Counterpoint: Evidence suggests transmission lines indeed dangerous

I used to be a NIMBY. Now I am a BANANA, and apparently I will soon become a NOPE, all because I am a member of a group of homeowners that is resisting a proposal to build a new power transmission line through the south Metro area.

According to a front-page story in the Jan. 28 Star Tribune, we stand for "Not in My Back Yard"; "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone," and we soon will be urging "Not On Planet Earth." According to the article, we risk condemning Minnesota to a future of energy insufficiency.

Here is a better term for us: PATER, for 'Pay Attention to Electromagnetic Research.'

Transmission power lines and substations emit electromagnetic fields, or EMF. Moderately high levels of EMF induce cancer. Indeed, epidemiological research demonstrates that those exposed to elevated EMF levels are as likely to experience an increased risk of cancer as those who smoke cigarettes.

Obviously, you will not accept the word of us PATERs. So, here are a few quotes from recent scientific literature:

"You wouldn't know it from the mass media, but the evidence for an association between magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia is now stronger than ever .... Parents in high-exposure homes have reason to be anxious about their children's health" (Microwave News, September/October 2000).

"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, September 2000).

"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 mechanisms involved" (Magda Havas, Canadian Research Council's Environmental Reviews, September 2000).

"NIEHS suggests that the power industry continue its current practice of siting power lines to reduce exposures" (National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences' EMFRapid Report on Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, June 1999).

We PATERs know what you are thinking. You are saying to yourself we must be cherry picking obscure studies, as you have read or heard about research that found no relationship between EMF and serious disease. You are correct. You did indeed hear about such research. The power utilities and their defenders point to the 1997 National Research Council Study, the 1999 UKCCS study and the 1999 Canadian Childhood Leukemia study. Each of these studies found no significant relationship between EMF and cancer. However, recently the prime authors of these studies reworked their research and, in the British Journal article cited above, determined their data and the data of many other comparable studies did demonstrate a relationship between EMF and cancer. They admit their original conclusions were incorrect. As a result, even the utilities are no longer asserting that EMF is safe.

We PATERs have good news for you, though. None of these studies found a relationship between EMF and disease at the levels of EMF found in the average house. EMF is dose responsive. At low levels it is safe; at high levels it is dangerous. That news does not help us PATERS, however, as our utility estimates we receive up to 160 times the average EMF, way over the intensity where EMF becomes dangerous. Cancer is not the only danger. EMF is associated in valid scientific research with a host of other serious diseases. Furthermore, utilities have admitted in court that electric fields of the intensity found near power lines can disrupt pacemakers and defibrillators.

In a Jan. 27 editorial the Star Tribune expressed concern over biotech food, while admitting these foods appear to pose no known health threat. It suggested a program to ensure that no biotech food is sold without corporations certifying it is safe.

Those of us who live near transmission lines rightfully ask for more. EMF is proven to be dangerous, and therefore transmission power line standards must be more rigorous than mere certification. Before any line is built near a home, the utility must demonstrate beyond all doubt that it is safe.

Everybody wants a robust power system. That does not provide an excuse for sacrificing the health of those innocents who happen to live near transmission power lines. There exist effective ways to eliminate EMF and still deliver power to Minnesotans, and there is no excuse for failing to employ them.

-- Roger R. Conant, Sunfish Lake. Spokesperson, Power Line Task Force.