Medical Forum / General / General / June 2005
Living near power lines raises children's risk of leukemia by 69%
|
|
Thread rating:  |
reilly - 03 Jun 2005 03:36 GMT Child Leukemia Again Linked to Power Lines By Daniel DeNoon, WebMD Medical News
June 2, 2005 -- Living near high-voltage power lines raises children's risk of leukemia by 69%, a British study shows.
That doesn't prove that power lines cause the deadly blood cancer, the study's authors are quick to point out. Despite 30 years of research, scientists still can't come up with a plausible reason why the weak magnetic fields near power lines might cause leukemia.
Gerald Draper, DPhil, director of the childhood cancer research group at Oxford University, led the study. Draper's team compared more than 29,000 children with cancer, including 9,700 children with leukemia, to age-, sex-, and birthplace-matched children without cancer. The children's birth homes were located on the power grids of England and Wales.
Compared with children who lived more than 600 meters from a high-voltage power line, those who lived within 200 meters of the power lines had a 69% greater risk of leukemia. Those living 200 to 600 meters from power lines had a 23% higher risk of leukemia. The findings appear in the June 4 issue of the British Medical Journal.
There is a slight tendency for the birth addresses of children with leukemia to be closer to these lines than those of children matched for comparison, Draper and colleagues write. "We have no satisfactory explanation for our results in terms of causation by magnetic fields, and the findings are not supported by convincing laboratory data or any accepted biological mechanism."
An Unusual Disclaimer
That's an unusual disclaimer for a researcher who has found a statistically significant link. But the data leave Draper and other experts scratching their heads for an explanation.
There are many theories about how power lines might cause leukemia. The most obvious one is that the magnetic fields created by power lines somehow make cancer cells grow in susceptible people. But there's a problem with this theory, notes Heather Dickinson, PhD, principal research associate at the Center for Health Services Research at the University of Newcastle in England.
"What is puzzling is that the magnetic field from power lines is only 1% of the earth's magnetic field, which surrounds us all," Dickinson tells WebMD. "Your fridge or vacuum generates a magnetic field of about the same strength. In England and Wales, only 5% of the exposure to magnetic fields comes from high voltage pylons. So if this is a hazard, people with appliances should be just as concerned."
John E. Moulder, PhD, director of radiation biology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, is an expert on how exposure to various kinds of electromagnetic fields and radiations might cause cancer.
"Power lines cannot be proven absolutely safe," Moulder tells WebMD. "But people have looked very hard for a causal relationship between power lines and cancer and nobody has found one. People aren't going to like this. They really want to be told we are absolutely sure one way or the other, and we are not."
Moulder, like Dickinson, points out that animals exposed to strong magnetic fields -- much stronger than those found near power lines -- don't get cancer.
In June 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences updated its 1999 report on possible risks from electromagnetic fields (EMF).
"Over the past 25 years, research has addressed the question of whether exposure to power-frequency EMF might adversely affect human health. For most health outcomes, there is no evidence that EMF exposures have adverse effects," the NIEHS report concludes.
Power Lines and Infections
Dickinson suggests that the Draper team's findings are real. But she thinks that living near power lines is linked to something else -- something that really does increase a child's leukemia risk.
"We know the rate of leukemia varies by a factor of two or three between isolated rural areas," Dickinson says. "And this is related to an influx of population that can change pattern of the infections to which a child is exposed."
Sudden exposure of once-isolated children to a lot of new childhood diseases, Dickinson suggests, may be linked to leukemia risk. She suggests that this may be a "confounding factor" in the Draper team's findings.
But even if living near power lines does raise a child's risk of leukemia, Dickinson notes that the risk is small.
"A 70% increase in leukemia means that the 1 in 2,000 risk of leukemia becomes a 1 in 1,200 risk," she says. "In the U.K., this means that five extra children might get leukemia. We need to keep this in perspective -- look at the thousands of children hurt in road accidents each year."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES: Draper, G. British Medical Journal, June 4, 2005; vol 330: pp 1290-1295. Dickinson, H.O. British Medical Journal, June 4, 2005; vol 330: pp 1279-1280. Heather Dickinson, PhD, principal research associate, Center for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle, England. John E. Moulder, PhD, professor and director of radiation biology, department of radiation oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Jeff - 03 Jun 2005 04:24 GMT > Child Leukemia Again Linked to Power Lines > By Daniel DeNoon, WebMD Medical News [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > scientists still can't come up with a plausible reason why the weak > magnetic fields near power lines might cause leukemia. It doesn't. Rather, power lines tend to be in more polluted and poorer parts of communities. The pollution causes the cancer.
Jeff
Jim Chinnis - 03 Jun 2005 04:29 GMT "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in part:
>> Child Leukemia Again Linked to Power Lines >> By Daniel DeNoon, WebMD Medical News [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Jeff Actually, they appear to have controlled for that. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Jeff - 03 Jun 2005 14:14 GMT > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Actually, they appear to have controlled for that. There is nothing in the report that suggests that this study controlled for that.
Jeff
> -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA Jim Chinnis - 03 Jun 2005 15:01 GMT "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in part:
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> -- >> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA Sorry. I canceled my post right after posting it. I guess that doesn't work!
They controlled only partially, for economic variables. I think the issue is whether the increased leukemia is due to pollutants and whether these have any connection with the power lines themselves or are just associated with it.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that petrol/gasoline stations tend to be more frequent around high-voltage powerline corridors, for instance. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
lbenson@brahmacom.com - 03 Jun 2005 18:32 GMT There is a shower of particles coming in from space all the time. Has anyone investigated the effects of the electromagnetism from the power lines on these particles?
Lauck Benson
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA bae@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu - 03 Jun 2005 21:00 GMT >> Child Leukemia Again Linked to Power Lines >> By Daniel DeNoon, WebMD Medical News [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >It doesn't. Rather, power lines tend to be in more polluted and poorer parts >of communities. The pollution causes the cancer. Another factor is the dioxins in herbicides commonly used to control vegetation under the power lines. Kids often ignore the fences and signs placed to keep them out of these very attractive open spaces.
Apropos, a survey of veterinarians a few years ago showed that dogs owned by people who had lawn care companies look after their lots had a rate of leukemia four times that of dogs owned by people who didn't.
Hillary Israeli - 04 Jun 2005 15:20 GMT * *Apropos, a survey of veterinarians a few years ago showed that dogs *owned by people who had lawn care companies look after their lots had *a rate of leukemia four times that of dogs owned by people who didn't.
I dunno about any survey, but there was a pretty good paper that came out back in the late 90s which showed that dogs with lymphosarcoma were 1.3 times more likely to have been previously exposed to the lawn chemical 2,4-D than dogs who did not have lymphosarcoma. Which, IMO, is pretty weak really, but still - it was a definite association. I have never heard anyone even remotely suggest that any lawn chemical is associated with leukemia in dogs (leukemia being pretty rare in dogs in the first place) or that the lawn chemicals raise the risk by 400% of any cancer.
2,4-D has also been associated with lymphoma in farmers who are exposed to it.
Environmental epidemiology of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in eastern Nebraska.
AU: Weisenburger-DD
SO: Am-J-Ind-Med. 1990; 18(3): 303-5
LA: ENGLISH
AB: The incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) is increased in many counties in eastern Nebraska. Histologic analysis has revealed a twofold increase in the clinically aggressive, diffuse large cell subtype of NHL. To investigate the possible association between NHL and agricultural exposures, a population-based case-control study was conducted in eastern Nebraska in 1985. Telephone interviews were conducted with 201 men having histologically confirmed NHL and 725 controls. Among men, the use of the herbicide 2,4-D was associated with a 50% increased risk of NHL (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.9, 2.4). Personal exposure to 2,4-D more than 20 days per year increased the risk threefold (OR 3.3, 95% CI 0.5, 22.1). Several classes of insecticides were also associated with increased risk: organophosphates (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1, 3.1), carbamates (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.0, 3.2), and chlorinated hydrocarbons (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.8, 2.3). As a result of intense agrichemical use, extensive contamination of shallow groundwater by nitrate and atrazine has also occurred in eastern Nebraska. A twofold increased incidence of NHL is present in counties with greater than 20% of the wells contaminated by nitrate (greater than 10 ppm) and in counties with intense fertilizer use. These findings suggest that NHL in eastern Nebraska may be related to the use of pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers.
AN: 91022745
A paper from Ft Collins, CO demonstrated that dogs who simply walk across lawns previously treated with 2,4-D attain high blood levels of this chemical, so IMO it's worth avoiding, even though we only have a weak association in dogs so far.
-h.
