Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: Karen on 02/08/2010 11:30:01
-
Karen asked the Naked Scientists:
Hi Chris
We have to make a decision about moving into a property by midday tomorrow. It's a great place and the right price, however our only concern and hesitation is the fact that the property is situated almost directly underneath electrical overhead lines. The pylon itself is a bit further away at about 250 meters from the property.
Our reason for caution is that we have a 2 year old daughter and that I'm 14 weeks pregnant.
I'd appreciate your opinion on living within this proximity to overhead electrical lines. We only intend staying in the house for 10 months, does that timeframe make any difference to our concerns?
I really hope to get feedback, as I mentioned the place is well priced and will seemingly get snapped up.
Best regards
Karen
What do you think?
-
Living very close to the pylons has been known to increase the risk of cancer, but im sure 250m isnt 'very close'. im not to sure about the lines themselves though, sorry.
-
Only if one falls on you. There is no proven link between living near pylons and cancer. Findings from one side of the argument is quickly countered by the other.
-
I have always remained very sceptical about such a link. However, this paper does suggest a workable mechanism for increased risk in children:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC558197
"provide a potential mechanism, being that the electric fields around power lines attract aerosol pollutants"
I certainly don't hold with the belief in the EM-field being directly responsible, as even cables directly overhead are far too distant for inductive effects to matter.
-
Although the EMR produced by overhead powerlines is not considered to be ionising and therefore not harmful, it can only be proven to be completely harmless if none of the emitted EMR is absorbed by an organism i.e. if 100% of the EMR passes through an organism's body without any absorbsion at all.
In practice, a very small proportion of the emitted EMR will be absorbed by the body but in nearly all cases it will only result in insignificant heating. However, whether EMR is considered ionising or not really comes down to statistics and so given a large enough number of cases there must inevitably an extremely small proportion where the absorbed EMR doesn't just result in heating and does cause harm.
-
Living very close to the pylons has been known to increase the risk of cancer,
Tango,
That is a very bold statement. Can you support it with some solid evidence?
-
Karen asked the Naked Scientists:
Hi Chris
We have to make a decision about moving into a property by midday tomorrow. It's a great place and the right price, however our only concern and hesitation is the fact that the property is situated almost directly underneath electrical overhead lines. The pylon itself is a bit further away at about 250 meters from the property.
Our reason for caution is that we have a 2 year old daughter and that I'm 14 weeks pregnant.
I'd appreciate your opinion on living within this proximity to overhead electrical lines. We only intend staying in the house for 10 months, does that timeframe make any difference to our concerns?
I really hope to get feedback, as I mentioned the place is well priced and will seemingly get snapped up.
Best regards
Karen
What do you think?
Karen - I would not risk living directly below HV cables in your condition. Other posters have already indicated that the science is inconclusive (which is true,) but there are many articles which do support a link. This is most likely to be the reason for the low cost.
I researched this subject in some depth a few years back. The risk increases with EMF exposure, proximity and voltage etc. Involved calculations can be used to provide a guide / quantification of the risk. However, such calculations were not supported by clinical trials for a developing baby or infants.
The links below are the result of a brief internet search.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Babies-at-risk-with-highvoltage-cancer-link/2005/06/03/1117568381340.html
http://www.powerlinefacts.com/large_study_links_power_lines_to_leukemia.htm
Do you know what voltage the cable carries - some cables are more HV cables than others. IIRC one of the reference papers had a risk matrix for the different voltages and distance (with the disclaimer that individual calculations should be conducted by a specialist). I'm not sure if this is still a concern for you as the deadline for your decision has passed but I could dig out the calculation / risk assessment for you if you like?
Best regards,
Mootle
-
I have not done the math, so I could be quite wrong about this, but I suspect the electromagnetic fields present in any modern home are already much greater than the fields that would be coupled from adjacent high voltage power lines, so if you really want to play it safe, you might want to move away from all electrical wiring and equipment.
Also, underground power cables are invisible, but because they operate at relatively low voltages, they carry relatively higher currents, so the associated EMF they produce might actually be quite large (the EMF is a function of current, not the voltage).
However, because buried power lines are not visible, people tend to forget they are even there. On the other hand, overhead lines tend to get everyones attention.
Are there any scientific (non-journalistic) studies that compare the relative field strengths of ALL possible sources of EMF?
-
Karen - I would not risk living directly below HV cables in your condition. Other posters have already indicated that the science is inconclusive (which is true,) but there are many articles which do support a link. This is most likely to be the reason for the low cost.
I researched this subject in some depth a few years back. The risk increases with EMF exposure, proximity and voltage etc. Involved calculations can be used to provide a guide / quantification of the risk. However, such calculations were not supported by clinical trials for a developing baby or infants.
The links below are the result of a brief internet search.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Babies-at-risk-with-highvoltage-cancer-link/2005/06/03/1117568381340.html
http://www.powerlinefacts.com/large_study_links_power_lines_to_leukemia.htm
Do you know what voltage the cable carries - some cables are more HV cables than others. IIRC one of the reference papers had a risk matrix for the different voltages and distance (with the disclaimer that individual calculations should be conducted by a specialist). I'm not sure if this is still a concern for you as the deadline for your decision has passed but I could dig out the calculation / risk assessment for you if you like?
Best regards,
Mootle
Mootle,
I think it's misleading to say that "the science is inconclusive".
The science is quite conclusive. Despite considerable efforts to prove to the contrary, there is no causal link between disease and overhead power lines.
-
Tesla affects can be demonstrated with the use of a fluorescent bulb.
In an high enough intense electromagnetic field the bulb will glow.
That may help to see if there is a potential.
-
I have not done the math, so I could be quite wrong about this, but I suspect the electromagnetic fields present in any modern home are already much greater than the fields that would be coupled from adjacent high voltage power lines, so if you really want to play it safe, you might want to move away from all electrical wiring and equipment.
Also, underground power cables are invisible, but because they operate at relatively low voltages, they carry relatively higher currents, so the associated EMF they produce might actually be quite large (the EMF is a function of current, not the voltage).
However, because buried power lines are not visible, people tend to forget they are even there. On the other hand, overhead lines tend to get everyones attention.
Are there any scientific (non-journalistic) studies that compare the relative field strengths of ALL possible sources of EMF?
The calculation becomes more complex for u/g cables owing to the difficulties with composite solids and varying conductance. Owing to proximity the indicated risk rises but this only tends to become an issue for high HV and close proximity.
-
Karen - I would not risk living directly below HV cables in your condition. Other posters have already indicated that the science is inconclusive (which is true,) but there are many articles which do support a link. This is most likely to be the reason for the low cost.
I researched this subject in some depth a few years back. The risk increases with EMF exposure, proximity and voltage etc. Involved calculations can be used to provide a guide / quantification of the risk. However, such calculations were not supported by clinical trials for a developing baby or infants.
The links below are the result of a brief internet search.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Babies-at-risk-with-highvoltage-cancer-link/2005/06/03/1117568381340.html
http://www.powerlinefacts.com/large_study_links_power_lines_to_leukemia.htm
Do you know what voltage the cable carries - some cables are more HV cables than others. IIRC one of the reference papers had a risk matrix for the different voltages and distance (with the disclaimer that individual calculations should be conducted by a specialist). I'm not sure if this is still a concern for you as the deadline for your decision has passed but I could dig out the calculation / risk assessment for you if you like?
Best regards,
Mootle
Mootle,
I think it's misleading to say that "the science is inconclusive".
The science is quite conclusive. Despite considerable efforts to prove to the contrary, there is no causal link between disease and overhead power lines.
Interesting, most people would recognise that the post was entirely genuine.
I would agree that it is very difficult to scientifically prove a causal link owing to the cost and practical constraints of such studies but this is quite different to it scientifically proven that there is no causal link.
Did you even read the links which were given?
-
If you live under a pylon you can reenact a Star-Wars light-saber battle with fluorescent tubes...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27039.0
You'll have to do you own sound effect (http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=78679) though.
-
Interesting, most people would recognise that the post was entirely genuine.
I would agree that it is very difficult to scientifically prove a causal link owing to the cost and practical constraints of such studies but this is quite different to it scientifically proven that there is no causal link.
Did you even read the links which were given?
Yes. I did read the links.
Your post was genuine enough. However, the links you provided had a very journalistic slant, although, in fairness, one of them actually pointed out that the EMF in any average home is greater than that produced by adjacent power lines.
If EMF did result in diseases, proximity to power lines would be irrelevant because there are far greater sources of EMF to be concerned about.
Despite popular opinion and the popular media, as far as I know, there is no scientific basis that connects the transmission of power through high tension power lines with human disease.
-
Interesting, most people would recognise that the post was entirely genuine.
I would agree that it is very difficult to scientifically prove a causal link owing to the cost and practical constraints of such studies but this is quite different to it scientifically proven that there is no causal link.
Did you even read the links which were given?
Yes. I did read the links.
Your post was genuine enough. However, the links you provided had a very journalistic slant, although, in fairness, one of them actually pointed out that the EMF in any average home is greater than that produced by adjacent power lines.
If EMF did result in diseases, proximity to power lines would be irrelevant because there are far greater sources of EMF to be concerned about.
Despite popular opinion and the popular media, as far as I know, there is no scientific basis that connects the transmission of power through high tension power lines with human disease.
Based on my previous research the links are a fair summary of the current understanding. Using an argument based on a lack of scientific proof is very dangerous where there is a risk to health to an unborn baby and infant.
It is better to be safe than sorry.
-
Nice one, my monies on Yoda!
-
It is better to be safe than sorry.
Safe from what exactly?
That's the same sort of faulty logic that encourages parents not to get their children vaccinated because somebody developed a "theory" that vaccinations cause autism, absent scientific evidence that they do.
We can allow ouselves to be controlled by scare mongerers, or we can base our decisions on good science.
-
"better to be safe than sorry"
If you lived your life by this motto you would never turn your microwave on or use a mobile phone. You'd never leave the house... Well, not unless you lived beneath power lines.
-
It is better to be safe than sorry.
Safe from what exactly?
That's the same sort of faulty logic that encourages parents not to get their children vaccinated because somebody developed a "theory" that vaccinations cause autism, absent scientific evidence that they do.
We can allow ouselves to be controlled by scare mongerers, or we can base our decisions on good science.
It's good that you've introduced a new argument but unfortunately there's nothing which vaguely relates to the topic, so I'll leave it at that.
-
"better to be safe than sorry"
If you lived your life by this motto you would never turn your microwave on or use a mobile phone. You'd never leave the house... Well, not unless you lived beneath power lines.
OK, just for the pedants in the house, 'in this particular case, it's better to be safe than sorry'.
Early versions of microwave ovens and mobile phones did emit dangerous EMF's which were attributed to tumours, headaches etc. In response to this, modern varieties of this technology are now tested against more stringent Emissions Regulations and as a result are much safer.
Even so, in the case of mobile phones, I would still suggest caution. The long term effect on health for extensive mobile phones remains unknown for infants and adults alike. For this reason, I would always use a landline in preference to a mobile and when I do use a mobile I tend to keep the conversation brief.
Most urban dwellers will be quite close to a mobile phone mast but close proximity is a real concern for many. Transmitter equipment specifications indicate safe working distances but once again the effect on health is very much an active field of research.
If you are content to live next to a mobile phone mast or directly below an HV cable then do so. But please refrain from advising people that the science is settled and that there is no risk. This is irresponsible, misleading and a misinterpretation of the outcomes of studies which have been carried out in the field.
All is not lost though, the photo and sound effect was great!
-
"better to be safe than sorry"
If you lived your life by this motto you would never turn your microwave on or use a mobile phone. You'd never leave the house... Well, not unless you lived beneath power lines.
OK, just for the pedants in the house, 'in this particular case, it's better to be safe than sorry'.
Early versions of microwave ovens and mobile phones did emit dangerous EMF's which were attributed to tumours, headaches etc. In response to this, modern varieties of this technology are now tested against more stringent Emissions Regulations and as a result are much safer.
Even so, in the case of mobile phones, I would still suggest caution. The long term effect on health for extensive mobile phones remains unknown for infants and adults alike. For this reason, I would always use a landline in preference to a mobile and when I do use a mobile I tend to keep the conversation brief.
