High-Tech High Anxiety : Consumers worry about electromagnetic fields in the home. But experts say there’s no proof yet that your appliances are killing you.
The headlines sound like they’ve been lifted from tabloids:
“Is My Electric Blanket Killing Me?”
“Can Power Lines Cause Leukemia?”
“Are Our Computers a Health Menace?”
But these stories and dozens more have appeared recently in such mainstream publications as USA Today, Time, Fortune and Business Week.
The coverage reflects consumer alarm that the glut of large and small appliances in our homes, offices and cars might be doing more than making life easier: They might be threatening our health.
“We’ve gotten a lot more suspicious about the technology around us,” says Dr. Raymond Neutra, chief of the Environmental Health Investigations Branch of the California Department of Health Services.
In question is the low-level electromagnetic field emitted by electricity. Some studies suggest that exposure to EMF radiation might increase risk of childhood cancers and adult leukemia and brain tumors, although scientists disagree on the evidence and the studies are contradictory.
For instance, although a number of studies have found a small increase in leukemia and brain cancer among electrical workers, a recent UCLA-Southern California Edison study of Edison workers found no link.
“It’s a murky field,” says Dr. David Savitz, epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina, who has reviewed the research. “At this point, the research does not present a coherent picture of a causal relationship. That’s because we are studying so many things--different exposures, different settings, different subjects and different health outcomes.”
At USC’s School of Medicine, Dr. Stephanie London was one of the researchers on a comprehensive 1991 study that found some modest association between electromagnetic fields and childhood cancer. But the study painted a confusing picture, she says, because assessment based on how far the children lived from power lines showed some association, but measurements of magnetic fields within the homes did not.
“It means there is a lot of uncertainty whether this is a true causal relationship,” London says.
“To the lay public,” she says, “it seems like a handful of studies have been done--and why don’t people know? But it doesn’t work that way. If we could take a random million people into a real lab and make them live there for a study, we probably would know.”
Part of the complexity in studying EMF is the electromagnetic spectrum, which spans many types of energy traveling in waves measured by length and speed. At the high-frequency top of the spectrum are X-rays. At the bottom are electric power lines (extra-low frequency) and cellular telephones (radio frequency).
Consumer advocates have targeted electric power lines for some time, lobbying regulatory agencies to set emission standards. Their concern is that citizens living near power lines or substations have no way of knowing when the voltage is increased or what the level is.
The idea that small appliances can have very high EMF fields--that the hair dryer or electric blanket we take home might pose a risk--is a newer fear.
“What’s unique about this problem,” says Neutra, who oversees research in health effects of power grid and appliance radiation, “is that our whole society is dependent on electricity. Now we’re saying maybe there is some risk from it. Until we are sure, we will have tremendous controversy with people who want an answer now, when science can only go so fast.”
His apprehension is shared by many consumers. When USA Weekend magazine polled its 33.5 million Sunday readers about their health worries, electromagnetic fields topped the list.
Public nervousness is reflected in calls to utility companies (“We’ve noticed a dramatic increase in the last few weeks,” says a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power spokeswoman) and in booming sales of hand-held gaussmeters that measure electromagnetic fields.
Karl Riley of Sausalito, who started Magnetic Sciences International almost four years ago, says he hasn’t had a day off since Christmas. He designs and sells two basic meters priced at $215 and $250.
“I’m getting orders from all over the country,” he says. “Utilities are calling because their customers are asking for meter readings. And I’m getting orders from electronics stores like Radio Shack, which means that customers are coming and asking for magnetic meters.”
It’s easy enough to measure EMF--the problem is what to do with the results.
“Our dilemma is that we have inconclusive data,” says Margo T. Oge, director of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s Radiation and Indoor Air Office. “We have 10 field offices around the country, and we are getting hundreds and hundreds of calls.”
The EPA is drafting a 35-page public education document, “EMF in Your Environment,” which it hopes to have available by May in its Washington public information center and regional offices.
“We hope to provide a summary of all the information available,” Oge says.
One of the veteran observers in the EMF field is Louis Slesin of Manhattan, editor of Microwave News, who has been covering the issue for 13 years and says the interest has mushroomed.
He cites two reasons. Most important were the results last September of two long-term Swedish studies linking electrical radiation exposure to cancer. Widely covered by scientific journals and the mainstream press, the studies showed a fourfold increase in the risk of leukemia among children who live near power lines and a doubling of the risk among adults.
“The real news was that the Swedish government and the Swedish utilities company acknowledged the link between EMF and childhood cancer,” says Slesin. “That was a first.”
The second event was January’s highly publicized lawsuit by a Florida man charging that his wife’s brain cancer death was caused by cellular phone use.
After dismissing the allegation, the cellular industry, in the wake of public reaction, has announced a million-dollar research effort into cellular technology safety and called on three government agencies to oversee the investigation.
“There are a number of major studies under way now that should help clarify the risk situation,” North Carolina’s Savitz says.
The cellular scare comes at a time when the booming industry is promising a new wireless society with a futuristic flood of hand-held, pocket-size communications devices, all transmitting electromagnetic radiation.
“We’re bathing ourselves in the stuff,” says Paul Saffo, who studies the effect of new technologies at Menlo Park’s Institute for the Future.
“A computer screen at your desk becomes a portable computer on your lap,” he says. “And there are weirder things waiting in the wings if computer scientists have their way. We’re talking about wearable computers. The cost of cordless radio telephones is going to come down. People will be carrying things in their briefcases and purses and pockets that help them communicate with the rest of the world.”
“Consumers deserve (EMF) disclosure on appliances as well as power lines,” says Ellen Stern Harris of Beverly Hills, executive director of Fund for the Environment. The organization has petitioned the Public Utilities Commission to address emission standards for new construction as well as to reduce existing exposures to power lines. A PUC decision is pending.
“Right now the EMF question promises to be the public health issue of the ‘90s,” says Ellen Sugarman, author of “Warning: The Electricity Around You May Be Hazardous to Your Health,” a primer on how electricity is produced and distributed, a summary of health studies and how-to information for reducing exposure.
Published last August, the paperback has “gone from being controversial to being an accepted reference,” says Sugarman, who is being asked to address utility conferences. She’ll be a speaker at the Edison Electric Institute’s annual EMF Conference in May.
“The thing about the EMF radiation is that every single person is exposed,” she says. “It’s not like a Love Canal. EMFs are everywhere that electricity is in use.
“It doesn’t mean we have to pull the wires out of the wall and go back to cave days,” she says. “I wouldn’t have written a book on this unless I thought there were solutions.”
The common thread among the many players in the EMF field--government, utilities, the health community and the appliance industry--is that everybody seems to be waiting for someone else to take the lead.
* Although the EPA is responsible for setting federal guidelines in all areas of radiation that affect public health, it can’t do that yet, Oge says. “We have both positive data and negative data,” she says.
“Some of the physicists have basically said there is no way very low frequency fields could do any alteration that could lead to cancer. The bottom line is you can’t dismiss any of it, at this point,” she says.
* Jack Sahl, responsible for Southern California Edison’s EMF research, says utility companies are waiting for answers from the scientific community and the public health agencies. “The health departments and EPA don’t give us an answer as to health problems in the EMF field,” he says. “They won’t say it is a carcinogen.”
* The Assn. of Home Appliance Manufacturers is watching closely and not planning any changes in its $15-billion-a-year inventory of large and small appliances, says association spokeswoman Joyce Viso.
“We know there are electromagnetic fields in appliances, just like anything else with wires, and we know they dissipate in intensity with short distance. We are following the research, and no adverse health effects have been verified that we are aware of,” she says.
At California’s Department of Health Services, Neutra agrees that public concern has pulled ahead of science.
“Reasonable people are divided on this issue,” he says. Until the some clear answers emerge, he has this advice:
“First, don’t panic; remember these are very rare risks.”
“But if it is relatively easy for you to avoid an appliance or distance yourself from an appliance, then that’s a reasonable thing to do.”
How Close Is Too Close?
Electric appliances generate electromagnetic energy. There is no agreement on what levels of electromagnetic output measured in milligauss units are considered dangerous.
Many experts have adopted a 3-mG cutoff, although some drop it as low as 1 mG. There are two key ways to reduce exposure to fields from your home appliances:
*Keep your distance--electromagnetic fields drop off very rapidly as you move away from the appliance.
*Avoid prolonged exposure to high fields. Don’t hover around the microwave or glue your face to the television set.
At right is a look at how various appliances compare. At greater distance from the source, electromagnetic fields disappear among ordinary “ambient” energy levels.
Figures in milligauss units at 1 inch at 12 inch at 36 inch Microwave oven 210 16 1.6 Blender 248 14.4 0.7 Can Opener 3,500 72 4.4 Color TV 46 4.0 ambient Toaster 40 1.0 ambient Coffee Maker 10.5 ambient ambient Refrigerator 4.5 1.6 ambient Stove-top burner 238 8.4 ambient Plug-in charger 2,025 12.8 ambient Blow dryer 145 1.8 ambient Shaver 1,040 1.8 ambient
Source: Southern California Edison’s Customer Technology Application Center
Fields of Electrical Beams If you want your home and appliances measured for EMF, call your utility company. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Southern California Edison have EMF home measurement programs: Edison: (800) 336-CTAC. DWP: (800) 722-1122 for general EMF information; (213) 482-7376 for measurement.
While waiting for the verdict on health risks of electromagnetic fields, the best bet is to practice prudent avoidance.
*Make sure devices like clocks, radios and air conditioners are at least 3 feet from your bed.
*What’s on the other side of the wall behind your children’s beds? If it’s a television set, move it.
*Don’t work with your head close to a fluorescent or halogen desk lamp.
*Choose a cellular phone that has the transmitter separate from the handset.
*Limit use of hand-held electric appliances such as mixersand hair dryers. As a rule they have very strong fields.
*Be aware that fields are strong where the electric power enters the house and at the circuit breaker.
Source: Department of engineering and public policy, Carnegie Mellon university.