 Signature Hillary Israeli, VMD Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." --Groucho Marx
mbraffus@yahoo.com - 04 Jun 2005 08:48 GMT > > Child Leukemia Again Linked to Power Lines > > By Daniel DeNoon, WebMD Medical News [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jeff Why would you expect that the pollution 200 meters from a high voltage power line is greater than the pollution 600 meters from it?
What type of pollution could this be? I don't think you could expect air or water differences in such a small distance.
Marty
Jeff - 04 Jun 2005 14:17 GMT >> > Child Leukemia Again Linked to Power Lines >> > By Daniel DeNoon, WebMD Medical News [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Why would you expect that the pollution 200 meters from a high voltage > power line is greater than the pollution 600 meters from it? I would think that there was more industry, at one point or another, closer to the power lines. And people with more poverty would live closer to the power lines. You can have big changes in neighborhoods in just 100 m.
> What type of pollution could this be? I don't think you could expect > air or > water differences in such a small distance. Heavy metals from old industrial operations, various organic solvants.
Jeff
> Marty Jim Chinnis - 04 Jun 2005 17:52 GMT mbraffus@yahoo.com wrote in part:
>> > Child Leukemia Again Linked to Power Lines >> > By Daniel DeNoon, WebMD Medical News [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Why would you expect that the pollution 200 meters from a high voltage >power line is greater than the pollution 600 meters from it? Statistically, I would certainly expect it.
>What type of pollution could this be? I don't think you could expect >air or >water differences in such a small distance. Industrial uses tend to comingle. Many high-voltage power lines cross former industrial sites or run along existing or former rail beds.
I'd think there could be more soil contamination near the wires, on average. There have been somewhat similar studies that found similar results based on the distance one lives from a petrol/gas station. At least there, there was a credible direct explanation in terms of airborne emissions. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Rosalie B. - 04 Jun 2005 19:28 GMT >mbraffus@yahoo.com wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> It doesn't. Rather, power lines tend to be in more polluted and poorer parts >>> of communities. The pollution causes the cancer. Magnetic fields aren't pollution. Thinking of it as pollution which diffuses out into the air will lead to totally wrong conclusions.
It also isn't necessarily true that power lines are in poorer or more polluted areas. Many of them are in quite rural areas, and there's one that is where we used to live where they've built quite expensive homes right under the lines. Our state senator for our district lived there.
Magnetic fields from electrical lines are a form of wave energy or radiation. The rule for these kinds of energy is that when you double the distance, you cut the dose in half.
>>Why would you expect that the pollution 200 meters from a high voltage >>power line is greater than the pollution 600 meters from it? > >Statistically, I would certainly expect it. Therefore the amount of energy that is 400 meters from a power line is half as much as the energy 200 meters from it.
>>What type of pollution could this be? I don't think you could expect >>air or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >cross former industrial sites or run along existing or former rail >beds. That has nothing to do with it. Air pollution is an entirely different mechanism of delivery, and former rail beds aren't a problem unless you disturb the soil.
>I'd think there could be more soil contamination near the wires, >on average. There have been somewhat similar studies that found >similar results based on the distance one lives from a petrol/gas >station. At least there, there was a credible direct explanation >in terms of airborne emissions. In the case of petroleum there is not only air pollution from airborne emissions, but also water table pollution from leaking tanks that get into the aquifer.
grandma Rosalie
Jim Chinnis - 04 Jun 2005 20:34 GMT Rosalie B. <gmbeasley@mindspring.com> wrote in part:
>Magnetic fields from electrical lines are a form of wave energy or >radiation. The rule for these kinds of energy is that when you double [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Therefore the amount of energy that is 400 meters from a power line is >half as much as the energy 200 meters from it. You post very confidently. May I ask where you got your physics degree?
A power line radiates energy in accordance with Maxwell's equations, just like anything else. If you do the math, you'll see that energy density falls off with the square of distance from a linear source. So energy at 400 m is one-quarter what it is at 200 m.
I disagree with most of the rest of your comments as well. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Rosalie B. - 05 Jun 2005 02:00 GMT >Rosalie B. <gmbeasley@mindspring.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >I disagree with most of the rest of your comments as well. I'm not surprised.
I don't have a degree in physics, but I've done sampling for radiation and noise. So I won't dispute what you say, although it is at variance to what I was taught as a rule of thumb.
In any case, it energy density gets less as you get farther from the source, which was my point. Do you disagree with that?
grandma Rosalie
Jim Chinnis - 05 Jun 2005 03:11 GMT Rosalie B. <gmbeasley@mindspring.com> wrote in part:
>>Rosalie B. <gmbeasley@mindspring.com> wrote in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >grandma Rosalie No I don't disagree with that. And I'm sorry if I came on too strong.
In principle, it could be the electromagnetic field. But that degrades very rapidly with distance. Yet effects were found quite far from the lines.
My guess, and it's only that, is that something else that correlates with the power line presence causes the increase in illness. At least one researcher appears to feel that the cause may be ions that travel from very near the power line through the air.
I don't think anyone knows for sure, but if there is an effect, I suspect it is from something not related to the electrical power distribution. I'll bet you could turn the power off and still find the effect 20 years from now. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Rosalie B. - 05 Jun 2005 04:11 GMT >Rosalie B. <gmbeasley@mindspring.com> wrote in part: >>>Rosalie B. <gmbeasley@mindspring.com> wrote in part: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >distribution. I'll bet you could turn the power off and still find >the effect 20 years from now. OK that is clearer. Physical science is my weakest area as you can probably tell, but...
We have several possibilities that could explain this observed data that there is an effect far from the lines.
1) (which I think is most likely) The execution of the study is flawed because all confounding factors were not taken into account when selecting the cohort, or because the sample is too small to make any conclusions or some other flaw.
2) The observed effect is random and not related to the electric lines nor any other condition.
3) The effect is due to radiation aggravated by some other unknown possibly synergistic condition.
4) The effect is not due to electromagnetic radiation but is due to some other co-existing condition which is somewhat contiguous to the electrical lines but which extends farther than radiation would do..
5) Electrico-magnetic radiation has health effects at extremely low levels, and it is not a linear relationship. (Something like the ELF factor i.e. extremely low frequency or extra low frequency or something like that)
I can't think of any others right now, but you get the idea.
If I were still working, I'd try to look at NIOSHTIC or access the ACGIH database and do a search.
I've done a lot of investigations where people were concerned that something in their work area was making them sick, and these are very frustrating cases, and often there is no available resolution to the problem and sometimes not even a reasonable explanation or conclusion. We just don't know in a lot of cases. And sometimes things that we thought were hazardous turn out to be not so bad and sometimes they were worse.
grandma Rosalie
Jeff - 04 Jun 2005 21:43 GMT >>mbraffus@yahoo.com wrote in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > radiation. The rule for these kinds of energy is that when you double > the distance, you cut the dose in half. This is governed by Columb's law, so when you double the distance, you cut the field by 3/4.
>>>Why would you expect that the pollution 200 meters from a high voltage >>>power line is greater than the pollution 600 meters from it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Therefore the amount of energy that is 400 meters from a power line is > half as much as the energy 200 meters from it. Well, 1/4 as much.
>>>What type of pollution could this be? I don't think you could expect >>>air or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > different mechanism of delivery, and former rail beds aren't a problem > unless you disturb the soil. But kids and animals are good at disturbing the soil.
>>I'd think there could be more soil contamination near the wires, >>on average. There have been somewhat similar studies that found [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > emissions, but also water table pollution from leaking tanks that get > into the aquifer. Exactly, but most polution in the quifer doesn't affect just a localized area. And most houses in a city don't get water from the aquifer right under the houses.
Jeff
> grandma Rosalie Jim Chinnis - 04 Jun 2005 22:24 GMT "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in part:
>> Magnetic fields from electrical lines are a form of wave energy or >> radiation. The rule for these kinds of energy is that when you double >> the distance, you cut the dose in half. > >This is governed by Columb's law, so when you double the distance, you cut >the field by 3/4. Maybe I'm being picky, but Coulomb's law applies to electrostatic force, not what is being addressed here at all. We are talking electrodynamics and Maxwell's laws.
Right answer, though, as long as you don't really mean field strength. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Jeff - 05 Jun 2005 01:43 GMT > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Right answer, though, as long as you don't really mean field > strength. I'll take your word for it. My physics book was destroyed in a flood and I have not seen the equations for around 20 yrs.
Jeff
> -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jgreimer - 03 Jun 2005 12:52 GMT There was a similar study done in the U.S. a few years ago that showed the same thing. However in the U.S. study, the researchers went back with field strength meters to measure the electric and magnetic fields inside the houses. Those measurements showed no correlation between field strength and cancer.
|
|
|