Re: E-M fields health risks

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

In addition there has been a recent study that shows no problems with using
cell phones.

I reviewed the literature on low frequency EM radiation several years ago.
There were some studies that purported to show a higher incidence of
childhood leukemia.  The incidence was double the normal rate for children
who might have been exposed to EM radiation.  Unfortunately there was no way
of measuring the actual exposure.  However, there was a more fatal flaw in
the studies.  The incidence of childhood leukemia is so low that a double
normal rate was statistically insignificant.

The EM exposure due to wiring is actually quite insignificant, as the wires
carry currents in opposite directions.  There are a few cases where the
exposure can be much larger.  One is where a switch is wired in such a way
that only one wire of a pair carries current.  The current may come in the
bottom of the junction box and flow out the top.  This is an unusual
situation.  The common situation is where you have a ground loop involving
the water pipes in your home.  This can produce much higher fields.  We had
such a loop.  One end of the pipe was grounded where it came into the house
in the front.  The other end was grounded by having a ground wire attached
to the electrical box in the back.  When the pipe ground was removed, and we
also had some metal pipes replaced by PVC, this loop was broken.  Exposure
could be minimized even more by twisting the wiring, but then hair dryers
and TVs would be the biggest EM radiation sources.

You are really more at risk when you eat fried fast food.  Are trans-fatty
acids a plot to kill Americans?  Nobody is seriously trying to ban them!!!
What ban fries?

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l@lists.nau.edu: Forum for Physics Educators
> [mailto:PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu]On Behalf Of Shapiro, Mark
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 11:46 PM
> To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
> Subject: Re: E-M fields health risks
>
>
> Dear Bernard,
>
> As I recall there was an epidemiological study of power-line workers a few
> years back that showed no increase in cancer risk even though these
> individuals are exposed to much higher levels of EM radiation than the
> average person.
>
> Studies such as the one you quote are interesting, but I don't think they
> tell the whole risk-benefit story.  For example, owning a refrigerator may
> increase very slightly your risk of contracting cancer.  However, it
> substantially decreases your risk of contracting a number of
> illnesses that
> can be contracted from bacterial contamination of food.
>
> Likewise, using electric lights increases very slightly your risk of
> contracting cancer.  However, the alternatives (candles, kerosene
> lamps, or
> gas mantles) have much higher risks associated with them.
>
> > From a public health point-of-view the risks from EM radiation from power
> lines probably is much lower than the risks encountered from the
> generation
> of the electricity in the first place.
>
> Mark Shapiro
> http://www.IrascibleProfessor.com
>
> PS.... Full disclosure - I own some Edison International stock
> (but it isn't
> worth enough these days to affect my opinions!)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Cleyet
> To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
> Sent: 7/17/2001 9:17 PM
> Subject: E-M fields health risks
>
> Courtesy of UNDERNEWS:
>
> ECOLOGY
>
> ENS: Added risk of miscarriage, childhood leukemia, brain cancer and
> greater incidence of suicide are some of the health risks associated
> with exposure to electric and magnetic fields such as those that radiate
> from power lines, according to a California health department review.
> Two reports by researchers from the California Department of Health
> Services say human population studies suggest there might be a problem
> from electric and magnetic fields from power lines, wiring in buildings,
> certain jobs, and appliances. On behalf of the California Public
> Utilities Commission, three scientists who work for the California
> Department of Health Services were asked to review the existing
> scientific literature about possible health problems from these sources.
> The PUC request for review did not include radio frequency EMFs from
> cell phones and radio towers . . .
>
> MORE http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2001/2001L-07-16-02.html
>
>
> bc