Xref: helios.physics.utoronto.ca sci.med.physics:2462 sci.answers:1481 news.answers:27585

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Xref: helios.physics.utoronto.ca sci.med.physics:2462 sci.answers:1481 news.answers:27585 Path: admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu!user From: jmoulder@its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: sci.med.physics,sci.answers,news.answers Subject: Powerlines & Cancer FAQs 6/6: Biblio 2 Supersedes: Followup-To: sci.med.physics Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 16:42:10 -0600 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 517 Approved: new-answers-request@MIT.edu Distribution: world Expires: 12 Sep 1994 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: References: Reply-To: jmoulder@its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu Summary: Annotated bibliography on the connection between powerlines, electrical occupations and cancer. Keywords: powerlines, magnetic fields, cancer, EMF, non-ionizing radiation, FAQ, bibliography, references Archive-name: powerlines-cancer-FAQ/part6 Last-modified: 1994/8/15 Version: 2.6a Maintainer: jmoulder@its.mcw.edu Annotated Bibliography on Powerlines and Cancer (Part 2 of 2) G) Laboratory Studies of Power-Frequency Fields and Cancer G1) MM Cohen et al: Effect of low-level, 60-Hz electromagnetic fields on human lymphoid cells: I. Mitotic rate and chromosome breakage in human peripheral lymphocytes. BEM 7:415-423, 1986. 1 and 2 G (0.1 and 0.2 mT) fields had no effect on chromosome abnormalities or mitotic index of human lymphocytes. Also no effect for electric field or combined electric and magnetic fields. G2) MM Cohen et al: The effect of low-level 60-Hz electromagnetic fields on human lymphoid cells. II: Sister-chromatid exchanges in peripheral lymphocytes and lymphoblastoid cell lines. Mut Res 172:177-184, 1986. 1 and 2 G (0.1 and 0.2 mT) fields had no effect on rates of SCEs in human lymphocytes. Also no effect for electric field or combined electric and magnetic fields. G3) J Juutilainen & A Liimatainen: Mutation frequency in Salmonella exposed to weak 100-Hz magnetic fields. Hereditas 104:145-147, 1986. 0.125 microT (1.25 mG) to 0.125 mT (1.25 G) 100 Hz fields were not mutagenic in the Ames test, and did not increase the mutagenicity of known mutagens in the Ames test. G4) RD Benz et al, Mutagenicity and toxicity of 60 Hz magnetic and electric fields, New York State Powerlines Project, New York, 1987. Mice were exposed over multiple generations to a 60 Hz fields of 10 G (1 mT) plus 50 kV/m or 3 G (0.3 mT) plus 15 kV/m. No effect were seen on dominant lethal mutations, fertility or sister chromatid exchange rates. G5) JA Reese et al: Exposure of mammalian cells to 60-Hz magnetic or electric fields: Analysis for DNA single-strand breaks. BEM 9:237-247, 1988. 0.1 and 0.2 mT (1 and 2 G) 60 Hz field had no effect on single-strand breaks. Also no effect with electric field or combined electric and magnetic fields. G6) RAE Thomson et al: Influence of 60-Hertz magnetic fields on leukemia. BEM 9:149-158, 1988. 1.4, 200, 500 microT (14 mG, 3G, 5G) 60 Hz fields had no effect on leukemia progression in mice. G7) M Rosenthal & G Obe: Effects of 50-Hertz EM fields on proliferation and on chromosomal aberrations in human peripheral lymphocytes untreated and pretreated with chemical mutagens. Mutat Res 210:329-335, 1989. 5 mT (50 G) 50 Hz field had no effects on chromosome or chromatid breaks or exchanges, and no effects on SCE rate. Some increase in SCE rates were seen for cells pretreated with other mutagens. Enhanced progression though the cell cycle was seen. G8) A Cossarizza et al: DNA repair after gamma-irradiation in lymphocytes exposed to low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields. Radiat Res 118:161-168, 1989. 2.5 mT (25 G) pulsed field (50 Hz) had no effect on repair of radiation-induced DNA damage in human lymphocytes. G9) ME Frazier et al: Exposure of mammalian cells to 60-Hz magnetic or electric fields: analysis of DNA repair of induced, single-strand breaks. BEM 11:229-234, 1990. 1 mT (10 G) 60 Hz fields had no effect on repair of radiation-induced DNA damage in human lymphocytes. Also no effect for electric field or combined electric and magnetic fields. G10) JRN McLean et al: Cancer promotion in a mouse-skin model by a 60-Hz magnetic field: II. Tumor development and immune response. BEM 12:273- 287, 1991. 20 mT (200 G) 60-Hz fields did not promote or co-promote (with TPA) cancers in DMBA-induced skin tumor model. Also no effect on progression of skin tumors, and no effect on NK cells or spleen size. G11) GK Livingston et al: Reproductive integrity of mammalian cells exposed to power-frequency EM fields. Environ Molec Mutat 17:49-58, 1991. 0.22 mT (2.2 G) 60 Hz fields had no effect on SCEs, growth rates, cell cycle kinetics, or micronucleus formation rates in human lymphocytes or CHO cells. No effects were seen for electric fields. G12) AM Khalil & W Qassem: Cytogenetic effects of pulsing electromagnetic field on human lymphocytes in vitro: chromosome aberrations, sister-chromatid exchanges and cell kinetics. Mut Res 247:141-146, 1991. 1.05 mT (10.5 G) fields pulsed at 50 Hz caused chromosome abnormalities, and a decrease in the mitotic index in human lymphocytes. G13) A Bellossi: Effect of pulsed magnetic fields on leukemia-prone AKR mice. No effect on mortality through five generations. Leuk Res 15:899- 902, 1991. 6 mT (60 G) exposure of leukemia-prone mice to 12 and 460 Hz pulsed fields over five generations of exposure resulted in no effect on leukemia rates. G14) DS Beniashvili et al: Low-frequency electromagnetic radiation enhances the induction of rat mammary tumors by nitrosomethyl urea. Cancer Let 61:75-79, 1991. Study of the effects of 20 microT (200 mG) 50 Hz or static fields (0.5 or 3 hrs/day for 2 years) on the induction of mouse mammary tumors by nitrosomethyl urea. Increase in number of tumors was reported for 3 hr exposures to the 50 Hz field alone (genotoxicity) and for the AC field plus NMU (promotion), but not for 0.5 hr exposures. No effects were reported for DC fields alone, but promotion was reported for 3 hr exposures to the DC field. The report is preliminary, details are not presented, and exposure conditions, and particularly sham-exposure conditions poorly described. G15) MA Stuchly et al: Modification of tumor promotion in the mouse skin by exposure to an alternating magnetic field. Cancer Letters 65:1-7, 1992. A 20 G (2 mT) 60-Hz field did not increase the number of chemically- induced skin tumors in mice, although the tumor appeared earlier. G16) DD Ager & J A Radul: Effect of 60-Hz magnetic fields on ultraviolet light-induced mutation and mitotic recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mut Res 283:279-286, 1992. 10 G (1 mT) 60-Hz fields do not cause mutations or chromosome damage in yeast, and do not affect UV-induced DNA damage. G17) M Fiorani et al: Electric and/or magnetic field effects on DNA structure and function in cultured human cells. Mut Res 282:25-29, 1992. 2-2,000 mG (0.2-200 microT) 50-Hz fields did not cause DNA damage in human cells, and did not affect the growth of human cells in culture. Also showed no effect for electric fields. G18) J. Nafziger et al: DNA mutations and 50 Hz EM fields. Bioelec Bioenerg 30:133-141, 1993. 10 and 100 mG (1 and 10 microT) 50-Hz fields did not cause mutations in bacteria or mammalian cells, and did not increase the amount of DNA damage in virus-transformed cells. G19) Y Otaka et al: Sex-linked recessive lethal test of Drosophila melanogaster after exposure to 50-Hz magnetic fields. BEM 13:67-74, 1992. 5 and 50 G 50-Hz fields do not cause mutations in fruit flies. G20) A. Rannug et al: A study on skin tumor formation in mice with 50 Hz magnetic field exposure. Carcinogenesis 14:573-578, 1993. 0.5 and 5 G 50-Hz fields do not increase the incidence of skin tumors or leukemia in mice, and did not increase the frequency of DMBA-induced skin tumors. G21) R. Zwingelberg et al: Exposure of rats of a 50-Hz, 30-mT magnetic field influences neither the frequencies of sister-chromatid exchanges nor proliferation characteristics of cultured peripheral lymphocytes. Mutat Res 302:39-44, 1993. 300 G (30 mT) 50-Hz field did not cause chromosome damage in human cells, and did not affect the growth of human lymphocytes in culture. G22) A Rannug et al: Rat liver foci study on coexposure with 50 Hz magnetic fields and known carcinogens. BEM 14:17-27, 1993. 5 mG (0.5 microT) and 5 G (500 microT) 50-Hz fields did not increase the frequency of chemically-induced liver tumors. G23) W Loscher et al: Tumor promotion in a breast cancer model by exposure to a weak alternating magnetic field. Cancer Letters 71:75-81, 1993. 1 G 50-Hz field increased the frequency of chemically-induced mammary tumors. G24) M Mevissen et al: Effects of magnetic fields on mammary tumor development induced by 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene in rats. BEM 14:131-143, 1993. 300 G (30 mT) 50-Hz fields did not increase the frequency of DMBA- induced mammary tumors. G25) A Rannug et al: A rat liver foci promotion study with 50-Hz magnetic fields. Environ Res 62:223-229, 1993. 5 - 5,000 mG (0.5 - 500 microT) 50-Hz fields did not increase the frequency of chemically-induced liver tumors. G26) C Cain et al: 60-Hz magnetic field acts as co-promoter in focus formation of C3H/10T1/2 cells. Carcinogenesis 14:955-960, 1993. A 60-Hz, 1000-mG field plus TPA caused an increase in cell transformation. Author has subsequently reported at meetings that the study cannot be replicated. G27) A Rannug et al: Intermittent 50-Hz magnetic field and skin tumour promotion in Sencar mice. Carcinogenesis 15:153-157, 1994. Intermittent 50-Hz fields did not increase the frequency of chemically-induced skin tumors. G28) W Loscher et al: Effects of weak alternating magnetic fields on nocturnal melatonin production and mammary carcinogenesis in rats. Oncology 51:288-295, 1994. Rats exposed to 50-Hz 0.3-1.0 microT (3-10 mG) field for 91 days after induction of mammary tumors with DMBA. A small but statistically significant decrease in nocturnal melatonin was observed, but there was no increase in the incidence of induced mammary tumors. G29) A Rannug et al: Intermittent 50 Hz magnetic field and skin tumor promotion in SENCAR mice. Carcinogenesis 15:153-157, 1994. Study of skin tumor promotion for using DMBA as an initiator and TPA as a positive control. Exposure was to 50 microT (500 mG) and 0.5 mT (5 G) fields, continuous or 15s on/off, 20 hrs/day for 105 weeks. No significant increase in the number of skin tumors were found for any of 4 field-exposed groups, compared to the unexposed group. H) Laboratory Studies Indirectly Related to Power-Frequency Fields and Cancer H1) AR Liboff et al: Time-varying magnetic fields: Effects on DNA synthesis. Science 223:818-820, 1984. 15-4000 Hz, 0.0016-0.4 mT (16 mG-4 G) fields appeared to increase tritiated thymidine uptake in human embryonic fibroblasts. The effect is reported to be independent of frequency and field strength. This study is often quoted as providing evidence for an effect of power- frequency fields on proliferation and/or DNA synthesis, however, neither proliferation nor DNA synthesis were directly measured in the study. H2) WC Parkinson & CT Hanks: Experiments on the interaction of electromagnetic fields with mammalian systems. Biol Bull 176(S):170-178, 1989. 3 mT (30 G) 60-Hz field had no effects of mammalian cell growth. No effects on Ca transport under cyclotron resonance conditions, or under any conditions tested. H3) S Baumann et al: Lack of effects from 2000-Hz magnetic fields on mammary adenocarcinoma and reproductive hormones in rats. BEM 10:329- 333, 1989. 0.1, 1, 2 mT (1,10, 20 G) 2000 Hz field had no effect on the growth of transplanted mammary tumors. H4) R Goodman & A Shirley-Henderson: Transcription and translation in cells exposed to extremely low frequency EM fields. Bioelec Bioenerg 25:335-355, 1991. Pulsed and sinusoidal fields of different types and intensities caused alterations in transcription of genes in human leukemia and dipteran salivary gland cells. Effect showed frequency, intensity and duration windows. H5) AV Prasad et al: Failure to reproduce increased calcium uptake in human lymphocytes at purported cyclotron resonance exposure conditions. Radiat Environ Biophys 30:305-320, 1991. Study was unable to replicate a report of Liboff et al, 1987 (J. Bioelec. 6:13-22) that calcium ion uptake was increased under cyclotron ³resonance conditions². No effects seen. H6) JL Phillips et al: Magnetic field-induced changes in specific gene transcriptions. Biochim Biophys Acta 1132:140-144, 1992. 60-Hz field of 1 G (100 microT) and above produced changes in gene transcription. H7) RJ Reiter & BA Richardson: Magnetic field effects on pineal indoleamine metabolism and possible biological consequences. FASEB J 6:2283-2287, 1992. Review of the hypothesis linking EMF effects with effects on melatonin production. Notes that pulsed fields are the most effective. No mention of power-frequency fields. H8) RP Liburdy et al: ELF magnetic fields, breast cancer, and melatonin: 60-Hz fields block melatonin's oncostatic action on ER+ breast cancer cell proliferation. J Pineal Res 14:89-97, 1993. 2 and 10 mG (0.2 and 1 microT) 60-Hz fields did not affect the growth of human breast cancer cells in culture. Melatonin caused inhibition of growth that was blocked by a 12 mG field. H9) S Paradisi et al: A 50-Hz magnetic field induces structural and biophysical changes in membranes. BEM 14:247-255, 1993. A 35 G (3.5 mT) 50-Hz field did not affect the growth of mammalian cells in culture. H10) M Kato et al: Effects of exposure to a circularly polarized 50-Hz magnetic field on plasma and pineal melatonin levels in rats. BEM 14:97- 106, 1993. 50-Hz fields at 10 to 2500 mG (1 to 250 microT) caused a small decrease in melatonin that was unrelated to field strength, fields of 10 mG (1 microT) and below has no effect. H11) JM Lee et al: Melatonin secretion and puberty in female lambs exposed to environmental electric and magnetic fields. Biol Reproduc 49:857-864, 1993. Exposure to a 500 kV transmission line field (40 mG, 4 microT, 6 kV/m) had no effect on melatonin levels. H12) AV Prasad et al: A test of the influence of cyclotron resonance exposures on diatom motility. Health Phys 66:305-312, 1994. Study was unable to replicate reports (McLeod et al, 1987; Smith et al, 1987) that certain combinations of ELF and static magnetic fields could influence diatom motility via an "cyclotron resonance" effect on calcium ions. H13) M Kato et al: Horizontal or vertical 50-Hz, 1 microT magnetic fields have no effect on pineal gland or plasma melatonin concentration of albino rats. Neurosci Letters 168:205-208, 1994. Horizontal or vertical 50-Hz, 1 microT (10 mG) magnetic fields have no effect on pineal gland or plasma melatonin concentration of albino rats. This is in contrast with the authors earlier report [H10] that circularly-polarized fields did affect melatonin levels. J) Laboratory Studies of Power-Frequency Fields and Reproductive Toxicity J1) LJ Dlugosz et al: Congenital defects and electric bed heating in New York State: A register-based case-control study. Am J Epidem 135:1000- 1011, 1992. A case-control study that found no statistically significant relationship between the use of electric bed heating and any type of congenital defects. J2) M Lindbohm et al: Magnetic fields of video display terminals and spontaneous abortion. Am J Epidem 136:1041-1051, 1992. Case-control study of spontaneous abortions in clerical workers who use VDTs. The use of VDTs alone had no effect, but when high-field VDTs were compared to low-field VDTs there was a statistically significant increase in spontaneous abortions. J3) CF Cox et al: A test for teratological effects of power-frequency magnetic fields on chick embryos. IEEE Trans Micro Theory Tech 40:605- 610, 1993. 50-Hz 100-mG fields had no effects on the incidence of developmental abnormalities in chick embryos. The paper also analyzes the other published studies and concludes that there was, at best, a very weak statistical basis to hypothesize that magnetic fields cause malformations in chick embryos. J4) H Huuskonen et al: Effects of low-frequency magnetic fields on fetal development in rats. BEM 14:205-213, 1993. 360 mG (36 microT) 50-Hz field has no significant effect on fetal development in rats. J5) J Juutilainen et al: Early pregnancy loss and exposure to 50-Hz magnetic fields. BEM 14:229-236, 1993. Case-control study of early pregnancy loss and residential exposure to 50 Hz fields (fields measured at the front door) found an increase in the rate of early pregnancy loss in exposed cases. J6) E Robert: Birth defects and high voltage power lines - An exploratory study based on registry data. Reproduc Toxicol 7:283-287, 1993. Case-control study of the association between maternal residential proximity to powerline magnetic fields and congenital anomalies found no excess malformations, and a lower rate of skeletal and cardiac malformations in the exposed group. K) Reviews of Laboratory Studies of Power-Frequency Fields K1) TS Tenforde: Biological interactions and potential health effects of extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields from power lines and other common sources. Ann Rev Publ Health 13:173-196, 1992. Review of ELF magnetic field effects from a