Bringing back the hybrid for a Camry LE

One additional thing kff:
Since you seem to want us to think you're so smart: Why don't you look up the specific energy (Wh/kg) of compressed air and the specific energy of NiMH and Li-ion batteries and let us know how far a Camry sized vehicle powered by compressed air will go with a 200 lb compressed air power plant compared to how far it will go with 200 lb of NiMH or Li-ion batteries.
Hint: the compressed air vehicle will go about 1 percent as far as the battery one.
If you want electricity free propulsion, go with a very old fashioned diesel or perhaps a Stanley Steamer. But then, you'll just kill your poor kids with the exhaust from these too.

I feel the right to get nasty about ignorant idiots like you who spout garbage you know nothing about.
People will shield buildings, houses, and hybrids because idiots like you that can buy Gausmeters and will pay more for lower EMF.
I pity your kids since their parents will loudly protect them from imagined goblins while exposing them to real threats just because they have become accustomed to the real threats.
Go ahead and get rid of your Camry hybrid and when pure EV's or any other form of sustainable solutions come onto the market, shun them as well.
This way, you can condem your poor kids (you're right, I don't have any but I do have a nieces and nephews whom I love and care greatly about) and their contemporaries to a life of Dickensonian poverty after we run out of oil or our climatic balance shifts economies so much the fabric of our society breaks down - whichever comes first.
Lead has been easily proven to be poisonous since around 0 AD. It could be proven immediately in the lab. Asbestos did take a while to prove but the affects are immediately visible under a microscope. You can't do this with low level EMF. But then you were probably a poetry major so this is all above your head.
. . . since you're into protection from ghosts, you might want to hang some garlic over your door to ward off evil spirits as well.

I'm sure that the brilliant kff will find evil EMF in the TDIs as well. Any modern, efficient, clean ICE will require a lot of electronics to control everything although the diesels may have lower EMF levels than something with spark plugs or electric propulsion.

kff_ I just want to let you know you are not the only so called idiot out there. We to just purchased a 07 Toyota Prius and after reading the owners manual discovered the disclosure about the emf. We have taken our matters to Toyota Corp level. This Friday we are taking the car back to the dealership because the emf was not disclosed prior to purchase.
I don't have problems with hybrid vehicle and glad so many people love them. We love our Prius but don't feel safe putting our kids in the back seat. I know once there is enough concern about this automakers will start shielding the vehicles better and we will then be in the mark for another hybrid vehicle.

kff
I suggest you write consumer reports. We asked if they could do a comparison between hybrids to see if all hybrids have high emf or if some manufactures are already shielding the vehicle.
It should be up the consumer if they want to purchase a high emf vehicle or not. Which means it should be disclosed prior to purchase not after reading an owners manual.
Good luck!!

dtm- we got burnt too after reading the owners manual. I'm having a problem being able to PM you. Can you E-mail me at . I really need to talk about corporate, as we are having dealer problems. You can just set up a new e-mail account if you don't want to give out your regular one. Thanks!

this site has bugs sorry for the multiple posts

There is a test protocol for radiated EMF fields in hybrid vehicles developed by ETA in the U.S. Problem is, no current model hybrids have been tested using the protocol. I believe the U.S. Department of Energy will be revisiting this issue shortly.

You can argue till you're blue in the face about the health effects of EMF. The truth is that when it comes to hybrid vehicles the technology hasn't been around long enough to start seeing defined trends...yet. The current Gen II Prius has only been with us since 2004. The Gen I since 1999.
Consumers have the right to know what the radiated EMF AC and DC fields are before they purchase the vehicle. The data is as important as MPG.
The trip to the corner store or a short commute may not pose a problem long term but if you're sitting in a 300 mG radiated field for 8 hours a day...I'd be
thinking twice.

The earth has a natural magnetic field of 500 mG. At surface level it's less than 1 mG. In a hybrid the level is amplified to 300mG (about 150 times more than an ICE equipped vehicle and in the case of the Prius this is right between the driver's legs.) I am a strong supporter of hybrid technology and I'll gladly pay the extra coin to reduce the EMF either in production or aftermarket. Give us a solution automakers. Some will buy, some won't.
Hey, remember when doctors used to advertise/promote smoking? It took us a while to figure the threat out. The same may be true of concentrated levels of EMF. In the meantime, I'll go for the protection.

DC does not produce EMF. It's explained by Maxwell's equations that use a little calculus. This is probably a bit too complex for this discussion.
Go ahead and shield your kids from EMF today.
. . . but what are you doing to shield your kids from:
- pollution?
- wars over the oil upon which you rely?
- a future without cheap, oil based, transportation?
- terrorists and extremists funded by the oil they own?
You're free to set your own priorities.

RKS,

Actually I was told by a large supplier of meters that a Hybrid has more AC than DC and suggested I buy the AC model (only 150) . I returned my Hybrid for an LE I lost about 2750 after all said and done. The LE gives only about 15mG at the fire wall (1m at the back seat). A big improvement from pegging my meter at 100 at both locations on the Hybrid! I'm not happy about the money but feel a lot better about not being exposed to High EMF(instead of sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the problem like some people). I found out another tid bit about Toyota. They shield their hybrids in other countries but not the US!
As usual the little people are victims of big business and lack of government
regulations.

Clk,

I saw those Tachyon discs, but not sold on it. I found such high levels with my AC Gaussmeter and I couldn't trust something that can't be proven to work. I then considered shielding the car myself. I'm glad I did not attempt this, the cost would have been way too high. I tested a small piece of material, but found I would need 2-3 layers to get my 100+mg levels down to 2mG (my estimate $3000.00+ to shield the car). Please post any information you can find about the relation of EMF and cancer especially with kids. Thanks.

Did not mean to spread any alarm- I'm just unsure about emfs. Talked to Toyota headquarters in CA and they made some notes and said to call my dealership. Then I talked to a very knowledgeable Prius Technician who said yes he was aware of the emfs and said there was no effective way to shield them in the car since the battery cables run down the center from the back and under the drivers seat. He said there were no current studies on short term exposure to emfs you would get from the car- it's not like you are in the car 24 hours a day and the emfs do come off and on. I'll continue to investigate and continue to drive my hybrid.
Talked to the people who sell those discs- save your money. They lost me at "harmonizing forces that will combat the emfs that disrupt your body" came into the conversation. The rep said even with the discs in place the ELF meter will continue to read high levels but the "tachyon particles will have been brought together to break up those fields". I failed to understand this!

A variety of blogs have talked about EMF sheilding variations by Toyota depending on the country of destination of the vehicle.

Has anyone legitimately confirmed this?

If it's true, this needs to be exposed. What are the specifics of the differences?

Here are some resources that I have come across.... One thing is certain... There are many arguments on both sides of the fence.

http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int/emf-net/pubblications.cfm
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=EMF
http://www.sce.com/Safety/Electric_Magnetic_Fields/faq.htm
http://www.cep.ca/reg_ontario/files/health_safety/emf_school_guidelines.pdf
http://www.ssi.se/english/lank_symbol_Eng.html

I find that there is mounds and mounds of information out there just not specifically about hybrids. The discussions are hard to follow on various forums because you get about 5 posts of actual fact and then it turns into a flame war.
As for the posting above about the limits of EMF..... Its really a gray area. Looking around a little today I find that different countries have different values that they consider limts. The lowest of course is Sweeden at 2mg and amazingly from what I can read have made policy out of it. Very interesting.
All in all it is up to the individual to make a decision based on what they have found and understand. Personally myself I am not sure yet but I think I would lean towards no. I love the idea, and the execution made by most of the companies but I think that I will always be wondering about it in the back of my mind as I put my kids back there. But who knows.... I am currently looking for an EMF meter so that I can do my own testing. Maybe my findings will be different. I also have written to Toyota and am waiting for a dialogue with them.

Monty,

The U.S. Department of Energy has a full testing protocol for hybrid vehicles but hasn't used it on any current models. It costs approximately $4,000 U.S. to thoroughly test a vehicle for EMF. I think potential buyers of hybrids should be allowed to see EMF levels on the vehicle sticker just like MPG. Yes there's lots of debate on what constitues safe EMF exposure but let the consumer decide what's important to them. Incidently, most handheld EMF meters only measure AC EMF. For a hybrid vehicle you need to measure radiated DC EMF and these meters are out there but very expensive.

I still haven't heard from Toyota if vehicles destined for other than North America have extensive EMF sheilding installed. Does a Swedish Prius have EMF shielding? Does anyone know?

