Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Medical Health Risks Associated with Living Near High-Voltage Power Lines

  1. May 28, 2009 #1
    I've never found any conclusive evidence suggesting that it does. Have there been any independant studies conducted?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 28, 2009 #2
    It's bogus nonsense. It was started by a reporter who misrepresented a paper she read and the article got published anyways. People belived it, and now its stuck in the publics mind.
  4. May 28, 2009 #3
    The health risk issue has been argued back and forth for years. The only thing certain is that the EMF from high voltage power lines will light fluorescent tubes on the ground below.

    http://www.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/electromagnetic-fluorescent-bulb-light.jpg [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  5. May 28, 2009 #4
    No, the certain thing is that it does nothing. The tubes are lighting up from the EMF field, that doesnt mean jack squat. (But sure does look cool!)
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  6. May 28, 2009 #5
    Sounds like free lighting to me. Would this be a way to conserve energy? Live under high voltage?
  7. May 29, 2009 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Magnetic Fields and Cancer in Children Residing Near Swedish High-voltage Power Lines

    Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields from High-power Lines on Female Urinary Excretion of 6-Sulfatoxymelatonin

    Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case-control study

    Magnetic Fields, leukemia, and central nervous system tumors in Swedish adults residing near high-voltage power lines

    Magnetic fields and breast cancer in Swedish adults residing near high-voltage power lines

    Risk of childhood leukemia in areas passed by high power lines.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  8. May 29, 2009 #7
    You could, but I wouldn't recommend it. If one of those were to fail and fall on your house, you and you family would be burned to a crisp.

    Plus, no one would buy it because "Living under power lines causes cancer, you know"..same as masterbating makes you go blind.
  9. May 29, 2009 #8

    Ivan, did you just google 'living under power lines + cancer" and post as many things as you could find?

    Getting cancer living under power lines is crapola crackpot science.
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  10. May 29, 2009 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't think that is a fair assessment. I agree that that more studies are needed .
    However, there are a few significant differences between this and people who are "allergic" to cell phones etc. One is that the fields we are talking about are actually quite strong (>0.1 uT) meaning it is at least possible that there might be an effect. Another difference is that the frequencies (50/60 Hz) are so low that the field will penetrate the whole body more or less uniformly.
    Note that even serious studies are only seeing a small increase; and since leukemia is (fortunately) quite rare it is quite difficult to show conclusivly if there is a heightened risk; if there is it is definitely very low but I can see why it would make sense to avoid building houses in areas with high fields.

    see e.g.
  11. May 29, 2009 #10
    I dont agree that more studies are needed. If the risk is very low, honestly, why do I care? I don't want to come off as smug, but in all honestly. If you dont have any strong evidence........

    Im curious as to what is not 'fair' about what I posted?

    Really, then why the hell is NIH wasting my money on this phamplet of garbage?

    Your link is the gift that keeps on giving

    Again, JUNK SCIENCE.

    Then notice the nice use of the word "however" right after the line above

    Really, a fairly consistent pattern? Then why the hell didnt the study show this?

    Why dont we give money back to the F-22 and cancel money to these Bozos on this "research" - if you can call it that.
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  12. May 29, 2009 #11
    I would absolutely love to see you living under high voltage power lines. Nah don't worry, 110kV is as dangerous as a fluffy duck.
  13. May 29, 2009 #12
    I would love it if you take the time to read what I posted. I just showed you why you can live under power lines. Did this fly over your head?
  14. May 29, 2009 #13

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Here is the APS statement on this:

    When this was being debated, there were two studies that stuck in my mind (and maybe the APS web site has pointers to them). One was a meta-analysis, showing that yes, several studies showed a statistically significant correlation. About 10% of them showed up at the 90% confidence level, 5% at 95% and 2% at 98%. Of course, this is what one would expect from chance alone.

    The other one was more interesting - the group was looking at cancer clusters and comparing them to a database of power line locations, and they thought they had a really striking correlation in one particular location. Only problem - the database was wrong and those power lines hadn't been built yet. So the correlation was actually with where the power lines were going to be.

    So they looked into this a little more and discovered that the demographics for residents of houses near power lines is different than that of the surrounding communities: they tend to be poorer, have less health insurance, higher unemployment, and so forth. This was, in my mind, evidence that a correlation between power lines and health would not necessarily be causal: they might both be caused by a third effect (e.g. poverty).
  15. May 29, 2009 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    Please re-think the attitude you're displaying here. Your viewpoint is valid and appreciated, but we need you to be a little less antagonistic.

    Also, purposefully misquoting people, as you did in post #8, is not acceptable. I'm going to add this to the guidelines for the site. Please do not do it again.

    - Warren
  16. May 29, 2009 #15
    Ok, thank you Warren.

    Anywho. I will give you (Ivan) a nice link to Bob Park's website:

    [1]http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn050208.html [Broken]

    [2]http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN96/wn110196.html [Broken]

    [3]http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN90/wn031690.html [Broken]

    [4]http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN95/wn050595.html#2 [Broken]

    Which it goes on to say on his website, and I quote

    You can ban be for being a Jerk (That I understand). Please, do not ban be for being a "crack pot" when I gave valid links.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  17. May 29, 2009 #16
    As I mentioned earlier the potential hazards of emf have been argued back and forth for years. EMF apparently does have an effect at the cellular and molecular levels.


    Emphasis mine
  18. May 29, 2009 #17
    I'll buy this, because there appears to be no epidemiological evidence to support significantly higher risk. But I wouldn't like to live near power lines especially in urban areas, near industrial hubs or coal fired power plants. Or at least until I did some calculations of the how the field might effect atmospheric pollution.
  19. May 29, 2009 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Keep in mind this is the same concept as is used in MRI. If MRIs were causing cancer, I think they'd be a lot less popular as a diagnostic tool.

    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.
  20. May 29, 2009 #19
    .................................... What does this mean. "Aruged back and forth". No, it hasnt. Its been discredited. The End. Stop painting a picture of something that it is not. No one is arguing back and forth. It's a matter of - "it does not exsist you have no evidence", followed by poor studies that all have "no clear link was found'' or "large statistical uncertainties" in their abstracts. Geeeeeeeeee, I wonder why.

    Here, you can even use www.sciam.com


    Can you please stop saying "its been argued back and forth". You are being dishonest by saying this over, and over again after its been shown to you otherwise.

    This is junk science, and not one cent should go into it anymore.
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  21. May 29, 2009 #20
    I have never heard this asserted. Is this some kind of well known, undisputed phenomenon, you see in evidence in any herd of grazing ruminants, or is it more obscure?

    A list of ruminants from wikipedia:
    cattle, goats, sheep, giraffes, American Bison, European bison, yaks, water buffalo, deer, camels, alpacas, llamas, wildebeest, antelope, pronghorn, and nilgai.
    Last edited: May 30, 2009
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook