Comments and Mail From Our Readers

[ EMF-Link Home | Online Store | Comments | Up One Level ]

Comments and Mail From Our Readers
1997

Last modified on: Thursday, September 12, 2002 11:48:08
Copyright © 1994-2008, Information Ventures, Inc.

November 10, 1997
Research Project I'm a student taking and epidemiology class, and doing a research project questioning the possible link of breast cancer with the use of computer CRTs. Can you tell me, am I going in the right direction looking under electromagnetic radiation? Most of what I find is way over my head, I'm not well versed in the physics and engineering field. Can you offer some suggestion of where I can go for information (books, articles, web sites, organizations), I've tried all the cancer societies (that I know of). Is there information out there somewhere on a threshhold or maximum daily exposure recommendation? Has anyone that you know of done a study on this particular subject. I would surely appreciate your help.

Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: There may be some material available on this subject in a good biomedical database such as MEDLINE, although you will need to use search terms such as VDT (video display terminal), and adverse health effects, magnetic fields. Your university librarian can help you with the search. In general, there have been suggestions of a weak association between computer use and reproductive problems such as spontaneous abortions, but not much with cancers (except as speculation) or specifically breast cancer. All I have seen is a suggested association with brain cancer, and evidence for that is not very strong. To get you started on the main body of literature, here are a few key references:
1. VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINALS AND THE RISK OF SPONTANEOUS ABORTION.
N Engl J Med 324(11):727-733, 1991
2. BRAIN TUMORS AMONG ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY WORKERS.
Epidemiology 7(2):125-130, 1996
3. COMPUTER SCREENS AND BRAIN CANCER.
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 18(4):167-176, 1996

October 30, 1997
EMF Levels In Potential Home Can you tell me if the following EMF measurements are high, moderate, or low: Directly under the powerline = 23.2 mG; and In the middle of the living room = 9.4 mG. My wife and I are trying to decide whether to by a house that has a powerline in the backyard with the above EMF measurements. My wife is pregnant and we are not sure that this home is "EMF Safe". What is your opinion?

Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: According to figures presented in the EMF RAPID booklet "Questions and Answers About EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electrical Power", the readings under the power line are as expected or even somewhat low (as far as I can tell from the information you provided: magnetic fields under a distribution line will differ greatly depending on how much power the line carries, the height above the ground, and the configuration of the lines). The reading you indicate for the living room is higher than typical residential levels from external sources (you don't mention if power in the house was turned off or other measures were taken to avoid fields from in-house wiring and appliances). In an EPRI survey of 1000 homes, the mean magnetic field level in rooms was about 1 mG, making your prospective living room 10 times higher than average. However, such high in-home fields are often not due to power lines outside the home but are the result of wiring errors (current loops) within the house, so if you otherwise like the home you might want to look into that possiblity. The question of "EMF safety" is much more complex, and I suggest you consider the research results and discussion (much of it available on EMF-Link®) and decide what level of possible risk you are willing to live with. I wrote a more detailed discussion of this issue for the EMF Health Report in Vol. 4, No. 5, September/October 1996. The complete article, "Three Common Questions from the Real World: One Scientist's Answers" is available on EMF-Link® (click on "Articles from EMF Health Report"). If you would like to get a print copy of the EMF RAPID booklet described above, you can request one by calling 1-800-363-2383.

October 28, 1997
High Voltage Transmission Lines I am looking to buy a home that is situated within approximately 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile from electrical transformers. I am concerned to know whether or not the distance of my home is far enough to be out of risk or most probably out of risk from higher risks of cancer. My question is, what exactly is the BEST KNOWN safest distance to live from electrical transformers? If you can help, I would greatly appreciate it.

Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: Generally, magnetic fields produced by transformers decrease quite quickly as you move away. At the distance you indicate, you are unlikely to have any increase over background levels due to the magnetic field from the transformer on your property. The best way to be sure however is to have some measurements made using a Gauss meter. Your local utility may be able to do this for you.

October 18, 1997
Ulcer-healing with EMF? How do you treat a person with an ulcer in the stomach using EMF? Do you use an endoscopy or do you apply the Millimeter wave from the outside of the person's body?

Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: According to the Russian language literature that describes this technique, millimeter waves are applied on the body surface at appropriate accupuncture points. The radiation itself penetrates very superficially (half a millimeter or less). The previous issue of EMF Health Report (vol 5 no. 4, July/August 1997) had a feature article on the medical use of millimeter waves by a research group at Temple University investigating the basis of this approach.

September 9, 1997
EMF & Health I work with an Internet Service Provider, and since I have unlimited access to the Information Superhighway my neighbors have asked me to help them find pertinent information concerning links between EMF and health problems (this would include pertinent legislation, clinical studies, action groups, etc.). I Live in Central America (Costa Rica) and the state monopoly electric utility (ICE) wants to link two electrical substations with a 230KV line some 40 feet from my house -- a line which also crosses many other houses and the back of a school. Should we be concerned? If so, are there any web sites you could suggest I read to find information that might give us a beeter idea of the possible hazards in such a project. Are there regulations in the US about the minimum distance these power lines should be from houses, residential areas or schools? We need help to make our decisions about resisting this project or not, and any legislation or studies from the US would have a lot of weight if we decide to contest this project.

Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: Since you have found EMF-Link ®, you have already located a major source of information with Links to web sites providing the kind of information you are looking for. In addition, the US EMF-RAPID program produces two very good booklets of basic information on power frequency fields:

Questions and Answers About EMF Associated with the Use of Electrical Power, January, 1995 and
EMF In the Workplace, September 1996.
You can read them on EMF-Link® and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) EMF-RAPID web site or request copies from NIEHS. An excellent source of information on the latest reseach is our bimonthly newsletter EMF Health Report. While one cannot be sure exactly what magnetic field levels will be produced by the 230 KV line, it is likely that your background exposure will increase. The degree of increase will depend on the current carried by the line rather than on the voltage, and the best first step might be to have the Utility's engineers give you a better idea of the environmental magnetic field levels that will be produced. Estimates can be calculated from line load information using computer programs that the utility should have. Evaluating the risk is more difficult: there is considerable uncertainty about health effects of exposures that are above average (effects have been suggested to occur above 3 milligauss or 0.3 microtesla). You and your neighbors will have to decide what level of increase over your present exposure level you are prepared to accept.

August 11, 1997
Power Lines and Cancer Risk I have been reading on the Internet information regarding increased cancer risk and living close to power lines. My son is considering buying a home under power lines, and I told him I would ask you for information. What I have read so far seems to indicate that there is inconclusive evidence that there is a connection between power lines and increased cancer risk. Do you have any "bottom line" information you can forward to me?

Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: There is uncertainty as to whether exposure to electric and magnetic fields is harmful to your health. Some human health (epidemiological) studies have suggested that there might be a relationship between EMF exposure and some types of cancer. There are also some studies that suggest no relationship. If you would like to know more about these and other studies, call the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Clearinghouse (800-643-4794) and they will send you some information. For additional information, consider a subscription to EMF Health Report.

August 11, 1997
Measuring? I have a cousin in Palm Bay Florida who is four years old and got leukemia. Her house is located near high-column power lines. My grandmother is wondering how one can measure for EMF waves and how to get in contact with some of the people (Leeper, Savitz, etc.) to ask them some questions if possible. Or, could you point me in the direction of some more information on this topic? Any help would be appreciated.

Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: Most local power companies will test your home free of charge. Contact your local power company for more information about testing in your area. Alternatively, you can buy, rent, or borrow a gauss meter yourself. These meters usually come with instructions. If the meter does not have instructions, you should contact the manufacturer for specific operating guidance. If you like, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Clearinghouse (800-643-4794) can send you more information about typical EMF measurements so you can see how yours compare.

August 9, 1997
Help with EMF Sensitivities I have been suffering a lot of pain when I am in front of a computer, TV, radio, or fluorescent light. I get severe headaches, throbbing, and burning when exposed to these stimuli. I can't find a doctor who will recognize EMF sensitivities. I need help. Can you make any suggestions?

Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: It would be impossible to avoid electric and magnetic fields completely, since they are generated by all electrical devices. However, you can reduce your exposure in two ways: reducing the time you spend near EMF sources, such as appliances, and increasing the distance between you and the EMF source, since field strength drops dramatically with distance. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Clearinghouse (800-643-4794) can send you some information that illustrates this point.

July 14, 1997
Behavioral Effects of EMF on Catfish I conducted an experiment at Austin Peay State University this spring in an effort to determine what effects, if any, EMFs (time varying magnetic field component) have on the electroreceptive apparatus of the channel catfish Ictal urus punctatus. Our experiment used ambient levels of EMF exposure between a control and three control groups (284 fish total). Our results show a statistically significant (ANVOA, F-test and t-Test) variance in the time it took the control groups to complete a maze to reach a food source. Additionally, there were some behavioral changes noted in the fish, especially the control group fish, ranging from apparent caution to avoidance of the EMF area. Some fish were actually attracted to the source wire and seemed to attempt to find the "food" their electroreceptors told them was present. Our hypotheses for these data are that (1) the time varying magnetic field is inducing a current (Faraday Effect) in the upper levels of the water, and the fish interpret these currents as emanating from the neuromuscular activity of their intended prey, and/or (2) the time varying magnetic field is altering the electrochemical membrane potential of the electroreceptive ampullae (electroreceptors). Either of these or both together could cause the experimental results obtained. We are in the process of refining our report for future publication. For additional information on this experiment, send E-Mail to HWade10578@aol.com or WHW1368@APSU01.APSU.EDU.