Monty-Thanks for the informative links. Yes, there are many arguments on both sides of the fence. Having said that a consumer should have a choice of which side they want to be on. Toyota and other Manufactures have a moral obligation to inform the consumer before a purchase and this is not happening.

Complacency is dangerous, as demonstrated by EV1's rants (even he's humbled as new posts are added):confused::o . It seems only after people get hurt, the research and investigations start. Those Swedish links may be on the side of caution, but isn't better to be cautious if a potential danger is not conclusive either way yet?

Yes when it comes to my kids I'm very anxious. However I went beyond speculation. I went the extra mile and tested my own car to best of my ability
keeping in mind the Swedish limit of 2mG and did not like what I found inside the cars cabin! (details on my first post)

The bottom line is the consumer should be warned of legitimate potential hazards( as researched by Sweden and others) when buying products. Health should not be something to gamble with.

None of the documentation anyone here has brought up has shown any research that indicated there was any sign of health affects. All we know is that people are afraid there might be health affects.
This is the story of EMF hysteria. Whether it comes from power lines in the '60's, cell phones in the '80's, or now; Hybrids. The only real thing is that people would rather be hysterical than:
a) look at the known benefits of these technologies and compare with the unknown conjectures
b) look for real evidence of problems.

I will sign off now and never respond to this discussion with the uninformed again. Clearly, the herd is stampeding and no amount of rationality will calm it down.:(

Here is a reputable, recent review - by no means definitive, and there are numerous negative studies in this arena BTW:

Review Article

Fielding a current idea: exploring the public health impact of electromagnetic radiation

Stephen J. GenuisCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author
aFaculty of Medicine, University of Alberta, 2935–66 Street, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6K 4C1
Received 26 May 2006; revised 12 January 2007; accepted 2 April 2007. Available online 18 June 2007.

Summary

Several publications in the scientific literature have raised concern about the individual and public health impact of adverse non-ionizing radiation (a-NIR) from electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure emanating from certain power, electrical and wireless devices commonly found in the home, workplace, school and community. Despite the many challenges in establishing irrefutable scientific proof of harm and the various gaps in elucidating the precise mechanisms of harm, epidemiological analyses continue to suggest considerable potential for injury and affliction as a result of a-NIR exposure. As environmental health has not been emphasized in medical education, some clinicians are not fully aware of possible EMF-related health problems and, as a result, manifestations of a-NIR may remain misdiagnosed and ineffectually managed. It is important for physicians and public health officials to be aware of the fundamental science and clinical implications of EMF exposure. A review of the scientific literature relating to the link between electromagnetic radiation and human health, several public health recommendations, and four case histories are presented for consideration.

Keywords: Dirty electricity; Electromagnetic fields; Electromagnetic radiation; Ground current; Human exposure assessment; Non-ionizing radiation

Article Outline

Overview of electromagnetic spectrum and NIR

Non-ionizing radiation

EMFs and human health

EMFs and reproductive dysfunction
EMFs and cancer
EMFs and CNS dysfunction

Proposed mechanisms of EMF impact

Cellular pathogenesis of adverse EMR
EMFs and melatonin metabolism

Limitations and research challenges

Limitations of exposure research
Exposure research and vested interests

Quo vadis

Public health recommendations

Case reports involving EMF exposure

Case history #1
Case history #2
Case history #3
Case history #4

Concluding thoughts
References

‘A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’ Max Planck (Nobel Prize Winner—Physics).

It was only a few decades ago when individuals queued up in shoe shops and malls to view their metatarsals under fluoroscopy machines; with expert reassurance that such a novelty was perfectly safe, the increased cancer rates in participants came as a surprise. While there is recognition of the potential cellular and tissue damage associated with exposure to ionizing radiation from X-rays, electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating from power lines, mobile phones, common electrical devices and some types of machinery has also begun to attract recent attention as a potential health hazard. Conflicting information is found in the medical literature; while some reports dismiss the alleged risk associated with EMR, various international bodies including the World Health Organization1 and the International Agency for Research on Cancer2 (IARC) have called for intense investigation of the impact of non-ionizing radiation (NIR) on human health in response to mounting research suggesting a link between adverse EMR and various afflictions including reproductive dysfunction, cancer and central nervous system (CNS) disorders.
Overview of electromagnetic spectrum and NIR

Radiation refers to a type of energy that is given off or ‘radiates’ away from the source of that energy. There are different forms of energy, each with distinct physical properties that can be measured and expressed in terms of frequency and wavelengths. Some waves have a high frequency, some medium and some low. The electromagnetic spectrum is a name used to describe a group of distinct energy forms that emanate from various sources; the energies released are referred to as types of EMR (Fig. 1). Exhibiting high frequencies are gamma rays, X-rays and ultraviolet light; lower frequencies of the spectrum include microwaves and radio waves. Light wave emission, which occurs at medium frequencies, provides for normal vision and the light we perceive; infra-red energy allows for the perception of heat.

Image Display Full Size version of this image (34K)

Figure 1. Electromagnetic spectrum—types of radiation.

Most energy forms such as X-rays, ultraviolet energy and radio waves are invisible and imperceptible to the human. Without specialized instrumentation, most frequencies cannot be detected and, as a result, people generally do not appreciate their exposure to energy fields in these ranges. Despite the lack of perception, exposure to high-frequency energy including X-rays is termed ‘ionizing radiation’ and is potentially damaging to human cells. By altering the atomic composition of cell structures, by breaking chemical bonds and by inducing free radical formation, sufficient exposure to ionizing radiation may inflict DNA damage or mutation, thus increasing the risk of malignancy or cell death.
Non-ionizing radiation

‘Non-ionizing’ radiation (NIR), generally referring to energy forms with lower frequencies, has been considered safe by many scientists and without adverse effects at common exposure levels. Recently, however, increasing evidence suggests that some frequencies of NIR may have potential to cause biological harm. Most of the research on the health effects of adverse NIR (a-NIR) has been done at: (1) extremely low-frequency (ELF) energy waves produced and emitted by power stations, power lines and some electrical equipment; and (2) radio and microwave frequencies given off by wireless communication technologies, cordless and cellular phones, and some electrical materials. Current study is also investigating the potential sequelae of intense exposure to a-NIR as a result of voltage originating from ‘dirty electricity’ and ‘ground current’.

Just as clean water can become polluted when it travels through a contaminated environment, electricity becomes increasingly polluted when it comes into contact with assorted types of electronic equipment. Regular or ‘clean’ electricity enters buildings at a frequency of 50/60 Hz; power becomes ‘dirty’ or polluted when it develops scattered higher-frequency signals as a result of contact with equipment such as computers, plasma televisions and some appliances. NIR generated by dirty power may radiate to contaminate the adjacent environment and is alleged to be potentially harmful.3 Ground current, sometimes referred to as ‘stray current,’ is electricity that is not confined to electrical wiring. Electrical current follows the path of least resistance and can flow through any and all available paths including earth, wires and various objects. Accordingly, electrical voltage can transmit through the ground and into building structures through such devices as metal pipes or rods in plumbing equipment, resulting in a-NIR scattering into the adjacent environment.[4], [5] and [6] All forms of a-NIR, however, only inflict harm within their fields of influence.

A field is ‘something’ that exists in space around an object or device; the area over which the object exerts some form of physical influence. The inherent properties of the object or device produce the surrounding field. A magnet, for example, creates an invisible field that can attract or repel other objects within a certain distance. When power is generated, transmitted or used, electrical materials and devices produce fields around them called ‘electric fields’ and the combination of certain elements in various devices results in the production of both an electric and a magnetic component, called an ‘electromagnetic field’ (EMF). Another way of expressing this phenomenon is to consider that waves or rays of energy are released outward from some electrical materials, radio emitters and power devices, but the intensity of the field of exposure rapidly drops off with increasing distance from the source. Shielding against some energy frequencies, such as blocking X-rays with lead plates, is efficacious; it is difficult, however, to effectively shield against some energy wavelengths including ELF EMFs.

Nearly everyone in our society is exposed to some degree of EMF pollution, yet few are cognizant of the debate about health risks associated with a-NIR. As subatomic matter in human cells entails the movement of electrons, and various biological activities including brain function and cardiac conduction involve measurable electrical activity, it is not surprising that intense electrical fields can exert influence on the human electrical system. Although this evolving area of science provokes many unanswered questions, considerable research suggests that exposure to certain frequencies of EMR may affect physiological processes, with potential long-term sequelae.[7] and [8]
EMFs and human health

While medical studies correlating EMF with adverse health outcomes have sometimes yielded apparently contradictory results, recent research reported in respected medical journals has uncovered evidence about potential risk. Studies looking at reproductive dysfunction, cancer potential and CNS disorders appear to support previous suspicions that EMF exposure may present a health risk.
EMFs and reproductive dysfunction

Adverse pregnancy outcomes including miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm delivery, altered gender ratio and congenital anomalies have all been linked to maternal EMF exposure.[9], [10], [11], [12] and [13] A large prospective study published in Epidemiology, for example, reported on peak EMF exposure in 1063 pregnant women around the San Francisco area. After participants wore a magnetic field detector, the researchers found that rates of pregnancy loss grew significantly with increasing levels of maximum magnetic field exposure in routine day-to-day life.12

Paternal EMF exposure has also been correlated with serious potential sequelae. The development of testicular abnormalities, atypical sperm, chromosomal aberrations and offspring congenital defects have all been linked to male EMF exposure.[14], [15], [16], [17] and [18] Switchyard workers exposed to electrical current, for example, were compared with salesmen and clerks for evidence of chromosomal anomalies. With a significant increase in the number of chromosomal aberrations in switchyard workers,18 and an increased tendency towards malformations among their children,15 researchers have surmised that EMF exposure may be a factor in adverse outcome. Fathers employed in industries with higher than average EMF exposure have also been noted to have offspring with higher rates of brain and spinal cord tumours.[16] and [17]
EMFs and cancer

Numerous studies have investigated the allegation that intense exposure to some frequencies of EMR may be carcinogenic. For example, International Journal of Cancer recently published an important population-based case–control study on the link between childhood leukaemia and magnetic fields in Japan. By assessing magnetic field levels in children's bedrooms, the researchers confirmed that high EMF exposure was associated with a significantly higher risk of childhood leukaemia.19 Furthermore, recent studies reported in major journals such as The Lancet and International Journal of Oncology discuss the apparent link between cordless and cellular phone use with conditions such as lymphoma,20 malignant and benign brain tumours,[21], [22] and [23] as well as other problems including alterations in blood pressure.24

An important case–control study reported in the British Medical Journal found a link between childhood leukaemia and prenatal proximity to high-voltage power lines.25 Compared with children whose birth address exceeded 600 m from a high-voltage power line, those with birth addresses within 200 m had a relative risk of leukaemia of 1.69, and those between 200 and 600 m had a relative risk of 1.23.25 In addition, extensive research by Johansson and others in Sweden recently confirmed that adverse EMR has the potential to induce various dermatological abnormalities26 and is a determinant in the development of malignant melanoma,[27] and [28] an increasingly prevalent cancer that was uncommon until about 50 years ago. As a result of considerable EMF research undertaken in Sweden, it is interesting to note that Swedish authorities have officially acknowledged adverse EMR as a problem and have categorized electrohypersensitivity as a functional impairment.26

Although several reports suggest a possible link between certain types of EMF exposure and assorted malignancies,[29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] and [37] including breast cancer[38], [39], [40] and [41] and childhood cancer,[42], [43], [44] and [45] some studies have reported differing results. A recent study published in Cancer Causes Control, for example, dismissed suspicions of an association between EMF exposure and female breast cancer,46 and the UK Childhood Cancer Study published in 1999 failed to support a link between EMF exposure and childhood cancer.47 After reviewing the available information in relation to cancer, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has advised that EMF exposure should be classified as a possible carcinogen.2
EMFs and CNS dysfunction

The CNS appears to be a potential target organ system for adverse EMR. In addition to reports of specific EMF-related health problems, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,48 Alzheimer's disease,49 insomnia,50 headaches,51 sexual dysfunction,52 chronic fatigue,50 learning and memory problems,[53], [54] and [55] and assorted other maladies,[33] and [56] there is increasing evidence to suggest that neuropsychiatric problems may also result from EMR. Higher rates of depressive symptoms and suicide have been found to result from EMF exposure.[48], [57], [58] and [59]

In a recent epidemiological study, for example, researchers found that those living near power lines were more than twice as likely to report symptoms of depression compared with controls.58 Preliminary evidence has also suggested a potential correlation between exposure to EMFs from dirty electricity with common medical conditions including attention-deficit disorder/attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, diabetes and multiple sclerosis.[3] and [60] In review, many independent research projects have uncovered a link between adverse EMF exposure and a variety of afflictions in various organ systems, particularly the CNS.
Proposed mechanisms of EMF impact

Basic scientific study of the human body has demonstrated that most physiological functions in living organisms are electrochemical in nature. Living cells are made up of molecules and atoms, which in turn are made up of electrons, neutrons and protons. The intrinsic functioning of these atoms and molecules with homeostasis of cells, tissues and organs is entirely dependent on ordered chemical and electrical activity. Disturbance of intrinsic electrical or chemical processes within cell structures has the potential to disrupt cell functioning, leading to malfunction of organ systems and ultimately to clinical illness.

Extensive research has attempted to elucidate definitively the precise mechanisms whereby EMF exposure may disrupt normal physiology. For example, a wide-ranging research project entitled EMFRAPID (Electric and magnetic fields research and public information dissemination) was a 5-year US Federally organized effort co-ordinated by the National Institutes of Health to assess the effects of adverse EMR on biological systems.61 The results of this and many other initiatives have revealed significant information.

Biological systems including the human organism intrinsically use some frequencies of EMR for cellular as well as hormonal function and regulation.62 For example, imperceptible ultraviolet energy waves from sunlight are used in the production of human vitamin D,63 an essential nutrient involved in myriad physiological functions. Just as external electrical signals can cause interference with radio and television signals resulting in static and distortion, exposure to adverse electrical frequencies can disrupt human metabolism and homeostasis by interfering with normal physiology of required energy frequencies.62
Cellular pathogenesis of adverse EMR

Although the cellular pathogenesis of damage from EMR is not completely understood, various hypotheses have been proposed based on preliminary evidence. It was previously thought that thermal alteration of cells and tissue heating may be the predominant mechanism of harm. More recently, however, increasing evidence has indicated the potential of EMR to induce cell stress64 and to inflict specific damage on various intracellular components and mechanisms at non-thermal levels of EMF exposure.62 For example, molecular vibrations from EMR may induce free radical formation and alter the conformation of protein molecules.65 Adverse EMR has been found to affect DNA synthesis, to impair cell division and to potentially alter the electrical charge of ions and molecules within cells.[14] and [62] By affecting electrical charge, EMFs may also modify ionic structures of elements within cell membranes, potentially disturbing the influx and efflux of various elements including calcium ions.66

Just as certain chemical toxicants may induce expression of abnormal genes,67 recent research is exploring potential epigenetic influences of EMR. By its impact on genetic expression,68 adverse EMFs may serve as a trigger for the expression of pathological and disease-causing genes. Furthermore, direct damage to the DNA of human lymphocytes69 and alteration of phagocytic activity in animal macrophages70 has been confirmed recently, and may account for changes in immunological parameters and for immune system dysfunction attributed to EMR. With alteration of cell structures and impairment of cellular functions by these various mechanisms, it is not surprising that tissue disorders, organ dysfunction and clinical illness may ensue. Attenuation of insulin secretion characteristically found in diabetes, for example, can be induced or accentuated by exposure to adverse EMF through distortion of calcium influx in cells.71
EMFs and melatonin metabolism

Some investigators have explored potential EMF disturbance of blood–brain barrier permeability with resulting increased susceptibility to CNS toxicants.56 Particular attention, however, has recently been devoted to researching the impact of EMR on pineal gland physiology.72 The pineal gland secretes the neuroendocrine hormone melatonin that is synthesized from the neurotransmitter serotonin. Melatonin is involved with regulation of myriad physiological processes including sleep patterns,73 free radical metabolism,74 blood pressure control,75 nitric oxide physiology,76 lipid metabolism,62 immune system functioning,77 and activity of sex hormones such as oestrogen.78 The potential link between disordered melatonin physiology and the development of malignancy has emerged as a priority area of investigation,79 particularly in breast and prostate cancer, melanoma, colon cancer, lung cancer and leukaemia.72

Adverse EMF exposure has the potential to impact directly on pineal gland function by interfering with melatonin production and metabolism.[80] and [81] As well as in cancer, reduced melatonin levels have been observed in assorted non-malignant conditions including coronary artery disease,82 chronic pain83 and various psychiatric conditions including Alzheimer's disease84 and schizophrenia.85 Although EMR exposure reduces melatonin production,[62], [80] and [86] conclusive evidence of the direct clinical sequelae of specific EMR-related pineal dysfunction remains to be established.
Limitations and research challenges

