Fields produced by electric current.
A causal connection between EMF and cancer has not been established. In fact, the National Research Council (NRC) spent more than three years reviewing more than 500 scientific studies which had been conducted over a 20 year period and found "no conclusive and consistent evidence" that electromagnetic fields harm humans. The chairman of the NRC panel, neurobiologist Dr. Charles F. Stevens, said that "Research has not shown in any convincing way that electromagnetic fields common in homes can cause health problems, and extensive laboratory tests have not shown that EMFs can damage the cell in a way that is harmful to human health." Yet, many people believe that living near power lines or using cellular phones causes cancer. Why? Some lawyers, the mass media and a scientifically illiterate public can take the credit here.
A popular talk show host, Larry King (the one who launched Ross Perot's presidential bid fiasco and who occasionally does shows on miracles and angels with little skeptical input), introduced the nation to a widower who claims that his wife's fatal brain tumor was caused by the EMF emitted from her cellular phone. There is a lawsuit, of course. The evidence? The tumor was located near where she held the phone to her ear. The major networks reported the story about the lawsuit and the brain tumor and the cellular phone. Scientists were interviewed to give the story more `depth' and credibility. However, no scientist has yet found a causal connection between EMF and cancer, much less between cellular phones and brain tumors. So, a scientist who has exposed existing tumors to EMF was interviewed. He reported that his research indicates that tumors grow faster when exposed to EMF. Sales of cellular phones dropped and stock in companies that manufacture them dropped. Because tumors exposed to EMF grow more rapidly than tumors not so exposed does not indicate that EMF causes tumors, cancerous or otherwise.
It is possible that cellular phones are causing brain tumors, but the likelihood is small. The phones emit very low EMF levels and exposure to them is intermittent.[note 1] It is possible that a person with a brain tumor who uses a cellular phone is running a significant risk that the tumor will grow faster than it otherwise would. As yet, however, there is no evidence to support the view that there is a reasonable probability of either.
Lawyers representing claimants who blame their cancers on power lines cite a Swedish study that found leukemia rates were 400% higher among children living near power lines.[note 2] A study done by the University of Southern California found increased leukemia rates in children living near power lines.[note 3] Also, "there have been numerous scientific reports of elevated levels of leukemia in people who are exposed to high EMF levels on the job, such as power-line repairmen and workers in aluminum smelters."[ibid.] While the scientific jury is still out on the causal connection, if any, between living near power lines and cancer, the lawsuits are starting to come in. Over 201 challenges to utility projects were made in 1992 in which EMF was an issue. At least three suits have been filed in federal courts claiming exposure to utility lines caused cancer.[ibid.] Utility companies are running scared. They are pouring billions of dollars into efforts to cut EMF exposure from their power lines. Dr. Robert Adair, a physicist at Yale University, calls the reaction "electrophobia" and says that it would take EMF levels 150 times higher than those measured by the Swedish researchers to pose a hazard.
Lawyers will be able to take their cases to court long before the scientific evidence is anywhere near conclusive. And the standards of proof in a court of law are appallingly much lower than those in science. For example, a few years ago Judith Richardson Haimes of Philadelphia was awarded more than $1 million by a jury because they believed she lost her psychic powers after having a CAT scan performed on her at Temple University Hospital. (A judge later reduced the award to $1, which is probably 98 more than her psychic powers were worth.) "All it's going to take is one or two good hits and the sharks will start circling," says Tom Ward, a Baltimore attorney who is suing Northeast Utilities Co. and its Connecticut Light & Power Co. unit over an alleged EMF cancer.[ibid.] There is currently a great push to bury all power lines. Better safe than sorry? The cost goes up twenty-fold to bury the lines. Then what? Lawyers claiming their clients' cancers were caused by EMFed water? It was bad enough trying to sell a house with power lines nearby when people cared about the ugliness of the view. But try to sell the same house when people are afraid of getting cancer from the ugly lines!
It is not very likely that the average person has anything to worry about from power lines. Most of us do not get that close to them to be significantly affected by EMF. Our exposure to them, even if they are nearby, is not direct, up close and constant. We're probably in more danger of EMF pollution from the wiring in our homes and the electrical appliances we use, than from the wires overhead. No one can avoid electromagnetic radiation. It is everywhere. Furthermore, "while electrical fields are easily screened, magnetic fields make their way unimpeded through most substances."[note 4] So, we will have to bury our electrical wires even deeper than our power poles are high if we are to make a significant difference in shielding us from magnetic fields. The scientific evidence supports the view that we're not in much danger in our homes if our wiring is properly insulated. Yet, because utility companies fear lawsuits we are all likely to pay higher utility fees to cover the billions of extra cost of putting wires underground. If the utilities lose lawsuits, it's the shareholders who lose money and they don't want that. On the other hand, utility rates are generally set by public commissions, and they might argue that the rate hikes are unwarranted because there is no proven hazard from EMF. Utility companies may be forced to be advocates for the "electrophobes" in order to justify raising rates to cover the cost of putting lines underground to avoid the cost of lawsuits. Make no mistake about it: when the lines go underground it will be to avoid lawsuits, not to save lives. Nobody really knows whether any lives are significantly at risk in this area.
Update: The Associated Press reported on March 2, 1995, that a California state appellate court has ruled that consumers may no longer sue for property damages stemming from invisible power emissions. Jean and Marin Covalt had argued that the perception that electromagnetic fields are dangerous had driven down the value of their San Clemente property. They lost their home due to foreclosure and wanted San Diego Gas and Electric Co. to reimburse them for their loss. Also, although the Covalts didn't claim they had been made sick by EMFs, they did claim that their fear of contracting cancer in the future was an "injury" to them and they wanted to be compensated for their "injury."
The 4th District Court of Appeals in Santa Ana is to be commended for its ruling.
further reading
Special Report: U.S. study finds no proof of electromagnetic peril by John D. Cox
A compilation of FAQs on Powerlines and Cancer from the newsgroups sci.med.physics, sci.answers and news.answers.
Powerlines and Cancer[FAQ menu]
The Electromagnetic Institute of Denmark: for those who really want to find out about this stuff for themselves.
Edwards, Diane D. "Cells Haywire in Electromagnetic Field?," Science News, v. 133, n. 14 (April 2, 1988).
Pool, Robert. "EMF-Cancer Link Still Murky," Nature, v. 349, n. 6310 (Feb 14, 1991).
Pool, Robert. "Is there an EMF-cancer connection?," Science, v. 249, n. 4973 (Sept 7, 1990), pp. 1096-1099.
Sagan, Leonard A. "EMF Danger: Fact or Fiction?," Safety & Health, v. 145, n. 1 (Jan, 1992), pp. 46-49.