Latest news (archive)
2003
July 2003 - Responses to the NRPB Consultation on Exposure
Guidelines
June 2003 - NRPB/Brunel University paper on magnetic fields
and chromosome damage
May 2003 - NRPB Public Consultation on Exposure Guidelines
2002
December 2002 - Draft European Directive on Occupational
Exposure to EMFs
December 5 2002 - NRPB Public Meeting
California Department of Health Services Report
April 2002 - NRPB Statement on Miscarriages
2001
November 2001 - NRPB Advisory
Group Report on Neurodegenerative Disorders
November 2001 - Planning Decision
in Logan, Australia
October 2001 - Report From CSTEE,
European Commission
October 2001 - UK Study of Brain Cancer
in Power Workers
July 2001 - California Department
of Health Sciences Evaluation of Possible Risks From EMFs
June 2001 - International
Agency for Research on Cancer Classification of EMFS
May 2001 - UK Study of Leukaemia
IN Power Workers
March 2001 - NRPB Advisory Group
Report
March 2001 - German Epidemiological
Study of Magnetic Fields and Childhood Leukaemia
2000
November 2000 - UKCCS childhood
cancer and residential proximity to power lines
2000 - Pooled analyses of childhood
leukaemia and magnetic fields
1999
December 1999 - UKCCS magnetic field result
- Research by Professor Denis Henshaw and
Dr Peter Fews at Bristol University
June 1999 - The US NIEHS director’s report
to the US Congress
April & June 1999 - Canadian childhood
cancer epidemiological studies
1998
1998 - The US NIEHS working group report
1997
July 1997 - The US National Cancer
Institute study
|
RESPONSES TO THE NRPB CONSULTATION ON EXPOSURE
GUIDELINES
The NRPB public consultation on exposure guidelines
closed on 28 July. As far as we are aware, NRPB has not released any of the
responses it received nor stated how many.
Update: in July 2004 the NRPB published a Report discussing the responses it
received, available here.
The UK Electricity Industry response is available
here.
We have also compiled links to all
the other responses we are aware of that are available on the internet. We will
add any others that we may have missed if you would like to bring them to our
attention.
|
|
NRPB/BRUNEL UNIVERSITY PAPER ON
MAGNETIC FIELDS AND CHROMOSOME DAMAGE
On 11 June 2003, the British Journal of Cancer published research by scientists
at the National Radiological Protection Board and Brunel Institute for
Bioengineering.
The research looked for chromosome damage at magnetic fields up to 700 µT,
and found none. Nor was there any change in the natural DNA repair mechanisms
that would come in to play after such damage.
This finding reinforces the generally accepted position is that whilst there are
some suggestions from epidemiology that magnetic fields are linked with
childhood leukaemia, there is little support from biology. It looked at only
one particular possible effect of magnetic fields, and clearly therefore cannot
on its own rule out other possibilities.
The research was funded by the EMF Biological Research Trust. The Trust receives
funding from National Grid, but is independent from industry. It decides which
projects to support through a Scientific Advisory Committee chaired by
Professor Mike Crumpton FRS, on which industry has no say whatsoever. The only
request National Grid makes in exchange for its funding is that all studies
undertaken should be openly published in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature, as this study has been.
The study reference is
P Hone, A Edwards, J Halls, R Cox and D Lloyd. Possible associations bewtween
ELF electromagnetic fields, DNA damage response processes and childhood
leukaemia. British Journal of Cancer, volume 88 number 12, pp 1939-1941 2003.
It is available on the British Journal of Cancer web site
Press releases about the study have been issued by
NRPB and
Cancer Research UK
On this site, see also more on the scientific evidence on
childhood leukaemia, the different types of
research that are performed and the relation between them, and the
EMF Biological Research Trust.
|
|
NRPB PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON EXPOSURE
GUIDELINES
On 1 May 2003 NRPB published a consultation document “Proposals for
Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (0-300 GHz)” on its web site.
It invites comments from the public with the consultation period running till
28 July. The NRPB embarked on this review of its current exposure guidelines,
which date from 1993, in 2002. The terms of reference of the review can be
found in Hansard. It conducted a consultation with selected recognised experts
in Autumn 2002 and held a public meeting in December 2002.
The NRPB's role is to provide scientific advice to Government. It will be for
Government to receive the revised NRPB guidance following the consultation and
decide what action to take (eg, whether and how to implement it).
The document proposes the adoption of the ICNIRP exposure guidelines. For power
frequencies, these differ from the present NRPB guidelines principally in that
the levels for the general public are a factor of 5 lower than the present
levels for occupational exposure (which are unchanged). The document includes
detailed reviews of the scientific evidence on EMFs. It also recommends a
discussion undertaken collectively by all stakeholders on the applicability of
the Precautionary Principle to EMFs, to contribute to advice to government.
For more information see:
The consultation document on the NRPB’s web site (no longer available
2006)
On this web site, more information on exposure
limits and the NRPB’s various statements on
EMFs
|
|
DRAFT EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE ON OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE TO EMFs (DECEMBER 2002)
In December 2002 the European Commission issued the draft text of a proposed
Directive. This Directive would be the third in a series of Physical Agents
Directives (following Vibrations and Noise) and would apply to occupational
exposure to EMFs.
The draft text is based round the ICNIRP exposure guidelines. It proposes Limit
Values equal to the ICNIRP basic restrictions (10 mA m
at power frequency) and Action Values equal to the ICNIRP reference levels (500
µT and 10 kV m ).
However, it proposes more onerous actions at these levels than ICNIRP requires.
In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive have started consulting about the
likely impact of this draft proposal.
For more information, see:
The exposure limits and guidelines section
of this web site
The text of the proposal
The part of the HSE web site
dealing with EMFs
|
|
NRPB PUBLIC MEETING (DECEMBER 5 2002)
On December 5 2002, the NRPB held a public meeting on powerlines and health at
the NEC, Birmingham. Members of a panel drawn from the NRPB, its Advisory
Groups and the WHO answered questions from an audience of over a hundred.
In the afternoon, some of the UK Interest Groups organised a follow-on meeting.
One of the presentations given at that meeting is available on the web: by Professor
O’Carrol.
|
|
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES REPORT
The California Department of Health Services
EMF project has produced various draft Risk Evaluations on EMFs; the
final version was produced in May 2002.
The review was conducted by three scientists employed by the Department. Their
conclusions were:
“To one degree or another all three of the DHS scientists are inclined to
believe that EMFs can cause some degree of increased risk of childhood
leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and miscarriage.
They strongly believe that EMFs do not increase the risk of birth defects, or
low birth weight.
They strongly believe that EMFs are not universal carcinogens, since there are
a number of cancer types that are not associated with EMF exposure.
To one degree or another they are inclined to believe that EMFs do not cause an
increased risk of breast cancer, hearth disease, Alzheimer’s Disease,
Depression, or symptoms attributed by some to a sensitivity to EMFs. However,
All three scientists had judgments that were close to the dividing line between
believing and not believing that EMFs cause some degree of increased risk of
suicide, or
For adult leukemia, two of the scientists were close to the dividing line
between believing and not believing and one was prone to believe that EMFs
cause some degree of increased risk.”
The conclusions reached in the draft document appear to be inconsistent with
those reached by, for example, the NRPB Advisory Group and IARC. Serious
criticisms of the draft report have been made by various eminent independent
scientists as part of the process of public comment.
More on the California review and
other reviews of the science
|
|
NRPB STATEMENT ON MISCARRIAGES APRIL 2002
A statement by the NRPB’s Advisory Group on
“Magnetic fields and miscarriage”, April 2002 discusses two papers
on magnetic fields and miscarriage from California. It concludes:
Conclusion
Neither study provides substantial evidence of increased risk of miscarriage
attributable to exposure to above average magnetic fields and neither justifies
regulatory action. It would be expensive and difficult to carry out further
epidemiological investigation that would address the issue robustly and, in the
absence of a plausible biological mechanism that would link such exposure to
miscarriage, it is arguable whether it would be justifiable to support research
of this type. If further study is required, it would be worth financing only if
a large cohort of (say) 2000 women could both be interviewed and have
measurements made of their exposures over a period of at least 24 hours less
than 8 weeks after their last menstrual period and have repeat measurements
made on at least two further occasions within the next 8 weeks to determine the
consistency of the exposures throughout early pregnancy and their temporal
relationship to miscarriage.
More on miscarriages and the NRPB’s
other reviews on cancer and neurodegenerative disorders
|
| NRPB ADVISORY GROUP
REPORT ON NEURODEGENERATIVE DISORDERS (NOVEMBER 2001)
In November 2001 the NRPB’s Advisory Group published
a further Report
on
electromagnetic fields and neurodegenerative disease.
The conclusion was:
“There is no good ground for thinking that exposure
to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields can cause
Parkinson’s disease and only very weak evidence to
suggest it could cause Alzheimer’s disease. The evidence
that people employed in electrical occupations have an increased
risk of developing amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is substantially
stronger, but this could be because they run an increased
risk of having an electric shock rather than any effect
of long-term exposure to the fields per se.”
See more information on the NRPB
and on neurodegenerative
disorders
|
| PLANNING DECISION IN LOGAN,
AUSTRALIA (NOVEMBER 2001)
A recent decision relating to a city called Logan in Australia
has attracted some publicity. A utility company, Energex,
applied for permission to install some new equipment. Permission
was initially refused, and the matter went to the Queensland
Planning and Environment Court in November 2001. In fact,
by the time of the hearing, Logan City Council and Energex
had already reached agreement, and the Court simply endorsed
that agreement. The agreement included some clauses stating
that the magnetic field would not exceed 0.4 µT in certain
specified locations in specified properties (the locations
specified are some way back from the actual lines which run
along the street). These conditions would, in fact, be met
by the design of the installation originally proposed by Energex,
without any alteration or modification.
Thus, this seems to be a case of pragmatic agreement reached
between a company and a local authority. It does not seem
to have been imposed on them by the Court or anyone else,
it does not limit the maximum field produced by the equipment,
and it does not seem to change the exposure limits which apply
across Australia as a whole.
See exposure
limits and guidelines |
| REPORT FROM CSTEE, EUROPEAN
COMMISSION (OCTOBER 2001)
The most recent scientific opinion of the European Commission
on EMFs was produced in October 2001 by CSTEE – the
Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment.
full
text
Their key conclusion on power frequencies was:
Combined analyses of the epidemiological studies on the
association between exposure to ELF and childhood leukaemia
have strengthened the evidence of an association. However,
given some inconsistencies in exposure measurements and
the absence of other criteria commonly used in assessing
causality (particularly a plausible explanation of underlying
biological mechanisms, (see above), the association does
not meet adequate criteria for being considered casual.
Thus the overall evidence for 50/60 Hz magnetic fields to
produce childhood leukaemia must be regarded as being limited*(*).
more on developments in Europe
and other reviews
of the science |
| UK STUDY OF BRAIN CANCER IN
POWER WORKERS (OCTOBER 2001)
A paper in the October 2001 issue of “Occupational and
Environmental Medicine” (OEM) reports on an epidemiological
study of brain cancer and occupational exposure to magnetic
fields among electricity workers in the UK. The study was
conducted on a database of 84,000 staff who worked at the
former Central Electricity Generating Board in the late 1970s.
A previous analysis of brain cancer was published in 1997.
The present analysis includes more cases and uses a new, state-of-the-art
exposure assessment procedure. The analysis was conducted
by the University of Birmingham Institute of Occupational
Health, with the exposure assessment by National Grid.
The new research confirmed the 1997 study in finding no evidence
of an association between brain cancer and exposure to magnetic
fields. The paper concluded:
“There is no discernible excess risk of brain tumours
as a consequence of occupational exposure to magnetic fields
in United Kingdom electricity generation and transmission
workers.”
The paper is accompanied by an OEM editorial which states:
“We may well be doing a disservice not to share the
good news more energetically and widely - electric utility
workers and other similar such workers do not seem to be
at measurably increased risk of brain cancer”.
[Occupational exposure to magnetic fields in relation to
mortality from brain tumours: updated and revised findings
from a study of UK electricity generation and transmission
workers. 1973-97; T Sorahan, L Nicholas, M van Tongeren, JM
Harrington, Institute of Occupational Health, University of
Birmingham. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2001;58:626-630
(October)]
more on research involving this
cohort of workers
The paper is available (to subscribers or by one-off payment)
from the Journal’s web site
http://oem.bmjjournals.com
and you can read the abstract here
|
| CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH SCIENCES EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE RISKS FROM
EMFs (JULY 2001)
For more recent developments on this, see May
2002
In July 2001, California Department of Health Sciences released
draft documents (labelled "do not cite or quote")
on
EMF Risk Evaluation and Policy Options, for public comment.
The draft Risk Evaluation classifies electric and magnetic
fields and various diseases, using two different schemes:
one, the same scheme used by IARC, and the other, a direct
estimate of the likelihood that EMFs can cause various diseases.
In both cases, the classification was made by three individual
scientists who all work for the Department. Their conclusions
suggested that EMFs were a possible (and even in some cases
a probable) cause of increased risk for a number of health
conditions, notably childhood and adult leukaemia, adult brain
cancer, miscarriage and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. These
conclusions are out of line with recent authoritative reviews
of the science performed by the NRPB
and IARC. There
is now a process of public comment on the drafts.
This early draft has been superseded by the
final
version
The documents also contain details of two epidemiological
studies, which appear to find a statistical association
between miscarriage and one particular measure of exposure,
namely the peak level of exposure to magnetic fields.
However, there are a number of flaws with the studies, notably
very low participation rates, and it is not possible to
draw any firm conclusions. |
| INTERNATIONAL
AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER CLASSIFICATION OF EMFS (JUNE
2001)
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is
an agency of the World Health Organisation. The IARC Monographs’
series publishes authoritative independent assessments by
international experts of the risks of cancer posed to humans
by a variety of agents, mixtures and exposures. Since its
inception in 1972, the series has reviewed more than 860 agents.
In June 2001, IARC convened a working group to examine the
evidence and classify EMFs. The classification was made according
to the scheme set by IARC, and relates to cancer only, not
to any other diseases. According to this scheme, the evidence
from humans (ie epidemiological studies) and from animals
is first judged separately, and these two verdicts are then
combined into an overall classification. For extremely-low-frequency
ELECTRIC fields, IARC’s classification was “not
classifiable” due to “inadequate” evidence
in both humans and animals.
For extremely-low-frequency MAGNETIC fields, IARC’s
classification was “possibly” a cause of cancer,
based on “inadequate” evidence in animals, “inadequate”
evidence in humans for most types of cancer, but “limited”
evidence in humans for childhood leukaemia.
More on IARC including
links to their web site and other
reviews of the science
The NRPB issued a statement in response to the IARC working
group stating that the findings were consistent with the AGNIR
report of March 2001. They restated the AGNIR findings that:
“Laboratory experiments have provided no good evidence
that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields are
capable of producing cancer, nor do epidemiological studies
suggest that they cause cancer in general. There is , however,
some epidemiological evidence that prolonged exposure to
higher power frequency magnetic fields is associated with
a small risk of leukaemia in children. In practice, such
levels of exposure are seldom encountered by the general
public in the UK. In the absence of clear evidence of a
carcinogenic effect in adults or of a plausible explanation
from experiments on animals or isolated cells, the epidemiological
evidence is currently not strong enough to justify a firm
conclusion that such fields cause leukaemia in children.”
|
| UK STUDY OF LEUKAEMIA
IN POWER WORKERS (MAY 2001)
In the late 1970s, a cohort (large sample) was set up of all
the then staff of the Central Electricity Generating Board
(CEGB). This included around 84,000 people. This group is
being monitored for cause of death and any association with
magnetic fields.
