However, starting in September, 2000, a series of analysis appeared that reexamined the data collected in the earlier studies.  These new analyses used a different statistical approach to reanalyze the earlier studies.  The new approach was just as valid as the earlier approach, but they led to entirely different conclusions.  Whereas, previously, many of these studies failed to find an association between magnetic fields and cancer, it is now recognized that the data developed in these studies did in fact show a statistically significant association.

It is very significant that this new approach was developed by the authors of the original studies. Two additional studies, conducted entirely independently, confirmed the new approach, when applied to the old data, did reveal a statistically significant relationship between EMF and cancer.

These changes means that all authorities that have considered the issue before September 2000 were relying upon corrupt data.  They incorrectly believed the studies upon which they were relying had found no association, whereas those studies should have shown an association.

The leading health authorities (and Xcel) recognize this shift, which is why they are dramatically revising their statements on the relationship between EMF and cancer.

The electric utilities' research arm, the EPRI, issued a 1999 statement on EMF.  We have compared this statement with the infamous 1973 "Frank Statement" of the tobacco industry that the anti-tobacco attorneys used as evidence used in the tobacco trials.  These two statements, although issued 26 years apart, are amazing similar to each other.

NSP (now Xcel) circulated in the year 2000 a pamphlet that claim that EMF is safe.  Here is an annotated copy of the relevant pages from that pamphlet.  All the recent studies cited by Xcel now show a relationship between EMF and cancer.  (This file is 3 megs and therefore may be best suited for those with broadband internet connections.) 

The utilities favorite expert is John Moulder, whom they frequent retain to testify before government bodies.  We present here his 1999 testimony on Wisconsin's Arrowhead line.  He concluded there was no substantial evidence EMF is dangerous.  The conclusions of all of the sources he cited have been reversed and now prove a relationship between EMF and cancer.  His testimony is annotated with our comments showing how the studies he cites were reversed.

In an article on EMF, an utility EMF specialist is quoted as saying that, with respect to an association between EMF and cancer, "The issue is still open."  This is a major shift in the utility's position, which had heretofore maintained in a letter to a newspaper and, using identical language, in the above-referenced pamphlet  "there is no evidence of health effects from power lines or exposure to EMF, even at high levels."

In a formal response to a PLTF article, Xcel modified its previous position by asserting "There is no conclusive evidence that EMF exposure from power lines, even at high levels, causes adverse health effects."  [Emphasis added].  The addition of the word "conclusive" to its previous statement substantially changes the thrust of its assertion.

Senior authorities throughout the world are changing their positions regarding the dangers of EMF.  This is demonstrated in the following table.