Translate this page to any language by choosing a language in the box below.

EMF - EMR Electromagnetic Radiation, Powerlines and Electric Fields and Your Health

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) and Your Health: Powerlines and Your Health

Background Paper on "Power Line Fields and Public Health

This paper is reproduced in its entirety from

March 29, 1996
To:	Panel on Public Affairs, American Physical Society
From:	David Hafemeister
	Physics Department
	California Polytechnic State University
	San Luis Obispo, CA  93407
	805-544-5096, [email protected]
Re:	Background Paper on "Power Line Fields and Public Health"
	(an update of the May 8 and Dec. 15, 1995 papers)
	(Sec. I and VIII published, Amer. J. Physics 64, 974-981 (1996)
	I.	  Introduction.
	II.	  Summary and Conclusions.
	III	  Review of ELF/EMF Reviews and Responses.
	IV.	  Epidemiology and Cancer Data.
	V.	  Biological and Biophysics Experiments.
	VI.	  Theoretical Mechanisms.
	VII.	  Prudent Avoidance and Mitigation Costs.
	VIII.     Selected Bibliography 
I.  Introduction.
This paper has been reviewed in draft by ELF/EMF researchers, by POPA,  
by the American Journal of Physics (Sec. I and VIII) and by others, but 
its contents are the sole responsibility of the author.  Comments 
The interaction of electric and magnetic (EM) fields with matter has been 
studied by physicists for over a century.  Calculations based on the 
classical equations of Maxwell and the equations of quantum mechanics 
have long been used to estimate the strengths and characteristics of the 
EM interactions with condensed matter, molecules, atoms and particles.  
Experiments have shown that these equations successfully represent the 
interactions, thus allowing physicists to use these interactions to 
investigate the basic properties of matter.  The bibliography in this 
Resource Letter will extend this subject matter into the region of 50 Hz 
(European) and 60 Hz (U.S.), the extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic 
fields (ELF/EMF) interacting with biological matter.
Physicists are often asked about the potential health hazards of 
ELF/EMF.  In 1979, an epidemiology study by N. Wertheimer and E. Leeper 
reported an enhanced rate of leukemia for children living near 60-Hz 
electrical power lines in Denver, Colorado.  This study catalyzed the 
wide-spread opinion that it is dangerous to live near electrical power 
lines.  However, this study has been widely criticized inasmuch as the 
assignments of wire configurations (type of nearby power lines) to 
residences were made subjectively and with the investigators' knowledge 
as to whether an afflicted child or control had lived there.  
Furthermore, cumulative data on childhood leukemia has been inconsistent 
and inconclusive, considered by some to suggest only a weak association 
with ELF/EMF.  By late 1995 there were well over 100 published 
epidemiological studies in the general scientific literature.  These 
studies fueled public concerns about the possibility that ELF/EMF can 
promote cancer.  In response to this concern,  many disciplines are 
carrying out wide-ranging research programs to determine if there is a 
positive linkage between ELF/EMF and cancer.  In 1991, Congress asked the 
National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (NAS/NRC) to 
evaluate the literature on possible health effects of ELF/EMF.  The 
Academy is expected to report its results in 1996.  In addition, the 1992 
Energy Policy Act established a $65 M five-year program on ELF/EMF 
research, which is being reviewed by the NAS/NRC.  A much lonnger version 
of this paper can be obtained at
ELF/EMF Source Terms
Since the 5,000 km wavelength of 60-Hz radiation is much larger than the 
relevant distances from power lines and appliances, the nonradiative, 
near-field terms are considerably larger than the radiative terms.  In 
practice, only 1 milliwatt is radiated from a 10 km section of a 60 Hz, 
500 MW power line which is only 10^-12 of the transmitted power.  To a 
very good approximation the electric field from a power line is 
determined from its charge distribution (or its voltage) from Gauss's law 
while the magnetic field is determined from the current flow with 
Ampere's law.  Since power lines have opposing, separated currents, the 
electric and magnetic dipole moments per unit length produce EM fields 
that diminish as the inverse square of the distance.
Several state regulations limit the fields from transmission lines to 
about 10 kV/m for the E fields and about 200 mG for B fields.  (The mG 
unit is the standard unit for most U.S. regulations and publications in 
this area.  For SI units, 1 microT = 10 mG, 1 T = 10,000 Gauss.)  Some 
city regulations seek to constrain B fields to less than 2 mG, a 
direction that is supported at the national level by those who believe 
there are harmful biological effects.  There are public guidelines for 
ELF/EMF at 1000 mG because pacemakers can exhibit abnormal pacing 
characteristics in 60 Hz fields above that threshold and because of 
induced body currents.
A typical U.S. home has the Earth's  constant magnetic field of about 450 
mG and a 60-Hz background magnetic field level (primarily not from power 
lines) that ranges from 0.5 mG to 4 mG with an average value of 0.9 mG.  
Five percent of the homes have fields above 2.9 mG, and 1% are above 6.6 
mG.  For comparison sake, one study reports that electrical powerline 
workers experience an average field of 11 mG.  Typical transmission power 
lines produce average fields at distances of 30 and 60 meters as follows:
				E (V/m at 30/60 m)	B (mG at 30/60 m)
115 kV			0.07/0.01			1.7/0.4
230 kV			0.3/0.05			7.1/1.8
500 kV			1.0/0.3			12.6/3.2
As a simple example, a two wire 500 MW transmission line at 500 kV draws 
500 amperes in opposing directions in the two wires.  From Ampere's law a 
single wire of 500 A produces a field of 33 mG at a distance of 30 m.  If 
two opposing currents of 500 A are separated by 4 meters, the field will 
be 4.4 mG (in the plane of the wires).  By reducing the separation to 1 
m, the field falls to 1.1 mG.  At a doubled distance of 60 m, the field 
from the single conductor is 17 mG and the fields from the paired 
conductors are 1.1 mG for a 4-meter separation and 0.3 mG for 1-meter 
separation.  Motor and appliance electrical coils produce either magnetic 
dipole or quadrupole fields that diminish as the inverse square or cube 
of the distance, respectively.  Average fields at a distance of 30 cm 
are: color television (7 mG), microwave (4 mG), analog clocks (15 mG), 
electric razors (20 mG, 100 mG at 15 cm) and hair driers (1 mG, 300 mG at 
15 cm). 
Electric Fields in Biological Matter
E fields are greatly reduced in biological matter from their values in 
air external to the body.   Since the boundary conditions on Maxwell's 
equations require the real current density in the body to almost equal 
the displacement current density outside the body, the 60-Hz electric 
field from a power line is diminished by seven to eight orders of 
magnitude inside the human body.  This factor reduces the maximum 
allowable E field of 10,000 V/m at the edge of the right-of-way of a 
power line to an internal electrical field of only 10^-3 to 10^-4 V/m.  A 
smaller 60-Hz E field of 100 V/m, the same magnitude as the earth's 
surface field, will produce an E field in the body of about 10^-5 to 
10^-6 V/m.  These values of internal E fields should be compared to the 
internal field in the human body from thermally driven charge-density 
fluctuations in the human body.  Since the E field from the charge of a 
proton at ten Bohr radii is a very considerable 6 x 10^+9 V/m, it is not 
surprising that fluctuations in the electric dipolar fields from Brownian 
motion can contribute meaningfully.  Thermal fluctuations in the 
electrolyte of the biological resistors cause E-field fluctuations that 
appear as voltage fluctuations.  Estimates of the Johnson-Nyquist noise 
voltages give root-mean-square average E-field fluctuations of about 2 x 
10^-2 V/m within the electrolyte of a  20 micron cell.  The fluctuating E 
fields in the electrolyte are considerably larger than the internal 
fields of 10^-6 to 10^-3 V/m from power lines.
Since cellular membranes have a much higher electrical resistance than 
the electrolyte between the cells, there is considerably less current 
flow through the cellular membranes from external sources.  The potential 
across a cellular membrane is about 50 millivolts.  Since the thickness 
of a cellular membrane is only 5-10 nm, very large E fields of about 10^7 
V/m are produced in the membrane.  Thermal fluctuations in the membrane  
are of the order of a microV, considerably less than the potentials of 50 
mV across the membrane. As in the case of the cellular electrolyte, the 
noise fields in the cellular membranes are considerably larger than the 
ELF E fields induced in the membranes.
If there were any health problems from EM fields, it is generally 
believed that the B fields, and not the E fields, would be the cause of 
health problems because the E field is effectively shielded by the human 
body while the B field is not shielded. 
Electric Fish
Some animals have specialized organs to sense weak EM fields, a fact that 
is not relevant to potential health effects.  Electric rays and electric 
eels produce very large electric discharges.  The freshwater electric eel 
whose body is mostly an electric organ generates stunning 2 msec pulses 
of one ampere at 500 volts, for a peak power of almost 500 watts and an 
energy of one Joule per pulse.  Whereas these pulsed fields have a low 
duty cycle, some freshwater fish produce continuous electric fields with 
amplitudes on the order of 10 V/m, frequencies from DC to 10 kHz, and 
power on the order of 10 mW.  These so called weakly-electric fish sense 
their environment and communicate by modulating and detecting modulations 
in the electric current through their skin.
Sharks can detect external fields of less than 1 microV/m at frequencies 
of the order of 1 Hz with their long electric sensing organs, the 
Ampullae of Lorenzini.  As the shark crosses the earth's B field lines, 
the Lorentz force induces electric fields in the amupulae that the shark 
detects and uses for navigation.  Sharks also locate prey by sensing 
electric fields emanating from the prey's muscles and nerves during 
respiration and movement.  Some amphibians, salamanders, and even a 
mammal, the duck-billed platypus, possess low-frequency electric sensory 
systems used for detecting weak electric fields generated by their prey's 
muscle activity.  Electrosensory systems are not found in terrestrial 
animals because the high impedance of air attenuates the electric current 
and power in the electrostatic field to below detectable levels.  At the 
other end of the spectrum, it takes strong E fields of the order of 
10,000 V/m to give humans a tactile sensation, by torquing body hairs 
that become polarized as they attract static electric charges. 
Magnetic Fields in Biological Matter
Power line magnetic fields are often constrained by "prudent avoidance" 
to about 200 mG at the edge of a right-of-way, but in practice they are 
usually less than 2 mG for those living near power lines.  By applying 
Faraday's law to this range of 2-200 mG, one obtains E fields of between 
4-400 microV/m.  These values are considerably less than the natural 
Johnson-Nyquist E fields of 0.02 V/m.
Walking in the earth's magnetic field of about 400 mG produces 
"electromotive force" voltages from Faraday's law.  Walking in a constant 
magnetic field doe not generate currents, but it is interesting to 
calculate the E fields generated by walking.  By moving very slowly at 
the rate of 0.1 m/s, an internal E field of 4 microV/m is developed 
(corresponding to 2 mG of ELF/EMF).  It one runs very fast at 8 m/s (18 
mph), an internal E field of 400 microV/m is developed (corresponding to 
200 mG).
Rotations (or twirling) of the human body in the Earth's magnetic field 
of about 400 mG creates radial electric fields, giving rise to currents 
in the human body.  A tilt of the head of 45 degrees in the slow time of 
1.6 seconds will create an electrical field of 4 microV/m, corresponding 
to a 60-Hz field of 2 mG.  A fast nod in 0.16 seconds creates an electric 
field of 40 mV/m, corresponding to a 60-Hz field of 40 mG.
Biogenic Magnetic Materials
Some bacteria have tightly coupled chains of single domain, 
superparamagnetic magnetosomes, magnetite (Fe3O4) or greigite (Fe3S4) 
particles, that allow them to magnetically navigate vertically to find 
food.  Chains of many magnetite grains, 50 nm on a side, have been 
observed in these bacteria.  Because the magnetic interaction of these 
bacterial magnetic chains in the Earth's magnetic field is many times the 
thermal energy, the bacteria maintain their orientation with respect to 
the Earth's magnetic field.  Since the magnetosome dipole relaxation 
times are much longer than 1/60 second in water in the earth's magnetic 
field, the bacteria do not oscillate significantly in 60-Hz fields.
Honey bees navigate by observing changes as small as 0.6% in the Earth's 
magnetic field (2.5 mG out of 400 mG).  Other studies have shown that 
other animals, such as sea turtles and homing pigeons, can navigate using 
the Earth's magnetic field as a guide.  In order to navigate to 
precision, it is necessary to have many magnetosomes with a permanent 
dipole moment which are able to maintain their direction in the Earth's 
magnetic field while being buffeted by Brownian thermal fluctuations.
Small magnetite crystals with average diameters of 33 nm, in some cases 
200 nm, have been reported (but the work has not yet been replicated) in 
the human brain by using transmission electron microscopy.  The level of 
magnetite is very low, of the order of one part in 10^9 of the mass of 
the brain, much less than the magnetite fraction in magnetic bacteria of 
about 1%.  It has not been shown that these magnetic particles are 
relevant for ELF/EMF and public health.  If the magnetosomes are too 
small, they lack the ability to strongly torque in a weak magnetic field 
at 60 Hz.  If the magnetosomes are large, the magnetite becomes 
multidomained, and the  increased viscous torques dominate.  In order to 
enhance this magnetic interaction it would be necessary to have very long 
chains of magnetosomes within a cell (which has not been observed) acting 
coherently.  Calculations show that for fields less than 50 mG, viscosity 
damps out the induced oscillations to amplitudes less than those from 
thermal fluctuations.  It has been conjectured that the large magnetic 
fields of a magnetosome next to a cell might affect the flux of calcium 
ions through its membrane, but this should not be influenced 
significantly by weak 60-Hz magnetic fields.
Stochastic Resonance and Squared Dependence
Under certain circumstances, the addition of a small amount of input 
noise to a larger input signal can greatly increase the output signal and 
the output signal-to-noise ratio.  The phenomena has been labeled 
"stochastic resonance" though the process does not involve ordinary 
resonance.  Such stochastic-resonance enhancements have been observed in 
the mechanoreceptor hair cells of cray fish.  It is highly speculative to 
connect stochastic resonance to predict enhanced ELF/EMF sensitivity in 
biological matter.  Since the addition of a small input signal to a 
larger input noise does not result in an increased output signal-to-noise 
ratio, it would not seem that the stochastic resonance phenomena would 
enhance ELF/EMF sensitivity in biological matter.    
Both the EM torque and force are proportional to the first power of the 
oscillating EM fields.  Since the time average of a sine wave is zero, 
the average energy imparted to a system over many oscillations cannot be 
proportional to the first power of E or B.  Since the time average of the 
sine squared is nonzero, the projected biological effects would be 
expected to be proportional to the square of the oscillating fields (E^2 
or B^2).  This does not rule out a linear dependence for the case of 
constant or quasi-DC fields as observed at 1-2 Hz for sharks and bees.  
Since human epidemiology data do not show consistent, meaningful 
associations with cancer for those living in very high field regions, 
such as sleeping under electric blankets, working on electrical power 
lines, or working on electric railways, a squared dependent relationship 
has not been demonstrated.
Radon Near Power Lines
Henshaw, et al. (reference 38) report that naturally occurring 
radioactive daughters of radon are enhanced near power lines.  After the 
daughters attach themselves to aerosols, the neutral aerosols are 
attracted by the gradient of the E-field towards the power line.  Because 
the contaminated aerosols oscillate with the power frequency, they would 
tend to plate out more frequently on the skin.  The aerosols containing 
the radioactive radon daughters would also be inhaled into the lungs in a 
strong enough concentration to cause cancer.
Detractors of this theory respond as follows:  Radon concentrations in 
open air near power lines are very slight.  The half-lives of the radon 
daughters are relatively short, thus making the transition to humans at a 
distance problematical.  Some epidemiology data shows an association with 
magnetic fields, but essentially none show an association with electric 
fields.  Residences beyond the right-of-way of power lines do not have 
considerable elevated electric fields.  One would expect enhanced lung 
cancer which is not reported in excess near power lines, rather than the 
usual suspects of leukemia and brain cancer.  Lastly, one would expect 
the radioactive aerosols to plate out on the power lines or on the skin 
in comparison to lung deposition.
Cancer Mechanisms
Chemicals, such as unburned carbon, and EM radiation at frequencies above 
the visible region have sufficient energy to directly initiate cancer.  
Visible light breaks bonds in the process of photosynthesis but is not 
usually suspected of causing cancer.  The energy of a hydrogen bond is 
about 0.1 eV and that of a carbon-carbon single covalent bond is 3.6 eV.  
The photon energy from 60-Hz radiation of 2.5 x 10^-13 eV is, of course, 
insufficient to directly break chemical bonds.  Thus, new interaction 
mechanisms would have to be proposed to predict possible health problems 
from ELF/EMF.  It is known that very large EM fields affect membrane 
permeability and the recombination of ion radicals.
Cancer can be initiated by direct damage to the genetic material of cells 
(genotoxicity), or it can be promoted by increasing the probability that 
a genotoxic exposure will cause cancer (epigenetic activity or 
promotion).  Direct cancer effects are exemplified by the breaking of 
chemical bonds in DNA, while indirect effects could promote the 
likelihood, severity or speed that cancer might be caused once the DNA 
bonds had been broken.  It is conjectured that ELF/EMF could supply 
currents, torques, or forces in the body that could enhance the risk of 
cancer, such as the reduction of melatonin from the pineal gland from the 
action of ELF/EMF on magnetite in the brain.  Or, ELF/EMF could be part 
of a multistep biological process.  In order to clearly establish these 
conjectures, it is necessary to demonstrate a meaningful combination of 
positive findings from epidemiology and biomedical-biophysical 
experiments, which are consistent with a theoretical biophysical 
mechanism.  The stronger the evidence from epidemiology, the lesser the 
requirement to have a consistent theoretical mechanism in order to take a 
public policy position, but conversely, weak epidemiology evidence should 
be treated with great caution. 
By 1995 over 100 additional epidemiological studies have examined various 
possible associations between public health and ELF/EMF from power lines, 
appliances and other devices.  Most of this literature is concerned with 
the power-line frequencies of 50 Hz and 60 Hz and magnetic fields in the 
region of 1-10 mG.  Scientific review panels have generally concluded 
that the combined data show at best a weak association with ELF/EMF and 
at worst that the findings are mutually inconsistent and inconclusive.  
Epidemiology examines disease and health in human populations by 
identifying associations between the occurrence of human diseases and the 
possible causes of those disease.  Because epidemiology searches for 
correlations between a particular disease and environmental or other 
factors, it does not directly prove causality because there can be other 
explanations for correlations.  However, when there is, for example, a 
very strong association between cancer and exposure, such as a strong 
linear correlation between the amount of additional cancer and the rate 
of smoking, the epidemiology data and the fact that the smoke contains 
known carcinogens are considered as the proof of causality.  On the other 
hand, the association between cancers for non-smoking family members and 
the rate of smoking in the home is quite weak.  This epidemiology data 
has been accepted by the regulatory process as significant because of the 
strength of the other evidence (experiments and mechanisms).  The tobacco 
industry and others consider this conclusion as political, based on weak 
Because less than robust epidemiology data can be misinterpreted, Sir 
Austin Bradford Hill in his Presidential Address to the Section of 
Occupational Medicine at the Royal Society of Medicine (U.K.) presented a 
list of suggested criteria by which to judge whether an association was 
indeed causal.  The criteria list is not necessarily all-encompassing, 
but it gives very useful benchmarks:
1.  Strength:  Is there a strong correlation between disease and ELF/EMF 
2.  Consistency:  Have the same results been obtained by different 
researchers in different locations?
3.  Specificity:  Does ELF/EMF produce the same types of cancer in 
similar proportions to other groups similarly exposed?
4.  Temporality:  Since there is a latency period for cancer, are the 
measurements of ELF/EMF in the present the same as in the past?
5.  Biological Gradient:  Do higher "doses" of ELF/EMF cause more cancer 
than lower doses?  Is there an approximate proportionality of risk and 
dose, as in the case of the probability of additional lung cancer and the 
number of cigarettes smoked per day?
6.  Plausibility:  Does the biological data on conjectured cancer 
promotion by ELF/EMF converge on a plausible, consistent 
biological-biophysical mechanism?
7.  Coherence:  One should expect coherence between the data and the 
mechanism.  In general, most mechanisms that attempt to connect ELF/EMF 
and cancer would predict that enhanced exposures of ELF/EMF would enhance 
cancer rates.
8.  Experiment:  Are the various in-vitro (cells in culture) and in-vivo 
(complete living systems) experiments consistent among themselves and 
with a theoretical mechanism?
9.  Analogy:  Is the connection between ELF/EMF and cancer analogous to 
situations where the proof is more substantial.  Does one have to have 
"new" physics to understand this connection?     
Review panels have concluded that Hill's criteria do not lead to a link 
between ELF/EMF and cancer.  The scientific panels that have reviewed the 
ELF/EMF epidemiology data have separated the results by the type of 
cancer.   For example, recently three studies of ELF/EMF on electrical 
workers have appeared.  The 1993 California study reported no association 
with either leukemia or brain cancer.  The 1993 Canadian-French study 
reported an association with leukemia and astrocytoma, out of the 32 
cancer types studied.  Because these studies do not make corrections for 
multiple comparisons, one would expect a study of this many different 
types of cancer to produce 1 or 2 "significant" correlations even if 
there were no real associations, that is 1 or 2 "false positives."  (In 
addition, this study suffers from internal inconsistencies.)  By 
contrast, the 1995 Savitz/Loomis study reported no association with 
leukemia, but they reported an association with brain cancer with weak 
For these epidemiology studies, it is necessary to estimate the 
individual ELF/EMF doses.  In the best epidemiological experiments, the 
magnetic doses have been measured for the electrical workers, but there 
are limits to these estimates.  It is unclear whether the exposure metric 
should be the product of magnetic field strength times the duration of 
exposure, or proportional to the square of the field as dictated by basic 
physics (neglecting nonlinear cellular mechanisms), the direction and 
magnitudes between ELF and Earth B fields, or the harmonic content, or a 
frequency window.
Biophysics and Medical-Physics Experiments
Many types of experiments have been carried out to examine the possible 
interaction of ELF/EMF and biological matter, such as:  (a) direct 
effects (heating, induced electric current, energy of charged molecules, 
excitation of molecules, changes in membrane potential); (b) direct 
forces on electric charges or electric moments; (c) resonant interactions 
(ion cyclotron or paramagnetic resonance); (d) torques on magnetic 
moments; (e) free-radical chemistry; (f) temporal average or spatial 
intensification of weak ELF/EMF waves.  There have been many positive and 
negative findings from in-vivo and in-vitro experiments with ELF/EMF.  
Usually the researchers with positive findings do not claim a causal 
connection between cancer and ELF/EMF, but rather that the data is part 
of the findings that might make such a connection possible.  The 
scientific review panels and review articles have pointed out the 
continuing problem with replicating experimental results on cells and 
animals.  This failure to find positive links between ELF/EMF and cancer 
is consistent with those who say that such health effects should be very 
unlikely because ELF/EMF forces (10^-10 pN at 100 mG) are much less than 
both typical biological forces (5 pN myosin muscle moleules) and background 
forces from thermal oscillations (10^-9 pN).  Because biological systems 
are very complex, this argumentation cannot be considered to be a 
sufficient proof of no health effects, but it is a very strong guideline.
Mitigation, Litigation, Regulation, and Cost/Benefit
In a rational world, risks to human life would be reduced by prioritized 
spending on mitigation that ranked all the choices in terms of money per 
life saved (or money per year of life-saved), including estimates for 
benefits to the natural world.  Since the ELF/EMF issue should be joined 
with other risks in society, it is useful to conclude with some broader 
topics.  Thus, society is concerned with relative rates of risk reduction 
and costs of mitigation.  Cost estimates by the U.S. General Accounting 
Office for ELF/EMF mitigation from power lines, not covering appliances, 
have been substantial.  Some of GAO's estimates are:  $2 million/mile to 
bury transmission lines in fluid-filled steel pipes to reduce magnetic 
fields by 99%, $200 billion to bury transmission lines nationwide near 
homes with fields greater than 1 mG, $250 billion to reduce average 
exposure to less than 2 mG from all transmission and distribution lines.  
After an examination of the data described in this review, in 1995 the 
American Physical Society concluded:  "No plausible biophysical 
mechanisms for the systematic initiation or promotion of cancer by these 
power line fields have been identified.  Furthermore, the preponderance 
of the epidemiological and biophysical/biological research findings have 
failed to substantiate those studies which have reported specific adverse 
health effects from exposure to such fields.  While it is impossible to 
prove that no deleterious health effects occur from exposure to any 
environmental factor, it is necessary to demonstrate a consistent, 
significant and causal relationship before one can conclude that such 
effects do occur.  From this standpoint, the conjectures relating cancer 
to power line fields have not been scientifically substantiated." 
I would like to thank Robert Adair, David Bodansky, Aviva Brecher, 
Richard Frankel, Edward Gerjuoy, Robert Goldberg, John Moulder, Brian 
Rasnow and the AJP Reviewers for comments on the draft manuscript. 
II.  Conclusions.
II.1.  General Conclusion:   The scientific literature and the reports of 
review panels show no consistent, significant link between cancer and the 
60-Hz ELF fields.  This literature includes epidemiology studies, 
research on biological systems, and the analyses of theoretical 
mechanisms.  This result is consistent with those that have advanced 
arguments that there can be no such link.  The preponderance of the 
epidemiology and biophysical/biological research findings have failed to 
substantiate those studies that have reported specific adverse health 
effects from the exposure to 60-Hz ELFs.  It is always possible that some 
minor carcinogenic connection might be found, but the present data do not 
establish that connection.  For expenditures for mitigation to be 
justified, there should be some consistent, meaningful combination of the 
following factors:  (a) A plausible coupling mechanism at the cellular 
level exists, (b)  the coupling must produce consistent biochemical 
changes, (c) the biochemical changes must be detrimental, (d) meaningful 
epidemiology data should determine the degree of danger, and finally, (e) 
upper-bound ELF mitigation costs should be comparable to those for other 
dangers mitigated in society.  For cases where the epidemiolgy 
association is very strong, then clearly the other criteria are less 
important.  For cases where the epidemiology association is weak, then 
clearly the other criteria must be considered.  The current cost of ELF 
is more than a billion dollars a year, an amount which clearly cannot be 
justified on the basis of applying the above criteria to the data.  This 
cost has been driven by the combination of unlimited "prudent avoidance" 
in a fearful society.
II.2.  Reviews of the ELF Data (Sec. III).  None of the approximately 
dozen scientific panels that have carried out comprehensive reviews of 
the data has concluded that there is an established link ELF and cancer.
II.3.  Epidemiology (Sec. IV):  The scientific panels that have reviewed 
the ELF epidemiology data have found them inconsistent and inconclusive.  
It is necessary when comparing the data to separate the results by cancer 
type.   For example, consider the recent case of three studies of 
electrical workers and a fourth study of non-electrical workers in 
Sweden.  The 1993 California study reported no association of EMF with 
either leukemia or brain cancer while the 1993 Canadian-French study 
reported an increase in leukemia, and a modest association of ELF with 
brain cancer.  The 1995 Savitz/Loomis study reported no association of 
ELF with leukemia, but they did report an association with brain cancer.  
The 1993 Swedish study reported an association of ELF with leukemia, but 
they did not report an association with brain cancer.  Thus, these four 
"best studies" report very contradictory results.  One has to look at the 
Savitz/Loomis data in Sec. IV.4 to gain some understanding for the 
statistics involved in making these judgments.  It is very difficult to 
statistically determine relative risk factors of less than two for rare 
modes of death because of the many confounding factors.
II.4.  Biology and Biophysics Experiments (Sec. V):  The scientific 
review panels, the review articles, and the research papers that we have 
investigated do not claim a causal link between ELF and cancer.  In 
addition, the review panels and review articles have pointed out that 
there is a large problem with replicating the experimental results.
II.5.  Theoretical Mechanisms (Sec. VI):  No plausible biophysical 
mechanism for the systematic initiation or promotion of cancer by these 
extremely weak ELF's has been identified.  The lack of epidemiology 
evidence and experimental evidence establishing a link between ELF and 
cancer is consistent with the biophysical calculations that rule out the 
carcinogenic effects because the thermal noise fields are larger than the 
fields from ELF.  Since quantum mechanics, thermal noise fluctuations, 
and cancer promotion are all statistical effects, it is difficult to 
derive a proof that is a necessary and sufficient condition to preclude 
all cancer promotion.  However, these fundamental calculations are a 
significant guide post to conclude that the ELF-cancer link, if any, 
should be extremely difficult to detect because of its small, if any, 
II.6.  Prudent Avoidance (Sec. VII.1):  Spending considerable funding to 
mitigate ELF under the guidance of "Prudent avoidance" would make sense 
if the ELF risk was documented and some measure of cost-effectiveness 
could be determined.  This is not the case for the alleged adverse 
effects from ELF/EMF.  Since prudent avoidance does not place a limit on 
mitigation costs, it allows fear to propel society's institutions to 
spend more than $1 billion per year (Florig.  Bromley states a $23 
billion total by 1993).  Prudent avoidance runs counter to the 
prioritization of spending on a cost-effectiveness basis.  In normal 
courtroom practice, the plaintiff has the burden to prove damages or 
risks in order to obtain action from the society, and it should be in the 
ELF case as well.  The misused, quasi-legalistic, prudent avoidance 
concept essentially states to the public that there is a likely 
possibility of danger to them and that we should begin to spend money to 
mitigate the risk, if any. 
II.7.  Who will speak on the ELF issue?  The study of ELF has become a 
multidisciplinary effort and therefore many different professional voices 
are needed to comment on this issue.  Thus, the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS/NRC) is examining the ELF issue.  Unfortunately, the 
NAS/NRC will only assess whether there is a health risk from ELF without 
consideration of economics.  If the conclusions of this paper are 
correct, one would assume that the NAS/NRC will conclude that the ELF 
risk has not been proven.  However, because one cannot prove there is no 
risk, there will be uncertainties and the final answer can only establish 
an upper limit, D, on risk.  Since the NAS will not address the cost for 
mitigation, the upper bound error bar (D) can be used as an argument for 
mitigation funding.  Clearly, a broader approach is needed.  Because 
physicists have worked on many aspects of this multidisciplinary topic, 
our views are relevant, and consistent with those of the American Medical 
Association and others.  In exploring this issue, I have learned that 
many ELF-researchers would not be troubled if we had a statement that 
stated the simple concepts of (1) don't scare society with ELF, (2) don't 
spend billions to mitigate.  On April 22, the American Physical Society 
passed on "Power Line Fields and Public Health" (available at this www 
II.8.  Journalism:  The number of newspaper stories on ELF rose from 233 
in 1992 to 548 in 1993 (S. Friedman, Quill, Jan. 1995).  The number of 
