Is there a test to prove that an EMF (electro-magnetic field) has damaged human body?

So you believe that EMF radiation does physiologic damage to the human body? If so, what makes you think this?

No. If any damage does occur, it cannot be quantified. Like radiation (x-rays, alpha, beta and gamma rays), any effects of being exposed to an electromagnetic field would be entirely probabilistic. For example, in the case of the cancer cluster at the ABC studios in Toowong (link), not everyone got cancer, but the rate was abnormally high compared to probabilistic models.

Here’s a report from World Health Organization (WHO), which refers to ordinary household electromagnetic radiation (50–60 Hz) as “extremely low frequency” (ELF) and notes that:

The only practical way that ELF fields interact with living tissues is by inducing electric fields and currents in them. However, the magnitude of these induced currents from exposure to ELF fields at levels normally found in our environment, is less than the currents occurring naturally in the body.
—————
Cattle graze under high-voltage transmission lines all the time—no apparent health effects there, either.

@Rarebear
Personal experience.

@radcliff Can you share what personal experience you’ve had?

There was a recent study showing a link between “changes” in brain activity and cell phone usage. I haven’t read the study, just the news articles describing it. No word on if the changes are harmful, but there is a change. Here is a link.

@radcliff I do not believe there is a study or a test yet. However, there are many looking into this. One group: People studying Autism. Another: those studying bee decline

I don’t personally think EMF is the cause of many of the things it’s attributed to. However, this is an area I do believe needs focus and concern.

One of the first requests of our DAN! doctor was to remove the WiFi from the room our ASD son spends the most time in. We have also noted that our son is extremely hyper active when around WiFi usage.

@cockswain Your link links to an article by a personal injury lawyer.

Jesus that’s embarrassing. I just grabbed the first link I found related to an NPR report I heard a couple months ago. Holy crap. Here’s a less embarrassing one.

The NIH study, cited above by @cockswain, was widely reported by the media about a month ago. It showed increased brain activity (glucose metabolism) with cell phones transmitting compared to off among 47 subjects. The study is discussed at a site called Neuroskeptic:

Why mention cancer, if the only thing you say about it is that there’s no link? Presumably because of the following chain of associations: cell phones use radiation…radiation causes cancer…cell phones and cancer!

I have no idea if cell phones cause cancer. Just from basic biology though, if they were going to cause any cancer, it’d probably be skin cancer rather than brain cancer, since a) they’re closest to the skin, not the brain and b) brain cancer is incredibly rare because the brain contains no rapidly dividing cells, whereas skin cancer is common because skin is made of exactly that…...So even if if this increased brain glucose metabolism somehow was related to cancer of the brain, this would be the least of our worries, because if cell phones somehow caused brain cancer, they’d almost certainly cause many times more cases of skin cancer and the brain cancer would be a footnote.
—————
Nobody knows (yet) why the brain research produced those results or even if they’re meaningful. Wi-Fi, however, is associated with far less intense EM fields unless you’re right next to the antenna as with hand-held phones. I don’t worry at all about 2.4 or 5 GHz Wi-Fi.

@radcliff, here are the mechanisms by which electromagnetic radiation can interact with biological tissue: (1) Heating; (2) Ionization; (3) Other. I could say “known mechanisms” and list would only be the first two.

Heating can be from holding a warm battery against your head or from emitted microwaves. The latter follows the 1/R^2 rapid fall-off of intensity with distance. Ionizing radiation refers to ultraviolet (uv), x-rays, and radioactivity—distinguished by their ability to change DNA molecules, thus harming living cells. Cell phones and Wi-Fi equipment do not emit ionizing radiation.

As for #3: This is fertile ground for pseudoscience and charlatans. There’s a Wikipedia article on electromagnetic hypersensitivity that says – with the expected fair-minded neutral point of view: …it is not recognized as a medical condition by the medical or scientific communities. [citation needed]
The Skeptic’s Dictionary, however, mentions “electro-sensitives” : Double-blind, controlled studies have repeatedly shown that electro-sensitives can’t tell the difference between genuine and sham electro-magnetic fields (EMFs).1, 2

@gasman @cockswain @Rarebear @SpatzieLover @FireMadeFlesh
Thank you so far. How could powerful electrical ballasts ionize human tissue and how can one prove this?

What is an “electrical ballast”?

A ballast is something to limit current, like a resistor or transformer. Basically those are the two types (at least that I’m familiar with).

I suppose if one had an unshielded transformer of giant voltage, and one stood near the coils for a really long time, maybe there would be some effect, but I don’t actually know.

But I don’t like the way you’re approaching this. You don’t decide that ballasts can actually ionize tissue (since maybe it can’t) and then decide this must be proven. If it doesn’t follow the laws of physics, it can’t be proven. Trying to create a hypothesis without data is a terrible idea.

