Electrical Noise Causing Physiological Stress?

jmke · Post by **jmke** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:33 am

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl? ... 5&from=rss

interesting read...

The Globe and Mail is reporting on possible physiological problems caused by so-called 'dirty electricity.' Poor power quality caused by electrical feedback and harmonics from consumer electronics are cited as a possible cause of various 'physiological stress' problems. While previous research in this area looked for connections between EM fields and cancer, some research is now looking into possible connections to fatigue, headaches, depression, and other symptoms. From the article: 'If electricity were flowing in a constant way, most people's bodies would likely adapt, but with all the interference from modern devices, the resulting fields are too variable for people to get used to.

Devonavar · Post by **Devonavar** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:50 am

I read a similar article in the Vancouver Sun about a year ago, but I think this new article from the Globe and Mail had a much clearer explanation of the problem. As I recall, the Vancouver Sun reported that Khazakstan (spelling?) was the world leader in research about the health effects of dirty electricity.

I wholly agree that electrical fields can affect our health, though my evidence is first-hand, not scientific. I also think that we can become accustomed to at least some level of electromagnetic interference in our environment (or maybe we just learn to ignore the symptoms).

I realized at an early age that being around a lot of electricity could tire me out very quickly. When I was a child, trips to the local science museum (full of electrical "experiments" set up as exhibits, and one of the few places where computers were commonplace 15 years ago) would tire me out inordinately, and I would often end up with a headache after spending two or three hours inside.

I've also noticed that I can sense when a major appliance in my house turns on if I happen to be paying attention. This is more than just a reaction to the sound of it turning on (I've tested it). I perceive it as a sudden but slight tightening of my skin all over my body, and especially on my scalp.

When I first started writing for SPCR, I also noticed that spending time in the lab (where there are lots of computers operating without cases to shiled the EMI) would tire me out very quickly, and often give me a headache. I've since become acclimatized, but I still find trips to the lab quite draining if I'm not well rested beforehand.

On a more speculative note, it would be fascinating to investigate whether this phenomenon (if it is one) could provide a scientific basis for astrology. It's well known that stars give off electromagnetic radation (commonly known as light, but it's not all restricted to the visual spectrum), and individual stars are identifiable by their unique radiation signatures. I don't think it's that implausible that the particular combination of these (admittedly weak) signals could influence our personality at birth and continue to influence us to a lesser extent throughout our lives.

piglickjf · Post by **piglickjf** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:23 am

Seems to make some sense physioligically speaking, as our nerves operate on tiny electrical impulses. If there is free "dirty" electroagnetic fields floating around that could be interfering with (or inducing) errant impulses in our nerves, it could affect all kinds of stuff. Slight, imperceptible contraction of muscle fibers or extra neuron activity in the brain could both easily result in a feeling of stress and/or fatigue.

PigLick

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:35 am

If there is free "dirty" electroagnetic fields floating around

Define "dirty". You are surrounded by electromagnetic fields every hour of the day and night, from radio and TV broadcasts to RF interference from passing cars to the fields from power cables to your TV to your PC. Much like the research into the harmful effects of the microwave radiation from cellphones, I expect this research will turn up no concrete, observable, repeatable ill-effects.

Elixer · Post by **Elixer** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:15 pm

I've noticed that I seem to sleep better with my computer off, and it's not because of the noise. I leave a fan on when I sleep that completely drowns out the noise of my quiet computer, so that shouldn't be a factor. Could be EMI, but I'm still skeptical.

kenji · Post by **kenji** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:29 pm

Elixer: I don't know about 'drowning out noise' with more noise... but whatever sinks your sub.

I will subscribe to this though.

When I was living in my previous home (a 2 story home) I remember being able to 'feel' the fan of the furnace come on when I was upstairs. I could feel it almost like what i could only describe as magnetic waves suddenly flowing through me.

Most thought I had just taken some LSD or something when I told them about it.

However I also can sometimes SWEAR that I "feel" my phone ringing when it's on vibrate mode. And I'm not talking about when it's in my pocket, but in a room on the other side of the house. Now as far as that goes, maybe you can say I'm just tripping on drugs again.., but never was there a time that I ran to my phone and it wasn't ringing, and I don't know how to explain that.

by the way, my new nokia n90 doesn't have a 'vibrate' function, and when it's on silent mode I have NO idea, even when it's in my pocket, that it's ringing, unless I'm near some crappy computer speakers, at which point the speakers 'pick up' the ringing and transmit them 'dit dit dit dit dit dit dit' right before it starts ringing or recieves a text. stuff is just crazy !

