Natural vs Artificial Energy
What is Electro-Magnetic Field (EMF) Pollution and does it have effects on human health? We live within a natural blanket of planetary Electric and Magnetic Fields that is part of our world’s beautiful design. A natural source of microwave electromagnetic radiation, for example, has been observed in the negligibly weak cosmic radiation from space.
Other sources of natural radiation exists at lower frequencies due to atmospheric phenomena such as the aurora borealis and thunderstorms. Under the earth’s crust, the natural magnetic field of Earth is caused by currents of electricity that flow from the molten core. On a molecular level, when you visit the beach or stand next to a waterfall, you breathe in beneficial “negative” air ions that make you feel happy and relaxed. Positively charged air ions (ex. Santa Ana winds) can have the opposite effect.
Non-Native EMFs, found in most homes and offices, are a byproduct of modern electrical power grids with inter-connected home grounding and the unstoppable avalanche of wireless technologies. They subject us to artificially generated, highly modulated frequencies and fields from the lowest brain-wave rhythm values up to the microwave spectrum.
Artificial waves are emitted, for example, by airport radar, cell phones and towers, radio and television transmitters, “smart” meters, IoT “smart” homes, mesh networks, computers, and DECT phones.
Other sources include high voltage lines, Romex wiring, unbalanced return current, substations, appliances, lights and switches, contaminated ground loops, solar, VSD pool pumps, motors and increasing numbers of low orbit satellite systems.
Chronic exposure to non-native EMFs destabilizes our living and working environments and creates an ever-growing burden of disease. Put simply, we are unnecessarily radiated. Our present exposure to man-made microwaves, for example, is about a million billion billion (one followed by eighteen zeros) times greater than our natural exposure to these frequencies. As the saying goes, “Houston: We Have A Problem…”
This is why Dr. Narramore provides scientific and unbiased testing, evaluation, measurement and solutions for radio frequency in Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties.
“There is a chaos of waves from all across the spectrum passing through your room right now.” Science@NASA
nnEMFs Disrupt Biological Processes
Research into how non-ionizing radiation interacts with human biology has been going on in various countries for over 95 years, with ample science to conclude that non native EMFs can be biologically harmful at non-thermal levels.
No matter where they occur in the frequency spectrum, EMFs are reported to causes a rise in levels of oxygen free radicals in humans. The uncontrolled production of free radicals is thought to be a major contributing factor to many degenerative processes seen during aging.
EMFs can also disrupt electrical and chemical processes within our bodies and also interfere on a molecular dynamics (MD) level when protein-molecule interactions are considered. Human proteins, for example, are continually in motion and are under-dampened by electromagnetic waves (Marshall & Heil, 2017).
Humans Attract EMFs
Voltage creates an Electric Field, and Current creates a Magnetic Field. This propagation outwards from the conductor through space is referred to as “radiation.”
Through the processes of induction and resonance, human beings are like antennas, drawing in artificial fields.
Acute vs Latency Effects
Unlike many animals (such as birds and fish), human beings do not possess sensory organs to precisely detect electric or magnetic fields. The most we can do is perceive them indirectly.
Electrosensitive persons have been likened to “canaries in the coal mine,” as they can experience acute symptoms soon after EMF exposures. Yet for many others there is a long term or “Latency Effect.” Studies conducted in Russia/Eastern Europe show that it may take 5 to 10 years of accumulated exposures before any subsequent symptoms become apparent (Hecht, 2012).
Today’s nnEMF Exposure “Safety” Limits Are Outdated and Unsafe
If you find yourself confused about mixed expert guidance on EMF exposure limits, you’re not alone. Depending on type of non-native EMF, the differences between maximum allowable exposures versus safety levels recommended by many bioelectromagnetic researchers can be 10,000 to 1 or more.
Existing regulatory guidelines are influenced by special interest groups with massive financial interests involving billions of dollars at stake. This interview with respected Biophysicist and Attorney, Dr. Andrew Marino, elaborates these conflicts of interest.
Games They Play
The “Duration” Game
Length of exposure is a key factor for understanding health effects from all sources of radiation. Everybody knows, for example, that short term exposure to the sun’s rays is beneficial. Linger too long, however, and painful sunburn will appear. Similarly, long-term EMF exposure studies have amply established adverse biological effects. Industry-influenced studies showing “no effects” often rely on short term exposure periods.
Drawing on Big Tobacco’s science marketing playbook, the gravity of EMF toxicity has been downplayed by the phrase “inconclusive proof of harm.” This has been used to cast doubt, to confuse and misdirect the general public, the courts and lawmakers. EMF Pollution is not well understood by the general public and has measured effects on human health.
The “Averaging” Game
It’s misleading to report a wireless device’s “average” rather than “peak” transmission because it doesn’t account for pulsed digital signals occurring in milliseconds. This may be likened to a carpenter striking the head of a nail with a hammer — but the observer only reports a 50% swing (e.g. “average”) to show minimal impact on the nail. The peak power of EMF is of great importance and plays a central role in the exact cellular mechanism of harm-to-human physiology.
The “Apple vs Orange” Game
Yet another trick is to study subjects exposed to a certain frequency’s pure sine wave rather than one that is pulsed (on and off) and modulated (simultaneously producing lower frequency fields). This vastly underrates both the exposure type and impact in order to achieve more benign study results. Pulsing and modulation can cause terrible pain to electrosensitive persons.
Human Nature: Technology Is Implemented Before Safety Testing
History tells us that technological advances always precede safety considerations. For example, Fluoroscope X-ray machines were once allowed in thousands of shoe stores that were later found to cause radiation injuries among children. Like so much of today’s technology, the shoe-fitting fluoroscope was unnecessary and hazardous, but kids loved it. Representatives of the shoe retail industry strongly denied claims of harm in newspaper articles.
In the Steven Spielberg movie, Jurassic Park, Dr. Ian Malcolm explains the danger of rushing new technology saying: “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
Renewed Wake-up Calls
In 2018, a $30 million dollar U.S. Federal Government National Toxicology Program (NTP) animal study linked wireless radiation to cancer and DNA damage in animals. Soon afterwards, a similar study was conducted in Italy by the Ramazzini Institute, whose authors confirmed the NTP results.
Nevertheless, runaway technology and home wireless products offer entertainment and convenience, but we are exposed every day to radiations without sufficient testing of the biological and health effects of long-term exposure. Caveat emptor.
For those who would like to discover more about health issues relating to various nnEMF exposures, here are some resources:
The Benefits of Prudent Avoidance
The Office of Technology Assessment of the Congress report (Nair et al., 1989) recommended a policy of “prudent avoidance” with respect to nnEMF. Prudent avoidance, on a practical level, means to detect, measure, and act to reduce human exposures. We can’t go back to where we were before the technological revolution began, but we can use technology more safely. There are many benefits to reducing our radiation exposure to create a way of life that is more deeply and synergistically woven with nature.
In a remarkable intervention study by Drs. Tetsuharu and Akemi Shinjyo, they monitored the overall health of condominium residents exposed to nearby cell mast transmitters from 1998-2009. One hundred and twenty-two occupants were interviewed and examined.
Prior to the removal of the antennas, 21 people suffered from chronic fatigue; 14 from dizziness, vertigo, or Ménière’s disease; 14 from headaches; 17 from eye pain, dry eyes, or repeated eye infections; 14 from insomnia; 10 from chronic nosebleeds.
The base station was removed from the rooftop in June of 2009, and the health of the residents was compared before and after removal. The result was a “Significant Decrease of Clinical Symptoms after Mobile Phone Base Station Removal.”
Five months after removal of the antennas, no one in the building had chronic fatigue. No one had nosebleeds any more. No one had eye problems. Only two people still had insomnia. One still had dizziness. One still had headaches. Cases of gastritis and glaucoma resolved (Firstenberg, 2017).
In related research, the Dutch EHS Foundation conducted an intervention study of persons who experienced electro-sensitivity at home and work. There were significant health improvements among people who reduced a variety of EMF exposures in their homes.
These study results are consistent with Dr. Narramore’s own “before and after” case studies of his clients showing excellent outcomes after mitigation. His approach, however, is not to focus solely on cell towers or electrical distribution wires. Kevin conducts a systematic assessment of a wide variety of EMF toxins and involves his clients in an interactive discussion of findings.