May 22, 1997
Household EMF Measurements I am interested in selling some real estate located across the street from a power line. I have a client who is interested in knowing what adverse effects, if any, there might be. Can you mail me some relative values/measurements on emfs eg, fridge, microwave oven, buried power lines, suspended power lines, etc?
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: Answers to all these questions may be found in the booklet Questions and Answers About EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electrical Power which we have posted on EMF-Link®.]

April 24, 1997
Subscriptions To whom it may concern: Can I subscibe to your newsletter, if you have one? Thank you.
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: Yes, you can subscribe to our newsletter. Take a look at the subscription form on this site at http://infoventures.com/emf/hrpt/orderhr.html].

April 4, 1997
ELF Magnetic Fields on Humans What do you think about the validity of using picoTesla magnetic fields? Is it nonsensical? I asked my professor at Carnegie Mellon University and he said that if 60 Hz milligauss magnetic fields do not affect humans, why would anybody go down in the nano gauss area? He thought that people doing that were pathological scientists who do not know how to take real data.
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: You have raised what is, to me at least, a very interesting question. First, most scientists working in this area would disagree with your professor that there are no effects of 60-Hz fields: there are at least clear effects in vitro recognized by all but the most extreme skeptics in the 1 G (0.1 mT) intensity range. Many would argue there are documented biological effects at much lower levels. At present, the most reliable low level effect seems to be a blockage of melatonin inhibition of growth in a human breast cancer cell line (MCF-7 cells) in 60-Hz fields at 12 mG intensity (1.2 microtesla). This result has been replicated in 4 independent labs although, at present, there is some problem getting a reliable melatonin-sensitive MCF-7 cell line. However, we are still 6 orders of magnitude from picotesla levels and at such low levels there are observations but they are few and unreplicated. There are also good physical arguments that make bioeffects much less likely as you get to lower intensities. It is reasonable to look first for effects at higher intensity levels and this has been the direction of most EMF research including research funded under the US EMF RAPID program. Cell experiments are normally done in the gauss range first unless there is a theoretical reason to test lower field strengths (such as a hypothetical resonance condition). Very few investigators have set out to discover the lowest possible threshold for an effect, and it is unreasonable to suggest doing so unless you have a reliable effect to follow and an easy assay for it. The clinical picotesla effects, most reported by Sandyk, consist of case reports which are hard to evaluate by usual scientific criteria: I would not characterize them as "pathological" without some objective evaluation, and there just has not been enough interest in the work for someone to do such an evaluation. EMF-Link® is sometimes criticized for giving publicity to certain EMF reports, both reports of the type of weak field effects you are describing and reports of no effects such as the French melatonin study criticized by Roy Beavers. It is our policy to make all the EMF literature available for readers to evaluate, commenting on methodological strengths and weaknesses where appropriate, but not censoring work, especially papers appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. ]

March 30, 1997
Symtonic Wave Device And FDA Approval I enjoy your website on EMF and its contents on biological effects on humans and related scientific matters. Unfortunately, EMF research and information is given little attention or concern by government and/or major industrial corporations who produce EMF for profit. However, the facts speak for themselves. The belief that EMF exposures below non-thermal limits do not cause significant biological effects in humans is not true. Specifically, the FDA is approving a device called a Symtonic Wave Device manufactured by Symtonic LTD of Switzerland. The device emits EMF at 1/100 of a cellular phone signal for treatment of insomnia according to a FDA FOIA request made by myself in 1992. Similarly, according to FDA records, the U.S. Navy sponsored a seminar entitled "The Use of Pulsed Electromagnetic Waves .." in 1984. Finally, according to the FDA records, reports of side effects (general tiredness, nausea, and hypotension) did occur in testing. Thus, if the FDA approved this device and EMF does work to treat human disease and does have biological effects, is not the public potentially being exposed to EMF sources which can either cause disease or render healing of current disease to be compromised. Thank you for your publications on EMF and continue the good work.

