Free Encyclopedia of Building & Environmental Inspection, Testing, Diagnosis, Repair
Ask a Question or Search InspectAPedia
InspectAPedia ® Home
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS - INSPECT, TEST, REMEDY
AIR FILTERING STRATEGIES
AIR POLLUTANTS, COMMON INDOOR
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
AIRBORNE PARTICLE ANALYSIS METHODS
ALLERGEN TESTS for BUILDINGS
ANIMAL ODORS IN BUILDINGS
ASBESTOS IDENTIFICATION IN BUILDINGS
ATTORNEYS and EXPERT WITNESSES
BACKDRAFTING HEATING EQUIPMENT
BIBLIOGAPHY for ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, MOLD, IAQ
BLACK MOLD, HARMLESS COSMETIC
BLACK MOLD, TOXIC & ALLERGENIC
BOOKSTORE - ENVIRONMENTAL
BUILDING SAFETY HAZARDS GUIDE
Cadmium in the home
CARBON MONOXIDE - CO
Carbon Nanotube Hazards
CARPETING & INDOOR AIR QUALITY
CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS in WATER
CHINESE DRYWALL HAZARDSDS
COMBUSTION PRODUCTS & IAQ
CPSC Indoor Air Pollution Book Online Copy
DIRECTORY of MOLD / ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS
Diethylstilbestrol - DES
DUST SAMPLING PROCEDURE
EMERGENCY RESPONSE, IAQ, GAS, MOLD
EMF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS & HUMAN EXPOSURE
ENVIRO-SCARE - PUBLIC FEAR CYCLES
FEAR of MOLD - MYCOPHOBIA
FLAME COLOR, BLUE vs YELLOW COMBUSTION
FLOOD DAMAGE ASSESSMENT, SAFETY & CLEANUP
FLOOR TILE ASBESTOS IDENTIFICATION
GAS EXPOSURE EFFECTS, TOXIC
GAS EXPOSURE LIMITS & STANDARDS
HEATING OIL EXPOSURE HAZARDS, LIMITS
HOME HEATING SAFETY
INDOOR AIR QUALITY & HOUSE TIGHTNESS
INDOOR AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GUIDE
LEAD POISONING HAZARDS GUIDE
Legionella Legionnaires' Diseaset
LIGHT, GUIDE to FORENSIC USE
LP & Natural Gas Safety Hazards
METHANE GAS SOURCES
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets
MYCOPHOBIA, STAINS MISTAKEN for MOLD
MYCOTOXIN EFFECTS of MOLD EXPOSURE
ODORS GASES SMELLS, DIAGNOSIS & CURE
OIL, HEATING, EXPOSURE HAZARDS, LIMITS
PARTICLE SIZES & IAQ
Particulates & Allergens Indoors
Pesticide Exposure Hazards
PET ALLERGENS / PET DANDER
PLASTIC ODORS-SCREENS, SIDING
PLUMBING SYSTEM ODORS
PVC - VINYL BUILDING PRODUCTS
RADON HAZARD TESTS & MITIGATION
SAFETY HAZARDS GUIDE
SAFETY HAZARDS & INSPECTIONS
SEPTIC METHANE GAS
SEWAGE BACKUP TEST & CLEANUP
SICK HOUSE IAQ QUESTIONNAIRE
STAIN DIAGNOSIS on BUILDING EXTERIORS
STAIN DIAGNOSIS on BUILDING INTERIORS
UFFI UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION
VENTILATION in BUILDINGS
VINYL CHLORIDE HEALTH INFO
VINYL Siding or PLASTIC Window ODORS
Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs
WATER ODORS, CAUSE CURE
WATER TESTS, CONTAMINANTS, TREATMENT
World Trade Center Collapse Dust Photos
Origins of public fear of electromagnetic fields or EMF exposure: this paper discusses the origins & history of consumer, home owner, & home buyer concern that electromagnetic fields - EMF - might cause cancer in humans, the effect on house prices caused by cycles of public fear about potential, imagined, or real environmental hazards. As people become acclimated to the particular topic it loses its initial shock value. Links to other resources include EMF Procedures & Causes of EMF Measurement Error & Variation . Also see EMF RF FIELD & FREQUENCY DEFINITIONS for a simple explanation of different types of radio frequency (RF) and electromagnetic frequency (EMF) types and where they are found.
