Dr Lisa Hutchinson
Issues of EMF Safety
Ian Jarvis has been a campaigner and educator on the harms caused to humans and the environment related to wireless radiation, manmade electromagnetic fields (EMFs), 4G and 5G technologies for over a decade. His website, ianjarvis.co.uk provides extremely comprehensive documents, factsheets, information on technical standards, super helpful videos, tutorials, and other insightful resources. I want to draw readers attention to a succinct PDF document on “Hospitals and EMF Safety”.
Ian created this out of concern and frustration for a friend who needed an emergency operation, but who also suffers from sensitivity to EMFs, and was for some time in the intensive unit where much equipment uses EMFs. He decided to compile this document for patients to share with medical staff, including consultants and nurses, who are sadly ignorant of the debilitating issues related to Wi-Fi and EMFs. Many of the devices as well as medical equipment used in hospital wards emit harmful radiation, exacerbating the symptoms for patients who are sensitive to EMFs. Ian has elegantly drawn attention to these concerns, and put his insights in the context of how this relates to ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines. This ensures that it is ‘what ICNIRP says’ and not his personal opinion.
Limiting Exposure to EMFs
Within the ICNIRP guidelines it states how “the guidelines described are for the protection of humans exposed to radiofrequency EMFs”. It goes on to add the following caution: “Although these guidelines are based on the best science currently available, it is recognized that there may be limitations to this knowledge that could have implications for the exposure restrictions.” Interestingly, although ICNIRP admits that limitations exist, it has not updated its own guidelines since 2020 with only minor changes for 5G. Aside from this troublesome omission, ICNIRP continues to state that it has guidance for the “protection for all people against substantiated adverse health effects”. In other words, ICNIRP plainly acknowledges that there are proven adverse effects from Wi-Fi and non-ionizing radiation.
ICNIRP Purpose and Scope
The purpose and scope of the guidelines are to “limit exposure to EMFs…and to provide a high level of protection for all people against substantiated adverse health effects from exposures”. ICNIRP continues to clarify that “some exposure scenarios are defined as outside the scope of these guidelines”. The next part is nothing short of a bombshell!
Beware Metallic Medical Implants
“Medical procedures may utilize EMFs, and metallic implants may alter or perturb EMFs in the body, which in turn can affect the body both directly (via direct interaction between field and tissue) and indirectly (via an intermediate conducting object). The following text of the ICNIRP document guidance is alarming. It says, “for example, radiofrequency ablation and hyperthermia are both used as medical treatments, and radiofrequency EMFs can indirectly cause harm by unintentionally interfering with active implantable medical devices or altering EMFs due to the presence of conductive implants.”
Medical Staff Unaware of Dangers
Crucially, most medical staff are blissfully unaware of the interference EMFs pose on medical devices and their patients. The expertise of medical staff when performing a medical procedure relies on balancing potential harms against intended benefits. As noted, ICNIRP states that the exposures caused by EMFs from conducting materials or devices are beyond the scope of their guidelines. The bad news does not stop here. ICNIRP continues: “Radiofrequency EMFs may also interfere with electrical equipment more generally – and may affect health indirectly by causing equipment to malfunction.” This can include devices, such as diabetes monitors, which might cause a person to take medication when unnecessary. This insightful video explains how smart meters emit radiofrequency signals that can interfere with medical devices.
Thus, electromagnetic compatibility, which describes the interference of radiofrequency EMFs with medical equipment and also implantable medical devices also falls “outside the scope of these guidelines.” The fact that ICNIRP provides scientific-based advice and “guidance on protection against adverse effects of non-ionizing radiation, including the provision of guidelines on limiting exposure” is a clear admission that EMFs are dangerous. Why else would a guideline be required if no adverse effects were possible, or if EMFs were proved to be 100% safe?
Categories of Exposure
The ICNIRP guidelines contextualise the different levels of safety and exposure. For instance, the guidance states that “in non-ionizing radiation protection, a distinction is made between occupational exposure, exposure of the general public, and medical exposure of patients.” This is because staff with occupational exposure are expected to have received suitable education and training about their own risks in the work environment. By contrast, the general public and those in hospital for treatment cannot be expected to know what they are being exposed to, or what might be considered ‘safe’.
Hospital Wi-Fi Levels
In any hospital, the daily amount of Wi-Fi used in both treatments and monitoring can be very high. It is important to emphasise the ICNIRP guidelines specify exposure guidelines based on 6 minutes for the public and 30 minutes for trained workers. Medical staff have an opportunity to go home to an improved environment, but patients do not have this option. ICNIRP even states that “patients under medical care are another special category. They can be exposed to relatively high levels of non-ionizing radiation for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes”.
Clinician Responsibility
ICNIRP is actually quite clear that physicians have a duty of care and responsibility to consider the potential harms caused by EMFs in any diagnostic or treatment decision undertaken for patients. It states “if the levels of non-ionizing radiation exceed the exposure restrictions for the general public, the intended benefits of the procedure should outweigh the possibility of adverse effects. This justification is the responsibility of physicians who are diagnosing or treating the patient, and who have been properly trained to make such judgments.” Is it likely that all doctors and nurses have been properly educated and trained in the risk-benefit health considerations of non-ionizing radiation? Not likely!
Pregnancy is a Special Category
Notably, medical staff who are pregnant become a special category for ICNIRP: “Pregnant workers comprise a special category. The foetus has to be considered as belonging to the general population. If a female worker has declared that she is pregnant, she can only be exposed above the exposure restrictions for the general public provided that the exposure of the embryo or foetus remains below the general public restrictions.” Furthermore, ICNIRP explains that “exposure in occupational situations, both from natural and man-made sources, has to be regulated to prevent excessive exposure. It is also required that exposed workers be informed about the risks and measures they can take to prevent excessive exposure.”
Conclusions
It should be noted that patients will be exposed more than occupational workers, so medical staff need training in mitigation for both themselves and their patients. Patients and healthcare staff alike should be hyperaware of limiting exposures to EMFs and non-ionizing radiation. Minimum steps that can be contemplated are what devices and equipment can be turned off at night to limit exposure levels. Other considerations are the restriction of mobile phones and other digital devices inside wards, and even outside wards in certain circumstances. Please download Ian’s ICNIRP for Hospitals summary, which he continues to update. Ian emphasizes a vital message: it is important for all administrators and medical staff to realise that limiting environmental radiation in hospitals should be an ethical decision, not a scientific one.
