"Do you think not grounding during an electric storm is a good way to reduce most my risk of becoming a circuit during a storm?"
Yes, electrical storm or not, it's better to not ground yourself. Grounding one side of your body just creates a path for current to flow through (induced by EM fields present on the other side). i.e. if you wear conductive socks that are Earth grounded (ie. through a wire to a ground rod or ground terminal on an AC outlet), then essentially you have set up your head, arms and torso to act as a big antenna. Circuits must have 2 connections to work, one to a source of current and the other to ground or other different voltage potential (i.e. a current sink). There is no good reason to make your body an antenna, because you will then just induce unnecessary current flows through you which are not likely to be of any significant benefit to any biological system or process, and more likely (depending on local EM field strength) to cause some kind of disturbance to your neurological or other systems. Note that this applies to frequencies with wavelengths that are approximately 1 meter or longer, i.e. f=c/λ = 300 MHz or below. Therefore with RF frequencies above 300MHz (all cell phones, wifi devices, etc. as well as light, X-rays, and cosmic rays) it will make almost no difference if you're grounded because the UHF and higher frequencies are mostly absorbed by and dissipated within the body tissues vs. longer wavelength AC current which travels through your body (if a ground potential is present).
"As for the cup of water and alarm clock: I don't have any liquids next to where I sleep."
Well some day that could change, maybe in a few years you decide to like to be able to keep more hydrated during the night and keep some water nearby or you leave the window open during a rain storm :)
"Risks aside and as for the benefits, I see too many benefits to not ground at all."
Agreed. Re. the 2 links you posted, my comments on those:
1. J Altern Complement Med. 2004 Oct;10(5):767-76. "The biologic effects of grounding..." - "Twelve subjects ... were grounded to earth during sleep for 8 weeks in their own beds using a conductive mattress pad..."
This was done on a such a small sample set that I would question the statistical significance of any results. Also it is not clear if only the mattress pad was conductive or the sheets also. If only the mattress was conductive (and Earth grounded) that might be helpful because you would not be grounding your body, but the large surface area of the mattress could absorb and dissipate some EM fields thus minimizing fields around you. Similar concept as laying on the grass in your yard. You are keeping your body low, close to ground potential, where EM fields are at a minimum, but you are still electrically insulated from the ground by your clothes, shoes, hair, and the grass, thus are not making yourself an antenna. So a grounded conductive mattress could be helpful, if it were in fact well grounded through a short ground wire directly to Earth. However, if for example you have a 10' long wire from the mattress pad to a ground terminal on an AC outlet, and another 50' of wiring between that outlet and the main electric panel on your house (and finally to the ground rod that will typically then be another 5-10' feet from there), so let's say 20 meters of wire, the grounding will only be effective at frequencies that are well below f=c/λ = 3e8/2e1 = 15MHz. That would absorb most LF/VLF energy e.g. 60Hz power line noise and AM radio fields, but would not have any significant effect on HF/VHF frequencies such as FM radio broadcast signals, paging and 2-way radio systems, or UHF and higher cell-phone, wifi, etc. signals. And in all cases, conductive sheets (or socks, etc.) would not be a good idea.
2. J Inflamm Res. 2015; 8: 83–96. "The effects of grounding (earthing) on inflammation..."
Again this study was on a very small sample with many potential variables and I would not consider the results statistically significant. In addition the article/study seems to rely on anecdotal data and uses a lot of terminology and concepts which are definitely more pseudoscience/metaphysics than evidence-based science. e.g. note in this study there is no mention of actual measured EM field strength values in actual physics units i.e. Volts/meter with respect to frequency in Hz. To anyone with an electrical engineering or physics background it is quite clear these authors have essentially zero understanding of either. Also see comment in (1.) above re. conductive sheets. Also the authors of the study disclose that they have a financial interest in a company that makes grounding products, so this could hardly be considered unbiased. This study I would say is a textbook example quack science that is not on par with the work of Peat, Gilbert Ling, etc.
Yes, electrical storm or not, it's better to not ground yourself. Grounding one side of your body just creates a path for current to flow through (induced by EM fields present on the other side). i.e. if you wear conductive socks that are Earth grounded (ie. through a wire to a ground rod or ground terminal on an AC outlet), then essentially you have set up your head, arms and torso to act as a big antenna. Circuits must have 2 connections to work, one to a source of current and the other to ground or other different voltage potential (i.e. a current sink). There is no good reason to make your body an antenna, because you will then just induce unnecessary current flows through you which are not likely to be of any significant benefit to any biological system or process, and more likely (depending on local EM field strength) to cause some kind of disturbance to your neurological or other systems. Note that this applies to frequencies with wavelengths that are approximately 1 meter or longer, i.e. f=c/λ = 300 MHz or below. Therefore with RF frequencies above 300MHz (all cell phones, wifi devices, etc. as well as light, X-rays, and cosmic rays) it will make almost no difference if you're grounded because the UHF and higher frequencies are mostly absorbed by and dissipated within the body tissues vs. longer wavelength AC current which travels through your body (if a ground potential is present).
"As for the cup of water and alarm clock: I don't have any liquids next to where I sleep."
Well some day that could change, maybe in a few years you decide to like to be able to keep more hydrated during the night and keep some water nearby or you leave the window open during a rain storm :)
"Risks aside and as for the benefits, I see too many benefits to not ground at all."
Agreed. Re. the 2 links you posted, my comments on those:
1. J Altern Complement Med. 2004 Oct;10(5):767-76. "The biologic effects of grounding..." - "Twelve subjects ... were grounded to earth during sleep for 8 weeks in their own beds using a conductive mattress pad..."
This was done on a such a small sample set that I would question the statistical significance of any results. Also it is not clear if only the mattress pad was conductive or the sheets also. If only the mattress was conductive (and Earth grounded) that might be helpful because you would not be grounding your body, but the large surface area of the mattress could absorb and dissipate some EM fields thus minimizing fields around you. Similar concept as laying on the grass in your yard. You are keeping your body low, close to ground potential, where EM fields are at a minimum, but you are still electrically insulated from the ground by your clothes, shoes, hair, and the grass, thus are not making yourself an antenna. So a grounded conductive mattress could be helpful, if it were in fact well grounded through a short ground wire directly to Earth. However, if for example you have a 10' long wire from the mattress pad to a ground terminal on an AC outlet, and another 50' of wiring between that outlet and the main electric panel on your house (and finally to the ground rod that will typically then be another 5-10' feet from there), so let's say 20 meters of wire, the grounding will only be effective at frequencies that are well below f=c/λ = 3e8/2e1 = 15MHz. That would absorb most LF/VLF energy e.g. 60Hz power line noise and AM radio fields, but would not have any significant effect on HF/VHF frequencies such as FM radio broadcast signals, paging and 2-way radio systems, or UHF and higher cell-phone, wifi, etc. signals. And in all cases, conductive sheets (or socks, etc.) would not be a good idea.
2. J Inflamm Res. 2015; 8: 83–96. "The effects of grounding (earthing) on inflammation..."
Again this study was on a very small sample with many potential variables and I would not consider the results statistically significant. In addition the article/study seems to rely on anecdotal data and uses a lot of terminology and concepts which are definitely more pseudoscience/metaphysics than evidence-based science. e.g. note in this study there is no mention of actual measured EM field strength values in actual physics units i.e. Volts/meter with respect to frequency in Hz. To anyone with an electrical engineering or physics background it is quite clear these authors have essentially zero understanding of either. Also see comment in (1.) above re. conductive sheets. Also the authors of the study disclose that they have a financial interest in a company that makes grounding products, so this could hardly be considered unbiased. This study I would say is a textbook example quack science that is not on par with the work of Peat, Gilbert Ling, etc.
Last edited:
