996 and my milliGauss Meter.
08-25-2007, 09:36 AM
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Prince George's County, MD
Posts: 2,481
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
996 and my milliGauss Meter.
Yesterday, I pulled out my milliGauss meter to check on a property that is about 300 yards from a line of power lines. I and my GF began walking around my house getting reoriented with the device by walking around looking for electrical hotspots. We found a couple, moved things around etc...
About an 1 hour later we drive over to the potential property with the device. On the way, my GF turns on the meter and its going crazy (readings at 2.5 milliGuass). We figure something must be near us giving off a signal even though we were in the middle of a rural part of MD on a 1 lane road (top down).
We arrive to the neighborhood and park directly under the 150ft power line to get what we though would be a baseline reading. The meter jumps to 4.0+ milliGauss. I continued to the entry gate of the property (about 300ft from the house itself), this time I turned the car off. At that point the reading dropped from 2.5 to .2 milliGauss and .5. Next I drive back under the power lines then turn the car off. The device tracked a reading of 2 milliGauss.
To speed what's left of this story along. I came home to find the source of the high readings and there it was under the driver's seat. It was one of the electronic control units giving off very high readings of well over 5 milligauss which is 3 milliGauss higher than parking directly underneath the Power lines.
Granted my device is a cheap Home Depot unit, I sincerely hope I'm not frying my "testies" while sitting in rush hour every day.
Maybe I'm reading the device incorrectly.
BTW, sustained high ELF readings of 2.0+ is a possible leukemia and cancer causing problem in young children and some adults.
About an 1 hour later we drive over to the potential property with the device. On the way, my GF turns on the meter and its going crazy (readings at 2.5 milliGuass). We figure something must be near us giving off a signal even though we were in the middle of a rural part of MD on a 1 lane road (top down).
We arrive to the neighborhood and park directly under the 150ft power line to get what we though would be a baseline reading. The meter jumps to 4.0+ milliGauss. I continued to the entry gate of the property (about 300ft from the house itself), this time I turned the car off. At that point the reading dropped from 2.5 to .2 milliGauss and .5. Next I drive back under the power lines then turn the car off. The device tracked a reading of 2 milliGauss.
To speed what's left of this story along. I came home to find the source of the high readings and there it was under the driver's seat. It was one of the electronic control units giving off very high readings of well over 5 milligauss which is 3 milliGauss higher than parking directly underneath the Power lines.
Granted my device is a cheap Home Depot unit, I sincerely hope I'm not frying my "testies" while sitting in rush hour every day.
Maybe I'm reading the device incorrectly.BTW, sustained high ELF readings of 2.0+ is a possible leukemia and cancer causing problem in young children and some adults.
Last edited by washington dc porsche; 08-25-2007 at 02:17 PM.
08-25-2007, 10:37 AM
#4
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Prince George's County, MD
Posts: 2,481
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No, I don't know anyone else who'd really care or be knowledgeable enough to tell me I'm reading the device incorrectly. Internet car clubs are the last place you want to be wrong. lol! Even if I'm reading it wrong, it bothers me that being parked under a high-volt power line gives off less readings than a ECU under my seat.
08-25-2007, 11:27 AM
#7
Rennlist Member
If my memory serves me (someone needs to check me) 0.4 microTesla's converts to 4 milligauss? If that is so, then the numbers may be high enough that there may need to be some further research to verify your findings.
However, it sounds like the actual impact is still being studied.
From wikipedia....
Some research has found that exposure to elevated levels of ELF magnetic fields may be implicated in a number of adverse health effects. These include, but are not limited to, Childhood Leukemia (references below), Adult Leukemia[8], Breast Cancer[9], Neurodegenerative diseases (such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis)[10][11][12], Miscarriage[13][14][15], and Clinical Depression.
[edit] Leukemia and cancer
In 2001, Ahlbom et al conducted a review into EMFs and Health, and found that there was a doubling in childhood leukemia for magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT, though importantly summarised that "This is difficult to interpret in the absence of a known mechanism or reproducible experimental support".[16] In 2007, the UK Health Protection Agency produced a paper showing that 43% of homes with magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT are associated with overground or underground circuits of 132 kV and above.[17]
Ahlbom's findings were echoed by Draper et al in 2005 when a 70% increase was found in childhood leukaemia for those living within 200 m (656 ft) of an overhead transmission line, and a 23% increase for those living between 200 m (656 ft) and 600 m (1,969 ft). Both of these results were statistically significant.[18] The authors considered it unlikely that the increase between 200 m (656 ft) and 600 m (1,969 ft) is related to magnetic fields as they are well below 0.4 µT at this distance. Bristol University (UK) has published work on a theory that could account for this increase, and would also provide a potential mechanism, being that the electric fields around power lines attract aerosol pollutants.[19] [20]
The World Health Organisation factsheet on ELF (Extremely low frequency) EMFs and cancer concludes that they are "possibly carcinogenic", based primarily on IARC's similar evaluation with respect to childhood leukemia. It also stated that there was "insufficient" data to draw any conclusions on other cancers.[21] This factsheet was written in October 2001, and is now largely out of date due to the increase in the scientific literature since then.
Although a doubled risk may sound dramatic, childhood leukemia is a rather rare disease, and even at a doubled risk it would still be rare. In the US, the chance that a person develops leukemia during childhood is about one in 1,300 (based on 3,000 cases per year).
[edit] Other health concerns
The California Department of Health produced a report in 2002 from their California EMF program, set up to review the health effects from electric and magnetic fields from powerlines, wiring, and appliances. They concluded that EMFs were responsible for an increase in childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease, and miscarriage.[22] This is in disagreement with a review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2001, and the NRPB (National Radiological Protection Board, now part of the UK Health Protection Agency) review in the same year. The reasoning given was that "there were reasons why animal and test tube experiments might have failed to pick up a mechanism or a health problem; hence, the absence of much support from such animal and test tube studies did not reduce their confidence much or lead them to strongly distrust epidemiological evidence from statistical studies in human populations. They therefore had more faith in the quality of the epidemiological studies in human populations and hence gave more credence to them."
However, the California report concluded that they did not find there was a strong enough association between EMFs and birth defects and low birth weight, and were divided on the evidence for suicide and adult leukemia.
[edit] UK SAGE report
The Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE) has been set up by the UK Department of Health to explore the implications and to make practical recommendations for a precautionary approach to power frequency electric and magnetic fields as a result of the HPA recommendations in March 2004.
The first interim assessment of this group was released in April 2007, and found that the link between proximity to powerlines and Childhood Leukemia was sufficient to involve a precautionary recommendation, including an option to lay new build powerlines underground where possible and to prevent the building of new residential buildings within 60 m (197 ft) of existing powerlines.
The latter of these options was not an official recommendation to government as the cost-benefit analysis based on the increased risk for childhood leukemia alone was considered insufficient to warrant it. The option was considered necessary for inclusion as, if found to be real, the weaker association with other health effects would make it worth implementing.[23]
However, it sounds like the actual impact is still being studied.
From wikipedia....
Some research has found that exposure to elevated levels of ELF magnetic fields may be implicated in a number of adverse health effects. These include, but are not limited to, Childhood Leukemia (references below), Adult Leukemia[8], Breast Cancer[9], Neurodegenerative diseases (such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis)[10][11][12], Miscarriage[13][14][15], and Clinical Depression.
[edit] Leukemia and cancer
In 2001, Ahlbom et al conducted a review into EMFs and Health, and found that there was a doubling in childhood leukemia for magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT, though importantly summarised that "This is difficult to interpret in the absence of a known mechanism or reproducible experimental support".[16] In 2007, the UK Health Protection Agency produced a paper showing that 43% of homes with magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT are associated with overground or underground circuits of 132 kV and above.[17]
Ahlbom's findings were echoed by Draper et al in 2005 when a 70% increase was found in childhood leukaemia for those living within 200 m (656 ft) of an overhead transmission line, and a 23% increase for those living between 200 m (656 ft) and 600 m (1,969 ft). Both of these results were statistically significant.[18] The authors considered it unlikely that the increase between 200 m (656 ft) and 600 m (1,969 ft) is related to magnetic fields as they are well below 0.4 µT at this distance. Bristol University (UK) has published work on a theory that could account for this increase, and would also provide a potential mechanism, being that the electric fields around power lines attract aerosol pollutants.[19] [20]
The World Health Organisation factsheet on ELF (Extremely low frequency) EMFs and cancer concludes that they are "possibly carcinogenic", based primarily on IARC's similar evaluation with respect to childhood leukemia. It also stated that there was "insufficient" data to draw any conclusions on other cancers.[21] This factsheet was written in October 2001, and is now largely out of date due to the increase in the scientific literature since then.
Although a doubled risk may sound dramatic, childhood leukemia is a rather rare disease, and even at a doubled risk it would still be rare. In the US, the chance that a person develops leukemia during childhood is about one in 1,300 (based on 3,000 cases per year).
[edit] Other health concerns
The California Department of Health produced a report in 2002 from their California EMF program, set up to review the health effects from electric and magnetic fields from powerlines, wiring, and appliances. They concluded that EMFs were responsible for an increase in childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease, and miscarriage.[22] This is in disagreement with a review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2001, and the NRPB (National Radiological Protection Board, now part of the UK Health Protection Agency) review in the same year. The reasoning given was that "there were reasons why animal and test tube experiments might have failed to pick up a mechanism or a health problem; hence, the absence of much support from such animal and test tube studies did not reduce their confidence much or lead them to strongly distrust epidemiological evidence from statistical studies in human populations. They therefore had more faith in the quality of the epidemiological studies in human populations and hence gave more credence to them."
However, the California report concluded that they did not find there was a strong enough association between EMFs and birth defects and low birth weight, and were divided on the evidence for suicide and adult leukemia.
[edit] UK SAGE report
The Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE) has been set up by the UK Department of Health to explore the implications and to make practical recommendations for a precautionary approach to power frequency electric and magnetic fields as a result of the HPA recommendations in March 2004.
The first interim assessment of this group was released in April 2007, and found that the link between proximity to powerlines and Childhood Leukemia was sufficient to involve a precautionary recommendation, including an option to lay new build powerlines underground where possible and to prevent the building of new residential buildings within 60 m (197 ft) of existing powerlines.
The latter of these options was not an official recommendation to government as the cost-benefit analysis based on the increased risk for childhood leukemia alone was considered insufficient to warrant it. The option was considered necessary for inclusion as, if found to be real, the weaker association with other health effects would make it worth implementing.[23]
Trending Topics
08-25-2007, 11:29 AM
#8
Pro
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much is your cell phone putting out?
Magnetic Fields (milligauss)
...............................Product At The Head*.....................* 4 inches From The Body*
Cellular Phone ...............1.2 to2 ........................................N/A
Coffee Maker .................. N/A ...........................................2.3 to 3
Alarm Clock .....................N/A ...........................................5 to 15
Toaster ...........................N/A........................................... 10 to 60
Iron ................................N/A .............................................12 to 45
Vacuum Cleaner ..............N/A............................................. 230 to 1300
Hair Dryer ........................N/A ...........................................3 to 1400
Television ........................N/A ...........................................4.8 to 100
* Source: Gauger, Jr., Household Appliance Magnetic Field Survey. IEEE transactions on power apparatus and systems. PA-104
** Source: Medical College of Wisconsin
Magnetic Fields (milligauss)
...............................Product At The Head*.....................* 4 inches From The Body*
Cellular Phone ...............1.2 to2 ........................................N/A
Coffee Maker .................. N/A ...........................................2.3 to 3
Alarm Clock .....................N/A ...........................................5 to 15
Toaster ...........................N/A........................................... 10 to 60
Iron ................................N/A .............................................12 to 45
Vacuum Cleaner ..............N/A............................................. 230 to 1300
Hair Dryer ........................N/A ...........................................3 to 1400
Television ........................N/A ...........................................4.8 to 100
* Source: Gauger, Jr., Household Appliance Magnetic Field Survey. IEEE transactions on power apparatus and systems. PA-104
** Source: Medical College of Wisconsin
08-25-2007, 12:16 PM
#10
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Prince George's County, MD
Posts: 2,481
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Between 1-2 milligauss and the back side of my BT headset is 2.4mG
How much is your cell phone putting out?
Magnetic Fields (milligauss)
...............................Product At The Head*.....................* 4 inches From The Body*
Cellular Phone ...............1.2 to2 ........................................N/A
Coffee Maker .................. N/A ...........................................2.3 to 3
Alarm Clock .....................N/A ...........................................5 to 15
Toaster ...........................N/A........................................... 10 to 60
Iron ................................N/A .............................................12 to 45
Vacuum Cleaner ..............N/A............................................. 230 to 1300
Hair Dryer ........................N/A ...........................................3 to 1400
Television ........................N/A ...........................................4.8 to 100
* Source: Gauger, Jr., Household Appliance Magnetic Field Survey. IEEE transactions on power apparatus and systems. PA-104
** Source: Medical College of Wisconsin
Magnetic Fields (milligauss)
...............................Product At The Head*.....................* 4 inches From The Body*
Cellular Phone ...............1.2 to2 ........................................N/A
Coffee Maker .................. N/A ...........................................2.3 to 3
Alarm Clock .....................N/A ...........................................5 to 15
Toaster ...........................N/A........................................... 10 to 60
Iron ................................N/A .............................................12 to 45
Vacuum Cleaner ..............N/A............................................. 230 to 1300
Hair Dryer ........................N/A ...........................................3 to 1400
Television ........................N/A ...........................................4.8 to 100
* Source: Gauger, Jr., Household Appliance Magnetic Field Survey. IEEE transactions on power apparatus and systems. PA-104
** Source: Medical College of Wisconsin
08-25-2007, 12:19 PM
#11
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Prince George's County, MD
Posts: 2,481
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yeah, seems 1000 mg = 1 G and 1 G = 100 micro T.
I've been researching more since I posted this and am coming up on some scary conspiracy theory websites.. zesh.. I need a bunker. lol!
I've been researching more since I posted this and am coming up on some scary conspiracy theory websites.. zesh.. I need a bunker. lol!
If my memory serves me (someone needs to check me) 0.4 microTesla's converts to 4 milligauss? If that is so, then the numbers may be high enough that there may need to be some further research to verify your findings.
However, it sounds like the actual impact is still being studied.
From wikipedia....
Some research has found that exposure to elevated levels of ELF magnetic fields may be implicated in a number of adverse health effects. These include, but are not limited to, Childhood Leukemia (references below), Adult Leukemia[8], Breast Cancer[9], Neurodegenerative diseases (such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis)[10][11][12], Miscarriage[13][14][15], and Clinical Depression.
[edit] Leukemia and cancer
In 2001, Ahlbom et al conducted a review into EMFs and Health, and found that there was a doubling in childhood leukemia for magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT, though importantly summarised that "This is difficult to interpret in the absence of a known mechanism or reproducible experimental support".[16] In 2007, the UK Health Protection Agency produced a paper showing that 43% of homes with magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT are associated with overground or underground circuits of 132 kV and above.[17]
Ahlbom's findings were echoed by Draper et al in 2005 when a 70% increase was found in childhood leukaemia for those living within 200 m (656 ft) of an overhead transmission line, and a 23% increase for those living between 200 m (656 ft) and 600 m (1,969 ft). Both of these results were statistically significant.[18] The authors considered it unlikely that the increase between 200 m (656 ft) and 600 m (1,969 ft) is related to magnetic fields as they are well below 0.4 µT at this distance. Bristol University (UK) has published work on a theory that could account for this increase, and would also provide a potential mechanism, being that the electric fields around power lines attract aerosol pollutants.[19] [20]
The World Health Organisation factsheet on ELF (Extremely low frequency) EMFs and cancer concludes that they are "possibly carcinogenic", based primarily on IARC's similar evaluation with respect to childhood leukemia. It also stated that there was "insufficient" data to draw any conclusions on other cancers.[21] This factsheet was written in October 2001, and is now largely out of date due to the increase in the scientific literature since then.
Although a doubled risk may sound dramatic, childhood leukemia is a rather rare disease, and even at a doubled risk it would still be rare. In the US, the chance that a person develops leukemia during childhood is about one in 1,300 (based on 3,000 cases per year).
[edit] Other health concerns
The California Department of Health produced a report in 2002 from their California EMF program, set up to review the health effects from electric and magnetic fields from powerlines, wiring, and appliances. They concluded that EMFs were responsible for an increase in childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease, and miscarriage.[22] This is in disagreement with a review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2001, and the NRPB (National Radiological Protection Board, now part of the UK Health Protection Agency) review in the same year. The reasoning given was that "there were reasons why animal and test tube experiments might have failed to pick up a mechanism or a health problem; hence, the absence of much support from such animal and test tube studies did not reduce their confidence much or lead them to strongly distrust epidemiological evidence from statistical studies in human populations. They therefore had more faith in the quality of the epidemiological studies in human populations and hence gave more credence to them."
However, the California report concluded that they did not find there was a strong enough association between EMFs and birth defects and low birth weight, and were divided on the evidence for suicide and adult leukemia.
[edit] UK SAGE report
The Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE) has been set up by the UK Department of Health to explore the implications and to make practical recommendations for a precautionary approach to power frequency electric and magnetic fields as a result of the HPA recommendations in March 2004.
The first interim assessment of this group was released in April 2007, and found that the link between proximity to powerlines and Childhood Leukemia was sufficient to involve a precautionary recommendation, including an option to lay new build powerlines underground where possible and to prevent the building of new residential buildings within 60 m (197 ft) of existing powerlines.
The latter of these options was not an official recommendation to government as the cost-benefit analysis based on the increased risk for childhood leukemia alone was considered insufficient to warrant it. The option was considered necessary for inclusion as, if found to be real, the weaker association with other health effects would make it worth implementing.[23]
However, it sounds like the actual impact is still being studied.
From wikipedia....
Some research has found that exposure to elevated levels of ELF magnetic fields may be implicated in a number of adverse health effects. These include, but are not limited to, Childhood Leukemia (references below), Adult Leukemia[8], Breast Cancer[9], Neurodegenerative diseases (such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis)[10][11][12], Miscarriage[13][14][15], and Clinical Depression.
[edit] Leukemia and cancer
In 2001, Ahlbom et al conducted a review into EMFs and Health, and found that there was a doubling in childhood leukemia for magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT, though importantly summarised that "This is difficult to interpret in the absence of a known mechanism or reproducible experimental support".[16] In 2007, the UK Health Protection Agency produced a paper showing that 43% of homes with magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT are associated with overground or underground circuits of 132 kV and above.[17]
Ahlbom's findings were echoed by Draper et al in 2005 when a 70% increase was found in childhood leukaemia for those living within 200 m (656 ft) of an overhead transmission line, and a 23% increase for those living between 200 m (656 ft) and 600 m (1,969 ft). Both of these results were statistically significant.[18] The authors considered it unlikely that the increase between 200 m (656 ft) and 600 m (1,969 ft) is related to magnetic fields as they are well below 0.4 µT at this distance. Bristol University (UK) has published work on a theory that could account for this increase, and would also provide a potential mechanism, being that the electric fields around power lines attract aerosol pollutants.[19] [20]
The World Health Organisation factsheet on ELF (Extremely low frequency) EMFs and cancer concludes that they are "possibly carcinogenic", based primarily on IARC's similar evaluation with respect to childhood leukemia. It also stated that there was "insufficient" data to draw any conclusions on other cancers.[21] This factsheet was written in October 2001, and is now largely out of date due to the increase in the scientific literature since then.
Although a doubled risk may sound dramatic, childhood leukemia is a rather rare disease, and even at a doubled risk it would still be rare. In the US, the chance that a person develops leukemia during childhood is about one in 1,300 (based on 3,000 cases per year).
[edit] Other health concerns
The California Department of Health produced a report in 2002 from their California EMF program, set up to review the health effects from electric and magnetic fields from powerlines, wiring, and appliances. They concluded that EMFs were responsible for an increase in childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease, and miscarriage.[22] This is in disagreement with a review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2001, and the NRPB (National Radiological Protection Board, now part of the UK Health Protection Agency) review in the same year. The reasoning given was that "there were reasons why animal and test tube experiments might have failed to pick up a mechanism or a health problem; hence, the absence of much support from such animal and test tube studies did not reduce their confidence much or lead them to strongly distrust epidemiological evidence from statistical studies in human populations. They therefore had more faith in the quality of the epidemiological studies in human populations and hence gave more credence to them."
However, the California report concluded that they did not find there was a strong enough association between EMFs and birth defects and low birth weight, and were divided on the evidence for suicide and adult leukemia.
[edit] UK SAGE report
The Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE) has been set up by the UK Department of Health to explore the implications and to make practical recommendations for a precautionary approach to power frequency electric and magnetic fields as a result of the HPA recommendations in March 2004.
The first interim assessment of this group was released in April 2007, and found that the link between proximity to powerlines and Childhood Leukemia was sufficient to involve a precautionary recommendation, including an option to lay new build powerlines underground where possible and to prevent the building of new residential buildings within 60 m (197 ft) of existing powerlines.
The latter of these options was not an official recommendation to government as the cost-benefit analysis based on the increased risk for childhood leukemia alone was considered insufficient to warrant it. The option was considered necessary for inclusion as, if found to be real, the weaker association with other health effects would make it worth implementing.[23]
08-25-2007, 01:11 PM
#14
Drifting
