Nexus - 0226 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

indicating adverse health effects were apparently not considered by the IRPA/INIRC when setting the standards. They admit this in their concluding remarks: “The exposure limits are based on established or predicted effects of exposure to 50/60 Hz fields. Although some epidemio- logical studies suggest an association between exposure to 50/60 Hz fields and cancer, others do not. " ly_is_thi iation not proven. bu sen. no’ vide any basis for_h risk assessment usef development of exposure limits." (Auth. emph. ] Further on in the IRPA/INIRC interim guidelines, they state: “To date, chronic low-level exposure to 50/60Hz fields has not been established to increase the risk of cancer".'" ly to be temporary and do not appear to have health conse- quences." The ORAU panel, not content to let the issue die there, ‘nailed the final nail into the coffin' with the following ending: "This review does not provide justification for a major expan- sion of the national research effort to investigate the health effects of ELF/EMF. In the broad scope of research, any health concerns over exposures to ELF/EMF should not receive a high priority." The independence of the ORAU panel is severely compromised by the fact that J. Glenn Davis, Chairman of the Medical Sciences Division of ORAU, and who headed the panel, was previously a senior US Air Force commander who retired from active duty in 1990 to take up his position at ORAU. The US Air Force has played an active role in opposing EMF research. (See Section 1.5 The 1990 EPA Report, and Section 7.6, page 33, reference 110). Another possible military connection with the ORAU panel was the fact that they excluded the scientific literature and standards relative to all higher frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum above 30 KHz, thereby excluding radio, microwave and radar fre- quencies which the military is obviously heavily reliant on. The 1990 EPA Report, and Section 7. 6, page 33, “reference 110). 7.4 THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON NON- Another possible military connection with the ORAU panel was IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION (ICNIRP) the fact that they excluded the scientific literature and standards The ICNIRP took over from the previous IRPA/INIRC commit- relative to all higher frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum __tee as standard-setter for non-ionizing radiation. To quote from above 30 KHz, thereby excluding radio, microwave and radar fre- _ their press release of 12 May 1993: quencies which the military is obviously heavily reliant on. "The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) reviewed the data about possible carcino- 7.3 IRPA/INIRC INTERIM GUIDELINES 1990 genicity of power-frequency magnetic fields at its first annual The International Radiation Protection meeting on May 7-12, 1993, held in Association and its committee, the | | Neuherberg, Germany. This review consid- International Non-lonizing Radiation .they excluded the | ered all scientific data that have been pub- Committee (IRPA/INIRC) had the responsi- lished or publicly presented since the bility for the development of health criteria alone literature and | "Interim Guidelines on Limits of Exposure standards for mas demining radiation. Their | standards relative to all | to 50/60 Hs Het 28 Wgoste Fields" standards form part of the World Health * af were published in | y the predecessor Organisation's Environmental Health higher frequencies in the International Non-lIonizing Radiation pig si ae and aphee — bi ‘ electromagnetic a. (INIRC) ! the rege ie Australian Radiation Laboratory and the ‘LE adiation Protection Association 5 National Health & Medical Research | spectrum above 30 KHz, The major reason for the interim nature of be ~ i. aes — : thereby excluding radio, | these es a to arrive at ‘o quote from their guidelines: = a scientifically-based judgement concernin, “From a preview of the scientific litera- Psi Sf ae ai any causal retationship rama 50/60 Hz ture, it is apparent that gaps exist in our requencies whic e magnetic field exposures and the excess knowledge, and more data needs to be col- ni . bvi | occurrence of cancer. lected to answer unresolved questions con- mi itary is OBVIOUS y "The most recent data reflect some cerning biological effects of exposure to vil 1 | improvements in methodology in laboratory these fields (EMF). On the other hand. hea ily reliant on: | studies and in epidemiological studies of analysis of the existing literature does not | both occupational and general populations. ide evidence that exposure a nt day levels has a public After careful consideration of this evidence, the Commission con- health impact which would require corrective action. cludes that the data related to cancer do not provide a basis for "A cost-benefit analysis taking into account national public _health-risk assessment of human exposure to power-frequency health priorities and consideration of economic impact and social Rabie —tamemstingt te, Cocunission confirm the iotacias male: issues may be necessary to derive limits suited to the conditions _ lines published in 1990 (IRPA/INIRC 1990).""" [Auth. emph.] prevailing in different countries." [Auth. emph.] The exposure limits for magnetic fields are as follows: 7.5 THE AUSTRALIAN RADIATION ADVISORY COWAMITTFE__ANIPD THE THEDIAIIT CTIINV 7.5 THE AUSTRALIAN RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE—AND THE THERIAULT STUDY In September 1994, in the Annual Report of the Radiation Advisory Committee, the RAC gave their version of the outcome of the French/Canadian study of electrical workers, known as the Thériault study. To quote from their report: “A combined French/Canadian occupational study was pub- lished this year. The study looked at whether workers in three electricity utilities with exposure to higher levels of magnetic fields had a higher incidence of cancer in the study period 1970- 1989. The study provided no conclusive evidence of a link between occupational exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and cancer, and there was little or no consistency between the three utilities studied." /Auth. emph.] Of the thousands of research papers on EMF health effects dat- ing back to the 1970s, none has found conclusive evidence. Limits of Exposure to 50/60 Hertz magnetic fields |. Occupational—Magnetic Field Intensity Whole working day 5,000 milligauss Two-hours-per-day limit 50,000 milligauss For limbs 250,000 milligauss |. General Public (Residential) —Magnetic Field Intensity 24 hours per day 1,000 milligauss Two-hours-per-day limit 10,000 milligauss When you consider that the magnetic field levels indicated as having adverse health effects in the studies listed earlier are in the range of | to 4 milligauss, there is cause for concern, to say the least. Why this discrepancy? It is hard to believe, but all the studies JUNE - JULY 1995 NEXUS ¢ 39