magazine stories rose from 101 in 1992 to 216 in 1993.  The writings of 
P. Brodeur have been followed with headlines of "Is My Electric Blanket 
Killing Me" to "Chilling Possibility: That A Power That Has Improved Life 
Could Also Destroy It" to "Warning:  Electricity Can be Hazardous to Your 
Health."   Even when an article is even-handed, the caption at the top 
read, "Steps to Protect Yourself from Danger -- Real and Potential."
"Epidemiology, the Press and the EMF Controversy" by D. Wartenberg and M. 
Greenberg (Public Understanding Sci 1, 382-394, 1992) conclude that the 
press has not evaluated investigators claims, nor have they put risks in 
context.  My conclusion is that the science and relative risk methodology 
of ELF/EMF often undercut the quality of journalism in a free and 
fear-prone society.
III.  Review of ELF Reviews and Government/Industry Responses.
III.1.  The Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) panel (Health 
Effects of Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic fields,  June 1992) 
prepared its report at the request of the Presidential Committee on 
Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC).  The 
panel was made up of scientists from the following disciplines; 5 
biologists, 3 epidemiologists, 2 physicists, 1 electrical engineer.  Over 
a period of 1.5 years, the panel examined 1,000 journal articles.  The 
ORAU panel concluded the following:
"From the published studies, evidence is lacking to demonstrate that 
electric or magnetic fields act as cancer initiators, by altering 
structural properties of DNA, function as cancer promoters by inducing or 
accelerating cell growth, or influence tumor progression."
"If a rapidly increasing widespread exposure were indeed strongly 
associated with childhood cancers, and if no strong countervailing trends 
in other risk factors were occurring, we should be witnessing an 
observable epidemic of childhood cancers.  However, there is little, if 
any evidence of such an epidemic of childhood cancer."
"The suggested reproductive risks of electric and magnetic fields are not 
supported by the totality of the basic science and human studies that 
pertain to reproduction.  However, the fact that a reproductive effect 
may not seem biologically plausible and that adequate documentation of an 
increased risk has not been demonstrated in human studies does not mean 
that these concerns should be summarily dismissed."
"This review indicates there is no convincing evidence in the published 
literature to support the contention that exposures to extremely low 
frequency electric and magnetic fields (ELF-EMF) generated by such 
sources as household appliances, video display terminals, and local power 
lines are demonstrable health hazards."
"The lack of converging epidemiological and biological support for the 
occasionally reported adverse health effects is consistent with 
calculations of quantities based on fundamental laws of physics for 
describing electric or magnetic fields."
"Although exposure to ELF-EMF does not appear to constitute a public 
health problem, there is evidence that these fields may produce some 
biological effects, such as changes in the pattern of secretion of the 
hormone melatonin and enhancement of healing of bone fractures."  [DH:  
There is some disagreement on the melatonin and bone healing data, and 
much of it is at higher B fields.]
"This review does not provide justification for a major expansion of the 
national research effort to investigate the health effects of ELF-EMF.  
In the broad scope of research needs in basic science and health 
research, any health concerns over exposures to ELF-EMF should not 
receive a high priority."
III.2.  UK Report; Report of an Advisory Group on Non-ionizing Radiation, 
National Radiological Protection Board, Electromagnetic Fields and the 
Risk of Cancer 3 (1992):
"In summary, the epidemiological findings that have been reviewed provide 
no firm evidence of the existence of a carcinogenic hazard from the 
exposure of paternal gonads, the fetus, children, or adults to the 
extremely;  low frequency electromagnetic fields that might be associated 
with residence near major sources of electricity supply, the use of 
electrical appliances, or work in the electrical, electronic, and 
telecommunications industries.  Much of the evidence that has been cited 
is inconsistent, or derives from studies that have been inadequately 
controlled and some is likely to have been distorted by bias against the 
reporting or publishing of negative results.  The only finding that is at 
all notable is the consistency with which the least weak evidence relates 
to a small risk of brain tumors.  This consistency is, however, less 
impressive than might appear, as brain tumors in childhood and adult are 
different in origin, arising from different types of cells."
"In the absence of any unambiguous experimental evidence to suggest that 
exposure to these electromagnetic fields is likely to be carcinogenic, in 
the broadest sense of the term, the findings to date can be regarded only 
as sufficient to justify formulating a hypothesis for testing by further 
III.3  Battelle Conference; B. Wilson, R. Steven. L. 
Anderson, ed, 
Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields: The Question of Cancer, 
Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio, 1990):
The editors state:  "The first tenet of our discussion is that cancer 
induction is a stochastic process.  That is to say, it is probabilistic 
in nature.....  At this time, there are insufficient data to judge 
whether or not ELF fields influence cancer rates... To date, no 
convincing laboratory evidence has been obtained indicating that ELF 
fields cause damage to DNA...  However, a recent report offers evidence 
that ELF exposure can increase micronuclei formation in mouse 
polychromatic erythrocytes, suggesting possible chromosomal loss.  
Effects on calcium may increase oxidative stress to cells, and tumor 
promoters have been found to increase oxidative stress as well.  Thus 
experiments designed specifically to identify possible tumor-promoter 
activity such as initiation-promotion are suggested..... It is not our 
intent to argue that ELF exposure increases cancer risk; rather, we wish 
to suggest areas wherein future experiments may be carried out.  Whether 
or not ELF electric and magnetic fields contribute to increased cancer 
risk, it is important to conduct scientific studies that will reduce the 
uncertainty currently associated with the question of cancer."
"Although experimental studies have shown that electromagnetic fields 
can, in some circumstance, affect the physiology and biochemistry of 
cells, they do not appear to damage directly the genetic material, DNA, 
in cells and therefore are unlikely to act as an initiator of cancer."  
[DH:  There is disagreement over the reportings of some of the biological 
effects, particularly at the 10 mG level.]
III.4.  K. Foster, "Weak Magnetic Fields:  A Cancer Connection?" in 
Phantom Risk, Ed. by K. Foster, D. Bernstein and P. Huber, MIT Press, 
1993.  Foster's study covers epidemiology and bio-medical data up to 
November 1992, including the Swedish data.  Foster's analysis and data do 
not support the EMF cancer connection:  "In science one can draw no 
conclusions from unexplained phenomena or inconclusive studies.  But in 
the courtroom it is sometimes enough just to raise questions.  And these 
studies have done that very well."  And in Physics and Society 21, 5 
(1993):  "The epidemiologic data does not directly point to "fields" as 
causative agents...  The bioeffects literature is very noisy, with many 
unexplained or nonreproducible phenomena, and often speculative....  The 
most relevant data comes from epidemiology, followed by certain kinds of 
animal screening studies."  (See Sec. IV.)  
III.5.  Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (1988, 1991) 
analyzed six major reports (WHO-1984, WHO-1987, AIBioSci-1985, 
FloridaEMFSciAdComm-1985, WestAssoc-1986, NYPwrLSciAdPanel-1987):
"(1988):  In response to the public interest in this subject, we have 
made an analysis of six recent major scientific committee reports 
relating to power-frequency electric and magnetic fields.  All of these 
reports concluded that there is insufficient information to define safe 
and unsafe field levels.  In general, there is not enough relevant 
scientific data to establish whether common exposure to power-frequency 
fields should be considered a health hazard."
"(1988):  At present there is no consensus expressed in any of the 
published reports as to which factor, the electric or magnetic field is 
biologically important.  Similarly, the roles of field strength, duration 
of exposure, and intermittent versus continuous exposure are also unknown."
"(1991):  "The associations between exposure to power-frequency magnetic 
fields and cancer reported in epidemiological literature thus far are not 
conclusive, because the degree of association has often been low, because 
exposure characterization and dose response information have been 
limited, and because the possibility of confounding factors has been only 
partially investigated.  The laboratory studies themselves have not 
indicated a health hazard."
III.6.  National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council 
(NAS/NRC):  In 1991, The Congress asked the NAS/NRC to determine the 
possible effects of EMFs on biological systems.  It is expected to be 
completed in late 1995.  The 1992 Energy Policy Act established a $65 
M/five year program on ELF research, which is being reviewed by the 
NAS/NRC.  The Electric and Magnetic Fields Interagency Committee shall 
prepare a final report on the possible health effects on this research on 
EMF by March 31, 1997.  The GAO stated (GAO/RCED-94-115):  "Because of 
the delays, many research projects that are to be implemented under the 
act will not begin until fiscal year 1995, thus reducing the amount of 
information that can be obtained and reported to the Congress by March 
31, 1997."
[DH:  Neither of these studies were studies were asked to consider the 
costs of mitigation in reaching their conclusions and recommendations.  
They were asked only to determine if there is, or is not, a health 
effect, without economic factors.  If the NAS/NRC concludes that their 
are no health effects, but there is an upper bound uncertainty, D, then 
the political momentum of prudent avoidance can be used as an argument to 
mitigate on the basis of the upper bound, D, of risk.]
III.7.  National Cancer Institute (NCI,  "A 
small number of cell culture studies have indicated that ELF fields may 
cause biological effects in living tissues, such as interference with 
protein synthesis.  However, these biological effects have not been 
proven hazardous.  There is still no evidence that ELF fields cause or 
promote cancerous transformation of normal cells.  Studies of laboratory 
animals exposed to ELF radiation have not shown any increased risk of 
cancer.  Occupational studies of electrical workers have suggested an 
association with cancers, particularly leukemia and brain tumors.  
However, these studies are difficult to interpret because electrical 
workers are often exposed to chemicals, solvents, and other 
carcinogens....  Human epidemiologic studies of ELF fields and cancer 
have been inconsistent and inconclusive."  (Dec. 1992)   [DH:  Note the 
use of the word "may" before "cause biological effects."  Note that the 
Savitz 1995 study reverses the electrical worker data.] 
III.8.  Environmental Protection Agency.  The 1990 EPA Draft report that 
stated EMF was a carcinogen was reversed in September 1991 by the EPA 
Science Advisory Board, Radiation Advisory Committee of the Nonionizing 
Electric and Magnetic Fields Subcommittee.
EPA's Report "Q&A about EMFs," (1992) states that "We are not sure if EMF 
exposure adversely affects human health."  A call to the EPA-EMF hot line 
(1-800-363-2383) gets the same answer.  The EPA ("Electric Power Lines:  
Q&A on Research into Health Effects") states:  "Governmental reviews have 
concluded that existing scientific evidence, although suggestive, does 
not show that EMF cause cancer.  These include national reviews by: an 
Advisory Board to the U.S. EPA, Advisory Panel to the Australian Minister 
of Health, National Radiological Protection Board of the UK, Danish 
Ministry of Health, French National Institute of Health and Medical 
Research, and reviews by the states of California, Texas, Connecticut, 
Illinois, Maryland and Colorado."
III.9.  The Department of Transportation, in a series of reports on 
"Potential Health Effects... of ELF .... to Maglev and other Electric 
Rail Systems" (DOT/FRA/ORD-93-31, plus others) does not make a connection 
between ELF and cancer, but cautiously says the knowledge is inadequate.  
Similarly, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. II on the 
Northeast Corridor Improvement Project Electrification - New Haven, CT to 
Boston, MA (Oct. 1994) concludes, "Few of the recent studies were able to 
estimate and control for other occupational exposures or personal factors 
that may affect the occurrence of cancer.  Some of the studies were 
limited in their ability to assess an individual's lifetime exposures.  
None of the studies, including these recent studies using improved 
measures of EMF exposure, indicates an overall increase in total cancers, 
that is, all types considered together in electrical workers, or other 
exposed populations  Consistent associations have not been reported for 
any specific type of cancer and exposure to magnetic fields."
The DOT EIS states that EMF mitigation is part of their NE Corridor 
proposal (Vol. 1, p. 5-5):  "The overhead catenary system and power 
transfer facilities design has been shown to minimize environmental EMF 
along the right-of-way in over a decade of operation powering the TGV 
system in France.  The out-of-phase currents in the catenary and return 
feeder provide a partial magnetic field cancellation (except for the 
passengers in the current loop).  At 30 feet from the track, the EMF due 
to this design is about half that produced by each overhead wire's 
current.  In addition to EMF field reduction, this design offers EMF 
minimization at the source.  As a consequence, no specific changes are 
recommended in the overhead catenary design."  Considerable expense was 
added to the NE Corridor system to make these design changes and to 
change the locations of stations.
III.10.    The Electric Power Research Institute states that $40 M was 
spent in 1993 from all sources on EMF research, its budget is about $10 
M/yr.  DOE and industry will spend $65M/5y.  See Electrical and Magnetic 
Fields Research Abstracts (EPRI TR-104359, August 1994) for research 
III.11.  P. Buffler, Dean, School of Public Health, University of 
California-Berkeley (UC-Berkeley Wellness Letter 11, 1, Nov. 1994):  "In 
April, in a paper presented to the National Council for Radiation 
Protection, .... Buffler... highlighted the serious weaknesses of this 
[93-Sweden] and similar studies and pointed out how the results have been 
overblown and misrepresented.... Some scientists have proposed various 
sketchy theories to explain the dangers of EMF's, but none of these 
hypotheses has widespread support... the evidence so far certainly does 
not justify inordinate concern, let alone hysteria.... Some call this 
'prudent avoidance,' but others say it is waffling.  Carried to an 
extreme this policy could result in spending millions of dollars (passed 
on to us in higher energy rates and appliance prices) to avoid an 
unidentified or 'phantom' hazard, according to Buffler."
III.12.  The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical 
Association 1994 report, "Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields:"  
"Most studies of magnetic field effects in children, workers, and other 
populations do not meet accepted scientific criteria in terms of 
accurately measuring past exposure, identifying comparable test and 
control groups, and accounting for potentially confounding factors.  
Findings of studies are inconsistent in terms of whether a risk exists, 
what conditions might be related to exposures, and risk magnitude.  
Positive studies indicate, for the most part, that the associated 
relative risks are low."
III.13.  In 1995, three biomedical Nobel laureates joined an amicus brief 
to the California State Supreme Court stating, "The physics and cellular 
biology combined strongly indicate that it is not scientifically 
reasonable to believe that 60-Hz magnetic fields increase the incidence 
or cancer."
III.14.  National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) 
leaked draft report calling for a 2 mG standard has been declared 
"improperly disseminated" (leaked) and unfinalized by NCRP management.
IV.  Epidemiology and Cancer Data:  (See Sec. III for panel reviews.)
IV.1.   Recent Compilation of the Data:  The December 1994 issue of IEEE 
Spectrum lists the references and results for 15 epidemiology studies 
before the recent 1995 Savitz/Loomis study.  Unfortunately, this summary 
does not analyze the data with respect to the different types of cancer.  
The first major study by N. Wertheimer and E. Leeper in 1979 triggered 
journalism that then created a large public response.  These results are 
greatly discredited by the totality of the 16 studies.  The early results 
also were plagued by the fact that they reported an association with 
power lines (wire codes) but they did not report an association with 
measured spot fields.  It is necessary when comparing the data to 
separate the results of these study by cancer type.   For example, 
consider the case of three studies of electrical workers.  The 1993 
California study reported no association with either leukemia or brain 
cancer.  The 1993 Canadian-French study reported an association with 
leukemia, and a modest association with brain cancer (based on only five 
cases) of the 32 types of cancer studied.  Thus, it is statistically 
possible to find a few positive associations if looking among many 
possibilities.  In addition, the authors have stated that there was "a 
discrepancy in the results between the three utilties."  The 1995 
Savitz/Loomis study reported no association with leukemia, but they did 
report an association with brain cancer.  One has to look at the 
Savitz/Loomis data in Sec. IV.3 to gain some understanding for the 
statistics of the relatively few extra deaths involved in making these 
judgments.  [DH:  The inconsistency in the results of these 16 studies is 
evidence of either a truly small or nonexistent risk, or else a measure 
of the confounders of different lifestyles, chemical exposures, etc.]
IV.2.  Confounders and Causality:  Epidemiological data can be biased by 
other factors, called confounders, for example data (Sci. Amer. 271 , 26, 
Dec. 1994) showing that "People of color -- defined by the report as the 
total population less non-Hispanic whites -- are currently 47 percent 
more likely than are whites to live near a commercial toxic waste 
facility."  Other data (Science 267, 1269, 1995):  "... social 
instability, as indicated by parental divorce, which correlates with a 
loss of 4 years from a person's life span."  Since each epidemiology 
study will have different confounders, these effects, such as the 
socio-economic factor of living near a power line must be removed from 
the data.  It is clear that a correlation and associations between 
epidemiology variables can be meaningful, but it does not prove causality.
[DH:  These kinds of confounders are very important when one is examining 
relative risks of less than two for rarer death causes.  The ELF 
epidemiology is further complicated by the fact that the dosimetry is 
usually not directly measured, and when dosimeters are used they usually 
do not determine the harmonic components as a function of time so 
important for Faraday's law of induction.  Some ELF workers have stated 
that it makes little sense to establish larger epidemiological studies 
beyond the "best" study of Savitz/Loomis because the lack of real 
dosimetry will make the studies of limited utility.]
IV.3.  University of North Carolina Study on Electrical Workers Mortality 
(D. Savitz and D. Loomis, Amer. J. of Epidemiology 141, 123-134, 1995):  
"Reports of leukemia and brain cancer among men in electrical occupations 
suggest a small increase in risk, but most previous studies have failed 
to classify magnetic field exposure accurately or to consider potential 
confounders.  The authors conducted an historic cohort mortality study of 
138,905 men employed at five large electric power companies in the U.S. 
between 1950-86 with at least 6-months of work experience.  Exposure was 
estimated by linking individual work histories to data from 2,842 
workshift magnetic field measurements.  Mortality follow-up identified 
20,733 deaths based on 2,656,436 person-years of experience.  Death rates 
were analyzed in relation to magnetic field exposure history with Poisson 
regression.  Total mortality and cancer mortality rose slightly with 
increasing magnetic field exposure.  Leukemia mortality however, was not 
associated with indices of magnetic field exposure except for work as an 
electrician.  Brain cancer mortality was modestly elevated in relation to 
duration of work in exposed jobs and much more strongly associated with 
magnetic field exposure indices.  Brain cancer risk increased by an 
estimated 1.94 per microtesla-year of magnetic field exposure in the 
previous 2-10 years, with a mortality rate ratio of 2.6 in the highest 
exposure category.  In contrast to other studies, these data do not 
support an association between occupational magnetic field exposure and 
leukemia but do suggest a link to brain cancer."
Savitz Data ($5M over 7 years), showing lower mortality rates because of 
the "healthy worker effect:"
Cause of Death       Observed Deaths    Expected Deaths   Mortality Ratio 
All Causes	20,733	26,779.5	0.77 (0.76-0.78)
All Cancer	  4,833	  5,515.1	0.86 (0.84-0.89)
Brain/nervous sys	     151	     158.4	0.95 (0.81-1.12)
Leukemia	     164	     217.0	0.76 (0.64-0.88)
Leukemia Results:  For leukemia, note the relative risk (RR) of 0.76 
similar to the overall cancer RR of 0.77, thus no association with emf.  
The RR (vs. total exposure in microT-yr) from Savitz/Loomis:  
RR(microT-yr):  1.0(0-0.6), 1.28(0.6-1.2), 0.94(1.2-2.0), 0.72(2.0-4.3), 
1.62(>4.3).  Thus, Savitz conclusion of no association with leukemia is 
in agreement with the California study but in disagreement with the 
Canadian-French and 1993 Swedish studies.
Brain Cancer Results:  Savitz quotes an RR of about 1.5-2.5 which is 
similar to the French-Canadian result of about 1.5, but in disagreement 
with the California and 1993 Swedish results of no association.  Since 
this mode for death is relatively rare, these conclusions are based on 
relatively small numbers.  Note that there are only 7 "extra" emf brain 
cancer deaths (158-151), as compared to 20,700 actual total deaths, a 
very weak association with emf.
Savitz Press Release (1-11-95):  "Although the most recent studies had 
found evidence that magnetic fields were related to leukemia, we did 
not....  The positive association between magnetic fields and brain 
cancer that we saw was stronger than had been seen in previous studies of 
electric utility workers.....  It is disappointing that our results do 
not provide a clearer picture when combined with the previous studies of 
electrical workers and particularly electrical utility workers."
Washington Post, Jan. 12, 1995: "Savitz stressed yesterday that lethal 
brain cancers are rare -- occurring at a rate of about 6 per 100,000 
persons in the general population -- and thus even a doubling of the risk 
does not pose a dramatic threat.  'I don't want to downplay the adverse 
aspects of our findings, but one thing our study does is show once again 
there is not some public health disaster lurking out there."  
IV.4.  Sweden (M. Feychting and A. Ahblom, Am. J. Epidemi. 138, 
The Swedish results should be examined in conjunction with the studies 
from Denmark and Finland, which do not show an association with ELF.  
"For childhood leukemia and with cut off points at [average residential 
exposure] 0.1 and 0.2 microT, the relative risk (RR) increased over the 
two exposure levels and was estimated at 2.7 (95% c.l.: 1.0-6.3) for 0.2 
microT and over.... For brain tumors or for all childhood cancers 
together there was little support for an association.... In adults and 
for magnetic fields of 0.2 microT and over, the RR for acute myeloid 
(AML) and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) was estimated at 1.7 (0.8-3.5) 
and 1.7 (0.7-3.8)."  The authors have commented that calculated wire 
codes should be a better predictor of dose than actual field measurements.
R. Wilson and A. Shlyakhter (Amer. J. of Epidemi. 1995) analyze (with 
humor) the Swedish Results:  "... This suggests that there is an 
unusually large number of cases, leading to a larger risk ratio among the 
262 (695-433) homes for which there were no spot measurements.  This 
leads us to speculate that the failure to make a spot measurement might 
itself be associated with an increase in leukemia." 
IV.5.  Danish Study (J. Ohlson, Brit. Med. J. 307, 891-95, 1993):
"This study demonstrated that the risk of lymphatic cancer is increased 
among children with exposure to magnetic fields from high-voltage lines 
of 0.1 microT (1 mG) or greater.  On the other hand, no increase in risk 
was found at this exposure level for either leukemia or brain tumor.  For 
all three types of cancer combined an increased risk was also found at 
magnetic field exposures of 0.4 microT (4 mG) or greater, which 
corresponds to a residential distance of 25-50 meters from the 'most 
powerful' transmission facilities."
G. Taubes (Science, 262, 649, 1993) quotes P. Buffler, the dean of the 
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, who 
attacks the grouping of Danish data.  [DH:  Study used the crude power 
line distance parameter, and based on few numbers.]
IV.6.  Finland (Bioelectromagnetics 14, 229-36, 1993)
".... 68,300 boys and 66,500 girls aged 0-19 years magnetic 
fields calculated to be greater than 0.01 microT (0.1 mG) ... 140 cases 
of cancer were observed (145 expected; standardized incidence ratio 0.97, 
95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.1).  No statistically significant 
increases in all cancers and in leukemia and lymphoma were found in child 
at any exposure level.   A statistically significant excess of nervous 
system [brain] tumors was found in boys (but not in girls) who were 
exposed to magnetic fields greater than 0.2 microT (2 mG) or cumulative 
exposure of greater than 0.4 microT-years (4 mG-y)."
"Conclusions:  Residential magnetic fields of transmission power lines do 
not constitute a major public health problem regarding childhood cancer.  
The small numbers do not allow further conclusions about the risk of 
cancer in stronger magnetic fields."
IV.7.  Joint Canada/France  Utility Workers (American Journal of 
Epidemiology, March 15, 1994).  [DH:  This study combined 3 separate 
studies and has internal inconsistencies between the three utilities.  Of 
the 32 cancer types examined, only two showed an association, which might 
be expected when considering so some many statistical linkages.]
"223,000 male utility workers... A significant association between 
exposure to EMF and leukemia and brain cancer has not been obtained.... 
Overall, combining all different cancer types, the study did not find any 
association between the cancer cases analyzed and electric or magnetic 
fields.  Proceeding then to a separate analysis of 25 different cancers 
and 7 regroupings among these cancers, an association was found in only 
three.  For these three cancer-type/regroupings, a link with cumulative 
exposure to magnetic fields was observed for acute non-lymphocytic 
leukemia (60 cases), including 47 cases of acute myeloid leukemia and a 
type of brain tumor known astrocytoma (41 cases).  However, no relation 
was found between length of exposure and effect; the results were 
inconclusive for astrocytoma, given the low number of subjects and the 
imprecision of the findings."
IV.8.  "Are the stray 60-Hz electromagnetic fields associated with the 
distribution and use of electric power a significant cause of cancer?" by 
J. D. Jackson (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci 89, 3508-10, 1992).  "Total per 
capita power generation has increased by a factor of 10 since 1940, and 
per capita residential consumption has increased by a factor of 20 in the 
same period.... When respiratory cancers (largely caused by tobacco use) 
are subtracted, the remaining death rate has actually fallen since 
1940."  The Oak Ridge report points out that electrical power use has 
increased by nearly three orders of magnitude during this century.  Some 
cancer mortality rates have risen, and others have fallen.  Because of 
changes in cancer detection and medical intervention, it is difficult to 
make EMF totally blameless on the basis of the data.  Nonetheless, 
because of the marked increase of electricity consumption (factors of 10, 
20, 1000), it seems clear that EMF cannot be a significant cause of cancer.
In May 1995, Jackson comments:  "My paper has been criticized for not 
taking into account the changes over the years of delivery systems, 
especially in residences.  The replacement of the old-fashioned pairs of 
wires, spaced eight or ten inches apart and passing through the floor 
joists in porcelain insulating tubes,  with modern conduit or cable with 
closely spaced wires, so the argument goes, has greatly reduced the 
ambient magnetic fields (much smaller effective dipole moment per unit 
length for the same current) and compensated for the huge growth in per 
capita consumption.   While my paper does not address these changes in 
detail, I do not think the criticism significant.  Before the Second 
World War, house wiring was of the old-fashioned sort (my own home is 
still half filled with that kind!), but the cancer incidence data of Fig. 
2 are for more recent times.  The 20-fold increase in per capita 
consumption of electric power in the last 50 years has occurred with 
essentially no change in household wiring in kind, but only in quantity."
IV.9.  Brain Cancer Data:  The NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End 
Results (SEER) report of November 1994 and Science 267, 1414 (1995) give 
the changes in cancer rates between 1973 and 1991.  For mortality rates, 
of the eight types that increased, brain cancer was ranked 6th with an 
increase of 0.7%/year, for incidence rates, brain cancer was ranked 7th 
at 1.2%/year.  The rate of increase in the incidence in brain cancer is 
about the same as the rate of cancer incidence at all-sites.  The total 
incidence and mortality rates for all forms of cancer are 390.4 and 172.8 
per 100,000 persons, respectively.  The leukemia and brain mortality 
rates are 7.6 and 4.8 respectively.  
The NCI comments (May 1994): "Scientists believe a substantial part of 
the increase in brain cancer rates, especially in the older groups, is 
due to the advent of sophisticated scanning and imaging equipment, which 
are better able to detect brain tumors....  Factors shown to have a link 
to brain tumors, such as certain heritable conditions and childhood 
radiotherapy to the head, are uncommon and account for only a small 
percentage of the total number of cases."
IV.10.  E. Washburn, et al (Cancer Causes 5, 299-309. 1994) examine 13 
epidemiology studies related to childhood cancer and power lines.  They 
conclude:  "We found no statistically significant relation between 
combined relative risk estimates and 15 indicators of epidemiology 
quality.  Assessment of EMF exposure in the primary studies was found to 
be imperfect and imprecise."
V.  Biology and Biophysics Experiments (see Section III for panel reviews):
V.1.  Comments:  In general these experiments use magnetic fields to 
"stimulate" a biological response, and not the electric field which is 
reduced by a factor of 108 in the human body.  The views of 
biomedical-biophysics panels (Sec. III) and the research below do not 
show a link between ELF and cancer.  [DH:  I have asked the researchers 
that I called for evidence of such a link and they said there was no 
evidence.  The review panels and others have pointed out that there is a 
problem with replicating the experimental results described below.  Two 
of the main researchers I called stated that their work had only been 
"partially replicated."]
V.2.  T. Teneforde (Ann. Rev. Publ. Health, 13, 173-196, (1992)) 
concludes the following:  "Various different effects of ELF magnetic 
fields have been reported to occur at the cellular, tissue, and animal 
levels.   Certain effects, such as the induction of magnetophosphenes in 
the visual system, have been established through replication in several 
laboratories.  Many other effects, however, have not been independently 
verified or, in some cases, replication efforts have led to conflicting 
results.  A substantial amount of experimental evidence indicates that 
the effects of ELF magnetic fields on cellular biochemistry, structure, 
and function can be related to the induced current density, with a 
majority of the reported effects occurring at current density levels in 
excess of 10 mA/m2.  These effects, therefore, occur at induced 
current-density levels that exceed the endogenous currents normally 
present in living tissues.  From this perspective, it is extremely 
difficult to interpret the results of recent epidemiological studies that 
have reported a correlation between cancer incidence and exposure to 
50-Hz or 60-Hz magnetic fields with very low flux densities.  The levels 
of current density induced in tissue by occupational or residential 
exposure to these fields are, in nearly all circumstances, significantly 
lower than the levels found in laboratory studies to produce measurable 
perturbations in biological functions.  There is a clear need for 
additional epidemiological research to clarify whether exposure to ELF 
magnetic fields is, in fact, causally linked to cancer risk.  Laboratory 
animal studies conducted under controlled conditions are also needed to 
determine whether ELF magnetic fields can initiate or promote tumors.  In 
addition, more studies of both a theoretical and experimental nature are 
needed to elucidate the molecular and cellular mechanisms through which 
low-intensity magnetic fields can influence living systems.  A growing 
body of evidence indicates that cell membranes play a key role in the 
transduction and amplification of ELF field signals.  Elucidation of the 
physical and biochemical pathways that mediate these transmembrane 
signaling events will represent a major advance in our understanding of 
the molecular basis of magnetic field effects on biological systems."
Foster (Sec. III.4) concludes on the melatonin work:  "......  Most 
employed fields far above environmental levels...  In short, the health 
significance of these effects is unclear, and in several cases there is 
reason to question their existence.  Given the dismal record for 
reproducibility of bioeffects...."
J. Stather of the UK National Radiological Protection Board comments 
(Science 267, 451, 1995):  "Although laboratory studies have suggested 
that electromagnetic fields can influence growth in both plant and animal 
cultures, the effects of such studies, 'when properly controlled,' have 
usually turned out to be inconclusive."
EPA ("Electric Power Lines" Q/A on Research into Health Effects, 
Bonneville, May 1994):  "Some reported effects of 60-Hz EMF in laboratory 
studies:  Increase in bone fracture-healing, avoidance of strong fields, 
decrease in the hormone melatonin, changes in stress hormones, field 
detection, slowing of human heart rate, changes in human brain activity, 
changes in tumor development, changes in white blood cell counts, 
temporary effect on growth, changes in behavior tests, changes in 
biorhythms, changes in functions of cells and tissues."  [DH:  Note the 
verb reported means often unconfirmed, some disputed, and some are not 
replicated.  Also, many of these experiments have been carried out at 
fields well above 10 mG.]
V.3.  Animals:  Honey bees follow B fields (Walker/Bitterman, J. Comp. 
Physiol. 157, 67-73, 1995, and Science 265, 95, 1994) down to a few mG DC 
accuracy and sea turtles turn when B varies at earth's locations (Science 
264, 661 (1994).  [DH:  Note that detection of DC fields is not detection 
of AC fields, and it certainly is not cancer promotion.  The honey bees 
are insensitive to AC fields.  See introduction and Sec. VIII., 
Bibliography for more data on animals.]
V.4.  Montrose and Litovitz (Phys./Society 21, 7, 1992) report changes in 
ornitine decarboxylase (ODC) enhancement in chick embryos with ELF.  Adey 
in Battelle book discusses communication between cells through 
gap-junctions which are sensitive to low-frequency EMF.  "We hypothesize 
that cancer promotion with tumor formation may involve dysfunction at 
cell membranes, disrupting inward and outward signal streams."
V.5.  Magnetite in the Brain (J. Kirschvink et al, Proc. of Nat. Acad. 
Sci. 89, 7683, 1992):  "These magnetic and high-resolution transmission 
electron microscopy measurements imply the presence of a minimum of 5 
million single-domain crystals per gram for most tissues in the 
brain..... indicate the crystals are in clumps of between 50 and 100 
particles....  Samples from seven brains were obtained from patients 
whose ages averaged 65 years...  Subsamples for magnetic measurements 
were removed form the tissues by using similar tools in a magnetically 
shielded dust-free clean laboratory.  Measurements of the ferromagnetic 
materials were made using a magnetometer employing Rf-biased SQUIDS....   
3-100 ng/g of magnetite.." 
[DH:  This work has not yet been replicated.  J.R. Dunn, et al (Brain 
Research 36, 149-153, 1995) gives some data at a lesser resolution from 
magnetic force microscopy.  See Sec. VI.3 for a discussion of the 
results.  Kirschvink (Nature 374, 123, March, 1995) appeals for 
researchers to have very clean rooms to avoid adding magnetic particles 
from the environment, thus nullifying their experiments.]  
V.6.  P. Valberg, "Designing EMF Experiments:  What's Required to 
Characterize Exposure?," Bioelectromagnetics, 1995.  "Anyone who has 
attempted to organize and synthesize the results of research on 
biological effects of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) has experienced 
frustration when trying to evaluate the comparability of EMF exposures 
among separate studies.... To this end, a numerical listing of 18 
separate parameters important to EMF exposure characterization is 
proposed...  (1) Intensity of the magnetic field, (2) timing and duration 
of each EMF exposure, (3) repetition of exposure periods, (4) Circadian 
time of exposure, (5) frequency of field oscillation, (6) harmonic 
content, (7) intermittency, (8) turn-on and turn-off transients, (9) 
coherence in time, (10) circular and linear polarization, (11) relative 
orientation and magnitude of AC and DC magnetic fields, (12) spatial 
homogeneity, (13) superimposed electric fields, (14) Earth's magnetic 
field, (15) incidental, unplanned EMF exposure, (16) geometry of cell 
culture system, (17) size, number and movement of exposed animals, (18) 
accessory non-EMF exposure.
V.7.  Bone Healing from EMF (C. Polk, Advances in Electromagnetic Fields 
in Living Systems, 1, 129-153 (1994)):  Pulsed electromagnetic fields 
(PEMF) typically "consist of 15 pulse bursts per second.  Each burst is 
4.5 ms long and contains 20 magnetic field pulses.  In each pulse the 
magnetic field increases from 0 to approximately 2 mT [20 G] during 200 
ms, decrease to 0 again during 23 ms and is equal to 0 for 2 ms before 
the next 225 ms sequence begins."  Also,  see the Bioelectric Repair and 
Growth Society, PO Box 64, Dresher, PA 19025 for more details.    [DH:  
The fast rise times enhance the dB/dt by about a million with respect to 
10 mG ELFs, to some 50 V/meter. The healing properties are not agreed to 
by all.  Some have commented that the transients from switching should be 
more relevant than steady-state power.]
V.8.  Melatonin from the Pineal Gland; EPRI, EMF Laboratory Studies.  
Melatonin is a hormone produced by the brain's pineal gland and released 
to circulate in the bloodstream at levels that peak in nighttime darkness 
and decline in daylight.  Laboratory evidence suggest that melatonin can, 
under some conditions, suppress the growth of hormonally sensitive 
cancers such as those in mammary tumors.... some studies show that 60 Hz 
electric fields and AC or rapidly inverting DC magnetic fields suppress 
nighttime melatonin production in rodents, but others have failed to 
reproduce these findings."  [DH:  Some dispute this work.]
V.9.  Paramagnetic Resonances; C. Blackman, etal, Bioelectromagnetics 15 
239-260 (1994):  "Previous studies demonstrated that nerve growth factor 
(NGF)-stimulated neurite outgrowth (NO) in PC-12 cells can be inhibited 
by exposure to magnetic fields as a function of either magnetic field 
flux density or AC magnetic field frequency.  The present work examines 
whether the PC-12 cell response to magnetic fields is consistent with the 
quasiperiodic, resonance-based predictions of the ion parametric 
resonance model (IPR)....  The first set of tests examined the NO 
response in cells exposed to 45 Hz BAC from 77 to 468 mG(rms) at a BDC of 
366 mG.  Next we examined an off-resonance condition using 20 mG BDC with 
a 45 Hz AC field across a range of BAC between 7.9 and 21 mG(rms).  
Finally, we changed the AC frequency to 25 Hz, with a corresponding 
change in BDC to 203 mG (to tune for the same set of ions as in the first 
test) and BAC range from 78 to 181 mG(rms).  In all cases the observed 
responses were consistent with predictions of the IPR model."  
Adair (submitted to Bioelectromagnetics):  "The data is far too 
consistent.... The extraordinary consistency of the data cannot be 
attributed to chance."
[DH:  It is generally agreed  Blackman's theoretical model is incorrect.  
The data are only partially replicated.]
VI.  Theoretical Mechanisms
VI.1  Theory I:  C. Polk has calculated a variety of EMF situations; 
(IEEE Transactions 34, 243-249, 1991, and in CRC Handbook of Biological 
Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, Polk and Postow, eds.)  The magnetic 
fields are determined from the currents, and the E-fields from the voltage:
	-- Faraday's Law:  E=wBr/2, J=sE.  Using SI units, with B in 
Tesla, E in volts/m, 60 Hz, s=0.1 S/m, r=0.1 m, gives E=18.85 B and 
J=1.885 B.  For a 1 microT field (10 mG), one gets E = 20 microV/m and J 
= 2 milliA/m2. 
	--  E fields inside conducting media at 60 Hz, s=0.5, not grounded
		E(internal)/E(air) = we0/s = 4 x 10-8, (0.7 x 10-8, Bennett)
Since the body greatly reduces the external E fields, it is generally 
felt that the B field is more relevant since the E fields produced dB/dt 
are not reduced because B is not shielded, and also since B might torque 
magnetic magnetosomes in the body.
Polk (Ch. X in CRC Handbook of Biomedical Engineering, J Bronzio, ed. CRC 
Press 1995):  "Biological tissue and cells are obviously extremely 
complex media, they are not only extremely inhomogeneous and anisotropic, 
but also not in thermodynamic equilibrium (unless dead).  Thus the 
application of physics laws to the explanation of field-tissue 
interactions becomes a very complex problem and the physicist and 
engineer must be careful not to provide "explanations", or to set limits 
on what should be "possible" or "impossible", based on physical models 
that are very far from even an approximate representation of biological 
conditions......  The experimental evidence existing at the present time 
is however insufficient to decide whether any of the more promising 
physical models that are discussed in the given references can provide an 
adequate explanation for any of the observed biological effects.... 
Uniform linear motion of an object, such as that of a walking human, in a 
nearly uniform magnetic field of about 50 microT will produce an induced 
"Lorentz" electric field proportional to the product of velocity and flux 
density.  However that field cannot produce circulating electric currents 
as long as the total magnetic flux... does not change.  Only tumbling 
motion,... could produce induced electric currents comparable in 
magnitude to those induced by a 1 microT [10 mG] 60 Hz field."
VI.2  Theory II:  R. Adair has calculated various EM effects in Phys. 
Rev. A43, 1039-49 (1991), Physics and Society 19, 12-13 (1990) and 
Phys&Soc. 21, 8-10 (1992).  Some of his results are:  Thermal 
fluctuations lead to local electric Johnson--Nyquist "noise" fields from 
charge oscillations with rms values of
	E(rms)2 = 4rkT(df)/d3,
Where r is the resistivity = 2, df is frequency span of 100 Hz, d is the 
cell size of 20 microns  This gives E = 0.02 V/m, 3000 times larger than 
E from an external  field of 300 V/m.  J. Weaver (Science 247, 
459-462,1990) uses Johnson-Nyquist to estimate 0.1 V/m for broad band 
Adair; limits on membrane rectification processes lead to very small 
currents:  "Static magnetic fields smaller than the earth's field of 50 
mT and varying fields weaker than 4-mT 60-Hz fields are equivalent in 
effect to that from walking in the earth's field, cannot be expected to 
generate significant biological effects.  Moreover, the interactions of 
such weak fields at the cell level are also small compared to thermal 
noise.  These conclusions would be modified by 60-Hz cell resonances.  
But such resonances are shown to be incompatible with cell 
characteristics and the requirement from equipartition that the mean 
resonance energy must be kT.  Hence, any biological effects of ELF fields 
on the cellular level must be outside the scope of conventional 
physics."  For E fields from time-varying B fields, the Faraday's law 
approach [with 500 mG] gives E = 0.001 V/m, as compared to a noise field 
value of 0.02 V/m.  Cyclotron Resonance is ruled out for the example of 
calcium to refute Adey's data, "... the orbit [1 m] of such a resonance 
must be larger than the size of the cell by five orders of magnitude."  
(1011 collisions/second, P. Valberg)
T. Tenforde (Ann. Rev. Publ. Health 1992: 13, 173-96) disagrees by 
stating:  "This theoretical treatment, however, neglects the considerable 
signal amplification that can occur in large arrays of electrically 
coupled cells in tissue.  It also fails to consider nonequilibrium 
phenomena, such as cooperative transitions, through which extremely weak 
signals could exert significant effects on cell membrane properties."  W. 
Bennett (Health and Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Yale Univ. 
Press, 1994) disagrees with Teneforde on degree of signal amplification.
VI.3.  Magnetite:  Robert Adair (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 91, 2925-29, 
1994):  "Previous calculations... are extended to consider multiple 
signals, the possibility of anomalously large magnetosome structures, and 
the possibility of anomalously small cytoplasm viscosities.  The results 
indicate that the energies transmitted to the magnetite elements by 
fields less than 5 microT (50 mG).... will be much less than thermal 
noise energies.  Hence, the effects of such weak fields.... cannot be 
expected to affect biology, or therefore, the health of populations."
Polk (Bioelectromagnetics 15, 261-270, 1994):  "The numerical results 
indicates that predictions of this model depend strongly on the value 
selected for viscosity of the seems premature to 
conclude.... 'that 60 Hz magnetic fields weaker than 5 microT (50 mG) 
cannot generate significant biological effects at the cell level through 
action on magnetic elements..'"
Kirschvink (Phys. Rev. A 46, 2178-2184, 1992):  "A biologically plausible 
model of the interaction of single-domain magnetosomes with a 
mechanically activated transmembrane ion channel shows that ELF fields on 
the order of 0.1 to 1 mT [1-10 G] are capable of perturbing the 
open-closed state by an energy of kT.  As up to several thousand 
structures could fit within a eukaryotic cell, and the noise should go as 
the square root of the number of independent channels, much small ELF 
sensitivities at the cellular level are possible." 
Bennett ("Cancer and Power Lines," Physics Today 47, April 1994, p. 
23-29) calculates the physical basis for a variety of EM situations and 
concludes that "the dangers to human health from low-level ELF fields 
have been exaggerated beyond reason ....."  See exchange of letters, 
Phys. Today 48, 13-15, 71-73, January 1995.  Bennett (Phys. Today, p. 72, 
Jan. 1995) states "Any motion induced by a 60 Hz-field at the cell level 
will be strongly damped by viscosity effects.  Few things are expected to 
have as large a collective magnetic interaction as a long chain of 
magnetic domains.  For example, Joseph Kirschvink estimated from his 
model of the problem that it would take more than 1400 mG from 60-Hz 
field in the presence of cellular protoplasm to open an ion channel with 
a magnetite particle having a moment as large as 2 x 10-15 A m2 (about 34 
domains).  Such fields are enormous compared with those from power 
VI.4.  Stochastic Resonance (SR) has been shown to be relevant in some 
electro-optics experiments, and it has been applied in various theories 
of climate change cycles and in biophysics problems.  K. Wiesenfeld and 
F. Moss (Nature 373, 33-36, Jan. 5, 1995, Sci. Amer. 273, 66-69 (1995) 
and B. MacNamara and K. Wiesenfeld (Phys. Rev. A39, 4854-69, 1989) 
state:  "But recent research has established that noise can play a 
constructive role in the detection of weak periodic signals, via a 
mechanism known as stochastic resonance.  In essence, SR is a nonlinear 
cooperative effect in which a weak periodic stimulus entrains large-scale 
environmental fluctuations, with the result that the periodic component 
is greatly enhanced."  These authors have measured SR-like responses of 
cray fish mechanoreceptors hair cells that follow a SR-like curve.  They 
conclude:  "If SR is relevant, the effect of weak, extremely low 
frequency electromagnetic fields might be greatly amplified.  Whether any 
such enhancement is large enough to have significant biological 
ramification is at this state purely speculative."
The authors continue:  "... the presence of random noise alone is 
sufficient to induce (irregular switching) between the wells.  In the 
high-friction limit, the dynamics can be modeled by the differential equation
	dx/dt = -dU/dx + F(t) + A sin(wt)
where U is the bare potential, A sin(wt) is the signal, and F is the 
noise.....  Remarkably, theories for all three types of SR -- the 
bistable potential model, the fire and reset excitable system model, and 
the simple threshold model -- result in the same general formula (apart 
from some constant factors of order one in both the prefactor and the 
exponential) for the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR):
	SNRout a  (eDU/D)2 exp(-DU/D)
where e is the input signal strength, D is the input noise intensity and 
DU is a constant related to the barrier height or the threshold."
Adair points out that the SNR above is the output SNR ratio, signal out 
over noise out.  Thus if one divides both sides of the equation by SNRin, 
(e/D), one obtains
	SNRout/SNRin a  (eDU2/D) exp(-DU/D).
Adair comments on SR:  "However, if the input signal is much smaller than 
the input noise, the output signal-no-noise ratio will be even much 
smaller.... where an electromagnetic field signal is much smaller than 
the thermal noise.... SNRin <<1..... "  Adair further points out in a 
comment on chaos that the flapping of the butterfly in Irkusk might 
change the day it snowed in New York, but it wouldn't change the average 
VI.5.  F. Barnes (Bioelectromagnetic Supplement 1, 67-85, 1992):  "There 
have been a number of hypotheses presented (4 ref.), but thus far, it has 
been difficult to get definitive measurements that either confirm or 
reject these theories....  Additionally, three models by which a 
biological system may extract weak signals from noise are presented.  The 
first of these is the injection-locking of oscillating processes where 
the signal to noise ratio may be less than unity.  The second is 
parametric amplification which allows the external signal and the 
biological process to be at different frequencies and where stability 
requirements on the external pump frequency discriminates against the 
noise.  The third approach is to examine a computer model for a neural 
network which can be trained to identify a 60 Hz field at signal-to-noise 
ratios much less than one.  The key to each of these models for possible 
interactions of magnetic fields with biological systems is the long-term 
coherence of the signal with respect to the noise."
VII.  Prudent Avoidance and ELF Mitigation Costs.
VII.1  Prudent Avoidance:  The vague concept of "Prudent Avoidance" has 
been used by at least eleven utility commissions to promulgate 
regulations on ELF because the science connection between EMF and cancer 
has not demonstrated.  G. Morgan defines (Public Utility Fortnightly, 
March 15, 1992 and EMF Fields from 60 Hz Electrical Power, Carnegie 
Mellon, 1989) "prudent avoidance" as:  "Prudence means exercising sound 
judgement in practical matters.  It means being cautions, sensible, not 
rash in conduct."   Morgan further states that prudent avoidance "is to 
try to keep people out of fields when that can be done at modest cost -- 
but not to go off the deep end with expensive controls which may not be 
beneficial."  This seems reasonable, but from there he moves towards the 
arbitrary spending without measurable benefits by stating:  "Utilities 
and utility regulators must consider both distribution systems and 
transmission systems.  Activities that may warrant consideration at the 
distribution level include:  paying greater attention to population 
distributions around facilities; incorporating more consideration of 
exposure management in maintenance and facility upgrade policies.... 
making selected use of undergrounding..."
[DH:  Thus, prudent avoidance opens the political path for the utilities 
and other bodies to spend money without a scientific basis for concern.  
This seems all the more irrational since there is no convergence on the 
epidemiology data on what to fear, and there is no consensus on whether 
the concern is (1) the intensity of the fields, (2) the frequency windows 
which might cause resonance, or (3) the rate of change of the fields 
(Faraday's law).  In our free society, this open-ended, unbounded 
approach to risk mitigation allows a fearful public to use the threat of 
litigation to remove the "phantom effect."  As long as the rate payers 
and others will cover the costs, the utilities and others have little 
incentive to take on litigation in this area.  In general EPA requires 
corrective action when the probability of death to those that are exposed 
is greater than 1/1,000,000 over a 70 year lifetime, but because of 
dollar limitations this has often been softened to 1,/0,000.]
[DH:  Morgan's approach appears to be driven by his statement that "there 
is some significant chance that fields pose a modest public health risk, 
and not much chance that the risk to any one of us will be very big."   
In my analysis of Morgan's work, he seems to have placed great reliance 
on well-known discredited work, stating in 1992 that "a series of 
epidemiological studies, including studies of childhood leukemia by Nancy 
Wetheimer and Ed Leeper.... have provided a growing basis for concern."  
In addition, Morgan has failed to examine the risk factors by type of 
cancer, an approach which shows glaring inconsistences.  Lastly, his 
writings should be updated to take into account the new work of Savitz 
and others.  Philosophically, Morgan alludes to Thomas Kuhn's Structure 
of Scientific Revolutions, stating that "paradigm shifts" are affecting 
"scientific thinking about biological effects from electric and magnetic 
fields."  It is premature to talk of paradigm shifts when the 
preponderance of the data base does not converge on a cancer pathway or 
on the degree of risk.  Morgan's is concerned that public perceptions may 
drive regulations rather than scientific fact, but yet I conclude that it 
his own papers which have pushed the ELF-risk process away from science 
and towards irrationality.  I agree with the critics of "prudent 
avoidance" who have call it "the abandonment of science, "the triumph of 
fear of the unknown over reason," and "being so vague as to be useless."  
In the real world of the courts, the public utility commissions, and the 
city councils, this approach makes for regulation by fear and without 
substance.  Prudent avoidance is a delight for plaintiff lawyers since it 
is essentially a conclusion that the danger is probable.  See "The 
Imprudence of Prudent Avoidance," by D. Hafemeister, Physics and Society 
24, 9-11 (July 1995).]  
VII.2  Utility Regulations (GAO Report on EMF, GAO/RCED-94-115):  
"Regulators in at least 11 states that we contacted have adopted 
practices for mitigating exposure to EMFs.... Some commercial utilities 
have also adopted prudent avoidance or other 'low cost/no cost' policies 
to address the public's concerns about EMFs.  Such policies are not based 
on scientific knowledge about health effects of exposure to EMFs."
VII.3.  IRPA/INIRC:  The public standards for ELF are driven by the fact 
that "Twenty of these [pacemaker] units reverted to an asynchronous mode 
or exhibited abnormal pacing characteristics in 60-Hz fields with 
amplitudes ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 mT [1-4 G]."  (T. Teneforde, Ann. Rev. 
Publ. Health 13, 173-196, (1992)).  The International Non-Ionizing 
Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association 
developed the following interim guidelines in 1990 for ELF fields which 
are much higher than the fields from power lines:
Occupational:  "Continuous occupational exposure during the working day 
should be limited to rms magnetic flux densities not greater than 0.5 mT 
(5 G).  Short term occupational whole-body exposure for up to 2 h per 
workday should not exceed a magnetic flux of 5 mT (50 G).  When 
restricted to the limbs, exposures up to 25 mT (250 G) can be permitted."
General Public:  "Members of the general public should not be exposed on 
a continuous basis to unperturbed rms magnetic flux densities exceeding 
0.1 mT (1 G).  This restriction applies to areas in which members of the 
general public might reasonable be expected to spend a substation part of 
the day.  Exposure to magnetic flux densities between 0.1 and 1.0 mT 
(rms, 1-10 G) should be limited to a few hours per day.  When necessary, 
exposures to magnetic flux densities in excess of 1 mT (10 G) should be 
limited to a few minutes per day."
VII.4.  ELF Mitigation Costs from H. Florig, co-author of prudent 
avoidance concept ("Containing the Costs of the EMF Problem," Science 
257, 468-9, 488, 490, 492 (1992):
"... it seems likely that the total economic cost of the [ELF mitigation] 
activities described above now exceed $1 billion annually, with the 
promise of growing costs in the years to come....  If we were to value 
the reduction of a unit of EMF risk at comparable levels, the most that 
we could justify spending on EMF mitigation would be something in the 
neighborhood of $10 billion per year....  Given that the utilities 
nationwide invest about $13 billion annually in transmission and 
distribution construction, the cost of these exposure-reduction practices 
could well exceed $1 billion per year if widely adopted."
"Recent examples include a town that moved several blocks of distribution 
lines underground at a cost of $20,000 per exposed person; a utility that 
rerouted an existing line around a school at a cost of $8.6 million; a 
new office complex that incorporated EMF exposure in its design at a cost 
of $100-200 per worker; and a number of firms that have installed ferrous 
shielding on office walls and floors to reduce magnetic field exposures 
form nearby power handling equipment at costs ranging up to $400 per 
square meter of office space."
D. A Bromley, President Bush's Science Advisor, comments on in his book, 
(The President's Scientists Yale University Press, 1994) on a ELF study 
done in the Office of Science and Technology Policy:  "It is safe, 
however, to conclude that the EMF risk issue will continue to be 
contentious and of immense potential economic importance; the current 
best estimate is that prior to 1993 it has cost the American public more 
than $23 billion to respond to public worries about EMF -- particularly 
in connection with the placement of high-voltage power lines."
W. Horton and S. Goldberg (Power Frequency Magnetic Fields and Public 
Health,  CRC Press, 1995) describes the many mitigation measures 
available.  Extra costs of about 10% are allocated for such measures.
VII.5.  GAO ELF Mitigation Costs (Electromagnetic Fields, 
GAO/RCED-94-115), which do not consider the ELF from appliances within 
the home:
	-- $90,000/mile for delta design above-ground transmission lines 
to reduce magnetic fields by 45%,
	-- $2 million/mile to bury transmission lines in fluid-filled 
steel pipe to reduce magnetic fields by 99%,
	-- $1 billion to limit magnetic fields to 10 mG at edges of 
rights-of-way for planned new transmission lines,
	-- $3-9 billion to reduce magnetic fields at homes where 
grounding systems are the dominant source,
	-- $200 billion to bury transmission lines nationwide near homes 
with fields greater than 1mG,
	-- $250 billion to reduce average exposure to less than 2 mG from 
all transmission and distribution lines.
VII.6.  EMF Litigation:  EMF Timeline is a chronology of legal and 
political EMF battles, such as "San Diego utility SDG&E cancels power 
plant upgrade and compromises on 69-kV line (May 5, 1994).  Recently a 
law suit was filed against Houston Light and Power and EPRI on behalf of 
eleven families with children suffering from cancer.  The suit charges 
both the power company and EPRI with "fraudulent concealment of the 
carcinogenic nature of the fields that secretly and silently invaded 
their homes."  In San Luis Obispo, California, the city planners have 
used ELF criteria to resite a building.
EMF Heath Report (Vol. 1, 1993, http://infoventures. .com):  The 
utilities "are taking costly preventive measurements to avoid law suits, 
mindful of the mass-tort assaults against asbestos manufactures.  For 
example one utility, Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., spent nearly $5 
million to reroute and reconfigure power lines....  At Montague 
Elementary School in Santa Clara, CA, 13 of the schools' 15 teachers have 
formally requested to be transferred because of the school's close 
proximity to power lines.  In addition, 4 classrooms, a day care center, 
and a part of the playground located near power lines have been closed by 
the Mill Valley School District."
IEEE Spectrum (December 1994);  "The World Bank.... is now considered to 
be a model in this area.  The policy of prudent avoidance added about 
$500,000 to its construction costs.....the California Public Utility 
Commission required utilities to reduce the existence of EMF.... defined 
as 4 percent of the total cost of the budgeted project."  Also, see E. 
Gerjuoy, Jurimetrics 35, 55-75,1994.
[DH:  Litigation for ELF could be substantial, but probably not as large 
as the hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims that have been filed.  
The effects will probably be more subtle than direct litigation in that 
the public utility commissions, environmental impact statements, 
companies, city councils, and school districts will respond to the 
pressure to mitigate and to avoid litigation.]
VIII.  Selected Bibliogrophy.
[The letter E after an item indicates elementary level, or material of 
general interest to persons becoming informed in the field.  The letter 
I, for intermediate level, indicates material of somewhat more 
specialized nature, and the letter A indicates rather specialized or 
advanced materials.] 
A wide variety of journals, world-wide-web sites, and internet newsgroups 
cover ELF/EMF topics.
Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems
American Journal of Epidemiology
British Medical Journal
Biophysical Journal
Cancer Causes and Control
EPRI Journal
Health Physics
Journal of Comparative Physiology
Journal of Experimental Biology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
IIIE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Mutation Research
Physical Review
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine
Radiation Research
ELF/EMF Periodicals
EMF Keeptrack
EMF Health and Safety Digest
EMF Health Report
EMF News
Microwave News
World Wide Web
EMF-Link  (
Frequently Asked Questions on Powerlines and Cancer  
National Cancer Institute/National Institute of Health 
(gopher:// and
Hot Lines:
Environmental Protection Agency (1-800-363-2383)
National Institute of Environmental Health Science (1-800-643-4794)
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (1-800-356-4674)
The scientific review panels listed below conclude that ELF/EMF is not a 
public health problem.  Conference proceedings usually do not come to a 
conclusion nor do they include an economic dimension.
1.  Health Effects of Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, 
Presidential Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy 
Coordination (Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, TN, June 
1992).  (I)
2.  Report of an Advisory Group on Non-ionizing Radiation, National 
Radiological Protection Board (United Kingdom), Electromagnetic Fields 
and the Risk of Cancer 3 (1992).  (I)
3.  Electromagnetic Fields:  Biological Interactions and Mechanisms, 
edited by M. Blank, Advances in Chemistry 250 (1995).  (I)
4.  Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields (Vol. 1, Sources 
and Mechanisms; Vol. 2, Beneficial and Harmful Effects), D.O. Carpenter 
and S. Ayrapatyan (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1994).  (I)
5.  Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields:  The Question of 
Cancer, edited by B.W. Wilson, R.G. Stevens, and L.E. Anderson (Battelle 
Press, Columbus, OH, 1990).  (I)
The following is a wide-ranging collection of summaries of ELF/EMF issues.
6.  Health and Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, W. R. Bennett (Yale 
University Press, New Haven, CT, 1994).  A discussion of the ELF/EMF 
issues that were considered by the Oak Ridge interdisciplinary panel of 
scientists.  (I)
7.  CRC Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (2nd 
edition), edited by C. Polk and E. Postow (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 
1996).  Review chapters on ELF/EMF.  (I)
8.  Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law, edited by K.R. 
Foster, D.E. Bernstein and P.W. Huber (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993).  
A summary of the various risks that society is concerned about.  (I)
9.  Power Frequency Magnetic Fields and Public Health, edited by W.F. 
Horton and S. Goldberg (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1995).  Discusses in 
detail the ELF fields from power lines and appliances and the approaches 
that would be needed to mitigate them if ELF/EMF were a serious problem.  
10.  Radio-Frequency and ELF Electromagnetic Energies:  A Handbook for 
Health Professionals, edited by R.T. Hitchcock (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 
NY, 1995).  (I)
11.  "Cancer and Power Lines," W.R. Bennett, Phys. Today 47, 23-29 (April 
1994), and letters, Phys. Today 48, 13-15, 71-73 (January 1995).  A good 
discussion of the basic physics involved with ELF/EMF.  (I)
12.  "Biological Effects of Power-Frequency Fields as They Relate to 
Carcinogenesis," J.E. Moulder and K.R. Foster, Proc. Soc. Exp. Bio. Med. 
209, 309-324 (1995).  An excellent survey and interpretation of the 
totality of the biomedical-biophysical data.  (I)
13.  "Electromagnetic Fields and Power Lines," W.R. Bennett, Science and 
Medicine 1, 68-77 (July/August 1995).  (I)
14.  "Today's View of Magnetic Fields," T.S. Perry, IEEE Spectrum 
31,14-23 (December 1994).  A compilation of epidemiology data, but it 
fails to subdivide the data by the types of cancer involved.  (E)
Two booklets give a great deal of information on ELF/EMF:
15.  Fields from Electric Power, M.G. Morgan (Dept. Engineering and 
Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, PA 1995).  (E)
16.  Questions and Answers About EMF:  Electric and Magnetic Fields 
Associated with the Use of Electric Power, (Nat. Instit. Envir. Health 
Sci. and U.S. Dept. Energy, 1995).  (E)
Three journalists, Paul Brodeur, who sensationalized ELF/EMF, and Gary 
Taubes and Jon Palfreman, who respond, give differing views on ELF/EMF.
17.  The Great Power-Line Cover-Up:  How the Utilities and the Government 
Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard Posed by Electromagnetic Fields, P. 
Brodeur (Little Brown, Boston, MA 1995).  (E)
18.  "Fields of Fear," G. Taubes, Atlantic Monthly 274, 94-108 (November 
1994).  (E)
19.  "Apocalyspse Not," J. Palfreman, Tech. Rev. 99, No. 3, 24-33 (April 
A.  Theory of ELF/EMF Interactions with Biological Matter.
The basic physics of ELF/EMF is discussed in this set of papers with the 
general conclusion from the physics community that the ELF/EMF 
interaction energies and forces are less than those from thermal 
fluctuations in the body. 
20.  "Catalogue of Electromagnetic Environment Measurements, 30-300 Hz," 
J. Randa, et al., IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 37, 
No. 1, 26-33 (February 1995).  (A)
21.  "Constraints on Biological Effects of Weak Extremely-Low-Frequency 
Electromagnetic Fields," R.K. Adair, Phys. Rev. A 43, 1039-1049 (1991).  (A)
22.  "Comment on 'Constraints on Biological Effects of Weak 
Extremely-Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields'," J.L. Kirschvink, Phys. 
Rev. A 46, 2178-2184 (1992).  (A)
23.  "Reply to 'Comment on 'Constraints on Biological Effects of Weak 
Extremely-Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields' '," R.K. Adair, Phys. 
Rev. A 46, 2185-2187 (1992).  (A)
24.  "The Response of Living Cells to Very Weak Electric Fields:  The 
Thermal Noise Limit," J.C. Weaver and R.D. Astumian, Science 247, 459-462 
(1990).  (A)
25.  "Some Engineering Models for Interactions of Electric and Magnetic 
Fields with Biological Systems," F. S. Barnes, Bioelectromagnetics 
Supplement 1, 67-85 (1992).  (A)
26.  "Biological response to Weak 60-Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields Must 
Vary as the Square of the Field Strength," R.K. Adair, Proc. Nat. Acad. 
Sci. 91, 9422-9425 (1995).  (A)
27.  "A model for the acute electrosensitivity of cartilaginous fishes," 
W.F. Pickard, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 35, 243-249 (1988).  (A)    
28.  "Rectification and signal averaging of weak electric fields by 
biological cells," R.D. Austumian, J.C. Weaver and R.K. Adair, Proc. Nat. 
Acad. Sci. 92, 3740-3743 (1995).
B.  Magnetic Dipole Interactions.
The discovery of chains of magnetosomes in bacteria has stimulated 
interest in searching for magnetic structures in higher animals.
29.  "Magnetic Guidance of Organisms," R.B. Frankel, Ann. Rev. Biophys. 
Bioeng. 13, 85-103 (1984).  (A)
30.  Iron Biominerals, edited by R.B. Frankel and R.P. Blakemore (Plenum 
Press, NY, 1991).  (A)
31.  "Electron Microscopic Studies of Magnetosomes in Magnetotatic 
Bacteria," D.A. Bazylinski, A.J. Garratt-Reed and R.B. Frankel, Microsc. 
Research and Tech. 27, 389-401 (1994).  (A)
Kirschvink's group has reported the discovery of very dilute magnetite in 
human brains, but this work has yet to be replicated.  They also are 
concerned that some of the "positive" ELF/EMF experiments in unclean 
facilities might be caused by magnetite impurities in samples.
32.  "Magnetite biomineralization in the Human Brain," J.L. Kirschvink, 
A. Kobayashki-Kirschvink, and B.J. Woodford, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 89, 
7683-7687  (1992).  (A)
33.  "Magnetic Material in the Human Hippocampus," J.R. Dunn, M. Fuller, 
et al., Brain Research Bulletin 36,149-153 (1995).  (A)
34.  "Ferromagnetism and EMFs," A. K. Kobayashi, J.L. Kirschvink, and 
M.H. Nesson, Nature 374, 123 (1995).  (I)
Basic physics calculations show that it is very unlikely that ELF/EMF 
could meaningfully interact with chains of magnetosomes under reasonable 
35.  "Constraints of Thermal Noise on the Effects of Weak Fields Acting 
on Biological Magnetite," R.K. Adair, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 91, 2925-2929 
(1994).  (A)
36.  "Effects of ELF Magnetic Fields on Biological Magnetite," R.K. 
Adair, Bioelectromagnetics  14, 1-4 (1993).  (A)
37.  "Effects of Extremely-Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields on Biological 
Magnetite," C. Polk, Bioelectromagnetics 15, 261-270 (1994).  Polk states 
that it is plausible to expect some biological interactions at the 20 mG 
level.  (A)
C.   Radon Near Power Lines.
38.  "Enhanced Deposition of Radon Daughter Nuclei in the Vicinity of 
Power Frequency Electromagnetic Fields," D.L. Henshaw, A.N. Ross, A.P. 
Fews and A.W. Preece, Int. J. Rad. Biol. 69, 25-38 (1996).  See text for 
a discussion of the radon issue.  (A).
D.  Stochastic Resonance.
It is unlikely that stochastic resonance can significantly entrain the 
thermal noise of the body, but it has been observed in biological 
mechanical systems.
39.  "Stochastic Resonance and the Benefits of Noise: from Ice Ages to 
Crayfish to SQUIDS," K. Wiesenfeld and F. Moss, Nature 373, 33-36 
(1995).  (I)
40.  "Theory of Stochastic Resonance," B. McNamara and K. Wisenfeld, 
Phys. Rev. A 39, 4854-4869 (1989).  (A)
41.  "The Benefits of Background Noise,"  F. Moss and K. Wiesenfeld, Sci. 
Am. 273, 66-69 (August 1995).  (E)
E.  Animals Sensing ELF/EMF:
Animals can sense E fields less than 1 mV/m, B field differences of less 
than 1 mG, and currents from their electrical organs to find food.  These 
unique sensory abilities do not implicate public health from ELF/EMF.
42.  "Honeybees Can Be Trained to Respond to Very Small Changes in 
Geomagnetic Field Intensity," M.M. Walker and M.E. Bitterman, J. Exp. 
Biology 145, 489-494 (1989).  (A)
43.  "Acquisition of Magnetic Directional Preference in Hatchling 
Loggerhead Sea Turtles," K. Lohmann, J. Exp. Biology 190, 1-8 (1994).  (A)
44.  "Electroreception and the Compass Sense of Sharks," M. Paulin, J. 
Theor. Biol. 174, 325-339 (1995).  (A)
45.  "Electrosensory Organisms," J. Bastian, Phys. Today 47, 30-37 
(February 1994).  (E)
46.  "Phase and Amplitude Maps of the Electric Organ Discharge of the 
Weakly Electric Fish, Apteronotus, Leptorhynchus," B. Rasnow, C. Assad, 
J.M. Bower, J. Comp. Physiol. A 172, 481-491 (1993).  (A)
47.  "Interactions in the flexible orientation system of a migratory 
bird," K.P. Able and M.A. Able, Nature 375, 230-232 (1995).  Sparrows 
have a migratory magnetic compass and a star compass, updating with 
visual cues from the sky at sunset.  (A)
48.  "Interaction of apical and basal membrane ion channels underlies 
electroreception in ampullary epithelia of skates," J. Lu and H.M. 
Fishman, Biophys. J. 67, 1525-1533 (1994).  (A)
F.  Paramagnetic/Cyclotron Resonance.
It is difficult to understand how cyclotron resonance could exist in 
liquids that cause high collision rates.
49.  "Kinematics of Channelized Membrane Ions in Magnetic Fields," A.R. 
Liboff and B.R. McLeod, Bioelectromagnetics 9, 39-51 (1988).  (A)
50.  "On the Cyclotron Resonance Model of Ion Transport," J. Sandweiss, 
Bioelectromagnetics 11, 203-205 (1990).  (A)
Some interesting, but unreplicated data on paramagnetic resonance 
follows, along with theoretical articles that disagree with the work.
51.  "Clarification and Application of an Ion Parametric Resonance Model 
for Magnetic Field Interactions with Biological Systems," J.P. Blanchard 
and C.F. Blackman, Bioelectromagnetics 15, 217-238 (1994).  (A)
52.  "Empirical Test of an Ion Parametric Resonance Model for Magnetic 
Field Interactions with PC-12 Cells," C.F. Blackman, J.P. Blanchard, S.G. 
Benane, and D.E. House, Bioelectromagnetics 15, 239-260 (1994).  (A)
53.  "Criticism of Lednev's Mechanism for the Influence of Weak Magnetic 
Fields on Biological Systems," R.K. Adair, Bioelectromagnetics 13, 
231-235 (1992).  (A)
G.  Further Biomedical-Biophysical Experiments.
The first reference below by Goodman, et al., is a review of the 
biomedical-biophysical data from those who claim to see an effect from 
ELF/EMF.  In the second paper, Valberg points out that many ELF/EMF 
experiments have failed replication tests.  He suggests experimental 
procedures to clarify experimental categorizations.  This section 
concludes with 20 biomedical-biophysical experiments using ELF/EMF. Also, 
see reference 12 by Moulder, who discusses these kinds of ELF/EMF 
54.  "Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Molecules and Cells," E.M. 
Goodman, B. Greenbaum and M.T. Marron, Int. Rev. Cytology 158, 279-338 
55.  "Designing EMF Experiments:  What is Required to Characterize 
Exposure?," P.A. Valberg, Bioelectromagnetics 16, 396-401 (1995).  (I)
56.  "Effect of Low-level, 60-Hz Electromagnetic Fields on Human Lymphoid 
Cells: I. Mitotic Rate and Chromosome Breakage in Human Peripheral 
Lymphocytes," M.M. Cohen, et al., Bioelectromagnetics 7, 415-423 (1986).  
57.  "Exposure of Mammalian Cells to 60-Hz Magnetic or Electric Fields: 
Analysis for DNA Single-strand Breaks," J.A. Reese, et al., 
Bioelectromagnetics 9, 237-247 (1988).  (A)
58.  "Effects of 50-Hertz EM Fields on Proliferation and on Chromosomal 
Aberrations in Human Peripheral Lymphocytes Untreated and Pretreated with 
Chemical Mutagens," M. Rosenthal and G. Obe, Mutat. Res. 210, 329-335 
(1989).  (A)
59.  "Exposure of Mammalian Cells to 60-Hz Magnetic or Electric Fields: 
Analysis of DNA Repair of Induced, Single-strand Breaks" M.E. Frazier, et 
al., Bioelectromagnetics 11, 229-234 (1990).  (A)
60.  "Reproductive Integrity of Mammalian Cells Exposed to 
Power-frequency Electromagnetic Fields," G.K. Livingston, et al., 
Environ. Molec. Mutat. 17, 49-58 (1991).  (A)
61.  "Effect of 60-Hz Magnetic Fields on Ultraviolet Light-induced 
Mutation and Mitotic Recombination in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae,"  D.D. 
Ager and J.A. Radul, Mutat. Res. 283, 279-286 (1992).  (A)
62.  "Electric and/or Magnetic Field Effects on DNA Structure and 
Function in Cultured Human Cells," M. Fiorani, et al., Mutat. Res. 282, 
25-29 (1992).  (A)
63.  "Effects of Magnetic Fields on Mammary Tumor Development Induced by 
7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene in Rats," M. Mevissen, et al., 
Bioelectromagnetics 14, 131-143 (1993).  (A)
64.  "Exposure of Rats of a 50-Hz, 30-mT Magnetic Field Influences 
Neither the Frequencies of Sister-chromatid Exchanges nor Proliferation 
Characteristics of Cultured Peripheral Lymphocytes," M. Mevissen, et al., 
Mutat. Res. 302, 39-44 (1993).  (A)
65.  "Reproductive and Teratologic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," 
R.L. Brent, et al., Reproduc. Toxicol. 7, 535-580 (1993).  (A)
66.  "Tumor Promotion in a Breast Cancer Model by Exposure to a Weak 
Alternating Magnetic Field," W. Loscher, et al., Cancer Letters 71, 
75-81  (1993).  (A)
67.  "Intermittent 50-Hz Magnetic Field and Skin Tumor Promotion in 
Sencar Mice," A. Rannug, et al., Carcinogenesis 15, 153-157 (1994).  (A)
68.  "Effects of Weak Alternating Magnetic Fields on Nocturnal Melatonin 
Production and Mammary Carcinogenesis in Rats," W. Loscher, et al., 
Oncology 51, 288-295 (1994).  (A)
69.  "Cytological Effects of 50 Hz Electromagnetic Fields on Human 
Lymphocytes in Vitro," A. Antonopoulos, et al., Mutat. Res. 346, 151-157 
(1995).  (A)
70.  "A Histopathological Study of Alterations in DMBA-induced Mammary 
Carcinogenesis in Rats with 50 Hz, 100 mT Magnetic Field Exposure," A. 
Baum, et al., Carcinogenesis 16, 119-125 (1995).  (A)
71.  "No Effect of 60 Hz Electromagnetic Fields on MYC or Beta-actin 
Expression in Human Leukemic Cells," A. Lacy-Hulbert, et al., Rad. Res. 
144, 9-17 (1995).  (A)
72.  "Dominant Lethal Studies in Male Mice after Exposure to a 50 Hz 
Magnetic Field," C.I. Kowalczuk, et al., Mutat. Res. 328, 229-237 
(1995).  (A)
73.  "A 60-Hz Magnetic Field Increases the Incidence of Squamous cell 
Carcinomas in Mice," J. McLean et al., Cancer Letters 92, 121-125 
(1995).  (A)
74.  "Short Exposures to 60 Hz Magnetic Fields Do Not Alter MYC 
Expression in HL60 or Daudi cells," J.D. Saffer and S.J. Thurston, Rad. 
Res. 144, 18-25 (1995).  (A)
75.  "Melatonin and Puberty in Female Lambs Exposed to EMF: a Replicate 
Study,"  J.M. Lee, et al., Bioelectromagnetics 16, 119-123 (1995).  (A)
76.  "Therapeutic Applications of Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic 
Fields," C. Polk, Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems 1, 
129-153 (1994).  Large magnetic fields that change very quickly cause 
large internal currents that may aid bone growth.  (A)
H.  Epidemiology.
77.  "The Environment and Diseases:  Association and Causation," A.B. 
Hill, Proc. Royal Soc. Med., Sec. Occup. Med. 58, 295-300 (1965).  
Criteria to base conclusions.  (I)
78.  Modern Epidemiology, K. J. Rothman (Little Brown, Boston, 1986).  (A)
79.  Fundamentals of Epidemiology (Parts I and II), (Electric Power 
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1993).  Basic facts.  (I)
80.  "Epidemiology Faces its Limits," G. Taubes, Science 269, 164-169 
(1995).  (E)
81.  "Weak Magnetic Fields:  A Cancer Connection?" K. R. Foster in ref. 
8.  A nice discussion on epidemiology associations.  (I)
82.  "Are Stray 60 Hz Electromagnetic Fields Associated with the 
Distribution and Uses of Electrical Power a Significant Cause of Cancer," 
J. D. Jackson, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 89, 3508-3510 (1992).  Electrical 
use rises considerably while childhood cause cancer remains relatively 
constant.  (I)
83.  Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), (National Cancer 
Institute, Washington, DC, 1995).  The cancer facts needed for analysis.  
I.  Childhood Leukemia Studies
84.  "Residential Proximity to Electricity Transmission and Distribution 
Equipment and Risk of Childhood Leukemia, Childhood Lymphoma, and 
Childhood Nervous System Tumors:  Systematic Review, Evaluation, and 
Meta-Analysis," E. P. Washburn, et al., Cancer Causes and Control 5, 
299-309 (1994).  A nice summary of the childhood cancer data.  (A)
85.  "Electrical Wiring Configurations and Childhood Cancer," N. 
Wertheimer and E. Leeper, Am. J. Epidemiology 109, 273-284 (1979).  (A)
86.  "Case-Control Study of Childhood Cancer and Exposure to 60-Hz 
Magnetic Fields", D.A. Savitz, et al., Am. J. Epidemiology 128, 21-38 
(1988).  (A)
87.  "Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields and Risk of 
Childhood Leukemia," Am. J. Epidemiology 134, 923-937 (1991).  (A)
88.  "Magnetic Fields and Cancer in Children Residing Near Swedish 
High-Voltage Power Lines," M. Feychting and A. Ahblom, Am J. Epidemiology 
138, 467-480 (1993).  Letter and reply, R. Wilson and A. Shlyakhter, Am. 
J. Epidemiology 141, 378-379 (1995).  (A)
89.  "Residence near High Voltage Facilities and Risk of Cancer in 
Children," J.H. Olsen, A. Nielson, and R. Schulgen, Brit. Med. J. 307, 
891-895 (1993).  (A)
90.  "Risk of Cancer in Finnish Children Living Close to Power Lines," 
P.K. Verkasalo, et al., Brit. Med. J. 307, 895-899 (1993).  (A)
91.  "Childhood Cancer in Relation to Indicators of Magnetic Fields from 
Ground Current Sources," N. Wertheimer, D.A. Savitz, and E. Leeper, 
Bioelectromagnetics 16, 86-96 (1995).  (A)
J.  High Field Studies.
The large fields of the order of 100 mG from older electric blankets 
(before twisted pair wires) and electrical train workers (30 mG) fail to 
show effects one would expect if the biological coupling was proportional 
to the square of the field (ref. 26).
92.  "Magnetic Field Exposure from Electric Appliances and Childhood 
Cancer," D.A. Savitz, E.M. John, R.C. Kleckner, Am. J. Epidemiology 131, 
763-773 (1990).  (A)
93.  "Leukemia and Brain Tumors in Norwegian Railway Workers, A Nested 
Case Control Study," T. Tynes, H. Jynge, and A.I. Vistnes, Am. J. 
Epidemiology 137, 645-653 (1994).  (A)
K.  Utility Employee Studies.
A study of utility power-line workers reported average fields of about 11 
mgG.  In spite of the higher field values, the epidemiology from the 
utility studies appears to be inconsistent and inconclusive.
94.  "Magnetic Field Exposure in Relation to Leukemia and Brain Cancer 
Mortality among Electrical Utility Workers," D. Savitz and D. Loomis, Am. 
J. Epidemiology 141, 123-134 (1995).  (A)
95.  "Cohort and Nested Case-Control Studies of Hematopoietic Cancers and 
Brain Cancer Among Electrical Utility Workers," J. D. Sahl, M. A. Kelsh, 
and S. Greenland, Epidemiology 4, 104-114 (1993).  (A)
96.  "Cancer risks associated with occupational exposure to magnetic 
fields among electricity utility workers in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, 
and France," G. Theriault, et al., Am. J. Epidemiology 139, 550-572 
(1994) and 140, 805-820 (1994).  (A)
97.  "Magnetic Field Exposure Among Utility Workers," T. D. Bracken, et 
al., Bioelectromagnetics 16, 216-226 (1995).  (A)
98.  "Utility Workers and EMF Health Risks," T. Moore, EPRI Journal 20, 
6-17 (March/April 1995).  (A)
L.   Mitigation, Litigation and Prudent Avoidance.
The diverse costs of ELF/EMF are reported to be over $1 billion/year.  
Some aspects of these issues are described below. 
99.  "Containing the Costs of the EMF Problem," H.K. Florig, Science 257, 
468-9, 488, 490, 492 (1992).  Present costs of $1 billion/year.  (E)
100.  Electromagnetic Fields:  Federal Efforts to Determine Health 
Effects Are Behind Schedule, (General Accounting Office, GAO/RCED-94-115, 
Washington, DC, 1994).  Potential costs of more than $250 billion.  (E)
101.  "Interim Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to 50/60 Hz Electric and 
Magnetic Fields," (International Nonionizing Radiation Committee of the 
International Radiation Protection Association), H.P. Jammet, et al., 
Health Physics 58, 113-122 (1990).  Approved in 1993.  (E)
102.  Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic 
Fields:  Background Paper, I. Nair, M. G. Morgan, and H. K. Florig 
(Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C., OTA-Bl-E53, 1989).  (I)
103.  "60 Hz Electromagnetic Fields:  Problems in Risk Assessment and 
Policy Response," G. Morgan, Phys. and Society 19, 10 (Oct. 1990), and 
"Prudent Avoidance," Public Utility Fortnightly, March 15, 1992.  (E)
104.  "The Imprudence of Prudent Avoidance," D. Hafemeister, Phys. and 
Society 24, No. 3, 9-11 (July 1995).  (E)
105.   "Electromagnetic Fields:  Physics, Biology and Law," E. Gerjuoy, 
Jurimetrics 35, 55-75 (1994).  (E)
106.  "Brief of Amici Curiae Robert K. Adair, et al," San Diego Gas & 
Electric Co. vs. Orange Country Superior Court and Martin Covalt, et al., 
Supreme Court of California, 1995.  (A) 
M. Risk In General.
The following references would help to prioritize spending for reduced 
health risks.
107.  Of Acceptable Risk:  Science and the Determination of Safety, W.W. 
Lowrance (Kaufmann, Kaufmann, CA, 1976).  (E)
108.  "Perception in Risk," P. Slovic, Science 236, 280-285 (1987).  (I)
109.  "Risk Analysis and Management," M.G. Morgan, Sci. Am. 269, 32-42 
(July 1993).  (E)
110.  "Societal Risk versus Technological Risk," C. Starr, Science 165, 
1232-1238 (1969).  (E)
111.  "Energy Hazards:  What to Measure, What to Compare," J.P. Holdren, 
Tech. Rev. 85, 33-38, 74-75 (April 1982).  (E)

ehso horizontal rule

EMF is not a problem

Actually, it seems that no one is saying that long term EMF exposure is safe. Here's one of the few I found:

American Radio Relay League

ehso horizontal rule

Back to top

Ways to save money AND help the environment:

Eat healthier AND save money: Instant Pot Duo Crisp 11-in-1 Air Fryer and Electric Pressure Cooker Combo with Multicooker Lids that Fries, Steams, Slow Cooks, Sautés, Dehydrates

Save water AND money with this showerhead adapter, it lets the water flow until the water is hot, then shuts off water flow until you restart it, ShowerStart TSV Hot Water Standby Adapter

Protect your health with these:

Mattress Dust mite-Bedbug protector, 100% Waterproof, Hypoallergenic, Zippered

Handheld Allergen Vacuum Cleaner with UV Sanitizing and Heating for Allergies and Pet, Kills Mite, Virus, Molds, True HEPA with Powerful Suction removes Hair, Dander, Pollen, Dust,

Immune Support Supplement with Quercetin, Vitamin C, Zinc, Vitamin D3

GermGuardian Air Purifier with UV-C Light and HEPA 13 Filter, Removes 99.97% of Pollutants

5 Stage Air Purifier, Features Ultraviolet Light (UVC), H13 True Hepa, Carbon, PCO, Smart Wifi, Auto Mode, Quiet, Removes 99.97% of Particles, Smoke, Mold, Pet Dander, Dust, Odors

Interesting Reads:

THE PREPPER'S CANNING & PRESERVING BIBLE: [13 in 1] Your Path to Food Self-Sufficiency. Canning, Dehydrating, Fermenting, Pickling & More, Plus The Food Preservation Calendar for a Sustainable Pantry

The Backyard Homestead: Produce all the food you need on just a quarter acre! Paperback

The Citizens' Guide to Geologic Hazards: A Guide to Understanding Geologic Hazards Including Asbestos, Radon, Swelling Soils, Earthquakes, Volcanoes

The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming

Book: The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History Paperback

See Echo Dot on Amazon