Although preliminary evidence on disease pathogenesis such as melatonin dysregulation, epigenetic modification, DNA disruption and cell stress is important for continuing study, research designed to establish a definitive link between EMR and clinical health sequelae faces several obstacles. Within the scientific community, experimental studies such as randomized controlled trials where subjects are manipulated according to study protocol remain the gold standard to establish disease cause-and-effect, as well as efficacy of interventions. Such experimental study, however, is contra-indicated in exposure research.
Limitations of exposure research

Just as it would be ludicrous to perform clinical trials on parachute efficacy by dividing skydivers into randomized groups with some using parachutes and some not,87 it is not ethically possible to perform efficient randomized controlled trials with environmental issues by exposing some study participants to potentially dangerous exposures and comparing outcomes with an unexposed control group. As a result, more cumbersome and lengthy observational studies including epidemiological cohort studies and less definitive case-control research are employed to explore aetiology of harm. This presents difficulties, however, as epidemiological and case–control assessments of environmental exposure are sometimes plagued by confounders such as unfolding awareness of previously unrecognized exposures as well as multi-exposure interactions. For example, in complete contradiction to some other reports, a recent study funded by the telecommunications industry on cellular phone use in Denmark concluded there is no link with the development of brain tumours.88 The comparison general population cohort in this study, however, included widespread users of cordless phones which have recently been implicated with potential EMF risk;[20], [21], [22] and [23] a determinant that was not fully realized at the outset of the epidemiological study and a confounder which potentially negates the reported outcomes. Numerous concerns relating to methodology and bias have also plagued this Danish study.89

Multiple concomitant exposures are another major confounder in some environmental research. Synergism and interaction of multiple exposures from various chemical, electrical or infectious sources may confound research outcomes. For example, some clinicians have observed that compromised patients with accumulated chemical toxicants may be more susceptible to EMR influence because of toxicant-induced loss of tolerance or ‘spreading’;90 a phenomenon where individuals affected by one type of adverse environmental exposure become more sensitive to other exposures.[91] and [92] Other difficulties plague observational exposure research. With long lags between exposure and illness, for example, studies that have short follow-up periods do not provide opportunity for illness to manifest and conclusions may be erroneous. In addition, unique individual host sensitivity to exposure based on distinctive health status and genomic make-up presents a challenge when interpreting quantitative data. The result is that EMR studies have a high probability of significantly underestimating the risks of adverse health effects.93

In review, epidemiological study of adverse exposures does not generally establish indisputable evidence for or against a cause-and-effect hypothesis. In observational environmental research, a weight of evidence linking health sequelae to an exposure is produced and increased risks must be interpreted in context. Credible interpretation of findings is established when unbiased and qualified scientists examine the evidence with an open mind. A conclusion is then calculated based on the fundamental question: ‘Is there another way of explaining the findings; is there another answer more likely than cause-and-effect�’ When a conclusion is reached, the impact on public health is considered and protection strategies are amended as necessary. This imprecise approach, however, routinely renders the science of human exposure assessment and environmental medicine vulnerable to criticism and controversy; a vulnerability that has consistently been exploited by interest groups.
Exposure research and vested interests

With incomplete understanding of pathogenetic mechanisms and intransigent disbelief by some vocal researchers, many scientists have been quick to dismiss any alleged health hazard related to EMF exposure. Medical history has confirmed, however, that controversy is customary when environmental issues involve sizeable economic and health implications. Havas, a pioneer in EMR research, noted that despite considerable evidence, ‘asbestos, lead, acid rain, tobacco smoke, DDT, and PCBs were all contentious issues and were debated for decades in scientific publications and in the popular press before their health effects and the mechanisms responsible were understood’.14 As with previous examples, there are strong political and economic reasons for wanting no adverse sequelae to EMF exposure.94 Vested interests have been effective in delaying restrictive EMF legislation by injecting confusion and doubt into scientific debate, by focusing on uncertainties, and by deflecting attention from harm potential.[95] and [96]

Numerous examples have been discussed in the scientific literature where claims of environmental harm have been challenged by researchers who fail to disclose covert ties to industry.96 The influence of economic interests on medical journals has also been discussed extensively in recent publications,[97] and [98] along with examples where some editors and journal staff have suppressed publication of scientific results that are adverse to the interests of industry.[96] and [99] In the area of adverse EMF exposure and cellular phones, for example, it has been suggested that independent study results have differed considerably from industry-funded study.89 After reviewing the research on EMR extensively, the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety concluded in 2006 that present sources of funding for EMF study are biasing the ‘analysis and interpretation of research towards rejection of evidence of possible public health links’.100 How does society at large respond to mixed messages and uncertainty from the scientific community�

With enormous potential to generate misinformation, publication of imprecise science has influenced academic and social thought profoundly.96 In response to conflicting scientific allegations, legislators and the general public commonly feel uncomfortable and are unable to determine the legitimacy of scientific debate.14 When doubt and confusion are introduced, the public are often quick to disregard data that appear disturbing or unwelcome. The typical outcome in the short term is ‘paralysis by analysis’; by introduction of contrary information and recommendations for further study, restrictive legislation is effectively stalled for years or even decades. If the environmental exposure in question is eventually proven to be hazardous, as has often been the case historically, individual and public health is compromised in the interim.
Quo vadis

The study of environmental medicine and the relationship between human exposures and adverse health outcomes has not yet been incorporated into most medical education programmes.101 At the same time, however, escalating news reports of concerns such as reproductive dysfunction in teachers working near power lines and neurological sequelae in people residing in close proximity to mobile phone masts have evoked public awareness of electromagnetic contamination as an emerging environmental health issue; as a result, primary care physicians are increasingly questioned about EMF-related health risks.102 Accordingly, it behoves the medical community to consider a credible response to this up-and-coming issue.

Most would agree that the home, school, workplace and community need to be free from dangerous exposures, and that individuals need to be aware of the risk/benefit ratio of EMF exposures. Several recommendations have been suggested by environmental health groups and scientific organizations studying the EMF concern. It is the generally held scientific view that incomplete EMF knowledge beckons ongoing unbiased research, not dismissal of the issue.103 The World Health Organization has recommended intensive research,65 and various scientists have called for an international scientific commission to monitor this emerging hazard.100 Further recommendations and ideas are presented for consideration.
Public health recommendations

• To ascertain effective public health policy, scientific integrity and reliability among researchers, medical publications, official guidelines and academic institutions must be established to ensure credible research and dissemination of results.[96] and [104]

• Easily accessible measurement methodologies for adverse EMR are required. As well as gauss meters to detect ELF/radiofrequency radiation, for example, microsurge meters purported to detect ‘dirty’ electricity have been introduced.60 New technologies need to be evaluated expeditiously and incorporated if credible.

• Adverse biological impact has been described for exposure levels much below current EMR standards. Allowable levels should be amended to provide sound protection of public health.62

• Ongoing epidemiological research and monitoring of health effects on EMR-exposed populations should be undertaken and reported. An independent commission devoid of conflicts of interest should oversee such work.

• Regulations to minimize exposure to adverse EMR should be enforced by governments and power authorities.

• Potentially harmful radiofrequencies from telecommunications technology should be assessed and regulated by authorities. For example, in response to complaints from citizens in Brussels about sleep disruptions following the installation of mobile phone masts near their homes, Belgian authorities recently approved a bill to regulate such masts to minimize EMR exposure.105

• Emerging protective equipment should be assessed independently and implemented if useful. Graham–Stetzer filters, for example, allegedly diminish dirty electricity and potentially result in health benefits when installed properly.[3] and [60] Such reports should be scrutinized scientifically and results disseminated.

• While research is ongoing, a precautionary avoidance strategy should be considered.[100] and [106] Incorporation of protective air-tube headsets for cellular phone use, for example, and wireless-free zones in public buildings such as patient areas in hospitals and schools100 might be favourable.

• Training of health professionals and public health officers about the EMF-health issue is an important step in addressing this challenge.

• Clinicians should consider implementation of precautionary avoidance with individual patients.106 Chronically ill people exposed to EMR might benefit from avoidance of high EMF smog. Four cases employing a precautionary approach are presented for consideration.

