Indoor Environmental Quality Assessment: Electromagnetic Fields and Noise Pollution

Perry F. Dripps
Risk Assessment #1
Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs):
Hazard ID: A Case Study
A news story came out in August of 2015 saying that a boy's family was suing his school
because they felt the Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) from the schools Wi-Fi were making him
sick. He was diagnosed with electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome (EHS). The family
reported that shortly after the school had installed a more powerful Wi-Fi system, he began to
have symptoms such as headaches, nausea, and nosebleeds (OConnell, 2015).
Is it true that the EMF-producing devices were actually making the boy sick? Much of
the current research in this area is incredibly varied in terms of overall concern for public health.
However, with now more than 6.9 billion EMF-emitting cell phones being used in the world
(WHO, 2014), more powerful radio and cellular networks, and increased reliance on and closer
proximity with electronic devices, increased screen time etc., as one author noted now almost 15
years ago, even a small risk of exposure could have major public health implications (Kheifets,
2001).
This paper explores some of the potentially wide range of EMF-producing products in a
typical home, risk factors, and what can be done to reduce exposure.
What are EMFs?
EMFs are waves of electrical energy that generate heat (see below) (Botkin & Keller,
2014). These waves occur along a spectrum and can be generated by an array of energy sources
including the sun, static from floors and laundry machines, infrared emitting devices, X-Rays,

electronic devices such as cell phones, tablets, and computers, watches, electric motors, electric
transmission lines for utilities, and electric blankets (see chart right) (Botkin & Keller, 2014).

Botkin & Keller, (2014)

fields.aspx

http://www.safespaceprotection.com/overview-electromagnetic-

The CDC identifies 3 Main Areas of focus: RF (radio frequencies) broadcast antennas,
induction heaters, and cell telephones, ELF (extremely low frequencies) AC electricity and
video display terminals (VDTs), and Static Magnetic Fieldsincluding DC electricity (CDC,
2014), all of which we directly or indirectly interact with in our homes.
List of Potential EMF sources in my home:
Cell phone, computer, electrical wiring, microwave, radio waves, digital watch, static from
laundry and the floor, powerlines entering the apartment, music equipment including wiring,
speakers, and preamplifiers, chargers, plugs and wires that come into close contact to furniture
like the couch or bed, heaters.
Dose-Response:
The ways that waves can impact the body and how they are measured are incredibly
complex and beyond the scope of this brief review. To a large extent, the effects of EMF on
the body remain unknown. The IEEE has developed the standards for EMF exposure (see

IEEE, 2015). When looking at dose, waves fall along a continuum measured in intensity and
the higher the intensity, the greater the heat exposure. To determine potential impact,
researchers look at all of the sources for exposure, how long an exposure occurred, and at
what intensity. These waves are measured in in kHz and GHz, with values like 3kHz being
low-frequency fields and 300GHz being high-frequency (IEEE, 2015). Since EMF waves
produce heat, the dose is measured by specific heat absorption by the skin, called Specific
Absorption Rate (SAR), which is the rate of radiofrequency energy absorption per unit mass
of the body watts per kilogram (W/kg) (Panagopoulos & Johansson, 2013). This implies when
one rests a laptop computer on his or her lap and it heats the surface of his or her skin, they
are being exposed to EMFs. The same goes for tablets and phones. In terms of specific
household products however, phones are are relatively low-powered radio frequency
transmitters, operating between 450 and 2700 MHz and peak power levels between 0.1 to 2
watts (WHO, 2014). This may therefore be less of a concern than other high-powered EMFemitting devices, but effects must be measured cumulatively and all sources taken into
consideration. Given more intense waveforms from radio and cell towers do not necessary
increase skin temperature, Panagopoulos and Johansson (2013) argue that radiation/field
intensity, along with additional physical parameters (i.e. frequency of EMF waves) should
constitute the primary measure for EMF instead of SAR when determining exposure
assessments in a given area.

