[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Non-ionizing radiation

The Wertheimer-Leeper study's protocol was to go into the neighborhood and
count the number of lines and the gauge of the wire (by visual observation)
and then assume that there was direct relationship with the magnetic field
strengths to be found in the houses.  It was, I believe part of some other
larger study (what that was I don't think I ever found out) and was
published independently by Wertheimer-Leeper.  When researchers actually
went in and measured the real field strengths in the houses no correlation
was found.  I remember thinking after reading their paper that it was a
poor study with a lot of weaknesses and should never have recieved the
attention it did recieve.  Additionally there was a paper published on the
same subject by some reasearchers in Connecticut (I think) about 5 years
ago, that  used the same protocols as Wertheimer-Leeper for a location in
the Northeast, for which no correlation was found.  Naturally, the second
study recieved no attention in the media.

Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov> on 04/21/98 12:37:44 PM

Please respond to radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu

To:   Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
cc:    (bcc: Raymond A Hoover/TOBEOR/LMITCO/INEEL/US)
Subject:  Re: Non-ionizing radiation

The "bottom line" seems to be that no one has been able to demonstrate a
consistent dose-response relationship between the magnetic field generated
by AC
and any kind of cancer.  I seem to recall an issue of either HEALTH PHYSICS
RISK ANALYSIS devoted to the subject, about 2 years ago. Bonneville did a
thorough animal study and found nothing. The Wertheimer- Leeper study,
which is
often cited by those who want to think EM radiation gives one cancer,
to find clusters of childhood leukemias in neighborhoods where ther was a
proximity to power lines (that is, the power lines looked to be close to
houses where the childen had leukemia...).  Further investigation of these
neighborhooods could not find a correlation between magnetic field and
 Also, the magnetic,field dose from an ordinary AC appliance (hair dryer,
electric blanket, etc) is usually a lot more than from a powerline, because
receptor is a lot closer to the appliance.

I thought the issue was dead.

Clearly only my own opinion

Ruth F. Weiner
Transportation Systems Department
Sandia National Laboratories
fax 505-844-0244

______________________________ Reply Separator
Subject: Non-ionizing radiation
Author:  kfischer@exchange.nih.gov at hubsmtp
Date:    4/20/98 8:33 AM

Hello Radsafe...

A recent discussion with an elementary school teacher has prompted me to do
informal research on the old subject of potential health effects of living
power lines.  I realize this has come up before on Radsafe, but I never
attention like I should have.

So I found the NAS press release and executive summary, which conclude that
there is no threat the human health from exposure to EM fields:

But some more research finds that not everyone is so convinced.  In fact,
believe that just the opposite is true -- the link between EM fields and
effects is unmistakable:

I'm no epidemiologist, so I wouldn't consider myself qualified to make a
judgment either way.  What is the consensus here on Radsafe?  I never
there was any valid reason to believe that these claims were true, but is

On a related subject, the non-ionizing radiation information links on the
Radiation and Health Physics Homepage are dead.  Can anyone recommend some
informational sites, especially for use by someone who is unfamiliar with
relating to radiation (like a school teacher)?

Thanks for your interest,

Karl Fischer
Physical Science Technician, NIH