March 23, 1997
Israel I would like you to comment on the data I received from an inspection of a transformer located outside an apartment I am interested in buying. Here in Israel privated investigation of EMF radiation is uncommon, so I do not have available to me anyone other than the inspector to interpret the data. In addition, given the infrequency of such reports for private individuals I do not have much confidence in what is considered "safe" by Israeli standards. I may be underestimating the competence and concern that exists here, and if so, I do not mean to impune anyone's integrity. The report I received contained the following information: (1.) To test & evaluate E.M.R.; (2.) The above test covers the frequency range 30Hz to 120Hz with results recorded over 3 planes a)vertical b)horizontal c)sideplanes and the following results recorded in milli-gauss (mG).

a)1 = 25.5	b)1 = 35.1	c)1 = 22	T1= 48.63 location at transformer base
a)2 = 0.6	b)2 = 1.2	c)2 = 0.45	T2= 1.44 location 5 meters (at wall)
a)3 =0.26	b)3 = 0.4	c)3 = 0.26	T3= 0.92 location 10mtrs.(at ground floor door)

Note: above results are corrected using full load (power) consumption. (The report contains a couple of figures which are summarized below, or could be faxed if you thought they were pertinent.) Date of test: 10.3.97 Time of test: 0900-1200 hrs Sunny day, 17-18 degrees C, clear and dry. Located approx. 500cm from a wall enclosing a front garden stands a utiliy pole with a transformer. The distance from the garden wall to the apartment building walls is approximately 500cm. Coming into the transformer are 11000 volts which are transformed into 230v 350a. A figure describing the "Radiation Gradient" is drawn. The data described in the figure include the following: figures ranging from 48.5mG at the transformer, 1.5mG at the garden wall, and 0.7mG at the building wall. The distance from the utility pole is measured as 5 meters to the garden wall, and 10 meters to the building wall. "NORMAL" is defined as 0.2 to 2.0 mG. This includes all the data reported from the evaluation of the site. Questions: (1.) Is the data adequate to make an assessment of potential risks in this apartment? (2.) Is the "normal" ranged stated (0.2-2.0mG) accurate? And what is this "normal" for? (3.) Given the data here and what is known in the literature of EMF-related risks, are we at risk in this apartment? Are we or our young children at risk in the garden (located 5 meters from the transformer)? (4.) Short of moving the utility pole to another location, is there anything we can do to shield ourselves from the transformer? (5.) Is there anything else we can do in the way of further assessment to provide better data? Thank you for your personal attention to this matter. P.S. I came by your address through an Internet search of EMF related risks, which connected me to the NIEHS Clearing House. Upon contacting them they sent me a copy of your EMF Health Report among other publications.
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: The field levels you indicate at the transformer are not unusual (the measurements seem reasonable given the broad elf frequency range and the separate readings of the 3 axis directions). They indicate a rapid drop-off of flux density with distance as you would expect from transformer windings (where opportunity for phase cancellation is high) and the levels at the wall 5 miters from the transformer are in the average range for residential units in the US. Mean US residential exposures are on the order of 1 mG from external power sources. There may be some areas of the living space which are higher than the numbers you indicated, for example near the service drop (the point where electric service enters your apartment) especially if it serves more than one residential unit. This would be quite usual and unavoidable, so those who are concerned usually plan their living space to avoid using this area for something that would result in long periods of exposure. For example, there would be little concern if this point is at a hallway passage, but if it is at a bedroom with the bed headboard against the wall where the service comes in, you might consider at least moving the bed to another portion of the room. I do not have any information on typical field levels in homes in Israel, but I would expect fields in your country to be somewhat lower than in the US since I believe you have 220 V or 230 V service, while in the US it is 110 V. As you may know, magnetic field levels are related to current flow rather than voltage and higher voltage appliances draw less current for the same total power. In England, for example, the general levels of exposure from both wiring and electrical appliances are substantially less than in the US. This is partly due to the current, partly due to wiring practices, and partly due to the more limited use of electrical appliances. On the issue of safety it is harder to make a simple statement. At the present time, the strongest indication of reason for concern are epidemiologic studies which suggest a small increase in cancer risk associated with very indirect measures like high current flow wire code configurations or proximity to power lines. While it is possible to measure the average magnetic fields in the homes being studied and compare them to average fields in your home, it is not clear if that measurement is a reliable indication of risk. It may be that the aspect of the exposure causing a cancer increase is the amount of time certain infrequent periodic peak exposures occur (say periods of exposure to 200 mG or more lasting longer than 10 seconds, or high frequency noise on the power lines) rather than the overall average exposure. We do know that measured average magnetic field levels do not relate strongly to cancer risk. The risk factor may even turn out to be something unrelated to magnetic fields at all like radioactive particles precipitated by the wires or high automobile traffic running through areas where power distribution lines tend to run. Therefore while averages of 2 or 3 mG have been associated with "exposed" homes, it is not clear if that is the right thing to measure and I do not feel it is reasonable to consider that level a cut-off point between "safe" and "unsafe" exposures. At this time, we don't know what is the right thing to measure. All we can say is that a person's exposure situation is or is not in the average range of what most people are exposed to. In your case, it appears that it is average, at least for comparable US conditions. You asked about shielding and there are measures which can be taken to reduce the magnetic field levels at the transformer. They would be fairly expensive and, again, it is hard to say if there would be any real benefit considering that your levels do not appear to be unusually high to begin with. I hope that is of some help to you. You may want to keep yourself informed on developments in this research, using the internet or various publications. I of course would recommend our EMF Health Report as a balanced lay language publication providing information on new scientific developments for individuals such as yourself with more than a casual interest in the topic. There are several major epidemiological studies expected to come out over the next year and many other basic research developments which may shift our thinking on the possible risks of EMF exposure.

