Misunderstanding... science IS the determining factor. I was making a general statement that no matter what the science says today, it could change on further studies. And, my degree of confidence on whether they are effective is reliant on science. I know my glasses are helping my eye strain a lot, but I have no idea if they are protecting my eyes very well. As for the dangers of a laptop on the lap, I will go with the science for now even though I have no gauge as to whether shielding is necessary, other than tingles on my lap, which I accept is from harmless EMF and heat.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
laptop radiation
- Thread starter oceangirl10
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Misunderstanding... science IS the determining factor. I was making a general statement that no matter what the science says today, it could change on further studies. And, my degree of confidence on whether they are effective is reliant on science. I know my glasses are helping my eye strain a lot, but I have no idea if they are protecting my eyes very well. As for the dangers of a laptop on the lap, I will go with the science for now even though I have no gauge as to whether shielding is necessary, other than tingles on my lap, which I accept is from harmless EMF and heat.
Alrighty. I wish you pleasant usages out of your laptop and with minimal discomfort.
Well one of those two is correct. Admittedly the only remaining place where dinosaurs are the dominant large animals is Antarctica in the Winter (when they huddle together in large numbers to brood their eggs), but there are still at least twice as many species of dinosaur around as mammals. Of course the people you are talking about would not recognise these creatures as dinosaurs, because that classification follows from their evolutionary history...
Quite correct! I was referring to the common view of dinosaurs in the guise of T-Rex etc. No point confusing the issue any further
But you’re totally correct.
With regards to sun, I'm not sure how that compares, obviously no one stares at the sun, so it's not direct exposure, we'd have to see sunlight bouncing off surroundings and what effect it'd have.
But I think there is a difference in spending hours reading off something inert like a book, maybe with incandescent light bouncing off light from paper, compared to staring straight to LED screen for 8-10 hours like many of us are.
With regards to the comment about going blind, well duh that's silly, the concern isn't necessarily going blind, but eye health and degrading effects over time, maybe you don't go blind but you experience other symptoms.
Light is EMR. The sun is pretty relevant, since it's a significant light source for us.
Possibly those who have major EMF issues don't feel the radiation directly, just the effect that it has on their body, typically the nervous system.
Luckily it isn't something that effects you.
There have been a number of studies on EMF sensitivity, including double-blind placebo controlled trials and systematic reviews of these. The overwhelming conclusion is that there is no evidence for such a sensitivity. Basically the subjects cannot differentiate between actual EMF and a placebo/sham. EMF hypersensitivity in itself is not recognized as a medical condition and is essentially considered to be pseudoscientific.
EMF hypersensitivity can however be considered a somatic system disorder under the DSM-V, meaning it’s a mental disorder. Somatoform disorders are those where a patient reports physical symptoms however cannot be explained by a physical illness or condition. Additional criteria includes the patient is overly worried about the condition to an overwhelming level, typically significantly out of proportion compared to the perceived symptoms. Another example would be women who are convinced they are pregnant even though they are not.
I am a Board Certified Psychiatric Clinical Pharmacist at a psych hospital. Fairly regularly we have patients who have become obsessed with concerns over radiation and EMF exposure and go out of their way to avoid these phenomenon to an extreme level. This usually ends up becoming highly debilitating which is why they end up in treatment. It’s certainly not a condition I would wish upon anyone. Generally these people are treated with Cogntiive Behavoral Therapy.
It seems to me a big part of the root of the problem is these people misinterpret scientific information, though they believe they are thinking scientifically. I would also like to say it’s one thing to be concerned about things like radiation and make efforts to avoid it, even if it’s not really necessary. That’s not really a problem for the individul. It’s another situation entirely where people claim to be experiencing symptoms that have no basis in fact, obsess constantly over avoiding exposure, and their lives become severely impacted due to their debilitating anxious and avoidant behaviors. If people cannot live a happy, productive life because of such concerns, that’s when you can start identifying this as a problem.
Last edited:
Absolutely true. The evidence is not there.
Which is a very sad thing. Patients who have a treatable physical condition are told that they have a mental condition when they do not. The damage that this causes is incalculable.
In some places physician education is expanding to include things which were previously not deemed to be proper medical treatment, such as acupuncture. My local University Medical School/hospital has an alternative medicine clinic where they are looking into therapies that are not part of of the standard medical curriculum. It is a small start.
I was recently above the arctic circle, and was asking someone who lived there what was the most unexpected thing when the sun finally returned. His response was "the return of color". How can you describe color to someone who only sees things in black and white?
Last edited:
That’s not really how it works. If someone complained of EMF hypersensitivity the doctor would tell them there is no evidence of such a condition and shrug it off. If the patient is highly distressed over their perceived condition to the point it affects their ability to live normally that’s when it’s considered a mental health disorder.
