Post by founder on Apr 7, 2007 10:54:29 GMT -5
1980: THE NEW YORK STATE
POWER LINES PROJECT
Luckily, the power authority wasn't able to stifle the commission entirely, and it attached several requirements to the permit for the line because of members' concerns about the possible dangers of EMFs. The commission went on record with a proviso to the permit warning that "Electromagnetic fields had been shown to produce bioeffects on animals and it is possible they might do the same in humans." A second provision established a 350-foot right-of-way along the power line route. Finally, the commissioners required the power authority, in conjunction with the New York State Department of Health, to finance a major research study to find out whether there were human health risks from electromagnetic fields produced by overhead power lines.
The Power Lines Project got off the ground in 1980, when a body of scientists and engineers was chosen for the Scientific Advisory Panel. The panel was selected on the basis of both professional expertise and lack of financial or professional conflicts of interest. In turn, the panel awarded contracts to scientists all over the country to carry out a total of sixteen studies on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields.
A $355,905 study, "Childhood Cancer and Electromagnetic Fields," conducted by Dr. David Savitz, an epidemiologist at the University of Colorado Medical School, turned out to be a milestone. Savitz was charged with replicating Wertheimer's "flawed" study, and it was well known that everyone expected him to discredit her. A lot of people were very surprised when Savitz supported Wertheimer's findings. To the scientific community and the utilities, the Savitz study was a bombshell.
According to the Scientific Advisory Panel's final report, "Biological Effects of Power Line Fields," released in July, 1987,
Several areas of potential concern for public health have been identified.... Of particular concern is the demonstration of a possible association of residential magnetic fields with incidence of certain childhood cancers.... A more serious concern comes from a study of cancer in children suggesting that children with leukemia and brain cancer are more likely to live in homes where there are elevated 60-Hz magnetic field levels than are children who do not have cancer.
The Savitz study found a positive association between wiring configuration and increased cancer risk, just as Wertheimer had. This held for all childhood cancers, especially leukemias and brain tumors. There even appeared to be a dose-response relationship, something that had been missing from the earlier work. Savitz estimated that as much as 15 percent of the childhood cancer in the United States is caused by EMFs from power lines. Though the Savitz study reported a slightly lower risk ratio - one and a half times - than the Wertheimer study, his findings were taken much more seriously than Wertheimees had ever been.
Another experiment on the clonogenicity (reproduction) of tumor cells by two scientists, Wendell Winters and Jerry Phillips, proved most interesting. Their findings came about almost by accident, and the final report of the Scientific Advisory Panel is careful to state that they were not part of the official Winters research project studying the effects of 60-Hz EMFs on human and canine cells. Dr. Winters had a state-of-the-art magnetic field laboratory in which to do his research. Dr. Phillips was working in another lab - not under the auspices of the Power Lines Project - studying cancer cells. The scientists got an idea to try something: "We were growing cancer cells in my lab,- Dr. Phillips explains, "and we brought them over to Wendell's lab to expose them to EMFs. Then we brought them back to my lab to see what had happened."
When they exposed Dr. Phillips' cancer cells (they were human colon carcinoma cells) to Dr. Winters' magnetic fields, they proliferated like crazy Furthermore, exposed cells became increasingly resistant to the body's immune system cells. These cells that normally fight tumors (natural killer cells) exhibited both structural and chemical changes. Drs. Phillips and Winters stated that their observations led them to believe that it was possible that magnetic fields stimulate the rate of cancer cell growth, or act as a cancer promoter.
Whereas the Savitz study had been met with consternation, the Winters and Phillips study was met with derision. It took nearly a decade of EMF research - with Dr. Phillips at the Cancer Therapy and Research Center in San Antonio and Dr. Winters at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center - for that early experiment and others like it to be taken seriously.
Winters recalls, "When we first reported bioeffects, they challenged us as scientists and as people. Over the years, the bioeffects of magnetic fields have become a fact. Today it's accepted. There's no question now that magnetic fields have bioeffects. Across the spectrum, in all species and animals, there are responses to power-line frequencies."
The Power Lines Project was the first in a series of major studies to alter scientific perceptions about EMF risks. The effects are most clearly seen in the experience of the project administrator, Dr. David 0. Carpenter, then director of the Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research of the New York State Department of Health. Today, Dr. Carpenter is the dean of the State of New York (SUNY) School of Public Health in Albany, New York. In the eighties, Carpenter was, for want of a better description, radicalized by Savitz' findings:
At the beginning of the project, I did not think there was anything to it. I thought the whole area seemed like one filled with kooks and charlatans. In fact, everyone on our expert panel was equally skeptical, It didn't seem possible that 60-Hz power, which is of much lower frequency than visible light, could cause any harm. But our scientific conclusions changed my mind. No scientist can have that kind of experience without changing his mind.
Another thing to remember, Carpenter says, "was that these studies only dealt with the child's exposures when he (the child) was at home. All the other possible sources of exposure were not taken into account, so the danger is probably grossly underestimated." Carpenter continues:
I am now convinced that EMFs pose a health hazard. There is a statistical association between . magnetic fields and cancer that goes beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. I think there is clear evidence that exposure to EMFs increases the risk for cancer. This is most clear with leukemia and brain tumors, but in the residential studies, statistical significance increased for all kinds of cancer. And we're just beginning to have a whole body of evidence that reproductive cancers are increased by exposure.
And you have to remember, ifs neighborhood distribution lines that are the concern. The (Savitz) investigation said it was likely that 10 to 15 percent of all childhood cancer came from exposure to distribution lines. Everyone worries about high-voltage transmission lines, but the study was about neighborhood distribution lines. What most people don't realize is current in a high-voltage line is often no higher than in neighborhood lines and the EMFs are about the same. There's a 50- to 100-mG field under neighborhood distribution lines.
For years, Dr. Carpenter has been one of the most vocal advocates of immediate and strong regulatory action to protect people from exposure to magnetic fields:
We need to really raise some red flags on this. I believe we had enough information three years ago to make changes. It's time to stop girl thingyfooting around. The evidence is very good right now. Some forty studies of electrical workers (see Appendix A for a review of the studies) show great increases in deaths from leukemias and brain tumors. That supports the childhood studies. We public health professionals should be telling people there are a few things you can do to reduce exposure and reduce the chance of you and your family getting cancer.
One of the main issues Dr. Carpenter is grappling with is: "How do we communicate problems where there is controversy in the scientific community, but where the public health community feels there's an exploding public health problem?" From the moment the Scientific Advisory Panel published its report, it should have become impossible for any conscionable person in the field to deny the health risks of electromagnetic fields. Yet, many continued to do so. in Dr. Carpenter's words, "One of the major problems here is that the few people who are highly visible on this have conflicts of interest. I think that everyone who has a thing to say publicly about the dangers of EMFs should have his income sources checked. And we need to make sure studies are financed by individuals who do not have any financial interest in the outcomes."
By the early eighties, despite the face they were showing to the public, the power companies themselves had begun to worry about possible health risks of electromagnetic fields created by their lines. Here and there around the country, utilities had started to fund their own research - studies about measuring fields, bioeffects, even mitigation studies designed to develop technologies to reduce the magnetic fields coming from their lines. Unfortunately, many of the positive studies - experiments that prove the relationship between EMFs and bioeffects - never saw the light of day. In this way, the people controlling the purse strings have also controlled the flow of information.
One EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) scientist explains he's very disappointed with what's been going on:
With the cutback in federal funding, researchers are being funded by vested interest groups, like EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). These researchers are more inclined, because of subtle pressure, to only represent negative results when it comes to EMFs or not to report positive results. They're afraid to get painted into a corner as being environmental activists and then they'd have difficulty getting funded. That's why discussion in scientific circles is so muted.
The question of funding is crucial. On the one hand, there's a great hue and cry for further research - often used as a delaying tactic, or to suggest that there isn't enough information about EMF exposure to take any action. On the other hand, there's a dearth of government money available for EMF research, Agencies like the EPA that once had such research programs had them closed down as funds were withdrawn during the Reagan administration. The majority of current EMF research is under the auspices of the utility companies or the Department of Energy - hardly unbiased funding sources.
According to Andrew Marino, who was the editor of the journal Bioelectromagnetism for ten years,
The question of funding EMF studies in the United States today is critical. Virtually all the money comes from sources that want negative information (proving the dangers of EMFs) covered up. That serves to put a cap on the research. You give me enough money, I can fill a courtroom with so-called experts who'll say whatever I want the jury to hear. There are a litany of well-crafted arguments against the positive research. Sophistry. Equivocal use of the word cause. Badly obscured data, all used to obfuscate and confuse.
Having seen the handwriting on the wall, the utilities started to surreptitiously make changes in the circuitry or siting of transformers and power lines to reduce the levels of public exposure. Citizen activists have reported instances of utility workers sporting gaussmeters who appeared around a questionable neighborhood electric facility, worked for a few days, then disappeared. Afterward, television reception - poor TV reception is a common marker for high magnetic fields - would suddenly improve or people would finally find relief from the recurring headaches and other physical problems they'd been experiencing for years.
by Ellen Sugarman
POWER LINES PROJECT
Luckily, the power authority wasn't able to stifle the commission entirely, and it attached several requirements to the permit for the line because of members' concerns about the possible dangers of EMFs. The commission went on record with a proviso to the permit warning that "Electromagnetic fields had been shown to produce bioeffects on animals and it is possible they might do the same in humans." A second provision established a 350-foot right-of-way along the power line route. Finally, the commissioners required the power authority, in conjunction with the New York State Department of Health, to finance a major research study to find out whether there were human health risks from electromagnetic fields produced by overhead power lines.
The Power Lines Project got off the ground in 1980, when a body of scientists and engineers was chosen for the Scientific Advisory Panel. The panel was selected on the basis of both professional expertise and lack of financial or professional conflicts of interest. In turn, the panel awarded contracts to scientists all over the country to carry out a total of sixteen studies on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields.
A $355,905 study, "Childhood Cancer and Electromagnetic Fields," conducted by Dr. David Savitz, an epidemiologist at the University of Colorado Medical School, turned out to be a milestone. Savitz was charged with replicating Wertheimer's "flawed" study, and it was well known that everyone expected him to discredit her. A lot of people were very surprised when Savitz supported Wertheimer's findings. To the scientific community and the utilities, the Savitz study was a bombshell.
According to the Scientific Advisory Panel's final report, "Biological Effects of Power Line Fields," released in July, 1987,
Several areas of potential concern for public health have been identified.... Of particular concern is the demonstration of a possible association of residential magnetic fields with incidence of certain childhood cancers.... A more serious concern comes from a study of cancer in children suggesting that children with leukemia and brain cancer are more likely to live in homes where there are elevated 60-Hz magnetic field levels than are children who do not have cancer.
The Savitz study found a positive association between wiring configuration and increased cancer risk, just as Wertheimer had. This held for all childhood cancers, especially leukemias and brain tumors. There even appeared to be a dose-response relationship, something that had been missing from the earlier work. Savitz estimated that as much as 15 percent of the childhood cancer in the United States is caused by EMFs from power lines. Though the Savitz study reported a slightly lower risk ratio - one and a half times - than the Wertheimer study, his findings were taken much more seriously than Wertheimees had ever been.
Another experiment on the clonogenicity (reproduction) of tumor cells by two scientists, Wendell Winters and Jerry Phillips, proved most interesting. Their findings came about almost by accident, and the final report of the Scientific Advisory Panel is careful to state that they were not part of the official Winters research project studying the effects of 60-Hz EMFs on human and canine cells. Dr. Winters had a state-of-the-art magnetic field laboratory in which to do his research. Dr. Phillips was working in another lab - not under the auspices of the Power Lines Project - studying cancer cells. The scientists got an idea to try something: "We were growing cancer cells in my lab,- Dr. Phillips explains, "and we brought them over to Wendell's lab to expose them to EMFs. Then we brought them back to my lab to see what had happened."
When they exposed Dr. Phillips' cancer cells (they were human colon carcinoma cells) to Dr. Winters' magnetic fields, they proliferated like crazy Furthermore, exposed cells became increasingly resistant to the body's immune system cells. These cells that normally fight tumors (natural killer cells) exhibited both structural and chemical changes. Drs. Phillips and Winters stated that their observations led them to believe that it was possible that magnetic fields stimulate the rate of cancer cell growth, or act as a cancer promoter.
Whereas the Savitz study had been met with consternation, the Winters and Phillips study was met with derision. It took nearly a decade of EMF research - with Dr. Phillips at the Cancer Therapy and Research Center in San Antonio and Dr. Winters at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center - for that early experiment and others like it to be taken seriously.
Winters recalls, "When we first reported bioeffects, they challenged us as scientists and as people. Over the years, the bioeffects of magnetic fields have become a fact. Today it's accepted. There's no question now that magnetic fields have bioeffects. Across the spectrum, in all species and animals, there are responses to power-line frequencies."
The Power Lines Project was the first in a series of major studies to alter scientific perceptions about EMF risks. The effects are most clearly seen in the experience of the project administrator, Dr. David 0. Carpenter, then director of the Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research of the New York State Department of Health. Today, Dr. Carpenter is the dean of the State of New York (SUNY) School of Public Health in Albany, New York. In the eighties, Carpenter was, for want of a better description, radicalized by Savitz' findings:
At the beginning of the project, I did not think there was anything to it. I thought the whole area seemed like one filled with kooks and charlatans. In fact, everyone on our expert panel was equally skeptical, It didn't seem possible that 60-Hz power, which is of much lower frequency than visible light, could cause any harm. But our scientific conclusions changed my mind. No scientist can have that kind of experience without changing his mind.