March 9, 1997
Microwave Antennas Near School NIEHS gave me your email address when I called for info on the placement of cell phone antennas on schools. I am the PTA President at my children's school, and we've got antennas in the process of installation. Nine antennas are going up, 3 transmitting, 6 receiving. They can operate at 100 watts per channel, but are scheduled to run at 10. The administration brought in an expert provided by the company that is installing the antennas who explained about the ANSI/IEEE standards, and told us that the radiation level from the antennas would be about 50 times below the amount allowed by the standard. One of the school parents is an RF engineer, and he has doubts about having this on the roof. I have read the information that came from your organization, and visited your web site. I still have three questions. (1.) Our RF engineer says that the standards are in the process of changing. Is that the case? Is the new standard lower? If it is being changed, can you give me a brief idea as to why? (2.) He is asking to do the measurements at the school before and after installation with a meter that is designed for 800 to 900 Mhz (he tells me that he is FCC licensed to do this). Does that make sense to you? Is there some other measurement we should ask for? (3.) Are there other questions we should ask? My impression from your articles was that installations which meet ANSI/IEEE standards are safe as far as research now shows. What else should we ask to make sure that this installation is as safe as it can be made? I appreciate your help. As I'm sure you know, this is an emotional issue with many of the parents. We need the best possible information to help us decide how to proceed.
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: Thanks for your questions. You are fortunate to have a parent who is an RF engineer. I agree that the measurements he proposes making are a good idea if you want to verify the information given to you by the cell phone company. Of course, he should realize that usage and power output will vary throughout the day and should pick an appropriate time to make the measurements. The only other concerns you might have relate to safety in the antenna placement (are they located where kids won't be able to climb on them, protected from falling, etc.) and power supplies. These are routine engineering issues which the cell company people should be able to address, but given that it is going on a school, you might want extra protection. What you describe, as far as I can tell, is a common installation. Three hundred-watt antennas (the receiving antennas do not put out any power) would be expected to produce field levels well below current standards except perhaps for personnel on the towers. In fact, I would be surprised if the levels were only 50 times below exposure standards; I would guess 1000 times or more. If initial operations are limited to 10 watts each, you may not even get measurable levels on the ground. As far as power goes, these levels seem "safe." The open question at present is what future research may show about the biological activity of these types of signals. Based on current research, there is no reason to think that they are any worse than other radio frequency signals which only produce effects at much higher power levels. On that basis, and on meeting the existing standards, the installation would seem to be "safe" based on what we know to date. The reason for putting the word in quotes is that it is very hard to prove safety or to rule out all possible hazards: safety is relative. The few research studies which have been done with modern wireless signals have indicated no unexpected effects, but few experiments have been completed to date and they have used a limited range of combined exposures, different species of animals or types of cells, different biological states (very young or very old, fetal stages), etc. I would advise you to keep yourself informed about the ongoing research so that you can reassess the situation if new results appear in the literature. I have not heard of any proposed changes in the limits, and do not know of any research that might suggest a need to make such changes. Given the strong economic factors involved, I would think that any change would be a long time coming and require a series of well-accepted research studies backing it up.

