Re: Power Lines and Magneti

["GORDON MILLER" <gordon_miller@lccmail.ocf.llnl.gov>]

        Reply to:   RE>>Power Lines and Magnetic Fiel
The idea that the concrn is strictly a response to lawsuits arising from the
esthetics of transmissions lines is an oversimplification.  Some in-vitro and
theoretical science, an E-field study using Hanford miniature swine that had
problems due, as I recall, to infections, and intense public distrust of
government and those in positions of power fanned by recent events, and
one-sided exposes written by Paul Brodeur have all helped make this a concern.

There is some in vitro science to suggest ELF fields may be hazardous as
carcinogens and support for this area has been so poor that critical research
is not put to the test of replication for years.  Recently Goodman's research
about transcription was seriously challenged, probably fatally challenged. 
Adey's pioneering work is challenged, but personality frequently gets in the
way so the science of calcium ion efflux changes and membrane effects gets
lost.

If the science goes untested due to lack of interest as manifested by funding,
then there will be a core of science to underpin public concern.

The Federal government didn't help.  They left research to the utilities and
let DOE take the lead in handling the government's contribution to this area of
science.  Not good for instilling confidence in a subject where skepticism is
rampant (although there is no reason to believe that either EPRI or DOE
tampered with the research they supported).  Congress moved in and got NIEHS to
take the lead.

So it's a matter of perceptions and unwillingnes to come to grips with public
concerns by answering the concerns with adequate science managed in a way that
promotes trust.

I also feel that epidemiology has become a trap.  Clearly epidemiology is not
providing answers, at least when surrogates for exposures and measurements of
average magnetic field strength are used.  We are still left with weak links
between ELF field exposure and whatever cancer is of interest even though
recent studies have involved entire Scaninavin countries and three immense
utilities.  I feel the answers lie in the lab, not in more epi studies unless
epi studies address such phenomena as transients, harmonics, and
resonance/windows.  Even then, replicated lab studies will probably do a beter
job of determining what's happening.
--------------------------------------
Date: 1/20/95 7:35 AM
To: GORDON MILLER
From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
One wonders how power lines became suspect of health hazards given that the
preponderance of data suports the contrary.  I put this question to a power
authority official at an AIHA meeting, and she answered that the concern over
the safety of power lines grew out of lawsuits related to the devaluation of
real estate due to the unsightly towers and cables.  I'm not sure if it is
true, but why would so many people spend so much money on investigating a
health risk without supporting epidemiological data?

David Korpan
Purchase College
  

------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by lccmail.ocf.llnl.gov with SMTP;20 Jan 1995 07:35:48 U
Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu [128.174.74.24]) by
vixen.cso.uiuc.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA19688; Fri, 20 Jan 1995
09:25:12 -0600
Received: by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-2.0)
	id AA17150; Fri, 20 Jan 95 09:25:07 -0600
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 09:25:07 -0600
Message-Id: <m0rVLFv-0000YpC@purvid.purchase.edu>
Errors-To: mandel@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: dkorpan@purvid.purchase.edu (David Korpan Campus Environmental Health
Dkorpan Safety x6644)
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Power Lines and Magnetic Fields
X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Radiation Safety Distribution List