## Statement by Marjorie Lundquist

> Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H.
> Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist
> P. O. Box 11831
> Milwaukee, WI 53211-0831
> October 9, 1998
> EMF Rapid Program
> National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences
> P. O. Box 12233, MD EC-16
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
> Telephone:
> (919) 541-7534
> FAX: (919) 541-0144

> Dear Ms. Lasko:

> Enclosed is my statement on the issue of power line electromagnetic fields and their effects on human health. I had hoped to attend the October 5th hearing in Chicago at the beginning of this week, but I was unable to complete my statement by that date.

> I have been consulted often by people who are electrosensitive hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields and they are very often sensitive to the fields around wires carrying electricity inside a building. While my statement is general and applies to everyone, without regard to their electrosensitive status, I do include some comment about electrosensitivity in my statement.

> Perhaps I should explain what bioelectromagnetic hygiene is. This is a specialization of the profession of industrial hygiene that is specific to the electromagnetic field, primarily to the non-ionizing electromagnetic field. While the profession of industrial hygiene is devoted to the prevention of those diseases caused by exposure to hazardous agents in the environment (often, in the occupational environment), the profession of bioelectromagnetic hygiene specializes in the prevention of those diseases caused by exposure to environmental electromagnetic fields, especially non-ionizing electromagnetic fields.

> My statement is therefore that of a professional having some expertise on this issue. (I hold an earned Ph.D. in physics-University of Virginia, 1965-and have been certified in the comprehensive practice of industrial hygiene by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene, which entitles me to place the initials "C.I.H." after my name.)

> Yours for a more healthful environment Enc.: Statement of Marjorie Lundquist

> STATEMENT Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H.
> Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist
> P. O. Box 11831
> Milwaukee, WI 53211-0831
> (414) 372-7753
> e-mail: marjlundquist@usa.net

> I. Discussion
> A. The Question of a Power Line EMF Health (Cancer) Hazard

> Ever since Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper published their 1979 paper (1) associating childhood cancer in the Denver, Colorado area with what they called "wire codes" (which they regarded as a crude representation of the power frequency magnetic field around an electric power line), there has been increasing concern in the USA and abroad about the safety of the electromagnetic fields that are present in the space surrounding electric power lines.

> As reported by Paul Brodeur, (2) Wertheimer and Leeper developed their "wire code" scheme as a substitute for making actual measurements of magnetic fields, because they lacked the money to buy the instrument-a gaussmeter-needed to make such measurements. Ed Leeper, a physicist, improvised an inexpensive substitute for the gaussmeter they could not afford to buy: a wire coil connected to a buzzer. This device was employed as a detecting instrument by Nancy Wertheimer during her early investigations; the wire codes she and Ed Leeper eventually developed were based on the response of this device to ambient fields.

> In 1990 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared a draft document entitled Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields (3) which reviewed the evidence of an association between disease and either proximity to electric power lines, or exposure to the measured ELF magnetic fields around power lines, or the "wire code category" of subjects' residences, and held public hearings on it in 1991. The physics community at that time was represented by Robert K. Adair, then Chairman of the Physics Department at Yale University, who pooh-poohed the idea that ELF fields from electric power lines were causing disease in human beings, but nevertheless took the time and trouble to publish some scientific papers (4-6) relevant to the issue.

> At the EPA's public hearings, two of which I attended, considerable testimony came from members of the public, much of it from people who were testifying about their own experiences of ill health which they had concluded was caused by their proximity to some electric power line near their residence. At the initial hearing in Washington, D.C., I remember meeting a woman who had traveled at her own expense all the way from Australia to report her experience of such illness!

> A member of the United States House of Representatives, the Honorable Joseph M. McDade, who currently chairs the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the House Appropriations Committee, was sufficiently concerned to decide that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) should study the scientific evidence on this issue and report to Congress.

> The NAS was duly approached by the Department of Energy; it recommended that it be asked to examine the relationship between exposure to ELF power-frequency fields in residences and the evidence of certain types of disease. The Department of Energy so informed McDade's Subcommittee, and the necessary language was inserted into what became Public Law 102-104. The U.S. Department of Energy then contracted with the National Research Council (NRC) for the study to be done that had been recommended. The NRC established the Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems (within the Board on Radiation Effects Research, which is a part of the NRC's Commission on Life Sciences) to do the work. A report (7) was finally written which was released to the public on October 31, 1996, and was published as a book the following year. This report showed that the Committee reached two conclusions that appeared to be mutually contradictory; it also identified and discussed an apparent paradox, which it termed the "wire code paradox". (8)

> On the one hand, the Committee found no convincing evidence that exposure to 50- or 60-Hz fields in residences is harmful to the health of mammals. `There is no convincing evidence that exposure to 60-Hz electric and magnetic fields causes cancer in animals." (9) "There is no evidence of any adverse effects on reproduction or development in animals, particularly mammals, from exposure to power-frequency 50- or 60-Hz electric and magnetic fields. " (9) "Magnetic fields measured in the home after diagnosis of disease in a resident have not been found to be associated with an excess incidence of childhood leukemia or other cancers. " (10) The magnetic fields referred to in the preceding sentence are extremely low frequency magnetic fields.

> On the other hand, the Committee found that there was evidence to support an association between the residential wire code category and disease! "The wire-code classification concerns only outdoor factors related to the distribution of electric power to residences, such as the distance of a home from a power line and the size of the wires close to the home." (11) "Living in homes classified as being in the high wire-code category is associated with about a 1.5-fold excess of childhood leukemia, a rare disease." (10) "The associations for childhood leukemia have been shown to be statistically reliable and robust findings that must be considered carefully in drawing conclusions about overall risk." (12)

> The Committee tried to explain how this latter finding could occur, but was unable to. "The association between residential proximity to high-wire-code configurations and increased rates of childhood leukemia remains unexplained, as do the associations between occupational exposures and leukemia and brain cancer. " (13) "Studies have not identified the factors that explain the association between wire codes and childhood leukemia." (10) "The possibility that wire codes better represent another characteristic of magnetic fields rather than their magnitude at 60 Hz is relatively unexplored so far." (14)

> The wire-code paradox is that disease has been found to be more closely associated with the wire code categories that were envisioned as a surrogate for measurements of the powerfrequency magnetic field strength, than with actual measured values of the magnetic field strength! This observation was first made when the Wertheimer-Leeper study was replicated in the Denver area. (15)

> I have read the NBC report pretty thoroughly, and at this point because the report itself and the Committee that prepared it have both been attacked by those members of the public who were unhappy with its findings I want to say that I have found it to be a very solid piece of scientific work. The conclusions drawn were justified by the scientific evidence examined. The report is both objective and thorough. I found no evidence of any personal bias in report (although the individuals who made up the Committee did bring their individuals personal biases with them).

> Having said that, however, I must point out that the publicity given to this report by the National Academy of Sciences at the time of its release to the public does show very clear evidence of bias! The news release (16) dated October 31, 1996, issued by the National Academy of Sciences announcing the findings of this Committee and releasing its report to the public reports only one of the two major conclusions reached by the Committee. It quotes a statement by the Chairman of the Committee that displays that individual's personal bias. And it completely ignores the "wire code paradox" that is discussed in the report itself!

> The bias in the NAS news release was so glaring that the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) issued its own news release (17) on the same date to try to give the public a more balanced picture of the findings of the Committee. But not very many news outlets paid much attention to the BEMS news release. The NAS news release was the one reported in most media.

> The result was that the grossly biased news release put out by the National Academy of Sciences conveyed the impression to the American public that the entire study was biased in the same way as the news release! Hence the members of the Committee were subjected to >derous attacks which are not justified by the report they produced. They did successfully put aside their personal biases sufficiently to produce an objective scientific evaluation of the evidence that can be relied upon with confidence. But I caution that it is only the report itself that can be relied upon-not published statements about the report. Unfortunately, the NAS has perpetuated its slanted account of the NBC report by posting a biased summary of it on the World Wide Web. (18) Even before the NAS report was released, the American Physical Society (APS) had issued a statement (19) on this issue denying that ELF fields can possibly cause the adverse health effects being attributed to them, and urging that all research on this subject be halted because it is a waste of the country's resources. The APS recently reaffirmed this position, the basis for it being that there are no reasons, either theoretical or experimental, for believing that powerfrequency fields cause disease: the frequency is simply too low. As a physicist, I agree.

> However, the APS then proceeded to denigrate the whole idea that the fields around power lines could possibly be harmful to health. Here I part company with my fellow physicists. There is simply too much evidence that there are harmful electromagnetic fields around electric power lines-at least, around some power lines!

> The problem then becomes one of obtaining an answer to this question: If power-frequency fields of 50- or 60-Hz are not harmful to health, but there are electromagnetic fields capable of causing cancer in the immediate vicinity of certain electric power lines, what are these carcinogenic electromagnetic fields and where do they come from?

> I was able to answer this question and solve the "wire code paradox" when it dawned on me that the health effects that people complain of in the vicinity of electric power lines are the same ones that are reported in the vicinity of radio-frequency and microwave antennas. I realized that this must mean that there are radio-frequency signals on electric power lines!

> Such signals would produce an electromagnetic field characteristic of an inefficient radio antenna, meaning that the field does not radiate energy away from the line. It further means that the spatially separate types of field around an efficient radio antenna-the near and far fields that occupy different regions of space-do not occur as spatially separate fields an inefficient antenna! Instead, these field types all occupy the same region of space quite close to the wire of an inefficient antenna! It is as though these different field types were "piled up on top of each other" in the same limited region of space immediately surrounding the wire carrying the radio-frequency current.

> Therefore, if radio-frequency signals are continuously present on an electric power line, the space immediately surrounding this line, out to some distance, will be filled with the radio-frequency field characteristic of an inefficient antenna. Because this field will consist of a superposition of the field types that are present at different distances around an efficient radio antenna of the same frequency, it is likely to be more hazardous to health than exposure to the field around an efficient radio antenna of the same frequency.

> What are the hazards to health of exposure to radio-frequency fields? One of them is cancer, as determined by controlled laboratory studies of rodents exposed intermittently throughout an entire lifetime to frequencies of 2450 MHz (rats) (20) and 900 MHz (transgenic mice). (21)

> The final remaining question is key: Are radio-frequency signals continuously present on electric power lines? Having no budget or instruments to go out and make measurements, I turned to the library. There I found that the answer is yes! Since the very early twentieth century, radio signals have been deliberately placed on electric power lines by electric power companies for system communications purposes! These radio-frequency signals on electric power lines are called power line carrier within the electric power industry.

> The presence of radio-frequency signals on electric power lines is very well documented in the engineering literature. I have written a thoroughly documented report (22) that discusses power line carrier-its history, its use overseas and within the USA, the radio-frequency electromagnetic fields around lines with power line carrier, and its possible relationship to the health hazards associated with proximity to electric power lines.

> The earliest use made of power line carrier was on local distribution lines in England and Europe, but this use was very light. World War II, with its aerial bombardments, provided the motivation: it was necessary to be able to turn street lights off and on instantly from a central location (before and after a blackout). Similar use was made of power line carrier on selected local distribution lines in the USA, but for the most part power line carrier was not much used on local distribution lines here in the USA until the past two decades, after Congress passed laws mandating energy efficiency and the deregulation of the electric power industry loomed on the horizon. Until the 1970s, power line carrier in the USA was mostly used on transmission lines, where its use has been heavy since the 1920s. Indeed, a small world-wide industry has arisen to provide the equipment for power line carrier on electric power lines. The companies involved include Westinghouse in the USA, Hitachi in Japan, and Brown-Boveri in Switzerland.

> So there is no doubt that radio-frequency signals are continuously present on many-though not all- electric power lines in the USA, which means that these power lines are necessarily continuously surrounded by a radio-frequency electromagnetic field which is confined to the space immediately around the wire carrying the radio-frequency signal. The intensity of this field declines strongly as the distance from the line is increased. This is the electromagnetic field that is the best candidate for the agent responsible for the increased incidence of childhood leukemia and other cancers in people who live close to electric power lines, in my professional judgment.

> Because the "wire code" categories incorporate distance as a variable, it is hardly surprising that they provide a good surrogate for this radio-frequency field. Indeed, if one considers how "wire codes" were originally developed by Wertheimer and Leeper, there is reason to think that it is no accident that `wire codes" constitute an excellent surrogate for the radio-frequency field that results from power line carrier!

> The story is told by Paul Brodeur.(2) Because Nancy Wertheimer was carrying out a personal study that had no funding, there was no money available to purchase a gaussmeter that could be used to measure the strength of the magnetic fields she was interested in. Her physicist friend Ed Leeper put together a contraption consisting of a coil used by TV repairmen (to demagnetize TV sets) and an audio amplifier and speaker taken from an old walkie-talkie. The coil served as the sensor, while the speaker produced an audible hum that varied in according to the strength of the signal He gave this gadget to her as a Christmas present in 1974.

> Paul Brodeur describes this device as "a crude gaussmeter" (23) but it is not a gaussmeter at all! The coil detects the time-variation of the magnetic flux; that is, the voltage and current that develop in the coil and flow through this instrument are proportional to One obtains a value for B by time-integration of the signal from the sensor coil. This is why a gaussmeter is expensive: it has to have sophisticated electronics in the circuit for filtering and to accomplish this integration.

> The crude instrument that Ed Leeper had constructed could not measure B, which is proportional to the strength of the magnetic field. What it did measure was a parameter that I call the magnetic induction current. (Historically, no scientist has ever given this parameter a name.) This is the magnetic analog of Maxwell's displacement current,

> The "wire codes" that Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper developed and employed in their original report' of the association between childhood cancer and the presumed magnetic fields around electric power lines were developed on the basis of the response of the instrument Ed Leeper had built, which was an uncalibrated magnetic induction current meter!

> This solves the `wire code paradox": wire codes were designed, unwittingly, to serve as a surrogate for the magnetic induction current. This differs from the magnetic field strength primarily in that it gives a frequency-weighted response. In other words, Ed Leeper's magnetic induction current meter responded far more strongly to radio-frequency magnetic fields than to power-frequency magnetic fields precisely because it was not a proper gaussmeter!

> Ed, being a physicist, knew this could occur. But because he and Nancy Wertheimer-like the other scientists who have studied this problem-had no idea there could possibly be a radio-frequency field around an electric power line, they misinterpreted the readings of their gadget and thought the time-varying magnetic field their instrument was responding to was the power frequency magnetic field that they knew was present. They wrote their first paper on the basis of this misinterpretation, and it has never been corrected until now.

> Of course, I have not yet proven that my interpretation is correct. For example, until the presence of power line carrier on the local distribution lines of Public Service of Colorado, the firm that provides electric power to the Denver metropolitan area, is confirmed, I have only a hypothesis. I have made an attempt to confirm this by telephoning to Colorado, but I was never able to connect with the right person.

> Taking appropriate instrumentation out to Colorado and making measurements is another way to accomplish confirmation, but I have not been able to do this for lack of money. Also, I am not sure what would be the best instrument to use to make the measurement. The usual instruments for measuring radio-frequency fields measure field strength in the far field, but the characteristics of the radio-frequency field around power lines are such as to render a quantitative reading from such an instrument meaningless.

> It may well be that a frequency-filtered version of Ed Leeper's magnetic induction current meter would be best for the purpose. However, such instruments are not commercially available at this time, so I should have to build it myself, or hire it built. As I am not an electronics technician and have had no money to pay to have an instrument developed and tested, this course of action was not open to me. Despite the fact that I am offering an unconfirmed hypothesis here to explain the relationship between power line electromagnetic fields and disease, I am confident that it is correct for the simple reason that it explains everything that was previously mysterious and could not be explained! Furthermore, it is fully consistent with the laws of physics-which could not be said for the assumption that power frequency magnetic fields were responsible for the cancer cases under study, as Robert Adair has demonstrated rather well! (3-5)

> Because the use of power line carrier is consistent over time on any one electric company's lines, the relationship between power-frequency fields and the radio-frequency fields due to power line carrier will be pretty stable over time, hence consistent historically over a decade or two, at least (though probably not over very long periods of time, such as half a century). The consistent relationship between the two fields is what has made it possible to show an association between disease and power-frequency magnetic field strength, even though this association is not causal. It has also made it possible to replicate an earlier study and confirm its findings, when both studies were carried out within the service area of the same electric power company; for example, confirmation by Savitz (15)of the original Wertheimer-Leeper study. (1)

> This consistency would not be expected to extend between electric power companies, though. There is no reason to expect that one company will use power line carrier to the same degree or in exactly the same way as another. Indeed, some may not use it at all! So, while a consistent relationship between the two kinds of fields can be expected within any one electric power company, the same expectation does not exist between any two power companies.