A study of brain tumours, published in January 1997 in the
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine found no
association with magnetic fields. The May 2001 issue of the
same journal included a paper analysing deaths from leukaemia
from the same sample of UK power workers.
The study looked for any association with exposure to magnetic
fields, using a novel, state-of-the-art method for assessing
magnetic-field exposure, developed by staff at National Grid.
The paper concludes:
“There are no discernible excess risks of leukaemia
as a consequence of occupational exposure to magnetic fields
in United Kingdom electricity generation and transmission
workers.”
[Leukaemia mortality in relation to magnetic field exposure:
findings from a study of United Kingdom electricity generation
and transmission workers, 1973-97. J M Harrington, L Nichols,
T Sorahan, M van Tongeren, Institute of Occupational Health,
University of Birmingham. Occup Environ Med 2001;58:307-314
( May )]
more on research
on this cohort of workers including the full
abstract
|
| NRPB ADVISORY GROUP REPORT
(MARCH 2001)
On 6 March 2001, the National Radiological Protection Board’s
(NRPB) Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) released
a comprehensive report titled “ELF Electromagnetic Fields
and the Risk of Cancer”. The report surveyed the evidence
relating to electric and magnetic fields and cancer, concentrating
on the studies published since 1992, the last time AGNIR published
a major review of the literature.
The Advisory Group stated:
“for the vast majority of children in the UK there
is now considerable evidence that the electromagnetic field
levels to which they are exposed do not increase the risk
of leukaemia or other malignant disease.”
However, they also noted:
“the possibility remains that intense and prolonged
exposures to magnetic fields can increase the risk of leukaemia
in children” but “the epidemiological evidence
is currently not strong enough to justify a firm conclusion
that such fields cause leukaemia in children.”
For adults, they noted:
“There is no reason to believe that residential exposure
to electromagnetic fields is involved in the development
of leukaemia or brain tumours in adults.”
On occupational exposure they said:
“causal relationships between such exposure and an
increase in tumour incidence at any site
are not established.”
In response to this report, NRPB stated:
“The Board considers that the AGNIR report provides
no additional scientific evidence to require a change in
exposure guidelines.”
More on reviews
of the science including this one For the contents and conclusions
of this report, and NRPB press release and response statement
click here |
| GERMAN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY
OF MAGNETIC FIELDS AND CHILDHOOD LEUKAEMIA (MARCH 2001)
An epidemiological study of magnetic fields and childhood
leukaemia was published in the International Journal of Cancer
in March 2001. The study involved measurements of fields for
500 children with leukaemia across the whole of the former
West Germany. This was a smaller study than the UK or USA
studies, but still fairly large by EMFs study standards.
The study found a statistical association between fields
and leukaemia. It found only a weak relation between 24-hour-average
fields and cancer but a stronger relationship between night-time
fields (a relative risk of 3.2, statistically significant).
These results are broadly consistent with the pooled analysis
of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia published in 2000,
which also identified a statistical association between the
highest exposures and leukaemia. The consideration of night-time
exposures, however, is unique to this study.
Like all epidemiological studies, this study can only observe
statistical associations, and cannot establish cause-and-effect
relationships, ie that the observed cases of leukaemia were
caused by magnetic fields. The authors concluded that:
“Our study provides evidence for a weak association
between childhood leukaemia and exposure to residential
power-frequency magnetic fields. An explanation for this
association remains unclear.”
They also said that:
“although our study shows an association between childhood
leukaemia and exposure to residential magnetic fields, it
is neither a proof nor a breakthrough.”
More on
this study and others of childhood leukaemia |
| UKCCS CHILDHOOD CANCER
AND RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY TO POWER LINES (NOVEMBER 2000)
A paper entitled "Childhood cancer and residential proximity
to power lines", by the UK Childhood Cancer Study (UKCCS)
investigators, was published on 14 November 2000 in the British
Journal of Cancer. This was the second major report of a series
of EMFs related research studies being undertaken by the UKCCS
investigators.
The study concluded that:
"There is no evidence that either proximity to electrical
installations or the magnetic field levels they produce
in the UK is associated with increased risk of childhood
leukaemia or any other cancer."
This supported the conclusion of the first major EMFs related
study by UKCCS published in The Lancet on 3 December 1999.
Entitled "Exposure to power frequency magnetic fields
and the risk of childhood cancer: a case-control study,"
the paper stated that:
"This study provides no evidence that exposure to
magnetic fields associated with the electricity supply in
the UK increases risks for childhood leukaemia, cancers
of the nervous system, or any other childhood cancer."
This UKCCS paper superseded the results of the magnetic field
study in relation to proximity to power lines. The previous
data [included in the magnetic field study] "has on occasion
been interpreted incorrectly as indicating the effects of
proximity" stated this report.
The paper specifically concerned proximity to power lines
and other electricity supply equipment. Because it was concerned
with distances measured from maps with calculations and did
not depend on any measurements, the study was able to include
subjects which had to be excluded from the magnetic field
study because they had no measurements. Thus, this study contained
3380 cases and 3390 controls compared with the 2226 used for
the magnetic fields paper, representing a significantly larger
number.
The paper examined power lines at all voltages from 6.6 kV
to 400 kV, and a range of distances from the lines from 50
m to 400 m. None of the relative risks were found to be statistically
significant and all were close to unity, indicating no association.
More on the UKCCS |
| POOLED ANALYSES OF CHILDHOOD
LEUKAEMIA AND MAGNETIC FIELDS (2000)
During 2000, two pooled analyses studies of childhood leukaemia
and magnetic fields were published. A pooled analysis study
does not contain any new data. Instead, it combines data from
previously published studies in order to provide a single
statistical analysis.
The two studies differed slightly in their selections of previous
work and in the way the data was analysed but reached similar
conclusions.
Both found that statistically, there was no suggestion of
an increased risk of childhood leukaemia at the magnetic field
levels to which the majority of children are exposed. Although
at the highest exposures (24-hour or longer average fields
in homes of greater than 0.4 µT) there was a statistical
finding of increased risk, one of the papers commented that
"The explanation for the elevated risk is unknown."
As these pooled analyses do not provide new data, and have
only limited ability to correct for methodological flaws in
the contributing studies, the same paper concluded that, "selection
bias may have accounted for some of the increase."
More on the pooled analyses
and other studies of childhood cancer |
| UK CHILDHOOD CANCER
STUDY MAGNETIC FIELD RESULT (DECEMBER 1999)
For full details of all UKCCS EMF publications, see UKCCS
The first results from the United Kingdom Childhood Cancer
Study have been published.
For over six years, a major epidemiological study of childhood
cancer has been underway in the UK, known as the United Kingdom
Childhood Cancer Study (UKCCS). It has been looking at a number
of suggested causes of childhood cancer, including magnetic
fields, and the magnetic-field result was the first to be
published, on 3 December 1999 in the Lancet.
The main conclusion of the paper was:
“This study provides no evidence that exposure to
magnetic fields associated with the electricity supply in
the UK increases risks for childhood leukaemia, cancers
of the central nervous system, or any other childhood cancer.”
The main hypothesis was that for leukaemia and/or central
nervous system (CNS) tumours, risk would be elevated amongst
children with exposure greater than 0.2 microteslas, compared
to children with exposure of less than 0.1 microtesla. In
fact, for both these diseases, the adjusted odds ratios were
less than 1 (indicating no association of exposure and disease),
being 0.90 for leukaemia and 0.46 for CNS tumours. The odds
ratio for all cancers combined was 0.87, again less than 1.