Green links show where you are. © Copyright 2013 InspectAPedia.com, All Rights Reserved. Author Daniel Friedman.
Realtors listing or owners selling a property which adjoins an overhead power transmission line know that there are sometimes very significant marketing issues because of consumer concern for potential health issues where electric power lines expose people to strong and continuous electromagnetic fields (EMF).
A lengthy US government review of studies of the health effects of exposure to EMF concluded both that the actual level of risk was uncertain and that prudent avoidance of significant EMF exposure was warranted.
A later Swedish study of the health effects of electromagnetic fields was able to overcome important difficulties in calculating actual EMF exposure levels, and suggested that there was indeed some carcinogenic risk from EMF exposure.
The Swedish EMF study is important: it established a "dose-relationship" between the amount of exposure and the frequency of leukemia. The failure of other studies to demonstrate a specific dose-disease relationship has been used by utilities and government to assert that there is no proven relationship and no proven risk associated with EMR.
If the public exposure to EMF has been present for a long time, what causes surges in public anxiety about this topic? At times the release of cancer-risk studies regarding EMF and media focus on this topic have generated a cycle of public fear about electromagnetic fields.
The enviro-scare cycle, in my opinion, derives from periodic surges of journalist and media attention to studies of the carcinogenic effect of exposure to electromagnetic fields.
For example, there was considerable media attention to Werth's observation that living along the Denver Colorado power line right-of-way caused an EMF exposure which appeared to cause (or correlate with) a "doubling of the probability of childhood leukemia" for children living along the right-of-way of this overhead power transmission facility.
The concern for possible carcinogenic or "cancer-causing" effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields at the frequency and strength generated by power transmission lines has been studied for some time. Some contemporary research (by epidemiologist Nancy Werth, the "Denver Study") suggested a possible (but in fact small) correlation between exposure to 60 cycle electromagnetic fields (EMF) and the occurrence of leukemia in children. Her study found that the occurrence of childhood leukemia in the Denver Colorado area tended to cluster along and follow the path of a power distribution line which passed through a portion of the city. (I've already mentioned the "study of studies" and the important Swedish study above.)
Stating risk this way ("doubling the risk of childhood leukemia from power transmission line EMF exposure") is understandably frightening to parents, particularly those unfamiliar with statistics and the mathematics of risk assessment. As I will amplify below, if an exposure doubles a number which is at the start infinitesimally small, say 1 chance in 10,000, then the doubled number is still infinitesimally small, say 2 in 10,000. A careful reading of the Werth study or an interview with Werth herself would almost certainly yield a more cautious opinion about the level of risk than that generated by a public reading of news reports.
But this analysis is not comforting to everyone. The more broad topic of public fear and assessment of the level tolerable health risk has been widely discussed, and has as a component, the individual's assessment of the level of control that s/he has over the risk. So people who smoke, an act which creates a far greater health risk than power transmission lines, assess that risk as more moderate because they have a sensation of being able to "choose their poison."
Our own field measurements of EMF levels at residential properties or at specific locations within buildings have found a wide range of levels of exposure to building occupants. Remarkably, I've found that local ambient EMF levels in built-up residential areas are often quite close to the (rather low) reaction threshold discussed in the Werth and other studies, even where no obvious overhead electric power transmission facility is involved.
The implications of this observation and its accuracy merit further discussion and research since there could be small local sources in buildings which also affect occupants. Some examples are listed later in this paper.
Both the difficulties of measuring actual EMF exposure and the current level of knowledge about the health effects of EMF bear thoughtful discussion, some of which I address in this paper.
Electric utility workers who spend time repairing or installing power transmission lines and transformers probably have the highest exposure to electromagnetic fields. Consumers researching the possible health effects of EMF exposure should look closely at these studies for both the study conclusions and the care (and lack of bias) with which such studies may have been performed.
Because various parties have conflicting interests, research and advice on this topic have been confusing. The interested parties include building owners and sellers, realtors, home buyers, power transmission companies, journalists, and scientists or researchers who themselves are supported by various funding sources. A new study of studies which tests for correlation between the interests of each funding source and the results of studies performed would be a helpful test of conflicting opinions on this topic.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Use the search box below to ask a question or to search the InspectApedia.com website.
Ask a Question or Enter Search Terms in the InspectApedia search box just below.
Technical Reviewers & References
Related Topics, found near the top of this page suggest articles closely related to this one.