> This is why a study conducted in one geographic area may not be confirmed by a similar study in another geographic area, when all attention is focussed on power-frequency fields. It also explains why a study conducted entirely within the service area of a single electric power company can show a stronger association between disease incidence and power-frequency magnetic field than a study of many more people which covers a number of different service areas. (24)

> At the National Cancer Institute, a group of investigators in the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics has been conducting epidemiological studies of the relationship between certain cancers and residential exposure to power-frequency electromagnetic fields. In a recently published study of children who lived in nine different states-Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin they did not find an association between disease and measured magnetic field strengths (24) (Basic information on this study is reported in a separate publication. (25)

> The only valid way to conduct a large study covering the service areas of multiple electric power companies is to measure the field parameter that is actually responsible for the disease: for example, the magnetic induction current, or possibly the radio-frequency field strength. This is why these investigators obtained a negative result from their study, (24) even though a later study (26) of theirs produced results showing there is an association between the use of electrical appliances and the development of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)! This study showed that use by pregnant women of electric blankets was associated with later development of ALL in their children (95% confidence limits: 1.11-2.29); when children themselves used electric blankets, the association was even stronger (95% confidence limit: 1.52-4.98)! A similar association was also found with children's use of such electrical appliances as hair dryers, video machines in arcades, and video games connected to a television set. (26)

> All these findings are consistent with my hypothesis that the electromagnetic fields actually causing cancer are radio-frequency fields from power line carrier. Using electric blankets at night during sleep brings a person's body very, very close to current-carrying wires, thereby bringing it into the region of space occupied by the radio-frequency field. And the exposure lasts many hours, if the electric blanket is used all night long. It is no wonder that electric blankets exhibit the strongest evidence of any electric appliance with the development of cancer in the people who use them!

> Other appliances that use electricity for heating can be expected to place a user at high risk, also, if the use is frequent or prolonged. This would account for hair dryers, for example. The reason is that electric currents are typically relatively high in appliances that use electricity to produce heat, and this can be expected to increase the "danger zone" around an appliance.

> There are probably two reasons why video machines in arcades and video games on a TV set are hazardous to health. On the one hand, video displays generally have strong harmonics that extend to quite high frequencies. This means that will be relatively high near cathode-ray-tube (CRT) type video displays. The other reason is that computer games are addictive to the player, meaning that people who play them-children, especially tend to remain in front of these machines playing the game for long periods of time. A high magnetic induction current and a long exposure time are the factors most likely to be responsible for the observed association between cancer and video games. (26)

> >B. Electrosensitivity

> Up to now I have discussed only major diseases such as cancer to which the entire population is subject. Now I want to make brief mention of the phenomenon of hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields, also known as electrosensitivity, because people who are electrosensitive typically react very strongly and negatively to the fields around electric power lines, and to electrical appliances. I hypothesize that it is really the radio-frequency field around modem electric power lines, including the electrical wiring within buildings, that they are actually sensitive to. I have not been able to test this hypothesis, so I cannot be sure that they are reacting to extremely low frequency fields, as well.

> While I do not believe that power-frequency fields cause frank disease in human beings who are not electrosensitive, it is certainly possible that they may cause subtle biological effects. And at this time, we cannot be sure whether people who are electrosensitive are unusually sensitive to subtle biological effects of power-frequency fields, or are just reacting unusually strongly to the radio-frequency fields associated with power line carrier on electric power lines. Studies are needed to investigate this point.

> II. Recommendations

> Congress wants to receive recommendations regarding what should be done, especially what it should do. One thing that is needed is research focussed not on extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields, but on radio-frequency fields. It is dogma within the electric power industry that power line carrier is safe, so some resistance on the part of the electric power industry to the idea that power line carrier is hazardous can be expected. A few well-chosen studies could prove to be convincing on this point.

> If the health problems associated with electric power lines are the result of exposure to the radio-frequency fields from power line carrier, as I have discussed and as I believe the available evidence indicates is the case, then the electromagnetic fields around electric power lines will cease to be hazardous to health when the radio-frequency signals now present on electric power lines as power line carrier are removed.

> A. Prudent Avoidance

> Until power line carrier can be removed from electric power lines, prudent avoidance will be required. In the case of transmission lines, this will consist of establishing a wider "empty corridor" around the transmission line than is currently customary. The width of this "empty corridor" will depend on the voltage at which the transmission line operates, being greater for higher voltages. At this time there are no solid data to indicate what width of "empty corridor" is needed for safety; there are only rough indications.

> Most people will be exposed to the electromagnetic fields around electric power lines in the local distribution system, so prudent avoidance in most cases will consist of keeping a safe distance away from wires carrying commercially produced electric current. (Home-generated electric power should be safe, as it will have no radio-frequency component added to it.)