.. although perfectly scientifically plausible i'm sure..

jmke · Post by **jmke** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:33 pm

kenji wrote:at which point the speakers 'pick up' the ringing and transmit them 'dit dit dit dit dit dit dit' right before it starts ringing or recieves a text. stuff is just crazy !

you can boil an egg by placing it between two cellphones and setting up a call between the two. http://www.wymsey.co.uk/wymchron/cooking.htm

kenji · Post by **kenji** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:47 pm

okay that's not only more nutz, but now that's just scary. my brain could be boiled! Boiled i tell you!

jmke · Post by **jmke** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:55 pm

the first year I was with my girlfriend we phoned every evening/night for hours; she complained of a headache/felt hot at long cellphone calls.

not you can take that statement anyway you like

but I'm referring to "hot in dzé head".

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:12 pm

you can boil an egg by placing it between two cellphones and setting up a call between the two

No you can't; that article was a hoax:

Boil An Egg with 2 Cellphones Hoax

Have you seen the article about how to cook an egg with two cellphones? Maybe you caught it on Slashdot. Or BoingBoing. Or Digg. Or one of many other sites that have linked to the story over the past few days. It is, as many have pointed out, not a viable way to cook.

Ivermee, a 60-year old archiver in a law firm in South Hampton, has written almost all of the pieces on the Wymsey site, including the egg article, which he wrote back in 2000. In the piece, he outlines eight ridiculous steps for hard boiling an egg using the transmissions of two cellphones pointed at each other with the egg in between.

"I really underestimated how many people would take it seriously," he tells Gelf over email. "No other page on the site has grabbed people's attention and ire button as much as this one. What seems to be happening is that it 'travels' from blog to blog, forum to forum. It was big in Australia last year and seems to be big in the US right now."

According to Ivermee, the article got almost 50,000 hits during one week in September last year and last week got 18,500 hits. That number is sure to rise even more this week.

Why did he write the piece? "It was 6 years ago but I seem to recall that there was a lot of concern about people's brains getting fried and being from a radio/electronics background I found it all rather silly," he writes. "So I thought I'd add to the silliness."

He definitely did, though not everyone got the joke. According to Ivermee, an editor at a UK exam study site presented it as fact. The Three Wise Men unsuccessfully tried to replicate the experiment.

link 2

"Cook an egg with mobile phones" hoax exposed
A few weeks ago, I blogged about a web page, purportedly written by two college students, discussing how to cook an egg using two mobile phones. The page had been slowly wending its way through the blogosphere, and a few days after my posting it hit Boing Boing and Slashdot, whereupon it totally blew up.

But as several commenters on my posting noted, the story seemed like a hoax. Having guilelessly posted it, I gamely attempted a few half-hearted defenses of my gullibility ... until the actual hoaxster himself arrived to explain that indeed, it was all a joke, and I was simpy too gormless to have seen through it. Winner.

Anyway, the folks at Gelf Magazine actually interviewed the hoaxster, and discovered that it is Charlie Ivermee, a 60-year-old British man.

My suspicion was aroused because if the phones only put out 2 watts (and generally they put out less than that) it will take years for the eggs to cook. To put it into perpective, a kettle requires thousands of watts to boil water.

jmke · Post by **jmke** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:15 pm

I should have checked www.snopes.com

Elixer · Post by **Elixer** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:45 pm

kenji: I live in a dorm room right now so having a fan on allows me to ignore all the random noises make by people in the dorms at night, otherwise I prefer silence.

