Debunking EMF Myths

71% of adults sleep with or next to their mobile phones on a typical night. 40% of adults also check their phones when in the bathroom. 86% of smart phone-users will check their phones while in conversations with friends and family (in real time). These statistics paint a stark picture and a bleak reality - we really can’t live without our phones. But in the midst of us getting gradually addicted to our phones, not to mention our other technology, it’s easy to brush aside the negative effects - predominantly from the increasing levels EMF radiation. 

But skeptics don’t fully agree - “EMFs don’t exist - at least not in harmful capacities”, “It’s all theoretical - there’s no science behind it”, “Any radiation protection isn’t even effective” is what we’ve heard them say. But this blog aims to demystify the main points and try to add some clarity to why EMFs are something we need to pay attention to and take precautions for. 

EMF Myths: 

There’s actually a plethora of data to support the existence of EMFs. This blog goes into detail about how EMFs affect our different biological systems - in particular the nervous system, the reproductive system and our brain. Many countries have also recognized the severity of these effects, and have implemented corresponding policies in response to protect people as much as possible. The fact of the matter is that when mobile phones first came out in the market, there hadn’t been much research on it, so no one fully understood its impacts. Additionally, when research is done, it’s not taking into account the number of electronic devices surrounding us on a day to day basis. As new technologies such as 5G are continuing to roll out without proper precautions, day by day we’re gathering more and more data - all of which is pointing to the direction of needing to take action ASAP.  

There are multiple causes for cancer. Radiation at extremely high levels is a known carcinogen. The World Health Organization also classifies lower levels of EMR, from devices like cell phones, as Class 2B carcinogens. The agents classified as Class 2B carcinogens are defined as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, and the list of these agents once included cigarettes before more research was done to move them to a higher classification. We also know is that EMFs have the power to exacerbate the development of cancer cells. EMFs, even when non ionizing (lower radiation), causes oxidative stress, inducing a cell danger response, disrupting biological processes that naturally occur leading to a plethora of serious illnesses including cancer, alzheimers’ and endocrine system damage. Oxidative stress has also beenlinked to cancer because of thermal damage to cells. 

In a previous blog, we spoke about EMF regulations around the world, and how they differ in seriousness and effectiveness. For example, countries like France, Israel and Russia have implemented strict policies to protect their citizens from EMFs as much as possible including cell phone tower regulations and phone usage restriction in schools. 

However, in the USA and some other countries where EMFs still has not fully been recognized as a legitimate issue, effective policies haven’t been put into place or implemented. Furthermore, USA relies on SAR as a measure for most phone standards, but this measure hasn’t been updated since 1996, and the testing for this level was not standardized, focusing only on the impact on the head. Many of these standards are out of date, not generally standardizable and don’t look at the bigger picture. In the last year, the FCC was found guilty by a federal court for ignoring evidence that updated regulations were needed.

While yes, cell phones and other devices don’t emit extremely high level of radiations, what really matters is a) how long you use it, b) how many devices you are exposed to and c) what distance you’re at from your devices. When you think about it, with people now using their phones for around 45 hours a week (more than a full time job!), and being constantly surrounded by other devices (routers, laptops, monitors, TVs), the effect can really add up. If you only used your device for less than an hour a day, and didn’t use or weren’t surrounded by other devices for the rest of your day, then yes the low level of radiations would be miniscule in effect. But in reality, we’re unconsciously exposed to so many devices at once, and the radiation acrues, so it’s vital we take preemptive actions today. 

Bluetooth earphones were shown to be more harmful because they at such a close proximity to our brain where the barrier is thinnest. The key here is how long you use these and whether you take breaks. Using only one piece can also be harmful because of disproportionate radiation distribution. Yes, they’re a tad more safer than being stuck to your cell phone by the ear, but using these devices for more than 1-2 hour intervals can beextremely harmful. If you’re looking to use these for 2-4 hours, maybe consider using wired earphones which can emit less radiation. 

There’s actually a plethora of data depicting otherwise - a few hundred people per 1 million experienced this so although it’s rare, it still exists. EHS is a condition where individuals experience non organ specific effects in response to technology exposure. Some effects included dizziness, fatigue, tiredness and skin rashes. Arecent report by the EU recommended a reduction of exposure to EMFs to protect those that suffer from this condition - many countries have officially recognized its existence as a disease, and it’s expected that more people may become sensitive to technology in the coming years as our exposure to devices increases by the day. 

There are different approaches that varied EMF protection technology adopt. 

One approach to EMF protection is “blocking” or “shielding” products, which primarily rely on the use of conductive or magnetic materials such as metals. They lower the exposure to EMF by absorbing the waves or acting as a barrier between you and the source. Some consumer products that utilize blocking technology may use metals that divert the radiation, without absorbing it like other conductive materials, to form a barrier that blocks the waves moving towards the body.

Aires Tech products modulate rather than block EMR/EMFs. Our patented nanotechnology transforms EMR waves not only from our individual devices, but also from the surrounding sources of radiation. A major problem with the waves from technogenic sources is that they are non-coherent, meaning they are inconsistent and incompatible with our own biological EMR. Modulation technology allows for protection from EMFs by converting the waves into a coherent form, harmonizing them with our own and optimizing our environments. Check out our blog on how it works to learn about in depth version about the science behind it. 

There are 4 different types of TVs nowadays: CRT TVs (from 1960-2000), LCD TV’s, Smart TVs (Plasma, LED), and computer monitors used as TVs. The oldest TVs actually emit low levels of X-Ray radiation - which is even more dangerous than other types of TV, and although people were still affected by these - there were not even studies by scientists to prove it. However, today scientists say that the dust off these TVs isstill slightly radioactive! But since most people have moved on to the new TVs nowadays, let’s focus on LED TVs - these definitely use less power than the old plasma TVs so there’s less EMF radiation. With smart TV’s, these can be extra harmful because there’s the extra elements of using the wifi router and bluetooth, adding to the already high level of radiation. With any TV you use, make sure you’re at a distance and make sure you turn it off when it’s not use. However, in short, TV’s definitely emit high levels of radiation and it was the lack of studies that contributed to the misconception that “no one was affected”. 

5G networks have been the new and hot topic - by 2025 there’s expected to be global and widespread coverage. The aim of 5G is to allow for larger bandwidth and at faster rates. Now because it’s such a new and upcoming product, there’s not really a lot of research - we might be a case study in the future as scientists begin to gather data now. But from what we know about the way it operates and how it requires more power, it might actually have more negative effects than 4G. It also requires more towers as it can’t handle large proximities like 4G, and it will actually work alongside 4G, meaning that you’re exposed to double the level of frequencies - potentially being even more harmful. So unfortunately, the signs right now don’t really demonstrate 5G being any safer than 4G.