Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: “Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer [View all]mahatmakanejeeves
(62,261 posts)46. About overhead power lines
Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 12:57 PM - Edit history (6)
Disclaimer: I'm not taking sides. I am not expressing support for Paul Brodeur's position by linking to his book. I do so in the interest of getting the information out to you.
I read the first book about this, "Currents of Death," by Martin Paul Brodeur, when it came out.
Currents of Death: The Great Power Line Cover-Up
Granger Morgan, an engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon, did some work on this that did not support the book's conclusions, IIRC.
Powerline Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: A Pilot Study of Risk Perception
M. Granter Morgan, Paul Slovic, Indira Nair, Dan Geisler, Donald MacGregor, Baruch Fischhoff, David Lincoln, and Keith Florig
M. Granter Morgan, Paul Slovic, Indira Nair, Dan Geisler, Donald MacGregor, Baruch Fischhoff, David Lincoln, and Keith Florig
Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer
What have studies shown about possible associations between non-ionizing EMFs and cancer in children?
Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to non-ionizing EMFs and risk of cancer in children. (Magnetic fields are the component of non-ionizing EMFs that are usually studied in relation to their possible health effects.) Most of the research has focused on leukemia and brain tumors, the two most common cancers in children. Studies have examined associations of these cancers with living near power lines, with magnetic fields in the home, and with exposure of parents to high levels of magnetic fields in the workplace. No consistent evidence for an association between any source of non-ionizing EMF and cancer has been found.
Exposure from power lines. Although a study in 1979 pointed to a possible association between living near electric power lines and childhood leukemia, more recent studies have had mixed findings. Most of these studies did not find an association or found one only for those children who lived in homes with very high levels of magnetic fields, which are present in few residences.
What have studies shown about possible associations between non-ionizing EMFs and cancer in children?
Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to non-ionizing EMFs and risk of cancer in children. (Magnetic fields are the component of non-ionizing EMFs that are usually studied in relation to their possible health effects.) Most of the research has focused on leukemia and brain tumors, the two most common cancers in children. Studies have examined associations of these cancers with living near power lines, with magnetic fields in the home, and with exposure of parents to high levels of magnetic fields in the workplace. No consistent evidence for an association between any source of non-ionizing EMF and cancer has been found.
Exposure from power lines. Although a study in 1979 pointed to a possible association between living near electric power lines and childhood leukemia, more recent studies have had mixed findings. Most of these studies did not find an association or found one only for those children who lived in homes with very high levels of magnetic fields, which are present in few residences.
ETA: Amazingly, I have a copy of Paul Brodeur's book on my desk right now. I had it in my file cabinet. Why, I do not know. It was published in 1989. I thought it was several years older than that. Part of the material originally appeared in The New Yorker, so that must be where I first read it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
124 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
They probably won't have to give them up if the companies can improve the shielding
cstanleytech
May 2016
#4
Who knows, maybe they can redesign the antennas or use somthing like a bluetooth
cstanleytech
May 2016
#24
I would have to see an independant study done on them to see if they actually
cstanleytech
May 2016
#81
My fellow passengers on Metrorail and Metrobus must not have heard about this development. NT
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2016
#9
yes, I encourage all who read this to spend $5 to $15 to get a wired headset for your phone
GreatGazoo
May 2016
#48
I wear hearing aids in both ears. How am I supposed to use a headset or ear buds?
-none
May 2016
#103
Please share your source of $5-$15 wired headset- preferably comfortable (not buds) and
Kashkakat v.2.0
May 2016
#114
The National Toxicology Program is holding a media briefing at noon today to discuss the results
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2016
#12
Beat me to it, but I was going to make the 'how are they even supposed to fit in the building' joke.
AtheistCrusader
May 2016
#52
And cell phone corporations come out with never-before-heard-of scientist and science
fasttense
May 2016
#21
I don't think it will, read the study yourself, no biological significant effects for female rats...
Humanist_Activist
May 2016
#100
Your last sentence is where we fundamentally disagree. I take whatever evidence there is
Kashkakat v.2.0
May 2016
#115
My hunch is that this is a cumulative problem, more likely to harm those who grew up with cellphones
groundloop
May 2016
#25
My husband gave me a hard time when I made the SAR rating the #1 criteria for selecting a phone
Skwmom
May 2016
#26
Interesting correlation at end (where we would expect it). Need data newer than a decade old.
Bernardo de La Paz
May 2016
#38
Way back in the 90's the cell phones transmitted with a lot more power than they do now.
LiberalArkie
May 2016
#43
I think the 600mhz spectrum just went up for, or is about to go up for auction.
AtheistCrusader
May 2016
#49
I was going to say, it drops at 2006. That's around the time the iPhone came into being.
C Moon
May 2016
#53
As I recall gliomas need a few years to get from a few cells to something that will be disruptive to
Jemmons
May 2016
#62
You have the requirements for relevance lined up the wrong way round. If and only if you can be sure
Jemmons
May 2016
#84
I wonder how much RF is being broadcast along all those big power lines bringing us the
jtuck004
May 2016
#39
I used to do that as well, and had noticed the reception wasn't near what it used to be.
jtuck004
May 2016
#69
The radiation level the rats received was "not very different" from what humans are exposed to ...
AlbertCat
May 2016
#44
Except they are much higher, distributed across the entire body, and were for 9 hours per day
Major Nikon
May 2016
#50
It's time to develop phone cases that shield the radiation from users. The phone industry should
Dont call me Shirley
May 2016
#73
Unfortunately, if you shield the user you'll also shield the cell tower (i.e. won't work)
groundloop
May 2016
#74
The rich will have the problem solved for themselves at our expense. :-/
Dont call me Shirley
May 2016
#108
woah causes Schwannomas'? They're usually benign but cause a lot of problems to nerves.
Sunlei
May 2016
#94
Good luck taking on Big Water. Their contributions to Congress fall like rain.
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2016
#105
Interesting, apparently it only effects male rats, as the study itself concludes....
Humanist_Activist
May 2016
#99
MEANWHILE... just try to find a functioning, well made & comfortable wired headset preferably
Kashkakat v.2.0
May 2016
#113
No, a rat study with marginal results does not prove that cell phones cause cancer,
GoneOffShore
May 2016
#122
So, if you have to use a smart phone, what would you consider a "best practices" to safeguard
WhoWoodaKnew
Jun 2016
#123