Do induction hobs interfere with pacemakers?

That’s my concern too, Malcolm. In other Conversations we have heard of radio interference caused by LED lamps despite the fact that the latter are supposed to comply with standards.

Wavechange/malcolm as some seem not to believe my posts on the dangers of electromagnetic induction , radiated field eddy currents , I hope you both have read of the Indian government website on the subject ( one of may I can post ) that gives an detailed introduction to the subject on a purely technical level and the possible interference with body mass on individuals as well as comments on pacemakers . You Wavechange , being a Professor and malcolm being a Professional Engineer , will understand exactly where I am coming from its a PDF : http://www.keralaenergy.gov.in/emc_reports/induction%20Cooker_a%20brief%20investigation.pdf coloured photo is included . You will notice it is theoretically an AC transformer converted to DC then re-converted to a supersonic level of AC frequency ( above 20Khz ) so there care big losses in energy transference producing the eddy current radiation . I would also like to state I have 100,s -yes 100,s of addresses of the factories where they are advertised as -quote – cheap to buy ( for exporters ) . Guess where- thats right – the Land of Built to a Price , webpage after webpage . Do you honesty think they are all going to be made to a very high standard ?? if so then I despair of the engineering integrity of the people of this country. I know for a fact the quality of products from “there ” is enormous because I trialed out soldering stations ALL looking alike from the outside BUT most dangerous from the inside depending on the price paid. I have plenty of data if anybody challenges me. Human life first – NOT profit.

Duncan thanks for that link.

I may be guilty of quoting it selectively but it does include the text “according to the World Health Authority, there is no compelling evidence of medium frequency magnetic fields having long term effects on health”.

That’s not to say that there aren’t any, but if there are, they must be hard to discern (as the link between smoking and cancer used to be).

One of my motorcycling buddies unfortunately died from cancer several years ago. As a self-employed motor mechanic, he had been an early adopter of GSM mobile phones and it was speculated at the time that the radiation fields from mobiles might cause cancer (and thus might have called his illness and death). I don’t think it has ever been proved that this cannot be the case, but these days we seem to be content that any such risks are either small or non-existent. Hence most folk are content to use mobile phones, without worrying about these risks.

Cooking on a hob is an inherently dangerous activity – no matter how you heat the hob.

Given the specific potential risks to pacemaker users, I think the BHF advice on induction hobs is sound and it also good that Which? recognises the need to qualify their endorsement of these products.

I share Duncan’s concerns that we don’t know about manufacturing standards. When this Conversation was published I looked for peer reviewed scientific articles about the safety of induction hobs and found nothing. Checking again, I still find none.

As Derek points out, it’s very difficult to establish risks associated with new technologies. Despite considerable concern about the safety of mobile phones the biggest danger is probably distraction of users, especially when driving.

One of the weaknesses of standards is that they set minimum requirements and there is no incentive to exceed these. I don’t have an induction hob, but it would make sense to buy one that emitted less RF.

I stand by what I said, Malcolm. The Euro NCAP tests provide safety ratings for cars and a good rating can be used to advertise a safer product. If induction hobs had safety ratings one of the main criteria would be the amount of electromagnetic radiation emitted. Hopefully manufacturers would compete to produce models with better scores.

Of course the testing must be done under standard conditions, not like the fuel economy tests for cars where the manufacturers are allowed to tape up the doors and over-inflate the tyres. 🙁

There is a difference between safety standards, that give standards of safety that the relevant products must at least meet, and that cover many aspects of a products safety for example that must all be met, and a performance standard. Some – maybe many – products are covered by other standards as well as a safety standard. EMC deals with how products both respond to another product and how they affect another product, the objective being they do not inter-react in an unacceptable way. There is nothing to stop a manufacturer of an induction hob comparing the radiation emitted with the maximum allowed, if that is the point, providing measuring conditions are the same. That might allow a savvy customer to make a judgement, Whether a star rating, as NCAP, would help better, maybe. NCAP is underpinned, I believe, by minimum legal standards.

I certainly understand the issue of interaction between products, which greatly complicates matters. Pacemakers can be well screened but the attached leads can pick up RF, so it’s vital to minimise the RF emissions by induction hobs, microwave ovens, etc.

I’m not aware of any manufacturers that compare RF emissions with standards, whereas NCAP ratings are well used by some car manufacturers.

I have attended courses where everyone who attended received a certificate, without any indication of actual performance in tasks. In contrast – when I was teaching – students received marks for every piece of work and each year were provided with an official transcript showing their performance in each module. Graduates can use this information in addition to their degree classification to help get decent jobs. Which? gives ratings to guide subscribers towards choosing better products.

I have trawled a few websites and do not see any reference to induction hobs exceeding current standards for RF emissions. That does not give me much confidence.

Malcolm-What you have is not officially recognised as a “heart monitor ” in the true sense of the public recognition of one that straps to your body . Medically you have an Electrocardiograph (ECG or EKG ) known as an implantable loop recorder , usually for 3 years duration under your skin requiring a small operation . This transmits to a base unit which transmits to the internet , the actual transmissions will not be affected but I take it you are asking if you are inches away from the induction hob will it affect the transmission of the loop recorder? If it was a pacemaker -YES it would affect it and thats not just me speaking its Associate Medical Director at the BHF – GP for 30 years and Director at Addenbrooke,s Hospital Cambridge
An implantable loop recorder is a medical device that is placed beneath the skin in the chest to record data about heart events over a long period of time – up to two years. The recorder monitors your heart’s electrical activity. Your heart has an electrical system that functions like a natural pacemaker. Electrical signals travel through the chambers of the heart to cause it to beat. If the heart’s natural electrical system is not functioning correctly, an abnormal heartbeat (arrhythmia) may result.

The implantable loop recorder continuously monitors the electrical activity of the heart and automatically begins recording information when the heart’s patterns change. Alternately, you may be instructed by your physician to turn on the device’s recording function by using an external “activator,” a hand-held device that you hold over the site on your chest where the recorder has been implanted. Even according to Guy,s Hospital you can get a MRI scan or security scan without it affecting the recorder -the loop recorder works on a different electrical/electronic principal from a heart pacemaker which outputs electrical impulses which an induction oven can interfere with . No pulses are involved in a recorder just a detection of your heartbeat done using a different electronic principle.