biologist's perspective K2) J Walleczek: Electromagnetic field effects on cells of the immune system: the role of calcium signaling. FASEB J 6:3177-3185, 1992. Review of ELF effects on the immune system and the possible role of calcium. Suggests that threshold for proliferation effects for 50/60 Hz fields is between 0.2 mT (2 G) and 5 mT (5 G). K3) J McCann et al: A critical review of the genotoxic potential of electric and magnetic fields. Mut Res 297:61-95, 1993. "The preponderance of evidence suggests that neither ELF nor static electric and magnetic fields have a clearly demonstrated potential to cause genotoxic effects. However, there may be genotoxic activity from exposure under conditions where phenomena auxiliary to an electric field, such as spark discharges, electrical shocks or corona can occur." K4) JC Murphy et al: Power-frequency electric and magnetic fields: A review of genetic toxicology. Mut Res 296:221-240, 1993. "Considering the total body of available information, there is little evidence that exposure to [power-frequency electric or magnetic fields] directly causes genetic changes in biological systems." K5) N Chernoff et al: A review of the literature on potential reproductive and developmental toxicity of electric and magnetic fields. Toxicol 74:91-126, 1992. "From our review we conclude that laboratory experimental and epidemiological results to date have not yielded conclusive data to support the contention that such fields induce adverse reproductive effects under the test or environmental conditions studied." K6) W Loscher & M Mevissen: Animal studies on the role of 50/60-Hz magnetic fields in carcinogenesis. Life Sci 54:1531-1543, 1994. Review of published and unpublished animals studies. "If 50/60-Hz magnetic fields are truly associated with an increased risk of cancer, then these fields must act as a promoter or co-promoter of cancer in cells that have already been initiated... the available animal data... seem to indicate that intermediate exposure exerts co-promoting effects in different tumor models, particularly co-carcinogenesis models of breast cancer, while chronic (up to life-time) exposure may exert promoting effects... the existing experimental evidence is still insufficient for discerning a cause-effect relationship for exposure and human disease or injury" L) Miscellaneous Studies L1) EM Silberhorn et al: Carcinogenicity of polyhalogenated biphenyls: PCBs and PBBs. Crit Rev Toxicol 20:440-496, 1990. Most experimental evidence supports the view that PCB formulations are not genotoxic or mutagenic, and are not initiating agents. PCB mixtures are tumor promoters in both rats and mice, and promoting effects have been demonstrated in the liver, lung and skin. PCBs also show some antitumor activity. Epidemiological studies are few and small, but suggest that PCBs may increase the risk of liver cancer. L2) RB Goldberg & WA Creasey: A review of cancer induction by extremely low frequency EM fields. Is there a plausible mechanism? Medical Hypoth 35:265-274, 1991. Review of evidence for and against an EMF-cancer connection, including the suggestion that the fields might be promoters. L3) RG Stevens et al: Electric power, pineal function, and the risk of breast cancer. FASEB J 6:853-860, 1992. Presentation of the EMF-melatonin-breast cancer hypothesis. L4) H Kung & CF Seagle: Impact of power transmission lines on property values: A case study. Appraisal J 60:413-418, 1992. Survey of homeowners who lived along transmission lines. None "had any knowledge of possible evidence connecting power transmission lines to health risks"; but 87% said that if they had known of potential health risks, it would have adversely affected the price they were willing to pay. The values of comparable houses adjacent to, and not adjacent to, the powerlines were found to be similar. L5) K Victorin: Review of the genotoxicity of ozone. Mutat Res 277:221-238, 1992. Ozone is genotoxic to mammalian cells in culture. Ozone produces chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes chines hamster cells but not in mouse cells, and does not cause sister chromatid exchanges. Evidence for in vivo carcinogenicity is limited to lung adenomas in one strain of mice, with no effect in another strain. L6) HI Morrison et al: Herbicides and cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:1866-1874, 1992. Review of the