Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!asuvax!anasaz!edluucp From: John Moore Newsgroups: sci.electronics Subject: Re:High Tension Wire Hazards Message-ID: <4023@anasaz.UUCP> Date: 17 Apr 91 10:35:43 GMT Sender: root@anasaz.UUCP Organization: Anasazi, Inc - Paris, France Lines: 100 Subject: Re: High Tension Wire Hazards? Date: 16 Apr 91 19:55:52 GMT References: <17100012@inmet> <1991Apr12.213951.10825@markets.amix.com> <1991Apr16.141601.573@news.larc.nasa.gov> Organization: San Diego State University Computing Services Lines: 33 In article <1991Apr16.195552.13826@ucselx.sdsu.edu> Shahad Naqvi writes: ]>>the government (she refered to "Bush administration") is "holding up" the ]>>release of the study. I sincerly hope this is not true (both the results of ]>>the study and any government action to delay its release). But nonetheless, ]>>if such a study existed I'd like to hear about it. ]> ]>I have seen a couple of studies pointing out a higher incidence of cancer ]>among people who lived close to 3 KV distribution lines. However, there ]>was no causation indicated anywhere. Perhaps the higher cancer rate was ]>caused by the huge number of herbicides used near the lines, or the fact ]>that more power lines tend to occur in built up areas. But I have not seen ]>any studies involving the very high voltage long lines. ]I have written a paper on the effect of Low frequency Electromagnetic ]fields [LF/ELF] which are produced by high volatge transmission lines ]and power transformers. There is an increasing evidence of the correlation ]between the 60 Hz EM fields and various kinds of cancer. Childhood leukemia ]is one of the major ones. The 1st extensive research was done in the the ]1970's when the relationship b/w leukemia incidence and the proximity ]of the victims to the nearby power transformer was determined. ]The US govt, for some reason or another continues to say that the evidence ]is inconclusive. It is not hard to imagine why. [I'll leave you some food ]for thought]. The evidence is fairly alarming but little is being done about it ][I can provide the recent statistics and research if required] I think that would be of considerable value to the net. Some comments here (replying to the several posters quoted above): (1) The government did NOT hold up the study, contrary to what the nurse said. There was controversy over whether the results indicated a problem or not, and there were allegations that the "government" pushed for the "no problem" conclusion. (2) All of the evidence that I am familiar with deals with the biological effects of ELF MAGNETIC fields, not electric fields. These are likely to be most significant, to most people, from low voltage sources such as house wiring, electric blankets, appliances, etc. Physics will show you that low frequency magnetic fields penetrate tissue far better than electric fields - the body is essentially a short circuit to electric fields, since it is a good conductor (once through the skin). (3) (replying to the person in a previous post who argued that because we cannot come up with a physical explanation, there must be no effect). I cannot buy the argument. I am aware that the E-field forces should be many orders of magnitude below naturally occurring forces. However, we are talking about B field forces here (which should also be low). There are several ways that extremely low (below the noise level) forces could cause effects: -resonance (which acts to raise the SNR by reducing the "bandwidth") -chaotic amplification - a highly nonlinear system may be susceptible to very low level forces, and may show unusual resonances. -larger than expected forces: there may be magnetic particles in the body that are large enough to experience larger forces than predicted. In any case, to deny the existence of the phenomenon on the basis that we don't understand it (and we THINK that we can rule it out on known physical principles, but without serious analysis) is specious. As another poster pointed out, it has taken a long time to reach a significant understanding of the carcinogenesis mechanism of cigarette smoke, but the hazard was recognized well before the mechanism was even vaguely understood. At the very least, an examination of the evidence is in order. (4) Evidence includes: -Epidemiological studies showing correlations between ambient magnetic field strengths (at 60Hz) and childhood leukemia. The herbicide explanation fails to explain this - there is no reason to expect, in the study that was done in Denver, that herbicide application would correlate with residential neighborhood field strengths. However, it may be that PCB exposure would - the highest fields were nearest the transformers, which may have contained PCB's. I would be interested if some knowledgeable person on the net could respond to the PCB conjecture. -Experimental studies showing tissue response to ELF magnetic fields. Dr. Ross Adey has been doing these for decades, and other researchers have also. A lot of work has been done to rule out artifact in these studies - precisely for the reason that the physical mechanism is not yet known. Other researchers have also done these sorts of studies. In order to throw out the EM-leukemia conjecture, you have to explain these studies. (5) We are talking about a very WEAK effect here. By that I mean that the risk is very small. I realize that to someone whose child develops leukemia, this is small comfort. However, a 1.5x increase in child leukemia rates in some areas is still a relatively small risk. In fact, if it were a large risk, there would be little debate about this issue, since the evidence would be obvious. As a society (perhaps as an organism) we tend to overemphasize small risks relative to large risks. The child exposed to relatively high EM fields is still in much more danger from automobile trips than anything else. This doesn't mean we should ignore the issue - it does mean we shouldn't do anything rash. (6) There is a popular book out that covers this controversy. It is by Paul Brodeur, and the name escapes me right now. It has interesting data in it, although I should caution that it is, too me, irresponsibly sensationalist and alarmist - and FAR from scientific. It does, however, give pointers to where to find the real scientific literature. (7) Brodeur and others allege coverups by government and the electic producers. I should point out that much of the research that has purported to show the effect was funded by EPRI - The Electric Power Research Institute. They do not seem to be suppressing the results.