I think what you're experiencing is the feeling of noises below the human range of hearing. We can only hear to around 20Hz, so anything below that we just feel. You probably notice the furnice turning on because it makes some low frequency noise that you can feel when the heater turns on (because furnaces turn on a heater for a little while before turning on their fan). For your cellphone you're probably just very in tune with the specific frequency and period of its vibration. Since you've heard/felt it right next to you many times you can more easily pick it out from any other ambient noise, even if doing so is almost completely subconscious.

piglickjf · Post by **piglickjf** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:31 pm

jaganath wrote:
If there is free "dirty" electroagnetic fields floating around
Define "dirty". You are surrounded by electromagnetic fields every hour of the day and night, from radio and TV broadcasts to RF interference from passing cars to the fields from power cables to your TV to your PC. Much like the research into the harmful effects of the microwave radiation from cellphones, I expect this research will turn up no concrete, observable, repeatable ill-effects.

I don't have a definition for "dirty" in this context, it was just a word that was used that seemed fitting. I'm not saying I completely believe this is true, just that in theory it's not that far-fetched. We can measure nervous responses with electrodes, MRIs, etc. Granted those are sensitive instruments made for specifically that purpose, but it just wouldn't surprise me all that much if we found that some of the EMFs we're swimming in on a daily basis (and which I'm guessing is growing increasingly "thick" every day) could possibly be having some affect on us at the physiological level given that our entire nervous system is based on small electrical signals.

PigLick

Post by **Ralf Hutter** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:40 am

Possible solution to this EMI issue.

Hmm, maybe not. Here's some additional research, alá SPCR.

jmke · Post by **jmke** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:44 am

Kjell Mild, who led the study, said the figures meant that heavy users of mobile phones had a 240 percent increased risk of a malignant tumor on the side of the head the phone is used.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6502.html

just great.

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:01 pm

Kjell Mild, who led the study, said the figures meant that heavy users of mobile phones had a 240 percent increased risk of a malignant tumor on the side of the head the phone is used.

It's not exactly difficult to avoid; just use a handsfree/Bluetooth headset.

jmke · Post by **jmke** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:14 pm

The study's authors suggest, as usual, that the best way to reduce your risk (short of ditching your phone altogether) is to use a hands-free system. One wonders, though, whether buying a headset and then shoving the phone in your pocket isn't likely to cause other, ahem, problems of equal severity.

Slaugh · Post by **Slaugh** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:52 am

http://www.electricalpollution.com/

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am

From that site:

A simple thing such as washing dishes or standing on the lawn can then make you part of an electrical circuit.

How? (not the washing dishes part, I get that) If indeed there are ground currents induced by stray voltage returning to the substation, why would it preferentially choose to flow through your body, especiallly considering the resistance of someone wearing rubber-soled shoes could be as much 20 mega-ohms? Generally, it seems to me that the people selling so-called "dirty power" cleaning devices is a case of the unscrupulous exploiting the superstitious and the gullible.

IsaacKuo · Post by **IsaacKuo** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:56 am

jaganath wrote:From that site:

A simple thing such as washing dishes or standing on the lawn can then make you part of an electrical circuit.
How? (not the washing dishes part, I get that)

Well, there's a non-zero chance of being part of a cloud-to-ground electrical circuit...

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:35 am

Well, there's a non-zero chance of being part of a cloud-to-ground electrical circuit...

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the "dirty power" which is the focus of that website.

cargocult · Post by **cargocult** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:57 pm

"Dirty" electricity? That expression is bound for glory. We should spread the news, it could be the Next Big Thing in the press now that the chicken flu scare is rapidly being forgotten. Or all the other scares that turned out to be duds.

nici · Post by **nici** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:23 pm

cargocult wrote:"Dirty" electricity? That expression is bound for glory. We should spread the news, it could be the Next Big Thing in the press now that the chicken flu scare is rapidly being forgotten. Or all the other scares that turned out to be duds.

You mean there isn´t a suicidal terrorist hiding in my pizza?!?!?

aviavi · Post by **aviavi** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:01 am

Oh jesus...

The issue of sensitivity to electrical fields has been researched quite thoroughly, and there has been NO evidence to support that electrical fields are detectable by even people who claim to be sensitive.

As the WHO has reported from their ongoing research:

"The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure."

and

"EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem."

For more, see:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factshee ... index.html

Avi

ToasterIQ2000 · Post by **ToasterIQ2000** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:53 pm

It's been years since I spent time reading up on what can be well-said on this; like days and weeks burrowing through the Science Citation Abstracts in a proper University medical library.

I'm surprised that without too much digging I found _any_ links handy.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020629/fob3.asp
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc/34135/

I have a print out from 21:52-56(2000), that I can't see how to reference / link online currently.

Probably best not to get into it here...just a couple of mouse clicks away from vigorous discussion of the Flying Spagehtti Monter and all...

highlandsun · Post by **highlandsun** » Mon May 08, 2006 4:50 pm

I would venture to guess that unless you're conducting the tests at the bottom of a salt mine, with no electronic instruments nearby, there's no way to establish a real "control" group for a proper study in today's world. When you say "we're constantly exposed to RF from a multitude of sources" to dismiss the point, you're really just confirming the difficulty of properly testing the hypothesis. The world we live in today, vs 100 years ago, is completely inundated with RF noise, no doubt about it. That the effect isn't measurable against the level of background noise is not surprising. What's significant is the level of background noise itself, and if you don't remove that from the scenario, you haven't done a proper test.

nomoon · Post by **nomoon** » Mon May 08, 2006 6:37 pm

I got my PhD designing and building microwave and far infrared detectors and Iâ€™d be my life that typical modern electric fields will not cause any significant psychological or physiological stress. If I remember correctly, the Berkeley professor who pioneered some of the epidemiological studies in this field was fired for fabricating data. An early Swedish study reported ill effects from electric fields, but this study has not be reproduced. On the rare occasions that I hear of a new study reporting ill effects from electric fields, the always seems to be something statistically wacky about it and I have NEVER heard of any of these studies being reproduced. Aside from that, the physics just doesnâ€™t add up. The common mechanisms that an electric field could potentially interact with a personâ€™s health arenâ€™t significant at the field intensities found in a modern house. The key phrase is â€œionizing radiationâ€

Devonavar · Post by **Devonavar** » Mon May 08, 2006 9:27 pm

I'm glad you'll keep watching. I will too.

A few things I don't understand about your post:

- Why assume that ionization is the only cause of ill effects. You say yourself that low-level noise/vibration can cause fatigue, so why assume that low level stimulation from radiation cannot have similar effects?
- Natural radiation from sunlight does affect us significantly, even when it's not ionizing our skin. The effects of the day / night cycle are prevalent throughout the animal kingdom. It affects our habits, our moods, and our behaviour.
- The same goes for the static fields before thunderstorms. It's more than a coincidence that people get nervous in the quiet before a storm.

Last, I think that it may not be the magnitude of the radiation that is likely to matter so much as its variability. In my experience, humans can adapt to just about anything so long as it's constant. If there's a pattern, we can learn how to deal with it (I'm thinking day/night cycle here). However, we have a problem when we can't find a pattern in something. There's nothing more annoying than unpredictable changes in noise patterns. If you want someone to notice something, do something unexpected.

With that framework in mind, if I were going to go looking for the effects of electrical fields, I would not use constant fields as my source of evidence. A light bulb does indeed emit a huge amount of radiation, but it is more or less constant, so it is easy to adapt to. Instead, I would look at variable fields, especially those that do not have obvious patterns. This is exactly what the "dirty power" folks are claiming. It's not just the magnitude that matters, it's the variability.

In fact, I think this idea could even provide some theoretical basis for why fatigue comes up so often as a reported symptom. Unpredictable change attracts our attention. Rest is allowing our attention to stay in one spot without changing. If our attention is constantly being distracted by random changes, we are unable to rest as much / as deeply, and fatigue is the result. Obviously, this would need to be translated into cellular / molecular terms, but I think it's plausible enough if there is evidence for it.

Evidence, of course, is the big question. How do you gather evidence for the effects of electrical fields, especially random electrical fields, on an organism? As highlandsun pointed out in the post above, it's nearly impossible to come up with a suitable control case, because the entire world is inundated with random radiation, and it's nearly impossible to isolate just that variable for a long period of time.

Ultimately, I think that the EMI fields that surround us are not dangerous as such ("danger" is so subjective that it's always a bit of a weasel word in the media). As several people have pointed out, we've lived with high amounts of EMI for decades. However, I have no problem believing that there are effects, especially over the long term. EMI is a physical phenomenon and we are physical beings. I find it impossible to believe that that physical phenomenon does not affect us in some way. If a radio wave can stimulate a receiver, it can stimulate us as well; the only difference is in the way our reaction differs from that of the receiver.

wim · Post by **wim** » Mon May 08, 2006 11:39 pm

[quote="nomoon"]however, you can now buy ozone generators that are marketed as â€œair purifiersâ€

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Tue May 09, 2006 7:40 am

huh? i had thought ground-level ozone was an air pollutant. why would someone buy, or make, a device such as this..?

Ionisers are designed to produce minimal amounts of ozone:

Air ioniser

Some companies or individuals who sell (or support the use of) air ionizing devices claim that such devices can improve one's health.

They claim various effects for the devices, such as:

Generation of ions from diatomic elements such as oxygen and nitrogen, which constitute air
Generation of ozone (although it is generally established that ozone is harmful to the lungs)
Filtering or precipitation of dust and other harmful particles
Despite dubious marketing claims to the contrary, ionic wind plays no part in the process, as may be evidenced by the tiny breeze near the ioniser emitter.

Ionisers should not be confused with ozone generators, even though both devices operate in a similar way. Ionisers are optimised to produce negative ions of gaseous molecules, and ozone generators are optimised to produce ozone, though it should be noted that even the best ionisers will produce a small amount of ozone, and ozone generators will produce gaseous ions of molecules other than ozone (unless fed by pure oxygen, not air).

Environmental ozone generators use a high negative voltage to produce small amounts of ozone, which, while toxic, is claimed by some alternative medicine proponents to be relatively harmless to humans. This is a demonstrable fallacy, as ozone is a highly toxic and extremely reactive gas. Low level ozone exposure is relatively harmless (and natural), but if the ozone levels rise to a level that can be smelled, then as a rule of thumb the concentration is too high. A higher daily average than 0.1 ppm (0.2 mg/m3)is not recommended and can damage the lungs and olfactory bulb cells directly. The ozone generated is also highly toxic to air-borne bacteria, and may destroy or kill these sometimes infectious organisms when they come into close contact with the generated ozone. Ozone therapy is illegal in the USA, because the FDA has not approved its use on humans.

An air ioniser also generates negative ions by exposing air to a high negative voltage. Negative ions occur naturally near waterfalls and after heavy thunderstorms and are claimed to produce a feeling of increased well-being, and this is the effect that ionisers try to duplicate. Conversely, positive ions in the air are claimed by some to produce a feeling of decreased well-being, and such positive ions can be found immediately before thunderstorms and around the high positive voltages on the anodes of cathode ray tubes in TVs and computer monitors. Many ionisers are sold as air purifiers, but in this regard they are very inefficient. They will clean the air to a small degree, by charging dust and smoke particles which will then be attracted to a neutral or positively charged surface. Heavier combined particles may precipitate (fall) out of the air should two smaller particles of different charge clump together. The drawback with using ionisers as air purifiers is that all the affected airborne particles ultimately wind up on surfaces close to the ioniser, including the ioniser and high voltage emitter, reducing the efficiency of the latter as it is slowly covered in dirt, and making the area around the ioniser increasingly dirty also. The static charge on the front of a powered-up TV screen would have similar effect as an air purifier.

I would venture to guess that unless you're conducting the tests at the bottom of a salt mine, with no electronic instruments nearby, there's no way to establish a real "control" group for a proper study in today's world. When you say "we're constantly exposed to RF from a multitude of sources" to dismiss the point, you're really just confirming the difficulty of properly testing the hypothesis. The world we live in today, vs 100 years ago, is completely inundated with RF noise, no doubt about it. That the effect isn't measurable against the level of background noise is not surprising. What's significant is the level of background noise itself, and if you don't remove that from the scenario, you haven't done a proper test.

It's not as hard to do a meaningful scientific experiment to test for non-thermal effects of non-ionising radiation as you make out. Exposing rats and other subject animals to N-I radiation inside a good Faraday cage for long periods of time can yield scientifically credible results. The main thing that the "EMI is harmful at domestic field strengths" advocates have to come up with is a plausible and detailed chain of causation (ie N-I radiation breaks bond X/interferes with RNA transcription etc); it's no good testing a hypothesis that hasn't been formulated yet.

Frankly, the jury is out on this one, and probably will be for a very long time, and in my opinion there are much more proximal causes of stress/tiredness/short-term memory loss, such as crap jobs and working conditions, financial insecurity, family breakdown, etc.