Electric Shavers Rot Your Brain 709
Damek writes "According to UW researchers, prolonged exposure to low-level magnetic fields, similar to those emitted by such common household devices as blow dryers, electric blankets and razors, can damage brain cell DNA. The damage appears to be cumulative, so you'd best get rid of your electric razors & blankets ASAP! The full study is available online now. No word yet for Cell Phone users' brains..."
Umm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Insightful)
???
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
Science geeks are fat and lonely - of course.
Now we know why all the best hackers have beards (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you might be surprised as how easily magnetic waves can propagate through materials. How do you think 802.11 works through walls? Or cell phones? etc.... I guess you could think of it as being constantly bathed in electromagnetic radiation of all types and wavelengths.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
Don't you mean a magnetic field?
How do you think 802.11 works through walls? Or cell phones? etc....
Those are high-frequency electromagnetic (far field) problems. This article refers to low-frequency mahnetic fields. Magnetic fields have much reduced range, so to be in their area of effect you really would have to hold the thing up against your skull.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
Governor Schwarzenegger, is that you?
Re:Umm... (Score:4, Funny)
magnetic field (Score:5, Informative)
anyway, we were told the force varied with the CUBE root of distance. according to this source, the drop-off depends on the nature of the source:
http://www.emfs.info/source_distance.asp
as for a deleterious effect on humans, i won't believe it until i see solid proof, preferably with some mechanism explained. distance is a good place to start -- if someone tells you a microwave oven is dangerous, ask them if they are threatened by their neighbor's? how about someone down the street? how about someone else using an electric razor? etc., etc. -- there is a lot to explore.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the magnitude of a magnetic field drops away as the square of the distance from the source. So the answer to your question is, it depends on how strong the field is.
Magnetic field drops as the CUBE of distance... (Score:5, Informative)
This is because there is no such thing as a "magnetic charge" like there is for electric charge.
(note to pedants: magnetic monopoles are too exotic to comment on, assuming they exist.)
Oscillating fields (Score:5, Informative)
It has been a few years since I studied this material. Please let me know if I am in error.
Re:Oscillating fields (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, however, imagine a 60 Hz EM source in the form of a closed copper ring (that somehow happens to have a 60 Hz AC current flowing within it). The magnetic field of this ring is varying coaxially with the ring, thus, the direction in which the magnetic field is pointing is precisely the direction that the EM radiation is not going. Remember that EM waves are transverse.
That doesn't stop the magnetic field from influencing the inside of your skull, however, because the varying B field in your skull will induce an emf, and it is this emf which (presumably) wreaks havok in your skull as it interacts with ions and free radicals.
Dipoles, near fields, etc. (Score:5, Informative)
It has been a few years since I studied this material. Please let me know if I am in error.
I believe you are. It's quadripole fields that fall off with inverse fourth.
Dipole fields fall off with the inverse cube, as I recall. Inverse square for the individual poles, pluse an extra inverse first-power for the separation between the poles. (Quadripole fields get an extra inverse first-power for the separation for their component dipoles in the other dimension.)
Let's assume for now that the leakage from the motor is mostly a dipole field. (CAN'T be a monopole. B-) ) For a DC field, or the "near field" of an AC field, the dipole field dominates - and it falls off inverse cube. Get two inches from the shaver and the field is 1/8th what it was at one inch. Four inches makes it 1/64th, and so on. Falls off REALLY fast with distance.
As you get farther out the changing magnetic field creates a changing electric field that in turn supports the changing magnetic field (as long as they're both propagating at lightspeed). Then you have an electromagnetic wave, detached from its launcher. This falls off with inverse square.
Under a quarter wavelength the near-field is so dominant you can pretty much ignore the far-field. Over a wavelenghth or so away the situation is reversed (unless your driving element is large compared to a quarter wavelength).
So what's the wavelength of 60 HZ? About three thousand miles.
I don't think we need to worry about the far field. B-)
So figure inverse cube falloff - or faster if the motor's magnetic leakage has more than two poles.
(This is why you need to get REALLY CLOSE to a magnet to erase your credit cards.)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
For a point source, it does. For a line source, it drops proportional to the distance. For a (relative to you) large plane, it doesn't drop at all. Granted, a point source probably approximates an electric razor, except at close range. (How far away do you hold your electric razor?) Old electric blankets had a large loop, not very good. Newer ones have the wire in pairs, so the field cancels out better (twisted pairs would be better yet, but probably lumpy). My house was wired sometime around when they invented electricity, before they had multiconductor cable, and sometimes the hot and neutral wires go by completely different routes (at least two circuits share the same neutral, too). So it's like living inside of an electric razor, I guess. Maybe I should connect a ground wire to my tinfoil hat.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that the news release seems pretty sensationalized, though. If you read carefully, you'll note that in the study they subjected the rats to a 60Hz field for 24 hours continuously, not a few minutes at a time:
I don't consider this enough evidence to support their conclusion that the damage is cumulative, since to prove that they'd need to expose the rates to 24 hours of radiation a few minutes at a time, with long breaks in between, in a manner that would more closely mimic the use of the electronic devices they refer to.A loose analogy would be that I can hold my breath for ten seconds 30 times over the course of a day without any danger, but if I tried to do it all at once the results would probably be pretty harmful.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
Then your hairdryer is insufficiently overclocked, sir.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
Pirate #3: Got any skills?
Guybrush Threepwood: Well, I can hold my breath for 10 minutes.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been reported [sciamdigital.com] that sleep repairs the normal daily damage done on the brain from free radicals (different stages of sleep repairing different parts of the brain), and I can't see why this wouldn't carry over to magnetic damage. Is there a neurosurgeon in the house?
So, sleep repairs the damage... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
I did not know that different stages of sleep repaired differents areas of the body. But I do find this information very interesting being that I suffer from sleep deprivation and insomnia. Also, some days I feel as though I'm not very cognitive after I've had a good eight hours of sleep (I'm only 27). At least, I thought they might be good hours. Maybe there is something with my sleep state that isn't helping my brain repair itself or something.
I suppose I could try sleeping pills for a week. I just hope it's the solution. If not, then caffeine my be my only best hope to counter my sluggish mind.
Sleeping pills don't work. Most sleeping pills use the same active ingredient as Benadryl (the name escapes me at the moment). Recall that Benadryl says "Makes you drowsy, do not operate heavy machinery"? They use the same shit in sleeping pills in order to make you drowsy and fall asleep. They just don't work, is all. :) Well, if you get sleepy from Benadryl, then you might try it.
Instead, google for sleeping disorders and read a few of the sites. :) I've done some fairly lengthy googling and found some pretty reputable sites about sleeping disorders (I have a few problems along those lines).
Frequent insomnia is usually a symptom of something else, like depression. So take some Valium instead. ;) It's also a symptom of that particular disorder where your circadian is off by two hours or so from the rest of the world. This is usually mistaken for insomnia.
If you do any of the following things, stop doing them 4-5 hours before you go to bed, and you'll see an immediate difference, if not a cure:
Recall that the monitor operating at any refresh setting is stimulating your brain whether you feel it or not. Don't eat within 4-5 hours of going to bed also, but don't go to bed with an empty stomach. Your body digesting will actually generate energy that'll prevent you from going to sleep, and if you're hungry your body signals that you need to eat instead of sleep. Also, try reading within the last half hour or so before going to bed under a dim light, 25 watts or so.
The other two things I find that work are hard work throughout the day (or exercise if you live a sedentary lifestyle, which I don't anymore) and drinking milk within an hour of going to bed. THere's a hormone linked to sleep, I forget what it's called, but drinking milk and exercise both stimulate production of that hormone. That's why the old mom's cure of warm milk actually works, except that it doesn't matter if it's warm milk or cold milk.
Re:Umm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Brain research is hard because skull and skin filters almost all magnetic fields. You need to use superconductive magnets placed near the brain to detect magnetic fields emitted by the brain.
If you want to stimulate the brain, you need to create magnetic field which changes at the rate of several kiloTeslas per seconds. Needless to say, you need huge amount of current for this.
This title is seriously misleading.
Re:Umm... (Score:4, Interesting)
because my razor has a battery in it (as do most I think) so it is not 60hz AC.
Also I see no mention of new fangled toothbrushs. I use one of them inside my scull everymorning.
I am too stupid to figure out how to read more then the blurb. Maybe it is the toothbrush's fault.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm...I use headphones, don't you?
Re:Umm... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
ok... its important to remember our history... Lai and Singh are the same two MORONS who made similar claims about magnetic fields almost ten years ago:
http://www.electric-words.com/cell/research/laisin gh/memory1.html [electric-words.com]
and NOBODY was able to duplicate their results. Although the two made $10,000 a pop being 'expert witnesses' for people who brough lawsuits against Motorola et. al. claiming their cell phones gave them tumors. It looks like they must have ran out of money.
This is the WORST kind of junk science imaginable.
Yes, but it is the very BEST junk science! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but you will have to admint that it is the very BEST of the worst kind of junk science!
Basically, it has not been proven that small magnetic fields can influence chemical reactions. The energy of heat at room temperature is far, far more than the energy of a small magnetic field.
Magnetic fields have an effect on electrons. They have an effect on the nucleus. But the electrons are moving energetically already, due to room temperature heat, and no low-energy influence on the nucleus affects chemical activity.
Check out these conclusions: "The outcome of oxidative damage induced by magnetic fields will, thus, depend on various factors, including the oxidative status of the cell, capability of endogenous antioxidation enzymes and processes to counteract free radical build up, availability of exogenous antioxidants, iron homeostasis (a balance of iron influx, storage, and usage), the parameters of exposure (e.g., intensity and duration of exposure and possibly the waveform of the magnetic field), and whether the oxidative damage is cumulative."
There are many statements like this that are not supported by the experiment that was done.
No sweat. (Score:5, Funny)
Personally I'm not concerned, my tinfoil hat doubles as a Faraday cage.
Re:No sweat. (Score:5, Funny)
Joke disclaimer: The above is a joke
or is it?
oh wait, yes it is?
Re:No sweat. (Score:5, Funny)
Do you mean to suggest that they're generally worn only for fashion?
Minor nit to pick... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say that apoptosis is better characterized as "natural cell death". It's a natural and essential part of the cell's life cycle, and certainly isn't as alarming as the article's tone suggests.
In fact, we have a word for cells that don't undergo apoptosis: Cancer.
Re:Minor nit to pick... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apoptosis is a system that terminates cells that are in risk of becoming cancer cells. A marked increase of cells that are activating this system does not bode good, IMO.
Actually (Score:4, Informative)
Apoptosis is also characterized as "programmed cell death," something common during development. Apoptosis of some tissues is absolutely required, particularly vestigial structures that form during your early embryology (this happen in many species, not just humans).
It should be noted that apoptosis is not simply rampant cell-suicide... it's actually a well-described and orderly process. Rampant cell membrane destruction, particularly in the brain (we see this with larger strokes) leads to the release of all kinds of inflammatory mediators... leading to swelling, damage to surrounding cells... all bad things. Nice, orderly apoptosis prevents much of this.
Neurons (Score:5, Informative)
That's not to say that neurons don't develop new connections and synapses... they do (otherwise learning could not take place)... they just don't divide much. The implication here is that since they don't divide, they are unlikely to become neoplastic, or pass on their damaged DNA.
Apart from the apoptosis angle, I'm not sure how much clinical relevance this research actually has.
Re:Minor nit to pick... (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, we have a word for cells that don't undergo apoptosis: Cancer.
Seems you are only sort of correct here.
Cells may undergo apoptosis from internal mechanisms *or* outside influences, but in both cases, the process induces the cell to self-destruct. This is how the immune system kills infected cells, how damaged cells sometimes eliminate themselves, etc. It may be that the cell has just determined its time is up, but in many cases the self-destruction is triggered by something going wrong with the cell.
*Some* cancer cells have a resistance to apoptosis (through a variety of mechanisms). But the main thing that cancer cells don't do is stop reproducing. The signals that tell a cell that it can't undergo mitosis anymore goes bye-bye. Melanoma, lung, and colon cancer are among those that *also* produce chemicals that make them more resistant to apoptosis.
(Yay Google for finding this [slashdot.org] site.)
Apoptosis=self destruct (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes and no. There are certainly cells that naturally undergo apoptosis (a.k.a. programmed cell death) in their life cycles. If not for apoptosis, we'd all have webbed fingers. But apoptosis also seems to function as an "emergency self destruct" circumstance in which something has gone catastrophically wrong with a cell. And just as in the movies, it's likely that occasionally something manages to push that big red button by mistake...
Radiation from Monitors (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Radiation from Monitors (Score:4, Funny)
~Berj
Re:Radiation from Monitors (Score:5, Funny)
No, it's double-plus ungood.
Re:Radiation from Monitors (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Radiation from Monitors (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, did you mean at work?
Re:Radiation from Monitors (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Radiation from Monitors (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Radiation from Monitors (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Radiation from Monitors (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Radiation from Monitors (Score:3, Informative)
Screwed (Score:5, Funny)
But at least I got rid of most of the CRTs in my life.
sweet. (Score:5, Funny)
Now if I could just find some more tissues before pass out from bloodloss....
Re:sweet. (Score:4, Funny)
Most
A
B
Oblig. Onion reference: We're doing Five Blades (Score:3, Funny)
Transporter
blondes -- the final answer: (Score:5, Funny)
Not Poissble (Score:3, Funny)
Headphones (Score:5, Interesting)
uggg...
Re:Headphones (Score:5, Informative)
Of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
My Mom was right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Explains a lot (Score:5, Funny)
Low (?) level magnetic fields (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Low (?) level magnetic fields (Score:4, Interesting)
Better insulating perhaps?
Doubt this is a big problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doubt this is a big problem... (Score:5, Funny)
Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence! (Score:5, Funny)
How did they prove it was cumulative? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Todd
Re:How did they prove it was cumulative? (Score:5, Insightful)
And while both experiments are interesting (as is the testing of the hypothesis by fiddling with the iron in the rat brains), I still have to wonder why they didn't do the obvious third experiment: low-level field, 10 minutes a day, over the lifetime of the rat.
(Or high-level field, 10 minutes a day, for the rat's lifetime, and low-level field, 5 minutes every hour, for a week, and so on, and so on.)
Bottom line: Interesting data so far, but the investigation looks pretty incomplete. It also looks like it wouldn't take more than a month or two of additional experiments to complete the investigation of the really interesting hypothesis, namely that Electric Shavers Rot Rat Brains.
Why wasn't that done?
ugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
These are rats exposed to 60Hz AC EMF at 0.1 to 0.5mT for two hours (continuous). Also studied were rats exposed to 60Hz AC EMF at 0.1mT for 24 hours (continuous).
So I suppose, as an analog ....
Go lie down in an MRI for a couple days straight. If you don't go deaf from the noise (they're loud), then you might see similar results. Oh, and don't wear deodorant ... it contains aluminium which will cause it to be dragged through your arm... ouch.
Not that I'm saying there may well be something in this ... but how many of us even use the shaver/hairdryer for 2 continuous hours in a sitting? It may well be (and is likely) that the effects are not cumulative, but are actually acute trauma scenarios. For instance, you can assert that dropping a grain of dust on your foot 5 times a day for 10 years would make for the same mass as, say, dropping a car on said foot. However, the problem then comes in saying, "therefore, the two are analogous - we will see the same damage from the dust as we would with the car".
It just does not follow.
Antiperspirant (Score:3, Informative)
On a separate note, it's getting increasingly difficult for people who want to avoid antiperspirant on (perhaps ill-founded) fears of aluminum damage to one's body. Particularly for women; my girlfriend literally can't find any deodorants
Re:ugh. (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been a number of studies in the past that have tried to link exposure to magnetic fields to cancer (particularly leukemia in children who live near high voltage power lines). It has generally been scoffed at, as the energies involved are not enough to break chemical bonds. However, by involving iron and free radicals, the energies involved can have an impact on reactivity.
Makes me wonder, given I did my Ph.D. dissertation in a lab that studied free radicals, using machines that generated fields of 0.3T (note, not mT) for hours at a time...
Re:ugh. (Score:3, Interesting)
This explains it (Score:3, Funny)
And here I thought it was just because I was hungover.
Re:This explains it (Score:5, Funny)
Magnetic Fields are the Enemy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Magnetic Fields are the Enemy (Score:4, Funny)
Never wage war on two fronts at once!
They should start by just eliminating the north magnetic pole.
No danger in old Europe :-) (Score:4, Funny)
In Europe we have 50 Hz fields. *sighs in relief*
Here is what Robert Park at the APS says (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.aps.org/WN/
-and-
http://www.aps.org/WN/WN97/wn070497.cfm
In fact, he devotes a whole chapter in the aforementioned book regarding the complete lack of evidence regarding EMF as a health risk. I use the chapter and this topic of research when teaching stats and epidemiology classes as an example of bad science, misused statistics, and causation vs. correlation.
jeff
Re:Here is what Robert Park at the APS says (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. But, um, wouldn't this study - by definition - be evidence regarding EMF as a health risk?
nlh
Re:Here is what Robert Park at the APS says (Score:4, Informative)
as the study needs to be independently replicated. Something that, to date, has not been accomplished by any researchers looking at EMF.
That's a big part of the EMF scare. The CDC ( I think) did a huge meta-analysis of all the available evidence of EMF and related health risk, and found no link whatsoever. The study came out in 1997, and even with a huge sample size of cases and studies, there was no significant effect whatsoever.
I'm not saying it's not something that should be explored and investigated, but EMF and health risk is right up there with cold fusion. Its not something significant research dollars should be spent on.
Warning: Your house may be making big fields!! (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, since neutral was grounded in the breaker panel, it means all the return current in the house was balancing between the ground and neutral wires to get back to the main disconnect panel. Now, sending current over wires makes voltage, and in this case, that voltage is seen on every grounded item in the house!! Electrical fields everywhere.
Normally with 120V AC currents in your house, current on hot equals current on neutral, and the net RF field balance of a circuit in use is ZERO. (Try and clamp on ammeter to confirm this..) But if your ground and neutral are improper, it can make all kinds of wires have fields.
Nothing to do with mobile phones (Score:3, Interesting)
i am skeptical of this study because a friend of mine who works in biomagnetics assures me that the effects of high B-fields on human tissue were carefully invesigated prior to the approval of MRI macines for use in biomedical imaging. any ill effects due to low-frequency or DC fields would have been found at that time. of course this is just hearsay and i am not qualified (or inclined) to assess this particular study on it's scientific merit! : )
Does anyone know..... (Score:5, Funny)
Yay! More Junk Science! (Score:5, Funny)
Leaving Earth Soon? (Score:4, Informative)
The Earth has a magnetic field with a strength that varies between 20,000 nT and 70,000 nT (nanotesla, the unit usually used.) Converting nT to mT using my few undamaged brain cells gives a background field strength for the planetary magnetic field of 0.02-0.07 mT. The lower numbers are found near the equator and increase with latitude.
Using an electic shaver or hair dryer for five minutes a day would increase exposure by a factor o 0.0007, given the ranges for them found on several sites. You might be better off leaving the Earth's magnetic field altogether except for that nasty cosmic radiation it protects you from.
Magnetic field, gamma radiation, take your pick.
Re:Leaving Earth Soon? (Score:5, Informative)
The article is about a magnetic field alternating 60 times per second. The Earth's magnetic switches polarity over hundreds of thousands of years; it is DC for the purpose of the article.
This is mostly bunk - think about MRI's (Score:5, Insightful)
This supposed damage from low-level EM fields has been a concern and a wife's tale for quite some time. Cellphones that are close to people's heads and electric blankets have often been the center of the discussions.
But think about the MRI machines, where there are absolutely huge magnetic fields concentrated around someone's skull, where the brain tissue is housed. Does getting an MRI cause huge amounts of brain damage? Don't you think we would have found such correlations prior to now if there were some?
I've heard stories of people coming out of MRI machines "seeing stars" briefly - that would make some sense because the brain works via electromagnetic impulses, which are effected by strong magnetic fields. I haven't heard of permanent damage resulting from exposure.
Hair dryers and personal Shavers? Come on. No.
Electric blankets are a bit more diffult to dismiss, since they do create an EM field covering a person's body, and at 60 Hz. Cellphones far from cell stations transmit more power, and right next to a person's head.
However: the only thing that has been shown to conclusively disrupt DNA is ionizing radiation such as that of radioactive materials or ultraviolet light. (As can be shown of instances of skin cancer in the case of UV, and cancer from radiation - even though it's also used as a treatment for cancer - for the very same reasons). Those are things to be concerned about.
RF energy such as that in cellphones has been found to be safe except for the heating created by the RF energy, the very principles behind the microwave oven. [Which concentrates 1,000 watts into a metal cage with a small amount of food in it - a very different scenario than a very low power cellphone next to a quite large meaty object in open air.]
There are areas where people work where CRT monitors do not function due to the magnetic fields in the vicinity. I.E. we're talking more than 1 gauss [yes, 1,000 mili gauss] of magnetic field. Hint: THEY LIVE, and they're working in that environment every day. [Think about broadcasting stations, or power stations, etc, etc.]
This will eventually be shown to be mostly bunk.
Wouldn't that include... (Score:4, Funny)
My car is killing me (Score:4, Interesting)
Sensationalist? More than a little. (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying that "Electrical shavers make your brain rot" off of significant but not astoundingly skewed results in a single study involving 16 mice is a little bit premature.
Fenton Reaction (Score:5, Interesting)
As I said then, we're sadly ignorant about the effects of water in its various conditions and products due to external forces, on our systems. We're starting to find out a lot of answers, good and bad, are focused on water. In this respect, this article makes perfect sense.
Next up: alarm clocks (Score:4, Funny)
Re:pff, fp (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure someone will prove its existence, eventually.
If my anecdotal experiences gathered at the mall are any indication, good luck.
KFG
Re:My poor ex-girlfriend :( (Score:4, Funny)
Fortunatly, most women use their vrbrators no where near their brain, However, the male version of this device is typically placed directly over the male brain.....
Re:Scale (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Science?? (Score:3, Informative)
A lot of good science doesn't prove a causal link. A lot of the times it just proves an association which the scientists may or may not believe is causal. The association is justification to come up with theories and do more research on the subject in order to figure out the cause
Headphones? Naaah. Electric blankets! (Score:3, Interesting)
People sleep all night, often every night, with electric blankets warming their bodies, and if it's cold they tuck their heads under the covers too. I'd think that'd be an even greater risk than the headphones.