 |

Summary

These findings were produced by leading government
authorities based upon research conducted for and financed by government
health authorities.
Accordingly, they do not suffer from sponsorship bias.
|
 |
 |
(See above links for more information)
Opinions of Leading Government Authorities
The British Journal study was published in September 2000. It
was this study (collaborated by other studies) that indicated the earlier
research finding no link between EMF and cancer was wrong.
“The
level of [statistical] significance that we see for the excess risk at
high [EMF] exposure makes chance an unlikely explanation.”
British Journal of Cancer (83), pp.692-698, September, 2000.
This study was authored by the lead researchers in most of the earlier key
studies. The researchers reversed their own earlier findings,
admitting they had made serious methodological errors. (See also the
Microwave News analysis of this important study.)
"Many people believe there are no
data to support an association between residential magnetic fields
exposure and childhood leukemia. To the contrary, the data strongly
and relatively consistently support such an association."
Daniel
Wartenberg in a paper commissioned by the California Health Department, printed in Bioelectromagnetics
Supplement 5:S86-104,2001
"Recent large and well-conducted
studies have provided better evidence than was available in the past on
the relationship between power frequency magnetic field exposure and the
risk of cancer. Taken in conjunction they suggest that relatively heavy
average exposures of 0.4 µT [4mG] or more are associated with a
doubling of the risk of leukaemia in children under 15 years of age."
Report
of an Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation, [UK] National Radiological
Protection Board, March
6, 2001.
"I have become increasingly convinced that electric and
magnetic fields do affect living systems,...that these effects...can occur
at low frequencies and low intensities,...and that we are very close to
understanding several of the mechanism involved."
Magda
Havas, Canadian Research Council's Environmental Reviews, p249,
September, 2000
Some have claimed the epidemiological evidence is clouded
by potential bias. A study
conducted for the California Public Utilities Commission suggests
that bias, if it exists, would work the other way, to make it harder for
epidemiology to identify a risk.
The ICNIRP
(International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) is a
leading quasi-governmental authority on the dangers of radiation. In
a detailed review of the
literature, the ICNIRP concludes that a doubling of risk among
children with average exposures above 4 mG is "unlikely to be due to
chance." For ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease), the ICNIRP believes that
the data "point toward a possible risk increase."
The UK National Radiological Protection Board has
finds that "Recent large and well-conducted studies have provided
better evidence than was available in the past on the relationship between
power frequency magnetic field exposure and the risk of cancer. Taken in
conjunction they suggest that relatively heavy average exposures of 0.4 µT
or more are associated with a doubling of the risk of leukaemia in
children under 15 years of age." This represents a dramatic change for
the NRPB, which
previously quoted the UKCCS study, which "did not find that the risk
of childhood cancer is associated with the strength of magnetic fields
from the electricity supply." (The UKCCS findings have subsequently been
reversed.)
These studies tend to less strongly find a link between EMF and cancer
than do the later studies, because they relied upon incorrect methodology.
Even so, there was still plenty of evidence of a link.
"NIEHS suggests that the power industry continue its
current practice of siting power lines to reduce exposures." National
Institute for Environmental Health Sciences' EMFRapid Final Report on Health
Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic
Fields, June, 1999.
"The Working Group concluded that ELF EMF are possibly
carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B, Appendix B)" Assessment
of Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and
Magnetic Fields, Working Group Report, National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, U.S. National Institutes of Health, August 1998
This finding has just been accepted
by the full IARC.
The following quote is from the 1977 US
National Research Council study. This study is viewed as denying a
relationship between EMF and Cancer, but, as the quote shows, this is not
entirely true. (This is one of the
studies, which, when reworked in the British
Journal research, was shown to have in fact demonstrated a strong
relationship between EMF and Cancer)
"The associations [between ELF EMF
and cancer] for childhood leukemia have been shown to be statistically
reliable and robust -- findings that must be considered carefully in
drawing conclusions about overall risk." Possible
Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields,
National Research Council, 1997
The Environmental Protection Agency concluded the following in
an Assessment dated September 8, 1996. It is not clear why the
Assessment was not released, although it is known that previous findings
by the EPA research group had been overruled by EPA managers.
"There is a consistent
association between childhood leukemia and perhaps brain cancer and
surrogates of prolonged magnetic field exposures in residence that has
been observed in several studies. It is not likely a chance
occurrence or an artifact of the way the studies were carried out, since
it has been observed in different studies, countries, and time periods
and with different study designs."
The National Research Council
stated
in 1996 there was "no convincing evidence" of an
association between low frequency EMF and cancer. One of the
members of that council, Daniel Wartenberg of the Robert
Wood Johnson Medical School, has
subsequently changed is views. The conclusions of the study
itself were
reversed by the project's leader, Martha Linet.
The United
Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study (UKCCS) was published in a
December, 1999, edition of the British medical journal, The Lancet.
The UKCCS concluded it could not find a relationship between EMF
and Cancer. Interestingly, The Lancet published a Commentary
in the very same issue accusing the UKCCS of using outdated methodology
and an insufficiently large sample size. The Commentary must have
been correct, because the UKCCS' principle researcher, Nicholas Day,
revisited his data in the subsequent British
Journal study, and concluded the UKCCS did find a relationship
between ELF and cancer.

|
 |