March 9, 1997
Leakage from a Microwave Oven - 106470.1653@compuserve.com I am a final year Physics student and am searching for information on microwaves. In particular I need to find out the health risks associated with excessive exposure to microwaves in the domestic environment from leakage from a microwave oven. I would very much appreciate any information anyone could offer me, or suggest where I could locate some research work that has been completed on this subject.
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: In the US (I imagine it is the same in the UK) microwave ovens are designed with interlock controls and shielding so that little or no radio frequency energy leaves the cabinet and the microwave source shuts off as soon as the door is opened. Under ideal conditions there should be no health risks associated with the radio frequency aspect of microwave ovens (the power frequency fields they produce are subject to the same concerns as other appliance fields). In the real world however, doors may be warped and seals damaged or interlocks may malfunction so that burn injuries could result. Long-term effects are not really known but it is suspected that microwave exposure may increase cataract formation, and some studies suggest a possible association with cancer (although evidence is even weaker than for power frequency fields). Below are a couple of references to the scientific literature which will get you started. HAZARDS OF MICROWAVE OVENS. Siu, V.; Kissoon, N. Dept. of Paediatrics, Div. of Emergency Medicine, Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; Children's Hosp. of Western Ontario, P.O. Box 5375, 800 Commissioners Rd. East, London, Ontario N6A 4G5, Canada (RR/ N.K.) Pediatr Emerg Care 3(2):99-103 1987. MICROWAVES--NO CAUSE FOR HYSTERIA. Hamilton, M. Occup Saf Health 9(12):14, 15, 18, 19, 38 1979. INVESTIGATION OF AN ACUTE MICROWAVE-OVEN HAND INJURY. Dickason, W. L.; Barutt, J. P. 400 Lilly Rd., N.E., Suite 4, Olympia, WA 98506 J Hand Surg [Am] 9A(1):132-135 1984. ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS OF DOMESTIC MICROWAVE OVENS QUANTIFIED UNDER DIFFERENT CONDITIONS. Decat, G.; Tichelen, P. V. VITO, Energy Div., Boeretang 200, B-2400 Mol, Belgium (G.D., P.V.T.) J Microw Power Electromagn Energy 30(2):102-108 1995. RESULTS OF MICROWAVE OVEN RADIATION LEAKAGE SURVEYS AT FERMILAB. Miller, T. M. FERMILAB, P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510 Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 48(1):77-80 1987.

March 7, 1997
January 31, 1997
Radiation from Broadcast Towers and Transmission Lines I live within 500 feet of a radio broadcast tower and within 300 feet of a high voltage power transmission line. My concern is about the possible damage being done to our bodies by the radiation from these sources. An ANSI/IEEE publication, C95.1-1991, Standard Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, appears to be the guideline that I should use to determine if my house is experiencing excessive exposure to this radiation. I have been unable to locate this document. Please provide me with any information that you think would be pertinent to my situation. I'm particularly interested in locating this ANSI publication or at least the maximum exposure concentrations from the sources that I mentioned, and also a source to evaluate the radiation. I'm also interested in the general consensus of safety agencies about the safety of exposure to this form of radiation.
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: This document provides the basis (mostly) for the current FCC guidelines on exposure and so provides a type of legal limit for exposures. In general however, most environmental exposures are thousands of times less than exposures described in the guidelines, and while fields exceeding the guidelines are sometimes found in occupational situations they almost never occur in homes in the vicinity of broadcast towers or powerlines. The guidelines are available from IEEE (at a fairly substantial fee) but they probably would not be very useful to you. The guidelines were developed with consideration of low-level effects (so called "athermal effects" at higher frequencies) but the committee did not find compelling scientific evidence for the validity of such effects. Present limits are set primarily to protect against recognized thermal (heating) effects, so the field levels for power frequencies (where there is virtually no heating) are very high relative to the environmental levels even directly under power lines. Again, occupational exposures sometimes reach ANSI limits but residential exposures hardly ever do. The guidelines are under review and new literature is being evaluated, but historically the committee has been unwilling to establish limits based on speculative evidence and they do not feel that the kind of low-level effects data (like epidemiological studies) that fuel the current concerns with negative EMF health effects provide any solid basis for setting standards or restricting development. The question of safety is a very complex one, because the scientific evidence for harmful effects is so equivocal. We have many resources for getting more information on what is known about possible health effects on the EMF-Link service, and you can also contact the NIEHS hotline for more information on power frequency field effects (1-800-643-4794). In a combined exposure like the situation you describe, measuring the fields becomes more complex (you need an engineer with equipment that covers the frequency spectrum). Simple measurements with a gauss meter will not only fail to give you information about the broadcast signal, but may be in error if the meter is not able to filter out the higher frequency signals. As a first step, you might consider if you are getting electromagnetic interference in your home (like the broadcast signal coming in on other stations) as an indication that the fields from the broadcast transmitter are high. Your local power company might be able to give you an indication of your exposure from the transmission line situation and should have the equipment for measuring the fields accurately. Once you get a reading, you are faced with the complex task of deciding if it is something you should be concerned about or not.

