[ RadSafe ] Proximity to Bush Hogs and Leukaemia

[Maury Siskel]

Upon first exposure to this article, I thought of Radsafe, but dismissed 
it because of length. But this stuff is as unending as the HV power 
lines throughout the nation. Since when has correlation accepted as a 
basis for cause/effect conclusions. In my area, the sole control of 
plant growth is huge mowers; no herbicides are used. Maybe the childhood 
cancers result from the excess rabbit population in these easements; 
maybe the weed or grass species produce super-pollen generated by ELF; 
maybe the open space breaks in housing densities allow leukaemia germs 
to proliferate; and so on. And the conclusion by James LeFanu cited in 
the final paragraph prompts me to think of the dire threat of radon ....

To some, please accept an apology for the length, but if this ELF flight 
of fancy might be curtailed, then it seems worthwhile.
Sincerely,
Maury&Dog       (Maury Siskel    maurysis at ev1.net)
=======================
Currents of Death?
Twenty-five years of research has rubbished claims of a link between 
childhood cancer and overhead power lines. So why do new studies keep 
appearing?
by Adam Burgess

A new epidemiological study suggesting a link between childhood cancer 
and overhead power lines was launched at a press conference yesterday, 2 
June. The study, which appears in the British Medical Journal with an 
accompanying editorial, immediately generated considerable media 
interest (1).

Over 29,000 children with cancer, including 9,700 with leukaemia, were 
included in the study. The children were aged 0-14 years and were born 
in England and Wales between 1962 and 1995. They were compared with a 
control group of children individually matched for sex, approximate date 
of birth, and birth registration district. The distance of each child's 
home address at birth from the nearest high voltage power line was 
calculated. Children who lived within 200m of high voltage power lines 
at birth appeared to have a 70 per cent raised risk of leukaemia 
compared with those who lived beyond 600m. There was also a slightly 
increased risk for those living 200 to 600m from the lines at birth.

The press release is at pains to emphasise that the results should be 
treated with caution, and even if there were some role played by these 
so-called power frequencies (or what is known by the usual acronym ELF - 
extremely low frequency fields), this could only explain a very small 
number of childhood leukaemias. Usefully, the press release explains the 
scale of the possible association: 'To put these risks into perspective, 
about five of the 400-420 cases of childhood leukaemia that occur 
annually in England and Wales may be associated with power lines.'

The authors add that the effect could be simply down to chance or 
another cause. The most important so-called 'confounding factor' (all 
the other influences that equally might explain any association found 
between one factor and another) in this case has long been recognised to 
be the fact that neighbourhoods with heavy concentrations of power lines 
are typically poor, congested and polluted - all of which are risk 
factors for cancer.

This is particularly relevant with this study. As the Institute of 
Electrical Engineers points out in its press release, also published on 
2 June, the elevated rates are found some 600 metres from the power 
lines. It explains: 'At these distances, the magnetic fields in homes 
due to the lines are negligible compared to background levels.' Given 
that it is generally accepted that it could only be the magnetic fields 
generated by power lines that might cause a problem, it must be 
something other than the power lines themselves that explains the results.

With such a tiny possible problem identified, and with such heavy 
qualification provided, one is left to wonder why this study was deemed 
worthy of such attention. Given that the research was not stimulated by 
an evident problem - notably any increased incidence of leukaemia among 
children - one might also ask why the study was carried out in the first 
place. This is particularly the case given that the anxiety over a 
potential link between power lines and childhood leukaemia dates back 
over 25 years, and has already generated a large amount of research. So 
why do the researchers' conclude that even more research is needed? Not 
only is it questionable whether such a tiny association merits further 
investigation in itself, but the enormous quantity of previous research 
in this area has effectively ruled out any such need.

Like other such 'microwave anxieties', the power line issue is American 
in origin and it is instructive to look at its history. The issue was 
brought to prominence by a single individual, Paul Brodeur. He was a 
writer for the New Yorker magazine who turned his attention to 
environmental health issues in the late 1960s. Through a series of 
articles and a subsequent book, Brodeur first of all made a name for 
himself by suggesting that microwaves such as in microwave ovens could 
cause harm - despite their acknowledged inability to damage DNA, the key 
effect of cancer-inducing agents.

As the subsequent microwave panic subsided, Brodeur turned his attention 
to power lines. In scientific terms, grounds for concern were laid by a 
small study of childhood leukaemia patients in Denver carried out by 
Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper in 1979. They suggested that children 
from homes near power lines were three times more likely to develop 
leukaemia. At such a low frequency (around 60 Hz) at one end of the 
electromagnetic spectrum, there is not even the heating effect created 
by microwaves. The only concern was that the effect of the alternating 
magnetic fields created by power lines might somehow interfere with our 
cancer defences. The accumulated evidence conclusively suggests that 
they do not.

When Brodeur turned his attention to the issue some years later, 
however, power lines became a major focus for anxiety within American 
society. In 1989 he wrote a series of articles for the New Yorker that 
drew upon his earlier attack on microwaves, but this time focused 
attention upon power lines. Brodeur made a massive media impact with his 
articles and subsequently produced a book, Currents of Death.

Single-handedly Brodeur stimulated a massive research programme into 
this highly improbable threat. Although only one seriously-regarded 
study seemed to confirm the possibility of such an association, power 
lines became a major concern in the early 1990s - even making an 
appearance in Eddie Murphy's 1992 film The Distinguished Gentleman. 
Besides Brodeur's efforts, probably most important in raising anxiety 
was a preliminary report by the American Environmental Protection Agency 
in 1990, which suggested a 'probable' link between power lines and 
cancer - a wording that was subsequently corrected to 'possible' after 
the media damage had already been done.

The high profile created for the power line issue ensured that an 
enormous amount of research resources were dedicated to it. A 1994 
study, for example, that typically found no overall increased cancer 
risk, looked at 223,000 Canadian and French electrical workers over four 
years. A similar American study the following year had an even larger 
population and found that the cancer rate among electrical workers is 
lower than the general population.

The renowned physicist Robert Park, in his book, Voodoo Science, 
identifies two decisive moments in what he calls 'slamming the door 
shut' on the controversy (2). The first was the so-called Stevens report 
by the (American) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1996, which 
concluded definitively that 'the current body of evidence does not show 
that exposure to these fields presents a human health hazard'. 
Significantly, and unlike the single study released today, the NAS 
report was based upon a review of all the relevant research literature 
published to date - some 500 studies. According to its review, any link 
was too weak to detect or to be concerned about.

In the face of such growing evidence Brodeur became increasingly 
conspiratorial; a subsequent series of articles was also turned into a 
book, this time called The Great Power-Line Cover Up. But a further blow 
was struck in the year following the NAS review. In 1997, the 
prestigious National Cancer Institute (NCI) announced the results of its 
exhaustive seven-year investigation into the purported childhood 
leukaemia/power line connection. The NCI study found no association at 
all, effectively establishing that the link suggested by earlier 
research was just an artefact of earlier statistical analysis. As Park 
wrote, 'As is so often the case with voodoo science, with every improved 
study the effect had gotten smaller. Now, after 18 years, it was gone 
completely'.

In the wake of these findings, and the realisation of just how many 
resources had been spent on a fruitless scientific quest initiated by an 
enterprising journalist, there was sober reflection within the American 
scientific community. The White House Science Committee calculated that 
$25 billion had been spent - including relocating people from their 
houses. The Department of Energy closed down the EMF Research and Public 
Information Dissemination (RAPID) programme created by Congress in 1992. 
As Park points out in Voodoo Science, this didn't prevent another 
committee defining Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF) as a 'possible 
carcinogen' only a year later.

Yet the press release for the study released yesterday keeps the 
controversy going, by pointing out that the International Agency for 
Research on Cancer (IARC) defines ELF as 'possibly carcinogenic'. But we 
should recognise that 'possibly' has very little meaning, and represents 
less a simple scientific judgement than an attempt to play cautious 
science politics. Given the highly cautious way in which science 
politics has subsequently progressed, it was widely recognised that the 
IARC would be unwilling to dismiss any cancer risk and would opt for the 
much safer definition of 'possible'.

By contrast, an editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of 
Medicine following the release of the NCI study in 1997 remains 
admirably clear: 'It is sad that hundreds of millions of dollars have 
gone into studies that never had much promise of finding a way to 
prevent the tragedy of cancer in children. The many inconclusive and 
inconsistent studies have generated worry and fear and have given peace 
of mind to no one. The 18 years of research have produced considerable 
paranoia, but little insight and no prevention. It's time to stop 
wasting our 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.'

In The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine, the doctor and medical writer 
James LeFanu suggested that closing down all the epidemiology 
departments in the country would, at a stroke, greatly minimise health 
anxiety within society (3). When it comes to the presentation of power 
lines as 'currents of death', I'm inclined to agree.
_____________
Adam Burgess is lecturer in sociology at the University of Kent and 
author of Cellular Phones, Public Fears and a Culture of Precaution (New 
York: Cambridge University Press, 2004)

(1) 'Is there a link between childhood cancer and overhead power lines? 
Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines 
in England and Wales: a case-control study', British Medical Journal, 
Volume 330, pp 1290-2; and 'Science commentary: Power to confuse', 
British Medical Journal, Volume 330, p 1293. 'Editorial: The causes of 
childhood leukaemia' British Medical Journal, Volume 330, pp 1279-80

(2) Robert Parks, Voodoo Science (Oxford University Press, 2000)

(3) James LeFanu, The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine (London: Abacus, 
1999)