Health Risks Associated with Living Near High-Voltage Power Lines

[Cyrus]

Cyrus, I have read three links of yours and this is the only one even going close to the topic.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-under

"Houses near power lines tend to be on large, busy streets in older, poorer neighborhoods. Perhaps some environmental factor, such as pollution levels, is the causative agent, but the other possibilities have not been investigated."

You clearly did not read the first link I told you to. Go back and read it again. Three times, four times, five times... until it sinks in.

 

[misgfool]

You clearly did not read the first link I told you to.

Ok, since I'm such a bad reader, could you quote the appropriate sentence(s)?

I read these. I'm not going to read anymore until you give something of relevance.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-under
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html
NIH 65 page study

 

[Cyrus]

Ok, since I'm such a bad reader, could you quote the appropriate sentence(s)?

I read these. I'm not going to read anymore until you give something of relevance.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-under
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html
NIH 65 page study

You are something else. I'm done with you. bye.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes, but why can't they make an experiment with rats or something?

I would imagine that the experiment is fairly trivial to make.

The effect, if it exists, is fairly small apparently. So they may need a rather large quantity of rats and then they would need to subject them to EMFs for years. Unless they can observe the effect of EMFs on living cells directly as it happens. Otherwise anyone allocating funds would probably like to see statistical evidence of a real world effect before spending on the project. Research is cheaper than experimentation I would assume.

 

[Pyrrhus]

The problem about these studies is that they tend to be observational studies, instead of experiments and the reason is ethical. We cannot take people and purposely put it under EMF for years while controlling for other lurking variables, and then see if they got cancer or not. However, scientists can conclude causation or not through repetition of studies. The causation link of cigarettes and cancers was established this way. Many observational studies were done in a large period of time, and cigarettes were found to be statistically significant correlated with cancer in several of these studies.

For the EMF case, Cyrus shows a similar procedure in his post #23.

After examining more than 500 studies spanning 17 years of research, the committee said there is no conclusive evidence that electromagnetic fields play a role in the development of cancer, reproductive and developmental abnormalities, or learning and behavioral problems.

 

[Ouabache]

I've never found any conclusive evidence suggesting that it does. Have there been any independant studies conducted?

Yes, the references Ivan Seeking gave in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=316844,#6", clearly indicate, there are health risks associated with long term exposure to electrical power lines.

For the EMF case, Cyrus shows a similar procedure in his post #23.

I've read that Scientific American article and noted false information stated there. This weakens the credibility for the rest of the information reported in this article.

"One of the most difficult areas to study is the possible relation between childhood leukemia and exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which has turned up in a number of epidemiological studies (but not all, and not in the best study). What these studies found was an association between living near large power lines and an increased incidence of childhood leukemia. The problem is that these same studies found no association between the measured strength of EMFs and the leukemia incidence. In other words, living near power lines seems to be associated with leukemia, but the measured field strength is not.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-under"

I've bolded the false statement. The first article that Ivan referenced, (study in Sweden), describes an increased health risk relative to increasing magnetic field exposure levels.

There may be epidemiological validity to findings of higher rates of certain cancers among populations living near power lines, but that doesn't mean the power lines are the causation. Usually, because power lines are unsightly, they are undesirable locations for homes, and therefore the property values much lower near them. There are a lot of risk factors associated with low SES, including things like worse healthcare, more common tobacco and alcohol abuse, occupational exposures at blue collar jobs, more obesity, etc.

I've observed homes in proximity to high voltage lines in a couple of locations. Both sites were in upscale neighborhoods. See the papers Ivan referenced, the analyses do account for confounding variables.

 

[Hootenanny]

Thread re-opened, let's stay civil and stick to the topic.

Due to heated nature of this discussion, any and all claims should be substantiated by appropriate references.

Play nice.

 

[shenry255]

The transmission lines the power companies are wanting to construct in my local area are 760Kv. What are the effects of the HIGH voltage regularly put upon us within that 2200 ft corridor (powerlines in the middle of that corridor) who live and work here? We already have an elementary school that is plagued with cancer-problems in students and teachers.

 

[shenry255]

Why is it that EVERY study of the effects of HIGH voltage being REGULARLY put upon consumers is said to be "inconclusive"? Could it be that money speaks? Even when they do state that there is a link at all. You say they've been talking about this for YEARS. If there needs to be research, then why hasn't it been done and done appropriately?

 

[shenry255]

I hadn't read those, thank you.

 

[chemisttree]

http://www.swri.org/3pubs/ttoday/spring96/ttoday3.htm" where I worked...

 

[f95toli]

Why is it that EVERY study of the effects of HIGH voltage being REGULARLY put upon consumers is said to be "inconclusive"? Could it be that money speaks? Even when they do state that there is a link at all. You say they've been talking about this for YEARS. If there needs to be research, then why hasn't it been done and done appropriately?

The main "problem" is that IF there are risks associated (which we don't know) with power lines they are extremely small; they are certainly negligible compared to genetic predisposition to certain cancers, lifestyle (what you eat, if you smoke etc), being out in the sun without protection etc. Hence, the scientist involved are looking for extremely small variations AND have to "compensate" for e.g. socio-economic factors; people who live directly below a HV line generally do so because they can't afford anything else; and being poor is an indirect risk factor (less money usually means a less healthy diet etc) for cancer which by far outweighs any health risks associated with the HV line itself.

My lecturer in radiation safety liked to use the example of people working at nuclear power plants. They are exposed to more radiation than the general population which presumably should raise their the risk of cancer slightly (radiation is after all a known risk factor); but at the same time they are ALSO -on average- better educated and make more money than the average person. This in combination with the fact that the total number of people concerned is so small means that no one has been able to show that they have a higher risk of cancer than anyone else; if there is a risk due to the radiation it is lost in the "noise".

Hence, the reason why it is so difficult to get a definitive answer is that the risk is very small; what we don't know is HOW small (or indeed if there is any risk at all).

Also, you mention 2200 ft in your post above; it is absolutely impossible that there is any risk once you moved say a 100 ft (probably less) or so away from the line (at least from the EM field itself); the field strength drops of very rapidly. "Near" in this context should mean living in a house just next to (or under) the line.

Finally, remember that we are talking about RISKS here. There are indeed a few things that cause cancer with some degree of certainty (extremely high doses of radiation, some toxins etc) but the average person is extremely unlikely to come into contact with them (and if you do you will probably die from other effects long before you develop cancer); for the rest of use it is all about probabilities, so when we say "cause cancer" we are really saying "increases the probability of cancer".

 

[Cyrus]

Here is an article from the British medical Journal. It is, as most, a statistical study. At the bottom there are a lot of links to sources used in the article. They appear to find a link to leukemia and the distance from the power lines, yet still they can only call it a casual link.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7503/1290

Edward, I would appreciate it if you quoted the important points of the stuff you are linking and start being honest:

Conclusions There is an association between childhood leukaemia and proximity of home address at birth to high voltage power lines, and the apparent risk extends to a greater distance than would have been expected from previous studies. About 4% of children in England and Wales live within 600 m of high voltage lines at birth. If the association is causal, about 1% of childhood leukaemia in England and Wales would be attributable to these lines, though this estimate has considerable statistical uncertainty. There is no accepted biological mechanism to explain the epidemiological results; indeed, the relation may be due to chance or confounding.

Now show me where they "appear to find a link to leukemia and the distance from the power lines". as you just stated.

 

[f95toli]

There is no accepted biological mechanism to explain the epidemiological results; indeed, the relation may be due to chance or confounding.

Indeed, but as far as I know this is/was true even for many well-established risk factors. Note that I am not saying that establishing a biological mechanism wouldn't be necessary in in the long run. However, there are plenty of examples of health hazards that were first identified via epidemiological studies; that "effect" comes before "cause" is certainly not unusual in medicine.
Also, I might be wrong here but as far as I know the mechanism(s) by which smoking causes cancer is/are also unknown.

Again, I am NOT saying that the mechanism is not an issue; but at the same time one can't use that as an argument to say that we know for sure that there is no risks.

 

[Cyrus]

Indeed, but as far as I know this is/was true even for many well-established risk factors. Note that I am not saying that establishing a biological mechanism wouldn't be necessary in in the long run. However, there are plenty of examples of health hazards that were first identified via epidemiological studies; that "effect" comes before "cause" is certainly not unusual in medicine.
Also, I might be wrong here but as far as I know the mechanism(s) by which smoking causes cancer is/are also unknown.

Again, I am NOT saying that the mechanism is not an issue; but at the same time one can't use that as an argument to say that we know for sure that there is no risks.

I certainly see your point, but when they say: "indeed, the relation may be due to chance or confounding." that's a very clear (and statistical) statement saying it couldn't be attributed or that any attribution found is possibly due to an entirely different effect (hence confounding).

If EMF fiels are such a BIG DEAL that everyone thinks they are, then there would be the words "a statistically significant effect was found to occur".

When your error bars are huge, you have no statistical evidence of anything. All I see is report after report with huge error bars being stated in the conclusions.

I do statistical analysis on aircraft data, so I know when something is "statistically insignificant" it means its garbage.

 

[ZapperZ]

Why is it that EVERY study of the effects of HIGH voltage being REGULARLY put upon consumers is said to be "inconclusive"? Could it be that money speaks? Even when they do state that there is a link at all. You say they've been talking about this for YEARS. If there needs to be research, then why hasn't it been done and done appropriately?

Do you think the American Physical Society, which is the professional organization for physicists in the US, is in it for the "money"? This society has never gravitated to that (if they do,they would have supported the "missile shield" plan and would have gotten tons of money from the US military). Yet, they have issued THIS report:

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/95_2.cfm

Zz.

 

[Cyrus]

It wasn't meant for you Cyrus it was meant for the person who asked for information and thanked me for providing it.

Here is what I referred to if you need to be spoon fed.

Could you please elaborate on what the conclusion says Edward.

 

[junglebeast]

I would like to see one of these satellite pictures that shows cows orienting themselves along magnetic field lines...

 

[Cyrus]

You can read it under Conclusions at the bottom of the link. Then jump to your own conclusion.

The info below is just below the conclusions from the same British Medical Journal link. If you don't like it write them a letter.

I ask for your take on the conclusion because I did read it, and I question if we are both reading the same paper. Edward, could you please bold the very last sentence of the British Medical Journal conclusion. Then could you show me where they statistically found people living under 200m to have increased cancer rates.

 

[russ_watters]

Here is an article from the British medical Journal. It is, as most, a statistical study. At the bottom there are a lot of links to sources used in the article. They appear to find a link to leukemia and the distance from the power lines, yet still they can only call it a casual link.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7503/1290 [emphasis added]

[separate post] Here is what I referred to...

At the very least, edward, you misspoke there. The link is not confirmed to be causal. There are numerous quotes in the linked article that say that. Here are quotes that are neutral or negative:

If the association is causal...

We emphasise again the uncertainty about whether this statistical association represents a causal relation.

Childhood cancer and power lines: Results do not support causal role for electromagnetic fields...

Not so plausible causal origin...
[emphasis added]

Only one says anything above neutral and even that is weak:

Draper et al's findings may have a causal origin...

Perhaps you meant to say something like 'yet still they can only call it a statistical association, not a causal link'.

 

[russ_watters]

Why is it that EVERY study of the effects of HIGH voltage being REGULARLY put upon consumers is said to be "inconclusive"? Could it be that money speaks? Even when they do state that there is a link at all. You say they've been talking about this for YEARS.

Well, conspiracy theory notwithstanding, years of inconclusive research should tell us what? It tells me that there is nothing positive (no link) to conclude.

If there needs to be research, then why hasn't it been done and done appropriately?

I think the reasearch has been done appropriately and the appropriate answer has been found.

The answer to a related question, why hasn't more research been done, is simple: scientists don't tend to research things that they believe do not exist.

 

[Cyrus]

I am not going to get involved in nit picking. Someone asked for info. I gave them a couple of links. Take it up with the Brits.

Edward, if a study is not statistically valid, it is inconclusive. This isn't nit picking, it's a fundamental process of science.

 

[junglebeast]

Here is a quick one but not the best one.

http://weirdnewsfiles.com/wp-content/weirdnewsuploads/cows.jpg

So...you don't have any that look like this?

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1710/cowsp.jpg

Because those cows could be facing that direction for any reason...like, they just walked to that location as a group.

 

[russ_watters]

I am not going to get involved in nit picking. Someone asked for info. I gave them a couple of links. Take it up with the Brits.

It isn't nitpicking when what you said directly contradicts what is said in the link you provided.

 

[junglebeast]

The fact that cows align themselves north to south is no longer disputed. The cattle in your picture shows them walking on paths. Cows only align themselves while grazing and sleeping.

Try to goggle up a little reality.

No it doesn't show them walking on paths..they could just as well be standing still and grazing.

 

[junglebeast]

Take a closer look most of them are on dirt.

That's true, but the cows are probably more interested in the grass that's growing in the dirt.

 

[Equate]

Take a closer look most of them are on dirt.

You are not serious, are you?

The "paths" you are referring to are photoshopped EMF lines. You take a closer look.

 

[JaredJames]

I am not serious now I've been had by a junglebeast.:rofl:

If you thought everything in that pic was real, then I would have thought the shape of the 'paths' would be of much more interest than the fact the cows were using the 'paths' as you would expect them to if they were real, for the same reason a human would.

 

[Equate]

I've been had by a junglebeast.:rofl:

Happens to the best... ;-)

 

[russ_watters]

It was meant for the person who asked for info . What part of that don't you guys understand.

The part explains how that makes it ok to spread misinformation. The person who asked wouldn't notice the misinformation, so it is ok to say it? Is that it?

Edward: you really need to address this.

 

[Phrak]

Very prevocative. But look closely. This picture is a spoof or a fraud.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1710/cowsp.jpg

There is white cow with a black spot in the direction of it's 6:30. This cow plus the spot occurs 7 times in the picture. And never without the telltale spot.

The brown cow is pasted 6 times. The black cow is pasted a dozen times.

I am shocked and offended by repetition. The artist needs more cows!

 

[jim mcnamara]

Edward -

Try this. Science does not set out to disprove a hypothesis. Science tries to support one. The null hypothesis may be viewed as the same thing as "disproof", or not accepting the given hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is never proven by scientific methods, as the absence of evidence against the null hypothesis does not establish it. In other words, one may either reject, or not reject the null hypothesis; one cannot accept it.

 

[jim mcnamara]

With regard to the 'Photoshopped' cows, note the direction of the shadows, too.
Fun pic, I think...

 

[Ian_Brooks]

apologies for starting such a heated debate. I only brought up this topic as we were - at that time looking for houses and came across one that was worth more than it was being sold for simply because a number of potential buyers had issues with a nearby distribution tower. Besides providing for an awful view - I wanted to know if this reasoning was substantial.

 

[russ_watters]

No prob. What you have there is a case where perception = reality. People perceive a health effect and aesthetic issue, therefore there is a reality of a lower housing value. So for that, it doesn't really matter if the perceived problem is real or not - you still have to deal with it either way.

A similar issue exists with radon.