CQ Researcher Online - Enti..

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

Electromagnetic Fields: Are They Dangerous?
Introduction

April 26, 1991 • Volume 1

Are electromagnetic fields given off by electricity dangerous? For the past decade, a debate over that question has raged among scientists and activists. Now a scientific consensus is developing—not that EMFs are dangerous, but that they may be and that they must be investigated further. Over the next few years, therefore, scientists will try to decide the issue conclusively. In the meantime, experts advise only “prudent avoidance” of EMFs. Although they say further action is not warranted, in many places fierce political and legal battles are being waged by a frightened public.

Overview
When epidemiologist Nancy Wertheimer, working with physicist Ed Leeper, published her findings in 1979, nobody believed her. That Wertheimer had just returned to her scientific career after a break to raise children and was working on her own time and money didn't lend her much credibility, either. It was her hypothesis that seemed so bizarre. What she found was that Denver children living near certain power lines were more likely to develop cancer than children living in houses without such exposure—twice as likely, in fact, to develop leukemia, the most common childhood cancer. affect the risk of cancer. Thus, she reasoned, the magnetic field emanating from outdoor power lines could

At the time, that hypothesis drew only a few skeptical shakes of the head. “It was like a tree falling in the forest,” recalls Leonard A. Sagan, who directs radiation studies at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a research organization funded by electric utilities in Palo Alto, Calif. “The possibility that [human] cells could detect these signals seemed, and still seems to many physicists, to be implausible.” There was a scientifically sound basis for the skepticism. The electric and magnetic fields that emanate from anything electric—whether overhead wires or indoor appliances—are extraordinarily weak sources of energy. Unlike ionizing radiation, which conies from nuclear energy, these fields don't break molecular bonds and don't cause mutations. And compared with other forms of non-ionizing radiation, such as microwaves from powerful military radar, energy from electric-power-generated electromagnetic fields, or EMFs, is among the weakest. Physicists have long believed that such weak EMFs could not possibly cause biological damage because unlike, say, microwaves, they do not produce significant heat. Further, the strength of the fields produced by man-made electric gadgets pales next to the natural fields emitted by the Earth and by the human body. The magnetic field generated by a power line is normally only about 1 percent of the Earth's magnetic field. Even the electric field generated by a high-voltage power line will induce a corresponding field inside the body no bigger than the electric fields naturally generated by some cells. Wertheimer's low-budget investigation had methodological flaws as well, in the view of most scientists. Wertheimer had begun her study by gathering the addresses of 344 Denver children who had died of cancer between 1950 and 1973 and comparing them with an approximately equal number of children born around the same time who did not get cancer. Having personally obtained the addresses from the Cancer Registry, a local data bank, Wertheimer already knew which houses were the sites of cancer deaths when she went to examine their relationship to outdoor electric wires. In epidemiologic parlance, she had thus failed to conduct a “blind” study, opening the possibility that her observations of wiring were subject to unconscious bias favoring her theory of

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 1 of 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

cancer association. Another major weakness was the lack of actual measurements of the EMF levels. As a proxy for measuring the fields, Wertheimer recorded the distance of the homes from the outdoor electric wires, the thickness of electric wires and the presence of other nearby power sources that might contribute to the amount of current. This method, which came to be known as the Wertheimer-Leeper “wiring code,” was criticized as a possibly inaccurate way of measuring the children's exposure. Although scientists paid little attention to Wertheimer's findings when they were published in 1979, citizens fighting various large-scale electric power projects earlier in the 1970s had cited previous scientific findings of EMFs' biological effects on animals. One of the most drawn-out of these battles, concerning several large transmission lines proposed by the Power Authority of New York, raised enough troubling questions that in 1978 New York's Public Service Commission called for a five-year research program on the biological effects of power-line radiation. During the 1980s, as the data from that study and others began to come in, the scientific debate over the biological power of electromagnetic fields began in earnest. Numerous studies were designed either to disprove or to uphold the Wertheimer thesis, leading to conflicting findings on almost any EMF question that has been investigated. Often the debate has been clouded by the vested interests of warring camps, fighting over such issues as the siting of high-voltage power lines or of military radio antennae. Typically, in debates before public utility commissions, consumers have presented scientists who warn of potential health risks while electric utilities have paraded scientific skeptics to counter them. There is a non-scientific element that has colored the debate as well, notes Karen Larsen, a senior analyst at the congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). “Lines are drawn,” she says, “and there's a lot more personal animosity than I've seen on a lot of other topics…. These [scientists] are carrying 10–15 years of vicious personal attacks on each other.” The most friction has been between scientists like Wertheimer, who have linked EMF to health risks, and researchers funded by EPRI. EPRI now conducts the world's largest program of research on the health effects of electric and magnetic fields, and EPRI-funded attacks on Wertheimer's methodology in the early 1980s have been portrayed as an electric utility industry campaign “to discredit Wertheimer” in New Yorker journalist Paul Brodeur's controversial book, Currents of Death. But such clear battle lines may soon be considered an anachronism. In a historically symbolic turn-around, preliminary findings released in February of a long-awaited EPRI-funded study supported the association between the Wertheimer-Leeper wiring code and the risk of childhood cancer. The study, authored by John M. Peters of the University of Southern California School of Medicine in Los Angeles, found that children who lived near clusterings of high-current wires were two and a half times as likely to have leukemia as other children. Although the study leaves unanswered many of the same questions about cause and effect raised by Wertheimer's study, its large size (464 children) and well-regarded design spared it from the criticisms traditionally leveled by EPRI researchers against the Wertheimer study. The EPRI-funded study is the third major report in the United States to support an association of childhood cancer with electric wiring patterns. The scientific respect and interest focused on this new study are a dramatic illustration of how far the subject of EMF has shifted in scientific circles. What had been only the alarms expressed in occasional reports of a scientific fringe have developed into a mainstream consensus that there is indeed something strange about electric power sources that should be investigated. Experts caution that the epidemiologic rule of thumb still applies: Statistical association does not equal causation. Yet as growing numbers of population studies in a variety of countries find

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 2 of 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

similar kinds of health effects, and as laboratory experiments start to suggest possible biological mechanisms, scientists are becoming intrigued by a variety of explanations for a phenomenon considered inexplicable. OTA's Larsen sums up the current situation this way: “There's been a shift in the consensus taking place as to whether or not it's likely or possible that electromagnetic fields do have interaction with living things. Now the question is: Is it harmful and how do we measure it? How serious is the risk? How serious is it compared to other risks?” On those questions there are still wide differences of opinion.