> Nearly every electric appliance will pose some hazard to anyone who is close to it, if the electricity passing through it includes power line carrier. The length of time that one is close to the appliance, and the distance from it to the person's body, are the critical parameters. Work in front of video display terminals certainly qualifies as a potential hazard, since the user's body is normally within two feet of the device and the user is typically exposed for most of an 8-hour day. (However, the circuitry inside computers and video displays can also be a source of radio-frequency fields, so it is not a simple task to evaluate the health hazard from such devices.)

> The electric potential (voltage) and the amount of current flowing determine the field intensity; the larger either or both of these is, the greater the distance required for safety. Again, at this time no one knows exactly what constitutes a safe distance in any particular situation.

> B. Eliminating Power Line Carrier

> There is some good news and some bad news about the technical challenge of eliminating power line carrier from electric power lines. The good news is related to transmission lines.

> 1. Transmission Lines

> Power line carrier is employed to meet the communications needs of transmission systems. The good news is that there already exists an alternative technology for this purpose: fiber-optic cable, with the signals being carried by light. Fiber-optic cable is a safe technology, in contrast to power line carrier, because the electromagnetic fields remain confined inside the cable. So all that is needed to make transmission lines safe is to replace power line carrier with fiber-optic cable on existing transmission lines (which is easier said than done), and forbid the use of power line carrier on new transmission lines. This latter can be accomplished rapidly via legislation or regulatory action, or more slowly through education.

> Prompt action taken via legislation or regulation can halt the use of power line carrier on new transmission lines, but it will be both time-consuming and expensive to try to `retrofit" transmission lines already in existence. First of all, transmission towers and their bases need >to be stronger when fiber-optic cable is to be used than when power line carrier is employed.

> Secondly, there is a limited supply of fiber-optic cable available, and also a limited supply of trained crews experienced in installing it. If all new transmission lines in the USA had to be equipped with fiber-optic cable, this might tax the industry that produces fiber-optic cable! If to this is added a program to install fiber-optic cable on existing transmission lines as well, it is possible that there may not be an adequate supply of fiber-optic cable available to meet the unexpected demand!

> What this means is that it will take time to eliminate power line carrier from transmission lines, and there will be a cost penalty associated with doing so. But it is feasible.

> And there is another reason why this should be done as soon as possible. Because the electric power industry strives to provide an uninterrupted supply of electric power, maintenance work done on transmission lines is typically done live" whenever possible. This means that "the maintenance workers are exposed to the radio-frequency fields of power line carrier when they are working on "live" transmission lines. If I am correct, these fields are very hazardous to health. Removing power line carrier from transmission lines would remove this occupational hazard to the health of transmission line maintenance workers.

> It should not be forgotten that the federal government owns and operates transmission lines in connection with its electric power generation projects (the Bonneville Power Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority, etc.). Perhaps the U.S. Department of Energy should ascertain what expertise it has that can be brought to bear on this challenge. (2).

> Local Distribution Lines

> The bad news is that there is no ready-made technological solution available as a substitute1 for the use of power line carrier on local distribution lines. Perhaps fiber-optic cable could be used on large feeder lines that carry heavy currents, but I don't think it is feasible to use it on smaller distribution lines.

> In the United Kingdom, power line carrier is being used for the automated reading of meters. (27-28) Some electric power companies in the USA are undoubtedly using power line carrier for this purpose, but not all are. An analysis needs to be made of all the different uses to which power line carrier is being put on local distribution lines, before a plan can be developed to replace it. And, of course, any technology to be substituted for power line carrier must be evaluated for safety, to ensure that one hazardous technology is not replaced by another hazardous technology!

> Probably the organization best suited to carry out a survey of the way power line carrier is being used on local distribution lines in the USA is the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the electric power industry's trade association. Perhaps the U.S. Department of Energy should be asked to contract with EPRI to perform such a survey, as an initial step.

> Power line carrier needs to be removed from local distribution lines as rapidly as possible, since these are the lines that enter people's homes and workplaces. If the major use of power line carrier on local distribution lines is the automated reading of meters, then a return to using human meter readers is certainly possible, although it will be costly in comparison. Al1 fringe benefit to the community of using human meter readers is that many neighborhoods today are virtually empty of residents during the day, because both husband and wife work. The presence of meter readers in a neighborhood can serve as a sort of crime patrol. Perhaps local communities could share the cost of meter readers, because their presence in a1l neighborhood performs a community safety function. Or perhaps all the different utilities could share the cost of meter readers who could read all meters at a site on a single visit.