Although it was the electricity industry that suggested to
the researchers that they include magnetic fields in their
study, and through the EA the industry has provided the necessary
funding, the conduct of the study has been independent of
the industry. The study is the largest of its kind ever to
be performed in the UK, with every case of childhood leukaemia
occurring in the UK over a four-year period eligible for inclusion.
Its methodology, and in particular the exposure assessment,
were state-of-the-art.
|
| RESEARCH BY PROFESSOR
HENSHAW AND DR PETER FEWS AT BRISTOL UNIVERSITY (DECEMBER
1999)
For a full discussion of this issue, see electric
fields and ions
In 1996, Denis Henshaw, Professor of Physics at Bristol University,
suggested that electric fields produced by the overhead transmission
lines may affect radioactive radon "daughter products",
and that this might be the link between EMF and disease. Subsequently,
he made further suggestions that fields could affect other
airborne particulates at a conference organised by the University
of Bristol in September 1998.
When subjected to detailed scientific scrutiny, Professor
Henshaw's were criticised on theoretical grounds by scientists
at the UK National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). Experimentally,
two independent groups (Dr Miles from the NRPB and Dr McLaughlin
from Dublin) looked for and failed to find some of the effects
predicted by Professor Henshaw.
Further theories were put forward by Professor Henshaw on
the increased deposition of charged particles on surfaces
near to power lines in December 1999.
|
| THE US
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (NIEHS)
DIRECTOR’S REPORT TO THE US CONGRESS (JUNE 1999)
For further information on this click
here
As part of the conclusion of the USA Federal
Government’s six year research programme on EMF, the
Research and Public Information Dissemination Program (EMF-RAPID
Program), the Director of the NIEHS issued a report to Congress
in June 1999. While sections of the report say EMF exposure
“cannot be recognised as entirely safe”, the report
concluded:
“The NIEHS believes that the probability that EMF
exposure is truly a health hazard is currently small.
The weak epidemiological associations and lack of any
laboratory support for these associations provide only
marginal scientific support that exposure to this agent
is causing any degree of harm.”
|
| CANADIAN
CHILDHOOD CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES (APRIL AND JUNE 1999)
During 1999, the results of two different epidemiological
studies of EMF and childhood cancer in Canada were published.
The first, and larger of the two, by Dr Mary McBride from
the British Columbia Cancer Agency and others, was published
in April, with the second and smaller, by Dr Lois Green from
the University of Toronto and others, was published in June.
The McBride study found no suggestions of a link between cancer
and either measured fields or “wire codes”. The
Green study, which was half the size and which has been criticised
on methodological grounds by some scientists, did find some
statistical associations, though the lead author Lois Green
herself said “...this study does not establish that
magnetic fields cause cancer”.
More on studies of
childhood cancer |
| THE US NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENT HEALTH SERVICES (NIEHS) WORKING GROUP
REPORT (1998)
As part of the US Government’s EMF-RAPID programme,
the National Institute of Environmental Health Services (NIEHS)
set up a working group in 1998 to examine all the evidence
relating to EMFs. They expressed their conclusions using the
criteria of the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC). IARC have five categories:
- The agent is carcinogenic
- The agent is probably carcinogenic
- The agent is possibly carcinogenic
- The agent is not classifiable
- The agent is probably not carcinogenic
No one on the working group voted for "is carcinogenic"
or "probably carcinogenic". 19 members voted for "possibly
carcinogenic", 9 for "not classifiable" and 1
for "probably not carcinogenic".
More on NIEHS and other reviews
of the science |
| THE US NATIONAL
CANCER INSTITUTE (NCI) STUDY (1997)
In July 1997, the results of an epidemiological study into
EMF and childhood leukaemia, conducted by the NCI in the USA,
were published ("Residential exposure to magnetic fields
and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in children", Martha
Linet et al, The New England Journal of Medicine Vol 337 no
1 pp1-7). The study authors' conclusion was:
"our results provide little evidence that living in
homes characterised by high measured time-weighted average
magnetic-field levels or by the highest wire-code category
increases the risk of ALL (Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia)
in children".
More on this study
and others of childhood cancer |
back
|