NCRP EMF report

[wjc04@health.state.ny.us]

A few thoughts on the EMF issue.  It could give us all quite a jolt!

NCRP Draft Report on Potential Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields



 The July/August issue of Microwave News had an article describing the draft
report of the NCRP Scientific Committee 89-3, on Extremely Low Frequency
Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF), which will not be officially released
until 1996. The USEPA funded the study, after criticism of its own 1990 report
on the potential carcinogenicity of EMFs. This is probably the first time a
draft NCRP report has been leaked prior to its official release. The current
draft report has not completed the normal NCRP review process. This means that
the conclusions and recommendations of the final report could be somewhat
different.

 According to Microwave News, the NCRP proposes a phased approach using the
principle of "As low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) often used in
regulating other toxic agents such as ionizing radiation or chemical exposure.
The phased approach would consist of three steps.

 1. An interim exposure guideline of one microTesla (1 uT or 10 mG) would be
adopted to reduce exposure in homes, schools, and offices over a period of
three years.

 2. After six years, there would be an option to reduce the guideline to 0.5
uT or 10 mG, based upon the availability of new scientific evidence.

 3. After ten years there would be an option to reduce the guideline to 0.2 uT
or 2 mG.

 Other recommendations include use of a 0.2 uT exposure guideline for schools
and for new transmission lines near existing housing, with a less strict
guideline for new housing and offices.

 This may be a good approach from a technical viewpoint, due to the
uncertainty in risk estimates, but it is unlikely to be accepted by, or
understood by the general public. Given the reaction of the public to other
technical issues such as nuclear power, toxic and hazardous waste disposal, or
other issues receiving extensive media coverage, the NCRP recommendations for
a phased approach are not likely to be favorably received.

 As various experts on risk perception have shown, the general public reacts
more by how they feel about an issue, rather than by how they think or reason
about the issue. The logical thinking is used to support the feelings, rather
than being used for analytical reasons as done by the scientific community.
Some of the factors which relate to the feelings of the public include:

 1. Fear of the unknown (technology is new or not easily understood)

 2. Extent of the media coverage, particularly any focus on disagreement among
experts.

 3. The issue is seen as an imposed risk, not a voluntary one.

 4. Individuals fel they have no control over the risk.

 5.A general distrust of scientific experts and government.

 6. Children are at risk.

 The perception of a risk may not be related to the real risk, but is more
often expressed as:

 Perceived Risk = Real Risk + Outrage Factor

 The Real Risk here is the estimated lifetime risk, annual risk, or cancer
risk, or some equivalent unit relating to health effects. The Outrage Factor
is based on feelings, and is a complex factor influenced by the factors
mentioned above. This factor is often perceived as much greater than the Real
Risk, often by a large factor (5 - 1000), so that the Perceived Risk is felt
to be much larger than the actual risk. There is also a general perception
that any risk is intolerable, particularly if children are involved. When the
perceived risk is felt to be too high by enough people, large scale opposition
is likely to be generated, with consequent pressure on government to
immediately reduce the risk, or to prevent the imposition of a new one.

 The EMF issue is likely to have high Outrage Factors, and hence have a high
Perceived Risk. This has already been seen in pressures to pass ordinances
restricting construction of new powerlines, or to force rerouting of existing
lines. A number of lawsuits have been brought against electric utilities by
individuals or groups claiming that their diseases, primarily cancer, have
been produced by exposure to EMF at home or at work. Most of the suits have
been dismissed by the courts for lack of a scientific basis linking exposure
to specific health effects.

 The release of an NCRP report containing recommendations similar to the ones
listed in the Microwave News would receive wide media attention. Several
outcomes can be envisioned;

 1. The report might be seen as providing a scientific basis for health
effects. This would change the atmosphere in the courts, and probably lead to
more litigation about existing or planned power lines.

 2. The public may not feel comfortable with a phased approach, but is more
likely to want to move to the 0.2 uT guideline now. They prefer a simple
safe/unsafe criterion, and in the face of uncertainty will seek more
restrictive guidelines.

 3. There may be a great demand to measure EMF levels in homes, schools, and
workplaces. Levels above 0.2 uT will be perceived as dangerous. Remediation
will be difficult, expensive, and time consuming.

 4. There may be pressure to pass legislation restricting EMF exposure, which
could lead to regulations which are difficult to implement, and which may be
ill-conceived from a public health viewpoint.

 5. Unlike radon, there is a responsible party, namely the utilities, which
includes the US Government. And there are deep pockets in terms of financial
assets. This could produce a demand for major resource reallocation.

 6. Anything else you can imagine.


:

William (Bill) Condon       Phone: (518) 458-6495
NYS Dept of Health          FAX:   (518) 458-6434
2 University Place     E-Mail1: wjc04@health.state.ny.us
Albany, NY 12203       E-MAIL2: wjc04@aol.com