milliGauss readings? Electromagnetic Emissions

I'm going to add another layer to my tin foil hat.

I don't know if you have read Apple's Euro statement of compliance, pritchet, but you can find the one for the 13" MBP at http://images.apple.com/euro/compliance/pdf/13MacBook_Pro_Aluminum(A1278).pdf and others at http://www.apple.com/euro/compliance/

You will find that a number of the standards mentioned there , with which Apple maintain compliance, deal with EM emissions, though not not necessarily with specific respect to health issues.

I'll leave it to you to work through the standards to find the maximum allowable numbers etc , but I see that at least one of these standards won't even come into effect until 2011, though Apple certify that they meet it now.


Rod

And the other link should actually be http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/

Pritchet1,

I skimmed through the online publication Rewire Me that you linked but was not able to find any references to any +scientific literature that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal+.

These books and articles are all well and good, but nearly anybody can form an opinion about something and write a book about it. Just because somebody has an M.D. or Ph.D after their name does not mean that I will implicitly trust whatever they say. In order for me to really even consider a study valid at all it must be published in a peer-reviewed journal where the work is criticized heavily prior to and after publication. For example, something published in Nature, Science, PNAS, or any other peer-reviewed journal.

I'm interested in reading studies of the above nature that can demonstrate the cellular effects of EMR. Are you aware of any studies like that?

The sort of data that was put forward in that article I read are not very scientifically sound. It consisted mostly of "I live within 500m of a cell phone tower and got cancer, so it must have been the cell phone tower that caused it". That sort of thing would never even be considered for printing in a peer-reviewed publication because there has been absolutely no positive correlation shown. There are so many other possibilities to explain the person getting cancer.

Anyway, until I can find (or you can produce) some peer-reviewed journal articles about the cellular basis for EMS I will remain quite skeptical indeed.

--Travis

Well, the OP is hard(ly) at work, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.

He claims that he "reviewed" a book, but I'm not sure if that meant that he bought a box of crayons to the library. Regardless, I checked out the latest issue of Macompanion, and an article about Apple's hardware. Here's a quote from the CEO, Mr. Pritchett (the beloved OP): "...products come off the manufacturing lines – mainly located in Taiwan. The products are assembled in Taiwan, then sent to Beijing to be flown out of Red China." That information is totally and completely false. The OP wants to make a name for himself, obviously dealing in misinformation. His "research" for the article is based on an activist website, and an article that is 5 years old. Five years ago, the information was false, and it still is false. But, that doesn't stop the OP from using it.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/emr/literature/september09.cfm has some useful links to various inquiries into the matter, Travis, which in turn have links to a wide variety of publications, scientific and otherwise.

I thought that the Dutch response to the 2007 "BioInitiative" report , to be found in pdf form here did a good job of pointing to some of the problems with the manner in which this issue is dealt with by one "side" of the debate. That said, I still think more transparency all around would be a good thing.

Cheers

Rod

For further evidence of the OP/editor/CEO's journalistic professionalism and determination not to be swayed from the pursuit of truth by such distractions as money, see this article under his byline in the current issue of macCompanion:

http://www.maccompanion.com/macc/archives/February2010/Columns/Tactic

It includes the following plea:

Can you now see why we posted an urgent request for folks to buy our PDF version of macCompanion magazine last month *or send donations to help us reduce our debt?*

(boldface added)

This distinguished journalist and scientist obviously has much to teach us about holding ourselves well clear of distorting influences — indeed, about avoiding even the appearance of corruptibility.

Thanks much Rod, that page compiles a nice range of scientific articles on this subject. The COMAR review at the top is particularly well written and concluded. I had a brief skim through its references as well.

I wasn't able to find a peer-reviewed article that indicated EMR has any significant effect on biological tissues. The overall consensus in the COMAR paper is that there is no evidence that EMR poses any health risk when present at levels below international guidelines. In fact, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that EMR causes health problems even at levels above the international guidelines. It seems as though a lot of the false "evidence" that EMR actually does pose a health risk is not valid. The data that indicates damage is caused by EMR appears to be non-reproducible, so it doesn't hold up to much scientific scrutiny. Perhaps those that generated this data had some agenda or other such illegitimate goals.

Anyway, because Apple presumably complies with these international guidelines for EMR emission in their products, it seems easy to conclude that the levels of EMR emitted by my MBP are more than safe. I'm not too worried about it, myself, and I'll remain skeptical until a reputable source concludes contrary to the established literature.

--Travis

I think, Travis, that the picture isn't quite as clear cut as that.

There is certainly material "each way" available.

You'll find an interesting article from a public health perspective by Paul Genuis of the University of Alberta Med School at http://www.scribd.com/doc/25413835/Fielding-a-current-idea-exploring-the-public- health-impact-of-EMR that also provides some useful citations from highly reputable journals like The Lancet , The Journal of Oncology and the like .

There is, I think, certainly a "case to be dealt with" when it comes to EMR radiation from heavy use of mobile phones, and real evidence both for and against. In short, I think the jury is still out. Extrapolating this to mobile computer usage , of course, adds a whole new layer of uncertainty on top of uncertainty, though.

I haven't seen any studies that directly link notebook computer use to health effects of this kind.

Cheers

Rod

Since doctors and others who spent their lives studying and researching this information, many at the personal loss and threat of job loss, if revealing their otherwise suppressed information, what do you consider to reputable sources that you would accept?

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by this. The sentence is long and unwieldy.

What I'm looking for are peer-reviewed scholarly papers, published in reputable scientific journals, that detail the effect of electromagnetic fields on cellular tissues.

Sources such as books, magazine articles, etc. are not peer-reviewed and as such cannot be strictly trusted from a scientific perspective. Like I said before, just because somebody has Ph.D or M.D. behind their name and writes a book on a subject does not make the book correct or accepted within the scientific community. This is especially true in controversial areas of science like our current topic. The best sources must be peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal.

--Travis

Hi again, Travis. A good source of material that I have just found is the EMF-Portal operated by the University Hospital of Aachen University.

Seems to carry stuff without fear or favour. Generally provides abstracts but I'd guess you probably have full PubMed access etc for the original articles. Has a specific section of links on EM / cellular function related articles (with about 400 listed).

Cheers

Rod