Exposure Assessment:
Tracking EMF exposure is incredibly complicated, especially when doses are
occurring over prolonged periods of time. WHO established the International Electromagnetic

Fields (EMF) Project in 1996 in order to assess the scientific evidence of possible adverse
health effects from electromagnetic fields.
Who is at risk? Those generally placed as at risk are children or pregnant women,
since any harm that is done early on in development will impact the individual across the
lifespan (Mccurdy, Wijnberg, Loomis, Savitz, & Nylander-french, 2001).
Can EMFs cause cancer and are those who are at risk for cancer at an increased risk?
There is increasing support that high EMF exposure can cause cancer. One research finding
found EMF as a potential factor for leukemia development in childhood (Ahlbom, Day,
Feychting, Roman, Skinner, Dockerty, & Verkasalo, 2000). Another article released back in
1996 noted that there may in fact be a correlation, but since there are so many possible factors
that can contribute to cancer, it is hard to rule out confound variables (Graham & Putnam,
1996). For now, the World Health Organizations (WHOs) International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly
carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) (WHO, 2011).
It may also be possible to develop EHS, but again it is hard to determine who is at risk
for this (Repacholi & Ravazzani, 2004). Lastly, there are some preliminary findings for EMFs
interfering with cognitive functioning (Raz, 2006).

Risk Characteristics and ways to reduce exposure:

The good news is that there are organizations like the International Committee on
Electromagnetic Safety (ICES) who are closely monitoring these exposures and working with
product developers to build and design safer equipment that reduces EMF exposure (see
http://www.ices-emfsafety.org). WHO notes for example that there is a lack of data for

mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years and thus a warrant for further
research on things like mobile phone use and brain cancer risk (WHO, 2011). A lack of
longitudinal data makes identifying potential risks more difficult (WHO, 2011). The WHO
also has a fact-sheet with very clear guidelines on how to reduce exposure, as does the FCC
for things like radio waves (see https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/radio-frequency-safety).
With regard to reducing ones exposure, most suggestions are around taking caution
while using home appliances and accessories like cellphones, wiring, watches, and
microwaves. For phone use for example, WHO recommends keeping mobile phones 3040
cm away from the body especially when sending and receiving text messages and files,
accessing the Internet, and also using a hands free device versus holding a phone for long
periods against ones head. Exposure can also be reduced by limiting the number and length
of calls. Interestingly, the fact sheet also notes that using the phone in areas of good reception
also decreases exposure as it allows the phone to transmit at reduced power. WHO also states
that anti-EMF-type devices do not reduce radiofrequency field exposure (WHO, 2014).
Phones should also be prohibited at all costs in hospitals and on airplanes, as the signals may
interfere with other devices, but this will also lower potential exposure in public places
(WHO, 2014). Microwave use can also be limited. One of the more basic suggestions is to use
funds for delivery of internet through fiber optic or cable whenever possible over powerful
Wi-Fi signals (Newton, 2002). Above all else, we need research and education to the public
on potential hazards and how to reduce exposure. We need individuals and organizations like
WHO to closely monitor EMF activity in different communities, share warnings and potential
risks with the public, and collaboratively come up with a solution. In order to do this, we need

to rely on local, state, and national governmental and public health officials to provide
education and guidance on this increasingly concerning public health debate.

Risk Assessment #2
Noise Pollution:
Hazard Id: A Case Study
The world is becoming an increasingly noisy place to live in. The Greater Boston Area is
no exception. An article came out in 2005 saying that the helicopter noise near the Fenway area
had become so loud that it was severely interrupting residents' and commuters daily routines
and ability to converse with one another (Wangsness, 2005). Aside from being an inconvenience,
there is increasing support in the literature that sound is impacting our day-to-day health.
Francesca Dominici is a professor of biostatistics and the senior associate dean for research at the
Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH). Dominici said in a recent news article that noise
pollution is steadily rising with population growth, urbanization, and mobile devices, what she
terms as secondhand noise: a modern airborne pollutant (HSPH, 2014). Not only is the outdoor
environment getting louder, homes and larger buildings all have things like squeaky belts, fans,
noisy residents, and sound generating products like television speakers, which can make a real
racket (HSPH, 2015). This paper explores some of the potential impacts of noise pollution in the
home environment and what can be done to reduce its effects.
What is noise pollution? The EHEP at HSPH defines noise pollution as, "Unwanted,
usually loud sounds which can interfere with and damage hearing (HSPH, 2015). While
sometimes noise pollution can be easily apparent (i.e. when you cannot hear someone because of
a jet passing overhead), there are some sources that can also be highly subjective. For example,
while I might find the chirping of a bird outside of my window pleasant, my neighbor may find

the sound incredibly annoying. Regardless of the source of the sound, noise pollution and brief
and long-term exposure to sound can cause major health issues, particularly hearing loss (WHO,
2015).
Hearing loss as a major public health issue: Currently, there are 360 mil people
worldwide who have significant hearing loss and research indicates that more than half of these
cases are preventable through primary prevention (WHO, 2015). Sensorineural hearing loss
occurs when the hairs located in the cochlea receive too much sound energy (HSPH, 2015). The
longer people are exposed and the louder the sound, the higher the risk for damage.
In order to understand the potential impacts of sound on our health, we must first gain a
basic understanding of sound and its properties.
Dose-Response and the basics of Sound
Sound is produced by waves of electrical energy that is transferred from one molecule to
another until the waves reach the ear (HSPH, 2015). Decibels are the unit used to measure sound
level (HSPH, 2015). The dB scale falls along an exponential curve (Franz, 2004). This means
that if a sound level meter used on a quiet street registers at 60dB and reads 120dB at a loud rock
concert, the concert is 1,000 times louder than the quiet street (Franz, 2004). Frequency is
defined as the number of vibrations or cycles in one second, which is measured in hertz Hz, more
commonly referred to in music as sound pitch (HSPH, 2015). Human hearing typically falls
between 20Hz on the low end to 20kHz on the high end (Franz, 2004). Different rooms and
spaces will produce different timbres or sound colors depending on both the shape of the
space, the amount of sound isolation, absorption, refraction and the overall dB level of the sound
(Franz, 2004). Below is a chart of common sound-producing sources and their relative dB value.

http://a1-12300547.mex.tl/1984054_Decibel-y-logaritmo.html

Below is the dose-response scale for sound.

http://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/noise.pdf

Sound producing devices in my home

I decided to to a basic sound assessment of the acoustic properties of my apartment. I live
in a residential setting in a 3-story apartment building within .5 miles of the Longwood Medical
Area. I collected data using a smartphone and several applications including tape recorder,
audio RTA sound frequency analyzer, which provides data on the distribution of sound across
the frequency spectrum, and decibel 10th, which allows you to record sound decibel levels while
also taking a picture of the sound-producing source. The list of sound producing items include
heaters/ac units, street traffic, hot water heaters and washer dryers in the basement, vent fans,
voices of neighbors and children from a nearby school, kitchen items such as a blender, drive-by
ambulances, audio speakers including small television speakers, and a host of other sources.
Each of these sounds were impacted by the acoustics and building materials of the room, which

not only worked to absorb or refract the sound, but also change the timbre depending on location
in the home.
The loudest noise in my home was the food blender, which registered at 95dB, which is
well into the possible hearing damage range if the sound lasts long enough. A sample of that
sound is provided here https://soundcloud.com/perry-dripps/blender. The blender produced a lot
of higher frequency sound, as did a small portable music speaker, which raises concern for high
frequency hearing loss and tinnitus (ringing in the ears) from listening to these sources over long
periods of time. Second to that was the washer/dryer and hot water heater which, although
housed in the basement, generated almost 85dB. Also noticeable were helicopters flying
overhead toward the Longwood Medical Area and ambulances rushing to the hospital, especially
during later hours in the evening, as well as neighbors who were talking very loudly at night.
These did at times impact my sleep, ability to converse with others, focus and productivity.
When I felt surprised by the sound, I tended to feel more anxious (e.g. when an ambulance was
passing by).The outside environment was even louder; at one point I recorded an ambulance that
passed me on the street, which registered at 105dB.
Exposure Assessment:
Noise pollution can be found in any number of areas but research shows that some
communities are at a higher risk. In addition to urban environments, those living in housing near
airports and roadways may be particularly at risk for a host of health problems. One study for
example found that aircraft noise was linked with heart problems (HSPH, 2013). Also of concern
are residences near major roadways. Another study found a correlation between proximity to
roadways and renal function (Lue, Wellenius, Wilker, Mostofsky, & Mittleman, 2013). These

