Radiation from Battery/Electric Motor

Was thinking about whether there is ELF or ionizing radiation emitted from the huge battery pack and electric motor underneath the vehicle. Obviously ionizing radiation would be a major concern if that was the case, but even ELF radiation over long periods could be of concern.

If radiation is emitted, does the 85kwh emit more than a 60 let's say. Better yet, does an ICE vehicle produce less than an EV given the lack of battery?

Wondering if anybody has looked at what of anything the MS emits in terms of radiation and potential effects on long term health?

For measuring EMF one would use a gauss meter that reports the EMF in either (milli) gauss or (micro)Tesla. I have used such meters to check out laboratories for their suitability for scientific instrumentation. Such meters are readily available on Amazon. Low cost units start in the $30 range, but ideally one should get a 3-axis model that are available for about $200. That said, I am sure that the engineers at Tesla know exactly what the EMF levels are around the car and that there is most likely an engineering drawing with exactly that information. And again, I suspect that the shielding by the motor casing will keep these levels pretty low. So now you have the measurement or number from a drawing, what do you do since there are no agreed upon safety standards for low levels of low frequency EMFs? One could compare the level found around your house: near appliances, hair dryers, electric blankets, clock radios, main electrical panel, where power enters your house via underground cables, etc, or near power lines. That would at least put things in perspective.

One other thing, for anybody really worried about the EMFs from the motor, if one avoids rapid acceleration and limits the speed of the car to less than 20 mph, it will considerably reduce the risks. Just kidding.

I used to work with electric utilities, including transmission utilities, and they would occasionally be faced with demands that they relocate their high voltage transmission lines because of potential EMF health effects. The demands always seemed to me to be misplaced. The cost of relocating a transmission line is enormous. If a tiny fraction of that cost were devoted to, say, prenatal health care, the verified improvement in a population's health would be far greater than even the hypothetical benefits from moving the line. I think perspective is required here.

Yeah, Fear of the Invisible is a potent driver of political and pseudo-scientific paranoia. I think it's the modern equivalent of blaming stuff on Evil Spirits.

Speaking of evil spirits, if you search on gauss meter on Amazon a number of them are being promoted as ghost detectors and/or detectors of paranormal activity!


Again, rather than shadowbox, please provide the peer-reviewed support for your statement above "radon, at low to average exposure does not cause linear mortality, in fact the reverse" which implies a protective effect. I'm not wedded to any hypothesis, but I do find an overwhelming body of research that contradicts your statement. You seem to recall many details of the (single) study you have offered up as proof of your contention. You have demonstrated considerable resourcefulness in the past on this forum in sourcing your comments so I'm sure with minimal effort you can produce this nurse's study for critical review with a little time spent on pub med. You're asking this forum to accept your radon statement as fact without qualification based on one paper that you can't produce?


There's plenty of evidence as I've mentioned before that EMF causes perturbations and alterations within the cell that are reversible. There is no doubt that the cell undergoes reversible change with abnormal movement of cellular proteins and disruption of other cellular processes. Current studies are looking for definitive evidence of irreversible pathologic change. Yes, the concerns ARE based on scientific evidence which have led to further studies. Wait for the data before making broad comments about obvious safety. I don't expect this to resonate with the tinfoil hat-comment types, but than it never does. Why the desperate need to convince yourself and others that a cautious approach is foolish when no one can know dor sure whether it is or not at this time.

+1 Robert22

There's plenty of evidence as I've mentioned before that EMF causes perturbations and alterations within the cell that are reversible

...with high enough field strength. Which is not the case of BEV.

Unless you are living in MRI device this kind of "concern" is nuts, everything using electricity around you causes EMF. ICE car spark plugs are huge source of EMF, far far stronger than anything inside BEV:s, also toxic fumes from them are real health risk, so unless you are going without cars at all you are far bigger health risk around your current car than you are ever in BEV.

Proof that this concern is nuts is that it takes so long to find anything if there even is something to find.

Fact that nothing has been found is not proof that there is something:

Not going to try and assemble the journal refs (which I don't have direct access to anyway). But here's the experience of a famous journalist (long-time anti-nuclear activist, shocked into recanting) George Monbiot (nicknamed Moonbat by sceptics for his previously extreme adherence to the "consensus"):
(referencing this article: )
when he tried to get references supporting the LND position taken by one of its most prominent global advocates.

Amusingly, the premier references Dr. Caldicott gives actually refute her assertions when read in detail.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen