Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
It isn't appropriate to refer to the ICNIRP publications. The correct reference (for Europe) is to EN 50527-1 and EN 50527-2-1. Unfortunately, these are not available free of charge. However, they are available at reasonable prices (in English) at https://www.evs.ee/shop. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-06 09:52, Dürrer Bernd wrote: Hello Andy, Thank you for pointing out the ICNIRP limits: Actually, I recently had a request concerning a service technician with a pacemaker and exposure to static magnetic fields when handling permanent magnet rotors. However, when I check ICNIRP resources, I do not find any publication to justify higher limits. On the contrary, the “ICNIRP GUIDELINES ON LIMITS OF EXPOSURE TO STATIC MAGNETIC FIELDS” (https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPstatgdl.pdf) contain the statement: “Electromagnetic interference from low-intensity static magnetic fields has been observed to affect the operation of pacemakers, particularly those with magnetic switches, and other types of medical electronic devices, including cardiac defibrillators, hormone infusion pumps (e.g., for insulin), neuromuscular stimulation devices (e.g., for the sphincter muscle of the bladder), neurostimulators, and electronically operated prosthetic devices (e.g., for the limbs and inner ear). In general, the operation of these devices is not adversely affected by static magnetic fields below 0.5 mT." The "ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS (1 Hz TO 100 kHz)" (https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPLFgdl.pdf) contain the following statement: "Compliance with the present guidelines may not necessarily preclude interference with, or effects on, medical devices such as metallic prostheses, cardiac pacemakers and implanted defibrillators and cochlear implants. Interference with pacemakers may occur at levels below the recommended reference levels. Advice on avoiding these problems is beyond the scope of the present document but is available elsewhere (IEC 2005b)." (IEC2005b refers to IEC 60601-1-2) Kind regards, Bernd - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Bernd Further: the European medical directive (93/42/EEC) and UK regulations for medical devices (BS EN 60601-1-2) instruct manufacturers that they should minimise the risk from foreseeable environmental conditions such as magnetic fields and external electrical influences. BS EN 45502-2-2, harmonised standard under the AIMD, test 27.7 exposes pacemakers to fields up to 50 mT for 1 minute, the device operating normally once the field is removed. BS EN 50527-1 Procedure for risk assessment of AIMD gives a Static field limit of 1mT stating exposure to fields in excess of this may influence the operation AIMD. Prolonged exposure is not advised but short term transient conditions may be tolerated. There are approximately 250,000 people fitted with pacemakers in the UK (2010) BS ISO 14117:2012 Active implantable medical devices specifies static DC magnetic field testing at 50 mT. -Original Message- From: McCallum, Andy [mailto:andy.mccal...@mottmac.com] Sent: 06 July 2018 10:27 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Hi Bernd It’s a mess but at this time no one seems to want to address the limit. If the public exposure limit is 400mT then all equipment including pacemakers should operate at this level or higher. Some progress was made towards the slightly older ICNIRP limit of 40mT BS ISO 14117:2012 4.7 Protection from static magnetic fields of flux density up to 50 mT 4.7.1 General considerations The DUT shall not remain functionally affected after exposure to static magnetic fields of flux density of up to 50 mT. 4.7.2 Pacemakers and CRT-P devices Test equipment: use a field coil that is capable of generating a uniform magnetic field of flux density of up to 50 mT ± 5 mT in the region to be occupied by the DUT. Test procedure: the required field flux density shall be generated before placing the DUT in the field. Then the DUT shall be slowly placed in the centre of the test coil. After at least 15 s of exposure to the magnetic field, the DUT shall be slowly removed from the field. https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rbht.nhs.uk%2Fabout%2Fnews-events%2Farchive%2Fpacemaker%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C8ab8be52e7fd4abf03ec08d5e322bb23%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=4JPlio918VOy7yMaqcyNb9pvdfBuWRR4KZTscTWw1dQ%3D=0 The easiest was around it is to actually contact the manufacturer and try and get some form of reassurance from them. Regards Andy -Original Message- From: Dürrer Bernd [mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com] Sent: 06 July 2018 09:53 To: McCallum, Andy ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: AW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Hello Andy, Thank you for pointing out the ICNIRP limits: Actually, I recently had a request concerning a service technician with a pacemaker and exposure to static magnetic fields when handling permanent magnet rotors. However, when I check ICNIRP resources, I do not find any publication to justify higher limits. On the contrary, the “ICNIRP GUIDELINES ON LIMITS OF EXPOSURE TO STATIC MAGNETIC FIELDS” (https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icnirp.org%2Fcms%2Fupload%2Fpublications%2FICNIRPstatgdl.pdf=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C15d40e00326b4219a4df08d5e31ddb08%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=GtqO0ps18xjo1yE6siOKfeeYPdNzy4Ws7Tv6OcFLzmM%3D=0) contain the statement: “Electromagnetic interference from low-intensity static magnetic fields has been observed to affect the operation of pacemakers, particularly those with magnetic switches, and other types of medical electronic devices, including cardiac defibrillators, hormone infusion pumps (e.g., for insulin), neuromuscular stimulation devices (e.g., for the sphincter muscle of the bladder), neurostimulators, and electronically operated prosthetic devices (e.g., for the limbs and inner ear). In general, the operation of these devices is not adversely affected by static magnetic fields below 0.5 mT." The "ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS (1 Hz TO 100 kHz)" (https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icnirp.org%2Fcms%2Fupload%2Fpublications%2FICNIRPLFgdl.pdf=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C15d40e00326b4219a4df08d5e31ddb08%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=TKolfMPIxVlXj8Gu%2FcuYTd2jpKm2TQpJJY8R%2B4ihA3k%3D=0) contain the following statement: "Compliance with the present guidelines may not necessarily preclude interference with, or effects on, medical devices such as
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Hi Bernd It’s a mess but at this time no one seems to want to address the limit. If the public exposure limit is 400mT then all equipment including pacemakers should operate at this level or higher. Some progress was made towards the slightly older ICNIRP limit of 40mT BS ISO 14117:2012 4.7 Protection from static magnetic fields of flux density up to 50 mT 4.7.1 General considerations The DUT shall not remain functionally affected after exposure to static magnetic fields of flux density of up to 50 mT. 4.7.2 Pacemakers and CRT-P devices Test equipment: use a field coil that is capable of generating a uniform magnetic field of flux density of up to 50 mT ± 5 mT in the region to be occupied by the DUT. Test procedure: the required field flux density shall be generated before placing the DUT in the field. Then the DUT shall be slowly placed in the centre of the test coil. After at least 15 s of exposure to the magnetic field, the DUT shall be slowly removed from the field. http://www.rbht.nhs.uk/about/news-events/archive/pacemaker/ The easiest was around it is to actually contact the manufacturer and try and get some form of reassurance from them. Regards Andy -Original Message- From: Dürrer Bernd [mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com] Sent: 06 July 2018 09:53 To: McCallum, Andy ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: AW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Hello Andy, Thank you for pointing out the ICNIRP limits: Actually, I recently had a request concerning a service technician with a pacemaker and exposure to static magnetic fields when handling permanent magnet rotors. However, when I check ICNIRP resources, I do not find any publication to justify higher limits. On the contrary, the “ICNIRP GUIDELINES ON LIMITS OF EXPOSURE TO STATIC MAGNETIC