Another thing to remember, Carpenter says, "was that these studies only dealt with the child's exposures when he (the child) was at home. All the other possible sources of exposure were not taken into account, so the danger is probably grossly underestimated." Carpenter continues:
I am now convinced that EMFs pose a health hazard. There is a statistical association between . magnetic fields and cancer that goes beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. I think there is clear evidence that exposure to EMFs increases the risk for cancer. This is most clear with leukemia and brain tumors, but in the residential studies, statistical significance increased for all kinds of cancer. And we're just beginning to have a whole body of evidence that reproductive cancers are increased by exposure.
And you have to remember, ifs neighborhood distribution lines that are the concern. The (Savitz) investigation said it was likely that 10 to 15 percent of all childhood cancer came from exposure to distribution lines. Everyone worries about high-voltage transmission lines, but the study was about neighborhood distribution lines. What most people don't realize is current in a high-voltage line is often no higher than in neighborhood lines and the EMFs are about the same. There's a 50- to 100-mG field under neighborhood distribution lines.
For years, Dr. Carpenter has been one of the most vocal advocates of immediate and strong regulatory action to protect people from exposure to magnetic fields:
We need to really raise some red flags on this. I believe we had enough information three years ago to make changes. It's time to stop girl thingyfooting around. The evidence is very good right now. Some forty studies of electrical workers (see Appendix A for a review of the studies) show great increases in deaths from leukemias and brain tumors. That supports the childhood studies. We public health professionals should be telling people there are a few things you can do to reduce exposure and reduce the chance of you and your family getting cancer.
One of the main issues Dr. Carpenter is grappling with is: "How do we communicate problems where there is controversy in the scientific community, but where the public health community feels there's an exploding public health problem?" From the moment the Scientific Advisory Panel published its report, it should have become impossible for any conscionable person in the field to deny the health risks of electromagnetic fields. Yet, many continued to do so. in Dr. Carpenter's words, "One of the major problems here is that the few people who are highly visible on this have conflicts of interest. I think that everyone who has a thing to say publicly about the dangers of EMFs should have his income sources checked. And we need to make sure studies are financed by individuals who do not have any financial interest in the outcomes."
By the early eighties, despite the face they were showing to the public, the power companies themselves had begun to worry about possible health risks of electromagnetic fields created by their lines. Here and there around the country, utilities had started to fund their own research - studies about measuring fields, bioeffects, even mitigation studies designed to develop technologies to reduce the magnetic fields coming from their lines. Unfortunately, many of the positive studies - experiments that prove the relationship between EMFs and bioeffects - never saw the light of day. In this way, the people controlling the purse strings have also controlled the flow of information.
One EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) scientist explains he's very disappointed with what's been going on:
With the cutback in federal funding, researchers are being funded by vested interest groups, like EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). These researchers are more inclined, because of subtle pressure, to only represent negative results when it comes to EMFs or not to report positive results. They're afraid to get painted into a corner as being environmental activists and then they'd have difficulty getting funded. That's why discussion in scientific circles is so muted.
The question of funding is crucial. On the one hand, there's a great hue and cry for further research - often used as a delaying tactic, or to suggest that there isn't enough information about EMF exposure to take any action. On the other hand, there's a dearth of government money available for EMF research, Agencies like the EPA that once had such research programs had them closed down as funds were withdrawn during the Reagan administration. The majority of current EMF research is under the auspices of the utility companies or the Department of Energy - hardly unbiased funding sources.
According to Andrew Marino, who was the editor of the journal Bioelectromagnetism for ten years,
The question of funding EMF studies in the United States today is critical. Virtually all the money comes from sources that want negative information (proving the dangers of EMFs) covered up. That serves to put a cap on the research. You give me enough money, I can fill a courtroom with so-called experts who'll say whatever I want the jury to hear. There are a litany of well-crafted arguments against the positive research. Sophistry. Equivocal use of the word cause. Badly obscured data, all used to obfuscate and confuse.
Having seen the handwriting on the wall, the utilities started to surreptitiously make changes in the circuitry or siting of transformers and power lines to reduce the levels of public exposure. Citizen activists have reported instances of utility workers sporting gaussmeters who appeared around a questionable neighborhood electric facility, worked for a few days, then disappeared. Afterward, television reception - poor TV reception is a common marker for high magnetic fields - would suddenly improve or people would finally find relief from the recurring headaches and other physical problems they'd been experiencing for years.
by Ellen Sugarman
