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
