Review of the epidemiologic literature on EMF and Health.

Abstract

Exposures to extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMF) emanating from the generation, transmission, and use of electricity are a ubiquitous part of modern life. Concern about potential adverse health effects was initially brought to prominence by an epidemiologic report two decades ago from Denver on childhood cancer. We reviewed the now voluminous epidemiologic literature on EMF and risks of chronic disease and conclude the following: a) The quality of epidemiologic studies on this topic has improved over time and several of the recent studies on childhood leukemia and on cancer associated with occupational exposure are close to the limit of what can realistically be achieved in terms of size of study and methodological rigor. b) Exposure assessment is a particular difficulty of EMF epidemiology, in several respects: i) The exposure is imperceptible, ubiquitous, has multiple sources, and can vary greatly over time and short distances. ii) The exposure period of relevance is before the date at which measurements can realistically be obtained and of unknown duration and induction period. iii) The appropriate exposure metric is not known and there are no biological data from which to impute it. c) In the absence of experimental evidence and given the methodological uncertainties in the epidemiologic literature, there is no chronic disease for which an etiological relation to EMF can be regarded as established. d) There has been a large body of high quality data for childhood cancer, and also for adult leukemia and brain tumor in relation to occupational exposure. Among all the outcomes evaluated in epidemiologic studies of EMF, childhood leukemia in relation to postnatal exposures above 0.4 microT is the one for which there is most evidence of an association. The relative risk has been estimated at 2.0 (95% confidence limit: 1.27-3.13) in a large pooled analysis. This is unlikely to be due to chance but, may be, in part, due to bias. This is difficult to interpret in the absence of a known mechanism or reproducible experimental support. In the large pooled analysis only 0.8% of all children were exposed above 0.4 microT. Further studies need to be designed to test specific hypotheses such as aspects of selection bias or exposure. On the basis of epidemiologic findings, evidence shows an association of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with occupational EMF exposure although confounding is a potential explanation. Breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, and suicide and depression remain unresolved.

References 249

1. 1.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

32. 32.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

37. 37.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

38. 38.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

40. 40.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 1

• State of the evidence 2017: an update on the connection between breast cancer and the environment · 2017
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.