By coincidence, or more specifically by reading Microwave News, I became aware of a recent publication in the journal Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine entitled “Evidence that dirty electricity is causing the worldwide epidemics of obesity and diabetes!” (link) This is a publication by Samual Milham, who conducted a study in 1982 that is considered the first of the contemporary era of studies looking at adverse health effects of occupational exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF). Since then, Dr Milham has taken a keen interest in something called ‘dirty electricity’, which is the specific exposure metric he considers to be responsible for…well everything really. He has written a book about it as well, entitled “Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization” and which can be bought from Amazon here should you so which (I have a copy anyone is more than welcome to borrow; it is not being used, I doubt it ever will again, and I will save you £8.49).
Anyway, dirty electricity. Essentially it can be described as additional high-frequency deviations from the ideal sinusoid waveform of the electricity grid and is caused by arcing, sparking and any electrical device connected to the grid that interrupts or distorts the flow. The term itself is apparently coined by the electrical utility industry since it is a side effect that can damage equipment. Dr Milham causes these high frequency deviations ‘electrical pollution’, but I think deviations would be a better, not to mention more neutral, description.
So the bottom line of the article is that there are a number of small islands in the Pacific Ocean (Naura, Cook Island, Tonga, Samoa, Palau, Marshall Islands, Kiribati) and one in the Carribbean (St.Kitts and Nevis) which are in the top ten of high average bodymass index (BMI), and these are also electrified by diesel generator sets. Furthermore, and I am taking this from the paper: Seven of the 10 places with the highest fasting plasma glucose (FPG) are also small island in Oceania, while seven small islands in Oceania are also among the 10 places with the highest diabetes prevalence. The Cook Islands, Tonga, Marshall Islands, Palau and Kiribati and Samoa are among the top 10 places for BMI, FPG and diabetes prevalence in men in 2008. According to Dr Milham only 2.6 of these islands would be expected in the highest 10 countries when 7 or 8 were found indicates that this is therefore an anomaly (p<0.001).
…Where to start…
First of all, that statistical testing would only be correct if these are all independent samples with no underlying commonalities such as, lets say, geographical location, lifestyle, economical development, etcetera. I think we can agree that that really isnt the case. Further, BMI and FPG are strong risk factors for diabetes so it is no surprise there is a correlation between these three factors. This leaves the question of whether dirty electricity could be related to BMI and FPG, or maybe more generally to ‘obesity’. This is an ecological study and Dr Milham has tried a similar trick before when he used ecological data to establish a link between electrification and “diseases of civilization” (just all of them) (link). My friend and colleague from Drexel University Dr Burstyn and I found some spare time and wrote a letter to the editor of Medical Hypotheses pointing out the errors in Dr Milham’s argument. I won’t do this again here, but sufficient to say it is not a very good argument (you can find the letter here). Ecological data are notoriously tricky to interpret and inferring causality from it is really not a very good idea*.Indeed this study suffers from the same problems; importantly, would dirty electricity really be the causal factor or could something else have caused high average BMI? My gut feeling….diet. As a first hunch this seems to be a much more likely explanation, given that the ecological associations Dr Milham is referring to are in men only. Unless the effects of dirty electricity would be gender-specific, something I very much doubt, this would point to diet or other lifestyle factors. Moreover, and I apologize in advance a quick Wikipedia search (link) indicates that “Many of the island nations of the South Pacific have very high rates of obesity.….. Being big has traditionally been associated with health, beauty, and status and many of these beliefs remain prevalent today.” (a reference is added to the WHO report “Obesity in the Pacific: Too big to ignore” (link), which I confess I haven’t read).
And then of course, these are small isolated islands so genetic factors may play a role.
Other countries with high obesity rates are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan, which can be attributed to the spread of the western lifestyle “the intake of attractive energy dense food with undesirable composition, increased consumption of animal fats and sugars and reduced consumption of dietary fiber, along with a lack of sufficient physical activity” (link). And of course lets not forget to US. Again, my gut feeling would be too much food and not enough physical activity, but according to Dr Milham the reason for the US is that “…the United States uses the earth as the major conduit for neutral return currents, allowing dirty electricity to enter homes through conductive water and sewer pipes and through the grid. Diesel generate are also used extensively for back-up power in peak load periods.” If that explanation surprised you, you are not the only one.
In conclusion, it is beyond me how this paper got through peer-review.
If, by any chance, you remain interested in dirty electricity and wonder whether there is any evidence this may cause adverse health effects (or you are even a bit worried now), Dr Milham indicates in 2008 he and a colleague showed it was a potential universal carcinogen in a cohort of teachers, while there are also publications by Magda Havas about a link to diabetes, asthma (according to Sbraggia), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Milham). A couple of years ago I got interested in this metric and had some spare time, so looked into these studies and published a review on this in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology in 2010, entitled “Dirty Electricity: what, where and should we care?” (link). To summarize the review: it is an interesting exposure metric but methodological problems in published studies prohibit the valid assessment of its biological activity. Or, in non-scientific language (ghetto slang I presume): we don’t know whether it is related to any health effects because all those studies are garbage.
Interestingly in this context, I would say, is that both authors who have published most (well everything) on the “dangers” dirty electricity (Sam Milham and Magda Havas) have very close links to equipment one can buy to supposedly mitigate dirty electricity. Have a look at the links to the left of the STETERiZER filter website (link)**.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
*: as a sidenote, I was involved in a study using ecological national data on brain cancer incidence and various environmental risk factors collated by WHO and to our surprise we found an association with the national mobile phone penetration rates. This confirms existing hypotheses and the method could be used to identify new hypotheses that should be investigated using better study designs, but no way would we argue anything about causality based on these data in a way Dr Milham is trying to do. Anyway, the article can be found here.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
**: the company’s website also points out (by way of a quote from Albert Einstein) why you have been wasting your time reading this blog post, and I blame my mum and dad for giving me their genes, but as it seems “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds”
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Aimee F. Maddox
July 26, 2013
For some time, there has been a debate about the safety of cell phones and smart meters due to high frequencies produced by these devices. Dr. Sam Milham speaks with Jason Hartman about his book, Dirty Electricity, and how anything that interrupts the flow of electricity causes dirty electricity. Dr. Milham contends that, based on his research, mortality rates increased as more and more residents of urban areas were joined to the electrical grid, including risks of cancer and diabetes. He shares some research, including an increase in cancer in a school, dairy cows not producing milk, and more that led to the discovery of high frequency electrical pollution that was causing an increase in a variety of problems and diseases. Not all electricity is dirty, but anything that produces high frequency waves, such as smart meters, certain appliances, cell phones, digital handheld phones, compact fluorescent lights, solar energy, WiFi, and more, contributes to higher rates of cancer and even obesity. Dr. Milham suggests ways to eliminate dirty electricity in the home. For more details, visit: http://www.HolisticSurvival.com.
LikeLike
FdV
August 7, 2013
Thanks for your reply on my post. Yes, I am aware of these publications. Actually, i wrote a review of all available research on dirty electricity and health, including the paper you are referring to. you can find the abstract (and the full paper if you have access) here: http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/v20/n5/full/jes20108a.html#abs
In summary, these studies are not very good. Specifically the study you are referring to on ecological morbidity trends and the electrical grid is a very good example of the “ecological fallacy”;. this is an observed correlation between 2 ecological variables caused by another factor.
In short:
– does dirty electricity exist? yes
– is it harmful? nobody knows, but probably not (and definately not to the degree stated in the papers)
– Are the Milham and Havas studies useful to assess the above? no
LikeLike
Mikko Ahonen
August 13, 2013
Since extensive voltage transients are capable of breaking condensators, this area is still worth investigating.
A German article about this phenomenon: (If the German language is difficult for some readers, please, look at the table and the picture set):
Click to access X2_Y2_destruction.pdf
Earlier studies worth looking at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406339/
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/140/9/805
How difficult it is to study this area:
http://www.microwavenews.com/nc_oct2005.html
So, Dr Vocht, with Dr Milham’s paper, we could perhaps be curious and open-minded?
An island would be an interesting micro-environment, if we could study A) The high voltage transients – “normal” situation B) minimise voltage transients and C) measure BMI & FPG again, when transients are minimised.
Sincerely,
PhD Mikko Ahonen , mikko . p. ahonen [ät] uta . fi
LikeLike
FdV
August 23, 2013
Dear Dr Ahonen, thanks for your contribution to this post. Indeed, I think curiosity and open-mindedness is very important when the problem is not an easy one, and in my review paper on the topic I did not dismiss HFVT, but argued that it is an interesting metric to do further research on. Unfortunately, the studies that have been conducted looking at possible health effects of HVFT are very badly designed and virtually useless (see the review or email me for a copy), while subsequent studies – including the one discussed in this post- are equally useless.
The study design you are describing in your last paragraph would be a good step forward, and would not suffer from the problems the Milham studies have.
LikeLike
Natalie Brunell
March 5, 2015
Send me your e-mail address Frank.
LikeLike
FdV
March 5, 2015
Dear Natalie, that’s available from any paper and the University’s website…
LikeLike
Alison Gentry
August 28, 2013
Trent University Professor Magda Havas explains dirty electricity and its impact on our health.
LikeLike
FdV
August 29, 2013
Explaining what it is is not the problem. unfortunately her studies on health impact are useless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chris
January 23, 2018
When I use my laptop plugged in, my face burns and turns physically red. It’s an undeniable fact, with visible results. It’s called Screen Dermatitis. It’s like sunburn, but without sun. There is still speculation as to what causes it. I believe it’s dirty electricity.
If I run the laptop only on batteries this does not happen. With a dirty electricity meter, I now know that plugging the laptop adapter in the outlet causes an increase dirty electricity, due to the AC->DC inverter.
It took about 4 years of having my face burn, worse and worse each month to figure it out. I though it must be some kind of food allergy, chemicals, or the computer screen emitting blue light for all that time. I did realize it is related to the computer slowly, but thinking it’s the blue light, I didn’t think to use a laptop on batteries.
I am a computer programmer with 50,000+ hours of computer time behind me. To me, dirty electricity is 100% for sure harmful.
LikeLike