sounds can induce a fight or flight response that leads blood pressure to rise, heart rate to
accelerate, and a change in hormones, all of which impact health (HSPH, 2014).
Most research on noise pollution focuses on pregnant women and children, as they are at
the highest risk to sound exposure across the lifespan (WHO, 2015). Of particular concern are
the millennials since they are increasingly using damaging earbuds and listening to very loud
music (Chung, Des Roches, & Meunier, 2005). This excessive noise has in some areas led to
an increase hospital visits (HSPH, 2014), which can have major economic impacts as well. There
are also mental health implications. One longitudinal study found an increase in attention and
behavioral problems in 7-year old children who lived in areas with high road traffic versus those
without high road traffic noise (Hjortebjerg, Andersen, Christensen, Ketzel, Raaschou-Nielsen,
Sunyer, & Srensen, 2015). These environments may also put those with neurological conditions
like ADHD, autism, and sensory integration disorder at increased risk because these populations
already have sensory processing difficulties in filtering out sounds. Lastly, there is preliminary
research that certain medications could cause tinnitus (ear ringing) like pain relievers, which
could exacerbate the effects of noise exposure (Montemayor-Quellenberg, 2012). Painkillers
have become one of the most widely abused drugs in the world and the NIH lists as a chronic
public health issue (Manubay, Muchow, & Sullivan, 2011) so there is definitely concern that
drug abuse in combination with noise pollution could cause more significant hearing loss.
Risk Characterization and Ways to Reduce Exposure
As previously stated, half of all hearing loss is preventable through primary prevention
(WHO, 2015). First off, whenever possible, protect yourself. Turn down the volume, wear ear
protection, avoid noisy environments, keep at a distance from louder sounds, and be sure to
repair equipment that is noisy like fan belts and mufflers (HSPH, 2015). WHO has a guide for

best practices for prevention (see WHO, 2015). Many millennials report that they would wear
earplugs if they were told to do so and if they knew hearing loss is a chronic health issue
(Harvard gazette); this indicates the need for teaching the importance of sound pollution safety
and making protecting oneself the norm.
In our homes, there are a number of ways to reduce noise pollution. Forbes released a
review on materials that can help with acoustic problems and noise. These include using sound
absorbers, acoustic paneling, cork flooring, floating hardwood (which isolates a space and
reduces vibration from outside sources), sealing all open air spaces in cracks in windows and
doorways, acoustical blankets to separate rooms, triple pane windows, and solid doors
(Ciarmello, 2013). One area that is in great need of research is the impact of various frequency
distributions on certain aspects of hearing and health; for example low frequency hum from a
generator may pose a different threat than a screeching fan belt. I have included at the end of this
paper the frequency distribution in each room in my home. Future studies should not only
identify the sources of sound, but also their frequency distribution and how that interacts with
hearing and health. Public health researchers, acousticians, and scientists need to work with
policy-makers, private companies etc. to build homes that are more acoustically pleasing and
safer to live in. Access to acoustic treatment materials may be quite costly, which puts low
socioeconomic status families who live in acoustically poor homes and neighborhoods at risk.
Music is particularly concerning, as it has different frequency distributions depending on
the speakers and it is being played at increasing volumes. Audio engineers like author Trevor
Cox are working to create higher quality sounds that can be played at lower sound volumes in his
good recording project (see https://acousticengineering.wordpress.com/trevor-cox/). This will
hopefully help with more mindful and safer music listening for all.

From a public health policy standpoint, Dominici suggests that we alter airplane design to
dampen engine noise, sound proof houses and other buildings; in airports, reroute existing or
future runways from residential areas and monitor cardiovascular health of children and elderly
residents who live near airports (HSPH, 2014).
Some changes are being implemented. For example, when Mission Hill residents began
complaining about helicopters traveling to and from the Longwood Medical area a few years
ago, informal meetings among hospital officials, residents, the FAA, and helicopter pilots helped
alleviate the problem (Wangsness, 2005).
From an environmental management standpoint, noise pollution may contribute to
biodiversity loss because animals are having increased difficulty communicating; for example, in
the ocean, harbour porpoises react to low levels of high frequency vessel noise, which could lead
the species to migrate elsewhere (Dyndo, Winiewska, Rojano-Doate, & Madsen, 2015).
Stimpert, DeRuiter, Southall, Moretti, Falcone, Goldbogen, and Calambokidis (2014) also found
impacts on acoustic and foraging behavior of a tagged Bairds beaked whale (Berardius bairdii)
that was exposed to simulated sonar. Future research should look at the ways noise pollution is
impacting land, fresh, and saltwater ecosystems. Scientists are finding tremendous potential for
things like greening urban spaces by planting trees, which can act as a buffer for noise pollution
(Dzhambov & Dimitrova, 2014), so there is promise for these environmental management
practices in the future.
Teaching the younger generation the risks of noise pollution and hearing loss,
encouraging public health policy, and the creation of new technologies and environmental
management to help mitigate effects will produce a more healthy, acoustically and aesthetically
pleasing home environment and world for all to live.

Bibliography
Ahlbom, a, Day, N., Feychting, M., Roman, E., Skinner, J., Dockerty, J., Verkasalo, P. K.
(2000). A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. British Journal of
Cancer, 83(5), 692698. doi:10.1054/bjoc.2000.1376
Botkin, Daniel B., & Keller, Edward A. (2009). Environmental science : earth as a living planet
(8th edition), Environmental health, pollution, and toxicology (pp. 199-200). Wiley &
Sons: Danvers, MA.
CDC (2014). Electric and Magnetic Fields. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/emf/

Ciarmello (2013). Quiet please! how to cut noise pollution at home. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.houzz.com/ideabooks/13825501/list/quiet-please-how-to-cut-noisepollutionat-home
Datz, Todd (2013). Aircraft noise linked with heart problems. HSPH. Retrieved from
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/aircraft-noise-linked-with-heartproblems/
Dyndo, M., Winiewska, D. M., Rojano-Doate, L., & Madsen, P. T. (2015). Harbour porpoises
react to low levels of high frequency vessel noise. Scientific Reports, 5, 11083.
Graham, John D. & Putnam, Susan (1996). EMFs-and-Childhood-Cancer-Mar-96.pdf. Retrieved
from https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1273/2013/06/EMFs-andChildhood-Cancer-Mar-96.pdf
IEEE (2015). IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz.
https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/C95.1-2005.html
see also http://webbooks.net/freestuff/C95.1.pdf for full article.
Franz (2004). Recording and producing in the home studio: a complete guide (pp. 11). Berklee
press: Boston, MA.
HSPH, (2015) Noise pollution. Retrieved from http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ehep/noisepollution/
HSPH, (2014). Secrets of sound health. Retrieved from
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/secrets-of-sound-health/
Kheifets, L. I. (2001). EMF & cancer: epidemiologic evidence to date, CDC pp. 7678.
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/southkorea/Leeka_Kheifets.pdf
OConnell, S. (2015). Family sues fay school in southboro, claims wi-fi made son ill. Retrieved
from http://www.telegram.com/article/20150824/NEWS/150829606.
Lue, S.H., Wellenius, G. A., Wilker, E. H., Mostofsky, E., & Mittleman, M. A. (2013).
Residential proximity to major roadways and renal function. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 67(8), 62934. doi:10.1136/jech-2012-202307
Manubay, J. M., Muchow, C., & Sullivan, M. A. (2011). Prescription Drug Abuse:
Epidemiology, Regulatory Issues, Chronic Pain Management with Narcotic Analgesics.
Primary Care, 38(1), 71vi. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pop.2010.11.006
Mccurdy, A. L., Wijnberg, L., Loomis, D., Savitz, D., & Nylander-french, L. a. (2001). Exposure
to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields Among Working Women and
Homemakers. Science, 45(8), 643650.

Montemayor-Quellenberg, M. (2012). Pain relievers increase hearing loss risk. Harvard gazette.
Retrieved from http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/09/pain-relievers-increasehearing-loss-risk/
Newton, M. J. (2002). United States Environmental Protection Agency letter. Retrieved from
http://humboldtgov.org/DocumentCenter/View/2858
Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL (2013). Evaluation of Specific Absorption Rate as a
Dosimetric Quantity for Electromagnetic Fields Bioeffects. PLoS ONE 8(6): e62663.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062663
Raz, A. (2006). Could certain frequencies of electromagnetic waves or radiation interfere with
brain function? The Scientific American. Retrieved from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-certain-frequencies/
Repacholi, M., & Ravazzani, P. (2004). Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. International
Workshop on EMF Hypersensitivity, 197. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-92736-7. Retrieved
from http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/EHS_Proceedings_June2006.pdf
Stimpert, a. K., DeRuiter, S., Southall, B., Moretti, D., Falcone, E., Goldbogen, J., Calambokidis,
J. (2014). Acoustic and foraging behavior of a tagged Bairds beaked whale (Berardius
bairdii) exposed to simulated sonar. In Review, 18.
Wangsness, L. (2005). Copters roar sets of a wailing among fenway residents. Retrieved from
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/08/15/copters_roar_sets_off_
a_wailing_among_fenway_residents/?page=full
WHO (2011) Iarc report. Iarc classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly
carcinogenic to humans Retrieved from http://www.iarc.fr/en/mediacentre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
WHO (2014). Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/
WHO (2015). Deafness and hearing loss fact sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs300/en/

Graphs of Room Sound Frequency Distribution

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Bathroom

Bedroom

Basement