EMF hypersensitivity has no scientific or medical basis. I’m not sure what “treatments” you’re referring to.
Things like acupuncture in some cases have some evidence of medical benefit which is why they might be integrated into treatments. A lot of this alternative medicine stuff is driven by the trend/fad of people wanting more “natural” treatments.
Again, people with procliamed EMF hypersensitivity cannot differentiate between real EMF and sham exposure, so I’m not sure why you are subtly suggesting there is some additional sense most people are missing. Re: color vision read the book “The Giver”.
You don't have to look directly at the sun. The intensity of blue photons any time you are outdoors will greatly exceed what you'll get from any screen.
Worry about its effect on circadian rhythms if you like, the basis for argument there (that the spectrum is very different from natural evening light) is much stronger. Eye strain from staring at emissive displays certainly is worth worrying about. But on the issue of eye damaage might find this page from a professional association of optometrists worth reading, as they are likely to know more than your average journalist of blogger and would have no vested interest in playing down any hazards (whereas some of the sites you find on the web have a clear vested interest in playing them up). The conclusions seem to be balanced, in that they don't conclude "proof of no risk" (which is very hard to prove) but "no evidence to suggest that blue light has any effect on the development" of the conditions you mentioned (and they do discuss the study you cited).
Thanks that's somewhat helpful but not completely reassuring, some of the points that caught my eye:
"...none of these studies look at the long-term effect of visible blue light exposure and eye disease. "
"There have been studies of the effects of visible blue light irradiation on the retinas of rats6 and rhesus monkeys.7 The length and intensity of exposure to visible blue light in these studies far exceeded that of natural daylight or screen use. Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn as to the likely effect on humans of normal exposure to visible blue light. Due to obvious ethical issues, no studies have been carried out on humans."
So the conclusion I draw is that we still need to be cautious and that with further testing we may see different results. There is relevant testing that hasn't even been done.
With regards to sunlight I can see it being harmful, but I'd be interested to see an analysis of the typical exposure we'd have and its impact, for instance most of us are indoors most of the day, we easily get 8-10 hours of computer/smartphone time. There could be a window letting in sunlight for part of the day, but it'd seem to me insignificant compared to a screen a few inches in front of you all day.
With that statement your show that you are just janking our chains
and future science will maybe state that using glasses for screens will change normal light into dangerous radiation, and damage your eyes, and laptop, lap covers, also changes the "radiation" in more focused dangerous levels.
so what will you do now ?????
No matter what we say, you made up your own mind,
Don't use Science as your excuse , it gives science a bad rap, and shows your inability to grasp it.
And as a great man once said:
I reject your reality, and substitute my Own
Last edited:
Sorry for late reply. Knew I was going to be talking with some folks with EMF illness so waited.
Never thought about EMF from the standard psychiatric side. With all of the hype about EMF I would understand if a lot of people claim to have EMF problems but actually don't. A poor way to try to isolate those who have a problem vs those who do not would be to walk into a room with a hidden EMF emitter, such as a phone, and see if their symptoms change based upon whether the phone was one or off. I have been told to turn off my hidden phone when entering a room when it was noticed by a sensitive.
The best test that I know is a double blind EMF exposure in a shielded room. I know of only one place that does that.
I can understand that it is considered a mental health disorder because that is the only explanation that is taught in medical school. Talking with some of these people who went years being mis-diagnosed as having a mental illness rather than having a real physical problem there is a lot of bitterness about the medical profession.
I assume that there are some people who aren't EMF sensitive, some who are but don't know it or feel it, and then the very, very few who know it and can feel lit. Many of those who have the sensitivity can be shown how to feel it, and thus take appropriate action.
Here's a relatively recent book about EMF effects on the body:
https://www.amazon.com/Effects-Elec...m+power&qid=1556778220&s=books&sr=1-1-catcorr
Never thought about EMF from the standard psychiatric side. With all of the hype about EMF I would understand if a lot of people claim to have EMF problems but actually don't. A poor way to try to isolate those who have a problem vs those who do not would be to walk into a room with a hidden EMF emitter, such as a phone, and see if their symptoms change based upon whether the phone was one or off. I have been told to turn off my hidden phone when entering a room when it was noticed by a sensitive.
The best test that I know is a double blind EMF exposure in a shielded room. I know of only one place that does that.
I can understand that it is considered a mental health disorder because that is the only explanation that is taught in medical school. Talking with some of these people who went years being mis-diagnosed as having a mental illness rather than having a real physical problem there is a lot of bitterness about the medical profession.
I assume that there are some people who aren't EMF sensitive, some who are but don't know it or feel it, and then the very, very few who know it and can feel lit. Many of those who have the sensitivity can be shown how to feel it, and thus take appropriate action.
Here's a relatively recent book about EMF effects on the body:
https://www.amazon.com/Effects-Elec...m+power&qid=1556778220&s=books&sr=1-1-catcorr
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Books are not peer reviewed. I could write and publish a book on the earth being flat and generate a lot of money that way. It has been shown time and time again that the EMF from our electronics is completely safe. We are now many generations past the introduction of computers. Same with cell phones now. We would be seeing significant health effects by now if there was a problem. As a scientist myself, you have to release there will be people arguing for x, y, and z. When the data does not support those claims, what are we supposed to do? The fact that in blind trials, people cannot distinguish between being around EMF and not being around EMF, what does that say? Now we do know that high amounts of EMF (from much stronger sources, not consumer electronics) can be damaging. But for all the people complaining about computers, cell phones, and TVs, I say go live on an island without electricity.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Cigarettes were safe. And chronic fatigue syndrome isn't medical condition (Stanford just announced they have found what they think are the markers). Agreed, the science is not there. But there are people out there who are made extremely ill by EMF. Talk to the guy from Spain who develops migraine headaches when he gets anywhere near a cell phone tower. Or the guy who's vision blurs and experiences memory loss when driving under high voltage power lines. Or the woman who gets buzzing in her ears when sitting next to someone with a wireless hearing aid.
This is not a disease like measles where I guess everyone without immunity is at risk. Whether it is a general health problem I don't know because no one is particularly interested in working with sensitives to understand their issues. But the fact that these people exist should raise an alarm for someone.
Nothing. Some people (the vast majority of people?) are not sensitive.
This makes little to no sense. Obviously you can never label a radiation emitting device as "completely" safe. The data does show that radiation damages human tissue so specific absorption rates are used for companies to show their radiation emitting device falls within that range before they can be sold. Most cell phones are right on the limit, not well below it. And those are standardized models, which means they don't cover use cases where someone might be using their cell phone at the highest radiation emitting levels for multiple hours per day. If that means completely safe to you, I would be at a loss for words.
First cigarettes were never safe. People, especially in research, started discussing potential health risks almost immediately. Then the companies started using doctors in their advertising to relief fear that smoking could actually be harmful. Then evidence mounted and mounted and mounted. The surgeon general came out on January 11th 1964 to say that cigarettes were causing cancer at alarming rates.
(You can read about the cigarette stuff here: https://www.healio.com/hematology-o...igarettes-were-once-physician-tested-approved)
Second, a few people are anecdotal. I'm not trying to diminish their legit health issues. But the problem is people like this tend to report this as well if they are just told they are near an EMF source, when they are not. That is why for the most part, doctors refer these patients to psychiatric help. As for your saying blind studies don't mean anything, well then neither do your anecdotal examples. Can those people experience the same phenomenon when they are blindfolded and traveling? Many times no.
Point is, and I am not being mean about this, the data just isn't out there. TVs have been around for a long time not. The old cathode ray tube TVs gave out far more EMF than today's TVs yet we do not have a whole generation that was ruined by watching them. What does that say? Millions upon millions of people are surrounded by EMF everyday. It is safe. If you do not believe it is safe, then I do not know what to tell you.
[doublepost=1556834598][/doublepost]
What makes little to no sense? Not all radiation is the same. Cell phones emit NON-IONIZING radiation. Laboratory studies show that at the level of the modern day cellphone, it does not cause cancer. If you are truly worried about your cellphone being a major risk factor in your life, then to steal your words "I would be at a loss for words". Flying in an airplane submits your body to more cosmic radiation, which is IONIZING, when compared to using your cell phone. Watching an old CRT-TV subjects your body to much more radiation than your cell phone. How many millions of people watched those TVs throughout their life?
Would you consider a light bulb completely safe? They also emit radiation. And yes, I am aware that there are UV bulbs that are not safe. But your standard everyday lightbulb gives off some UV radiation though and we declare those safe. LED bulbs, which we also declare 'safe'. Living has risks, and yes many of the products we use each and every day have harmful chemicals in them. Life is dangerous. We just have to use science to determine what these risks are, if they are avoidable, and if not what mitigation can we do. I feel very confident in saying that cellphones are very safe from a radiation standpoint compared to many consumer electronics in your household.
Bad example. The point was that just because the science isn't currently there doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.
I am sure that this occurs. But the examples I gave were from folks who have had this problem for years with major physical symptoms which were reproducible under the sane conditions. Their sensitivity was confirmed by double blind EMF testing.
Why you say that blind studies on EMF testing proves no effects when those tests were either improperly constructed or done on people who aren't EMF sensitive is beyond me. As I have stated multiple times I understand why doctors refer these patients to psychiatric help. The damage that this does to patients who are EMF sensitive is incalculable.
