| schema:text
| - Last Updated on May 27, 2025 by Dr Priyamvada
Quick Take
A social media post claims electric toothbrushes are a hidden health hazard, comparing them to microwaves. Our fact-check found this claim to be false.
The Claim
An Instagram video asserts that electric toothbrushes generate dangerous magnetic fields of 370 milli-Gauss. It says this is higher than the magnetic field from a microwave. The video also links exposure to these waves with DNA damage, oxidative stress, cell destruction, and an increased risk of cancer. It advises switching to a manual toothbrush, specifically one with boar hair bristles or a miswak stick.
Fact Check
Does an electric toothbrush emit magnetic fields comparable to a microwave?
Not really, and the comparison is misleading. Some studies have shown that electric toothbrushes can generate magnetic fields of around 370 milli-Gauss at very close proximity. While this number may sound high, it’s still far below international safety limits. It’s also not accurate to directly compare this to the field around a microwave oven, because the type, strength, and purpose of the fields are completely different.
Microwave ovens emit high-frequency electromagnetic radiation to heat food. Electric toothbrushes, on the other hand, use low-frequency motors or ultrasonic vibrations, which fall under acoustic energy, not harmful radiation. They don’t belong to the same category as microwaves.
Electric toothbrushes are used very close to the body (inside our mouths), but the magnetic fields they produce are still very low. According to the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the public safety limit is 2,000 milli-Gauss (or 200 micro-Tesla). Electric toothbrushes operate well below this level, so the exposure remains minimal and safe.
Are the electromagnetic fields from electric toothbrushes linked to DNA damage and cancer?
No. The claim that the low-frequency EMFs from household appliances like electric toothbrushes cause DNA damage or cancer is not supported by current scientific evidence. Major health organisations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), have extensively reviewed the research on low-frequency EMFs. The consensus is that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the low levels of EMFs from household appliances are harmful to human health. The type of radiation emitted by these devices is non-ionizing, meaning it doesn’t have enough energy to break chemical bonds or remove electrons from atoms, which is the mechanism that can lead to DNA damage.
Dr Pooja Khullar, a radiation oncologist at Dharamshila Narayana Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, explains, “I often get questions about everyday devices like electric toothbrushes and whether their electromagnetic fields could harm our health. The truth is, the kind of electromagnetic fields these devices emit are very low in strength and fall under what we call non-ionising radiation. That means they don’t carry enough energy to damage DNA or cause cancer. In fact, the electromagnetic fields from mobile phones are higher in intensity compared to those from electric toothbrushes, and even those haven’t been proven to cause cancer with normal use. So, using an electric toothbrush is completely safe. What really matters for your health is brushing properly and regularly.”
This isn’t the only claim that raises concern about everyday tech. Similar fears have surfaced around AirPods or earbuds, with some suggesting they’re like wearing microwaves on your head. Others believe earbuds and mobile phones can cause brain cancer, or that air fryers have led to high antimony levels in a child’s blood. These claims are false.
Is using a boar hair bristle toothbrush or a miswak stick a better alternative to an electric toothbrush?
Maybe, but with care. Boar hair bristle toothbrushes and miswak sticks can serve as alternatives to electric toothbrushes, but each has limitations. Boar bristles are natural and biodegradable, but they are more porous than nylon, which means they can trap bacteria if not dried properly. They may also be stiffer, increasing the risk of gum irritation or enamel wear.
Miswak, a natural twig from the Salvadora persica tree, has antibacterial properties and has been used for centuries for oral care. However, using it the wrong way or too aggressively can harm the gums or wear down tooth surfaces.
So, while both options have benefits, people should use them correctly and hygienically to avoid oral health issues.
Dr Pooja Sharma, Orthodontist, from NIMS University, Jaipur, says, “I understand the appeal of natural options like boar bristle toothbrushes or miswak sticks. They can clean teeth to some extent, but they don’t match the consistency or efficiency of electric toothbrushes, especially when it comes to removing plaque. Boar bristles are harder to keep clean and may damage the gums if too stiff, while miswak requires proper technique to avoid harming soft tissues or enamel. If someone prefers these, they must use them with care and still follow good oral hygiene habits, including brushing twice a day, using fluoride toothpaste, and visiting the dentist regularly.”
THIP Media Take
The claim that electric toothbrushes pose a significant health risk due to their electromagnetic field emissions is false. The video compares them to microwaves unnecessarily, likely to gain traction through fear mongering. The EMF levels from electric toothbrushes fall within safety limits and have no scientific link to the serious health issues mentioned in the video. While manual toothbrushes with boar bristles and miswak sticks are viable oral hygiene tools, they come with their own considerations. For most people, choosing between an electric and a manual toothbrush should depend on personal preference, cost, and dental health needs—not unfounded fears about radiation.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)