FIELDS” (https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icnirp.org%2Fcms%2Fupload%2Fpublications%2FICNIRPstatgdl.pdf=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C15d40e00326b4219a4df08d5e31ddb08%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=GtqO0ps18xjo1yE6siOKfeeYPdNzy4Ws7Tv6OcFLzmM%3D=0) contain the statement: “Electromagnetic interference from low-intensity static magnetic fields has been observed to affect the operation of pacemakers, particularly those with magnetic switches, and other types of medical electronic devices, including cardiac defibrillators, hormone infusion pumps (e.g., for insulin), neuromuscular stimulation devices (e.g., for the sphincter muscle of the bladder), neurostimulators, and electronically operated prosthetic devices (e.g., for the limbs and inner ear). In general, the operation of these devices is not adversely affected by static magnetic fields below 0.5 mT." The "ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS (1 Hz TO 100 kHz)" (https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icnirp.org%2Fcms%2Fupload%2Fpublications%2FICNIRPLFgdl.pdf=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C15d40e00326b4219a4df08d5e31ddb08%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=TKolfMPIxVlXj8Gu%2FcuYTd2jpKm2TQpJJY8R%2B4ihA3k%3D=0) contain the following statement: "Compliance with the present guidelines may not necessarily preclude interference with, or effects on, medical devices such as metallic prostheses, cardiac pacemakers and implanted defibrillators and cochlear implants. Interference with pacemakers may occur at levels below the recommended reference levels. Advice on avoiding these problems is beyond the scope of the present document but is available elsewhere (IEC 2005b)." (IEC2005b refers to IEC 60601-1-2) Kind regards, Bernd Von: McCallum, Andy Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Juli 2018 09:41 An: Dürrer Bernd ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Betreff: RE: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Bernd Pacemakers have DC static magnetic field limits as low as 0.5mT as mentioned in the EU EMF directive. Which is a level encountered in many environments not least DC Trams and railways. The fact that we don’t see people with pacemakers staggering around the underground suggests this limit has been set far too low (most likely when pacemakers where first introduced). The ICNIRP public exposure limit is400mT which is much more realistic and only encountered rarely. Contacted a number of UK government agencies regarding this and the most honest verbal response was we will get rid of that limit after Brexit. Also note a number of pacemakers are now available which are safe to wear in MRI scanners operating at 7Teslas. Andy From: Dürrer Bernd [mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com] Sent: 06 July 2018 08:24 To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] AW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Hi Doug, I assume that due to your good health you don’t have a pacemaker or any other electronic medical implants that might be affected by EM field exposure. As
[PSES] AW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Hello Andy, Thank you for pointing out the ICNIRP limits: Actually, I recently had a request concerning a service technician with a pacemaker and exposure to static magnetic fields when handling permanent magnet rotors. However, when I check ICNIRP resources, I do not find any publication to justify higher limits. On the contrary, the “ICNIRP GUIDELINES ON LIMITS OF EXPOSURE TO STATIC MAGNETIC FIELDS” (https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPstatgdl.pdf) contain the statement: “Electromagnetic interference from low-intensity static magnetic fields has been observed to affect the operation of pacemakers, particularly those with magnetic switches, and other types of medical electronic devices, including cardiac defibrillators, hormone infusion pumps (e.g., for insulin), neuromuscular stimulation devices (e.g., for the sphincter muscle of the bladder), neurostimulators, and electronically operated prosthetic devices (e.g., for the limbs and inner ear). In general, the operation of these devices is not adversely affected by static magnetic fields below 0.5 mT." The "ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS (1 Hz TO 100 kHz)" (https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPLFgdl.pdf) contain the following statement: "Compliance with the present guidelines may not necessarily preclude interference with, or effects on, medical devices such as metallic prostheses, cardiac pacemakers and implanted defibrillators and cochlear implants. Interference with pacemakers may occur at levels below the recommended reference levels. Advice on avoiding these problems is beyond the scope of the present document but is available elsewhere (IEC 2005b)." (IEC2005b refers to IEC 60601-1-2) Kind regards, Bernd Von: McCallum, Andy Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Juli 2018 09:41 An: Dürrer Bernd ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Betreff: RE: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Bernd Pacemakers have DC static magnetic field limits as low as 0.5mT as mentioned in the EU EMF directive. Which is a level encountered in many environments not least DC Trams and railways. The fact that we don’t see people with pacemakers staggering around the underground suggests this limit has been set far too low (most likely when pacemakers where first introduced). The ICNIRP public exposure limit is400mT which is much more realistic and only encountered rarely. Contacted a number of UK government agencies regarding this and the most honest verbal response was we will get rid of that limit after Brexit. Also note a number of pacemakers are now available which are safe to wear in MRI scanners operating at 7Teslas. Andy From: Dürrer Bernd [mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com] Sent: 06 July 2018 08:24 To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] AW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Hi Doug, I assume that due to your good health you don’t have a pacemaker or any other electronic medical implants that might be affected by EM field exposure. As protection and shielding options for such implants are limited (except by the surrounding tissue), the remaining other option to reduce the risk of malfunction is to limit EM fields. Stay in the best of health and have a nice weekend, Bernd Von: Doug Smith <mailto:d...@emcesd.com> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2018 20:56 An: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Betreff: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Hi Michael and the group, With the exception tissue heating generated by some sources at very high frequencies, I wonder if the EM field exposure worries today are a bit overblown. I started my experiments in high voltage (100,000+ Volts, and NOT static electricity) around age 13 and by age 14 was regularly immersing myself in 10,000+V/m, 300 kHz fields. It was fun, heating up screw driver blades from induction heating, lighting incandescent light bulbs (as well as fluorescent tubes) without wires, and more. About 600 Watts of RF energy was concentrated in the relatively small space I was in and I was uninjured! My kids all have two arms, two legs, and one head and I am still here almost 60 years later and healthier than 90% of adults of any age from 18 on. Some of my friends say this explains a lot about me (frying brain cells) though. I realize this is only one case, but have had a lot of high energy RF exposure throughout my life. Such as the field in my dorm room from my amateur radio transmitter being so strong that the fluorescent tubes in the room lit up with no power and blinked with Morse code. I had to remove the tubes from their fixtures and cover with towels so my roommate could sleep. Still here, Doug On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 16:27:12 +0100, Michael Derby wrote: It’s not quite an “unintentional radiator” but if you had a wireless charger which did not contain any communication (e.g.,
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Bernd Pacemakers have DC static magnetic field limits as low as 0.5mT as mentioned in the EU EMF directive. Which is a level encountered in many environments not least DC Trams and railways. The fact that we don’t see people with pacemakers staggering around the underground suggests this limit has been set far too low (most likely when pacemakers where first introduced). The ICNIRP public exposure limit is400mT which is much more realistic and only encountered rarely. Contacted a number of UK government agencies regarding this and the most honest verbal response was we will get rid of that limit after Brexit. Also note a number of pacemakers are now available which are safe to wear in MRI scanners operating at 7Teslas. Andy From: Dürrer Bernd [mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com] Sent: 06 July 2018 08:24 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] AW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Hi Doug, I assume that due to your good health you don’t have a pacemaker or any other electronic medical implants that might be affected by EM field exposure. As protection and shielding options for such implants are limited (except by the surrounding tissue), the remaining other option to reduce the risk of malfunction is to limit EM fields. Stay in the best of health and have a nice weekend, Bernd Von: Doug Smith mailto:d...@emcesd.com>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2018 20:56 An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Betreff: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Hi Michael and the group, With the exception tissue heating generated by some sources at very high frequencies, I wonder if the EM field exposure worries today are a bit overblown. I started my experiments in high voltage (100,000+ Volts, and NOT static electricity) around age 13 and by age 14 was regularly immersing myself in 10,000+V/m, 300 kHz fields. It was fun, heating up screw driver blades from induction heating, lighting incandescent light bulbs (as well as fluorescent tubes) without wires, and more. About 600 Watts of RF energy was concentrated in the relatively small space I was in and I was uninjured! My kids all have two arms, two legs, and one head and I am still here almost 60 years later and healthier than 90% of adults of any age from 18 on. Some of my friends say this explains a lot about me (frying brain cells) though. I realize this is only one case, but have had a lot of high energy RF exposure throughout my life. Such as the field in my dorm room from my amateur radio transmitter being so strong that the fluorescent tubes in the room lit up with no power and blinked with Morse code. I had to remove the tubes from their fixtures and cover with towels so my roommate could sleep. Still here, Doug [https://hostingemail.xo.com/api/storage/d...@emcesd.com/signatures/images/2476c205-f457-4395-87cc-7aa199c734f2] On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 16:27:12 +0100, Michael Derby wrote: It’s not quite an “unintentional radiator” but if you had a wireless charger which did not contain any communication (e.g., a dumb charging signal without handshaking), then it would come within the scope of the EMCD and the LVD (not the RED), and RF Exposure would therefore be an issue under the LVD. Michael. From: McCallum, Andy [mailto:andy.mccal...@mottmac.com] Sent: 05 July 2018 15:33 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Be surprised if any LVD could cause EMF large enough to pose a danger to Human Health. Intentional transmitters maybe, a rare beast to create those levels unintentionally at less than 1000V. Andy From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] Sent: 05 July 2018 10:28 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows that a simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable likelihood of producing sufficiently strong EMF. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=vOXyjzMm8FtxrbHRrTRbkgWlhb8gQeuv%2FiISyiAwg24%3D=0> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote: EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio transmitters? Best regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived
[PSES] AW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Hi Doug, I assume that due to your good health you don’t have a pacemaker or any other electronic medical implants that might be affected by EM field exposure. As protection and shielding options for such implants are limited (except by the surrounding tissue), the remaining other option to reduce the risk of malfunction is to limit EM fields. Stay in the best of health and have a nice weekend, Bernd Von: Doug Smith Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2018 20:56 An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Betreff: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Hi Michael and the group, With the exception tissue heating generated by some sources at very high frequencies, I wonder if the EM field exposure worries today are a bit overblown. I started my experiments in high voltage (100,000+ Volts, and NOT static electricity) around age 13 and by age 14 was regularly immersing myself in 10,000+V/m, 300 kHz fields. It was fun, heating up screw driver blades from induction heating, lighting incandescent light bulbs (as well as fluorescent tubes) without wires, and more. About 600 Watts of RF energy was concentrated in the relatively small space I was in and I was uninjured! My kids all have two arms, two legs, and one head and I am still here almost 60 years later and healthier than 90% of adults of any age from 18 on. Some of my friends say this explains a lot about me (frying brain cells) though. I realize this is only one case, but have had a lot of high energy RF exposure throughout my life. Such as the field in my dorm room from my amateur radio transmitter being so strong that the fluorescent tubes in the room lit up with no power and blinked with Morse code. I had to remove the tubes from their fixtures and cover with towels so my roommate could sleep. Still here, Doug [https://hostingemail.xo.com/api/storage/d...@emcesd.com/signatures/images/2476c205-f457-4395-87cc-7aa199c734f2] On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 16:27:12 +0100, Michael Derby wrote: It’s not quite an “unintentional radiator” but if you had a wireless charger which did not contain any communication (e.g., a dumb charging signal without handshaking), then it would come within the scope of the EMCD and the LVD (not the RED), and RF Exposure would therefore be an issue under the LVD. Michael. From: McCallum, Andy [mailto:andy.mccal...@mottmac.com] Sent: 05 July 2018 15:33 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Be surprised if any LVD could cause EMF large enough to pose a danger to Human Health. Intentional transmitters maybe, a rare beast to create those levels unintentionally at less than 1000V. Andy From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] Sent: 05 July 2018 10:28 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows that a simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable likelihood of producing sufficiently strong EMF. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=vOXyjzMm8FtxrbHRrTRbkgWlhb8gQeuv%2FiISyiAwg24%3D=0> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote: EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio transmitters? Best regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=49%2BsokQ%2Bfgbdw5PdFOVMQq9w5i6xUg%2FynDYiz5MmRso%3D=0> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=NXnfbl2tReFV%2FOyyCDItpDVpyeZdAnDYXJo2y7%2B2b74%3D=0> can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Those college kids made up that website as a dig at the breathless scare mongering by so many ecofreaks. The whole site is a sendup of that silliness. I find it very humorous. Ghery S. Pettit From: Ken Javor Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:05 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Those college students’ knee jerk reaction to a scientific name for a life-sustaining chemical is a perfect example of what I was saying below. Over-the-top, but very apropos. College students. Soon we will be at the point where a non-technical college degree will be a negative incentive to hire someone. From: Ghery Pettit mailto:n6...@comcast.net> > Reply-To: mailto:n6...