literature shows some evidence that exposure to phenoxy herbicides increases the incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and possibly soft-tissue sarcomas. However, many studies have failed to show increased cancer incidence and evidence for a dose-response relationship is lacking. Evidence supporting an association between herbicides and leukemia is weak, and is limited to a single study [D3]. The available evidence does not support any association of herbicide exposure with brain cancer. L7) DE Martin: A highlight summary of the impact of electrical transmission lines on improved real estate values. EEI EMF Taskforce Meeting, Seattle, April, 1993. A utility study in Kansas City found no sale price or rental fee evidence for impacts of transmission lines on commercial property, apartment complexes, or single-family developments. However, a substantial fraction of the residential owners thought that future prices would be impacted. M) Regulations and Standards for Ionizing and Non-ionizing EM Sources. M1) [Safety of electromagnetic fields: Limits of field strengths for the protection of persons in the frequency range from 0 to 30 kHz], Technical Help to Exporters, British Standards Institution, Milton Keynes, 1989. Standard of Verband Deutscher Elektrotechniker (not a national standard). For 50/60 Hz electrical field: 2 V/m. For 50/60 Hz magnetic field: 5 mT (50 G). Based on prevention of acute health effects. States that "long term and delayed effects are considered unlikely to occur because many people have been exposed . . . over a long period of time without negative effects having come to light" M2) RC Petersen: Radiofrequency/microwave protection guides. Health Phys 61:59-67, 1991. A summary of RF/MW protection guidelines. M3) International Commission on Radiation Protection: Recommendations. Report 60, New York, Pergamon Press, 1991. Current recommendations for occupational and public protection standards for ionizing radiation M4) AS Duchene et al: IRPA guidelines on protection against non-ionizing radiation. Pergamon Press, New York, 1991. Current recommendations for occupational and public protection standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic sources. M5) Restriction on human exposures to static and time varying EM fields and radiation. Documents of the NRPB 4(5): 1-69, 1993. Exposure limits for power-frequency fields, as well as static fields and MW/RF frequencies; the standards apply to both residential and occupational exposure. For 60-Hz the limits recommended are 10 kV/m for the electric field and 13.3 G for the magnetic field. M6) Sub-radiofrequency (30 kHz and below) magnetic fields, In: Documentation of the threshold limit values, ACGIH, pp. 55-64, 1992. For 60-Hz fields the standard is 1 G (100 microT) for pacemaker users and 10 G (1 mT) for everyone else, this standard is applied only to occupational settings. Similar documentation is available for other frequencies. M7) HP Jammet et al: Interim guidelines on limits of exposure to 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields. Health Physics 58:113-122, 1990 [this is the 1990 ICNIRP interim guidelines that were approved in 1993]. For the general public the 50/60 Hz exposure standard is 1 G (100 microT) for continuous exposure and 10 G (1 mT) for short-term exposure. For occupational exposure the standard in 5 G (500 microT) for continuous exposure and 50 G (5 mT) for short-term exposure. In 1993, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) confirmed these guidelines (ICNIPR Press Release dated 12 May 1993). M8) MH Repacholi et al: Guidelines on limits of exposure to static magnetic fields. Health Phys 66:100-106, 1994. ICNIRP guidelines are based on keeping induced currents below 100 mA/m2. Occupational guideline is that continuous occupational exposure should be limited to a time weighted value that does not exceed 200 mT (2000 G). Continuous exposure of the general public should not exceed 40 mT (400 G). For people with cardiac pacemakers, ferromagnetic implants and implanted electronic devices exposures should be kept below 0.5 mT (5 G). John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) Radiation Biology Group Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Copyright (C) by John Moulder end: powerlines-cancer-FAQ/part6

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank