I was very excited about my new Honda hybrid, which drives great and is so much better for the environment than my old SUV. But, now my concern is the EMF in the back seat, behind the passenger. It is 40 to 50 milligauss. I've searched the web trying to find a definitive govt. report on what safe levels of EMFs are, but I can't seem to find a conclusive answer. If anyone knows about this, I'd sure appreciate feedback. Is there a way to lower that EMF, to what it is in a "normal" car?
Did you measure this yourself? If so were you reading a stationary field such as that produced by a speaker magnet or something cyclical such as the field from 60 Hz house wiring? Magnetic field strength decreases rapidly with distance from the source, so can you be more specific as to the source. Personally I'm not even slightly concerned, but if you do want to pursue a shielding option it is important to locate the source and install shielding such as Mu-metal, a soft and heavy steel alloy, as close to the source as possible.
Finding any studies that suggest health effects from EMF exposure is difficult. Generally these studies have been irreproducible. However, as it is impossible to prove that there is no health hazard, so some groups have decided to err on the side of caution when making regulations. Germany for example regulates exposure to less than 1,000 milligauss.
Meanwhile air pollution is killing tens of thousands of children and seniors and degrading health for everyone. Sadly the very act of driving a vehicle or riding a bicycle is hazardous. We accept these risks as well as risks posed by second hand smoke, fatty foods, pesticides, and thousands of other real and measurable dangers every day. If like myself you are hoping to live a long, healthy and productive life, may I suggest that your best bang for the buck will come from dealing with well known risk factors.
__________________
Kip Munro
The laws of physics don't need changing, but rather our attitude and values. 72.8 LMPG
A very recent news item (6 weeks ago?) reported cell phone users with more than 1 hr./day of use had a 240% greater likelihood of brain tumor on the side of the head where they held the phone.
And there are "news" reports every few months of Elvis sightings too
What paper Who did the study Are they credible news / research sources If JAMA or the Lancet published such then I'd think the hand held cell phone industry is dead.
Compairing cellphones to IMA systems is apples to oranges. IT ain't the same stuff or intensity. And such topic "debate" has nothing to do with Hybrid's so lets try to stay on topic. Please
This was the largest study yet to look at LONG-TERM effects of cell phone use.
( In Scandanavia, cellphones were widely popular earlier than anywhere )
EXCERPT from Reuters:
... researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life said they looked at the mobile phone use of 905 people between the age of 20 and 80 who had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor and found a link.
"A total 85 of these 905 cases were so-called high users of mobile phones, that is they began early to use mobile and/or wireless telephones and used them a lot," the study said.
"The study also shows that the rise in risk is noticeable for tumors on the side of the head where the phone was said to be used," it added.
Kjell Mild, who led the study, said the figures meant that heavy users of mobile phones, for instance of who make mobile phone calls for 2,000 hours or more in their life, had a 240 percent increased risk for a malignant tumor on the side of the head the phone is used.
"The way to get the risk down is to use hands-free," he told Reuters.
He said his study was the biggest yet to look at long-term users of the wireless phone, which has been around in Sweden in a portable form since 1984, longer than in many other countries.
That is what I was talking about when I suggested paying attention to known ( and likely) risk factors.
The Swedish results do not surprise me at all as cell phones and modern cordless phones use similar frequencies to a microwave oven.
Without getting too technical, the frequency of a cell phone is about 100,000,000 times higher than any frequency that could be produced by the Insight and penetrate through the distance and the aluminum shielding of the Insight. As the wavelength is correspondingly 100,000,000 longer it could be postulated that the effect on a cellular level would be correspondingly reduced for an equivalent intensity of field. This is what various studies have been trying to determine. Evidently the effect is so small that it is difficult to measure on any reasonable case size, therefore the best we can say is that the outcome is inconclusive.
My paranoid side says: Ditch the cell phone, keep the Insight!
For what it's worth, in a study of Locomotive engineers, who daily ride in some of the largest Diesel electric hybrid engines on the planet, there was an increased incidence of one specific cancer, but the overall cancer rate of this test group was lower than the national average rate. It has been proved that exposure to used oil on the skin causes cancer and breathing Diesel fumes causes lung cancer. I would assume that something other than exposure to EMF was responsible for the results.
__________________
Kip Munro
The laws of physics don't need changing, but rather our attitude and values. 72.8 LMPG
Hi, and thanks for the feedbacks. I really am grateful for all feedback I get, and I know that this is a very controversial concern. However, there are many different studies to be found on the web, linking high EMF to cancers. Now, how many of these studies are flawed and bogus I don't know, but I can safely assume that some of them are. BUT that's what folks thought when asbestos became a suspicious substance, and now we know how that is regulated and avoided if at all possible, as far as direct contact with breathing goes. I also agree that there are many health hazards that are real, and it's my job as a parent to minimize those risks for my children. That's what's so frustrating about the EMF thing; no one can agree!
I have a gauss meter and I measured the interiour of the car while the car was one. The front seat sections measured at about 1, 2, or even .5 milligauss. ( A lot of the articles I read reccommended keeping to those levels, trying to avoid living in fields stronger than that ). But the seat in the back, behind the passenger seat, reads 40 or 50 mg, while the car is moving. THat's right where my daughter would sit.
I plan on calling the Honda dealership today. The salesman who sold me the car was great, I have nothing but high ratings for him. I can't say the same thing for another worker there, who basically treated me like a fool when I asked the question about EMF. It's not an easy subject to bring up, as you need a disclaimer that you're not an idiot. I hope they can have patience with me today. Either I can get a modification, as one poster suggested, or I will sell the car
And of course you will want your daughter to avoid games in which she spins around to get dizzy, as the static field at the earth's surface is about 30 uT (300 mG!)--and spinning around in it means you're exposing yourself to an 300 mG alternating field at around 1 Hz.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
electromagnetic fields question
Who did the study 
