8,700 Studies Reviewed. 87.0% Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.
Shield Your Body
Whole Body / General

Interference hazards with Australian non-competitive (Demand) pacemakers

Bioeffects Seen

Hunyor SN, Nicks R, Jones D, Coles D, Heath J · 1971

Share:

Shortwave diathermy equipment interfered with 1970s pacemakers, but household appliances and microwave ovens showed no effect.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

Australian researchers tested how various electrical devices affected three implanted Telectronics P6 pacemakers in 1971. They found that shortwave diathermy therapy equipment caused pacemakers to speed up when applied directly to patients' knees, but common household appliances and microwave ovens had no effect. The study suggested that public fears about pacemaker interference may be overstated.

Why This Matters

This early Australian study offers important perspective on EMF interference with medical devices. While the researchers found that shortwave diathermy equipment could accelerate pacemaker rates when applied directly to the body, everyday appliances posed no threat. What's particularly noteworthy is their conclusion that 'recent medical and lay publicity has possibly led to the overstressing of interference hazards.' This suggests that even in 1971, there was recognition of the gap between actual risk and public perception.

The reality is that medical device interference remains a legitimate concern, but it's typically limited to specific high-power sources in close proximity. Modern pacemakers have improved shielding, yet the fundamental physics haven't changed. You don't have to avoid all EMF sources if you have a pacemaker, but understanding which devices pose real risks versus imagined ones helps you make informed decisions about your daily activities.

Exposure Information

Specific exposure levels were not quantified in this study.

Cite This Study
Hunyor SN, Nicks R, Jones D, Coles D, Heath J (1971). Interference hazards with Australian non-competitive (Demand) pacemakers.
Show BibTeX
@article{interference_hazards_with_australian_non_competitive_demand_pacemakers_g6702,
  author = {Hunyor SN and Nicks R and Jones D and Coles D and Heath J},
  title = {Interference hazards with Australian non-competitive (Demand) pacemakers},
  year = {1971},
  
  
}

Quick Questions About This Study

Yes, this 1971 study found that shortwave diathermy pads applied directly to patients' knees caused Telectronics P6 pacemakers to speed up to 138 beats per minute, though they stayed within safe maximum rates.
No, researchers found that microwave ovens had no effect on the three pacemaker models tested, even at very close range to the pacemaker units or their electrical leads.
None of the domestic electrical appliances tested interfered with pacemaker operation, even when placed very close to the pacemaker units or their leads, according to this Australian research.
The pacemakers increased their rate to 138 beats per minute when shortwave diathermy pads were applied directly to patients' knees, but did not exceed their specified maximum triggered rate.
The Australian researchers concluded that 'recent medical and lay publicity has possibly led to the overstressing of interference hazards,' suggesting public fears exceeded actual documented risks from most devices.