Shielding Archives - EMFSA

Concerns about IEEE paper

Editor — Fri, 20 Mar 2020 11:13:29 +0000

Post update 16.6.2020:

Notice of Retraction From IEEE Xplore®

“Electromagnetic Radiation Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?”
by Naren, A. Elhence, V. Chamola and M. Guizani
in IEEE Access, vol. 8, 2020, pp. 42980-43000

After careful and considered review, this article has been found to be in violation of IEEE’s Publication Principles. IEEE hereby retracts the content of this article. Reasonable effort should be made to remove all references to this article. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9016183/references

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9016183

The above paper, besides the useful technical information it provides, seems to contain serious errors:

One of the most serious is that it underestimates the intensity emitted by cell phones which is 10-100 times stronger than that shown in the graphs of the paper.

The correct levels are many times presented in Panagopoulos’ experimental papers.

Image source: Panagopoulos, Springer https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Panagopoulos-Springer-2017-chapter.pdf

Another serious point is that the authors recommend the use of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth (Table 7), while experts worldwide recommend strictly wired connections for internet, and no use of Bluetooth.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223/full

The paper by Naren et al recommends shielded clothing for children and pregnant women.

We advise caution.

In addition:

Panagopoulos-Chrousos-2019-STOTEN (4)

Dr. Dimitris Panagopoulos: Electromagnetic Fields – Health Effects – Mechanism of Action

The post Concerns about IEEE paper appeared first on EMFSA.

Causes Or Cures Why EMF Shields Do Not Work: An Interview with Dr. Paul Heroux

Editor — Sun, 20 Oct 2019 14:55:08 +0000

In this episode, Dr. Paul Heroux chats with Dr. Erin Stair about electromagnetism ( EMF exposure from things like cellphones, wireless, Bluetooth, and the up and coming 5G…) and why the popular EMF shields are not effective and may actually be worsening your EMF exposure.
Dr. Heroux has his PhD in physics and is a researcher who focusses on EMF exposure and biological effects. He is highly published in this area and runs InVitro Plus, a toxicology laboratory out of McGill University Health Center, dedicated to studying the therapeutic and pathological effects of electromagnetism.

http://www.buzzsprout.com/265442/1783513-why-emf-shields-do-not-work-an-interview-with-dr-paul-heroux?fbclid=IwAR2uayii4ddU-wSHrcoSpD0oUPDtQKAQgxoE_sjSXaE1mRI0maMivbWcJoI

The post Causes Or Cures Why EMF Shields Do Not Work: An Interview with Dr. Paul Heroux appeared first on EMFSA.

Dr. Dimitris Panagopoulos: Electromagnetic Fields – Health Effects – Mechanism of Action

Editor — Thu, 10 Oct 2019 14:19:57 +0000

The post Dr. Dimitris Panagopoulos: Electromagnetic Fields – Health Effects – Mechanism of Action appeared first on EMFSA.

ORSAA Important Disclaimer about Radiation Protection Products

Editor — Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:59:28 +0000

ORSAA`s purpose is to inform consumers on important topics of radiation health and safety. As public awareness increases, so do the number of devices, crystals and pendants claiming to protect users from radiation harm. ORSAA does not recommend or endorse any of these radiation “protection” products. We advocate for increased awareness of wireless technology and recommend practices for safer use, such as keeping devices away from the body and limiting unnecessary exposure.

If invited, our scientific members are willing, where possible, to talk about the current bio-effects research, outcomes and trends. We publish our findings in scientific journals utilising the ORSAA database as an important source of peer reviewed research to support these findings. We will speak out on issues of misinformation, research bias and advocate for much stronger consumer advice on wireless mobile devices. We support a precautionary approach with wireless technology, as it is not risk free to health or the environment. Wherever possible, we favour the use of wired technology rather than wireless in homes, offices, schools, work places etc.

https://www.orsaa.org/product-disclaimer.html?fbclid=IwAR0TCMFOeco30Uc_PyRLb_0KiSYYhgoLt6ICal30r-23AvtStbBk53niZ-0

Added comment by EMFSA – for further reading on the topic:

Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk

The post ORSAA Important Disclaimer about Radiation Protection Products appeared first on EMFSA.

Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk

Editor — Fri, 08 Mar 2019 11:58:58 +0000

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.344

Dimitris J.Panagopoulos^a^b^c George P.Chrousos^b

Abstract

Human exposure to man-made Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) has increased to unprecedented levels, accompanied by increase in various health problems. A connection has been indicated by an increasing number of studies. Symptoms characterized as Electro-hyper-sensitivity (EHS) are frequently reported especially in urban environments. Lately, people are advised by private companies and individuals to protect themselves from man-made EMFs by metal shielding through various products, for which there are reasonable concerns about their protective efficacy and safety. Indeed, any metal shielding practice, even when correctly applied, attenuates not only man-made totally polarized EMFs accused for the health problems, but also the natural non-polarized EMFs responsible for the biological rhythmicity and well-being of all animals. Strong evidence on this was provided by pioneering experiments in the 1960’s and 1970’s, with volunteers staying in a shielded underground apartment. We analyze the physical principles of EMF-shielding, the importance of natural atmospheric EMFs, and examine available shielding methods and suggested products, relying on science-based evidence. We suggest that an avoidance strategy is safer than shielding, and provide specific protection tips. We do not reject shielding in general, but describe ways to keep it at a minimum by intermittent use, as this is theoretically safer than extensive permanent shielding. We explain why metallic patches or “chips” or minerals claimed by sellers to be protective, do not seem to make sense and might even be risky. We finally suggest urgent research on the safety and efficacy of shielding methods combined with use of generators emitting weak pulses of similar frequency, intensity, and waveform with the natural atmospheric resonances.

Graphical Abstract

Comments by EMFSA:

A very important and relevant study – except that it ignores chronobiology.

We would have liked to have seen chronobiology and the restoration of the circadian rhythm incorporated in both the causation of ill health in those with EHS/EMFIS and as part of the solution.

The use of generators to mimic natural frequency is certainly an avenue worth exploring but as with shielding there may be many unintended side effects especially with 5G.

We are in agreement with the authors’ comments regarding shungite:

“All metallic objects, including metallic minerals, such as shungite, claimed to protect from EMFs/EMR (Kurotchenko et al.,2003) should be avoided close to the body of an EHS person since they can increase exposure.”

We especially welcome the section about the following:

“health chips”, “EMF radiation protection chips”, “mobile phone shields”, etc., that supposedly reduce the adverse health effects of mobile phones by “reducing radiation levels” or “reducing the gradients of the magnetic fields” or “smoothing the peaks”, or “alter the radiation into a form that does not produce adverse health effects”,or “transform and neutralize the harmful effects of EMFs by radiating a
protective field when placed directly on devices”, etc.

The authors point out that the above may increase risk. The authors refer to a recent single study reporting that the use of a chip on mobile phone had a protective role on changes in human EEG induced by the mobile phone without the chip (Henz et al., 2018).

However, this study had several drawbacks:

-it did not show its results in numbers but only in pictures which are
not adequately explained.

-the study does not include any EMF-measurements of the mobile phone emissions with and without the chip,

-no scientific description how the chip works

-no attempt to describe a mechanism of how the chip exerts a protective effect.

-A request for explanations sent by us to the company that produces the chip as this was reported in this study, remained unanswered. (Note by EMFSA – we experience this on a regular basis when we enquire about these kind of products).

-More studies must be performed that will address all the above unresolved issues,before such products could ever be recommended for protection, especially in view of the apparent lack of any possible scientific explanation.

“For the cases in which people have no control on the EMFs they are exposed to, the scientific community must point out the problem, and the public health authorities must set rules to protect public health.” Our comment: easier said than done!

The post Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk appeared first on EMFSA.

Electrohypersensitivity: Successful practical examples based on the Social Support Act.

Editor — Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:26:48 +0000

Image: Martine Vriens

24th September, 2018

Martine Vriens: Legal advice and guidance for EHS https://www.martinevriens.com/2018/09/24/succesvolle-praktijkvoorbeelden-op-grond-van-de-wmo/

*This article was translated from Dutch and is used with permission of the author.

Successful practical examples based on the “Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning” (WMO)/ Social Support Act:

This is a sequel to my earlier contribution of June 2015. In this article I described the possibilities to get facilities – e.g. shielding your house against EMR – from the social support act. In this contribution I will discuss a number of successful practical examples that have been achieved since then.

People must be able to participate in society, function independently and remain in their own living environment for as long as possible. Under the Social Support Act, municipalities must promote this by providing facilities, help and support.

EHS among the target group of the Social Support Act:

In the earlier contribution I described that people who suffer from EMR can fall under the target group of this law. The Court of Arnhem has provided clarity about this. The court ruled that the target group of the law is not only limited to persons who have demonstrable limitations due to illness or lack of it, but has been extended to a wider group of people who experience problems in their self-reliance. However, municipalities are often still unfamiliar with the fact that restrictions that you may experience as a result of EMR can be a ground for granting a facility and often reject an application – on incorrect grounds.

It is therefore important that municipalities are aware of this and that they are aware of the fact that several municipalities have now provided facilities to people who have experienced health complaints from EMR.

Successful practical examples:

For example, in the judgment of the Arnhem District Court, the municipality referred to, after upholding the appeal, reimbursed to a person the costs of window film for his home in order to protect himself against sunlight and electromagnetic radiation from the transmission mast located in the vicinity of his home. The municipality also granted window film for his car.

In another case too, a municipality decided to grant electromagnetic protection film for the windows of a car on the basis of Article 4 of the Social Support Act. The municipality did this after investigating the (medical) situation. This investigation showed that the person with the said modification could solve the experienced problems. In this case, the applicant had also submitted medical certificates establishing the causal link between the health complaints and EMR exposure. In this case, both a Social Support Act consultant and doctor investigated the situation of the individual.

Furthermore, a case is currently pending before the Gelderland District Court. The application was rejected by the municipality because it was not a recognized disease. According to the judge, however, this was not a requirement to be able to qualify for the facility and the judge at the hearing instructed the municipality to conduct a careful investigation into the client’s situation. As stated in the earlier contribution, a municipality must always provide a tailor-made solution and someone may not be excluded from the Social Support Act on general grounds. The provision must also be in line with the actual needs of the person. This therefore seems to be in line with the judgment of the court.

In a municipality in Zeeland, a mother and daughter received help from the Social Support Act. Both suffered from health complaints from EMR. Together with the municipality they went through an extensive process and eventually they were eligible for a more suitable house.

Disposal fund:

In some cases a municipality chooses not to pay for facilities from the Social Support Act but from another source. One person applied for radiation protection paint plus supplies and a radiation protection curtain. Initially, the municipality indicated that it would immediately reject the application if it were to be submitted. In this case I provided the municipality with information – case law and granted applications – after which the municipality did process the application and a Social Support Act consultant visited the person at home to conduct an investigation. The municipality has granted a reasonable compensation in this case. Not from the Social Support Act but from a so-called decompartmentalisation fund. This is a fund that they have if people cannot clearly claim a certain provision on the basis of the rules, even though there is a problem.

Earlier, another municipality also wanted to give compensation from another fund. In that case I attended the conversation. It may therefore be advisable to involve someone who is familiar with the problem so that municipalities are properly informed about the possibilities of providing facilities.

For the earlier contribution I wrote for the EHS Bulletin of the EHS Foundation, see the publication of March 2015 “Adaptations in your home and the Social Support Act “: https://www.martinevriens.com/publicaties/

The post Electrohypersensitivity: Successful practical examples based on the Social Support Act. appeared first on EMFSA.