Just an observation. I think it's been rather confusing (it has for me) that people have been talking about different kinds of EMP in this thread and it seems to be generating some frustration for some readers. For me, the word "EMP" means EMP from a high altitude nuclear detonation and that's the paradigm I was reading from. I think most of us are at least vaguely familiar with the characteristics of such a phenomenon from Cold War "common knowledge", such as massive damage to electrical systems but no damage to people. That's why benjammin's comment about EMP being harmful to people was perplexing to me at first.

But then as posters elaborated some more and I did some Googling, it's evident that some are referring to other kinds of EMP, like from High Power Microwave devices that can use batteries or explosives to generate their energy (a "suitcase EMP"). And some people are referring to intense EM fields created in the lab under controlled conditions. For example, a field that lasts long enough to wave a probe two inches from equipment to destroy it is different than the 10 nanosecond EMP of a high altitude detonation 250 miles up and 1,000 miles away. Yes, all of them are intense EM fields, but we're talking about pretty different phenomenon in terms of frequency, intensity, duration, exposure, range, how they're generated, etc.

Anyway, in case there are other people who know just enough physics to be confused like I was, I think much of the confusion is because we're talking apples and oranges in some cases. It's like having a discussion on the dangers of and defense against "biological weapons" and one person is thinking of the characteristics of anthrax spores and the other person is thinking of small pox virus.