by Thomas Ifversen

How does DesignWell Studios determine the "safe" levels of EMF and RF that we are exposed to?

It turns out that nothing is without controversy. Living here in the US, we pride ourselves on our free spirited, can-do, git-er-done attitudes that can be so inventive and productive that we sometimes get carried away. When it comes to RF, our government (through the FCC) is pushing for faster, better and cheaper cell phones and cellular signals. And why not?

Who could be against technology that allows cars to drive themselves more safely?
Who is against people controlling every aspect of their home life from anywhere, thus saving the precious and vital resources we all rely upon?
Who doesn't want to download an entire movie in 10 seconds?
What school district wouldn't want to help every child in the district by adding to their bottom lines by erecting cell towers in the corner of the field at the grade school that no one will ever use?
With EMFs, why can't we continue to build high-end homes for families right below the high tension power lines, or right next to large substations?

As of right now, there is a legitimate debate about exactly what all of this exposure does to the human body. And, since we, the public, are concerned about the long-term health effects of these exposures, the cellular companies and power companies can point to the lack of studies that show that their technologies can cause harm at any rate of exposure. Anyone on the side of progress would have to agree! Absent any good science, why should we scale back on things that can vastly improve our lives?

In the 1970's, Germany discovered that entire beloved forests in their country were suddenly dying. There was no scientific proof that existed that proved it was acid rain from power plants, but the government stepped in and slashed emissions, and likely saved the forests. This brought about "Vorsorgeprinzip", the forcaring idea that even in the face of scientific uncertainty, actions should be taken to prevent harms to the environment and to the public.

This has become what we now know as the precautionary principle. In Europe (and in other parts of the world) the precautionary principle has been implemented and works well. Not so much here in the US. Without the same regulations, Americans are able to build under power lines and right next to cell towers. Unfortunately, the long-term health effects are not yet fully known.

DesignWell studios understands that people want healthy homes and uses the Precautionary Principle for EMF and RF guidelines from the European and Canadian standards.

These standards are divided into no, slight, severe and extreme concern. Unfortunately, there is no overarching study that anyone can point to that says "this is a safe level", or "this is a dangerous level". As indoor air quality and health professionals, DesignWell Studios is going to err on the side of caution. The precautionary principles are based in science, and we strongly believe should be followed until science can prove them to be wrong!

Cellular companies, power utilities, and anyone making money on RF or EMF emitting devices would disagree and tell you not to worry... The science doesn't prove it is harmful. You, as a consumer can vote with your pocketbook. Are you going to throw caution to the wind, or are you going to exercise caution and stay within the precautionary guidelines?

References
Pollan, The Year In Ideas: A to Z; Precautionary Principle
The New York Times, December 9, 2001

Bioinitiative Report 2012

Belyaev, Dean, Eger, Hubmann, Jandrisovits, Kern, Kundi, Moshammer, Lercher, Müller, Oberfeld, Ohnsorge, Pelzmann, Scheingraber, Thill - EUROPAEM EMF Guidelines, 2016