Conscious Choice: The Great Wired Controversy

August 1999

The Great Wired Controversy

Electromagnetic fields spark more than a current event

by Ana Arias Terry

The list of alleged ailments stemming from prolonged, low-frequency exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) reads like a health recipe from hell. Cancer (brain, breast, and leukemia, especially among children), birth defects, reproductive dysfunction, neurovegetative disorders — such as melancholy, depression, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, decreased libido, irritability — diseases of the blood, immunology complications, hormonal imbalances, heart disease, attention and memory complications in kids, sleep disturbances, hearing loss, joint pain, and plenty more.

The purported culprits? This list is almost as long as the list of infirmities. Particularly suspect are power lines, home wiring (and/or poorly grounded wiring), appliances, cellular phones and towers, electric razors, electric blankets, hairdryers, sides and backs of computer monitors, copiers, TVs, CD-players, transformers, and other electrical gizmos found at school, home, or office.

The professed maladies and overwhelming sources are enough to send even the most rational lay person into a puzzled tizzy, and the breadth of different camps asserting the validity of their claims can finish off the job of driving one mad.

So who are the characters of this drama? First, we have the epidemiologists (those in medicine who study epidemic diseases). Through their in vivo (whole animal) and in vitro (cellular) studies, one segment states that EMFs are to be considered a "possible human carcinogen," yet they’re quick to point out that the risks are not high.The other segment claims that no such association to cancer or other health risks exists. Then we have the physicists, who are less convinced that conclusive evidence exists to date to make claims of any such links since most of them don’t think that EMFs have adverse effects on the human body.

Next on the stage are the electrical power and telecommunications industries sponsoring research that has yet to point the health-endangering finger at themselves (a possible exception or two may be lurking behind lock and key). That’s a shocker. The financial stakes for these companies are no Monopoly funny money. Let’s not forget the government and legislative bodies, lagging behind by decades in matching policy to scientific findings.

Finally, behind the chaos, hovers the bewildered public. Citizens not only worry about the potential health risks due to EMF exposure but also express grave concerns about aesthetics of their communities and the possible depreciation of their home value due to unsightly power lines and cellular phone towers.

This convoluted soup of studies and divergent expert opinions has the unfortunate side effect of causing uncertainty and fear in people worldwide. So the looming $25,000 question is who do you believe?

Invisible But Not Forgotten

To demystify the conflicting findings issue by a hair or two, it helps to have a better understanding of EMFs and their relationship to us.

According to B. Blake Levitt, award-winning author of Electromagnetic Fields, A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, radiation happens. Every day we simmer in a caldron of electromagnetic radiation powered by wind, which is caused by the sun. Wind emits high-energy ionizing radiation such as X-rays, infrared, ultraviolet, gamma and cosmic rays, and some radio/microwave frequencies. In an intricate web, this radiation acts with the magnetosphere (shielding the planet from this contingency of radiation), ionosphere, and the atmosphere. The magnetic field produced by the Earth is approximately 100 times more powerful than the field generated by household currents.

But not all forms of energy, its properties, or its effects, are created equal. The spectrum of electromagnetism is either ionizing or non-ionizing. According to Levitt, ionizing radiation (e.g., X-rays) has sufficient power to bump off electrons from their cellular orbits and produce genetic mutations. The non-ionizing variety (e.g., radio frequencies and microwaves) don’t have sufficient power to follow suit but can create a series of other reactions (how does tissue heating grab you?).

Part of the problem, of course, is that no one can offer great precision in the matter of where the one type of radiation trails off and the other starts. But making matters a bit more disconcerting is the fact that the majority of medical doctors have no knowledge of this area. The disciplines that get into the heart of this matter are bioelectromagnetics and biophysics, not exactly the mainstream of courses taught in medical schools, says Levitt.

