• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Lisa Portscher Subject: FW: WA 21 Attachments: SWITZERLAND_EMF_report_2011 see page 3.pdf; EU 2015 Comm on newly emerging health risks induction cooking.pdf; faktenblatt induktionskochherd e.pdf; Is Induction Cooking Safe – Dr. Magda Havas, PhD..pdf; e303.full.pdf Begin forwarded message: From: "Macklis, Jeffrey" <[email protected]> Subject: Induction cooktop data analysis and health risk for brookline consideration Date: September 25, 2019 at 12:58:31 PM EDT To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "Macklis, Jeffrey" <[email protected]> Dear Carol, and Members of the relevant Brookline boards, study groups, committees, and Health Dept., I write to offer expert input into your decisions that involve in any way encouraging or partially limiting cook top options to electric induction technology. I offer several articles and web-links below that I found particularly informative as I assessed induction cooktop installation myself, leading me to decide against it on extended family health grounds. I write with no advocacy position, but, rather as a world leader regarding the molecular and circuitry development of the brain (in humans and mice), the cerebral cortex in particular, and of its developmental diseases (e.g. intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorders), its partially electrical circuitry organization and impacts on higher cognitive function, its neurodegenerative diseases (in particular ALS, Huntington’s disease, Parkinson’s disease), and its future regeneration (in particular for for spinal cord injury and ALS). I offer all of this information reluctantly and humbly, but realizing that you would want to be aware of my credentials. I write in particular about largely unrecognized health risks to pregnant women and small children (more below from EU and US committees and analyses) that I discovered when personally enthusiastically planning to install an induction cooktop. I was dismayed and surprised to discover that I could not proceed in good conscience, given that we are likely to have both highest risks (pregnancy and small children) in our house in the next 5-10 years. More formally, I am the Wien Professor of Life Sciences at Harvard University, in the Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology (formerly Developmental and Regenerative Biology) and Center for Brain Science, physically at the University “main” campus in Cambridge within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences since 2007, but for my entire professional career and still also at Harvard Medical School (my endowed chair extends across the University, and my department is the only one to be “cross-university”, within FAS and HMS). I am also Professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University, and Professor of Neurology [Neuroscience], Harvard Medical School. I Co-Direct the Harvard University Ph.D. Program in Developmental and Regenerative Biology, and am a faculty member within the HU Program in Neuroscience, HU Biological and Biomedical Sciences Program, and HU Molecules, Cells, and Organisms program– all of the relevant Ph.D. granting Programs. I am also a member of the faculty of the Harvard-M.I.T. M.D.-Ph.D. Program, and of the Harvard-M.I.T. Division of Health Sciences and Technology. I will not list my full curriculum vitae, of course, but I am happy to provide a short version on request, including my current NIH Pioneer Award, Allen Frontiers Group Allen Distinguished Investigator position, Brain Research Foundation Fellow position, and Cajal-Krieg Prize for discoveries regarding the development and function of the cerebral cortex. 1 I am also a board-certified academic neurologist (no longer clinically active) who trained clinically in internal medicine and neurology at BWH-CH, then practiced at BWH and CH for years, and (partially overlapping) at MGH for 15 years. I specialized in developmental and degenerative disease of the cerebral cortex and related brain circuitry at CH and BWH-MGH, respectively. My analyses and opinions always give human health and relevance high priority as a physician. As far as my own interest and experience with induction cooking, I was a personal fan. In fact, my spouse and I were all set to install induction during a recent kitchen re-do. We got to final selection and delivery options with a local seller. We were excited to optimize the bits of our cookware that were not appropriate, and I gained experience with its control and advantages. With my earlier biophysics and bioelectrical engineering background, I was impressed that it is an elegant tech solution to potentially wasted heat. That said, I am also fairly knowledgable about electromagnetic fields and neuron interactions from my earlier MIT degrees, with one of my theses directly about electromagnetic field interactions with cellular membranes (most critical in neurons / nerve cells). I started looking into what is known, just to be safe. I expected to just get confirmation that my “theoretical” reservation was one of these 100-fold too low issues we all read about. Unfortunately, I found out enough to stop our plan entirely. I found multiple-several reputable studies and mostly European national regulatory agencies that made me very concerned at our stage of life with children in their mid-late 20s, so likely predicting pregnancy(ies) and small grandchildren within the next 5-10 years. In brief, I found that the EU regulations and analyses show that a single burner on is reasonably safe for an adult user if the pan is of “appropriate”-correct size (completely covering the burner) and is perfectly centered with precision, but that this safety disappears for a pregnant abdomen with fetal head (developing brain) closer than 1 foot away, or a small child whose head (developing brain) would get closer than 1 foot away from the front of a burner. The EU agencies all point out that pregnancy and small children position developing brains directly at the least safe position– adjacent to the cooktop and at its level. That is because the main risk is within a foot or so (30 cm) of a burner, and electromagnetic field strength from the induction cooktop is limited by EU/Swiss/now US recommendation to approximately 6 uT (microTesla). While essentially all modern residential cooktops meet this standard for a single burner on with an optimally sized pot/pan that is perfectly centered, they fail under “real world” scenarios. Unfortunately exposure with a differently sized pot/pan or one that is not optimally centered is often found to be ~5X higher (>30 uT!) than the regulatory agencies use as their acceptable limit! This even exceeds adult “occupational limits” set by the agencies. If more than one burner is on (e.g. for a normal meal or worst at a Thanksgiving dinner), the leakage around centered or uncentered pans is additive, though some will be further away than others. I list below a non-inclusive set of my source material, some as links, others as downloaded pdfs. I include no “crack-pot” articles speaking of general danger of electromagnetic fields, only reputable and balanced assessments, in my very data-driven approach to brain development, circuitry, and function. My spouse and I decided that we could move forward (and I am quite straightforward and non-alarmist, totally data-driven) only if we would not allow our daughter to cook on the range-top during any point of considering pregnancy, while pregnant, etc., since her abdomen would be inches from the front burners, and that no small grandchild could ever stand next to one of us to “help” cook, melt cocoa, whatever– because their developing brain would be right there also. That defeated the point for us, and the real risk in my considered, non-alarmist view would never be outweighed by “desire for induction” issues. While finding all of this (and much more) took some time and literature searching, it is all publicly available through multi-word search strategies. 2 I understand that the warrant under discussion does not mandate induction, but it does two related things: 1) it reduces the choice to only induction or the far inferior (culinary and thermal) alternative of electric resistance (in a real sense a false sense of choice); 2) it promotes induction as the “healthy” alternative to the “unhealthy” alternative of gas (in a real sense a misleading comparative analysis in my no-longer-uneducated view). If I were building a home or kitchen now, in our life stage, or at the life stage when we moved to Brookline in 1990 (starting a family), I would be forced in the absence of the gas option to choose electric resistance by my critical reading of the literature. By eliminating the gas option by suggesting that a “high-end" induction alternative is just as good cooking-wise but far healthier does the equivalent of mandating induction for "high-end” / “cook’s” kitchens– based on omission of quality EU and US data. I respectfully submit that deeper analysis of data and international assessments change the pro-con equation. New/additional data are almost always valuable to me (weighted as appropriate), and– while I was disappointed to discover this because we were excited to go the induction route– it is concerning enough to me as a father, potential grandfather, and neighbor lapsed-neurologist that I would not install induction without “eyes wide open”. We discussed it and decided not to go that way. Others have it, and that’s fine, but I respectfully submit that others should not need to follow that route to have “better" than electric resistance. I have environmentalist roots and leanings, while at the same time think prioritization and data-driven analysis are important to be most effective in laudable goals. I am all for encouraging/even mandating great thermal insulation, sustainable energy growth in use, as possible, etc.., but we should be able to separate desire from “inconvenient truths”, e.g.

Load more

  4

Copy Link