> October 9,1998

> References

> - 1. Wertheimer, N. W., and E. Leeper. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 109 (1979) 273-284.
> - 2. Brodeur, P. Currents of Death. NY: Simon and Schuster, 1989; Chapter 1, pages 15-24.
> - 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields [An External Review Draft]. EPA/600/6-90/005B. Oct. 1990.
> - 4. Adair, Robert K. Constraints on biological effects of weak extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Physical Review A43 (1991) 1039-1048.
> - 5. Adair, Robert K. Constraints of thermal noise on the effects of weak 60-Hz magnetic fields acting on biological magnetite. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 91 (1994) 2952-2959.
> - 6. Adair, Robert K. Biological response to weak 60-Hz electric and magnetic fields must vary as the square of the field strength. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 91 (1994) 9422-9425.
> - 7. Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997.
> - 8. Ibid, page 165.
> - 9. Ibid, page 7.
> - 10. Ibid, page 3.
> - 11. Ibid, page 2.
> - 12. Ibid, pages 198-199.
> - 13. Ibid, page 198.
> - 14. Ibid, page 39.
> - 15. Savitz, D. A., H. Wachtel, F. A. Barnes, E. M. John & J. G. Tvrdik. Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields. American Journal of Epidemiology 128 (1988) 21-38.
> - 16. National Research Council. No Adverse Health Effects Seen From Residential Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields. News release (embargoed until 11 a.m. EST Thursday, October 31, 1996) from the National Academy of Sciences Office of News and Public Information.
> - 17. The Bioelectromagnetics Society. NAS report confirms need for EMF research, say scientists. News release (embargoed until 11:00 a.m. EST October 31, 1996).
> - 18. The National Academy of Sciences has posted a summary of the study on its World Wide Web page at: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~esaamelb/nas.htm (this summary is just as unbalanced and biased as its news release Reference 16 was).
> - 19. The Council of the American Physical Society adopted a statement in April, 1995, on Power Line FieIds and Public Health which may be found on its World Wide Web page at: http://www.aps.org/statements/95.2.html (which statement was reaffirmed by the Council in September, 1998).
> - 20. Chou, C. K., A. W. Guy, L. L. Kunz, R. B. Johnson, J. J. Crowley & J. H. Krupp. Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics 13 (1992) 469-496.
> - 21. Repacholi, M. H., A. Basten, V. Gebski, D. Noonan, J. Finnie & A. W. Harris.Lymphomas in Eµ-Pim1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields. >Radiation Research 147 (1997) 631-640.
> - 22. Lundquist, M. A. A Basis for Evaluating Environmental Impact Statements for Electric Power Transmission Lines With Respect to the Assessment of Potential EMF Health Hazard. Reno, NV: Bio-Electro-Magnetics Institute, May 1997.
> - 23. Reference 2, page 18.
> - 24. Linet, M. S., E. E. Hatch, R. A. Kleinerman, L. L. Robison, W. T. Kaune, D. R. Friedman, R. K. Severson, C. M. Haines, C. T. Hartsock, S. Niwa, S. Wacholder & R. E. Tarone. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. New England Journal of Medicine 337 (1997) l-7.
> - 25. Kleinerman, R. A., M. S. Linet, E. E. Hatch, S. Wacholder, R. E. Tarone, R. K. Severson, W. T. Kaune, D. R. Friedman, C. M. Haines, C. R. Muirhead, J. D. Boice, Jr. & L. L. Robison. Magnetic field exposure assessment in a case-control study of childldhood leukemia. Epidemiology 8 (1997) 575-58.
> - 26. Hatch, E. E., M. S. Linet, R. A Kleinerman, R. E. Tarone, R. K. Severson, C. T. Hartsock, C. Haines, W. T. Kaune, D. Friedman, L. L. Robison & S. Wacholder. >Association between childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia and use of electrical appliances during pregnancy and childhood. Epidemiology 9 (1998) 234-245.
> - 27. Miura, N., H. Sato & H. Narita. Automatic meter-reading system by power line carrier communications. Proceedings of the IEE, Part C (Generation, Transmission and Distribution) 137 (1990) 25-31.
> - 28. Clery, D. Automated meter readings are coming-down the mains. New Scientist 126