As if we needed added exposure beyond that which natural forces dish out for us, EMFs in our techno society are not so easy to avoid completely. Electrical fields occur in energized (plugged but not "on") apparatuses or electrical wires. Magnetic fields are deployed when the electricity is used. In other words, an electrical lamp that’s turned off produces an electric field. When that light is switched back on, it produces an electric and a magnetic field. It’s the magnetic component of the EMF that’s linked to the purported health risks and thus is the most studied of the two. This magnetic field is measured in units called milligauss (mG), and while typical appliances radiate strong fields up close, their intensity falls off quickly within a few feet.

The primary reason most studies concentrate on the magnetic field element as opposed to the electric element is because our bodies are excellent conductors. As such, the penetration of electric fields into our systems is reduced notably. Magnetic fields, however, penetrate our bodies easily so there’s greater concern for the potential effects.

Against a Backdrop of Research Mayhem

The study most often cited as the catalyst to public concerns about potential health risks from EMFs was conducted in 1979 by researchers Wertheimer and Leeper. They discovered that a set of kids in Colorado who died of nervous system cancers, lymphoma, or leukemia were more likely to have lived in houses with higher wire codings and close to high-voltage power lines. The study eventually drew much criticism from the scientific community (and the power companies), as the results could not be replicated. Depending on the side of the ballpark where you were sitting, some claimed the original study was flawed, others said it was the follow-up studies that were problematic.

Sampling the Health Risk Association Contingency

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that in 1997 health concerns about EMF cost the U.S. economy approximately $1 billion yearly.

Just last year, a group assembled by the National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences (NIEHS) — after examining hundreds of studies — indicated that there was sufficient evidence to consider EMFs a potential carcinogen to humans (though they claimed the risk wasn’t high).

At the 1998 EMF Research Review Meeting sponsored by the Energy Department, two scientists indicated that intermittent fields disturbed sleep quality. They also pointed out that magnitude of a field is less important than its intermittency nature or other characteristics (such as power surges).

Some studies still continue to demonstrate links between EMFs and health effects on individuals exposed to frequent albeit low EMF radiation. A particular Scandinavian study found a significant increase in neurovegetative disorders in workers who spent eight-hour days over one to five years in locations above high-end tension cables and transformers.

In 1996, the National Academy of Sciences said that "wire codes are associated with childhood cancer" but that it was unknown what caused it. They contended that EMFs seemed capable of modifying biological tissues.

Epidemiological information from occupational and residential exposure studies have revealed a "moderate" risk of cancer in kids and adults exposed to strong magnetic fields. Approximately 98 percent of homes across the nation have magnetic fields averaging in strength from 0.5 to 0.9 mG. The federally allowed limit in workplaces is 1,000-mG.

Researchers at the University of North Carolina found that electric utility workers who experienced high exposure to EMFs were more than two times likely to get brain cancer as compared to those with lower exposure.

In 1997, researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California discovered that EMFs muck with biological influences. They can inhibit natural and synthetic drug functioning. Particularly, they found that EMFs can curb the capability of melatonin (a hormone created by the brain during darkness periods) and tamoxifen (a hormone-emulating drug used to prevent breast cancer recurrence) to stop the growth of cancer cells.

As for other biological influences also due to EMFs, an international team reported that EMFs with a 60-hertz frequency and one gauss in strength initiate a ripple of enzyme-driven cell-signaling events that are fabricated by tumor-promoting genes.

In the last few years, some studies have focused on the potential role of EMFS as promoters or catalysts of carcinogenicity rather than a direct cause agent. And while some studies that looked at liver and skin tumors were generally negative, others that investigated breast tumors found a number of "suggestive" outcomes. Coincidentally, researchers at Bristol University demonstrated that the electric element of EMFs attracts and concentrates airborne pollutant aerosols, which is indicative of the attraction and concentration of bacteria and viruses. By being able to attract established and suspect carcinogen carriers, they attributed EMFs with a causal link to cancer occurrences.

The Naysayers

In this controversial issue, one fact definitely exists: for every epidemiological observation, experimental study, reported article, or editorial that claims EMF health risks indeed exist, there’s at least one (and often many more) of each of these that offers the exact opposite argument and evidence. And that goes across the board from defiant claims that no relationship exists — regardless of electric source — to any negative effect. These claims come from establishments and individuals just as reputable as those that attest to a link.

As recently as mid June 1999, NIEHS presented a report to Congress in which it claimed that almost all human and animal lab evidence and the majority of "mechanistic studies in cells" failed "to support a causal relationship" between EMFs and cancer. The report did point out, however, that some statistical associations have been found between EMFs and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in adults exposed to fields in their jobs (such as welders, machinists, and electric utility employees) and leukemia in kids.

The same National Academy of Sciences report that found an association between childhood cancer and wire codes went on to summarize that the available data on current research didn’t demonstrate that EMFs presented health risks for humans. Some contend that this conclusion is "suspect" and inconsistent (according to skeptics, that same report offers a summary in which it states that being close to high-voltage lines increases the chances of a kid to get leukemia by 50 percent).

In 1997, epidemiologists Martha Linet and Leslie Robinson conducted what many scientists call the most definite study on a possible association between low frequency EMFs and cancer. Their $5 million, five-year study revealed no such correlation. It appears this study drew less criticism than many others from the scientific community — even by those whose findings have shown the exact opposite — because it was carried out so carefully.

And the National Research Council concluded in 1996, after assessing five hundred studies on the health influences of high voltage power lines, that "no conclusive and consistent evidence" could be found that indicated EMFs caused any human illnesses.

Empowered Consumers, Enlightened Industries, and a Wise Government?

The bottom line is that hundreds of studies later, the jury is still out on the link/no link relationship between EMFs and ill health effects. This doesn’t particularly warm the cudgels of the heart, but we do have recourse as consumers. For starters, let’s keep a cool head about us. Much of the current scientific wisdom deems potential health complications from EMFs uncommon. The risks are allegedly much lower than many other possible dangers such as being in a car accident. Of course, others disagree.

The best tools at our disposal are the following: to operate from a basis of knowledge about the studies; to be open to health claims from ordinary citizens who attribute health problems to EMFs; and to make the best possible objective/gut assessment we can, given the uncertainties.

Dick Domanik, a vice-president of engineering for a Chicago-area company that designs and manufactures clinical diagnostic devices and instruments, says, "The best bet for coming to an informed opinion at this time is to go with a‘preponderance of evidence’ — lots of independent factors all pointing in the same direction. Everything that goes into this analysis should be examined both for internal consistency and for consistency with‘known good’ facts on different but related topics." He also points out that ideally, the "related" information should be pulled from sources different than the ones making the claim that’s being assessed. "A lot of information published on this topic is suspect," he adds, "so a healthy dose of skepticism toward all such information is warranted unless it can be shown to be of good quality."

On more pragmatic levels, we can vote for representatives that hear our concerns about this issue, write letters to them, and consider lowering our exposure to EMFs as much as reasonably possible in our modern culture. Without going off the deep end, why not take a few precautions until the scientific community displays more consensus or until the evidence is fully convincing?

We can lower our EMF exposure by being mindful of the proximity and frequency and making a few basic adjustments. For example, maybe the next time we get a hankering to whip out a fruit smoothie, we can stand at arm’s length when we turn on the blender. And instead of hovering over our computer monitors, we can shift our workspace configuration so the monitor is also at arm’s length. If we find ourselves greatly concerned, we can also tap the electric company to measure EMFs with their gauss meters. Some will do it for free.

Speaking of government and industry. Until the final verdict is in, we can encourage the government and the electric and telecommunications industries to set reasonable but needed guidelines. They have the power to require radiation shields on cell phones, request the manufacturing of lower powered gadgets, and promote limited usage of electrical and cellular devices. In a collaborative effort with communities, these entities can also define safe ranges for tower placements and establish dead zone areas. Among many other steps, the FCC could follow the lead of Swedish environmental agencies that have adopted a policy of "prudent avoidance."

Prudent avoidance. It sounds reasonable for all characters. Personally, I’d rather laugh enthusiastically at my foolishness later — if no health risk is unequivocally proven — than to take wellness chances on the only body and mind I’ve got — just in case it turns out that the risks were real.

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: