| InspectAPedia® |
InspectAPedia
| |
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 BIOLOGICAL POLLUTANTS Bisphenol-A, BPA 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 FIBERGLASS HAZARDS FLAME COLOR, BLUE vs YELLOW COMBUSTION FLOOD DAMAGE ASSESSMENT, SAFETY & CLEANUP FLOOR TILE ASBESTOS IDENTIFICATION FORMALDEHYDE HAZARDS 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 LIGHTNING PROTECTION LP & Natural Gas Safety Hazards METHANE GAS SOURCES MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets MYCOPHOBIA, STAINS MISTAKEN for MOLD MYCOTOXIN EFFECTS of MOLD EXPOSURE Nanomaterials Hazards ODORS GASES SMELLS, DIAGNOSIS & CURE OIL, HEATING, EXPOSURE HAZARDS, LIMITS OZONE HAZARDS 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 Radon Enviro-Scare 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 More Information |
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. Origins of Cancer Scare and Electromagnetic Fields
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.
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)... Ask a Question or Search InspectApediaUse 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 & ReferencesRelated Topics, found near the top of this page suggest articles closely related to this one.
Books & Articles on Building & Environmental Inspection, Testing, Diagnosis, & Repair
| |||||||||