Keywords:

safety;

occupational exposure;

Physical Agents Directive;

electromagnetic fields;

MRI

Abstract
Purpose
To measure the potential impact on clinical MRI practice in the UK of the European Union (EU) Physical Agents Directive (PAD) on
electromagnetic fields (EMF). There is evidence that the exposure limit values contained in the PAD will make it impossible for
members of staff to stand close to the magnet during scanning; currently this is common practice in order to provide care and support for
vulnerable patients. Interventional MR procedures will also be impossible.

Materials and Methods

Members of the British Association of MR Radiographers (BAMRR) were sent a questionnaire to assess the impact of the PAD and
related safety issues.

Results
A total of 25% of responding sites have at least one sedation/general anesthesia (GA) session per week, while only 3% reported any
interventional practice. A total of 29% of respondents reported that operators give a bolus injection by hand during contrast-enhanced
magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) scans. Overall it is estimated that 3% of all MR examinations in the UK are performed with
a staff member in the magnet room. Some of these examinations would be impossible without staff in the room and it would be
necessary for patients to have computed tomography (CT) instead of MRI. The additional radiation dose of substituting CT for MRI is
estimated at 224 man-sievert per year.

Conclusion

While the financial costs of implementing the PAD (EMF) are relatively low, the social costs are difficult to quantify but potentially more
alarming. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2007;26:13031307. 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Introduction
This web site will be devoted to the subject of EMF and health from the perspective
of evidence based science that has been published in reputable peer reviewed
journals. There is growing public alarm about the possible health effects of EMF
whether from high voltage power lines, cell phones, cell phone towers, WiFi
networks, and so called "dirty electricity", etc. This concern has been fed by a wide
array of misleading information on the Internet as well as various reports in the
media. These alarmist's reports are contradicted by the vast majority of solid
scientific evidence.
The public health organizations of the world's industrialized countries conduct
regular expert reviews of the scientific literature on the issue of EMF & health. The
expert reviews from more than 30 countries conclude that there is no evidence of
harm from EMF. These include the World Health Organization (WHO) - the same
organizations that coordinated the international response to the H1N1 swine flu,
SARS, and other pandemics, as well as the as well as the US FDA, the American
Cancer Society, and the European SCENIHR. As we believe this web site makes
clear, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and the overwhelming
consensus from mainstream science is that there is no harm from EMF based on
existing safety guidelines.
In its 2004 document entitled "What are Electromagnetic Fields: Health Effects" the
World Health Organization said: "In the area of biological effects and medical
applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been
published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more
research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive
than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific
literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence
of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields."
This large body of scientific evidence is divided into three main categories:
epidemiological, in vitro, and in vivo. Epidemiological studies have shown no
consistent evidence of harm to health from EMF in human populations. In vivo and
in vitro studies have shown no consistent evidence of harm in animal studies or on
studies conducted on cell cultures.
Alarmists and a minority of scientists, whose work is not recognized according to
established standards, point to some studies that have shown evidence for harm.
However studies showing harm have not been replicated in follow up studies, and

have been strongly refuted by far more comprehensive and rigorous studies. In
many cases, serious flaws have been found with studies that show harm. The recent
Expert Review by the COMAR Committee of the IEEE provides several excellent
examples of poorly done studies that have been thoroughly refuted. Some
alarmists, such as the Bio-Initiative group have argued that studies do not need to
be consistent to raise cause for concern. But this is completely contrary to the way
science works. The COMAR Expert Review paper debunks the shoddy studies cited
in the Bio-Initiative Report. See the following section on in vitro studies for more
examples.
Another often repeated claim is that the studies which find no evidence of harmful
effects are "industry funded". This accusation is simply false as can be seen by
reviewing a database of studies of EMF & health such as the one maintained by the
IEEE. The suggestion of a massive conspiracy to cover up the health effects of EMF,
involving virtually all the world's most prestigious health science organizations, is
simply preposterous.
Alarmists demand that scientists prove that EMF is safe. Science can never
absolutely prove a negative. For instance, science cannot prove with 100% certainty
that ordinary drinking water is safe. Reports from mainstream scientific bodies often
say that more studies are recommended even though no harm from EMF has been
found. Alarmists seize upon this standard scientific conservatism to exaggerate the
degree of scientific uncertainty. They keep promoting many of the same
questionable or poorly executed "scientific" studies, while ignoring far more
comprehensive and rigorous studies that show no harm.
Mainstream public health bodies do not act on questionable, poorly executed
studies that have not been replicated and/or refuted. In reviewing the large body of
existing scientific evidence, they have all reached the same conclusion: there are no
proven health effects from EMF that is within existing safety guidelines.
In seeking to promote a greater understanding of the state of true scientific
knowledge of EMF & Health, it is important to distinguish between myth and reality,
evidence based science and poor science, and to expose pseudoscience. We hope
this web site will help inform and enlighten you about the status of mainstream
scientific research on the issue of EMF and Health
Dirty Electricity and Other EMFs are Dangerous to Your Health
Experts now believe there is a strong correlation between the increased exposure to electrical contaminates in the
home and the dramatic increase in a phenomenon originally known as Radio Wave Sickness now classified as
"Electrical Hypersensitivity" and also known by other names such as Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity and electroimpairment.

Today, more and more people are experiencing symptoms of EHS and other more serous
ailments as a result of the increased daily exposure to Dirty Electricity and EMFs from other
sources like cellular and wireless devices.
Studies have shown that EMF contamination affects children more than adults, and the huge
increase in electromagnetic energy in today's modern electronic environment coincides with
an alarming increase in new-age ailments such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome linked to
chronic pain (also called fibromyalgia) and with the huge spike in childhood cancers, asthma,
autism, ADD/ADHD and physiological and behavioral problems in children. EMFs have also
been linked to breast cancer.
Research indicates that EMFs suppress the immune system's response to ongoing processes such as tumor
growth. In men, EMFs reduced testosterone a hormone drop that has been linked to testicular and prostate
cancers. In women there is strong scientific evidence linking ongoing exposure to EMFs and the huge increase in
breast cancer in recent years. Dr. David Carpenter, Dean at the School of Public Health, State University of New
York believes it is likely that up to 30% of all childhood cancers come from exposure to EMFs.
A scientific report released in 1994 suggested a possible link between occupational EMF exposure and increased
incidence of Alzheimer's disease. This study also found a higher incidence of Alzheimer's disease among tailors
and dressmakers.
Exposure to high-energy radiation and intense exposure to low-energy radiation from power lines, electric wiring
and appliances have been strongly linked to leukemia.
Read: High Frequency Transients on Electrical Wiring: A Missing Link to Increasing Diabetes and Asthma?
Investigators demonstrated an increase of non-Hodgkins lymphoma deaths among employees of Ontario Hydro
Electric as exposure to electric fields increased above thresholds of 10 and 40 Volts/meter over a period of several
years.
Scientists in Russia have done more studies on EMF than any other country and for decades have been reporting
that electric fields cause high blood pressure, chronic stress effects, immune system dysfunction, changes in white
and red blood cell counts, increased metabolism, chronic fatigue disorders and headaches.
Read: The Health Effects of Electrical Pollution
The government of Sweden funded an official, massive study of the effects of electric fields from overhead power
lines on 500,000 people over a period of 25 years and found overwhelming evidence that electric fields generated
cancer in children at 4 times the normal rate and tripled the rate in adults. Sweden now lists electromagnetic fields
(EMF) as Class 2 Carcinogens, right along with tobacco.
In a draft report issued in March 1990, the EPA recommended that EMFs be classified as a Class B carcinogen a
"probable human carcinogen and joined the ranks of formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins and PCBs.
Martin Halper, the EPA's Director of Analysis and Support says "I have never seen a set of epidemiological studies
that remotely approached the weight of evidence that we're seeing with EMFs. Clearly there is something here."
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns: "There is reason for concern" and advises "prudent
avoidance."
See Evidence that Electromagnetic Radiation is Genotoxic
To have your home tested or school tested for electrical pollution or to order Stetzer filters to remove
dangerous dirty electricity from your environment, call 1 877 987-5185.

Our results strongly suggest that (electrical) transients are biologically active within the frequency range
of 4 to 100kHz and at intensities currently found in homes and schools."

Cancer and EMF: EMR )Electromagnetic

Radiation), Powerlines and Electric Fields
and Your Health
Electromagnetic fields (EMF) and Your
Health
Here is yet controversial issue. The EPA stated that EMF and EMR (electromagnetic radiation)
pose no threat to human health, but other studies claim equally fervently that it does! EHSO's
opinion is - common sense - living under a high power line for 20 years can't possibly be good
for youthen neither is selling your home at a $20,000 loss to move quickly. Balance the risks and
costs and try to avoid prolonged exposure.
Typical scenario: My family and I are thinking about buying a house that is positioned
approximately 600 feet away from a high tension wire. Are there any adverse health effects
associated with the long term exposure to electromagnetic fields? Is there a governmentdesignated "safe distance" from the source of electromagnetic fields?
Note: This answer comes from Robert B. Goldberg, Ph.D. of EMF-Link, Information Ventures,
Inc. ( http://infoventures.com/ )
Answer: There are now close to 100 larger and smaller epidemiologic studies that address the
long-term exposure issue. I refer you to EMF-Link (1-800-643-4794) - ask about the
Epidemiology Studies chapter in the Status Report prepared for the State of Maryland, as a basic
reference ( http://infoventures.microserve.com/emf/maryland/cover.html ). In brief, there is a
suggestion which has appeared in many (but not all) studies of children living near power lines
that such exposure can approximately double the risk of leukemia and/or brain tumors. Evidence
is less clear for adults, but suggests the possibility of similar risks. Risks of breast cancer,
depression, and other negative health effects are based on much more limited evidence and are
even more speculative. There is enough information to have some concern, but not enough to set
exposure standards. There is also a lack of clear evidence from laboratory evidence from
laboratory experiments to indicate what protective measures (if any) would be appropriate or to
demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction a mechanism which could explain such an effect of
powerline fields.
The question of a "safe distance" is, at least in my opinion, a complete unknown. The
epidemiologic studies indicated above used a "cut off point" of 2 or 3 mG (average magnetic
field level) to define people as "exposed," but you should realize that this is somewhat arbitrary
level. If you set the cut off point too low, the exposed group is not really much different from the

group you are comparing them to, and if you set it too high you will never find enough people in
the exposed group to allow statistical analysis. These experiments cannot really give an
indication of safe levels: you would need a very clear effect, show a sharp change in effect over a
small difference in exposure. Given the current state knowledge, I don't think anyone can
indicate safe or unsafe levels, only magnetic field levels which are unusually high compared to
what most of us are exposed to. Many people adopt a "prudent avoidance" position where they
reduce personal exposure levels to 1 or 2 mG if it doesn't cost a lot to do so. In doing this you are
not establishing "safe" conditions (because we don't really know what is safe), but are
establishing conditions which do not expose you to an unusually high magnetic field.
Now, read both sides and make up your own mind

Middle ground this is the best balanced study I've seen!

Powerlines and your health - a detail scientific background study

EMF / EMR is dangerous

EMF /EMR is not a problem

Links to other resources

Cellular phone EMF

EMF FAQs

EMF / EMR is dangerous

Although not a chemical, electromagnetic radiation (also called EMR) has been linked with
numerous health effects, including immune system problems. EMR has many sources and
includes overhead power lines, radio broadcast towers, telephone/television microwave
transmission and computer equipment. EMR is invisible radiowave energy that in some
circumstances can change biological function. For instance, it is well known that microwaves
can heat human tissue, thereby causing damage. However, even small amounts of microwave
energy has been found to cause oscillation (vibration) of the DNA and genes without our cells.
This research was conducted in 1984 at the National Center for Devices and Radiological Health
at the Food & Drug Administration in Rockville, Maryland. According to Dr. Earl Prohofsky at
Purdue University in Indiana, "Thats worrisome because thats about the worst place in the
body youd want resonant absorption (vibration) - right in the DNA." Other research has shown
that microwave energy can actually cause the chromosomes to uncoil.

In tests with laboratory rats at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Loma Linda, California,
as little as 60 hertz of nonionizing energy (about what escapes from a leaky microwave)
adversely affected immune response.

EPA Admits Problem

A 1984 EPA report stated there was a detrimental link between radiation and immunity including
negative changes in blood count, immunity and overall health among animals exposed to radio
waves.
Neutrophils Lose Effectiveness
The U.S. government has set standards allowing the public to be exposed to microwave levels of
10 milliwatts per square centimeter. Many European countries permit far less than this to their
public. In a 1979 Soviet study, very low intensity microwaves about 60 times less than what the
U.S. government allows, caused "inhibition of neutrophils phagocytic activity." This means that
the neutrophils were not consuming foreign substances in the blood as effectively as before the
microwave exposure.
Overhead Power Lines Weaken Natural Killer Cells
Another type of EMR is called "extremely low frequency" magnetic fields, which are produced
by high voltage power lines. Several studies have linked high voltage power lines with increased
cancer risk for children. Research from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and the
University of Colorado found a five-fold increase in childhood cancer, particularly leukemia, in
those homes near the highest level of extremely low frequency fields. Homes showing increased
cancer risk were within 48 feet of power line wires designed to carry very high electric currents
and within 22 feet of power lines designed to carry lower currents.
In helping to explain why this could be happening, Dr. Jerry Phillips, director of biochemical
research at the Cancer Therapy and Research Center in San Antonio, Texas, conducted research
into this problem. Dr. Phillips experiments have shown that exposure to extremely low frequency
electric fields causes an abnormal increase in the growth of cancer cells. His research of the
immune system found that natural killer T-cells were also 60-70% less effective in killing the
cancer cells.
NIEHS CONTACTS: Bill Grigg , (301) 402-3378
or Tom Hawkins, (919) 541-1402
NIEHS PR #9-99
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTE REPORT CONCLUDES EVIDENCE IS
'WEAK' THAT ELECTRIC and MAGNETIC FIELDS CAUSE CANCER

After six years of accelerated, Congressionally mandated research, the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences today announced it has concluded that the evidence for a risk of
cancer and other human disease from the electric and magnetic fields (EMF) around power lines
is "weak."
NIEHS review and analysis of the existing data came in a report to Congress, released today.
The report applies to the extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields surrounding both
the big power lines that distribute power and the smaller but closer electric lines in homes and
appliances.
While sections of the report say EMF exposure "cannot be recognized as entirely safe," the
report concludes: "The NIEHS believes that the probability that EMF exposure is truly a health
hazard is currently small. The weak epidemiological associations and lack of any laboratory
support for these associations provide only marginal scientific support that exposure to this agent
is causing any degree of harm."
Research continues on some "lingering concerns," the report says, and efforts to reduce
exposures should continue.

NIEHS said that the "strongest evidence" for health effects comes from statistical associations
observed in human populations with childhood leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in
occupationally exposed adults such as electric utility workers, machinists and welders. "While
the support from individual studies is weak," according to the report, "these epidemiological
studies demonstrate, for some methods of measuring exposure, a fairly consistent pattern of a
small, increased risk with increasing exposure that is somewhat weaker for chronic lymphocytic
leukemia than for childhood leukemia."
However, laboratory studies and investigations of basic biological function do not support these
epidemiological associations, according to the report. It says, "Virtually all of the laboratory
evidence in animals and humans and most of the mechanistic studies in cells fail to support a
causal [cause and effect] relationship."
NIEHS Director Kenneth Olden, Ph.D., said, "The lack of consistent, positive findings in animal
or mechanistic studies weakens the belief that this association is actually due to EMF, but it
cannot completely discount the epidemiological findings. For that reason, and because virtually
everyone in the United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to EMF, efforts
to encourage reductions in exposure should continue. For example, industry should continue
efforts to alter large transmission lines to reduce their fields and localities should enforce
electrical codes to avoid wiring errors that can produce higher fields." An interagency committee
established by the President will make a subsequent report to Congress about the findings of this
report and whether any remedial actions are needed to minimize exposures.
Dr. Olden said NIEHS would continue to support some research on EMF, though not at the high
levels Congress provided in special legislation and appropriations.

The NIEHS report follows a six-year research program and a two-year review by the institute
and by outside scientists. For the effort, Congress appropriated $23 million that the electrical
industry matched. The industry had no control over what research was conducted. The funds
were administered by the Department of Energy and a portion was transferred to NIEHS,
targeted for health effects research. NIEHS also added $14 million of its own appropriated funds
to support additional research. The total expenditure was about $60 million.
The studies reviewed and conducted by NIEHS and its grantees focused on the possibility of a
link to cancer a reaction to a leukemia study in Denver, Colo., in 1979, and to subsequent
attempts to duplicate or refute it in Denver and elsewhere. But the report said NIEHS also found
inadequate evidence of any link to such non-cancer diseases as Alzheimers, depression and birth
defects. Christopher Portier, Ph.D., the associate director of the Environmental Toxicology
Program at NIEHS who coordinated the evaluation effort, said, "This risk assessment gains
strength and reliability from the conduct of extensive new research focused to support the
evaluation and through obtaining the opinion of hundreds of scientists who participated in the
evaluation. The novel methods used in this risk assessment can serve as a blueprint for resolving
other difficult issues."
To assist NIEHS in reaching its conclusions, several panels of scientists reviewed the data in
open, public hearings. A major panel of scientists many of them EMF researchers was
assembled in a suburb of Minneapolis, Minn., last June to advise NIEHS. The panel rejected
EMF as a "known" or proven, or even "probable" carcinogen but a majority of the panel said a
role in cancer could not be ruled out and so it should be regarded as "possible" carcinogen. The
NIEHS report today also recommends that the fields continue to be recognized as a "possible"
cancer hazard, but emphasizes the weakness of the data and the low risk that may be involved.
The NIEHS report says the evidence does not seem to meet the standard for listing as a known or
even "anticipated" human carcinogen in the National Toxicology Programs Report on
Carcinogens .
NIEHS is one of the National Institutes of Health. NIEHS headquarters and laboratories in
Research Triangle Park, N.C., are also the headquarters of the National Toxicology Program, and
they have the same director.

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health

issues

Listen

Print

AAA Font size

Summary
Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are generated in the vicinity of power lines, mobile phones,
mobile phone towers, broadcast towers and similar transmitters. Scientific evidence does not
demonstrate a causal link between typical exposures to EMF and adverse health effects,
including leaukaemia in children. However it is advisable to avoid heavy exposure to EMF if
possible.

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are generated in the vicinity of power lines, mobile phones,
mobile phone towers, broadcast towers and similar transmitters. Whether or not EMF can harm
human health is a controversial issue. One EMF source to have received significant media
attention is the high-voltage power line.
Various studies have comprehensively investigated power lines and cancers (such as leukaemia)
to see if there is a causal link. Some researchers maintain that EMF generated by power lines
have frequencies which are too low to influence living cells or harm DNA. Other researchers
disagree. They suggest that EMF from power lines can cause significant changes in a biological
system via electric fields induced in the body. Scientific standards have been developed to limit
public exposure to power-frequency EMF, so that induced currents are below those that occur
naturally in the body.

Two decades of debate

In 1979, researchers investigating childhood leukaemia in Denver, Colorado (USA) found an
association between high-current configuration electrical wiring near the home and an increased
risk of childhood cancer (Wertheimer and Leeper). This initial work, however, did not measure
electromagnetic fields, relying instead on distances from power lines and the type of wiring.
Since then, researchers across the world have investigated power lines. To date, serious
limitations have been identified in nearly all studies on power lines and cancer. It has not been
possible to confirm whether or not there is a real association between EMF and cancer.

UK findings are inconclusive

The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) in the United Kingdom recently released a
report which found some evidence that EMF exposures higher than 0.4 microtesla (T) are
associated with a doubling of the risk of leukaemia in children. The review found no evidence of
any increased risk of cancer in adults. However, the NRPB was careful to explain that no causal
link was found, and recommended that further studies are needed. The evidence for the effect
was inconclusive because the key studies in the review might have suffered from selection bias
or random variation.

No proof of harm
Despite the evidence for an increased risk of leukaemia in children exposed to higher than 0.4T
of EMF, a range of experimental studies have failed to provide clear supporting evidence for the
claim that EMF can be harmful to health, including:

No clear evidence that EMF affects biological processes.

No evidence that EMF can change living cells or is genotoxic (harmful to DNA).

No convincing evidence from animal studies to support the claim that EMF increases the
risk of cancer.

Victorian government policy

The Victorian Department of Human Services supports the view that current guidelines on EMF
and power lines are adequate, since the EMF generated by power lines is well below the
recommended maximum limit of exposure. However, it is advisable to avoid heavy exposure, if
possible.

Where to get help

Your doctor

Department of Health, Radiation Safety Team Tel. 1300 767 469

Things to remember

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are generated in the vicinity of power lines, mobile phones,
mobile phone towers, broadcast towers and similar transmitters.

Whether or not EMF can harm human health is a controversial issue.

Scientific evidence does not demonstrate a causal link between typical exposures to EMF
and adverse health effects.

The Victorian Department of Human Services recommends that heavy exposure to EMF
be avoided, if possible.

Electric & Magnetic Fields

Table of Contents

Description
Electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are invisible areas of energy, often referred to as radiationDictionary of
Environmental Health, that are associated with the use of electrical power and various forms of natural and
man-made lighting. EMFs are typically characterized by wavelength or frequency into one of two radioactive
categories:

Non-ionizing: low-level radiation which is generally perceived as harmless to humans

Ionizing: high-level radiation which has the potential for cellular and DNA damage

Radiation Type

Definition

Non-Ionizing

Low to midfrequency

Forms of Radiation

Extremely Low
Frequency (ELF)

Microwave
ovens

Rediofrequency
(RF)

Computers

House energy
smart meters

Wireless (wifi)
networks

Cell Phones

Bluetooth
devices

Power lines

MRIs

radiation which is
generally
perceived as
harmless due to
its lack of
potency.

Ionizing

Source Examples

Microwaves

Visual Light

Mid to highfrequency
radiation which
can, under
certain
circumstances,

Ultraviolet (UV)

Ultraviolet light

X-Rays

Gamma

X-Rays
ranging from
30 * 1016 Hz to
30 * 1019 Hz

lead to cellular
and or DNA
damage with
prolonged
exposure.

Some gamma
raysIllustrated
Dictionary and
Resource
Directory of
Environmental
and
Occupational
Health

Can EMFs be harmful to my health?

During the 1990s, most EMF research focused on extremely low frequency exposures stemming from
conventional power sources, such as power lines, electrical substations, or home appliances. While some of
these studies showed a possible link between EMF field strength and an increased risk for childhood
leukemiaDictionary of Environmental Health, their findings indicated that such an association was weak. Now,
in the age of cellular telephones, wireless routers, and portable GPS devices (all known sources of EMF
radiation), concerns regarding a possible connection between EMFs and adverse health effects still persists,
though current research continues to point to the same weak association.
Additionally, the few studies that have been conducted on adults show no evidence of a link between EMF
exposure and adult cancers, such as leukemia, brain cancer, and breast cancer. Nevertheless, NIEHS
recommends continued education on practical ways of reducing exposures to EMFs.

Does my cell phone emit EMF radiation?

Measured in units called hertz, cell phone emissions, a form of radiofrequency radiation, exist at the lower end
of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum at the 900-1900 megahertz range. At present, the weight of the current
scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, though
scientists admit that more research is needed. To that end, the National Toxicology Program (NTP),
headquartered at NIEHS, is leading the largest laboratory rodent study, to date, on cell phone radiofrequency
exposure, the findings of which are expected sometime in 2015.
To learn more about cell phone radiofrequency or the NTP rodent study, visit the NIEHS Environmental Health
Topics page on cell phones.

What if I live near a power line?

It is important to remember that the strength of a magnetic field decreases dramatically with increasing distance
from the source. This means that the strength of the field reaching a house or structure will be significantly
weaker than it was at its point of origin, a concept which is illustrated on page 37 of the NIEHS educational
booklet, EMF: Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power.. For example, a
magnetic field measuring 57.5 milligauss immediately beside a 230 kilovolt transmission line measures just 7.1
milligauss at a distance of 100 feet, and 1.8 milligauss at a distance of 200 feet.

How can I find out if Im being exposed to EMFs?

If you are concerned about EMFs emitted by a power line or substation in your area, you can contact your local
power company to schedule an on-site reading. You can also measure EMFs yourself with the use of a
gaussmeter, which is available for purchase online through a number of retailers.

Where can I learn more?

British Journal of Cancer

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Federal Communications Commission

International Agency for Research on Cancer

National Cancer Institute

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

World Health Organization

Related Topics

Cell Phones

Is Dirty Electricity Making You

Sick?

Too many electromagnetic fields surrounding usfrom cell

phones, wifi, and commonplace modern technologymay be
seriously harming our health. Here's how to minimize your
exposure.
By Michael Segell

In 1990, the city of La Quinta, CA, proudly opened the doors of its sparkling new middle school. Gayle Cohen,
then a sixth-grade teacher, recalls the sense of excitement everyone felt: "We had been in temporary
facilities for 2 years, and the change was exhilarating." But the glow soon dimmed. One teacher developed
vague symptomsweakness, dizzinessand didn't return after the Christmas break. A couple of years later,
another developed cancer and died; the teacher who took over his classroom was later diagnosed with throat
cancer. More instructors continued to fall ill, and then, in 2003, on her 50th birthday, Cohen received her own
bad news: breast cancer. "That's when I sat down with another teacher, and we remarked on all the cancers
we'd seen," she says. "We immediately thought of a dozen colleagues who had either gotten sick or passed
away." By 2005, 16 staffers among the 137 who'd worked at the new school had been diagnosed with 18
cancers, a ratio nearly 3 times the expected number. Nor were the children spared: About a dozen cancers
have been detected so far among former students. A couple of them have died.
Prior to undergoing her first chemotherapy treatment, Cohen approached the school principal, who
eventually went to district officials for an investigation. A local newspaper article about the possible disease
cluster caught the attention of Sam Milham, MD, a widely traveled epidemiologist who has investigated
hundreds of environmental and occupational illnesses and published dozens of peer-reviewed papers on his
findings. For the past 30 years, he has trained much of his focus on the potential hazards of electromagnetic
fields (EMFs)the radiation that surrounds all electrical appliances and devices, power lines, and home
wiring and is emitted by communications devices, including cell phones and radio, TV, and WiFi transmitters.
His work has led him, along with an increasingly alarmed army of international scientists, to a controversial
conclusion: The "electrosmog" that first began developing with the rollout of the electrical grid a century ago
and now envelops every inhabitant of Earth is responsible for many of the diseases that impairor killus.
Milham was especially interested in measuring the ambient levels of a particular kind of EMF, a relatively
new suspected carcinogen known as high-frequency voltage transients, or "dirty electricity." Transients are
largely by-products of modern energy-efficient electronics and appliancesfrom computers, refrigerators,
and plasma TVs to compact fluorescent lightbulbs and dimmer switcheswhich tamp down the electricity
they use. This manipulation of current creates a wildly fluctuating and potentially dangerous electromagnetic
field that not only radiates into the immediate environment but also can back up along home or office wiring
all the way to the utility, infecting every energy customer in between. With Cohen's help, Milham entered the
school after hours one day to take readings. Astonishingly, in some classrooms he found the surges of
transient pollution exceeded his meter's ability to gauge them. His preliminary findings prompted the
teachers to file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which in turn ordered a
full investigation by the California Department of Health Care Services.

Electromagnetic radiation and

health
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs more medical references for verification or
relies too heavily on primary sources. Please review the
contents of the article and add the appropriate references if you
can. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be removed. (July
2014)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may

be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the
dispute is resolved. (July 2014)
This article is about the health effects of non-ionizing radiation. For the health
effects of ionizing radiation, see radiation poisoning.

Electromagnetic radiation can be classified into two types: ionizing radiation and non-ionizing
radiation, based on its capability of ionizing atoms and breaking chemical bonds. Ultraviolet and
higher frequencies, such as X-rays or gamma rays are ionizing, and these pose their own special
hazards: see radiation and radiation poisoning. By far the most common health hazard of
radiation is sunburn, which causes over one million new skin cancers annually.[1]
Contents
[hide]

1 Types of hazards
o

1.1 Electrical hazards

1.2 Fire hazards

1.3 Biological hazards

2 Lighting
o

2.1 Compact fluorescent light bulbs

2.2 LED lights

3 EMR Effects on the human body by frequency

o

3.1 Extremely-low-frequency RF

3.2 Microwaves

3.3 Millimeter waves

3.4 Infrared

3.5 Visible Light

3.6 Ultraviolet

3.7 Radio frequency fields

4 See also

5 References

6 External links

Types of hazards[edit]
Electrical hazards[edit]

Very strong radiation can induce current capable of delivering an electric shock to persons or
animals. It can also overload and destroy electrical equipment. The induction of currents by
oscillating magnetic fields is also the way in which solar storms disrupt the operation of
electrical and electronic systems, causing damage to and even the explosion of power
distribution transformers,[2] blackouts (as occurred in 1989), and interference with
electromagnetic signals (e.g. radio, TV, and telephone signals).[3]
Fire hazards[edit]

Extremely high power electromagnetic radiation can cause electric currents strong enough to
create sparks (electrical arcs) when an induced voltage exceeds the breakdown voltage of the
surrounding medium (e.g. air). These sparks can then ignite flammable materials or gases,
possibly leading to an explosion.
This can be a particular hazard in the vicinity of explosives or pyrotechnics, since an electrical
overload might ignite them. This risk is commonly referred to as HERO (Hazards of
Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance). MIL-STD-464A mandates assessment of HERO in a
system, but Navy document OD 30393 provides design principles and practices for controlling
electromagnetic hazards to ordnance.

On the other hand, the risk related to fueling is known as HERF (Hazards of Electromagnetic
Radiation to Fuel). NAVSEA OP 3565 Vol. 1 could be used to evaluate HERF, which states a
maximum power density of 0.09 W/m for frequencies under 225 MHz (i.e. 4.2 meters for a 40
W emitter).
Biological hazards[edit]

The best understood biological effect of electromagnetic fields is to cause dielectric heating. For
example, touching or standing around an antenna while a high-power transmitter is in operation
can cause severe burns. These are exactly the kind of burns that would be caused inside a
microwave oven.
This heating effect varies with the power and the frequency of the electromagnetic energy. A
measure of the heating effect is the specific absorption rate or SAR, which has units of watts per
kilogram (W/kg). The IEEE[4] and many national governments have established safety limits for
exposure to various frequencies of electromagnetic energy based on SAR, mainly based on
ICNIRP Guidelines,[5] which guard against thermal damage.
There are publications which support the existence of complex biological effects of weaker nonthermal electromagnetic fields (see Bioelectromagnetics), including weak ELF magnetic fields[6]
[7]
and modulated RF and microwave fields.[8] Fundamental mechanisms of the interaction
between biological material and electromagnetic fields at non-thermal levels are not fully
understood.[9]
A 2009 study at the University of Basel in Switzerland found that intermittent (but not
continuous) exposure of human cells to a 50 Hz electromagnetic field at a flux density of 1 mT
(or 10 G) induced a slight but significant increase of DNA fragmentation in the Comet assay.[10]
However that level of exposure is already above current established safety exposure limits.
Lighting[edit]
Compact fluorescent light bulbs[edit]

Compact energy efficient fluorescent light bulbs may emit dangerous levels of Ultraviolet
radiation when the protective coating around the phosphor, which creates light inside the bulb, is
cracked by mishandling or faulty manufacturing. This cracking of bulb's shielding allows UV
rays to escape at levels that could cause burns or even skin cancer. The light generated inside the
bulb of a fluorescent light is invisible UV which is converted into visible light by the phosphor
coating.[11][12]
LED lights[edit]
See also: High CRI LED Lighting

White light, emitting at wavelengths of 400-500 nanometers suppresses the production of

melatonin produced by the pineal gland is known. The effect is disruption of a human beings
biological clock resulting in poor sleeping and rest periods.[13]
EMR Effects on the human body by frequency[edit]

While the most acute exposures to harmful levels of electromagnetic radiation are immediately
realized as burns, the health effects due to chronic or occupational exposure may not manifest
effects for months or years.
Extremely-low-frequency RF[edit]

High-power extremely-low-frequency RF with electric field levels in the low kV/m range are
known to induce perceivable currents within the human body that create an annoying tingling
sensation. These currents will typically flow to ground through a body contact surface such as
the feet, or arc to ground where the body is well insulated.[14][15]
Microwaves[edit]

Microwave exposure at low-power levels below the specific absorption rate set by government
regulatory bodies are considered harmless non-ionizing radiation and have no effect on the
human body. However, levels above the specific absorption rate set by the FCC are considered
potentially harmful. ANSI standards for safe exposure levels to RF and microwave radiation are
set to a SAR level of 4 W/kg, the threshold before hazardous biological effects occur due to
energy absorption in the body. A safety factor of ten was then incorporated to arrive at the final
recommended protection guidelines of a SAR exposure threshold of 0.4 W/kg for RF and
microwave radiation. There is disagreement over exactly what levels of RF radiation are "safe,"
particularly with regard to low levels of exposure. For instance, Russia and eastern European
countries in particular set SAR thresholds for Microwaves and RF much lower than western
countries.
Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, can be particularly susceptible to heating by RF
energy because of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipate the excessive heat load.
Laboratory experiments have shown that short-term exposure to high levels of RF radiation
(100-200 mW/cm) can cause cataracts in rabbits. Temporary sterility, caused by such effects as
changes in sperm count and in sperm motility, is possible after exposure of the testes to highlevel RF radiation
Long-term exposure to high-levels of microwaves, is recognized, from experimental animal
studies and epidemiological studies in humans, to cause cataracts. The mechanism is unclear but
may include changes in heat sensitive enzymes that normally protect cell proteins in the lens.
Another mechanism that has been advanced is direct damage to the lens from pressure waves
induced in the aqueous humor.

Exposure to high-power microwave RF is known to create effects ranging from a burning

sensation on the skin and microwave auditory effect, to extreme pain at the mid-range, to
physical microwave burns and blistering of skin and internals at high power levels.
Millimeter waves[edit]

Recent technology advances in the developments of Millimeter wave scanners for airport
security and WiGig for Personal area networks have opened the 60 GHz and above Microwave
band to SAR exposure regulations. Previously, microwave applications in these bands were for
point-to-point satellite communication with minimal human exposure. Radiation levels in the
millimeter wavelength represent the high microwave band or close to Infrared wavelengths.[16]
Infrared[edit]

Infrared wavelengths longer than 750 nm can produce changes in the lens of the eye.
Glassblower's cataract is an example of a heat injury that damages the anterior lens capsule
among unprotected glass and iron workers. Cataract-like changes can occur in workers who
observe glowing masses of glass or iron without protective eyewear for many hours a day.
Another important factor is the distance between the worker and the source of radiation. In the
case of arc welding, infrared radiation decreases rapidly as a function of distance, so that farther
than 3 feet away from where welding takes place, it does not pose an ocular hazard anymore but,
ultraviolet radiation still does. This is why welders wear tinted glasses and surrounding workers
only have to wear clear ones that filter UV.
Visible Light[edit]

Moderate and high-power lasers are potentially hazardous because they can burn the retina of the
eye, or even the skin. To control the risk of injury, various specifications for example ANSI
Z136 in the US, and IEC 60825 internationally define "classes" of lasers depending on their
power and wavelength. These regulations also prescribe required safety measures, such as
labeling lasers with specific warnings, and wearing laser safety goggles during operation (see
laser safety)
As with its infrared and ultraviolet radiation dangers, welding creates an intense brightness in the
visible light spectrum, which may cause temporary flash blindness. Some sources state that there
is no minimum safe distance for exposure to these radiation emissions without adequate eye
protection.[17]
Ultraviolet[edit]

Short-term exposure to strong ultraviolet sunlight causes sunburn within hours of exposure.
Ultraviolet light, specifically UV-B, has been shown to cause cataracts and there is some
evidence that sunglasses worn at an early age can slow its development in later life.[18] Most UV
light from the sun is filtered out by the atmosphere and consequently airline pilots often have

high rates of cataracts because of the increased levels of UV radiation in the upper atmosphere.[19]
It is hypothesised that depletion of the ozone layer and a consequent increase in levels of UV
light on the ground may increase future rates of cataracts.[20] Note that the lens filters UV light, so
once that is removed via surgery, one may be able to see UV light.[21]
Prolonged exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun can lead to melanoma and other skin
malignancies.[1] Clear evidence establishes ultraviolet radiation, especially the non-ionizing
medium wave UVB, as the cause of most non-melanoma skin cancers, which are the most
common forms of cancer in the world.[1] UV rays can also cause wrinkles, liver spots, moles, and
freckles. In addition to sunlight, other sources include tanning beds, and bright desk lights.
Damage is cumulative over one's lifetime, so that permanent effects may not be evident for some
time after exposure.[22]
Ultraviolet radiation of wavelengths shorter than 300 nm (actinic rays) can damage the corneal
epithelium. This is most commonly the result of exposure to the sun at high altitude, and in areas
where shorter wavelengths are readily reflected from bright surfaces, such as snow, water, and
sand. UV generated by a welding arc can similarly cause damage to the cornea, known as "arc
eye" or welding flash burn, a form of photokeratitis.
Radio frequency fields[edit]
See also: Mobile phone radiation and health

Apart from some suspicion that the electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones may be
responsible for an increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma, the fields otherwise pose no
risk to human health.[23][24] This designation of mobile phone signals as "possibly carcinogenic"
by the World Health Organization has often been misinterpreted as indicating that of some
measure of risk has been observed however the designation indicates that the possibility could
not be conclusively ruled out using the available data.[25]
See also[edit]
What are electromagnetic fields?

Summary of health effects

What happens when you are exposed to electromagnetic fields?

Exposure to electromagnetic fields is not a new phenomenon. However, during the 20th century,
environmental exposure to man-made electromagnetic fields has been steadily increasing as
growing electricity demand, ever-advancing technologies and changes in social behaviour have
created more and more artificial sources. Everyone is exposed to a complex mix of weak electric
and magnetic fields, both at home and at work, from the generation and transmission of

electricity, domestic appliances and industrial equipment, to telecommunications and

broadcasting.
Tiny electrical currents exist in the human body due to the chemical reactions that occur as part
of the normal bodily functions, even in the absence of external electric fields. For example,
nerves relay signals by transmitting electric impulses. Most biochemical reactions from digestion
to brain activities go along with the rearrangement of charged particles. Even the heart is
electrically active - an activity that your doctor can trace with the help of an electrocardiogram.

Low-frequency electric fields influence the human body just as they influence any other
material made up of charged particles. When electric fields act on conductive materials, they
influence the distribution of electric charges at their surface. They cause current to flow through
the body to the ground.
Low-frequency magnetic fields induce circulating currents within the human body. The strength
of these currents depends on the intensity of the outside magnetic field. If sufficiently large, these
currents could cause stimulation of nerves and muscles or affect other biological processes.
Both electric and magnetic fields induce voltages and currents in the body but even directly
beneath a high voltage transmission line, the induced currents are very small compared to
thresholds for producing shock and other electrical effects.

Heating is the main biological effect of the electromagnetic fields of radiofrequency fields. In
microwave ovens this fact is employed to warm up food. The levels of radiofrequency fields to
which people are normally exposed are very much lower than those needed to produce
significant heating. The heating effect of radiowaves forms the underlying basis for current

guidelines. Scientists are also investigating the possibility that effects below the threshold level
for body heating occur as a result of long-term exposure. To date, no adverse health effects from
low level, long-term exposure to radiofrequency or power frequency fields have been confirmed,
but scientists are actively continuing to research this area.
Biological effects or health effects? What is a health hazard?

Biological effects are measurable responses to a stimulus or to a change in the environment.

These changes are not necessarily harmful to your health. For example, listening to music,
reading a book, eating an apple or playing tennis will produce a range of biological effects.
Nevertheless, none of these activities is expected to cause health effects. The body has
sophisticated mechanisms to adjust to the many and varied influences we encounter in our
environment. Ongoing change forms a normal part of our lives. But, of course, the body does not
possess adequate compensation mechanisms for all biological effects. Changes that are
irreversible and stress the system for long periods of time may constitute a health hazard.
An adverse health effect causes detectable impairment of the health of the exposed individual or
of his or her offspring; a biological effect, on the other hand, may or may not result in an adverse
health effect.
It is not disputed that electromagnetic fields above certain levels can trigger biological effects.
Experiments with healthy volunteers indicate that short-term exposure at the levels present in the
environment or in the home do not cause any apparent detrimental effects. Exposures to higher
levels that might be harmful are restricted by national and international guidelines. The current
debate is centred on whether long-term low level exposure can evoke biological responses and
influence people's well being.

Widespread concerns for health

A look at the news headlines of recent years allows some insight into the various areas of public
concern. Over the course of the past decade, numerous electromagnetic field sources have
become the focus of health concerns, including power lines, microwave ovens, computer and TV
screens, security devices, radars and most recently mobile phones and their base stations.

The International EMF Project

In response to growing public health concerns over possible health effects from exposure to an
ever increasing number and diversity of electromagnetic field sources, in 1996 the World Health
Organization (WHO) launched a large, multidisciplinary research effort. The International EMF
Project brings together current knowledge and available resources of key international and
national agencies and scientific institutions.
Conclusions from scientific research
In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately
25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people
that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than
for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO
concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from
exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological
effects exist and need further research.
Effects on general health
Some members of the public have attributed a diffuse collection of symptoms to low levels of
exposure to electromagnetic fields at home. Reported symptoms include headaches, anxiety,
suicide and depression, nausea, fatigue and loss of libido. To date, scientific evidence does not
support a link between these symptoms and exposure to electromagnetic fields. At least some of
these health problems may be caused by noise or other factors in the environment, or by anxiety
related to the presence of new technologies.
Effects on pregnancy outcome
Many different sources and exposures to electromagnetic fields in the living and working
environment, including computer screens, water beds and electric blankets, radiofrequency
welding machines, diathermy equipment and radar, have been evaluated by the WHO and other
organizations. The overall weight of evidence shows that exposure to fields at typical
environmental levels does not increase the risk of any adverse outcome such as spontaneous
abortions, malformations, low birth weight, and congenital diseases. There have been occasional
reports of associations between health problems and presumed exposure to electromagnetic
fields, such as reports of prematurity and low birth weight in children of workers in the
electronics industry, but these have not been regarded by the scientific community as being
necessarily caused by the field exposures (as opposed to factors such as exposure to solvents).
Cataracts
General eye irritation and cataracts have sometimes been reported in workers exposed to high
levels of radiofrequency and microwave radiation, but animal studies do not support the idea that
such forms of eye damage can be produced at levels that are not thermally hazardous. There is no
evidence that these effects occur at levels experienced by the general public.

Electromagnetic fields and cancer

Despite many studies, the evidence for any effect remains highly controversial. However, it is
clear that if electromagnetic fields do have an effect on cancer, then any increase in risk will be
extremely small. The results to date contain many inconsistencies, but no large increases in risk
have been found for any cancer in children or adults.
A number of epidemiological studies suggest small increases in risk of childhood leukemia with
exposure to low frequency magnetic fields in the home. However, scientists have not generally
concluded that these results indicate a cause-effect relation between exposure to the fields and
disease (as opposed to artifacts in the study or effects unrelated to field exposure). In part, this
conclusion has been reached because animal and laboratory studies fail to demonstrate any
reproducible effects that are consistent with the hypothesis that fields cause or promote cancer.
Large-scale studies are currently underway in several countries and may help resolve these
issues.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity and depression
Some individuals report "hypersensitivity" to electric or magnetic fields. They ask whether aches
and pains, headaches, depression, lethargy, sleeping disorders, and even convulsions and
epileptic seizures could be associated with electromagnetic field exposure.
There is little scientific evidence to support the idea of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Recent
Scandinavian studies found that individuals do not show consistent reactions under properly
controlled conditions of electromagnetic field exposure. Nor is there any accepted biological
mechanism to explain hypersensitivity. Research on this subject is difficult because many other
subjective responses may be involved, apart from direct effects of fields themselves. More
studies are continuing on the subject.
The focus of current and future research
Much effort is currently being directed towards the study of electromagnetic fields in relation to
cancer. Studies in search for possible carcinogenic (cancer-producing) effects of power frequency
fields is continuing, although at a reduced level compared to that of the late 1990's.
The long-term health effects of mobile telephone use is another topic of much current research.
No obvious adverse effect of exposure to low level radiofrequency fields has been discovered.
However, given public concerns regarding the safety of cellular telephones, further research aims
to determine whether any less obvious effects might occur at very low exposure levels.
Key points

A wide range of environmental influences causes biological effects. 'Biological

effect' does not equal 'health hazard'. Special research is needed to identify
and measure health hazards.

At low frequencies, external electric and magnetic fields induce small

circulating currents within the body. In virtually all ordinary environments, the
levels of induced currents inside the body are too small to produce obvious
effects.

The main effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields is heating of body

tissues.

There is no doubt that short-term exposure to very high levels of

electromagnetic fields can be harmful to health. Current public concern
focuses on possible long-term health effects caused by exposure to
electromagnetic fields at levels below those required to trigger acute
biological responses.

WHO's International EMF Project was launched to provide scientifically sound

and objective answers to public concerns about possible hazards of low level
electromagnetic fields.

Despite extensive research, to date there is no evidence to conclude that

exposure to low level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health.

The focus of international research is the investigation of possible links

between cancer and electromagnetic fields, at power line and
radiofrequencies.

Electromagnetic FieldsElectromagnetic fields (EMFs) arise whenever electrical energy is used.

So for example, EMFs arise in our home from electrical appliances in the kitchen, from work
processes such as radio frequency heating and drying and in the world at large from radio, TV
and Telecoms broadcasting masts and security detection devices.It has been known for a long
time that exposure of people to high levels of EMFs can give rise to acute effects. The effects
that can occur depend on the frequency of the radiation. At low frequencies the effects will be on
the central nervous system of the body whilst at high frequencies, heating effects can occur
leading to a rise in body temperature. In reality, these effects are extremely rare and will not
occur in most day-to-day situations.A directive, entitled "Physical Agents (Electromagnetic
Fields) Directive (2004/40/EC amended by 2008/46/EC), to postpone, for four years, until 30
April 2012, the deadline for introducing legislation on workers' exposure to electromagnetic
fields has been adopted by the European Union.The Directive deals only with health and safety
at work and applies to work activities where workers are exposed to risks from electromagnetic
fields.The Directive places a number of duties on employers. The main ones being that it:places
a duty on the employer to conduct a risk assessment and calculate EMF strengths,places a duty
on the employer to eliminate or reduce as low as possible the risk of exposure and where risk
can't be eliminated that measures are devised by the employer to reduce the risk of exposure
below an Exposure Limit Value andrequires an investigation and medical examination where an
employee is detected as having been exposed. - See more at:
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Physical_Agents/Electromagnetic_Fields/#sthash.2gg2qVAu.dpuf
Electromagnetic fields

SAVE ITEM

1 / 10 / 2009
The Council and the European Parliament have reached agreement on new EU rules to protect workers
from exposure to electromagnetic fields. The rules exempt healthcare workers using MRI scanners from
the agreed exposure limits subject to strong alternative safeguards and will ensure that patients continue
to have access to lifesaving MRI treatment.
The new directive, which replaces a never applied directive from 2004, was published in the Official
Journal of the EU on June 29, 2013 and Member States have until July 12 2016 to transpose the new
provisions.

Aim of the Directive

The aim of the Directive is to balance the protection of workers' health and safety with appropriate
flexibility and proportionality so as not to unduly hamper the use and development of (industrial and)
medical activities.
The new agreement means that the long-term effects of exposure are not covered as there is currently no
conclusive evidence of a causal relationship. The European Commission will however, monitor future
scientific developments in this area.
Other compromises mean that risk assessments can be made public on request, unless there are
commercial reasons or an overriding public interest. The rules on health surveillance and on the records
to be established regarding risks, prevention and protection measures have also been strengthened.

Background to the issue

In 2006, the medical community informed the Commission of its concerns regarding the implementation
of the existing Directive, claiming that the exposure limit values laid down therein would have made some
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) techniques difficult or even impossible to carry out whilst remaining
compliant with the law. Subsequently, other industrial sectors also expressed their concerns about the
impact of the Directive on their activities.

In response to these concerns, the Commission asked the Member States to inform it of any difficulties
associated with implementation of the Directive. It also launched a study to assess the actual impact of
the Directive on medical procedures using MRI. The results of this study were made available in early
2008.
The original EU Directive was due to be implemented in April 2008 but implementation was delayed until
2012, and then until 2013, as a result of concerns that the exposure limits set out in the Directive are too
low.

First stage consultation of the social partners

In summer 2009, the European Commission launched a formal consultation process with the social
partners seeking views on how best to proceed. Both CEEP and HOSPEEM responded to this consultation,
with input from NHS Employers and the NHS European Office on behalf of the NHS.
The responses argued that as there is no evidence of long-term damage from EMFs the application of
strict exposure limits was unjustified. In addition, if the exposure limits set out in the Directive were
implemented there could be a negative effect on the health of workers as it would mean greater use of
other scanning techniques most likely using ionising radiation, whose potential for long-term ill health
effects is well-known. CEEP and HOSPEEM recommended that the explicit exposure limits should be
dropped and the Directive should emphasise the use of risk assessment to determine appropriate health
and safety measures.

Second stage consultation of the social partners

The European Commission launched its second stage consultation of the social partners (employers'
representatives and the trade unions) on options for improving Directive 2004/40/EC on the protection of
workers exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in May 2010.
NHS Employers and the NHS European Office contributed to the response to the consultation on behalf
of the NHS through our social partner organisations, CEEP and HOSPEEM. In particular, the response
supported the potential exclusion for workers conducting MRI procedures from the exposure limit values
set in the EU law, which would instead be replaced by commonly agreed qualitative preventative and
protective measures.

Electromagnetic Fields Directive (EMF)

What is it ?
Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF) can have natural causes (sun, lightning) as well as many artificial causes in the wide
spectrum of what is scientifically called non-ionising radiations and waves. These come from everyday modern life
and the plethora of electrical and electronic equipment and applications. With the mobile telephone revolution,
irrational public concerns have arisen over the possible adverse effect of such EMF on our health. In the face of
scientific uncertainty, public authorities have proved incapable of addressing these public concerns with an
appropriate risk communication and have instead concentrated on rushing through legislation on the issue.

Why is it important?
In 1999, a cautionary approach was acknowledged by the European Union in its Council Recommendation
1999/519/EC aiming at providing a high-level of protection to the general public. Its practical operation is based on
national legislative measures and the development of European harmonised standards within the framework of
Directives 73/23/EEC (low voltage) and 1999/5/EC (RTTE).
In April 2004, after a 12-year procedure that flouted their own much publicised Better Regulation principles, EU
institutions adopted the 3rd Physical Agents 2004/40/EC Directive on the minimum health and safety requirements
regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from electromagnetic fields.

How weve been engaged

Working together with its sister organisation on the employers side, CEEMET, Orgalime continues to monitor this
issue closely in order to ensure that protection from EMF exposure remains indisputable, harmonised throughout the
EU, practically applicable, without ambiguities for authorities, fair for all (manufacturers, users, infrastructure
managers), transparent and thus, accountable, as it is urgent to restore a climate of mutual confidence amongst all
stakeholders.

Useful links

European Commissions Enterprise & EMF Web Page

European Commissions Information Society & EMF Web Page

European Commissions Public Health & EMF Web Page

European Conference on Application of the Precautionary Principle to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF), 24-26
February 2003

WHOs international EMF project

- See more at: http://www.orgalime.org/page/electromagnetic-fields-directive-emf#sthash.JNSnquR2.dpuf

Proposed EU Directive on Electromagnetic Fields

This European directive requires that occupational exposure to electric and magnetic fields are
assessed and limited. It would adversely impact upon common processes such as welding,
despite there being no history of harm.

Key points

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are produced wherever electricity is used. This

directive requires employers to assess exposure to EMF and take action.
However there is no credible evidence of a risk to health for the vast majority
of processes affected.

The directive would affect processes in manufacturing including: arc and

resistance welding, plastic welding, induction heating, crack detection and
electricity distribution.

It was originally due to come into force in 2008. However, following a

campaign in which EEF was at the forefront, the EU realised that it would
effectively outlaw hospital MRI scans as well as many industrial processes. At
that point the European Parliament voted for a 4 year delay to allow for a
review

There is now a general acceptance by the European Commission (EC) that

there needs to be change to the directive. EEF is concerned that the change
will be cosmetic or be limited to the healthcare sector and not solve the
problems for manufacturing businesses.

The review is way behind time and there is no realistic prospect of a new
directive being ready to meet the 2012 deadline a further postponing
directive is likely.

EEF has a seat on the EC working group advising on the directive and has a
leading role in campaigning at both UK and EU levels.

Position summary

EEF would like to see the directive to be revoked altogether; in the few instances where there are
genuine risks, these are already covered by the Health and Safety (Framework) Directive which
requires that all risks be assessed and controlled. However, it looks very likely the directive will
be significantly amended, but unlikely to be revoked altogether.
Many European business organisations appear to want a compromise; some see the
establishment of legal limits as a way of defending their position against campaigners who
believe that EMFs are the cause of cancers and other long term effects. However many
organisations simply have not got to grips with the issues and the significance of the directive.
EEF is therefore both campaigning against the directive and influencing other business
organisations to take a firmer approach to the directive. We have been instrumental in elevating
this issue to a high priority with European partners such as the European metals manufacturing
umbrella organisation, CEEMET. We meet to discuss regularly with officials in the Health and

Safety Executive, who are now broadly supportive of our view. We also raise it at meetings with
DWP ministers and their shadows.
Q.

People who work with EMFs have developed brain cancer and leukaemia, doesnt that show why
we need a directive?
A.

Sadly some workers have developed cancers, but no more than in the general population who
were not exposed. No robust studies, including one that followed power generation workers for
25 years, have found a link between EMF exposure and the supposed long-term effects.
Q.

The real problem is that the directive would have stopped hospital MRI scans. Surely the best
solution is to simply exempt MRI scans from the directive?
A.

That would leave major problems for industrial processes, including welding, though there is no
evidence of genuine health risk from these processes. Legislation should be based upon firm
scientific evidence; fields produced in a medical setting are not somehow less dangerous than
similar fields in factories. We need to resolve all of the problems, not just the ones for MRI.

Exposure to electromagnetic fields

This Directive lays down minimum requirements concerning the protection of workers from the
risks arising from exposure to electromagnetic fields and waves.

ACT
Directive 2004/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004
on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to
the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (18th individual
Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) [See amending
acts].

SUMMARY
This Directive forms part of a "package" of four directives on the exposure of workers to the risks
arising from physical agents: noise, vibration, electromagnetic fields and optical radiation.

It is an individual directive under framework Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of

measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.
SCOPE
The Directive provides for measures to protect workers from the risks related to electromagnetic
fields. However, it does not address the long-term effects, including the carcinogenic effects, that
could result from exposure to electrical, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, for which there is
no conclusive scientific data establishing a causal link.
Moreover, the Directive does not yet provide for exposure limits for static magnetic fields, for
which further scientific evaluations are awaited.
The measures foreseen create a minimum basis of protection for all workers in the Union, leaving
the Member States the option of keeping or adopting more favourable provisions. Moreover, its
implementation cannot be used to justify any regression of the (possibly more favourable)
provisions that apply in each Member State before its entry into force.
EXPOSURE LIMIT VALUES AND ACTION VALUES
The Directive lays down two types of value for exposure of workers:

"exposure limit values" defined in Table 1 of the Annex to the Directive on the basis of the
various frequencies that are recognised as having harmful effects on the human cardiovascular
system or the central nervous system or as being capable of causing whole-body heat stress or
excessive localised heating of tissues;

"action values", or values above which employers must take the measures specified in the
Directive. Compliance with these action values will ensure compliance with the relevant exposure
limit values. These action values are obtained from the guidelines laid down by the International
Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). They are set out in Table 2 of the
Annex to the Directive (13 frequency ranges that apply to all electromagnetic fields and are
based on directly measurable parameters).
OBLIGATIONS OF EMPLOYERS
The Directive lays down various types of obligation with which employers must comply.
Determination of exposure and assessment of risks

assessment, measurement and calculation, by the appropriate services and at regular

intervals, of the levels of electromagnetic fields to which workers are exposed;

saving of the results of this assessment on a suitable data storage medium so that they
can be consulted at a later stage;

consideration in the assessment of risks (among other things, of the level, frequency
spectrum, duration and type of exposure), of the indirect effects, such as interference with
medical electronic equipment and devices, fires and explosions resulting from ignition of
flammable materials.
Provisions designed to avoid or reduce risks
Once the action values are exceeded, employers must devise and implement an action plan
comprising technical and/or organisational measures intended to prevent exposure from
exceeding the exposure limit values (modification of working methods, choice of appropriate
work equipment, better design of work stations, etc.). However, employers are not obliged to do
so if they prove that there are no risks to the health of workers.
If, despite the measures taken by the employer to limit the risks, the exposure limit values are
exceeded, the employer must take immediate action in order to reduce exposure to an
authorised level.
Worker information and training
Exposed workers or their representatives must receive all necessary information and training,
particularly relating to the outcome of the risk assessment, the measures taken by the employer,
safe working practices, the detection of adverse effects and the circumstances in which workers
are entitled to health surveillance.
Consultation and participation of workers
The Directive restricts itself to the requirements laid down in framework Directive 89/391/EEC.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Health surveillance
The Directive provides for the requirement of appropriate surveillance of the health of exposed
workers with the objective of preventing any adverse effects due to exposure to electromagnetic

fields.
Where exposure exceeds the limit values, a medical examination is foreseen. If it transpires that
the health of the workers concerned has been harmed as a result of this exposure, a
reassessment of the risks must be carried out.
Measures are also foreseen to ensure that the doctor responsible for the health surveillance has
access to the results of the risk assessment, while the workers concerned will be able to have
access to their own personal health records, at their request.
Sanctions
The Member States must provide for adequate sanctions in the event of infringement of the
national provisions transposing the Directive.
Reports
Member States must provide a report to the Commission every five years on the practical
implementation of the Directive, indicating the points of view of the social partners.
Every five years, the Commission must inform the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health
Protection at Work of the content of the reports of the Member States. It must also send them an
assessment of developments in this field, in particular as regards exposure to static magnetic
fields.

REFERENCES

Entry into force

Deadline for
transposition in the
Member States

Official Journal

30.04.2004

30.10.2013

OJ L 184 of
24.05.2004

Entry into force

Deadline for
transposition in the
Member States

Official Journal

Directive 2007/30/EC

28.6.2007

31.12.2012

OJ L 165 of 27.6.2007

Directive 2008/46/CE

26.4.2008

OJ L 114 of 26.4.2008

Act

Directive 2004/40/EC

Amending act(s)

Amending act(s)

Entry into force

Deadline for
transposition in the
Member States

Official Journal

11.12.2008

OJ L 311 of
21.11.2008

24.4.2012

30.10.2013

OJ L 110 of 24.4.2012

Regulation (EC) No
1137/2008
Directive 2012/11/EU

Successive amendments and corrections to Directive 2004/40/EC have been

incorporated in the basic text. This consolidated version

is for reference purpose

only.

Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) have been the source of a

wide-ranging discussion, in particular with respect to
concerns raised over possible health issues.
Proposal for the mandate submitted to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI
concerning EMF. CENELEC/BT has accepted the mandate (in
principle) in December 2000. A formal acceptance from CEN,
CENELEC and ETSI has been received in March 2001. The
mandate has been renumbered from M/32 rev. 1 to M/305.
Council recommendation 1999/519/EC on the limitation of
exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz
to 300 GHz)
Electromagnetic fields

More information on electromagnetic fields

What are EMFs?

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) arise whenever electrical energy is used. So for example, EMFs arise in our
home from electrical appliances in the kitchen, from work processes such as radiofrequency heating and drying
and in the world at large from radio, TV and Telecoms broadcasting masts and security detection devices.

What are their effects?

It has been known for a long time that exposure of people to high levels of EMFs can give rise to acute effects.
The effects that can occur depend on the frequency of the radiation. At low frequencies the effects will be on
the central nervous system of the body whilst at high frequencies, heating effects can occur leading to a rise in
body temperature. In reality, these effects are extremely rare and will not occur in most day-to-day work
situations