Danger Of Strong Electromagnetic Fields

blueworld writes "U.S. Department of Energy researchers have discovered a possible cause for reported illness around high voltage power lines. They found that rats' bodies produced high levels of ozone when exposed to strong electrical fields. Electrically grounded water produced the same result when exposed to the fields. Apparently, the water in our bodies may be responsible for the health risks of high voltage power lines."

Comments

Textbook case of Begging the Question

[b-baggins]

Apparently, the water in our bodies may be responsible for the health risks of high voltage power lines."

Nothing like a little begging the question fallacy to get your day started. (Hint: there is no demonstrated evidence that being anywhere near a high power line is harmful at all. Witness the astounding lack of corpses of all varieties along the millions of miles of high power lines crossing the United States.)

Re:Textbook case of Begging the Question

[ajagci]

Nothing like a little begging the question fallacy to get your day started. (Hint: there is no demonstrated evidence that being anywhere near a high power line is harmful at all. Witness the astounding lack of corpses of all varieties along the millions of miles of high power lines crossing the United States.)

Well, golly, by your argument cigarettes cannot be killing anyone either, then. I mean, when was the last time you saw a corpse with a lit cigarette in his mouth?

Is there any evidence that being near high power lines is harmful? I have no idea. Cancer is so frequent that if power lines cause thousands of people to get cancer, it would probably be very hard to detect. And, since such simple matters of civilization seem to elude you, people who get cancer generally die in hospitals.

So, because such effects are hard and costly to detect through population studies, people look for causal relationships and mechanisms. You know, the kinds of relationships and mechanisms apologists for businesses, Republicans, and power companies always demand.

Re:Textbook case of Begging the Question

[hey!]

Welll, your sort of right, but you may be throwing people off with your "bodies" rhetoric.

Naturally, we aren't looking for corpses around high voltage lines. What we are looking at are statistically significant differences in rates of illness. Naturally, if you measure illness rates in two different populations, they will differ somewhat due to chance.

We have a number of studies out there some of which show sigificantly higher rates. However a single such study is not conclusive. One out of twenty experiments conducted on identical populations will falsely identify a significant difference between them. So generally, when looking at a pattern of studies in which usually no difference is found, but in which a few studies indicate there may be something, the simplest conclusion is that there is that the positive results were due to chance, especially if there is no plausible physical mechanism for there to be an effect.

However you can't be entirely sure that the difference between our small number of positive studies and large number of negative studies aren't due to some subtle difference in methodology, either explicit or implicit. That's the nature of science -- you are never really 100% sure. So if there is a plausible, lab observable mechanism found where there was none before, it is worth looking at past studies to see if difference in things like the definition of "proximity" may play a role in results given this mechanism. It might be worthwhile to even design some studies which take this effect into account.

However, basically I'm with you -- I don't think there is convincing evidence now that there is any effect.

Re:Textbook case of Begging the Question

[dackroyd]

There is some evidence of a small increase in risk - but it is small and so hard to prove either way.

http://www.google.com/search?q=power+line+increa se d+cancer&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf- 8

But if you had a choice between living under a powerline, and living half a kilometer away would it influence your decision ? Even without definite proof - why take the risk.

water in our bodies may be responsible

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, is it the water's fault. Not the radiation, no, the water.

So, if I cut my jugular vein, why do I die? Is it because of the knifet? No, it is because my heart pumps the blood out of me. The heart is to blame.

Re:Ways to cope?

[penguiniator]

Whenever it is reported that something may be a "possible cause" it means that there is no evidence, that the link is pure speculation. When so-called environmentalists went after power lines they sponsored studies to show a correlation between tissue heating caused by exposure to electric fields and rates of cancer. Their results were inconclusive and contradictory. Most studies found no correlation whatsoever. Tissue heating is far more pronounced by simply taking a walk in the sunshine. And it is not tissue heating that is a problem there; it is ultraviolet light, which is known to cause skin cancer.

That didn't stop the FCC from issueing exposure limit guidelines and requiring licensees to learn complex formulas for evaluating exposure risks at their radio stations. This was off-putting enough for many licensees that it resulted in the removal of antennas from the roofs of many tall buildings.

All of it was driven purely by politics. I personally had to spend a couple of days learning about this crap when upgrading my amateur radio licence from Technician to General class.

To understand how ridiculous this all is, just think about the inverse square law.

But I digress. To create exposure guidelines and counter-measures when there is absolutely no evidence of risk is laughable.

Re:Then maybe you need to read up on some(+)

[crmartin]

Citations? I've kept up on the scientific research -- that is controlled, statistically significant, good samples -- and it's been pretty consistent in showing that claims of EMF causing cancer etc don't pass the giggle test.

Failure to Publish Negative Results

[MissMarvel]

What bothered me most about this article was not its suggestion that EMFs may be in part responsible for certain cancers. What bothered me was learning this research team failed to publish the results of an experiment which yeilded exactly opposite results from what they expected. Wouldn't this negative result have been just as valuable to the scientific community, even though it was not what was anticipated?

It makes one wonder how often this happens? How much more would we know if negative results weren't suppressed?

Unpublished study?

[AB3A]

From the article:

Goheen recalled an experiment done years ago by researchers in San Francisco.

Nowhere in the text did it say who did that study and whether it had review of any sort. They continued this silliness...

...three rats were exposed in close proximity to a device producing 10 kilovolts -- about what negative-ion air fresheners produce.

The ambient level of ozone in the air before the device was turned on was about 10-20 parts per billion (ppb).

When the electrical device was switched on, Goheen and his colleagues reported ozone levels spiked as high as 200 ppb -- about twice the "chronic" level allowed by federal regulators in a workplace setting.

First Dumb question: How large were the rats and how much space did they take up in cage with the ionized air? Ok, I know it wasn't that much space, but don't ignore the effect.

Second dumb question: they're writing a research paper about three rats? Did they mention controls?

Third dumb question: How do KiloVolts relate to Ozone production? Shouldn't current also be a part of this?

Ok, Now I have to ask the question I've been asking for a long time while reading so much research of this sort: Who reviews this stuff? Why do we let these jokers get away with publishing such irrelevant twaddle in the guise of honest research? I've seen better high school science fair projects. These folks ought to be ashamed of themselves.