Electrical frequencies that are NOT harmful to people

[CCatalyst]

TL;DR

I want to know if there are electrical frequencies that can conduct through the human body without hurting people.

Now don't get me wrong. I often compared electroshock therapy to trying to shoot an apple off someone's head, blindfolded, with a flamethrower. But what I want to know is are there electrical conductive frequencies that can travel through the human body without causing damage to any of the cells? And if so then what is that frequency range? That as well as other limitations.

 

[Baluncore]

What do you mean by electrical conductive frequencies? EM waves are partially reflected from the human body. Some waves propagate through the body, others are absorbed as heat.

The band from DC to visible light is safe so long as you do not have so much radiation that it cooks your body, you suffer from surface discharge burns, or electrocution.

Damage is possible above the visible spectrum even with low levels. For example sunburn is caused by UV light. X-rays and gamma rays are most dangerous.

 

[Drakkith]

But what I want to know is are there electrical conductive frequencies that can travel through the human body without causing damage to any of the cells?

Yes. Every frequency capable of being generated by an appropriate power supply and conducted through the human body has the potential to be safe.

Every frequency also has the potential to be deadly as well.

The harmful effects of any exposure to electricity depend almost entirely on the amount of current, the duration of the exposure, the pathway of the current through the body, and the voltage of the source. High voltages have the potential to induce larger currents and can cause dialectric breakdown of the skin, which would reduce the electrical resistance of the body and lead to increased current flow. High electrical currents cause burns throughout their path, directly injuring tissue, and even small currents through critical organs, such as the heart, can cause sudden death.

Note that I've used 'exposure' instead of 'shock' here, as having an electrical current passed through your body without harming you may or may not classify as a 'shock'. Anything under about 500 microamps of current is unlikely to be harmful, regardless of the frequency. As the current increases the effects vary with location, though once you're past a few dozen milliamps you're already reaching the point where it becomes uncomfortable and you're in danger of cardiac fibrillation if the heart is anywhere in the current path. Keep increasing the current and you start to risk electrical burns, muscle and nerve damage, and other nasty things.

The point to take away here is that frequency doesn't matter nearly so much as current, time of exposure, voltage, and the pathway. Don't expose yourself or anyone else to electricity from anything other than a small battery unless you are under treatment by a medical professional, regardless of the frequency.

Edit: The numbers above should not be taken as hard facts. I am not a professional expert in this area. Do not expose yourself to electricity unless you have the training and the tools to keep yourself and others safe.

 

[eq1]

As others have written, every frequency can be harmful, but the amount of energy transferred to a person will vary with frequency. There are many standards for this but usually you’ll have to pay to read them. One thing you can Google is let-go current vs frequency.

There is also huge variation from person to person. For example limits can go way down if one has a pace maker. Or if your skin is wet.https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/physics/p616/safety/fatal_current.html

for more information see:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Let-go-current-versus-frequency-percentile-values-indicate-variability-of-let-go_fig2_308409107

 

[diogenesNY]

If this question genuinely interests you, _Underwater Welding_ would be a topic worth exploring. Lots of issues and information dealing with electrical currents interacting with human bodies.

diogenesNY

 

[sysprog]

The Chicgo el train runs about 600 DC volts at about 2000 amps, and, yes, it can and almost certainly will kill a human being if the human being becomes part of a closed circuit with that -- the voltage is far more than enough to get the amperage through, and the amperage is way too much for a human body to shrug off.

 

[sophiecentaur]

There are many standards for this but usually you’ll have to pay to read them.

And why not? That information is worth actual money so why not expect to pay for it? We're all guilty of expecting the Internet to be free but we have forfeited the right to privacy and protection by joining 'the system'.

 

[sysprog]

And why not? That information is worth actual money so why not expect to pay for it? We're all guilty of expecting the Internet to be free but we have forfeited the right to privacy and protection by joining 'the system'.

I don't see how a right to privacy, if we really have any, is at all related to, and isn't legitimately separable from, copyright. I think that copyright is mostly about who gets to make money off of some intellectual property. I think that privacy is much more about people not being snooped upon.

 

[davenn]

The Chicgo el train runs about 600 DC volts at about 2000 amps, and, yes, it can and almost certainly will kill a human being if the human being becomes part of a closed circuit with that -- the voltage is far more than enough to get the amperage through, and the amperage is way too much for a human body to shrug off.

That isn't relevant to the OP's question which is about EM aka RF energy

 

[sysprog]

That isn't relevant to the OP's question which is about EM aka RF energy

Sorry if I was accidentally out of line. My interpretation of the question was along the lines of frequency being related to energy and how dangerous is it. I presented as an example a DC something that I understand to be very extremely dangerous -- I trust that you know that it's not the AC frequency that matters -- it's all those watts that can light a person up.

 

[sysprog]

There was a Court case (this is on decades-old recollection -- I don't have a bluebook cite) in which a guy had put a giant induction coil on his property right next to a TV broadcasting station antenna tower -- he was able to grab enough power to run everything in his house -- the TV station complained and the Court said cease and desist.

 

[davenn]

The band from DC to visible light is safe so long as you do not have so much radiation that it cooks your body, you suffer from surface discharge burns, or electrocution.

That is no longer an accurate statement as of ~ 2013

This guest speaker at the university of Melbourne, Australia

 

[Baluncore]

That is no longer an accurate statement as of ~ 2013

Can you provide a reference to a scientific paper.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I don't see how a right to privacy, if we really have any, is at all related to, and isn't legitimately separable from, copyright.

It's not a matter of rights to privacy because we give up our privacy in the Ts and Cs that we 'OK' regularly. That is just something we have sold in return for a certain amount of 'free' information. Pay for your eMail service and you escape the deluge of distracting advertising that most people get.
IPRs are a confusing issue and it would be difficult to be strictly fair about the way contributors to the knowledge base could be rewarded. In the spirit of other trade, it would be logical to pay for what we consume.
I think one of the reasons that people resent paying for technical information is that they mostly do not want to feel forced (having paid for it) to read a long article that they have actually invested because it's too much like hard work. There are many more dilettante users of knowledge these days. Who bothers to learn ancient Greek these days.

 

[russ_watters]

That isn't relevant to the OP's question which is about EM aka RF energy

Is it? The first reply was about EM, but I'm not seeing it implied by the OP. I read it as being about different AC electrical frequencies conducted through the body.

 

[davenn]

Can you provide a reference to a scientific paper.

This woman is recognised worldwide as an expert in the field

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/DAVIS.DEVRA-CURRICULUM.VITAE-MARCH2020-WEB.pdf

Recent scientific publications by Dr. Davis

Anthony B. Miller, L. Lloyd Morgan, Iris Udasin, Devra Lee Davis, Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102), Environmental Research, Volume 167, 2018, Pages 673-683, ISSN 0013-9351Fernández, A.A. de Salles, M.E. Sears, R.D. Morris, D.L. Davis, Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality, Environmental Research, 2018, ISSN 0013-9351Sepehrimanesh, Masood, Nasrin Kazemipour, Mehdi Saeb, Saeed Nazifi and Devra Lee Davis. “Proteomic analysis of continuous 900-MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in testicular tissue: a rat model of human cell phone exposure.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 24, no. 15, 2017, pp 13666–13673.Gamze Altun, Suleyman Kaplan, Omur Gulsum Deniz, Suleyman Emre Kocacan, Sinan Canan, Devra Davis and Cafer Marangoz. “Protective effects of melatonin and omega-3 on the hippocampus and the cerebellum of adult Wistar albino rats exposed to electromagnetic fields.” Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, 2017, In Press.L. Lloyd Morgan, Santosh Kesari, Devra Lee Davis. Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure DOI: 10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005. In press. Published online Jul 15, 2014.Fernandez-Rodriguez, C.E., A.A.A. De Salles and Devra Lee Davis. “Dosimetric Simulations of Brain Absorption of Mobile Phone Radiation–The Relationship Between psSAR and Age.” IEEE Access 3 (2015): 2425-2430.

 

[eq1]

And why not? That information is worth actual money so why not expect to pay for it? We're all guilty of expecting the Internet to be free but we have forfeited the right to privacy and protection by joining 'the system'.

I wasn’t trying to imply any moral argument. What I meant was, one has to pay for the information so I can’t link to it.

 

[sophiecentaur]

What I meant was, one has to pay for the information so I can’t link to it.

My point was that you can link to it - just pay. Cost doesn't imply exclusion, except in the context of the media.