Most urban dwellers will be quite close to a mobile phone mast but close proximity is a real concern for many. Transmitter equipment specifications indicate safe working distances but once again the effect on health is very much an active field of research.
If you are content to live next to a mobile phone mast or directly below an HV cable then do so. But please refrain from advising people that the science is settled and that there is no risk. This is irresponsible, misleading and a misinterpretation of the outcomes of studies which have been carried out in the field.
All is not lost though, the photo and sound effect was great!
Yes, high frequency radio transmissions can be harmful.
However, if we want to be "better safe than sorry" with respect to 50Hz or 60Hz power systems, we should stay away from all such sources, which pretty much means we'd need to eliminate all line power from our homes.
We can't be selective about this. If we believe that low frequency power transmission is harmful for some, as yet, undiscovered reason, there is no basis for assuming that the same undiscovered reason does not make all low frequency power systems harmful. Therefore, we should advocate caution with respect to all such systems.
-
"better to be safe than sorry"
If you lived your life by this motto you would never turn your microwave on or use a mobile phone. You'd never leave the house... Well, not unless you lived beneath power lines.
OK, just for the pedants in the house, 'in this particular case, it's better to be safe than sorry'.
Early versions of microwave ovens and mobile phones did emit dangerous EMF's which were attributed to tumours, headaches etc. In response to this, modern varieties of this technology are now tested against more stringent Emissions Regulations and as a result are much safer.
Even so, in the case of mobile phones, I would still suggest caution. The long term effect on health for extensive mobile phones remains unknown for infants and adults alike. For this reason, I would always use a landline in preference to a mobile and when I do use a mobile I tend to keep the conversation brief.
Most urban dwellers will be quite close to a mobile phone mast but close proximity is a real concern for many. Transmitter equipment specifications indicate safe working distances but once again the effect on health is very much an active field of research.
If you are content to live next to a mobile phone mast or directly below an HV cable then do so. But please refrain from advising people that the science is settled and that there is no risk. This is irresponsible, misleading and a misinterpretation of the outcomes of studies which have been carried out in the field.
All is not lost though, the photo and sound effect was great!
Yes, high frequency radio transmissions can be harmful.
However, if we want to be "better safe than sorry" with respect to 50Hz or 60Hz power systems, we should stay away from all such sources, which pretty much means we'd need to eliminate all line power from our homes.
We can't be selective about this. If we believe that low frequency power transmission is harmful for some, as yet, undiscovered reason, there is no basis for assuming that the same undiscovered reason does not make all low frequency power systems harmful. Therefore, we should advocate caution with respect to all such systems.
I never mentioned such a link but in order for you to make the statement you would have to fail to recognise that there's a difference between a 230V and a 132kV or say 275kV cable?
Cancer (in all its many guises,) is one of the biggest causes of death and despite all the research which has been pumped into that field, we are still a long way from discovering the causal pathways involved, let alone a cure. Science is not quite ready to reveal the answers on this one just yet so we should accept the limitations of our knowledge and procede with a little caution.
-
Actually, there's probably a greater risk from all the ground mapping radars flying about in aircraft.
-
I never mentioned such a link but in order for you to make the statement you would have to fail to recognise that there's a difference between a 230V and a 132kV or say 275kV cable?
Cancer (in all its many guises,) is one of the biggest causes of death and despite all the research which has been pumped into that field, we are still a long way from discovering the causal pathways involved, let alone a cure. Science is not quite ready to reveal the answers on this one just yet so we should accept the limitations of our knowledge and procede with a little caution.
Ah! So you are saying that this undiscovered phenomenon is a somehow related to voltage rather than current and that it's not a function of EMF.
But if we don't understand the phenomenon, how do we know a voltage is safer than any other voltage, or are you suggesting that you somehow understand the phenomenon and that you are able to determine what voltages are safer than others?
-
I never mentioned such a link but in order for you to make the statement you would have to fail to recognise that there's a difference between a 230V and a 132kV or say 275kV cable?
Cancer (in all its many guises,) is one of the biggest causes of death and despite all the research which has been pumped into that field, we are still a long way from discovering the causal pathways involved, let alone a cure. Science is not quite ready to reveal the answers on this one just yet so we should accept the limitations of our knowledge and procede with a little caution.
Ah! So you are saying that this undiscovered phenomenon is a somehow related to voltage rather than current and that it's not a function of EMF.
But if we don't understand the phenomenon, how do we know a voltage is safer than any other voltage, or are you suggesting that you somehow understand the phenomenon and that you are able to determine what voltages are safer than others?
At the beginning of the thread you indicated that you had not done the calculations and from your comments I suspect that the situation has not changed.
However, since Karen's need for information seems to have passed I do not intend to continue with this thread.
-
At the beginning of the thread you indicated that you had not done the calculations and from your comments I suspect that the situation has not changed.
As I mentioned previously, one of the links you posted pointed out that the magnetic field strength in a home is, as I suspected, greater than the field produced by high-tension power lines.
I think it's unfortunate that you are unwilling to pursue this topic futher. If there is a phenomenon, I'd really like to understand what it is. If there is no phenomenon, I'd like to settle the matter.
-
We all agree that there's probably a greater risk from all the ground mapping radars flying about in aircraft.
-
We all agree that there's probably a greater risk from all the ground mapping radars flying about in aircraft.
Is this the "royal we"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural
-
We all agree that there's probably a greater risk from all the ground mapping radars flying about in aircraft.
In order for anyone to consider this question you would first need to know:
1. The type of GMR is being used.
2. Voltage being carried.
3. Distance of cable from the person under test.
4. Exposure time to each signal.
5. Particular disposition of person under test to cancer.
6. Age of person under test.
7. Structure of the dwelling.
8. Height of GMR.
9. Location.
10. Climate etc etc etc.
Since no one has mentioned any of these parameters, it is difficult to know what is 'probably' a higher risk to health.
You can count me out of the consensus science thing.
-
I'd love to know what caused my brother to die of cancer in his 30's. Lots of things have gone through my mind including this one. Most evidence seems to be for young children but it never seems to be as conclusive as I'd like. My brother sat on top of a bank of technology for large chunks of time. I often wonder about this as well. He also drove a truck which has indications for cancers in the digestive system.
The causes of cancer are always going to be debated strongly and electrical companies will throw lots of money to disprove conections with pylons just as any vested interest will guard its interest. When we look at data and evidence we always have to ask where the funding came from. I'm resigned to the knowledge that I'll never know what caused my brother's cancer but at the end of the day it is a problem that comes with being relatively well off. If we were really poor our illnesses would be different. There has to be a down side to being wealthy!
Rant over!
-
MIL,
Sorry to hear of your loss. I too developed cancer (of the goolies) in my thirties, but I was fortunate to survive thanks to early detection and radiation therapy.
My cancer may have been the result of electromagnetic radiation, but if it was, it's very unlikely that it was produced from high tension power lines.
As the science stands today (despite what the popular press claims), as I understand it, power lines do a couple of things;
They radiate an electromagnetic field that is a function of the current flowing through the wires. Note that the voltage is made very large so that the current is relatively small. The power companies do that to minimize energy losses in the wires.
They produce an electric field. The electric field is a function of the voltage (which is large) but you can block the electric field with a sheet of aluminium foil. Also, electric fields are, and have always been, all around us. When you go up in an aeroplane, you, and the entire aeroplane are charged to thousands of volts relative to ground. Just walk across a nylon carpet, and you might achieve a 30,000 volt potential.
In my case, I suspect that if my cancer was not simply a genetic fluke it was much more likely that it resulted from nuclear bombardment (X-rays) of one sort or another, or from some carcinogenic chemical agent, and there were a lot of them.
-
Well i suppose i cant give you solid evidence but i did do it as a project in physics a while back and came acros a study on it. It did say that people living close to pilons had a bigger chance of getting cancer. it did give a reasson but i cant remember, sorry.
-
Well i suppose i cant give you solid evidence but i did do it as a project in physics a while back and came acros a study on it. It did say that people living close to pilons had a bigger chance of getting cancer. it did give a reasson but i cant remember, sorry.
Well, that really helped a lot.
-
Hi karen,
there are no known health risks that have been conclusively demonstrated to be caused by living near high-voltage power lines. But science is unable to prove a negative, including whether low-level EMFs are completely risk free. Most scientists believe that exposure to the low-level EMFs near power lines is safe, but some scientists continue research to look for possible health risks associated with these fields. If there are any risks such as cancer associated with living near power lines, then it is clear that those risks are small.
-
Geezer are you being sarcastic?
-
Geezer are you being sarcastic?
Guilty as charged Guv.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no, zero, nada scientific evidence that links the EMF produced by HT power lines to any human illness. If you believe otherwise, you might want to immediately disconnect your home from any electric power source, because that is far more dangerous.
However, if you want to succumb to the influence of moneymaking media and lawyers without understanding the science, that's up to you.
-
Like I said earlier in this thread, whether a particular EMR is harmful to health, or not, comes down to statistics. If the incidence of problems is below the noise threshold of the statistical method used to assess the degree of danger then it'll be regarded as safe, even though it may clearly not have been for the very small number cases lost in the noise.
However, rather than being a criticism, or highlighting a failure of the statistical method, it really just reflects the nature of the problem; there is no clear and definitive answer, just a probability which, while in this particular case is vanishingly small, can never be zero.
-
It's not impossible that there could be some correlation between incidence of disease and power lines. For example, homes built close to power lines are likely to be less expensive and they will be occupied by lower income families. This in turn could account for differences in health care, chemical agents and nutrition that can lead to higher incidence of certain diseases.
However, sorting all of that out to draw any meaningful conclusions would be extremely difficult.
I suppose it's possible that you are slightly less likely to be struck by lightning if you live near overhead lines. They must be very effective lightning conductors.
-
LeeE, your analysis of the statistics of noise is correct, however you are also uncertain if living under a high voltage power line might be beneficial, but the signal is lost in the noise. When a study of the entire population of Finland (and many other large samples in other countries) can't pull any signal from the noise, any harmful or beneficial effect is way too small to be worth considering.
Another problem with the power line and cell phone health question is that there is no known mechanism whereby the radiation can have an effect! The radiation from these sources is several orders of magnitude below the energy required to break chemical bonds (required to cause cancer). When one has no mechanism it is very inappropriate to attribute a specific cause (e.g. the radiation) and it is important to explore different hypotheses, such as socioeconomic status as suggested by Geezer.
Steve
-
I must admit I keep coming back to this topic because I find it quite fascinating. Despite the fact that there really is no scientific evidence to link EMR from overhead power lines to cancers, it seems that many well educated scientists are willing to believe that there might actually be some connection, although they can't even begin to explain what that may be.
It does make me wonder if a lot of scientists are a lot more susceptible to sensational media exploits than they would care to admit. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to keep one's options open. If the current science says one thing, either get behind it, or disprove it. I don't understand how being wishy/washy about it adds any value.
-
Geezer, I think that this situation is comparable to the CO2-global warming issue. The great majority of scientists with the expertise to understand the question all agree (global warming is a problem and power lines are not), while there is a very, very small minority of scientists who deny the consensus, and a collection of self aggrandizing pundits, who are not scientists, who whip up the controversy. As you have observed, there have been quite a few large studies on power lines in response to the hoopla in popular culture. When taken together these studies show no effect. Steve
-
Geezer and SteveFish: I said quite clearly that the probability...
...in this particular case is vanishingly small...
so while we all seem to believe that the risk is not worth acknowledging, you both seem to want to insist that the degree of risk is a definitive zero. Sorry chaps, but you're trying to prove a negative here.
-
Lee, so if I told you that wearing cotton socks might increase your risk of developing cancer, you'd have to agree that there is some risk?
-
That's a bad analogy Geez.
Whether someone gets cancer from exposure to EMR is intrinsically statistical, for amongst any group of subjects exposed there will be some that do and some that don't. The fact that some do though, shows there is a clear link. There's no such link to wearing cottons socks.
-
That's a bad analogy Geez.
Whether someone gets cancer from exposure to EMR is intrinsically statistical, for amongst any group of subjects exposed there will be some that do and some that don't. The fact that some do though, shows there is a clear link. There's no such link to wearing cottons socks.
Ah! So you are saying there is evidence that low frequency weak field EMR produces cancer. Can you point us at that evidence?
-
To put an even sharper point in this LeeE, I assert that radiation emanating from power lines has a weak protective effect against getting cancer. Using your logic, explain how I am wrong. Steve
-
No Geezer, I am not saying that low-frequency EMR produces cancer.
All I am saying is that EMR can cause cancer.
Because EMR is a continuous spectrum, where there is no clear and definitive point between one frequency and another, one cannot say definitively that a higher frequency will always cause it but a lower frequency will never cause it.
SteveFish: have you any evidence to suggest that EMR has a protective effect against cancer? If there is such evidence then I'd happily give it a qualified acceptance.
Rather than discussing the issue, you both seem to be more intent on winning the argument, even though your argument depends, as I mentioned earlier, upon proving a negative.
Do you both actually acknowledge that your argument depends upon proving this negative?
-
Lee,
I think the onus is on you to prove the positive point regarding genetic damage. The energy levels required are well understood, and I don't believe there is any evidence at all that the fields involved come anywhere remotely close to being able to interfere with molecular bonds in DNA. There is no cumulative effect and there is a quantifiable threshold.
The position should be that there is no known scientific evidence that connects cancer with power lines. If you are going to insist that there "might" be, then we are back to my cotton socks argument. You can't disprove I'm wrong about that, because you can't prove a negative either. I think both arguments are equally useless.
-
Geezer, you beat me to it with a better response than I was concocting.
LeeE,the evidence I have for a positive effect of hugging a power line is exactly equal to your evidence for a negative association. For this topic I can't prove a negative affect, but I must accept the null hypothesis.
Steve
-
You are both claiming an undisputed fact, but the proof of that fact requires proving a negative, which cannot be done.
The options are a) EMR from overhead powerlines does cause cancer, b) EMR from overhead powerlines doesn't cause cancer, or c) EMR from overhead powerlines may cause cancer.
Option a) is clearly untrue because people do live beneath overhead powerlines without getting cancer. Option b) though, which is what you are both trying to claim is true, depends upon proving a negative. Because a) is proven to be untrue, and because b) cannot be proven, I am therefore adhering to option c).
You can both believe whatever you want, of course, but until there's proof it must remain just a belief.
-
Lee,
I am not claiming an undisputed fact. My position is simply "there is no known scientific evidence that connects cancer with power lines". That does not say there never will be, it's just the current state of understanding.
You have said EMR (btw - more correctly we are discussing the effects of ELF) "can" cause cancer. If that's true, I'd like to see the evidence and an explanation for the mechanism.
According to Edward W. Campion, M.D. (New England Journal of Medicine, 337:44, July 3, 1997):
"there is no convincing evidence that high-voltage power lines are a health hazard or a cause of cancer...18 years of research have produced considerable paranoia, but little insight and no prevention. It is time to stop wasting our research resources. We should redirect them to research that will be able to discover the true biologic causes of the leukemic clones that threaten the lives of children."
-
It's history now, but Karen didn't say what voltage/power the lines were.
In the UK we have 11000V, and 33000V on overgrown telegraph poles, then 100000, 275000 and 400000V on big metal pylons.
I wouldn't think twice about the 33kV stuff.
The 100kV and upwards does make a nice substantial electic field at the ground, somewhere of the order 900V/m ... (I think the NIRP safety limit is about 10000V/m) but that will almost certainly be screened by any building and won't penetrate to the living area. It's all high-impedance and won't penetrate your body anyway. With UK 100kV lines (rated at about 300A per conductor - typically 2 sets of 3 phases on a set of pylons) you can get substantial magnetic fields (still within NIRP guidelines, but not with much headroom IIRC) - which won't tend to be screened by the building. Right under the pylon, the magnetic field would be strong enough to make a the picture on CRT monitor shimmer, and would be likely to cause hum in audio and TV installations.
The magnetic field would still be weaker than you might experience right next to a domestic vacuum cleaner or lab power supply (or the corridor/office next to the switchgear at your workplace) - but you'd experience it everywhere in the house, almost 24/7.
With the UK configuration of cables, the magnetic field decreases rapidly with distance, and (eg for 100kV/300A cables) much reduced even just 30 metres away from the centreline.
-
Thanks Techmind. That's a lot of useful information.
When they do these calculations, do you happen to know what sort of assumptions they make regarding magnetic field cancellation? I'm also assuming the resultant magnetic field is, to some extent, a function of how well balanced the phases are and that the amount of imbalance has some impact on the numbers.
-
Having walked underneath high powered cables suspended between pylons, I have heard the buzzing noise they make. Personally I would not care to live within such close proximity to something that makes that kind of noise. Also I would be very dubious of anyone that sais that there are no effects from living in such close proximity to these structures, the simple reason being it would be very easy to conduct research on this topic.
When someone also sates that the emf in a house is stronger then that produced by these cables I would ask them to place a fluorescent light bulb anywhere in the home and see if it lights up by itself.
As for the cables underground, well if they also emitted emf at the same strength that the overhead lines do then why don't site surveyors use fluorescent bulbs to detect where these cables are when they need to find there whereabouts?
-
Aaron:
You say- "Also I would be very dubious of anyone that sais that there are no effects from living in such close proximity to these structures, the simple reason being it would be very easy to conduct research on this topic." This is true and the research has been done over and over, and there are no affects.
I don't know what you are up to with the fluorescent lamps. Have you tried this around anything but a Tesla generator?
Steve
-
I don't know what you are up to with the fluorescent lamps. Have you tried this around anything but a Tesla generator?
You might even be able to produce a brief but similar effect by charging a party balloon. I've never actually tried it though.
EDIT: Come to think of it, I can cause an unpowered CFL to flash when I take off my clothes. (I wonder if it thinks I'm flashing it? [:o])
I wonder if it's possible to get some light out of a fluorescent tube simply be rubbing the glass at one end of the tube. A bit like the old "amber and cat's fur" experiment.
(More important information here http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Static_electricity)
-
Well I am way out of my depth on this one but I was making a reference about fluorescent lights and the picture of them all lit up underneath the electric pylons, is this fake then?
As for the research well I must take your word on that. Would it be similar to the research done in America with regard to the Aluminium industry and Fluoride I wonder :-)
-
Aaron - Sorry - I added a bit more info to my post above.
You are quite right. Nobody wants to live anywhere near the things, and I can't say I blame them.
However, despite numerous studies, there does not seem to be any hard evidence that proves there is a connection between disease and HT power lines.
There are lots of ways to make fluorescent lights emit a bit of light without going anywhere near HT power lines. Humans and fluorescent light tubes are very different electrically. You and I have a rather low impedance (roughly similar to electric resistance) to the electric field produced by power lines, so the voltage produced across our bodies is very small.
Fluorescent tubes have a very high impedance, so the voltage across them (if they are vertical) can be enough to make them emit some photons. If you make a fluorescent tube a bit more like a human by providing any sort of conduction path between its ends (a bit of humidity might be quite sufficient) it won't light up under these conditions.
-
Sorry Geezer, that's not entirely right, in Sweden we have a lot of statistical studies over all sorts of things possible :) Mostly due to the way we use the system of 'person-nummer' allowing us to statistically treat a lot of information anonymously. We have a tradition of that kind of studies. I found two studies by a Google search. the first is from 1992 'närboendestudien' and another study of cancer for those working with it professionally. The first study looked at children's leukemia, adult leukemia and braintumors for people living less than 300 meters from 220 och 400 kV-high-voltage wires. They found a significant connection between where you lived, and children's leukemia when exposed over 0,2 μT and later studies show the same for grown-ups at 0,2 μT per year. (Feychting och Ahlbom 1992, 1993).
The other study, for those that was working in electro magnetic fields, also from 1992-93, (Birgitta Floderus m.fl. 1992, 1993) showed similar results 0,2 – 0,3 μT. with a slightly weaker correlation between magnetic fields and brain tumors. There are also two Danish studies made that point in the same direction although not statistically proven/significant, Olsen (1993), Johansen (1998). But our Swedish studies are statistically impeccable :)
But it's not that popular a science, and the results are not popular with power companies and considering the telecom industry?
==
1994 an American-Finnish study was presented in where it was found a statistic correlation between Alzheimer and having a electrical profession .. Sobel m.fl. (1995a, 1995b).. It have been followed by several other studies looking at other health problems as ALS (Avanipour m.fl. 1995), but it's hard to find the reasons, and you will need a lot of animal testing to prove it without doubt.
So I think I'll join LeeE here :)
-
Yoron,
I would not argue with the Swedish data (and I'd have a bit of problem reading the papers [:D]) but, how did they manage to discount other potential socioeconomic variables? I suspect the fact(?) that nobody really wants to live under HT lines could easily skew the data.
If there is a simple relationship between field strength and disease, it surely would not be very difficult to reproduce the effects with much more controlled experiments involving lab animals for example, or even farm animals both under, and not under HT lines. I wonder if there were any such studies?
Wasn't it Sweden that created a great stink about low frequency RF emissions from electronic equipment - particularly CRTs if I remember correctly? I'd be interested in seeing any follow-up studies that were conducted to prove the efficacy of the measures that all the CRT equipment manufacturers implemented to comply with the Swedish requirement.
-
If I remember right they made some studies (Karolinska?) showing that the radiation could pass the brain-blood -barrier (cell phones), but what came of it I don't know? The problem with EM is that it's 'longterm effects' one will have to be on the lookout for. It's not like the amazing EM-man pops up, zapping you dead, if it was people would react, wouldn't they?:)
So we'll have to wait and see, also if there are few enough getting 'hit' it's not any immediate threat to our health. But still, there are statistical studies made finding a connection between people getting cancer as correlated to where they live, to a higher degree than the rest of the population. so there are some reason to think twice where you build your house, or chose to live.
Statistics can show you a 'trend' but as for defining how and why I think we need other types of tests. And no, I don't think they were biased. If anything, the money and power to bias (read advertising) I would expect to rest on the other side of the fence.
-
This issue provides a pretty good example of how science works when there is an issue that is potentially important. There are hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand, studies on how low frequency EMF affects health. Initially there was a flurry of small and poorly done studies that should be considered as preliminary. The press picks up the ones that report something alarming, while the ones that find nothing, or negative results, are ignored. Next some private agencies (e.g. power companies) and consumer advocates do a bunch of studies and make a big deal of what they find. Finally governmental agencies and government granted academics do large studies.
What finally happens is that agencies like, in the US, the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health do large reviews of all the studies, decide which had adequate numbers of subjects, which had appropriate data collection and statistical methods, and review these. I have looked at some of these that have more than 700 references. It is these large evaluations of multiple well done studies that get to the truth of the matter. These studies find no effect, and furthermore find no known mechanism that could cause any problems.
The reason that many of these studies are all over the place, in that they find small positive and negative results, is that this is the expected statistical result when there actually is no effect. If at the beginning of this mess there had been just 10 studies, even with inadequate subject numbers and not so hot methods, that agreed that there was a strong effect there would have been no confusion and the next step would have been to find out what the mechanism is. It didn't happen.
Just finding a few studies is not adequate for making a claim. I suggest that anybody who wishes to see what the science actually says use Google Scholar which searches the scientific literature. If you try several searches with combinations of key words, such as, low frequency emf, power lines, cancer, or whatever in Google Scholar you will find the many studies that have been done. If you look for the most recent reviews done by responsible agencies, they will help you understand what has actually been found. Steve
-
Remember that various types of radiation doses fall with the cube of the distance (3-D world we're living in).
I've got powerlines near my house... about 50 feet in the air. No buildings can be made within 50 feet of the center of the lines. And, my house is about 100ft away.
I think I'd agree that more risk would be from stuff inside the house (microwaves, lights, wires, etc) rather than outside the house.
If I take volts/(distance cubed)... I'm not quite sure what that give me.. But, say 120V/(3ft)³ = 4.4 V/ft³
10,000V/(100ft)³ = 0.01 V/ft³
I suppose I'm not considering amps and watts... but, being 3 feet away from a 120V line in one's house is likely as dangerous if not more so than being 100 feet away from a 10,000V line outside.
There have been a lot of questions about whether it is wise to blast your ear with microwave transmissions from a cell phone.
-
Yoron,
I don't think there would be any bias in the Swedish data. It's just that I think other factors associated with the presence of HT lines but have nothing to do with EMR can easily skew the data.
For example, HT lines are most likely to coincide with lower cost housing, which could introduce lots of other factors that do increase the incidence of certain diseases. Some of these could be; less effective health care, poorer nutrition, more smoking, alcohol abuse, industrial pollution, home pollution, automobile pollution, poor ventilation, background radiation, heavy metal contamination, etc., etc.
In other words, if the HT lines were dummies that didn't actually carry any any current, but nobody knew that, would the data be any different? It might be interesting if we could run an experiment on that basis, but I can't imagine it would be possible to do it in Europe or the USA. Anyway, even if we could, I think so many people have been conditioned to think that HT lines do bad things, that it would be a complete waste of time.
(BTW, if you didn't already look at it, I encourage you to check out the link I posted above. It's quite entertaining.)
-
Here's one interesting paper from the BMJ
http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7503/1290.full.pdf?sid=5171d683-8c79-428a-b686-2ee1a96572e2
I found a couple of (what I thought were) very interesting statements in it.
"The finding that the increased leukaemia risk apparently extends so far from the the line is surprising in view of the very low level of magnetic field that could be produced by power lines at these distances."
It's only surprising if you have already assumed cause and effect - sheesh! What they fail to mention is that the the field strengths at these distances would be far weaker than the fields produced by all the other electrical wiring and equipment in any home.
"There is known to be a positive association between affluence and rates of childhood leukaemia."
Steps back in amazement! They use something called the Carstairs deprivation index to try to account for the socioeconomic differences, but, amazingly, when they apply that, it doesn't seem to make much difference to the results.
Hmmmm? Let's recap for a minute. There is no apparent correlation between distance from the power line (unless of course you live on the right side of town), and, it's well known that the incidence of this nasty childhood disease does correlate with wealth.
You don't suppose the only thing we can conclude is that the Carstairs deprivation index needs a serious tune up and we have wasted huge amounts of money that should have been spent on real research into childhood leukaemia?
The BMJ no less!! You might also wonder who the heck reviewed this paper.
-
Here's one interesting paper from the BMJ
http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7503/1290.full.pdf?sid=5171d683-8c79-428a-b686-2ee1a96572e2
Interesting study.
Are we supposed to conclude that the risk of CNS Brain Tumors is actually reduced for those living within 200m of the power lines?
Looking at the study, I think their fundamental error has to do with formulating the hypothesis AFTER analyzing the data. I.E. making a hypothesis to match the data, rather than first making a hypothesis, then collecting data, and verifying that the data supports the previously formulated hypothesis.
-
Well the Swedish study had strict parameters as you can see. And my answer was to the proposal that there were no such studies. If you don't like them I'm sure you can translate them to English and point out what shortcomings you might see:)
The rest of the arguments are the type of arguments coming when we have different opinions I suspect :) If we look at climate nothing will persuade those denying the human aspect of our global warming. And here I'm just stating that I found LeeE:s approach the one that suits me. I'm not stating that we have a proven effect 'beyond doubt'. But it's perfectly reasonable to me. We're all 'electromagnetic' I think :)
==
Before anyone think that I think it's terribly dangerous to live close. No, I do not. It's very few that seems to get any effect from EM radiation. And there might as Geezer points out, be other effects needed for it to become 'dangerous'. That's the trouble with all statistics, they might tell you that 'somethings happening' but they don't specify why and how. That's where your deductions come in, and other types of research.
Also, if we look at how we treated other health issues like the London smog, cigarettes etc. Then there is a very long 'turnaround time' the closer the issue is related to the 'economy'. But as we are a shortsighted species we seem to forget that as soon as we are there. Humans really seems to live in the proverbial 'N0W', don't they?
-
Yoron,
It's OK to say that, because power lines are unnatural sources of EMR, they could possibly be harmful, so it's best to avoid them. However, there are many powerful sources of EMR in all homes, even when they are miles away from overhead power lines. It makes no sense to treat overhead lines any differently than all the other sources. The only real difference is that power lines are big and ugly. The other stuff is more or less invisible.
I'm sorry, but I firmly believe this is simply a case of mass hysteria and paranoia.
There must be a name for an irrational fear of overhead power lines. Anybody know what it is?
-
Yep, I agree. It all depend on their shielding how much radiation you will have. And with the exponential growth of cellphones and the antennas/amplifiers needed to boost the signals we have increased the radiation around us. It's an 'experiment', but seen from a longer point of view the only thing needed for procreate humanity is that we live so long that we can raise some kids. Thats why, even under the worst circumstances possible, humanity still comes through. It's not difficult to see, and I think we all know this.
And life itself is a risk-taking, always. You take a risk just stepping outside your door, or waking up, or even sleeping.
Now, wasn't that what Bilbo used to say too?
"He used often to say there was only one Road; that it was like a great river: its springs were at every doorstep, and every path was its tributary. "It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to. Do you realize that this is the very path that goes through Mirkwood, and that if you let it, it might take you to the Lonely Mountain or even further and to worse places?" He used to say that on the path outside the front door at Bag End, especially after he had been out for a long walk.' "
-
You know, I think the really sad thing is that it's quite easy to conclude from all of this that there is a stronger correlation between childhood leukaemia and wealth than previously recognized. If some of the money that's being spent on trying to prove there is a problem with HT lines is used to isolate the specific environmental factors that increase the risk of childhood leukaemia, a lot of young lives might benefit.
Of course, that won't benefit journalists and lawyers.
-
Geezer, I strongly agree with your general sentiment, but children of families with low socioeconomic status (SES), especially in the US (relative to other developed nations), are subject to all kinds of problems ranging from high infant mortality to higher rates of every kind of childhood disease. I am not saying that finding a way to reduce leukemia is a bad idea, I am saying that this is a more generalized problem. Steve
-
Undoubtedly some of the "Modern Conveniences" that are supposed to be safe actually cause long-term health problems.
In any one place, we are being bombarded by hundreds of radio and TV stations, as well as cell phone, cordless phone, and WIFI signals. We stick cell phone transmitters next to our ears, and some people even attach Bluetooth transmitters to their ears.
We have the high power main transmission lines that are somewhat isolated from people, but also an entire distribution network of lower energy power lines that are much closer. And, if you don't see them in your neighborhood, that is probably because you're walking on them.
We've got microwaves, ovens, electric motors, etc in houses.
One might be able to study differences between "Mainstream Americans" and Amish, for example. But, there undoubtedly are many confounding variables, and they still are subject to the radio and tv signals. What about the Russian Reindeer Herders?
Yet, I fear that if one concludes that "technology kills", one would also come to another conclusion that the lack of technology is deadly noting that some of the least industrialized nations (Zambia, Angola, and Swaziland) have a life expectancy of about HALF that of the industrialized nations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy)
-
To your point Clifford, I read the other day that 90% of the World's human population live within range of a cell phone tower. I was quite surprised to learn that.
-
To your point Clifford, I read the other day that 90% of the World's human population live within range of a cell phone tower. I was quite surprised to learn that.
A little off subject, but truthfully US cellphone technology is pretty crude compared to that in the rest of the world. People in some countries use their cell phones like credit cards, and do a significant amount of online banking with their phones.
Tying it back in though [;)], one has to assume the cell phone technology has been tested with rats and such. But, it is hard for a few month or few year study in animals to represent the long-term, and multi-factorial impact on humans.
I'd be much more concerned with holding microwave transmitters next to my ear than stray EM fields from high voltage power lines.
The solution, of course, would be to use local power generation and 12VDC or 24VDC. I groan about the idea of spending millions or billions of dollars for power distribution networks in 3rd world nations when it might be better to invest the money in solar and other local power generation/distribution technologies.
-
As there is no known mechanism by which electric fields with a frequency less than that of ultra violet light can have any affect on living tissue, and there doesn't appear to be any epidemiological evidence that it does, what is the concern. If the effect is so hard to detect, please explain how your concern re EMF from microwaves and 60 cycle is a more important concern than sending your kids to school on a school bus.
-
Steve is quite right.
It's really easy to generate a charge of 100kV on a person when they walk across a room with a nylon carpet. It's not a new phenomenon either.
The only thing that's different is that we have currents flowing through conductors that can induce electromagnetic force in adjacent conductors.
-
I thought I'd see what happened when I walked towards the nearby power lines holding my compass.
I couldn't really observe anything. Perhaps because the lines were carrying 3 phase AC Current, 60hz, so the field should always be shifting.
Either that, or the far greater magnetic field is that exerted by the earth. Should we plan on moving to Venus to get away from Earth's magnetic field?
-
I thought I'd see what happened when I walked towards the nearby power lines holding my compass.
I couldn't really observe anything. Perhaps because the lines were carrying 3 phase AC Current, 60hz, so the field should always be shifting.
Either that, or the far greater magnetic field is that exerted by the earth. Should we plan on moving to Venus to get away from Earth's magnetic field?
Well, it sort of depends. If the currents flowing in all three conductors were equal, and you were at the same distance from all three conductors (which may not be too easy to arrange) then you would only experience the field from other stuff, like, for example, the Earth's magnetic field.
-
This one summarize what we know today pretty good I think
Cell Phones and Cancer Risk (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones), as you can see the research continues.
-
Nice report Yoron.
I particularly enjoyed,
13. What can cell phone users do to reduce their exposure to RF energy?
While similar to the intent of their answer, mine might have been a teeny bit more direct. Something like
"Quit yakking, and get off the damn phone!"
-
In addition to "Quit yakking, and get off the damn phone!" I would add, if you are concerned quit griping and get a wired head set so you can keep the phone away from your body. I don't think that this is necessary, but the inverse square law should allay the fears of anyone who disagrees. Steve
-
Yep Steve, quite right you are, and Geezer of course.
Ah, btw, You wouldn't happen to have a daughter would you?
Just asking :)
??
Geezer I mean.
-
You wouldn't happen to have a daughter would you?
Two actually. Fortunately, mobile phones only became mandatory accessories some time after they left home!
-
In addition to "Quit yakking, and get off the damn phone!" I would add, if you are concerned quit griping and get a wired head set so you can keep the phone away from your body. I don't think that this is necessary, but the inverse square law should allay the fears of anyone who disagrees. Steve
Someone checked into that idea and found that the wires acted like wave-guides and channelled more of the RF straight into your head.
-
In addition to "Quit yakking, and get off the damn phone!" I would add, if you are concerned quit griping and get a wired head set so you can keep the phone away from your body. I don't think that this is necessary, but the inverse square law should allay the fears of anyone who disagrees. Steve
Someone checked into that idea and found that the wires acted like wave-guides and channelled more of the RF straight into your head.
Good point! I never heard that one before, but I'm pretty sure the headset cable will work as a highly effective antenna using the human head as a ground plane. Ironically, nearly all the energy will be coming from the user's own phone.
-
Lee,
I am not claiming an undisputed fact. My position is simply "there is no known scientific evidence that connects cancer with power lines". That does not say there never will be, it's just the current state of understanding.
You have said EMR (btw - more correctly we are discussing the effects of ELF) "can" cause cancer. If that's true, I'd like to see the evidence and an explanation for the mechanism.
According to Edward W. Campion, M.D. (New England Journal of Medicine, 337:44, July 3, 1997):
"there is no convincing evidence that high-voltage power lines are a health hazard or a cause of cancer...18 years of research have produced considerable paranoia, but little insight and no prevention. It is time to stop wasting our research resources. We should redirect them to research that will be able to discover the true biologic causes of the leukemic clones that threaten the lives of children."
YES, risk to live near power lines, because of high-voltage wires can lead to many health issues like leukemia and cancer. Electromagnetic censor is responsible for creating negative value on your body.
-
YES, risk to live near power lines, because of high-voltage wires can lead to many health issues like leukemia and cancer. Electromagnetic censor is responsible for creating negative value on your body.
What's the evidence to support your claims?
You can't just say what you have without evidence-based justification. This is a scientific forum, not a platform for propaganda. There may well be an effect, but here we work with evidence, not gut instinct.