And on and on it goes!
2 Likes
I can assure you all three provide essential requirements for a happy life.
1 Like
@T_aquaticus I provided that site because it provides a quick link to 30 studies. The “young man” didn’t conduct the studies. Here’s an article on the CDC site, specifically about studies of workers with high exposure to EMF, which says “Scientists have looked carefully at all the EMF evidence, but they disagree about the health effects of EMFs except to say that better information is needed.” EMFs In The Workplace (96-129) | NIOSH | CDC
And a study on Pubmed with this Conclusion: Despite the improved exposure assessment approach used in this study, no clear associations were identified. However, the results obtained for recent exposure to RF electric and magnetic fields are suggestive of a potential role in brain tumor promotion/progression and should be further investigated. Occupational exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields and brain tumor risk in the INTEROCC study: An individualized assessment approach - PubMed (nih.gov)
Sounds very much like an unsettled issue to me.
The problem is that you are claiming it is settled, that EMF really does have major health effects.
If there is a repeatability problem then science dismisses the hypothesis until such time there is clear evidence. This is why I am skeptical of the claims, but skeptical does not mean I will deny any claims for EMF affecting health. What I am looking for is good evidence, and that would include a mechanism of action. The best you could come up with is that it causes oxidation damage . . . for no apparent reason. It just seemed plucked out of the air.
How does EMF cause these problems? That is the most pressing question. Moreover, why does EMF cause these problems but visible light does not, especially when there is such a discrepancy between the amount of energy we are bombarded with by visible light compared to other frequencies of EMF. Pointing to a list of cherry picked studies that ignores the studies showing no effect just isn’t that convincing to me.
I find it interesting that many use magnets therapeutically (though the evidence only rests in alternating field magnets for bone regeneration, in a small area) and some have even (without evidence that I can find) put people through MRIs in the hopes it heals them in general.
It is very important to subject conjecture to randomized, controlled trials. We just can’t rely on them safely without those trials.
2 Likes
Hi Jessica,
In this post I will discuss some numbers. Of course, there are people behind the numbers! The reason to talk numbers is this: They give us a way to think about the benefits and risks associated with an activity.
With regard to the NIOSH publication: it was done in 1996 and stated that studies in the following few years would provide more insight. Seems like we should be looking for subsequent publications.
With regard to the study by Vila, et al: Details matter. Only a small sub-population (10%) had any possibility of risk that warranted further study. This leads to the conclusion that any additional risk for the population as a whole would be quite small. Does that make sense? Please let me know if I have overlooked something. I should add that additional study is in fact warranted so that the small risk (if any) can be quantified and managed.
Let’s also think more broadly about risk. For example, the probability of dying in an automobile accident (11.0/100,000 per year) is 2.5 times as high as the probability of dying of a brain or nervous system cancer (4.4/100,000 per year). My conclusion is that if we have a few hundred billion dollars to spend on reducing mortality, there’s a pretty fair chance it would be better spent on highway and road safety than on a tiny reduction in brain/nervous system cancers.
But do we even know what the costs of reducing EMFs would be, even if they are reliably linked to mortality risk (and they aren’t, at the moment)? This is critical information for decision-making. For example, one way to reduce traffic fatalities–a problem much larger than brain cancers, remember–is to forbid the use of motor vehicles. That is unlikely to be successful, however, as the cost of abandoning automobiles would be very large in modern society. Maybe the marginal cost of reducing deaths is lower for EMFs than traffic fatalities; maybe it isn’t. Until we have that information, we really have no way of talking meaningfully about harm reduction strategies.
BTW, deaths from brain and nervous system cancers have declined from a rate of 4.9 / 100,000 in 1992 to 4.5 / 100,000 in 2018. What does that tell us about the relationship between EMFs and brain cancer? Why are these deaths dropping when exposure to man-made EMFs is forever increasing?
Food for thought.
Best,
Chris
3 Likes
Hi Chris- thank you for your thoughtful & polite response. I feel like the EMF conversation has been highjacked to focus on cancer and that’s not an issue I ever brought up. Others on the forum seem determined to make it only about that. That’s both interesting and encouraging information regarding brain & nervous system cancers declining in recent years. I’m very glad to hear that. I also understand how research & tax dollars need to be responsibly allotted based on risk, benefit & death. Because- and correct me if I’m wrong- most of the health research in the US is funded by pharmaceutical companies in one way or another, I don’t have much hope that problems not potentially solved by drugs or expensive procedures will get much attention. Perhaps that’s why the EMF research I referenced before was all from other countries. Anyway, I brought up my experience with non-native EMF’s which has been dramatic. I’ve been dealing with chronic pain for over 6 years and it was not until very recently that it’s been resolved through EMF mitigation- like, pain that has been constant for 6+ years is completely gone. And it wasn’t just the physical pain; because the source was unknown I had come to the conclusion that the problem was psychological. Do you know what that does to you? To add the burden of “there’s something wrong with my mind & I’m doing this to myself” on top of the physical pain? It’s been really, really tough, honestly. So my concern isn’t about death rates, it’s about chronic pain, anxiety and a whole host of other problems that could be coming from increased EMF exposure. One of the mitigation techniques is a necklace that somehow uses bioenergetics and sacred geometry. I know it sounds crazy but chronic pain will make you try anything. I just gave my mom the same necklace to see if, perhaps, if will help with her heart palpitations for which she’s been to Duke multiple times, has worn monitors multiple times with inconclusive results and has gotten zero help after who knows how much time & money spent. My dad also started having heart issues several years ago - no explanation but he’s on medication that has helped but made him stop swimming 3x/week- a 40 year habit- because he can’t catch his breath anymore. Could his heart problem be EMF-related too? Maybe if the necklace helps my mom’s heart we can try some things for him too. I bore you with these personal stories to say-- people are not well. So so so many people- probably the majority- are not well and have no answers or solutions. This distresses me greatly. I’ve been in tears of gratitude the last few days because I’m finally feeling so well and it’s such an answer to prayer. It breaks my heart that most people don’t have the time, resources or energy to do the digging and experimentation that I’ve been able to do to get myself well. This is where I’m coming from on the EMF issue.
Side note: you may be wondering why I refenced the studies before then proceeded to tell you this was all based on my personal experience. I don’t know how much of the earlier interactions you saw but I had one person on the forum acknowledge that there hasn’t been much research done on the effects of non-native EMF on the body- probably because it’s been considered a “crackpot idea” & that physiological changes are possible, in their opinion. But then another argue vehemently that research had been done, proved that it didn’t cause cancer (which I never mentioned as a concern) & apparently this should just dismiss the whole issue. I linked the studies just to say “other countries are studying this and showing harm of various kinds”. And another side note: I just wonder how many contemporary issues such as anxiety, infertility, heart palpitations, chronic unexplained pain, etc. could be related to EMF. . . we’ll never know until it’s studied properly & I believe, based on my experience, peoples’ quality of life is very much at stake.
This is wonderful!
It was the issue brought up in the articles you linked to, so that’s why I addressed it.
It would be useful, then, to focus on studies that address this topic. I hope you will forgive me for not reading through your long list of links, but if you could point out the specific articles that feature research published in peer-reviewed publications on pain/anxiety linked to EMFs, I would be happy to take a look at those.
I do appreciate that your personal experience is interesting and of course persuasive to you. However, any one individual, however sincere and smart, is fallible; none of us fully understand everything that’s happening in and around us. That’s why I am especially interested in well-designed research studies.
Industry funded 49.2% of clinical trials in 2005, but only 35.6% of clinical trials in 2014. (Source) It is of course reasonable to examine industry-funded trials carefully! But given the amount of non-industry clinical trials plus the scrutiny placed on industry-funded trials, I’m willing to go with the treatments backed by evidence from clinical trials. Are you willing to explore this perspective?
2 Likes
For the record, many of the 30 studies you linked to claimed EMF causes cancer.
There is a lot of government funded research. For example, the NIH budget is $41.7 billion for medical research. There are also non-profit organizations that spend a lot on research, such as the American Heart Association.
3 Likes
Actually, just 1 of the 30.