-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
EMR at supercharger
- Thread starter mhh
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Australia New Zealand
No. The power is delivered to the car as Direct Current (DC). It does not generate any EMR whatsoever. You need AC for that.
All the EMR is back at the equipment boxes. And not much of it gets out of those boxes - they're shielded because otherwise it would cause radio interference.
All the EMR is back at the equipment boxes. And not much of it gets out of those boxes - they're shielded because otherwise it would cause radio interference.
powerfactor
Member
Further to what Doug_G said, have a look at where power lines sit on the spectrum in the article:
ARPANSA - Ionising and Non Ionising Radiation
It's ionising radiation that causes mutations (cancer), perhaps they put 3 sugars in your coffee!
ARPANSA - Ionising and Non Ionising Radiation
It's ionising radiation that causes mutations (cancer), perhaps they put 3 sugars in your coffee!
baillies
Member
Also worth noting that petrol is full of known carcinogens, so even if you superchargered everyday you would still have a lower cancer risk than someone filling a petrol car every two weeks. Although if you get sunburnt whilst supercharging you could be at a higher risk???
Maybe you could drink some water after the coffee? Although I get headaches from caffeine withdrawal rather than drinking it.
Maybe you could drink some water after the coffee? Although I get headaches from caffeine withdrawal rather than drinking it.
Last edited:
Volvo drivers are well known for their hats. Perhaps someone could market a Tesla branded tin foil hat for Tesla drivers. It might prove popular.
Moderators note.
I'm calling time on the tin foil hats and so far as I'm concerned there are no stupid questions on this forum.
This thread is about EMR which appears to have been answered but any more clarification on topic is welcome.
I'm calling time on the tin foil hats and so far as I'm concerned there are no stupid questions on this forum.
This thread is about EMR which appears to have been answered but any more clarification on topic is welcome.
garyjac
Member
powerfactor
Member
Also non-ionising.Worry about that mobile phone
*Post not sponsored by Nokia, Ericcsson or NEC*
garyjac
Member
Indeed so, but suspicious for other reasons.
"In 2011, the International Agency for Research on CancerExit Disclaimer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic studies."
BUT ALSO,
"In 2015 the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region (1). The Committee also stated that epidemiologic studies do not indicate increased risk for other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer (1)."
I don't use one often enough to be bothered worrying about it, but if the evidence is inconsistent then it's probably a very low risk, if one exists at all. The detailed patient history would need to be very carefully looked at, and doing that for hundreds of subjects in a second hand data "experiment" would be difficult.
"In 2011, the International Agency for Research on CancerExit Disclaimer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic studies."
BUT ALSO,
"In 2015 the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region (1). The Committee also stated that epidemiologic studies do not indicate increased risk for other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer (1)."
I don't use one often enough to be bothered worrying about it, but if the evidence is inconsistent then it's probably a very low risk, if one exists at all. The detailed patient history would need to be very carefully looked at, and doing that for hundreds of subjects in a second hand data "experiment" would be difficult.
