What Is a Safe Number for Guass Meters and Tri-Field Meters?

Unfortunately, a true "safe" magnetic-field exposure as of this writing is still unclear. In fairness, this is largely due to the inher¬ent complexities of the subject. Researchers are still debating what they are supposed to be measuring, because no one knows what the detrimental element in the electromagnetic equation is. It is presumed at the moment to be the magnetic component, since there is more evidence pointing in that direction, but even within that presumption questions arise. For instance, are there particular wave forms that are more detrimental? Are the rounded sine waves (typical by-products of electrical transmission) all right at one level of intensity, but the jagged sawtooth waves (typi¬cal of TVs and VDTs) hazardous at the same intensity?

What about harmonics — the phenomenon of additional fre¬quencies at 120 and 180 hertz that are also created by devices and appliances that travel out from wires just like 60-hertz waves? Sometimes the harmonic wave is more dominant than the 60-hertz wave. Some of the better gaussmeters measure harmonics, but with varying accuracy. (The issue of harmonics may be an important one in the future because the 180-hertz wave can actu¬ally build up on some wires, especially around computers.)

For the consumer wanting a simple answer on safety, these kinds of issues can seem like techno overkill, but they are genuine concerns to those involved with fine-tuning our knowledge. Of¬fice environments and fluorescent lights, for instance, are rich with harmonics. Gaussmeters that do not factor them in will not provide an accurate assessment of exposures. (Ask the manufac¬turer if the meter you are buying measures harmonics, but don't be surprised if you get a complicated or evasive answer. The ques¬tion itself is more complicated than can be explained here.) EMF office environments can be extremely complex. It is probably best to hire an independent firm with broad-band equipment to do the measurements.

A simple consumer's gaussmeter that may not read harmonics will not give you accurate information. While no one wants to make a recommendation that turns out to be incorrect, in general those who have examined the medi¬cal literature recommend trying to minimize exposures to around the 1-milligauss level—knowing full well that even this may turn out to be too high. Or that a recommended low level may be found to fall within a dangerous window for bioeffects that a higher level does not. This is still evolving knowledge, but the 1-milligauss level is where the least bioeffects have been observed; 2 milli-gauss and up are the levels at which various detrimental associa¬tions begin to appear.

Some would say the 1-milligauss recommendation is too ex¬treme. Others would call it a conservative educated guess. But maintaining a 1 -milligauss level is not always easy, or even pos¬sible, as we move through a normal day The ambient EMF back¬ground of modern cities, according to some estimates, is around 3 milligauss, although this varies from area to area. (Some streets measure 0 milligauss, others are 100, depending on plumbing currents, unbalanced loads, and peak electrical usage.) More¬over, the exposures increase radically the higher up in altitude one gets on most city skyscrapers. That is why it may be important to reduce as many exposures as possible from extraneous con¬sumer products. Anyone living or working in an ambient environment with consistent readings above 5 milligauss will certainly want to in¬vestigate how to reduce those exposures.
 
  

"Revolutionary New Technologies
Protect You from the Harmful Effects of Cell Phone Radiation,

Computers, Bluetooth Headsets, Microwave Ovens,

Cordless Phones, and other Wireless Technologies."

Click on any of the pictures below
to learn more