@cockswain
I didnt decide anything. I am inquiring only. Maybe I worded it wrong. If electricity or ballasts can ionize tissue/cells of humans, how could this happen. In theory or with proof?
Then, how could one prove physiological damage ( caused by this) to tissue or cells….?
If this is possible.
Pardon my lack of knowlege. :)

@cockswain
Where can I find the data on elecrical ballasts?

I’d read the Wikipedia page on it to get a general idea. I’m not sure where you’re getting the notion that a ballast can ionize tissue though.

Here is a good article
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-06-09/

That is a good article, thanks. Plus it features a pretty sexy looking young Carl Sagan on the side.

@radcliff: How could powerful electrical ballasts ionize human tissue and how can one prove this?

The only connection I see between electric ballasts and ionization are that ballasts are commonly used as fluorescent light starters, and inside a fluorescent tube is an ionized plasma (produced by a particular mix of rarefied gases) that lights up the tube.

The ballast itself is basically an inductor, capable of generating high voltage spikes from lower-voltage input. Hooked up and applied directly to your skin it might give you a nasty shock, but nothing involving tissue ionization.

@ “If” tissue has been ionized in any way, ...could tissue be tested and proved to be ionized?

If the tissue has been ionized, that would be testable. However I don’t think this is a way to ionize tissue.

@cockswain
How could/would it be tested?
Skin tissue, fat tissue muscle tissue, any tissue.

I’m not a physicist well-versed in the best current state of technology for such an application. But it might be possible to rig up a mass spectrometer and bombard a tissue sample with varying amounts of EMF and see if you get something to ionize.

@cockswain
Could you be more clear? :)

Not easily. A mass spectrometer is an instrument where one can hit a sample with a laser and ionize it. The resulting ions fly up a tube and the heavier ones travel slower. The time it takes to fly is used to calculate its mass. There is a more complicated, higher resolution version of mass spec as well, but I don’t understand the principles well enough to paint a simple picture. Anyways, instead of a laser to ionize your sample, you could apply an electrical field and see if something ionizes. But I don’t think you’d see anything happen. As @Rarebear ‘s link showed, 1 watt from a cell phone isn’t going to do squat. But I’m sure one could do something to the atoms in the sample in a strong enough electrical field. I do know a bit about Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR), and that is an instrument in which one aligns the protons in a strong magnetic field. The rate at which they “relax” back to their natural spin states can be measured and gives one information about the characteristics of the molecule.

But I’ve operated one of those instruments many times, and never been harmed by the very strong electrical field. Nor did it erase my credit cards or mess up my cell phone. But it is possible to do so with a strong enough field. I just don’t see there being enough energy in our common objects to cause a problem in our bodies. I vaguely remember an experiment in which some physicists were able to levitate a frog in a super-powerful magnetic field. If you can find that experiment, maybe there is some info about what happened to the frog (if anything). It may also give you a clue about what kinds of relative forces are at work too.

@Rarebear @cockswain
Thank you, so can I assume with a strong enough electrical or magnetic field that human cells or tissue can be ionized (the gases in cells or human tissue) to change to plasma?

No, you can’t assume that. You’d like to assume that.

@cockswain
How do you get these messages so quickly?

@radcliff No. Please read the link I posted.

The risks of ionizing radiation is that it can break chemical bonds, causing damage to biochemical molecules (including, but certainly not limited to, DNA).

If you have ordinary electromagnetic radiation (such as Wi-Fi or cell phones in the GHz range) then even if the power was 1 million watts (far exceeding the most powerful radio transmitters) there isn’t a single photon with sufficient energy to ionize / break bonds. Boost the power and you get more photons, none of which have sufficient energy. We know this from over a century of studying the photoelectric effect and other quantum behavior of matter and energy.

As for tissue damage, there’s no “smoking gun” for ionizing radiation, no microscopic hallmark of that particular mechanisms versus others, as far as I know (ask a pathologist). I’d look up general descriptions of radiation burns and other health effects of ionizing radiation—even though it’s of questionable relevance.

@gasman @Rarebear @cockswain
If there is a private way to tell about the un-natural damage that happened, I may tell you the seemingly sci-fi story!

What the hell does that even mean?

@cockswain No frakking idea, but I’m getting really amused by this thread, actually.

@radcliff I personally am not really not interested in having a PM conversation about it, but if you want to post your experiences on this thread we’ll be happy to comment.

Yeah, I’d say we’re owed a story at this point. Did you get hit by lightning or something?

@cockswain @Rarebear @gasman

I am ill all the time and in pain. I have gotten worse over 5 years. The only things I can prove is my looks have totally changed and I DO NOT NEED SLEEP. The story is unbelievable and I do not want it public info. I have different theories but I cant clinically prove harm done to me or causal effect.. Thank you for your answers. I appreciate them very much.

@radcliff: Sorry to hear of your illness. Hope you get better & find the cause, too.

Agree with @gasman; I’m sorry you’re sick. My advice is not to look at EMF radiation but go to a qualified professional for help.