States introduce regulations in response to public concern
Although there is no scientific consensus on the answers to those questions, some states have already moved to regulate EMF exposure. Currently, seven states (Montana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon and Florida) limit the strength of the electric field at the edge of transmission line rights-of-way. Two of those states, New York and Florida, also limit the intensity of magnetic fields near transmission lines, reflecting the growing belief among researchers that magnetic fields are of greater concern than electric fields. Most observers view these state regulations as a response to the public's fears rather than to scientific evidence. One indication of that is the fact that New York's and Florida's magnetic field limits are about 100 times higher than the magnetic field levels that appear to be hazardous from childhood cancer studies. “The standard is so high, it clearly is not being set on the basis of any health effect,” says David O. Carpenter, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York at Albany. He says New York designed its limits to match levels that already exist near transmission lines; the purpose was to keep utilities from going any higher. Carpenter headed the landmark $5 million, five-year New York State Powerlines Project, one of the largest research efforts ever undertaken to determine the connection between EMFs and health. The program funded 16 separate studies between 1982 and 1987. It was spawned by the bitter, lengthy public battle over the proposed construction of several 765-kilovolt power lines, but ironically, says Carpenter, the project found “that the problem is not high-voltage lines. The problem is [neighborhood] distribution lines, appliances and household wiring, because that's where people are and that's where they're exposed.” The report concluded that magnetic fields, which penetrate through common objects as thick as concrete walls without losing their strength, were of the greatest health concern. Little or no connection was found between health risks and electric fields, which can be shielded by materials like wood, aluminum or the covering around wires. Few people, Carpenter notes, live close enough to transmission lines to be affected by magnetic fields, but not so with regard to neighborhood distribution lines. Exposure to magnetic fields from electric appliances at home and at work are probably of equal health importance, Carpenter adds. “Most electric blankets on sale in this country generate magnetic fields, for someone sleeping under them, about 10 times larger than fields shown to cause an increase in childhood cancer,” he says. Carpenter believes warnings should be placed on electric blankets. That has not been done. But partly at the urging of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the three American manufacturers of electric blankets—Northern Electric Co. in Chicago, Casco-Belton Corp. in Grover, N.C., and Fieldcrest Cannon in Greensboro, N.C.—are redesigning their products to reduce the magnetic field to “virtually zero,” according to F. Alan Anderson, director of FDA's Office of Science and Technology. The first two companies already have such products on the market, and the third has promised to do so this year. The impetus for FDA action, according to Anderson, comes from the growing pattern of “well-done studies which suggest an association” between exposure and health effects. “We don't know if it's going to be demonstrated that there's a causal relationship. The jury's still out on that. But prudence would suggest if it's possible that you go ahead and take steps to reduce emissions.”

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 3 of 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

FDA is also developing a voluntary EMF emissions standards for video-display terminals (VDTs) along the lines of a voluntary standard introduced by Sweden this year, according to Anderson. Although the Swedish standard is voluntary, the strength of European labor unions is expected to make it a de facto standard in other European countries as well. Several major manufacturers of VDTs—including International Business Machines Co. and Sigma Designs Inc.—have announced they will offer low-emissions monitors on the U.S. market that would meet the Swedish standard. According to Tom Quinlan of Info World, a Menlo Park, Calif., weekly that covers microcomputers for business users, low-emission monitors will not cost much more than current ones. Computer industry spokesmen say they're not convinced that there are EMF health risks associated with VDTs but that the Swedish standard is “technically achievable” and reasonable in cost. “The industry does not perceive it as a health issue,” says Maryann Karinch, communications director for the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, a Washington, D.C., trade association of large manufacturers. “But as long as the market does, that's the important thing.”

Complex and confusing scientific evidence
A major reason that scientists have been unable to determine unequivocally whether EMFs are dangerous is that the scientific evidence is so complex and confusing. If EMFs cause health problems, they do so in very strange ways. This year's EPRI-funded study, for instance, found an association between leukemia and wiring near the homes of Los Angeles children. Curiously, however, the study found little relationship between the magnetic field strength inside a child's home—as measured by a specially developed dosimeter known as an EMDEX—and the child's likelihood of developing leukemia, except at the very highest levels. This lack of systematic association between dose and risk also characterized an earlier study of Denver children conducted by David A. Savitz, an epidemiologist now at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Savitz's study, an analysis of 356 childhood cancer cases between 1976 and 1983, was an attempt to see if the famous Wertheimer results could be replicated. He concluded that children with high exposure to power line EMFs, as measured by the Wertheimer-Leeper wiring code, were about one and a half times as likely to develop cancer as children with very low exposure. That conclusion, coming from a study seen as methodologically stronger than the Wertheimer study, surprised many scientists and changed some from skeptics into believers. Yet Savitz's indoor spot measurements of magnetic field strength did not show a clear relationship with cancer rates. Savitz theorized that this might be because his one-time measurement did not capture a child's long-term exposure to magnetic fields, which would vary over the course of a day depending on what appliances were being used in the house, how close the child was to the appliances, and so on. The EPRI-funded study by John Peters was expected to clarify this question because it kept 24-hour to 72-hour records of actual EMF exposures in the children's sleeping areas. Yet even those measurements failed to show a statistically significant relationship with cancer risk, according to preliminary findings released by EPRI. Some scientists, especially those who are convinced there is a health risk, theorize that a child's long-term exposure over many years may be better captured by the wiring code outside than by the indoor recorded exposure over a day or two. An alternative theory is that sudden increases in EMF exposure—by turning certain appliances on and off, for example, or walking under a power line on the way to school—may be more important than the chronic exposure at a child's bedside. Another possible explanation, posed by EPRI's Leonard Sagan, is that the wiring code correlation now found by three childhood studies has nothing to do with magnetic fields. It may be that families who live closest to power lines share some other characteristic that makes them more prone to cancer, such as low socioeconomic status or

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 4 of 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

cigarette smoking. The wires themselves might leach toxic materials or play some other role in promoting cancer. Or the wiring clusters could simply be a false lead in the search for cancer causation. Savitz's Denver study, for example, found childhood cancer associations with the neighborhood's traffic density, not just with wiring codes. Similarly, in the EPRI-funded study, Peters reports associations of childhood leukemia risk with a variety of other factors, including indoor pesticide use, the father's exposure to spray paints and children's exposure to hair dryers and black and white televisions. Children's use of hair dryers and TVs are a possible link to the theory that intermittent high-level spikes in electricity use are more important than chronic average exposure. Many experts contend that despite these remaining questions, the case in favor of EMF health risks has become stronger since the Peters study. “Once again, you have something you have to put on the side of saying, ‘This found an association like the Wertheimer and Savitz studies did,’ “says OTA's Karen Larsen. Others share Sagan's view that “The mystery is building rather than clarifying.”

Mixed scientific results get mixed scientific reviews
To some scientists, none of the childhood cancer studies is persuasive evidence that EMFs are dangerous. One such skeptic, Yale School of Medicine epidemiologist Michael B. Bracken, notes that virtually all the published cancer studies of adults and children have been “retrospective,” relying on interviews with subjects about past electric power use and exposure, sometimes as long as 20 years after the fact. Such studies are inherently subject to the vagaries of faulty memory and “recall bias” on the part of investigators or interviewees, who may employ the benefits of hindsight to put stress on certain past events and not others. “These studies have a problem which they can't do much about,” says Bracken. “I think the [studies] in the literature are not at all convincing. My own feeling right now is the evidence does not lead to a conclusion that magnetic fields affect health status.” Methodological criticisms like Bracken's may be answered in the next few years by a six-state, four-year “prospective” study of childhood leukemia by the National Cancer Institute initiated in September 1989. The study will compare the EMF exposure of 1,000 children with leukemia to 1,000 other children through a combination of interviews with parents, dosimeters worn by selected children, and spot and 24-hour measurements of EMFs in most of the places children spend their time, including schools and day-care centers. Results of the study are expected in early 1995. But that study may not be the final word. “Human epidemiologic studies of EMFs and cancer have been inconsistent and inconclusive,” the institute has noted. The cancer associations found in the Denver studies and in a Swedish study were not confirmed in similar studies from Rhode Island, Washington state and England. Further clouding the cancer question are the generally negative results from studies of adults living near power lines. In a review of the literature last year, Science magazine noted that several studies conducted since a 1982 Wertheimer-Leeper study claiming in creased cancer rates among Colorado adults with high EMF exposure found “little or nothing.” One possible explanation, Science noted, is that it may be more difficult to separate out EMFs from the multitude of potential cancer risks faced by adults than it is for children during their much shorter life span. Nevertheless, the lack of evidence from these residential adult studies feeds some scientists' overall skepticism of health hazards. Mixed results also dog studies looking into effects of EMFs on pregnancies. Two studies by Nancy Wertheimer in the mid-1980s showed a seasonal pattern of miscarriages in families that used electric blankets or electrically heated water beds, or had electric heating cables installed in their bedroom ceilings, a practice common in some places during the 1960s and '70s. A study by Savitz published in the May 1990 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology indicated that children borne by women who used electric blankets when they were pregnant had

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 5 of 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

two and a half times the expected incidence of brain tumors and a 70 percent greater likelihood of developing leukemia. Bracken, the skeptic, notes that Savitz asked women about their electric blanket use some 10 years earlier. “I think the potential for biased recall of use is very obvious in that kind of study,” he says. For his part, Bracken is currently conducting an EPRI-funded prospective study of electric blankets' effects on fetal development among more than 2,000 pregnant New Haven, Conn., women, whose EMF exposure will be monitored throughout pregnancy, starting with their first prenatal visit. For many members of the public, concerns about the effect of EMF emissions on pregnancy may have been laid to rest prematurely when the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) released a good-news study of computer monitors last month. The study of 730 telephone operators found that those who used VDTs had no greater risk of suffering miscarriages than operators using an older type of work station equipped with neon tubes. But some experts noted that the study was of limited significance for the larger question of whether EMFs generally are harmful because it only measured frequencies special to VDTs—called Very Low Frequency EMFs—and not the Extremely Low Frequencies that are emitted by all electric equipment. Extremely Low Frequencies have been the focus of most EMF epidemiologic studies to date. Another analysis of the NIOSH study data found that VDTs do not add significantly to ambient EMF levels in offices, probably because the electric wiring systems in a building are a greater influence on the overall environment.

Occupational studies raise serious concerns
Compared with the equivocal picture for pregnancies and residential adult exposure, occupational studies of workers in electrically associated occupations have consistently raised red flags for increased cancer risk. Numerous studies have found increased rates of various forms of brain tumors, leukemia and, most startlingly, male breast cancer, an extremely rare form of the disease. One recent study, for example, found that Los Angeles men who had worked for 10 years or more in a variety of electrical occupations had a 10 times greater chance of getting brain cancer than men in a control group. The reports of male breast cancer are particularly intriguing because they present one of the few diseases that could be explained by EMF-produced biological changes observed in laboratory experiments. One widely discussed study, conducted by epidemiologist Genevieve M. Matanoski of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, found that New York telephone company workers with line-related jobs suffered cancer at almost twice the rate of other telephone company employees. She discovered two cases of male breast cancer in a group of 9,500 central office technicians, where zero cases of this disease would normally be expected. A nationwide study of Norwegian adult males published last December found that workers in electrical occupations suffered from breast cancer at twice the rate that would be expected for the general population. The two men in Matanoski's study with breast cancer worked in an office in which telephone switching equipment is frequently turned on and off, creating spikes of EMF exposure. In a letter to the British medical journal Lancet last month, Matanoski suggested that these cases might be explained by laboratory experiments with rats showing that EMF exposure can reduce melatonin, a hormone linked to suppression of breast cancer. This explanation would fit in nicely with a theory put forward by Richard G. Stevens, a cancer epidemiologist at Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories in Richland, Wash. He has suggested that the very high breast cancer rate among women in industrialized countries, as compared with women in underdeveloped countries, might be explained by their chronic exposure to EMFs from living around electrical equipment.

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 6 of 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

Stevens calls the recent studies finding breast cancer among male workers “tantalizing. It adds support to the idea that we ought to do more big studies of female breast cancer and electric power.” To date, female breast cancer has not been a target of EMF epidemiologic research. Because of its simplicity, the melatonin theory is probably the most attractive of various explanations that have been put forward to explain how EMFs could affect humans. But it does not explain the entire range of cancers found so far, Stevens concedes. For example, the melatonin theory does not explain the non-hormonal kinds of cancers found at elevated levels among electrical workers, such as leukemia, an association found in more than 20 occupation studies. Other aspects of electrical work that have nothing to do with EMF could also account for the elevated breast cancer among electrical workers, Stevens points out. For example, the presence of light has been shown in rat experiments to reduce melatonin, and that syndrome might be taking place among the electrical workers if they work in artificial light during normal sleeping hours. It is also possible that chemicals present in electrical work environments are responsible for the increased cancers.

‘Windows’ theory: EMFs' unusual pattern
Further complicating attempts to establish a cause-effect relationship between EMFs and health problems is the fact that if EMFs do cause problems, they do not follow the usual pattern of known carcinogens. Typically, in studies of cancer-causing substances, researchers expect to find that as the dose of a substance increases, the risk will increase proportionally in a “dose-response relationship.” Most epidemiologic studies have failed to find such a relationship in connection with EMF. One reason may be that it simply doesn't work that way. For example, in laboratory experiments on the brains of baby chicks, one researcher found that he could produce an important biological effect—the leaching of calcium—only at specific “windows” of frequencies and intensities of electromagnetic fields. The researcher, biologist Carl F. Blackman of the Environmental Protection Agency's Health Effects Research Laboratory at Research Triangle Park, N.C., reports that as he increases or lowers the strength of the EMF fields, he loses the effect—until he gets to the next “window.” Blackman has published work showing six such “windows.” He is one of the few researchers who has observed biological effects at the low electric and magnetic field strengths typical of the background level inside a house. Because calcium is considered an important biological “messenger” for activity in the cell, Blackman suggests that the magnetic field is causing some important change either inside or on the surface of the cell. But he cautions: “We don't know if these changes are hazards. We don't know what the physiological significance is. It reflects a response we had no reason to predict and that we do not understand.” Epidemiologists, however, are intrigued by the windows research as a possible explanation for the links between cancer and short spurts of high-level EMF exposure from appliances like hair dryers, as suggested by John Peters' study of Los Angeles children. Blackman's research also may help explain another mysterious aspect of EMF studies—the frequent inability of scientists to replicate the biological effects produced by their colleagues at other laboratories. Blackman and other scientists call it the “now-you-see-it-now-you-don't Cheshire Cat” phenomenon, and Blackman says the Earth's magnetic field can affect which frequencies produce change. For example, when Blackman artificially reduces the Earth's magnetic field by half in his laboratory, he no longer sees the biological results that had consistently come about at the 15 hertz frequency. If the Earth's magnetic field is as important as Blackman thinks it is, it could explain why epidemiologic studies in

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 7 of 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

different locations sometimes come up with conflicting results. The lesson for public health, however, would be extremely complicated. It would mean that humans experience different effects from EMF depending on where they live, because geomagnetic fields vary by location. And because the strength of the Earth's magnetic field can also be affected by geological anomalies in a neighborhood and by construction materials, a person's biological reaction to EMFs could depend on the kind of building he lived in or even where in the building he spent the most time, Blackman says. Laboratory studies have also found other effects of EMFs, including changes in neurotransmitters, the chemicals that send signals between nerves; changes in the rate at which the genetic material DNA is made and in the rate of errors when RNA is copied from it; and changes in the rate of growth and cell division of some cells. Some studies in which people have been exposed to magnetic fields that are turned on an off repeatedly report more pronounced effects, such as changes in heart rate and reaction time, than when people are exposed to the same continuous level of EMFs. All of these experiments show that EMFs from everyday power sources, once considered too weak to affect humans, do have a biological impact. This should not be surprising. It has long been thought that other animals can sense magnetic fields, that this is one of the ways homing pigeons, for example, find their way home. But for humans whether the effects of EMFs translate into health dangers is far from clear. And no one has yet come up with a comprehensive theory that would explain exactly what biological mechanism, as seen in the laboratory, could cause the varied health effects found in epidemiologic studies.

Despite some consensus, major divisions still exist
Although researching potential health risks of EMFs has become a respectable activity in the 1990s, wide divisions remain. A major concern often expressed is the objectivity of EPRI, the major funder of EMF research. EPRI's $7.5 million annual research budget is more than twice the size of the largest federal program, a $3 million effort by the Department of Energy (DOE). (The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) research program in the area was eliminated during the Reagan administration.) And EPRI's effort dwarfs that of any of the 17 countries researching the issue. The largest overseas program is run by Sweden at about $1.9 million per year. “The problem of the moment is 90 percent of the research is done by two groups: EPRI and DOE. They have too much to lose,” says Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, a New York City-based newsletter that pioneered reporting on the health risks of EMF. “We've learned over and over, whether it's asbestos or chemicals, you don't have the person who has the most to lose doing the work.” EPRI's Leonard Sagan retorts that unlike asbestos or toxic chemicals, “people are not going to stop using electricity…. The problem is not that we're doing too much. The problem is others are doing too little.” On that score, even EPRI critic David Carpenter agrees: “The federal government has not been a player here. That's just ludicrous.” Citing a similar concern that industry-funded studies “will never have full credibility with the public,” Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., introduced legislation (HR 1483) in March to establish a coordinated federal EMF research program involving the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The proposal, which also includes a public information program, would reach a $10 million annual funding level by 1995. Pallone introduced the bill after constituents from Middletown Township, N.J., fought the construction of a new power line by New Jersey Central Power and Light. (Last fall, the utility announced that it would not build the power line, but it cited economic, not health reasons.) Although no action was taken on a similar Pallone bill last session, the legislation has the support of the new House Science Committee chairman, George E. Brown Jr., D-Calif. Pallone's bill is scheduled to be considered, along with other research approaches, at a June 25 hearing of the House Science Subcommittee on the Environment.

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 8 of 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

Even within the federal government, views on EMF have been strikingly divided. An EPA report released last December, calling EMFs emitted from power lines and home sources a “possible” human carcinogen, became a political football when White House science adviser D. Allan Bromley objected to EPA's conclusions. EPA's report cited the accumulated childhood studies and adult occupational studies as showing “a consistent pattern of response which suggests a causal link” to cancer. Bromley disagreed. He insisted that the agency attach a “Note to Reviewers” warning that there had been “disagreement among the reviewers from various agencies about the weight of evidence and the conclusions presented in the executive summary.” In boldface type, the note cautioned, “There are insufficient data to determine whether or not a cause and effect relationship exists” between EMF and cancer. Bromley also insisted that the report be evaluated by another scientific panel, in addition to EPA's own group of outside advisers. In an interview with Time magazine, he made it clear he found EPA's finding of a positive association between EMF and childhood cancer “quite incorrect.” Air Force scientists also weighed in with a blistering attack on the report, charging that the EPA authors presented “no evidence of causation between electromagnetic fields and cancer, but rather argue as if this hypothesis were accepted fact.” Many scientists viewed the Air Force's position as the legacy of the longstanding military contention that EMF radiation is incapable of producing health effects because it does not induce heating. In his book Currents of Death, reporter Paul Brodeur has portrayed the military's scientific position as the self-interested corollary of its campaigns to overcome public opposition to constructing military radio antennae and radar facilities in populated areas. The Brodeur book drew strong criticism from researchers like David Savitz, who condemned as oversimplified Brodeur's division of scientists “into heroes working on behalf of the people and villains working for the militaryindustrial complex.” At the same time, the issue of financial incentives for scientists hired as consultants to the military and to electric utilities to support their skepticism in the courts “deserves to be more carefully examined than it has been in the past,” Savitz said. “Prominent scientists may indeed hold views supportive of their position, but the payment of tens of thousands of dollars to express those views may be corrupting.” In contrast, scientific observers viewed last year's disagreement between the EPA and White House science adviser Bromley as a classic conflict between physicists like Bromley, who tend to be skeptical of EMF health effects, and biologists, who have led the recent research in this area. Anticipating White House criticism, for example, EPA last February added Harvard physicist Richard Wilson, widely viewed as a skeptic, to its advisory panel on the EMF report; until then, there had been no physicists on the panel. An EPA staffer explained at the time that physicists, unable to reconcile EMF-cancer correlations with traditional physical theories, “have trouble accepting what's going on in the field.” Nevertheless, even though the skepticism continues, as do the divisions among scientists, today's scientific atmosphere on the subject of EMFs is a long way from the utter disbelief that greeted Nancy Wertheimer's first reports of childhood cancer in 1979.

Protecting public health through ‘prudent avoidance’
Federal officials charged with regulating public health hazards have shied away from siding with either extreme in the debate, but the mounting scientific evidence means the issue can no longer be ignored, they say. “I have never seen an epidemiologically more compelling case [of a link to cancer] in the last 10 years,” says Martin P. Halper, director of the Analysis and Support Division of EPA's Office of Radiation Programs. What makes it compelling, at least to Halper, is that “the results are very consistent. All the studies done by different people on different populations in different parts of the world are all correlating to the same group of cancers.”

Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 9 of 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

Nevertheless, Halper says, “We cannot say at this point that we're dealing with a significant public health risk. Even if we said there's a real problem, no one knows what to do with it.” From existing studies, he points out, it's not clear what level of exposure is a risk, nor is it clear what proportion of the population is at risk. Huge gaps in current understanding of EMF must be closed before EPA could begin to regulate electromagnetic fields as a carcinogen, he says. FDA's Alan Anderson takes a similar approach on the issue of whether electric blankets should carry warnings. “Given the current status of knowledge, it's not clear what you warn people. There's no sense of a cause and effect relationship that's been established or what level it would occur at if it existed.” Most experts agree that there will not be a clear idea of what levels of EMF exposure constitute a health hazard—if any—until there have been extensive animal studies. Several such studies are currently under way around the world. Researchers believe that if EMF is linked to cancer, it probably plays a role in promoting carcinogenesis in the later stages, affecting the growth or spread of cancer cells rather than initiating the disease. Animal experiments designed to observe this process are expected to take years before they produce results. But the public may not be willing to wait for long-term animal studies to come to a conclusion, particularly at the current pace of government research efforts, warns Louis Slesin of Microwave News. If federal research agencies “don't start doing the work that will pinpoint where the problem really lies, you're going to have the public decide. And the public has this nasty habit of overreacting,” he says. Citizen-led siting battles over the construction of new power lines are now taking place in practically every state, Slesin reports. Major transmission line projects in New York, Montana, Florida and several other states have encountered considerable opposition. And some of these battles have ended up in the courts. Few cases have been decided, but two of them stand out: ▪ In Houston Power and Lighting v. Klein, the Houston utility initially was ordered to pay the Klein Independent School District $25 million in damages for building a 345 kilovolt transmission line close to a school. The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the damage award, but affirmed the lower court's finding that there are potential health effects from exposure to power-line fields. Because the utility was prevented from using the power line during the appeals process, it rerouted it at a cost of $8.6 million in 1987. ▪ The other case that gained wide notice in the industry was a personal injury lawsuit brought by Robert Strom, a former Boeing Co. employee, who alleged that he had contracted terminal leukemia after being exposed to dangerous EMF levels in his job as an electrician. In a settlement reached last year with Strom, who brought a class action suit on behalf of some 750 Boeing workers, the Seattle company paid him $500,000 in damages and agreed to fund free independent medical exams for all class members for up to 10 years. “We expect that this case and the increasing scientific evidence being developed about the health effects of non-ionizing radiation will prompt the filing of additional lawsuits, both property damage and personal injury lawsuits,” says Arthur H. Bryant, executive director of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice in Washington, D.C., a national public interest law firm that represented Strom. Growing numbers of expensive lawsuits and battles over the siting of power lines could translate into huge costs for the electric power industry. Researchers for the utilities express concern that the technical solutions resulting from court cases and government action may not be scientifically justified. “I'm terribly worried that people are going to panic and we'll be made to do costly things,” says EPRI's Leonard Sagan. “Dollars will be squandered.” For many utility managers, however, regulatory limits of some kind on EMF would be a welcome ceiling on the current uncertainty that now threatens the future of power line construction, according to a recent survey by The

10 ofCreate PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

Wall Street Journal. Many utilities are putting together technical teams to make free EMF measurements in homes and offices for customers who request them, the Journal reported. In the absence of good scientific evidence, what steps should be taken to protect public health? M. Granger Morgan, head of the Engineering and Public Policy Department at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, argues that even if the risk of childhood cancer proves true, that does not mean that the nation should necessarily spend great amounts of money to do something about it. The risk to health would still be very low—still only one in many thousands. However, other experts, such as David Carpenter, believe that the risks could turn out to be significantly higher with more study, and even if they don't, the current level is significant because it involves children, who have their entire lives ahead of them. Nevertheless, Carpenter agrees with Morgan that it's too early to start setting health-based standards. And Morgan believes there are steps that can be taken short of setting standards—what he calls “prudent avoidance,” or taking low-cost, relatively painless steps to reduce one's EMF exposure. He advises replacing an electric blanket with a comforter and moving electric clocks away from the bedside, because both devices produce strong magnetic fields for extended periods at night. And he says that someone buying a new home might want to consider the location of distribution and transmission lines. But selling one's home solely to move away from power lines would for the most part “go beyond prudence,” in his view. Carpenter offers some other advice along those lines. Position beds against walls that don't carry wiring, he says, because the strength of the magnetic field falls off sharply as a person moves away from an electricity source. He also recommends arranging offices so that workers are not seated near the rear of a neighbor's VDT terminal, because the back of a terminal emits a much stronger magnetic field than the screen side. These kinds of steps are easy. But if electric current turns out to be as dangerous as some people think, the cost could be enormous. Many houses, for example, have their power grounded through underground water and sewer pipes, which can produce strong magnetic fields. EPRI has been experimenting with alternative grounding techniques that could reduce magnetic fields in houses considerably. “I'm relatively optimistic that utilities are going to be able to find ways to bring power to new homes with much reduced fields,” says Carpenter of the EPRI efforts. “The problem, of course, is what do you do with all the existing homes?” Morgan says it is not too early to start studying how the nation would re-engineer electric energy systems, appliances and house wiring. “If and when we get clear evidence from animal studies, then … regulatory and public pressures aren't going to let folks sit around for a few years trying to figure out what to do. If we haven't done our homework at that point, a lot of dumb and silly things could happen.” Unfortunately, such planning is difficult, if only because the scientific research seems to offer contradictory advice. If it's sudden spikes in exposure that are most hazardous, then chronic exposure to a bedside clock may be less important than turning on a hair dryer or walking under a power line, notes Sagan. And if only certain intensities or frequencies have an effect, the overall amount of exposure may be irrelevant. In the long run, if a link between EMFs and health is firmly established, there will be many cost-benefit decisions that will have to be made. It's not as if electricity is an optional characteristic of the modern world. “We all want it. We all need it. We're going to keep it whether we've got a problem or not,” says Morgan. “What we'll do is redesign it. If we do have a problem, there have to be collective ways of solving it short of suing everybody in sight.”

Pro/Con

11 ofCreate PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

Is “prudent avoidance” of electromagnetic fields a good strategy for people to follow?

Indira Nair, M. Granger Morgan, H. Keith Florig

The Electromagnetic Energy Policy Alliance (EEPA)

Co-authors of a 1989 report for the congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).. From Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, May 1989. Why not just use the standard techniques of probabilistic risk assessment and risk analysis to decide how serious the possible risks of human exposure to [electromagnetic] fields [from electrical sources] may be and develop appropriate regulatory recommendations from those studies?… The basic problem … is the inability to define dose. We do not yet know what attribute or combination of attributes, of the field produces public health effects…. Better scientific understanding may in the future clearly demonstrate the existence of adverse public health effects from field exposure and may point the way to specific risk management regulations. But, for the moment we have to operate with what we have. Available policy options include … do nothing until the science becomes better, [or] adopt a “prudent avoidance” strategy…. By avoidance we mean taking steps to keep people out of fields, both by rerouting facilities and by redesigning electrical systems and appliances. By prudence we mean undertaking only those avoidance activities which carry modest costs. When, as individuals, we think a risk may exist but we are not sure, we exercise prudence. For example … dietary fiber may help reduce the risk of certain cancers. … As a matter of prudence many people have tried to increase … their fiber intake…. But reasonable people do not rent a helicopter to fly high-fiber bread in to them when they spend a week at a mountain ski resort which serves only regular bread…. What would constitute prudence in the context of keeping people out of [electric power] fields? Here are a few possibilities: attempt to route new transmission lines so that they avoid people; widen transmission line rights of way; develop designs for distribution systems, including new grounding

A Washington, D.C.-based association of manufacturers and users of electronic and electrical systems.. From ‘Prudent Avoidance’: The Abandonment of Science, unpublished position paper from EEPA, April 1991. Despite the seductive phrase “prudent avoidance,” and the representation of the concept as a pragmatic response for policy setting when the scientific basis is inadequate, an examination of the origins and implications of this proposal reveals that it actually involves a rejection of the modern concept of rational, scientifically based guidance of safety policy and a return to the alternative, emotional, medieval concept of acting to mitigate fear of the unknown…. EEPA perceives a great danger to society, as we know it, if “prudent avoidance” becomes accepted as a principle for setting public policy whenever there is scientifically unfounded public concern and/or fear…. Taking the assessment of the OTA report at face value [that there are “increasingly suggestive findings” of health risks from electromagnetic fields, we ask:] … Is “suggestive science” a basis [upon which] to abandon scientific standard setting? The scientist has only one answer to the question, a resounding no! Politicians, however, may very well find [the “prudent avoidance”] option appealing since it also dispenses with their requirement to grapple with science…. We do not agree … that the primary reason for the inadequate state of knowledge for scientific standard setting is complexity of the subject matter: Rather, EEPA views the confusion as primarily attributable to insufficient “good” science. … Many of these studies concern field strengths at cells and in cells which are many orders of magnitude below any established bioeffects and even appear to violate basic laws of physics, a non-trivial objection…. The prospects of causing a major impact on the generation, transmission, distribution and end use of electricity are actually contrary to the OTA report authors' perceptions of prudence. Nevertheless, the intuitive appeal of the phrase “prudent avoidance”

12 ofCreate PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

procedures, which minimize the associated fields; develop new approaches to house wiring that minimize associated fields; redesign appliances to minimize or eliminate fields…. [C]learly it makes no sense to invest more per personexposure avoided than we invest per death avoided for various known risks in our society…. [F]or example, while it might make sense to work to avoid exposing people in siting new lines, in most cases, with our current knowledge, it would not make sense to tear out and rebuild old lines. Similarly it might make sense to redesign new appliances to reduce fields exposure if this can be done for small increments in their costs…. But it probably would not make sense to throw out all old appliances before they wear out and replace them all immediately with new “field-free” ones.

coupled with a “less is safer” mind set, could have that end result. More importantly, the precedent set for rejecting the scientific approach to dealing with hazards in favor of deferring to the political need to assuage media-induced public concern undermines the accepted role of scientific knowledge as the proper basis for determining appropriate action by legislators, regulators, judges and juries for all popularly perceived risks…. In EEPA's opinion, a policy of “prudent avoidance” represents the triumph of fear of the unknown over reason. … The concern over possible health risks, if any, from exposure to ambient… electric and magnetic fields can and properly should be resolved by scientific research. Interim exposure guidelines should be adopted that are based upon scientific consensus and reviewed periodically by consensus groups….

Short Features
Risks Are Comparatively Low
Current studies suggest that if electromagnetic fields do turn out to be dangerous, the dangers are not very high when compared with other health hazards. A recent study by John M. Peters of the University of Southern California, for example, found that children who live close to neighborhood power lines are about 2.5 times as likely to have leukemia as children who don't. That sounds like a lot. But since the overall frequency for childhood leukemia is about one case for each 20,000 children per year, the increased risk would raise the rate only to one case for each 8,000 youngsters—higher, to be sure, but still rare. The risk of death suggested by such studies is generally no more than one out of many thousands. Traffic patterns in one's neighborhood are likely to pose a much greater risk to one's child than electromagnetic fields. The danger from EMFs, then, seems to be much lower than the risks American society now spends money to avert, notes M. Granger Morgan, head of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Generally, society chooses to spend large sums of money primarily on hazards for which the lifetime risk of death is well above 1 in 1,000—the kinds of risks listed above the shaded band in the chart at right. For example, the chances that the average American will die from an auto accident are relatively high—about 1 in 40—and the United States spends a few hundred thousand dollars per death avoided. By that measure, says Morgan, it would be hard to justify spending more than a few thousand dollars for each person exposed to electromagnetic fields. Because the health of only a small Cause of death Disease (all kinds) Approximate number who die each year from this cause Approximate number who odds, on average, that death was from this cause

1,600,000 1 in 1.3

13 ofCreate PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

Cause of death Heart disease Cancer (all kinds) Accidents (all kinds) Auto accidents Diabetes Suicide Homicide Drowning Fire Firearm accidents Asthma Electrocution Car-train accidents Appendicitis Infectious hepatitis Pregnancy and related Floods Lightning Tornado Botulism Fireworks

Approximate number who die each year from this cause

Approximate number who odds, on average, that death was from this cause

710,000 1 in 3 410,000 1 in 5 100,000 1 in 20 50,000 1 in 42 32,000 1 in 66 26,000 1 in 81 25,000 1 in 84 7,500 1 in 280 6,000 1 in 350 2,200 1 in 1,000 2,000 1 in 1,000 1,000 1 in 2,100 1,000 1 in 2,100 650 1 in 3,200 350 1 in 5,900 250 1 in 4,200 140 1 in 15,000 110 1 in 20,000 92 1 in 25,000 6 1 in 360,000 5 1 in 430,000

Note: This chart applies only to the United States. Source: M. Granger Morgan. “Electric and Magnetic Fields from 60 Hertz Electric Power: What do we know about possible health risks?”. Carnegie Mellon University. Copyright 1989. Reprinted by permission.
fraction of those exposed to electromagnetic fields is likely to be affected, an investment of $1,000 per exposure avoided could amount to an investment of millions of dollars or more per health danger avoided, he calculates. “Much larger expenditures can almost certainly not be justified,” Morgan argues. “If you think the risk, if any, for exposed people probably does not lie well above this shaded band, you should seriously consider selecting either the strategy of ‘prudent avoidance’ or ‘no action.’” Morgan likens the strategy of prudent avoidance to that of changing one's diet to reduce cholesterol intake and increase fiber. Even though the various health associations have not been proven, many people have decided it does not cost much to change their eating habits to avoid a potential health problem. Similarly, he proposes low-cost, easy steps to avoid the unproven risks of electromagnetic fields. These would include getting rid of electric blankets and reducing one's exposures to appliances with motors, like hair dryers, which emanate strong

14 ofCreate PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

magnetic fields when held close to the body. Morgan and others have pointed out that there have not been dramatic increases in the numbers of deaths or illness in the decades since society has become electrified. If anything, there has been a dramatic decrease in death and disease since the onset of the industrial age. But those who are concerned about electromagnetic fields argue that increases in life-expectancy might have been even greater without EMF exposure.
[1] M. Granger Morgan, Electric and Magnetic Fields from 60 Hertz Electric Power: What do We Know About the Risks? Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 1989.

What Are Electromagnetic Fields?
Wherever electricity is present, there are electromagnetic fields. The electric fields of power lines, wall wiring and appliances are produced by electric charges that are sent through the pow er system by electric power generating stations. Electric fields arise from the strength of that charge, and magnetic fields result from the motion of that charge. Taken together, these fields are referred to as electromagnetic fields, or EMFs. The electric and magnetic fields created by power systems oscillate with the current, measured in amperes or amps, which is the rate of electric charge flowing in a power line or wire. The strength of the magnetic field, measured in a unit called gauss depends upon the amount of current; the stronger the current, the stronger the magnetic field. The strength of the electrict field, on the other hand, comes from voltage—how much energy an electron will gain going from one point to another. The strength of the electric field is measured in units of volts per meter. (An analogy is helpful in understanding the difference between current and voltage. Think of someone rolling balls down a trough. The “current” would be the number of balls he rolls over a certain period of time. The “voltage” would be how much energy the ball would gain going from the top of the trough to the bottom. He could increase the “current” by rolling more balls per minute; he could increase the “voltage” by making the trough longer and higher.) The electric power used in North America alternates back and forth at a frequency of 60 times each second. Scientists call this 60 hertz power (abbreviated Hz). Sixty Hz electric and magnetic fields are those associated with 60 Hz power. These power-frequency fields are only one type of the non-ionizing electric and magnetic fields that people regularly encounter. Electric and magnetic fields at higher frequencies are produced by videodisplay terminals (about 15 kilohertz, or 15,000 cycles per second), TV sets (about 20 kilohertz), AM radio transmitters (about 1 megahertz, or 1 million cycles per second) and microwave ovens (about 2 gigahertz, or 2 billion cycles per second). All of the possible frequencies of electromagnetic waves and fields can be put onto an electromagnetic spectrum. Frequencies of oscillation above visible light are considered to be ionizing and include X-rays. Ionizing radiation carries enough energy to break chemical and electrical bonds. Non-ionizing radiation does not. Recently, scientists have focused their attention on magnetic fields, because epidemiologic and laboratory studies that suggest a health risk tend to find correlations with magnetic rather than electric fields. Among the factors that scientists are examining for possible links to health are these: ▪ Strength of the field. Appliances that heat, such as hair dryers, room heaters and electric stoves, have strong fields associated with them because they draw a lot of current. ▪ Distance from the source. Magnetic fields fall off quickly with distance, though with some variations. For example, the strength of magnetic fields from appliances typically declines faster with distance than does the

15 ofCreate PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

strength of fields from overhead power lines, because appliances are less extended in space than long power lines. On the other hand, some appliances, such as hair dryers, are used very close to the body. ▪ Length of exposure. Electric blankets, which give off weaker magnetic fields than electric stoves, are probably a bigger contributor to a person's overall magnetic field exposure if used all night.

EMF Exposure
If there are any health effects at all from exposure to electromagnetic fields from electricity, they could depend on a variety of factors. This chart shows, for various sources of electromagnetic fields, some of these factors: the strength of the electric field (measured in kilovolts per meter), the strength of the magnetic field (measured in milligauss), the length of exposure and the fraction of the population exposed. It is clear that the answer to the question, “What produces the biggest exposure?” depends on which factor is being examined.

16 ofCreate PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

Paul Brodeur's Crusade
Science magazine called it “sensationalistic.” The New York Times branded it an “alarmist” tract. Scientific American called it “a disservice to the public interest.” The target of all this outrage was journalist Paul Brodeur's three-part article tracing the scientific investigation into health hazards of electromagnetic radiation. The series first appeared in The New Yorker in 1989 and then later that year in book form under the title Currents of Death. Brodeur, who first made a name for himself in exposing the dangers of asbestos, concluded that electromagnetic fields are, indeed, dangerous. “[T]he de facto policy that power lines, electric blankets, and video display terminals be considered innocent until proved guilty should be rejected out of hand by sensible people everywhere,” he wrote. “To do otherwise is to accept a situation in which millions of human beings continue to be test animals in a long-term biological experiment whose consequences remain unknown.” That extreme view is not one that is shared by many. “This turns logic on its head,” wrote New York Times science reporter William J. Broad in a review of Brodeur's book. “Alarming claims need large amounts of evidence.” Broad likened Brodeur's claims to someone asserting the presence of space aliens on Earth. Scientists who reviewed the book objected that it told only one side of the story. David A. Savitz of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one of the leading epidemiologists in the field, found the book “generally accurate in citing evidence of health harm but not giving equal consideration to opposing findings…. Personal or institutional bias is invoked as the only possible reason for failure to accept what the author but [few others] considers

17 ofCreate PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

irrefutable evidence.” Brodeur glosses over inconsistencies with his belief that utility-funded studies have been designed purely to discredit scientists who find health harms, Savitz said, citing his own work. In a widely respected study funded by utilities, Savitz found elevated leukemia risks for children living near high-current wires. M. Granger Morgan, professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, expressed the worries of many scientists in his Scientific American review when he said that “Brodeur's book is already shaping the way many concerned technologically untrained citizens, including some decision makers, frame and think about these issues.” Morgan charged that Brodeur “deliberately oversimplifies and misrepresents the complexity of the scientific process and the evidence it has produced.” But Brodeur himself continues to appear on TV talk shows, at conferences and at school board meetings in a personal crusade, pressing his charge that electric utility and media interests are covering up the health hazards of EMF. And people seem to be listening. When National Public Radio interviewed Cleveland, Ohio, business executives this month about their suit to block construction of a local transmission line, the executives cited Currents of Death as a prime authority for their health concerns. Electric utilities and engineers are starting to strike back. The utility-funded Electric Power Research Institute, for example, has published a booklet refuting Brodeur's July 9, 1990, New Yorker article, “Calamity on Meadow Street,” which claims that clusters of cancer cases have arisen in Guilford, Conn., and Dukeville, N.C., because of EMFs. And another critique of Brodeur is being circulated by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a national professional organization.
[2] Robert Pool, “Is There an EMF-Cancer Connection?” Science, Sept. 7, 1990, pp. 1096–8: William J. Broad, “Science Books,” New York Times Book Review, April 8, 1990, p. 21; M. Granger Morgan, “Exposé Treatment Confounds Understanding of a Serious Public Health Issue,” Scientific American, April 1990, pp. 118–123. [3] David A. Savitz, “Electric Current and Health,” JAMA, Aug. 1, 1990, pp. 636–7. [4] See “Power Line Talk,” Microwave News, March/April 1991, p. 2.

Bibliography
BOOKS
Brodeur, Paul, Currents of Death, Simon & Schuster, 1989. Journalist Brodeur's book-length version of his three-part New Yorker series has been responsible for arousing much of the public concern over electromagnetic radiation. But most scientists who have reviewed the book consider it unfairly alarmist. Although they find Brodeur's account of the research pioneers generally accurate, they object that Brodeur gives short shrift to studies that find conflicting or ambiguous results. Brodeur tends to portray such studies, where he does discuss them, as industry-backed efforts to discredit the pioneers. The result is a rather one-sided account, but interesting reading. Robert O. Becker, Cross Currents, Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc., 1990. In the early 1970s, Becker, an orthopedic surgeon and research scientist, was among the first scientists to become convinced that electromagnetic fields from power lines could pose a serious threat to human health. Becker calls for citizen action to protest hazardous power lines and to redesign electrical appliances. The bulk of the book is devoted to a discussion of electromagnetic fields aimed at the layman. It contains some helpful scientific explanations and interesting history of early research in this field.

18 ofCreate PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

ARTICLES
Blumberg, Peter, “Paul Brodeur's War on Electromagnetic Fields,” Washington Journalism Review, January/February 1991, pp. 40–44. Blumberg investigates Brodeur's charges that newspapers downplay the EMF story because they fear advertising losses and because their employees are heavily exposed to video-display terminals. An interesting review of the media coverage. Morgan, M. Granger, “Exposé Treatment Confounds Understanding of a Serious Public-Health Issue,” Scientific American, April 1990, pp. 118–123. Carnegie Mellon University engineer Morgan provides a good summary of scientific thinking on EMF in this critical review of Paul Brodeur's book, which he charges with “simplifying a complex problem by sweeping all complexity under the rug of cover-up.” Pool, Robert, “Is There an EMF-Cancer Connection?” Science, Sept. 7, 1990, pp. 1096–98; “Electromagnetic Fields: The Biological Evidence,” Sept. 21, 1990, pp. 1378–81; “Flying Blind: The Making of EMF Policy,” Oct. 5, 1990, pp. 23–25. This three-part series provides an excellent summary of EMF research, replete with all its contradictions. Pool portrays both epidemiologic and laboratory results as “maddeningly inconclusive.” His final article explores the difficulties of setting policy in the face of scientific uncertainty.

REPORTS AND STUDIES
Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields, October 1990. This EPA “review draft” released last December added to the growing public concern by calling EMFs “a possible, but not proven, cause of cancer in humans.” The report attracted the displeasure of the White House science adviser, who insisted on the addition of a cover note cautioning that “a cause and effect relationship” cannot be established from existing data. The draft is currently under review by two panels of outside experts, one appointed by EPA and one by the president. The report is a comprehensive review of existing research on EMFs through 1990. Morgan, M. Granger, Electric and Magnetic Fields from 60 Hertz Electric Power: What Do We Know about Possible Health Risks? 1989. An easy-to-understand primer on electromagnetic fields and the ongoing health risks debate, written for the layman. Available from the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213. Office of Technology Assessment, Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, May 1989. This report by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment was the first widely circulated literature review to put the stamp of respectability on health concerns about EMF. “In our view, the emerging evidence no longer allows one to categorically assert that there are no risks,” the report states. “But it does not provide a basis for asserting that there is significant risk.”

19 ofCreate PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

Footnotes
[1] Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper, “Electrical Wiring Configurations and Childhood Cancer,” American Journal of Epidemiology, March 1979, pp. 273–284. [2] Paul Brodeur, Currents of Death (1989), p. 67. [3] EPRI printed a summary of this not-yet-published study in a Feb. 7, 1991, press release. [4] David A. Savitz, et. al., “Case Control Study of Childhood Cancer and Exposure to 60-Hertz Magnetic Fields,” American Journal of Epidemiology, July 1988, pp. 21–28. [5] In a March 1990 press release. [6] Robert Pool, “Is There an EMF-Cancer Connection?” Science, Sept. 7, 1990, pp. 1096–1097. [7] Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper, “Possible Effects of Electric Blankets and Heated Waterbeds on Fetal Development,” Bioelectromagnetics, 1986, Vol. 7, pp. 13–22. And Wertheimer and Leeper, “Fetal Loss Associated with Two Seasonal Sources of Electromagnetic Field Exposure,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 1989, Vol. 120, pp. 220–224. [8] Study by Savitz cited in Gary Stix, “Field Effects: A health worry for electric blanket makers,” Scientific American, December 1990, pp. 122–3. [9] Teresa M. Schnorr, “Video Display Terminals and the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion,” New England Journal of Medicine, March 14, 1991, pp. 727–733. [10] “NIOSH EMF Survey Most Comprehensive to Date,” Microwave News, March/April 1991, p. 11. [11] Study by Susan Preston-Martin and Wendy Mack of the University of Southern California, cited in Pool, op. cit., p. 1097. [12] Genevieve M. Matanoski et al., “Electromagnetic field exposure and male breast cancer,” Lancet, Mar. 23, 1991, p. 737. This letter is Matanoski's only published summary of her findings. [13] Tore Tynes and Aage Andersen, “Electromagnetic fields and male breast cancer,” Lancet, Dec. 22/29, 1990, p. 1596. This letter reports 12 male breast cancer cases in a population of 37,952 men, where only six cases would normally be expected. [14] Matanoski, op. cit. [15] Bary W. Wilson et al., ed., Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields: The Question of Cancer (1990), pp. 187–208. [16] Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields, October 1990, p. 1–5. [17] Philip Elmer-Dewitt, “Mystery—and Maybe Danger—in the Air,” Time, Dec. 24, 1990, pp. 67–69. [18] “U.S. Air Force Labels EPA Report Biased and Political,” Microwave News, November/December 1990, p. 7. [19] David A. Savitz, “Electric Current and Health,” JAMA, Aug. 1, 1990, pp. 636–637. [20] “EPA: Physicists Unwelcome on EMF Panel,” Science, Feb. 22, 1991. p. 863. [21] OTA, op. cit., p. 73. [22] Frederick Rose, “Utilities React to Electromagnetic Fields,” The Wall Street Journal, April 11, 1991, pp. B1, B10. Sarah Glazer writes about health and science issues from Washington, D.C. *The normal rate of leukemia in children is 1 out of 20,000 per year. (For a comparison with other health risks, see story and chart, p. 241.) *OTA conducted its own investigation of the subject, and in 1989, it produced a report that concluded: “Epidemiological evidence, while controversial and subject to a variety of criticisms, is beginning to provide a basis for concern about risks from chronic exposure.” See Office of Technology Assessment, Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (May 1989), p. 3.

20 ofCreate PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

http://library.cqpress.com.ezp1r.riosalado.edu/cqresearcher/document.ph...

Where else can I find this content in my library?
Document Citation Glazer, S. (1991, April 26). Electromagnetic fields: Are they dangerous?. CQ Researcher, 1, 238-252. Retrieved October 26, 2010, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1991042600. Document ID: cqresrre1991042600 Document URL: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1991042600 The CQ Researcher • April 26, 1991 • Volume 1 © 2010, CQ Press, A Division of SAGE Publications. All Rights Reserved. General Terms of Service | Copyright Notice and Takedown Policy | Masthead

21 ofCreate PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 21

10/26/2010 12:43 AM