February 6, 1997 - Reader's reply to Dr. Goldberg's comment: Thank you for your prompt reply. I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. I do get feedback from the nearby radio broadcasting tower through radio and tape players. You stated that this indicated that the fields from the broadcast transmitter were high. I plan to contact the local utility company to see if they have equipment to determine the strength of the fields near my house. Thanks again for your help.

January 30, 1997
Stray Voltage I am trying to help an individual who has an alleged stray voltage problem. He has been unsuccessful in getting the problem resolved, and is getting desperate (read--to the point of resorting to violence!). He claims he has lost livestock, and milk production. Is there any help for someone in his position? I am writing after having seen that you have an interesting article: "Jury: Consumers Power Co. Liable for Stray Voltage Damage to Dairy Herd--Utility will Appeal".
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: I have identified a couple of papers on stray voltage recently for the EMF Database and I have given you some citations below. The problem is well recognized and is often traced to wiring problems on the farm property (which can be corrected) rather than return currents from power transmission (which is harder to correct). I believe that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission did a detailed report on the subject and their progress report may provide useful information for the person who contacted you. The item you mentioned was a news report from the Kalamazoo Gazette and United Press reports, May 11, 1995, and we do not have much information beyond what is on line. STRAY VOLTAGE: REAL PROBLEM OR RED HERRING? Smith, C. A. (no affiliation given), Levenworth, WA J Am Vet Med Assoc 204(9):1341-1346 1994. AN ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE ELECTRICAL ENVIRONMENT ON DAIRY FARMS. Erdreich, L. S.; Bracken, T. D. (no affiliation given) Inter Utility Stray Voltage Task Force, New York, NY, August 13, 1993 1993. PROGRESS REPORT OF THE SCIENCE ADVISORS TO THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION: PROPOSED RESEARCH FOR EVALUATING POSSIBLE ELECTRICAL CAUSES OF POOR HEALTH AND PRODUCTION IN DAIRY COWS. anonymous, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2147. State of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Report. January. 68 pp. 1996. SENSITIVITY OF REPRODUCING SOWS AND SUCKLING PIGS TO STRAY VOLTAGE. Robert, S.; Matte, J-J.; Martineau, G. P. Dairy and Swine Res. and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lennoxville, Quebec J1M 1Z3, Canada (S.R., J-J.M); Coll of Veterinary Medicine, Univ. of Montreal, St-Hyacinthe, Quebec J2S 7C6, Canada (G.P.M.) Am J Vet Res 57(8):1245-1249 1996.

January 25, 1997
Pineal Gland Information While browsing the home page on the pineal gland, I became interested in your report on the pineal gland as a magnetic receptor. The summary provided correlated nicely with my interest in bird migration. I would like to know how I can get more information on the subjects you refered to: ie., altering magnetic fields alters circadian rhythms, how the pineal gland is known to be sensitive to magnetic stimuli, any new information on the light sensitivity of the pineal gland. Any other information on the migration of animals would also be appreciated. Thank you.
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: There is a large body of literature on magnetic fields and animal migration, much of it about birds but also including sea turtles, fish, insects, bacteria, and possibly even humans. We have about 30 articles in our database, but you could search any good zoology library to identify such articles. To get you started, here are a couple of recent reviews: DETECTION OF AND RECEPTORS FOR MAGNETIC FIELDS IN BIRDS. Beason, R. C. and Semm, P.; Biology Dept., State Univ. of New York at Geneseo, Geneseo, NY 14454 (R.C.B.); Zoologische Inst., Univ. Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany (P.S.) in Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields. Volume I: Sources and Mechanisms. D. O. Carpenter and S. Ayrapetyan, eds., San Diego: Academic Press, p. 241-260 1994 BENER number: 12245. Also, MAGNETIC ORIENTATION AND MAGNETORECEPTION IN BIRDS. Able, K. P.; Dept. of Biology, State Univ. of New York, Albany, NY 12222; Prog Neurobiol 42(4):449-473 1994 BENER number: 11621

January 23, 1997
Exposures to radiofrequency radiation from cordless phones Do you have any information on the exposures to radiofrequency radiation from cordless phones? I have assumed that any exposures would be too low to be a concern and that studies performed have shown nothing with regard to health effects. How much difference in exposure occurs for the older 43 Mhz and the newer 900 MHz cordless phones? In relation to the EMF radiation, how do these differ from the cellular phones, besides strength of signal? How significant is the EMF field around a cordless phone while the unit is charging?
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: As I understand it, the newer multichannel cordless phones are similar in some respects to cell phones, but operate at much lower power since they are only expected to have a range of a couple of hundred feet rather than a few miles. I would expect the signal on the 900 MHz units to be more complex because of the additional channel switching, but what that means in terms of potential health effects is unknown. I have not seen any detailed information on cordless phone dosimetry.

January 23, 1997
Electrical baseboard heating Are there significant EMF fields created by electrical baseboard heating in a residence? I know that there is some EMF since a current is involved. However, I do not know how significant the fields are. How about EMF fields associated with heating coils installed in the floor and the ceiling?
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: Electric heating coils do produce significant fields, but the exposure would depend on proximity. Ceiling heat coils sound far enough away from people unless you consider those on the first floor of a two-story house: children on the second floor might be a foot or so away from the coils. Some years ago Wertheimer and Leeper investigated cable ceiling heating as a risk factor in spontaneous abortion. They estimated common exposures at about 10 mG and reported a significant increase which was associated with the season of maximum heat use coincident with the early phase of pregnancy (FETAL LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH TWO SEASONAL SOURCES OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE. Wertheimer, N.; Leeper, E., Am J Epidemiol 129(1):220-224, 1989; BENER number: 5007). There was lots of argument about their methods and statistics for this paper and it is not replicated by other work or generally accepted. For example, see the exchange of letters between Klauenberg and Wertheimer/Leeper (Am J Epidemiol 134(8):913-916, 1991; BENER number: 7522). In general, risks associated with appliance exposure are more questionable than those associated with transmission and distribution lines, in part because they depend on interview data for assessing exposure, and recall has been compared with measurements in the case of electric blanket use and found to be at best approximate. There are some physical differences between EMFs from appliances and power systems (amount of transients, spatial and temporal coherence among others) and I don't think it is fair to consider it more of the same exposure.

January 23, 1997
Shielding computers from EMF I work for a small architectural firm in Pennsylvania and we have a problem with a couple of computers not working properly opposite a wall with a transformer. I read the article about shielding monitors, and I was curious if this situation could be handled in the same manner.
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: I assume you mean that the computer itself (the system unit rather than the monitor) is not working correctly. This is a bit unusual since the system unit should be shielded against radiofrequency EMF, and that is the main problem for electronics. Power-frequency magnetic fields affect monitors because they cause image, which itself is formed by magnetic beam deflectors, to jitter. I would suggest confirming the effect first by relocating the computers to another part of the room. Monitor shields are commercially available but I think system unit shields would have to be specially fabricated by a company like Amuneal (215-743-1715). If the problem involves more than one computer, you may want to look into shielding the transformer.

January 14, 1997
Telephone Ear Shield There was an article in USA Today yesterday about an "ear shield" that you can get to block the EMF from your ear piece on the telephone. The gauss reading is always high at the ear-end of the handpiece. What do you think?
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: There are a number of devices on the market which claim to lower field exposures from cell phones, and I have seen data supplied by the manufacturers which support the claims. Q. Balzano and coworkers tested several early antenna shield devices and found that some blocked the antenna so that the phone output increased (the phone power level automatically adjusts to maintain signal strength in distant areas so that exposure levels are much lower closer to the cell tower: this design was not done to limit exposure but rather to increase battery life). Other cell phone shields wrap around the body of the phone to block stray RF (which can be easily shielded by conductive material). At the ear piece itself, there are mainly magnetic fields at voice frequencies which are rather hard to shield with anything that lets sound through. People have looked at the magnetic field levels in the brain from walkman-type earbuds (which fit into the ear) and found exposures that are relatively high close to the source and drop off rapidly in brain tissue. With a typical handset they should be lower to start with because it is held against the outer ear. So, bottom line, I would want to see some data on how effective the ear piece device is and what sort of exposure levels are involved with and without it. On the other hand, if you believe the work of Litovitz that fields must maintain a constant frequency pattern for about 10 seconds to have biological effects, magnetic fields from phone ear pieces should have a protective effect because they vary so much in frequency of output regardless of the intensity.

January 13, 1997
EMF and the Pineal Gland Navigating in the web, I recently found this very interesting site. I would like to know if there are studies about the pineal gland and its reaction to EMF in those states of mind produced by meditation techniques.
Reply from Dr. Robert Goldberg: While we do not address the issue of meditation, we have articles online covering the effects of EMF on the Pineal Gland. See the article, The Pineal Gland: Biological Rhythms and EMFs which appeared in the EMF Health Report, Vol. 2, No. 1.

Copyright (c) 1994-2008, Information Ventures, Inc.
Mail us at: Customer-Service@infoventures.com
http://infoventures.com

Comments and Mail From Our Readers1997

Comments and Mail From Our Readers
1997