@comcast.net> > Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 13:29:20 -0700 To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Another chemical that is a problem in certain cases is Dihydrogen Monoxide. See www.dhmo.org <http://www.dhmo.org> <http://www.dhmo.org> <http://www.dhmo.org> for more information. BTW, for those of you who are challenged by chemistry, DHMO is also known as water. Ghery S. Pettit From: Ken Javor mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 1:21 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields The precautionary principle, as harmless and common sense as it sounds, is at the root of much mischief. Said mischief is not inherent in the principle itself, but how it is used. Since anyone can come up with a “what if “scenario, the principle ends up applied indiscriminately. Just as John Woodgate describes, we have in place in the USA laws that prohibit any concentration of certain chemicals. These laws were passed when the ability to see a concentration might have been in the parts per million, but we have progressed to measuring parts per trillion, and the laws haven’t changed. If someone raises the issue of changing the law to allow some concentration above what is measurable, they are labeled as advocating pollution of the water supply, or air or whatever. As is often noted, “the dose is the poison.” Many things which are poison in large quantities are beneficial at lower levels. Aspirin comes to mind. Some time in the early ‘90s the keynote speaker at a US-based IEEE EMC symposium was someone active in EMF effects on health. He went so far as to say that in addition to eliminating EMF due to overhead power lines, and the like, we could not simply hide in a shield room, because our bodies evolved to live in an environment not totally free of EMF, so that totally eliminating them would be as problematical as too much. Consider the “thought” process here. Human beings evolved to survive with a life span of about 35 years. In the Stone Age, by 35 you were a grandparent and arthritis, rheumatism, and the other ills of old age had combined to make you a drag on the tribe. Discovery of Neanderthal man at first had them bent over and “Igor” like. It wasn’t until much later they realized that the skeletons had been ravaged by rheumatism/arthritis. The mistake was made because they could tell these people had died in their thirties, and that was deemed too early for these ills, so that they assumed these people were naturally misshapen. In the USA at the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy was in the forties. All those cowboys smoking in the old westerns made perfect sense – the last thing those guys expected to die of was emphysema or heart disease or cancer. The original USA social security retirement age of 65 was set to coincide with the mean date of expiration of the human body determined at that time. A policy aimed at improving physical health and longevity but predicated on how we evolved is inherently flawed. Those of us past 35 or so are in uncharted waters as to what does or does not promote or constrain longevity. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 _ From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > Reply-To: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:34:07 +0100 To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says that if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level to ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'. Unfortunately, of course, opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is why we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are achievable (at a price), not because they are related to known effects. I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes, paint, cable sheat
Re: [PSES] FW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Sounds a bit fishy to me. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 22:43, John Allen wrote: In other words, become an "aquaphibian"/(or something like that :) )/ – “back to the Future” J -Original Message- From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: 05 July 2018 22:04 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields "Do drink the water. Do not breathe the air." Brian... - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
[PSES] FW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
In other words, become an "aquaphibian" (or something like that :) ) – “back to the Future” J -Original Message- From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: 05 July 2018 22:04 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields "Do drink the water. Do not breathe the air." Brian... - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Recently talked to an actuary-type mathematician and a Dept of Agriculture scientist. They indicated that while mean life span once incrementally increased during 20th century USA, the available 21st century data no longer supports any future trend of consistent and incremental increases for the mean or median life expectancy. My theory is that Dihydrogen Monoxide is not the specific root cause. The obvious problem is diatomic and monatomic forms per atomic number 8. It has eventually killed all humans that breathe it; that is, it is 100% fatal after any significant length of exposure. It can be a serious safety hazard for both normal and hazloc classified environments, and is a common long-term cause of failure for electrical equipment. As for EM environments, from my late teens to my mid 20s, was constantly bathed in Ka to Ku band radiation. Did not affect my physical health, and as far as can be determined, and may have improved my mental health Do drink the water. Do not breathe the air. Brian - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Those college students¹ knee jerk reaction to a scientific name for a life-sustaining chemical is a perfect example of what I was saying below. Over-the-top, but very apropos. College students. Soon we will be at the point where a non-technical college degree will be a negative incentive to hire someone. From: Ghery Pettit Reply-To: Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 13:29:20 -0700 To: Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Another chemical that is a problem in certain cases is Dihydrogen Monoxide. See www.dhmo.org <http://www.dhmo.org> for more information. BTW, for those of you who are challenged by chemistry, DHMO is also known as water. Ghery S. Pettit From: Ken Javor Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 1:21 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields The precautionary principle, as harmless and common sense as it sounds, is at the root of much mischief. Said mischief is not inherent in the principle itself, but how it is used. Since anyone can come up with a ³what if ³scenario, the principle ends up applied indiscriminately. Just as John Woodgate describes, we have in place in the USA laws that prohibit any concentration of certain chemicals. These laws were passed when the ability to see a concentration might have been in the parts per million, but we have progressed to measuring parts per trillion, and the laws haven¹t changed. If someone raises the issue of changing the law to allow some concentration above what is measurable, they are labeled as advocating pollution of the water supply, or air or whatever. As is often noted, ³the dose is the poison.² Many things which are poison in large quantities are beneficial at lower levels. Aspirin comes to mind. Some time in the early 90s the keynote speaker at a US-based IEEE EMC symposium was someone active in EMF effects on health. He went so far as to say that in addition to eliminating EMF due to overhead power lines, and the like, we could not simply hide in a shield room, because our bodies evolved to live in an environment not totally free of EMF, so that totally eliminating them would be as problematical as too much. Consider the ³thought² process here. Human beings evolved to survive with a life span of about 35 years. In the Stone Age, by 35 you were a grandparent and arthritis, rheumatism, and the other ills of old age had combined to make you a drag on the tribe. Discovery of Neanderthal man at first had them bent over and ³Igor² like. It wasn¹t until much later they realized that the skeletons had been ravaged by rheumatism/arthritis. The mistake was made because they could tell these people had died in their thirties, and that was deemed too early for these ills, so that they assumed these people were naturally misshapen. In the USA at the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy was in the forties. All those cowboys smoking in the old westerns made perfect sense the last thing those guys expected to die of was emphysema or heart disease or cancer. The original USA social security retirement age of 65 was set to coincide with the mean date of expiration of the human body determined at that time. A policy aimed at improving physical health and longevity but predicated on how we evolved is inherently flawed. Those of us past 35 or so are in uncharted waters as to what does or does not promote or constrain longevity. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: John Woodgate Reply-To: John Woodgate Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:34:07 +0100 To: Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says that if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level to ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'. Unfortunately, of course, opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is why we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are achievable (at a price), not because they are related to known effects. I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes, paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now. If that reduced my intellectual capacity, much is explained.:-P John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> <http://www.woodjohn.uk> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 20:12, John Woodgate wrote: > > > Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, more in > Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated by > Scandinavian trades unions concerned about 'radiation' from CRT displays. > Adverse health effects of a general nature (headaches, insomnia, general > malaise) were very likely much more due to poor working conditions and job > interest, but the unions are very powerful. >
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Ghery "Thanks" for that link - seems like we should all stop drinking/using WATER. Then just die of thirst and/or malnutrition and/or illness due to lack of basic hygiene! ;) Just goes to "show" that almost EVERYTHING (including thus EMF!), in "life" comes with "risks" - but didn't we all already know that (but, apparently almost everyone else doesn't actually realize, and deal with, "IT"/"THEM"/all of "THEM")! John E Allen W. London, UK. From: Ghery Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] Sent: 05 July 2018 21:29 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Another chemical that is a problem in certain cases is Dihydrogen Monoxide. See www.dhmo.org for more information. BTW, for those of you who are challenged by chemistry, DHMO is also known as water. Ghery S. Pettit From: Ken Javor Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 1:21 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields The precautionary principle, as harmless and common sense as it sounds, is at the root of much mischief. Said mischief is not inherent in the principle itself, but how it is used. Since anyone can come up with a "what if "scenario, the principle ends up applied indiscriminately. Just as John Woodgate describes, we have in place in the USA laws that prohibit any concentration of certain chemicals. These laws were passed when the ability to see a concentration might have been in the parts per million, but we have progressed to measuring parts per trillion, and the laws haven't changed. If someone raises the issue of changing the law to allow some concentration above what is measurable, they are labeled as advocating pollution of the water supply, or air or whatever. As is often noted, "the dose is the poison." Many things which are poison in large quantities are beneficial at lower levels. Aspirin comes to mind. Some time in the early '90s the keynote speaker at a US-based IEEE EMC symposium was someone active in EMF effects on health. He went so far as to say that in addition to eliminating EMF due to overhead power lines, and the like, we could not simply hide in a shield room, because our bodies evolved to live in an environment not totally free of EMF, so that totally eliminating them would be as problematical as too much. Consider the "thought" process here. Human beings evolved to survive with a life span of about 35 years. In the Stone Age, by 35 you were a grandparent and arthritis, rheumatism, and the other ills of old age had combined to make you a drag on the tribe. Discovery of Neanderthal man at first had them bent over and "Igor" like. It wasn't until much later they realized that the skeletons had been ravaged by rheumatism/arthritis. The mistake was made because they could tell these people had died in their thirties, and that was deemed too early for these ills, so that they assumed these people were naturally misshapen. In the USA at the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy was in the forties. All those cowboys smoking in the old westerns made perfect sense - the last thing those guys expected to die of was emphysema or heart disease or cancer. The original USA social security retirement age of 65 was set to coincide with the mean date of expiration of the human body determined at that time. A policy aimed at improving physical health and longevity but predicated on how we evolved is inherently flawed. Those of us past 35 or so are in uncharted waters as to what does or does not promote or constrain longevity. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 _ From: John Woodgate Reply-To: John Woodgate Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:34:07 +0100 To: Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says that if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level to ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'. Unfortunately, of course, opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is why we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are achievable (at a price), not because they are related to known effects. I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes, paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now. If that reduced my intellectual capacity, much is explained.:-P John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> <http://www.woodjohn.uk> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 20:12, John Woodgate wrote: Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, more in Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated by Scand
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Hi Ken and the group, Ken you make very good points! One interesting point. Heart disease and arthritis are, for the most part, nutritional deficiency diseases, easily avoided if one knows what one is doing, which most do not. It is not possible to get adequate amounts of required nutrients, like magnesium for instance, from our modern food. I have used engineering analysis of the published scientific literature to figure out what is lacking and manually add it back in. The result is me at 71 having no problems of aging or medicines, etc. Just the occasional athletic injury which I have encountered most of my life. I run miles and miles at 110 degrees in the desert with no ill effects! If any of you are interested in this, I uploaded years of accumulated information to a hidden directory of my website. It is not organized, just a lot of files. The URL is: http://emcesd.com/Health. Great if you are having insomnia some night. Maybe we will know RF effects in detail like the above at some point. Doug On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:20:56 -0500, Ken Javor wrote: The precautionary principle, as harmless and common sense as it sounds, is at the root of much mischief. Said mischief is not inherent in the principle itself, but how it is used. Since anyone can come up with a “what if “scenario, the principle ends up applied indiscriminately. Just as John Woodgate describes, we have in place in the USA laws that prohibit any concentration of certain chemicals. These laws were passed when the ability to see a concentration might have been in the parts per million, but we have progressed to measuring parts per trillion, and the laws haven’t changed. If someone raises the issue of changing the law to allow some concentration above what is measurable, they are labeled as advocating pollution of the water supply, or air or whatever. As is often noted, “the dose is the poison.” Many things which are poison in large quantities are beneficial at lower levels. Aspirin comes to mind. Some time in the early ‘90s the keynote speaker at a US-based IEEE EMC symposium was someone active in EMF effects on health. He went so far as to say that in addition to eliminating EMF due to overhead power lines, and the like, we could not simply hide in a shield room, because our bodies evolved to live in an environment not totally free of EMF, so that totally eliminating them would be as problematical as too much. Consider the “thought” process here. Human beings evolved to survive with a life span of about 35 years. In the Stone Age, by 35 you were a grandparent and arthritis, rheumatism, and the other ills of old age had combined to make you a drag on the tribe. Discovery of Neanderthal man at first had them bent over and “Igor” like. It wasn’t until much later they realized that the skeletons had been ravaged by rheumatism/arthritis. The mistake was made because they could tell these people had died in their thirties, and that was deemed too early for these ills, so that they assumed these people were naturally misshapen. In the USA at the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy was in the forties. All those cowboys smoking in the old westerns made perfect sense – the last thing those guys expected to die of was emphysema or heart disease or cancer. The original USA social security retirement age of 65 was set to coincide with the mean date of expiration of the human body determined at that time. A policy aimed at improving physical health and longevity but predicated on how we evolved is inherently flawed. Those of us past 35 or so are in uncharted waters as to what does or does not promote or constrain longevity. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: John Woodgate j...@woodjohn.uk Reply-To: John Woodgate j...@woodjohn.uk Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:34:07 +0100 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says that if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level to ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'. Unfortunately, of course, opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is why we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are achievable (at a price), not because they are related to known effects. I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes, paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now. If that reduced my intellectual capacity, much is explained.:-P John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk http://www.woodjohn.uk; Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 20:12, John Woodgate wrote: Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, more in Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated by Scandinavian trades unions
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Another chemical that is a problem in certain cases is Dihydrogen Monoxide. See www.dhmo.org <http://www.dhmo.org> for more information. BTW, for those of you who are challenged by chemistry, DHMO is also known as water. Ghery S. Pettit From: Ken Javor Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 1:21 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields The precautionary principle, as harmless and common sense as it sounds, is at the root of much mischief. Said mischief is not inherent in the principle itself, but how it is used. Since anyone can come up with a "what if "scenario, the principle ends up applied indiscriminately. Just as John Woodgate describes, we have in place in the USA laws that prohibit any concentration of certain chemicals. These laws were passed when the ability to see a concentration might have been in the parts per million, but we have progressed to measuring parts per trillion, and the laws haven't changed. If someone raises the issue of changing the law to allow some concentration above what is measurable, they are labeled as advocating pollution of the water supply, or air or whatever. As is often noted, "the dose is the poison." Many things which are poison in large quantities are beneficial at lower levels. Aspirin comes to mind. Some time in the early '90s the keynote speaker at a US-based IEEE EMC symposium was someone active in EMF effects on health. He went so far as to say that in addition to eliminating EMF due to overhead power lines, and the like, we could not simply hide in a shield room, because our bodies evolved to live in an environment not totally free of EMF, so that totally eliminating them would be as problematical as too much. Consider the "thought" process here. Human beings evolved to survive with a life span of about 35 years. In the Stone Age, by 35 you were a grandparent and arthritis, rheumatism, and the other ills of old age had combined to make you a drag on the tribe. Discovery of Neanderthal man at first had them bent over and "Igor" like. It wasn't until much later they realized that the skeletons had been ravaged by rheumatism/arthritis. The mistake was made because they could tell these people had died in their thirties, and that was deemed too early for these ills, so that they assumed these people were naturally misshapen. In the USA at the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy was in the forties. All those cowboys smoking in the old westerns made perfect sense - the last thing those guys expected to die of was emphysema or heart disease or cancer. The original USA social security retirement age of 65 was set to coincide with the mean date of expiration of the human body determined at that time. A policy aimed at improving physical health and longevity but predicated on how we evolved is inherently flawed. Those of us past 35 or so are in uncharted waters as to what does or does not promote or constrain longevity. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 _ From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > Reply-To: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:34:07 +0100 To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says that if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level to ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'. Unfortunately, of course, opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is why we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are achievable (at a price), not because they are related to known effects. I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes, paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now. If that reduced my intellectual capacity, much is explained.:-P John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> <http://www.woodjohn.uk> <http://www.woodjohn.uk> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 20:12, John Woodgate wrote: Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, more in Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated by Scandinavian trades unions concerned about 'radiation' from CRT displays. Adverse health effects of a general nature (headaches, insomnia, general malaise) were very likely much more due to poor working conditions and job interest, but the unions are very powerful. You can't subject people to increasingly strong fields until they show a reaction, it would be highly unethical. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> <http://www.woodjohn.uk> <http://www.woodjohn.uk> Raylei
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
The precautionary principle, as harmless and common sense as it sounds, is at the root of much mischief. Said mischief is not inherent in the principle itself, but how it is used. Since anyone can come up with a ³what if ³scenario, the principle ends up applied indiscriminately. Just as John Woodgate describes, we have in place in the USA laws that prohibit any concentration of certain chemicals. These laws were passed when the ability to see a concentration might have been in the parts per million, but we have progressed to measuring parts per trillion, and the laws haven¹t changed. If someone raises the issue of changing the law to allow some concentration above what is measurable, they are labeled as advocating pollution of the water supply, or air or whatever. As is often noted, ³the dose is the poison.² Many things which are poison in large quantities are beneficial at lower levels. Aspirin comes to mind. Some time in the early 90s the keynote speaker at a US-based IEEE EMC symposium was someone active in EMF effects on health. He went so far as to say that in addition to eliminating EMF due to overhead power lines, and the like, we could not simply hide in a shield room, because our bodies evolved to live in an environment not totally free of EMF, so that totally eliminating them would be as problematical as too much. Consider the ³thought² process here. Human beings evolved to survive with a life span of about 35 years. In the Stone Age, by 35 you were a grandparent and arthritis, rheumatism, and the other ills of old age had combined to make you a drag on the tribe. Discovery of Neanderthal man at first had them bent over and ³Igor² like. It wasn¹t until much later they realized that the skeletons had been ravaged by rheumatism/arthritis. The mistake was made because they could tell these people had died in their thirties, and that was deemed too early for these ills, so that they assumed these people were naturally misshapen. In the USA at the beginning of the 20th century average life expectancy was in the forties. All those cowboys smoking in the old westerns made perfect sense the last thing those guys expected to die of was emphysema or heart disease or cancer. The original USA social security retirement age of 65 was set to coincide with the mean date of expiration of the human body determined at that time. A policy aimed at improving physical health and longevity but predicated on how we evolved is inherently flawed. Those of us past 35 or so are in uncharted waters as to what does or does not promote or constrain longevity. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: John Woodgate Reply-To: John Woodgate Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:34:07 +0100 To: Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says that if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level to ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'. Unfortunately, of course, opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is why we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are achievable (at a price), not because they are related to known effects. I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes, paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now. If that reduced my intellectual capacity, much is explained.:-P John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 20:12, John Woodgate wrote: > > > Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, more in > Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated by > Scandinavian trades unions concerned about 'radiation' from CRT displays. > Adverse health effects of a general nature (headaches, insomnia, general > malaise) were very likely much more due to poor working conditions and job > interest, but the unions are very powerful. > > > You can't subject people to increasingly strong fields until they show a > reaction, it would be highly unethical. > > > John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only > J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> > Rayleigh, Essex UK > > - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.o
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
There is another aspect to this, the 'precautionary principle'. This says that if you don't know the harmful level of something, you reduce its level to ALARP, 'as low as is reasonably practicable'. Unfortunately, of course, opinions differ very widely on what that level is, in many cases. This is why we see concentration limits of parts per trillion, because they are achievable (at a price), not because they are related to known effects. I didn't grow up in strong EM fields, but in a concentration of lead (pipes, paint, cable sheaths) that would be regarded as horrifying now. If that reduced my intellectual capacity, much is explained.:-P John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 20:12, John Woodgate wrote: Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, more in Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated by Scandinavian trades unions concerned about 'radiation' from CRT displays. Adverse health effects of a general nature(headaches, insomnia, general malaise) were very likely much more due to poor working conditions and job interest, but the unions are very powerful. You can't subject people to increasingly strong fields until they show a reaction, it would be highly unethical. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Yes, there are very big 'safety factors' built into the requirements, more in Europe than in USA. Much of the interest in Europe was generated by Scandinavian trades unions concerned about 'radiation' from CRT displays. Adverse health effects of a general nature(headaches, insomnia, general malaise) were very likely much more due to poor working conditions and job interest, but the unions are very powerful. You can't subject people to increasingly strong fields until they show a reaction, it would be highly unethical. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 19:55, Doug Smith wrote: Hi Michael and the group, With the exception tissue heating generated by some sources at very high frequencies, I wonder if the EM field exposure worries today are a bit overblown. I started my experiments in high voltage (100,000+ Volts, and NOT static electricity) around age 13 and by age 14 was regularly immersing myself in 10,000+V/m, 300 kHz fields. It was fun, heating up screw driver blades from induction heating, lighting incandescent light bulbs (as well as fluorescent tubes) without wires, and more. About 600 Watts of RF energy was concentrated in the relatively small space I was in and I was uninjured! My kids all have two arms, two legs, and one head and I am still here almost 60 years later and healthier than 90% of adults of any age from 18 on. Some of my friends say this explains a lot about me (frying brain cells) though. I realize this is only one case, but have had a lot of high energy RF exposure throughout my life. Such as the field in my dorm room from my amateur radio transmitter being so strong that the fluorescent tubes in the room lit up with no power and blinked with Morse code. I had to remove the tubes from their fixtures and cover with towels so my roommate could sleep. Still here, Doug On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 16:27:12 +0100, Michael Derby wrote: It’s not quite an “unintentional radiator” but if you had a wireless charger which did not contain any communication (e.g., a dumb charging signal without handshaking), then it would come within the scope of the EMCD and the LVD (not the RED), and RF Exposure would therefore be an issue under the LVD. Michael. *From:*McCallum, Andy [mailto:andy.mccal...@mottmac.com] *Sent:* 05 July 2018 15:33 *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Be surprised if any LVD could cause EMF large enough to pose a danger to Human Health. Intentional transmitters maybe, a rare beast to create those levels unintentionally at less than 1000V. Andy *From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] *Sent:* 05 July 2018 10:28 *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows that a simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable likelihood of producing sufficiently strong EMF. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=vOXyjzMm8FtxrbHRrTRbkgWlhb8gQeuv%2FiISyiAwg24%3D=0> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote: EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio transmitters? Best regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=49%2BsokQ%2Bfgbdw5PdFOVMQq9w5i6xUg%2FynDYiz5MmRso%3D=0> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=NXnfbl2tReFV%2FOyyCDItpDVpyeZdAnDYXJo2y7%2B2b74%3D=0> can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Hi Michael and the group, With the exception tissue heating generated by some sources at very high frequencies, I wonder if the EM field exposure worries today are a bit overblown. I started my experiments in high voltage (100,000+ Volts, and NOT static electricity) around age 13 and by age 14 was regularly immersing myself in 10,000+V/m, 300 kHz fields. It was fun, heating up screw driver blades from induction heating, lighting incandescent light bulbs (as well as fluorescent tubes) without wires, and more. About 600 Watts of RF energy was concentrated in the relatively small space I was in and I was uninjured! My kids all have two arms, two legs, and one head and I am still here almost 60 years later and healthier than 90% of adults of any age from 18 on. Some of my friends say this explains a lot about me (frying brain cells) though. I realize this is only one case, but have had a lot of high energy RF exposure throughout my life. Such as the field in my dorm room from my amateur radio transmitter being so strong that the fluorescent tubes in the room lit up with no power and blinked with Morse code. I had to remove the tubes from their fixtures and cover with towels so my roommate could sleep. Still here, Doug On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 16:27:12 +0100, Michael Derby wrote: It’s not quite an “unintentional radiator” but if you had a wireless charger which did not contain any communication (e.g., a dumb charging signal without handshaking), then it would come within the scope of the EMCD and the LVD (not the RED), and RF Exposure would therefore be an issue under the LVD. Michael. From: McCallum, Andy [mailto:andy.mccal...@mottmac.com] Sent: 05 July 2018 15:33 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Be surprised if any LVD could cause EMF large enough to pose a danger to Human Health. Intentional transmitters maybe, a rare beast to create those levels unintentionally at less than 1000V. Andy From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] Sent: 05 July 2018 10:28 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows that a simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable likelihood of producing sufficiently strong EMF. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote: EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio transmitters? Best regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
It's not quite an "unintentional radiator" but if you had a wireless charger which did not contain any communication (e.g., a dumb charging signal without handshaking), then it would come within the scope of the EMCD and the LVD (not the RED), and RF Exposure would therefore be an issue under the LVD. Michael. From: McCallum, Andy [mailto:andy.mccal...@mottmac.com] Sent: 05 July 2018 15:33 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Be surprised if any LVD could cause EMF large enough to pose a danger to Human Health. Intentional transmitters maybe, a rare beast to create those levels unintentionally at less than 1000V. Andy From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] Sent: 05 July 2018 10:28 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows that a simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable likelihood of producing sufficiently strong EMF. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodj ohn.uk=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5 e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=vOXyjzMm8FtxrbHRrTRbkg Wlhb8gQeuv%2FiISyiAwg24%3D=0> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote: EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio transmitters? Best regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee- pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc 1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=49%2 BsokQ%2Bfgbdw5PdFOVMQq9w5i6xUg%2FynDYiz5MmRso%3D=0> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-c ompliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc 1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=NXnf bl2tReFV%2FOyyCDItpDVpyeZdAnDYXJo2y7%2B2b74%3D=0> can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee- pses.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9 808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=iF4opy2qXpxGUDSOP jI0JO542mTk9qx9tgUZ8G8KhIE%3D=0> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee- pses.org%2Flist.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76 c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=clkGQ06w wx8J0uLKatJk2TlwZP%2FLmDxRUJvlWeyFEcA%3D=0> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee- pses.org%2Flistrules.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897d c1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=Ffg MUjF4Y7aAu%2F08gj5CE%2BRbAH8ja9RnUj7jRe%2FK7Zg%3D=0> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee- pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc 1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=49%2 BsokQ%2Bfgbdw5PdFOVMQq9w5i6xUg%2FynDYiz5MmRso%3D=0> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-c ompliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc 1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Be surprised if any LVD could cause EMF large enough to pose a danger to Human Health. Intentional transmitters maybe, a rare beast to create those levels unintentionally at less than 1000V. Andy From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] Sent: 05 July 2018 10:28 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows that a simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable likelihood of producing sufficiently strong EMF. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=vOXyjzMm8FtxrbHRrTRbkgWlhb8gQeuv%2FiISyiAwg24%3D=0> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote: EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio transmitters? Best regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=49%2BsokQ%2Bfgbdw5PdFOVMQq9w5i6xUg%2FynDYiz5MmRso%3D=0> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=NXnfbl2tReFV%2FOyyCDItpDVpyeZdAnDYXJo2y7%2B2b74%3D=0> can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=iF4opy2qXpxGUDSOPjI0JO542mTk9qx9tgUZ8G8KhIE%3D=0> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=clkGQ06wwx8J0uLKatJk2TlwZP%2FLmDxRUJvlWeyFEcA%3D=0> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=FfgMUjF4Y7aAu%2F08gj5CE%2BRbAH8ja9RnUj7jRe%2FK7Zg%3D=0> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=49%2BsokQ%2Bfgbdw5PdFOVMQq9w5i6xUg%2FynDYiz5MmRso%3D=0> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=NXnfbl2tReFV%2FOyyCDItpDVpyeZdAnDYXJo2y7%2B2b74%3D=0> can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=iF4opy2qXpxGUDSOPjI0JO542mTk9qx9tgUZ8G8KhIE%3D=0> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
The frequency range is DC to 300 GHz, so power frequency magnetic fields are included. Some household appliances used to produce quite strong fields very close to the casing. Historically, bulk erasers for magnetic recording tape produced strong magnetic fields. The requirements include large 'safety factors' because research is ethically challenging, and adverse health effects are widely attributed to causes other than the real ones. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 15:32, McCallum, Andy wrote: Be surprised if any LVD could cause EMF large enough to pose a danger to Human Health. Intentional transmitters maybe, a rare beast to create those levels unintentionally at less than 1000V. Andy *From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] *Sent:* 05 July 2018 10:28 *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows that a simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable likelihood of producing sufficiently strong EMF. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=vOXyjzMm8FtxrbHRrTRbkgWlhb8gQeuv%2FiISyiAwg24%3D=0> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote: EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio transmitters? Best regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=49%2BsokQ%2Bfgbdw5PdFOVMQq9w5i6xUg%2FynDYiz5MmRso%3D=0> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=NXnfbl2tReFV%2FOyyCDItpDVpyeZdAnDYXJo2y7%2B2b74%3D=0> can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=iF4opy2qXpxGUDSOPjI0JO542mTk9qx9tgUZ8G8KhIE%3D=0> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=clkGQ06wwx8J0uLKatJk2TlwZP%2FLmDxRUJvlWeyFEcA%3D=0> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=FfgMUjF4Y7aAu%2F08gj5CE%2BRbAH8ja9RnUj7jRe%2FK7Zg%3D=0> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=01%7C01%7CAndy.McCallum%40mottmac.com%7C3897dc1f76c0406b3a9808d5e259910b%7Ca2bed0c459574f73b0c2a811407590fb%7C0=49%2BsokQ%2Bfgbdw5PdFOVMQq9w5i6xUg%2FynDYiz5MmRso%3D=0> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt
Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
It applies to any LVD product, but there is a flow chart that shows that a simple assessment is possible if the product has no reasonable likelihood of producing sufficiently strong EMF. John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2018-07-05 10:09, Amund Westin wrote: EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio transmitters? Best regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
[PSES] AW: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
Hi Amund, the answer can be found in the scope of the standard: "This International Standard applies to electronic and electrical equipment for which no dedicated product- or product family standard regarding human exposure to electromagnetic fields applies. [...] NOTE This standard is intended to cover both intentional and non-intentional radiators. If the equipment complies with the requirements in another relevant standard, e.g. EN 50371 covering low power equipment, then the requirements of this standard (IEC 62311) are considered to be met and the application of this standard to that equipment is not necessary. See also Clause 7.2." https://webstore.iec.ch/preview/info_iec62311%7Bed1.0%7Db.pdf As non-intentional radiators are in the scope, it applies to any LVD product, unless a dedicated product standard applies. Kind regards, Bernd Von: Amund Westin Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2018 11:10 An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Betreff: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio transmitters? Best regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> WILO SE Nortkirchenstrasse 100, 44263 Dortmund Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 21356 www.wilo.com Vorstand/Executive Board: Oliver Hermes (Vorsitzender/Chairman), Carsten Krumm, Georg Weber, Mathias Weyers Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender/Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Norbert Wieselhuber Dieses Dokument ist vertraulich zu behandeln. Die Weitergabe sowie Vervielfaeltigung, Verwertung und Mitteilung seines Inhalts ist nur mit unserer ausdruecklichen Genehmigung gestattet. Alle Rechte vorbehalten, insbesondere fuer den Fall der Schutzrechtsanmeldung. This document has to be treated confidentially. Its contents are not to be passed on, duplicated, exploited or disclosed without our expressed permission. All rights reserved, especially the right to apply for protective rights. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
[PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
EN62311 is listed in OJ and a harmonized LVD standard. Does EN62311apply to any LVD product or only products containing radio transmitters? Best regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
