Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Oct 23, 2015 in EMF, Health & Nutrition | 0 comments

Is EMF dangerous?


EMF: All Hype? A real concern? Or somewhere in between?

Until recently, I didn’t even know what EMF or dirty electricity was.

I wasn’t choosing to ignore the information; I just had never explored it, nor had heard anything about it.

I had a realization about myself today… Upon learning more about electrical pollution, I felt that same sense of betrayal I felt two years ago with the food industry, wash over me.

I wanted to talk about this stuff with my friends, with my family… anyone and everyone really. Nutrition, beyond the headlines, was extremely intriguing to me.

When I first “woke-up” to how our food is made and processed, I am sure my friends would attest, I didn’t stop talking about it. I have a few (amazing) friends, who did a great job at humoring me, listening to me discuss all the findings I had learned about.

These days, I don’t talk about my food choices; it really has just become a lifestyle for me. Unless I come across something new, I don’t often reveal nutrition information unsolicited. Although, anytime I am around like-minded friends, we most likely will find ourselves chatting nonstop.

Recently, I have been awoken to the dangers of EMF, and again find myself wanting to chat with friends, wondering what their take on the topic is.

Today, my friend made the comment that food is more controllable than EMF.

I see his point; generally we are each in control of what we eat and drink. Like me, he tries to avoid GMOs, and eats a pretty clean diet.

EMF is harder to avoid, because it is all around us, and thus he, like many, generally feels that there is not much we can do about it.

Isn’t not taking any action regarding “the dangers of EMF”, the same thing as those who poo-poo nonGMOs?

He wasn’t sure if it was the same thing. Seems similar to me.

When it comes to pharmaceutical drugs, consumer products, food and supplements, there will always be questions, confusion and controversy on their respective health claims.

How do you know the research is legitimate? Who do you trust?

Some people will swear by something, but others say it is bogus.

It isn’t surprising that with all the conflicting headlines, consumers can often feel bewildered trying to decipher all the information. Many just throw their hands up in frustration and feel defeated that there is nothing they can do…

Scientifically minded people, rightfully so, typically are the most skeptical.

They are trained to analyze data and evaluate the results. The premise of science is to prove a theory wrong. Repeating experiments to make sure results are not an anomaly.

Let’s imagine that a device rep went to a surgeon to discuss a new product for patients.

Rep: Doctor, there is this cool new implant, it emits constant radio frequency, and the benefit to you is it will reduce follow up appointments for your office.

MD: How does it affect the body? Are there long-term safety studies?

Rep: The device meets industry standards regarding RF and safety.

MD: What does that mean?

Rep: Well, we don’t have any studies specifically evaluating prolonged exposure with the product, but again, the device meets industry standards. There are some QUACKS who claim it is unsafe, and other countries have limited or banned the use for children, but it is fine for adults.

Do you think any surgeon would implant such a device into a patient?!

Obviously, medical devices and pharmaceutical drugs have to go through a regulator process before coming to the market, but yet, consumer products can come to market without such standards. And even after the former is FDA approved, physicians don’t just automatically jump on the bandwagon. They carefully review the research, and value independent research.

Couldn’t we make the argument that the above analogy could be used with Smart Meters? Or regarding the prospect of a “national wireless network”?

Smart Meters continually emits radio frequency and causes dirty electricity, yet the utility companies or the cellphone industry are not required to show long-term safety effects. Of course these meters are not being implanted into our bodies, but these meters, and our wireless routers and cellphones are constant sources of EMF. So this technology isn’t being implanted inside us, but it is all around us.

Some governments do not acknowledge the BioInitiative Report,  a report by 29 independent scientists and health experts from around the world* about possible risks from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields, but rather rely on industry-sponsored studies to make public health policies on low-frequency electromagnetic exposure. It offers a list of research publications (1990-2014) on the biological effects of radio frequency and cell phone radiation.

Here is article that breaks down what the industry reports.

So why are intelligent, scientifically minded individuals so quick to dismiss the detriments of say, a Smart Meter, or a certain diet change, or GMOs?

Public policy on the Smart Meters and GMOs has been based on industry-sponsored research, and yet the independent (retrospective) research is considered “junk science”. Not to say all industry-sponsored studies are biased, but most physicians still would like to see independent, or at least retrospective data.

Why apply different standards to consumer products and public health?

Maybe most skeptics do not inquire about the retrospective data, so instinctively feel that there isn’t enough data to really say Smart Meters are bad or dangerous… but if you asked them about a drug or a surgical device, they would never use it unless it is proven to be SAFE. Most people probably think this way about consumer goods; unless proven to be unsafe, they will use products without proof that it is safe.

To be fair, pharmaceutical and surgical devices are less subjective; the results are more immediate. With diet, supplements or EMF, the effects are harder to measure and may take awhile to manifest into any potential health problems.

Like with allergies, some people have them, some do not. Some cancer patients are symptomatic, while others are asymptomatic for years, but the disease is still there. Some people are more sensitive to the abundant, and constant RF, some aren’t.

The most common theme when discussing a subjective topic is to resort to either personal attacks or ignoring that there is more than one side to the issue.

Fibromyalgia and Lyme Disease were initially considered made-up; the medical community at large, felt patients were imagining the symptoms.

Radio frequency or dirty electricity isn’t something we can hear, without a meter, but some may be affected immediately, and some won’t. Some may experience symptoms later, some may never.

Currently, Sweden is the only country that acknowledges that electrohypersensitivity (EHS) exists.

It appears that people who have allergies, asthma, or autoimmune conditions tend to (unwittingly) be more sensitive to EMF.

Every story has an extreme view.

And maybe it just sounds TOO EXTREME when EMF activists lead with, “cellphones cause brain cancer, don’t use them”.

Any extreme view, whether it be political, religious, or about health, makes it easier for the general audience to just dismiss every other legitimate concern regarding the topic.

Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, so smoking in planes, restaurants and hospitals is cool with everyone?

Not everyone will have health effects from EMF and electromagnetic pollution, so no one should make any changes to their lives? It is okay to expose everyone 24-7 to non-ionizing radiation?

Cell towers outside residential areas is like secondhand smoke into your home or school.

Shouldn’t we have the choice to opt-out of non-essential wireless frequencies?

Even if people choose to have a cell phone, they can also choose 1) how often they use it 2) where they use it and 3) can turn it off when so desired.

In many states, homeowners are being forced to install Smart Meters.

They cannot turn the meter off- it pulses 24-7, 365 days a year. It takes away an individuals choice of varying their exposure, and also creates dirty electricity.

So maybe you aren’t bought into “the hype” of EMF dangers, but do you really want to let industries continue to go unchecked?

Phone companies are trying to eliminate landlines.

The Light industry is trying to ban incandescent lighting.

Companies want to create national wireless networks.

Is the prospect of a future where, even if we wanted to, we are NEVER able to ever disconnect, even in the privacy of our own homes, one you would look forward to?


Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This blog is kept spam free by WP-SpamFree.

%d bloggers like this: