[yor_on]

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.

[SteveFish]

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

[CliffordK]

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.

[Geezer]

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.)

[Geezer]

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.

[CliffordK]

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.

[yor_on]

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?

[Geezer]

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?

[yor_on]

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.' "

[Geezer]

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.

[SteveFish]

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

[CliffordK]

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.

[Geezer]

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.

[CliffordK]

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.

[SteveFish]

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.

[Geezer]

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.

[CliffordK]

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?

[Geezer]

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.

[yor_on]

This one summarize what we know today pretty good I think
Cell Phones and Cancer Risk, as you can see the research continues.
 

[Geezer]

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!"