Case reports involving EMF exposure

In each of the following cases, improvement was realized when EMF exposure was diminished. As with most environmental exposure case reports, however, it is impossible to prove conclusively that neither the source of affliction nor the benefit realized were related exclusively to environmental exposure and subsequent intervention. Without re-exposing patients and monitoring sequelae, improved outcomes may be suggestive but absolute proof of causation and benefit are unattainable.
Case history #1

A 66-year-old woman in generally good health complained of a 9-year history of debilitating daily headaches and intermittent dizziness. Neurological assessment was unremarkable and a computer tomography scan, magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalogram were reported normal. At a chronic pain clinic, the patient received narcotic analgesics and a diagnosis of ‘primary pain disorder’. Detailed aetiological history was unremarkable other than the patient used an electric toothbrush six times a day for meticulous care of failing dentition. Gauss meter assessment revealed inordinately high levels of EMFs (>200 mGauss) emanating from the toothbrush. Within 6 weeks of discontinuing the use of an electric toothbrush, the headaches subsided and, with assistance, she was able to quickly overcome her dependence on prescription analgesics.
Case history #2

A 33-year-old woman wishing to have a large family complained of six consecutive pregnancy losses. After two uncomplicated pregnancies with vaginal deliveries, the patient changed residence and subsequently experienced three first-trimester miscarriages. After assessments by a family physician, a gynaecologist, an infertility specialist and a specialty reproductive care unit, the patient subsequently sustained three second-trimester losses despite interventions including clomiphene, human chorionic gonadotrophin injections, progesterone supplementation and counselling. From history, no potential determinants appeared to have changed from the two completed gestations other than her employment as a seamstress for 6 h/day in the basement of her new residence; an environment with low ceilings and fluorescent lights. Using a gauss meter, the patient recorded high EMF levels (>140 mGauss) in the vicinity of her head when fluorescent lighting in her workspace was turned on and high EMF levels (not, vert, similar180 mGauss) adjacent to her sewing machine. Following advice to minimize EMR exposure by avoiding fluorescent lights and minimizing use of her sewing machine, the patient promptly conceived and carried the pregnancy to full term.
Case history #3

A 17-year-old boy experiencing a 3-year history of intrusive thoughts relating to religious themes believed he had committed unpardonable sins and was convinced the devil was imminently taking him to hell. As well as increasing depressive symptoms, the adolescent displayed escalating aggression towards his parents. The nominally religious parents took their son for religious counsel to no avail. Psychiatric diagnosis included a thought disorder. Psychotropic medication failed to control the symptoms but caused numerous side effects. Human exposure assessment uncovered extremely high gauss measurements (>200 mGauss) at the head of the teen's bed, as electrical entry to the house was immediately adjacent to the bedroom, right beside his bed. As well as changing rooms, all other sources of EMF exposure were minimized. Within 12 weeks, the intrusive thoughts abated considerably, the mood symptomatology declined, the medication was stopped, and the parents indicated that their son was now a friendly, motivated boy. One episode of symptom aggravation subsequently occurred immediately following 4 h of online work in a high school computer laboratory; symptoms subsided within 72 h of deliberate EMF avoidance. All adverse symptoms completely cleared within 6 months and wellness was maintained over the next 2 years and at the time of writing.
Case history #4

A 51-year-old man in generally good health complained of chronic difficulty with insomnia. Although he experienced no problem falling asleep, for the last 17 years he had routinely awoken at about 2:30 a.m after 4 h of slumber and was consistently unable to return to sleep. As a result of sleep deprivation, he experienced constant fatigue, often falling asleep at various intervals during the day. While on holiday in their mobile home, however, the patient enjoyed improved sleep, causing his physician to attribute the insomnia to job stress. Numerous therapies had been unsuccessful including counselling, relaxation techniques, benzodiazepine medication, acupuncture and various nutritional supplements. Microsurge meter assessment in the patient's bedroom revealed power surges reaching 1600 GS units (safe levels reported as <30 GS units). Filtration of dirty electricity reduced levels to under 30 GS units, and the patient noticed a dramatic and consistent improvement in sleep patterns within 1 week.
Concluding thoughts

Despite differing perspectives on the severity of impact, there is compelling research to suggest that EMR has the potential to have an adverse effect on cells and tissues. Commenting on research by himself and co-workers,107 Trosko recently summed up the prevailing sentiment: ‘until now, the weight of the theoretical and experimental evidence has suggested that [low-frequency EMFs] did not have the ability to interact with genetic material to damage it’, but recent studies show that ‘…there is a biological effect of the energy imparted by extremely-low-frequency EMF on living systems’. Definitive conclusions on the extent of resultant harm, however, remain difficult to establish comprehensively as controlled trials with exposure of cohorts to potentially toxic influences are unethical. Furthermore, the allegation that industry-funded studies tend to produce industry-desired outcomes further complicates the ability to establish veracity on this issue.

It is thus difficult to winnow fact from fiction among the many claims relating to the impact of EMR on people as well as on the environment. While some authors have discussed adverse effects of EMR on plants and trees,[8] and [108] and much research suggests health disorders and behavioural abnormalities in animals exposed to adverse EMFs,[109], [110] and [111] the intensity of impact on human health remains the subject of much debate. With a multiplicity of views and potentially competing priorities including comfort, convenience, financial interest, health and technological necessity, a consensus on the risk/benefit ratio of EMF exposure may be challenging to achieve in the near future. However, with a great percentage of people in the early 21st Century bathing in EMF smog resulting from living, working and playing in close proximity to electrical appliances, wireless networks, cellular phone masts, power lines, TV and radio towers, fluorescent lighting and dirty power, as well as from ubiquitous use of cordless and cellular phones, automobile seat warmers, electric toothbrushes, electric shavers, hair dryers etc., a response from the medical and public health community is indicated.

The moral and political question arises regarding whether public health policy should be based on ‘proof of safety’ or ‘proof of harm’. In relation to environmental health issues, an ‘innocent until guilty’ approach has generally been adopted whereby public health initiatives commence only after ‘proof of harm’ is established conclusively.112 Medical history has repeatedly demonstrated that despite strong suspicions and preliminary evidence, various toxic agents and devices routinely remain in use for years prior to the availability of definitive evidence of harm; precautionary avoidance is generally not implemented. As a result, schools and residences continue to be erected in immediate proximity to power lines emitting immense EMR, pregnant women continue unawares to be exposed to EMR in various occupations, teens spend inordinate amounts of time attached to cellular phones, and mobile phone masts continue to be placed in communities close to residences, schools, preschools, hospitals and workplaces.

Sickness is often the consequence of an interaction between a causative agent and a susceptible host, and adverse EMR appears to be one such causative agent. With increasing evidence linking significant EMF exposure to adverse health sequelae, and with the increasing intensity of electronic pollution resulting from wireless technology and dirty electricity, it may be prudent to consider erring on the side of caution. Considering the potential long-term danger, physicians and public health officials should alert individual patients and the public to this issue and provide ongoing information on precautions to diminish potential risk associated with EMF exposure.

References

1 M.H. Repacholi and A. Ahlbom, Link between electromagnetic fields and childhood cancer unresolved, Lancet 354 (1999), pp. 1918–1919. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (51 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12)

2 International Organization for Research on Cancer. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Non-ionizing radiation, Part I: static and extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields. Vol. 80. Lyon: IARC; 2002.

3 M. Havas, Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis, Electromagn Biol Med 25 (2006), pp. 259–268. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1)

4 N. Wertheimer, D.A. Savitz and E. Leeper, Childhood cancer in relation to indicators of magnetic fields from ground current sources, Bioelectromagnetics 16 (1995), pp. 86–96. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (34)

5 R. Kavet, L.E. Zaffanella, J.P. Daigle and K.L. Ebi, The possible role of contact current in cancer risk associated with residential magnetic fields, Bioelectromagnetics 21 (2000), pp. 538–553. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (14)

6 T.A. Marks, C.C. Ratke and W.O. English, Stray voltage and developmental, reproductive and other toxicology problems in dogs, cats and cows: a discussion, Vet Hum Toxicol 37 (1995), pp. 163–172. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)

7 In: A.H. Frey, Editor, On the nature of electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems, R.G. Landes Co, Austin (1994).

8 B.B. Levitt, Electromagnetic fields, Harcourt, Brace & Company, Orlando (1995).

9 A.I. Larsen, J. Olsen and O. Svane, Gender-specific reproductive outcome and exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic radiation among physiotherapists, Scand J Work Environ Health 17 (1991), pp. 324–329. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (24)

10 D.A. Savitz, A.F. Olshan and K. Gallagher, Maternal occupation and pregnancy outcome, Epidemiology 7 (1996), pp. 269–274. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (28)

11 R. Ouellet-Hellstrom and W.F. Stewart, Miscarriages among female physical therapists who report using radio- and microwave-frequency electromagnetic radiation, Am J Epidemiol 138 (1993), pp. 775–786. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (34)

12 D.K. Li, R. Odouli and S. Wi et al., A population-based prospective cohort study of personal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage, Epidemiology 13 (2002), pp. 9–20. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (48)

13 M.K. Goldhaber, M.R. Polen and R.A. Hiatt, The risk of miscarriage and birth defects among women who use visual display terminals during pregnancy, Am J Ind Med 13 (1988), pp. 695–706. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (33)

14 M. Havas, Biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy: a critical review of the reports by the US National Research Council and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences as they relate to the broad realm of EMF bioeffects, Environ Rev 8 (2000), pp. 173–253. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)

15 S. Nordstrom, E. Birke and L. Gustavsson, Reproductive hazards among workers at high voltage substations, Bioelectromagnetics 4 (1983), pp. 91–101. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (19)

16 J.R. Wilkins 3rd, and R.A. Koutras, Paternal occupation and brain cancer in offspring: a mortality-based case–control study, Am J Ind Med 14 (1988), pp. 299–318. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (48)

17 C.C. Johnson and M.R. Spitz, Childhood nervous system tumours: an assessment of risk associated with paternal occupations involving use, repair or manufacture of electrical and electronic equipment, Int J Epidemiol 18 (1989), pp. 756–762. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (28)

18 I. Nordenson, M.K. Hansoon, S. Nordstrom, A. Sweins and E. Birke, Clastogenic effects in human lymphocytes of power frequency electric fields: in vivo and in vitro studies, Radiat Environ Biophys 23 (1984), pp. 191–201. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (29)

19 M. Kabuto, H. Nitta and S. Yamamoto et al., Childhood leukemia and magnetic fields in Japan: a case–control study of childhood leukemia and residential power-frequency magnetic fields in Japan, Int J Cancer 119 (2006), pp. 643–650. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

20 L. Hardell, M. Eriksson, M. Carlberg, C. Sundstrom and K.H. Mild, Use of cellular or cordless telephones and the risk for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Int Arch Occup Environ Health 78 (2005), pp. 625–632. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)

21 L. Hardell, M. Carlberg and K. Hansson Mild, Pooled analysis of two case–control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997–2003, Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79 (2006), pp. 630–639. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (13)

22 L. Hardell, M. Carlberg and K. Hansson Mild, Pooled analysis of two case–control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997–2003, Int J Oncol 28 (2006), pp. 509–518.

23 L. Hardell, M. Carlberg and K.H. Mild, Case–control study of the association between the use of cellular and cordless telephones and malignant brain tumors diagnosed during 2000–2003, Environ Res 100 (2006), pp. 232–241. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (188 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12)

24 S. Braune, C. Wrocklage, J. Raczek, T. Gailus and C.H. Lucking, Resting blood pressure increase during exposure to a radio-frequency electromagnetic field, Lancet 351 (1998), pp. 1857–1858. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (57 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (58)

25 G. Draper, T. Vincent, M.E. Kroll and J. Swanson, Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case–control study, Br Med J 330 (2005), p. 1290. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (26)

26 O. Johansson, Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment, Electromagn Biol Med 25 (2006), pp. 245–258. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

27 O. Hallberg and O. Johansson, Malignant melanoma of the skin—not a sunshine story!, Med Sci Monit 10 (2004), pp. CR336–CR340. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)

28 O. Hallberg and O. Johansson, Melanoma incidence and frequency modulation (FM) broadcasting, Arch Environ Health 57 (2002), pp. 32–40. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (10)

29 R.B. Hayes, L.M. Brown and L.M. Pottern et al., Occupation and risk for testicular cancer: a case–control study, Int J Epidemiol 19 (1990), pp. 825–831. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (30)

30 S. Preston-Martin, S. Lewis, R. Winkelmann, B. Borman, J. Auld and N. Pearce, Descriptive epidemiology of primary cancer of the brain, cranial nerves, and cranial meninges in New Zealand, 1948–88, Cancer Causes Control 4 (1993), pp. 529–538. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (38)

31 L. De Guire, G. Theriault, H. Iturra, S. Provencher, D. Cyr and B.W. Case, Increased incidence of malignant melanoma of the skin in workers in a telecommunications industry, Br J Ind Med 45 (1988), pp. 824–828. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)

32 J.R. Goldsmith, TV broadcast towers and cancer: the end of innocence for radiofrequency exposures, Am J Ind Med 32 (1997), pp. 689–692. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)

33 R.R. Neutra, V. DelPizzo and G.M. Lee, An evaluation of the possible risks from electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) from power lines, internal wiring, electrical occupations, and appliances. Final report, EMF Program, California (2002).

34 S. Szmigielski, Cancer morbidity in subjects occupationally exposed to high frequency (radiofrequency and microwave) electromagnetic radiation, Sci Total Environ 180 (1996), pp. 9–17. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (866 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (60)

35 R.R. Neutra, Panel exploring pro and con arguments as to whether EMFs cause childhood brain cancer, Bioelectromagnetics (Suppl 5) (2001), pp. S144–S149. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

36 L.I. Kheifets, R.S. Greenberg, R.R. Neutra and G.L. Hester et al., Electric and magnetic fields and cancer: case study, Am J Epidemiol 154 (2001), pp. S50–S59. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

37 L. Hardell, B. Holmberg, H. Malker and L.E. Paulsson, Exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and the risk of malignant diseases—an evaluation of epidemiological and experimental findings, Eur J Cancer Prev 4 (Suppl 1) (1995), pp. 3–107. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (50)

38 P.F. Coogan, R.W. Clapp and P.A. Newcomb et al., Occupational exposure to 60-hertz magnetic fields and risk of breast cancer in women, Epidemiology 7 (1996), pp. 459–464. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (71)

39 D.P. Loomis, D.A. Savitz and C.V. Ananth, Breast cancer mortality among female electrical workers in the United States, J Natl Cancer Inst 86 (1994), pp. 921–925. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (129)

40 Cherry N. World conference on breast cancer—Ottawa, Canada 26–31 July, 1999. Lincoln: New Zealand Lincoln University; 2002. Available at: Cherry Environmental Health Consulting website left angle brackethttp://www.neilcherry.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/cart/Specific+Health+Effect+Reviews�mode=show_categoryright-pointing angle bracket (accessed 10 January 2007).

41 D. Beniashvili, I. Avinoach’m, D. Baasov and I. Zusman, The role of household electromagnetic fields in the development of mammary tumors in women: clinical case-record observations, Med Sci Monit 11 (2005), pp. CR10–CR13. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (2)

42 L. Tomenius, 50-Hz electromagnetic environment and the incidence of childhood tumors in Stockholm County, Bioelectromagnetics 7 (1986), pp. 191–207. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (109)

43 D.A. Savitz and J.H. Chen, Parental occupation and childhood cancer: review of epidemiologic studies, Environ Health Perspect 88 (1990), pp. 325–337. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (74)

44 Cherry N. The causal relationship between residential electromagnetic field exposures and childhood cancer. Lincoln: New Zealand Lincoln University; 2003. Available at: Cherry Environmental Health Consulting website left angle brackethttp://www.neilcherry.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/cart/ELF+Health+Effects�mode=show_categoryright-pointing angle bracket [accessed 10 January 2007].

45 D.A. Savitz, E.M. John and R.C. Kleckner, Magnetic field exposure from electric appliances and childhood cancer, Am J Epidemiol 131 (1990), pp. 763–773. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (62)

46 M. Feychting and U. Forssen, Electromagnetic fields and female breast cancer, Cancer Causes Control 17 (2006), pp. 553–558. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)

47 Investigators UKCCS, Exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of childhood cancer. UK Childhood Cancer Study Investigators, Lancet 354 (1999), pp. 1925–1931.

48 A. Ahlbom, Neurodegenerative diseases, suicide and depressive symptoms in relation to EMF, Bioelectromagnetics (Suppl 5) (2001), pp. S132–S143. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (26)

49 E. Sobel, M. Dunn, Z. Davanipour, Z. Qian and H.C. Chui, Elevated risk of Alzheimer's disease among workers with likely electromagnetic field exposure, Neurology 47 (1996), pp. 1477–1481. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (63)

50 E.S. Altpeter, T. Krebs, D.H. Pfluger, J. von Kanel and R. Blattmann et al., Study of health effects of shortwave transmitter station of Schwarzenburg, BerneUniversity of Berne, Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine, Berne, Switzerland (1995).

51 A.H. Frey, Headaches from cellular telephones: are they real and what are the implications�, Environ Health Perspect 106 (1998), pp. 101–103. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (35)

52 I. Lancranjan, M. Maicanescu, E. Rafaila, I. Klepsch and H.I. Popescu, Gonadic function in workmen with long-term exposure to microwaves, Health Phys 29 (1975), pp. 381–383. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (15)

53 A.A. Kolodynski and V.V. Kolodynska, Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia, Sci Total Environ 180 (1996), pp. 87–93. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (771 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (15)

54 K. Mann and J. Roschke, Effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human sleep, Neuropsychobiology 33 (1996), pp. 41–47. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (115)

55 H. Chiang, G.D. Yao, Q.S. Fang, K.Q. Wang, D.Z. Lu and Y.K. Zhou, Health effects of environmental electromagnetic fields, J Bioelectricity 8 (1989), pp. 127–131. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)

56 Cherry N. Potential and actual adverse effects of radiofrequency and microwave radiation at levels near and below 2 microW/cm2. Lincoln: New Zealand Lincoln University; 1998. Available at: Cherry Environmental Health Consulting website left angle brackethttp://www.neilcherry.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/cart/right-pointing angle bracket [accessed 8 January 2007].

57 P.K. Verkasalo, J. Kaprio, J. Varjonen, K. Romanov, K. Heikkila and M. Koskenvuo, Magnetic fields of transmission lines and depression, Am J Epidemiol 146 (1997), pp. 1037–1045. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (25)

58 C. Poole, R. Kavet, D.P. Funch, K. Donelan, J.M. Charry and N.A. Dreyer, Depressive symptoms and headaches in relation to proximity of residence to an alternating-current transmission line right-of-way, Am J Epidemiol 137 (1993), pp. 318–330. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (30)

59 E. van Wijngaarden, D.A. Savitz, R.C. Kleckner, J. Cai and D. Loomis, Exposure to electromagnetic fields and suicide among electric utility workers: a nested case–control study, Occup Environ Med 57 (2000), pp. 258–263. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (27)

60 Havas M, Stetzer D. Dirty electricity and electrical hypersensitivity: five case studies. World Health Organization workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity. Prague, Czech Republic; October 25–26, 2004. Available at: Graham-Stetzer Research website left angle brackethttp://www.stetzerelectric.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/filters/research/Havas_Stetzer_WHO04.pdfright-pointing angle bracket [accessed 11 January 2007].

61 The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. EMFRAPID: Electric and magnetic fields research and public information dissemination program. 1992. Available at: left angle brackethttp://www.niehs.nih.gov.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/emfrapid/html/resinfo.htmright-pointing angle bracket [accessed 21 January 2007].

62 Cherry N. Criticism of the health assessment in the ICNIRP guidelines for radiofrequency and microwave radiation (100 kHz–300 GHz). Lincoln: New Zealand Lincoln University; 2002. Available at: Cherry Environmental Health Consulting website left angle brackethttp://www.neilcherry.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/cart/Major+Evidence+Reviews�mode=show_categoryright-pointing angle bracket [accessed 10 January 2007].

63 M.F. Holick, The cutaneous photosynthesis of previtamin D3: a unique photoendocrine system, J Invest Dermatol 77 (1981), pp. 51–58. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (43)

64 M. Blank and R. Goodman, Comment: a biological guide for electromagnetic safety: the stress response, Bioelectromagnetics 25 (2004), pp. 642–646. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (8)

65 World Health Organization, 2006 WHO research agenda for radio frequency fields, World Health Organization, Geneva (2006) pp. 1–10.

66 C.F. Blackman, ELF effects on calcium homeostasis. In: B.W. Wilson, R.G. Stevens and L.E. Anderson, Editors, Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields: the question of cancer, Battelle Press, Columbus (1990), pp. 187–208.

67 D. Crews and J.A. McLachlan, Epigenetics, evolution, endocrine disruption, health, and disease, Endocrinology 147 (Suppl) (2006), pp. S4–S10. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (22)

68 M. Blank and R. Goodman, Initial interactions in electromagnetic field-induced biosynthesis, J Cell Physiol 199 (2004), pp. 359–363. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (17)

69 J. Delimaris, S. Tsilimigaki, N. Messini-Nicolaki, E. Ziros and S.M. Piperakis, Effects of pulsed electric fields on DNA of human lymphocytes, Cell Biol Toxicol 22 (2006), pp. 409–415. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (0)

70 J. Frahm, M. Lantow, M. Lupke, D.G. Weiss and M. Simko, Alteration in cellular functions in mouse macrophages after exposure to 50 Hz magnetic fields, J Cell Biochem 99 (2006), pp. 168–177. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

71 T. Sakurai, A. Satake, S. Sumi, K. Inoue and J. Miyakoshi, An extremely low frequency magnetic field attenuates insulin secretion from the insulinoma cell line, RIN-m, Bioelectromagnetics 25 (2004), pp. 160–166. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

72 T. Ravindra, N.K. Lakshmi and Y.R. Ahuja, Melatonin in pathogenesis and therapy of cancer, Indian J Med Sci 60 (2006), pp. 523–535. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (0)

73 S.R. Pandi-Perumal, V. Srinivasan, G.J. Maestroni, D.P. Cardinali, B. Poeggeler and R. Hardeland, Melatonin: nature's most versatile biological signal�, FEBS J 273 (2006), pp. 2813–2838. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (49)

74 B. Poeggeler, S. Saarela and R.J. Reiter et al., Melatonin—a highly potent endogenous radical scavenger and electron donor: new aspects of the oxidation chemistry of this indole accessed in vitro, Ann N Y Acad Sci 738 (1994), pp. 419–420. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (140)

75 A. Cagnacci, M. Cannoletta, A. Renzi, F. Baldassari, S. Arangino and A. Volpe, Prolonged melatonin administration decreases nocturnal blood pressure in women, Am J Hyperten 18 (2005), pp. 1614–1618. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (185 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (11)

76 D. Pozo, R.J. Reiter, J.R. Calvo and J.M. Guerrero, Physiological concentrations of melatonin inhibit nitric oxide synthase in rat cerebellum, Life Sci 55 (1994), pp. PL455–PL460. Abstract | Abstract + References | PDF (353 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (172)

77 J. Walleczek, Electromagnetic field effects on cells of the immune system: the role of calcium signaling, Faseb J 6 (1992), pp. 3177–3185. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (166)

78 I. Adriaens, P. Jacquet, R. Cortvrindt, K. Janssen and J. Smitz, Melatonin has dose-dependent effects on folliculogenesis, oocyte maturation capacity and steroidogenesis, Toxicology 228 (2006), pp. 333–343. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (787 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (0)

79 B. Jung and N. Ahmad, Melatonin in cancer management: progress and promise, Cancer Res 66 (2006), pp. 9789–9793. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)

80 L.A. Rosen, I. Barber and D.B. Lyle, A 0.5 G, 60 Hz magnetic field suppresses melatonin production in pinealocytes, Bioelectromagnetics 19 (1998), pp. 123–127. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (21)

81 R.J. Reiter and J. Robinson, Melatonin: your body's natural wonder drug, Bantam Books, New York (1995).

82 P. Brugger, W. Marktl and M. Herold, Impaired nocturnal secretion of melatonin in coronary heart disease, Lancet 345 (1995), p. 1408. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (116 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (95)

83 B.G. Almay, L. von Knorring and L. Wetterberg, Melatonin in serum and urine in patients with idiopathic pain syndromes, Psychiatry Res 22 (1987), pp. 179–191. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (867 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (26)

84 K. Mishima, T. Tozawa, K. Satoh, Y. Matsumoto, Y. Hishikawa and M. Okawa, Melatonin secretion rhythm disorders in patients with senile dementia of Alzheimer's type with disturbed sleep-waking, Biol Psychiatry 45 (1999), pp. 417–421. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (77 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (63)

85 F. Fanget, B. Claustrat and J. Dalery et al., Nocturnal plasma melatonin levels in schizophrenic patients, Biol Psychiatry 25 (1989), pp. 499–501. Abstract | Abstract + References | PDF (230 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (19)

86 R.J. Reiter, Melatonin suppression by static and extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields: relationship to the reported increased incidence of cancer, Rev Environ Health 10 (1994), pp. 171–186. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (35)

87 G.C. Smith and J.P. Pell, Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials, BMJ 327 (2003), pp. 1459–1461. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (101)

88 J. Schuz, R. Jacobsen, J.H. Olsen, J.D. Boice Jr., J.K. McLaughlin and C. Johansen, Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort, J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (2006), pp. 1707–1713. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (8)

89 Carlo GL. The latest reassurance ruse about cell phones and cancer. Science and Public Policy Institute; 2006. Available at: left angle brackethttp://www.safewireless.org.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/Portals/2/Documents/danishrev.pdfright-pointing angle bracket [accessed 11 January 2007].

90 W.J. Rea, Chemical sensitivity (Volume 1). Tools of diagnosis and methods of treatment, CRC Press, Boca Raton (1992).

91 W.J. Rea, Y. Pan, E.J. Fenyves, I. Sujisawa, N. Suyama and G.H. Ross, Electromagnetic field sensitivity, J Bioelectricity 10 (1991), pp. 241–256.

92 W.J. Rea, Chemical sensitivity (Volume 4). Tools of diagnosis and methods of treatment, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton (1997).

93 Cherry N. Epidemiological principles for ELF/EMR studies. Lincoln: New Zealand Lincoln University; 2002. Available at: Cherry Environmental Health Consulting website left angle brackethttp://www.neilcherry.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/cart/Principles�mode=show_categoryright-pointing angle bracket [accessed 15 January 2007].

94 J. Goldsmith, Epidemiological evidence of radiofrequency radiation effects on health in military, broadcasting, and occupation studies, Int J Occ Env Health 1 (1995), pp. 47–57.

95 L. Friedman and E.D. Richter, Conflicts of interest and scientific integrity, Int J Occup Environ Health 11 (2005), pp. 205–206. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)

96 L. Hardell, M.J. Walker, B. Walhjalt, L.S. Friedman and E.D. Richter, Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research, Am J Ind Med 50 (3) (2007), pp. 227–233. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (10)

97 M. Angell, Is academic medicine for sale�, N Engl J Med 342 (2000), pp. 1516–1518. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (266)

98 S.K. Genuis and S.J. Genuis, Exploring the continuum: medical information to effective clinical practice. Paper 1. The translation of knowledge into clinical practice, J Eval Clin Pract 12 (2006), pp. 49–62. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (7)

99 R. Smith, Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies, PLoS Med 2 (2005), p. e138. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (13)

100 The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety: Benevento R. The precautionary EMF approach: rationale, legislation and implementation. International conference, Benevento, Italy, 22–24 February 2006.

101 E.F. Merritt, Human health and the environment: are physician educators lagging behind�, JAMA 281 (1999), p. 1661. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)

102 A. Huss and M. Roosli, Consultations in primary care for symptoms attributed to electromagnetic fields—a survey among general practitioners, BMC Public Health 6 (2006), p. 267. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (0)

103 The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety: Catania R. State of the research on electromagnetic fields—scientific and legal issues. International conference, Catania, Italy, 13–14 September 2002.

104 S.J. Genuis, The proliferation of clinical practice guidelines: professional development or medicine by numbers�, J Am Board Fam Pract 18 (2005), pp. 419–425. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)

105 Tighter laws on mobile phone antenna. Expatica. 16 February 2007. Available at http://www.expatica.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/actual/article.asp�subchannel_id=48&story_36647 [Accessed May 30, 2007].

106 Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle. 1998. Available at: left angle brackethttp://www.gdrc.org.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/u-gov/precaution-3.htmlright-pointing angle bracket [accessed 25August 2005].

107 G. Chen, B.L. Upham and W. Sun et al., Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on chemically induced differentiation of friend erythroleukemia cells, Environ Health Perspect 108 (2000), pp. 967–972. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (13)

108 P. Schmitz, J. Siegenthaler, C. Stager, D. Tarjan and J. Bucher, Long-term exposure of young spruce and beech trees to 2450-MHz microwave radiation, Sci Total Environ 180 (1996), pp. 43–48.

109 W. Löscher and G. Käs, Conspicuous behavioural abnormalities in a dairy cow herd near a TV and radio transmitting antenna, Prakt Tierarzt 79 (1998), pp. 437–444. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)

110 J. Tanner and C. Romero-Sierra, Beneficial and harmful accelerated growth induced by the action of nonionizing radiation, Ann N Y Acad Sci 238 (1974), pp. 171–175. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

111 R. Kondra, M. Hamid and G. Hodgson, Effects of microwave radiation on growth and reproduction of the stocks of chickens, Can J Animal Sci 52 (1972), pp. 317–320.

112 S.J. Genuis, The chemical erosion of human health: adverse environmental exposure and in-utero pollution—determinants of congenital disorders and chronic disease, J Perinat Med 34 (2006), pp. 185–195. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)

Corresponding Author Contact InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 780 450 3504; fax: +1 780 490 1803.

Public Health
Volume 122, Issue 2, February 2008, Pages 113-124

I am driving a 2007 Camry Hybrid. I am experiencing an odor coming into the cabin via the vents which leaves me hoarse with my eyes burning and my bronchus burning. I have attmepted to get this evaluated and corrected on numerous occassions with no luck. Is this what is being described in these posts? Am I in any physical danger?

ex-EV1 - Maybe a different perspective on the risks of EMF exposure will help people understand your view.

1) Does kff let his children play outside in the sun? That nuclear furnace 93 million miles away is spewing all kinds of toxic radiation including XRays, Gamma Rays, Ultraviolet and infrared radiation.
It is a known fact that too much sun exposure will cause skin cancer. So do we stay inside all the time? If you do then your body will not be able to produce enough vitamin D and Vitamin D defficiency is now known to lead to other health issues. So we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

The point is that there is always unavoidable risk in living.
Vitamin A is healthy - too much is poison.
Looking at all the risks involved in transporting children in a vehicle, EMF exposure is minuscule comared to other forms of pollution, bad driving, bad roadways, road hazzards, weather, toxins from other materials (including the "Stuff" that creates that new car smell).

I suppose if you are looking for a pathetically flimsy excuse to not buy a hybrid you can use EMF radiation. Oh, and I hope your children are enjoying their video games, we all know how totally harmless they are.

For people worried about toxic chemicals in cars, look up this web site
http://www.healthycar.org

This is an intresting medical article on the dangers of EMFs from cell phone:
http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/17/mobile_phones.htm

This is also applicable to EMFs from car or any other EMF producing device. This is enough for me not to consider driving in a maze of EMFs. You also have to keep in mind that Telecom industry is lot more powerful and will buy or produce any science that suits its purposes and thus create a sense of controversy.

My take is that Volvo will be the best candidate as it is swedish car and thus is designed with low EMFs plus the newer models have the new air filter technology that keep the indoor cabin free of allergins/toxins/chemicals/exhuast fumes.
Also it is well known for its sound safetly ratings in crash tests.

I am researching EMFs in hybrid cars for a New York Times story. Could I talk with you about your experience with the hybrid Camry? I talked with one other hybrid Camry owner who was having flu-like symptoms whenever she drove the car. A nurse, she didn't know anything about EMFs but was able to describe her symptoms pretty well. She thought the problem might actually be the Camry's unique air filter system, but I believe she replaced the filter at the dealership without finding any change. Can you update me on your experience as described on this website http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/bringing-back-hybrid-t1599.html and give me contact information?

Jim Motavalli
Editor
E/The Environmental Magazine
28 Knight Street
Norwalk, CT 06851
203-854-5559, X107
cell: 203-610-0549
FAX: 203-866-0602
e-mail: jimm@emagazine.com

Please go to www.electricalpollution.com for easily understandable and documented information that may help clarify many of the issues raised through these comments. There is a filter that one can purchase for each outlet in a home, called a Graham Stetzer filter. Perhaps this man has info that would be relevant to helping those of us with emf concerns/effects from driving hybrids. i suspect I may have some problems that stem from this but not sure yet. i am going to contact him about this. One idea I thought about was to get a couple filters and put them in a plug-in adapter that has regular plugs in it that can be plugged into the car. But I'm only having this idea now, so haven't experimented yet. We also, in discussing this, need to realize that there are many sources of electricity/emf's/stray voltage that can cross=react with each other while we're in our cars, and this also needs to be considered. Then there is the issue of when it rains and whether this makes us additionally vulnerable. it most certainly does if you're standing on the earth after a rain, relative to voltage travelling through the earth. This is all documented at this site. WI is primary state where major work has been done on this subject and results have been obtained, enough so that at least one farmer has one a major lawsuit about how stray voltage damaged his herd...
Please minimize the snide remarks, folks. It is valid that we ask questions. It is also patently untrue that there is no evidence about health effects from emf's, elf's, stray voltage or information-carrying radio waves, which are actually the big danger in cell phones and powerful newer portable phones. Anyone wanting to be kept posted on what I find out could email me at welaware@merr.com and I'll start a list. Since I own a Prius, this is of great concern to me. Thanks to all the work put into some of these highly informative comments!