Nexus - 0213 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

important factor in any analysis of these matters. Let it be said, however, that neither of the authors makes use of an electric razor. The dose-rate for electric razors and other such high-strength-field appliances also varies considerably, so that a general statement about their safe use could be misleading. Although most women do not shave their legs every day, they do spend more time shaving their legs on any one occasion than do men shaving their faces on any one occasion. The fact that women have a higher incidence of melanoma on their lower legs than do men may be of relevance here. Some professions in which men are involved similarly require regular depilation, as in the case of professional body- builders, some dancers, some models and some competitive athletes such as cyclists and swimmers. The dose-rate for hair-driers becomes equally variable. Both men and women tend to use an electric dryer to dry their hair at least ' once per day. The exposure time is generally longer than the dose- tate for the electric shaver, and the high-strength magnetic field appears to be equally, if not more damaging to human health than the strength of the field in itself. This being so, exposure to a weak but constant magnetic field could be far more deleterious to human health than was at first supposed. Additional support for their hypothesis came to light in a US Public Health Service report which correlated the cause of death for men between the ages of twenty and sixty-five with their occupations.” According to Wertheimer and Leeper's analysis of this data, it was clear that the cancer rate for workers exposed to fairly regular exposures of alternating-cur- rent magnetic fields was significantly higher than for the overall population. Among some of the workers referred to were telephone and power linemen, subway and elevated-railway motormen, power station operators, electricians, and even welders. When Wertheimer and Leeper's research was first published in 1979, their results were resoundingly rejected by the medical and scientific community which criticised the work as shoddy and poor- ly evidenced. The electric utilities industry quickly joined the ranks of orthodoxy to condemn the findings as heresy and the researchers as heretics." Dismissed out of hand, it was not until 1986 that Savitz and his colleagues were one of the first research groups to announce that they had accumulated sufficient data to replicate and confirm Wertheimer and Leeper's conclusion that prolonged expo- sure to low-level magnetic fields generated by high-current wires significantly increased the risk of developing cancer in children. According to Savitz's longitudinal study, the risk of developing any of the various types of childhood cancer is increased by more than five times the control population for those children living in homes in close proximity to high-current wires. It is important to note, by the way, that the Savitz study did not include any of the same can- cer cases used in Wertheimer and Leeper's study and thus provides a genuinely independent measure of the magnitude of the problem. ... children who had lived in homes near high-current electrical wires had died of cancer at twice the rate seen in children living in dwellings near low-current wiring. generated is directed most often towards the skull and thus the brain. This brings into play another factor to which we have also alluded in previous NEXUS articles, namely, the extent to which certain parts of, or organs in, the body are more susceptible to toxic intervention (e.g., the accumulation of mercury or aluminium in the brain) or electromagnetic intervention (e.g., the special sensitivity of the reproductive organs to magnetic fields) than others. This issue has special import for those people working in occupations where certain vulnerable parts of the body are more directly exposed to magnetic field sources than others (e.g., women working at computer display terminals). In regard to the health risks of hair- driers, the much neglected example is the hairdressing profession in which the hair-drier is used frequently throughout the day. This being so, exposure of hairdressers to the relatively high electromag- netic fields generated by the professional hair-driers used in salons is not only regular, but the hair-drier is also frequently held in a position reasonably close to the breast, neck or head of the hair- dresser as she or he blows dry the customer's hair. As far as the authors are aware, no study has yet been done of the potential health risks of electromagnetic radiation within this profession, though the questions which arise are of great interest. Electric Razors and Electric Hair-driers Once it was established that prolonged exposure to low-level electromagnetic radiation could increase the risk of cancer, Wertheimer turned her attention to household appliances in respect of which prolonged exposure is generally a characteristic of their use. The risk factors of relevance here need carefully to be distin- guished, and the distinction should not be reduced simply to the dif- ference between the health hazards associated with extremely low levels of electromagnetic radiation and those associated with extremely high levels. In addition to the question of individual hypersensitivity, the concept of dose-rate must be included in any risk-benefit ratio regarding the use of household appliances and electrical equipment.” The electric razor is a case in point. Electric current which is used for household appliances is, as we saw earlier, supplied at a frequency of 60 cycles per second (now known as 60 hertz). In basic terms this means that the current provided for our homes is an alternating current which flows first in one direction and then in the other, generating an electric field. When it does this at a frequency of 60 hertz, it is moving back and forth sixty times per second or generating a 60 hertz. In the case of the electric razor the electromagnetic fields pro- duced have been measured as 60 hertz fields with magnetic strengths as high as 200 to 400 milligauss one-half inch or approxi- mately two centimetres away from the cutting edge of the blade. Since the blade is often in direct contact with the surface of the skin during the process of shaving, it is clear that the nearby tissues are being exposed to a powerful magnetic field. Since it has been established that 60 Hertz fields of as little as 3 milligauss are associ- ated with an increased risk of cancer, the exposure levels from appliances such as electric razors, electric hair-driers, curling irons, etc., need to be carefully monitored.” It is of course true that the electric razor is normally used for only a few minutes every day, and this brings in the point about the dose- Tate as a factor in assessing the adverse impact on health of magnet- ic fields. It is generally assumed that if the dose-rate is low (expo- sure for only a short duration), the use of appliances which give off relatively high magnetic fields is safe. We have argued elsewhere that this assumption may not be as uncontentious as some researchers make it seem, but we do accept that the dose-rate is an Although the field strengths of electric razors are, as we saw, rel- atively high, the daily exposure or dose is generally minimal. While this daily dependency upon an electrical device with strong field strengths is worrying, the worry pales in comparison with the potential health risks associated with the use of electric blankets and heated waterbeds. The field strengths of electric blankets are con- siderably lower than those associated with electric razors, ranging from 50-100 milligauss or about one-half to one-quarter the field strengths exhibited by razors.’ The difference in the two cases is that the electric blanket is used for many hours at a time and is maintained as close to the total surface of the body as possible. This means that the accumulated exposure or total administered dose of electromagnetic radiation is considerably higher than the dose-level for the electric razor. The fact that the exposure is com- NEXUS¢43. Vol 2, No 13 - 1993 “3 The Electric Blanket and the Heated Waterbed Connection