Totally agree. These data points which were dismissed as anecdotal demonstrate that there is a problem. We will have to wait until someone becomes interested enough to fund the appropriate studies. Doubt that electronics companies are going to do that.
Better Call Saul, his Brother Chuck was depicted as having this condition. Hyper sensitive to EMF. Perpetuating the idea.
This research paper discusses the attitude of tobacco when it was first introduced to Europe. A lot of people valued it for its "medicinal purposes" but a few doctors really didn't like the idea of it being a miracle drug: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079499/
It should also be noted that lifespan also probably dictates health attitudes. If you lived until 40-50 you probably would not really notice the harmful effects of tobacco in your lungs.
You could follow these people (EMF sensitive) all day and it's easy to feign sickness. The hearing aid could have well been emitting noise.
Remember that AM/FM radio, EHF, UHF, Ku Band, are all forms of EMR which are bouncing constantly at us.
Products that emit EMR are thoroughly tested by the FCC. This isn't the 1800s, when they would add electrical wiring in homes without insulation or hang an adapter plugged into a bulb socket and have a long chain of electrical outlets to plug electrical devices into. There is more thoughtful consideration and science behind this.
Whether you like it or not, you are being bombarded by EMR and yet you're still here.
If you have the peer reviewed studies I'd be very interested in reading them. As I said, as a university level scientist myself, I do try to stay at the top of my field, which happens disease ecology.
The doctors are doing what the research is telling them to do. Bottom line there remains no major studies showing EMF activating a pain pathway at the level we are subjected to everyday. Again, if this was a major health problems you would see millions of people sickened by it every day. I don't think people realize what EMF is. Literally all electronics emit it. It is non-ionizing.
I meant the data just isn't there to support any health risk by EMF and it has been studied for a very long time. Literally since the first TVs were out there people have been wondering about the health effects. Same with the microwave. If either caused an issue, given how prolific they are throughout the developed world, we would have discovered major health issues. Just like anything else that may cause a problem. Look at some common examples like Nuvaring causing blood clots. It took a few years for us to discover it, but the data came quick. Electronics have been in use far long are by far more people than Nuvaring. We would know if they caused severe health issues by now. Now if you want to discuss the social impact they may be having, well that is a different story. But with so much out there that can truly get you sick, I wouldn't worry much about a laptop, Apple Watch, TV, iPhone, etc. If you truly are worried about EMF look at the bigger causes, but again, they are literally everywhere. You cannot live in modern society without being bombarded.
Don't exist, to my knowledge. Sure the heck wish they did. The first book about chemical sensitivity by the founder of the clinical ecology movement came out in the 60's. It took 30 years before the National Academy of Sciences recognized the syndrome. The Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans's Illnesses didn't come out until 2008. 40 years later, and it only happened because we felt responsible for their sacrifice. There are hundreds of doctors in the U.S., often in alternative medicine, who now treat MCS even though there aren't that many studies and it has been 60 years. Don't know what conventional medicine thinks about MCS these days. I would guess we are still in the 60's with EMF. Nothing is going to happen unless there is some sort of major incident.
Don't disagree here either. Only comment is that it is not just pain pathways which are affected.
Yes, and no. Certainly doesn't seem to be a problem causing issues with large numbers of people. But then there are worrying trends which we don't understand, such as the drop in sperm counts, the major drop in biodiversity in the tropics. They could be explained by chemical sensitivity, weather changes, we just don't know. But those likely are totally different subjects.
The no part refers to the fact that there are some people for which EMF has a catastrophic effect. Don't know what percentage of the population fits into this category (1%, .1%? .01% ... ?). For them it is a major health problem. We just need to acknowledge that their symptoms are EMF caused. Again, as the canaries in the mine they are a warning sign. Maybe a false alarm, maybe not.
No disagreement.
As above.
[doublepost=1556862374][/doublepost]
If you ever have the chance to spend some time with someone who has the misfortune of being EMF sensitive you would realize that they are not feigning it. The consequences to their lives are too severe.
Yep. But for some people being "here" is a living nightmare due to EMF.
There is a discussion in another forum
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/wearing-apple-watch-unhealthy.2179793/page-2#post-27332836
referencing studies of real medical issues with EMF. phrehdd cites some studies:
https://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/news041220-6.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776019/
JustinRP37 - is this what you were looking for? Early results, not peer reviewed yet, but ....
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/wearing-apple-watch-unhealthy.2179793/page-2#post-27332836
referencing studies of real medical issues with EMF. phrehdd cites some studies:
https://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/news041220-6.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776019/
JustinRP37 - is this what you were looking for? Early results, not peer reviewed yet, but ....