A reader emailed me that micro Teslas aren't technically a current measure, and a $40 tester might not be accurate. I responded with this:
"You're correct that Tesla isn't directly a current measure, but of magnetic fields, which are a function of currents. As I said, the specific math isn't important for this discussion, so I simplified it. EMF is a complex relationship between charged particles moving through electrical (E) and magnetic (M) fields (F), as described by Ampere and Maxwell and others. Currents are the particle motion that creates the fields.
Amazon has EMF detectors from $40 up to hundreds. The simple one I picked for this experiment is Chinese, so an American equivalent would probably be $100, if that makes you more comfortable. I wouldn't rely on it for precision work, but it seems adequate for determining relative risks of common devices at relatively low frequencies. This one is spec'd up to 3.5 GHz, though it probably varies in accuracy across that range. Exact measurements weren't my objective, just simple diagnostics. I don't expect a zero reading is actually zero, but is low enough to ignore. And I don't know the dose dependence of higher readings, so it's sufficient to recognize the high emitters and avoid them. Like watching the microwave oven by staring through the little window seems like a bad idea. It is interesting to walk around with it and see where the hot spots are. Often where you might not expect them.
For this discussion, the question is whether my sauna is risky or not. I'm satisfied it is not, and I'm probably a little more paranoid than average."
I didn't intend to provide a precise engineering analysis of my sauna, certainly not of saunas in general, only to decide whether my sauna seems to have the risks Dr Mercola described. It seems okay. There might be some risks from smaller fields than my simple tests can detect, such as the proliferation of 5G devices some people are becoming concerned about. There are a lot of risks we really can't do much about. It's always important to try to learn what matters, and what to do about it. Health is a complicated business.
Could you analyse your car for your next essay? There are so many "features" in newer vehicles, all connected, and with transmitters. As you noted, there are surprising hot spots in our houses, which we can move or avoid, but in our cars we are constrained in one position.
There is an Austrian building technique call Holz100. This is mass timber construction, and in their literature they note that wifi and radiation is much reduced. After reading about this I was lucky enough to see a project being assembled near a public beach in Victoria, B.C.
Good idea. My little cheap tester isn't sensitive enough to detect very low level radiation, just the big offenders. I need to upgrade. I also need to learn what the threshold is for serious damage. I recently got Mercola's book "EMF*D" which has a lot of detail on his investigations. It's on my list to read. I'll report what I learn.
Also, the increasingly popular electric cars seems likely to give a significant increase in EMFs. I'll check some and see.
David, did Dr. Mercola state what EMF meters he recommends? I ask because of a few reasons. First EMF covers three areas of radiation concerns and the meter should measure all three. 1. Electronic from AC, 2. Magnetic from AC, 3. RF/Microwave. I read different only studies by so called experts, each with affiliate links to buy their recommendations in Amazon. One of the top units, the Trifield TR2, if you really read the amazon reviews an electronic engineer who bought this unit describes why this unit is basically a scam. In summary, how can one obtain a truly reasonably accurate EMF meter.
Yes, he has an appendix with recommendations for Acousticom2, Safe and Sound Pro, Safe and Sound Classic, Cornet ED88T Plus (I use the newer 5g version), Electrosmog Indicator ESI-24, Trifield TF2, ENV RD-10, Alphalabs UHS2. Short review of each. Also recommends the Burrell book, which has more discussion of meters. A local electrician uses a commercial better that costs about $30,000 which is probably a bit more accurate. Seems to me absolute precision isn't necessary. Even cheap meters will give pretty clear indications of where the problems are. Since there is no analysis of which levels of which radiation causes which illnesses, accuracy isn't really useful. There are some meters without a meter, just colored lights. Probably adequate. My Cornet gives a lot of numerical and graphical data, but also has colored lights. The numbers are very dynamic, can't really quantify a specific number for a specific device, so the lights are useful to show relative risk.
I was referring to an appendix in the back of the book "EMF Practical Guide" by Lloyd Burrell. But if you don't have the book, I searched on Lloyd Burrell emf detector and found a lot of written and video reviews. My experience is a detector is just the beginning. Once we start identifying the sources, then we have to start making very difficult decisions for mitigation or convenience. EMFs are dangerous, but very useful. Another question I haven't reconciled yet is how much is really dangerous? These retail detectors have a threshold, and there are certainly a lot of radiation emissions that hit us but don't trigger these detectors. The detectors call low levels it can detect as "green" with higher levels yellow or red. We certainly want to reduce the higher levels, but is that enough, when we're constantly bombarded with lower levels we can't really affect? Much to learn. All that being said, the important decision isn't which tester we use, but what are we going to do with the results?
Thanks - great information David - all of it. Please do keep us updated on the mysterious hot-spots in your house. That is very interesting!
A reader emailed me that micro Teslas aren't technically a current measure, and a $40 tester might not be accurate. I responded with this:
"You're correct that Tesla isn't directly a current measure, but of magnetic fields, which are a function of currents. As I said, the specific math isn't important for this discussion, so I simplified it. EMF is a complex relationship between charged particles moving through electrical (E) and magnetic (M) fields (F), as described by Ampere and Maxwell and others. Currents are the particle motion that creates the fields.
Amazon has EMF detectors from $40 up to hundreds. The simple one I picked for this experiment is Chinese, so an American equivalent would probably be $100, if that makes you more comfortable. I wouldn't rely on it for precision work, but it seems adequate for determining relative risks of common devices at relatively low frequencies. This one is spec'd up to 3.5 GHz, though it probably varies in accuracy across that range. Exact measurements weren't my objective, just simple diagnostics. I don't expect a zero reading is actually zero, but is low enough to ignore. And I don't know the dose dependence of higher readings, so it's sufficient to recognize the high emitters and avoid them. Like watching the microwave oven by staring through the little window seems like a bad idea. It is interesting to walk around with it and see where the hot spots are. Often where you might not expect them.
For this discussion, the question is whether my sauna is risky or not. I'm satisfied it is not, and I'm probably a little more paranoid than average."
I didn't intend to provide a precise engineering analysis of my sauna, certainly not of saunas in general, only to decide whether my sauna seems to have the risks Dr Mercola described. It seems okay. There might be some risks from smaller fields than my simple tests can detect, such as the proliferation of 5G devices some people are becoming concerned about. There are a lot of risks we really can't do much about. It's always important to try to learn what matters, and what to do about it. Health is a complicated business.
Could you analyse your car for your next essay? There are so many "features" in newer vehicles, all connected, and with transmitters. As you noted, there are surprising hot spots in our houses, which we can move or avoid, but in our cars we are constrained in one position.
There is an Austrian building technique call Holz100. This is mass timber construction, and in their literature they note that wifi and radiation is much reduced. After reading about this I was lucky enough to see a project being assembled near a public beach in Victoria, B.C.
Thanks for your essays and insights.
Good idea. My little cheap tester isn't sensitive enough to detect very low level radiation, just the big offenders. I need to upgrade. I also need to learn what the threshold is for serious damage. I recently got Mercola's book "EMF*D" which has a lot of detail on his investigations. It's on my list to read. I'll report what I learn.
Also, the increasingly popular electric cars seems likely to give a significant increase in EMFs. I'll check some and see.
David, did Dr. Mercola state what EMF meters he recommends? I ask because of a few reasons. First EMF covers three areas of radiation concerns and the meter should measure all three. 1. Electronic from AC, 2. Magnetic from AC, 3. RF/Microwave. I read different only studies by so called experts, each with affiliate links to buy their recommendations in Amazon. One of the top units, the Trifield TR2, if you really read the amazon reviews an electronic engineer who bought this unit describes why this unit is basically a scam. In summary, how can one obtain a truly reasonably accurate EMF meter.
Yes, he has an appendix with recommendations for Acousticom2, Safe and Sound Pro, Safe and Sound Classic, Cornet ED88T Plus (I use the newer 5g version), Electrosmog Indicator ESI-24, Trifield TF2, ENV RD-10, Alphalabs UHS2. Short review of each. Also recommends the Burrell book, which has more discussion of meters. A local electrician uses a commercial better that costs about $30,000 which is probably a bit more accurate. Seems to me absolute precision isn't necessary. Even cheap meters will give pretty clear indications of where the problems are. Since there is no analysis of which levels of which radiation causes which illnesses, accuracy isn't really useful. There are some meters without a meter, just colored lights. Probably adequate. My Cornet gives a lot of numerical and graphical data, but also has colored lights. The numbers are very dynamic, can't really quantify a specific number for a specific device, so the lights are useful to show relative risk.
Hi David, can you point me to this appendix, not sure where to find it...
I was referring to an appendix in the back of the book "EMF Practical Guide" by Lloyd Burrell. But if you don't have the book, I searched on Lloyd Burrell emf detector and found a lot of written and video reviews. My experience is a detector is just the beginning. Once we start identifying the sources, then we have to start making very difficult decisions for mitigation or convenience. EMFs are dangerous, but very useful. Another question I haven't reconciled yet is how much is really dangerous? These retail detectors have a threshold, and there are certainly a lot of radiation emissions that hit us but don't trigger these detectors. The detectors call low levels it can detect as "green" with higher levels yellow or red. We certainly want to reduce the higher levels, but is that enough, when we're constantly bombarded with lower levels we can't really affect? Much to learn. All that being said, the important decision isn't which tester we use, but what are we going to do with the results?