Child leukaemia "not linked" to Powerlines?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Headline: Child leukaemia "not linked to Powerlines".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26068363

Children who live near overhead power lines do not have an increased risk of developing leukaemia, a study has said.
Data on 16,500 children who developed leukaemia in Britain between 1962 and 2008 was analysed.

The paper found no increased leukaemia risk for those living near power lines from the 1980s onwards - but a higher risk did exist in the 1960s and 70s.
The researchers said the findings were "reassuring" but work was being done to understand the historical patterns.

Any thoughts on the highlighted part? Is this the "1 time out of 20" margin of error? If so, which way?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do believe that was discovered decades ago. However, the risk did occur in the past is news to me.

 

[paulhutch]

Since the power on the lines has not changed in any way that would make them have a lower impact during modern times, I think this helps prove that the correlation of increased risk in the 60s and 70s was a correlation that was not a causation.

If they could track other important environmental factors (likely not possible at this late date) I suspect they'd find the correlation to more closely track with other factors like air or water quality.

 

[joesixpack]

Didn't they start fluoridating electricity in the '80s? I think that would explain the differences.

 

[casebro]

Joe, I though it was when they started pulling the Dolphins out of the grid before they drowned that did it.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Old news.

There has never been a meaningful study that shows low-level EMF induces DNA damage, the currently only accepted mechanism for cancer development.

If I didn't chalk this up to observation bias, the only other plausible mechanism would be the accidental spilling of chemicals around the power lines during the installation process. Remember there was a vast expansion of the power grid during these times and PCBs and other potentially carcinogenic chemicals were routinely used during this time in transformers, etc.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/pcb/docs/pcb.pdf

~Dr. Imago

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Old news.

There has never been a meaningful study that shows low-level EMF induces DNA damage, the currently only accepted mechanism for cancer development.

If I didn't chalk this up to observation bias, the only other plausible mechanism would be the accidental spilling of chemicals around the power lines during the installation process. Remember there was a vast expansion of the power grid during these times and PCBs and other potentially carcinogenic chemicals were routinely used during this time in transformers, etc.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/pcb/docs/pcb.pdf

~Dr. Imago

I take issue with this being "old news". It is a new study and, to my mind at least, puts another nail in the coffin (sorry about the use of this metaphor ) of the deadly Baby Killing Death Rays.

I lived for years a 100 metres from a 110KV power line. Before I moved there I did my research . At the time there was a nice EMF info site run by an American university that collected, posted and commentated on scientific EMF papers as they were published. The bottom line conclusion was that either there was no negative health impact or that, if there was, it was too small to measure.

After living at this location for more than a decade, the provincial power supplier wanted to upgrade the lines to 220KV. This resulted in mucho ill-informed backlash from the community including resolutions by local town councils with final result that the upgrade was not done.

Given what I witnessed, combined with all the nonsense I have read, I don't suppose the latest study will convince the believers but it is interesting.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Joe, I though it was when they started pulling the Dolphins out of the grid before they drowned that did it.

Have you seen even one dragon since 1980?

 

[Dr. Imago]

I take issue with this being "old news".

I agree the "woo" got out of control. If you're issue was with that or that I was somehow minimizing the hysteria, mea culpa.

My point was that it has been known for decades that EMF does not induce nuclear damage in cells, unless you are so close that it cooks you (in which case you have more immediate problems).

This was a classic "cart before the horse" form of investigation that drew conclusions on observations before a plausible mechanism was known. I'm not disagreeing with that. The study, though, could not account for the upsurge in the 1960's and 1970's.

What is more plausible, in my mind, is a mechanism like I alluded to - which can't (and won't) ever be tested at this point. As a former ten-year-old boy at one point in my life, I can tell you that it is difficult to overestimate the allure of a large, humming green box next to a power pole. Living in close proximity to the same is even more enticing. And, as we all know, ten-year-old boys always wash their hands before supper after playing outside.

~Dr. Imago

 

[paulhutch]

Didn't they start fluoridating electricity in the '80s? I think that would explain the differences.

I bet it's that the deadly cell phone rays that increased from the late 70s neutralized the deadly AC power rays.

Then again it could be the increasing good renewable green energy put in the mix starting in the 70s weakened the effect of the deadly fossil fuel based energy.

Aren't arbitrary correlations fun, they can prove anything.

 

[joesixpack]

Joe, I though it was when they started pulling the Dolphins out of the grid before they drowned that did it.

I was using dolphin safe electricity before dolphin safe electricity was cool.

 

[Jim_MDP]

I was using dolphin safe electricity before dolphin safe electricity was cool.

Ninja'd by a damn hipster.


[Irony] I've been hating damn hipsters since before hating hipsters was cool. [/Irony]

 

[Soapy Sam]

I blame subsonic vibrations from wind turbines.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I blame subsonic vibrations from wind turbines.

Ah. So that explains the recent decrease in cancer cases.

 

[Corsair 115]

Have you seen even one dragon since 1980?

Only in movies featuring your namesake!

 

[catsmate]

<snip>
If I didn't chalk this up to observation bias, the only other plausible mechanism would be the accidental spilling of chemicals around the power lines during the installation process. Remember there was a vast expansion of the power grid during these times and PCBs and other potentially carcinogenic chemicals were routinely used during this time in transformers, etc.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/pcb/docs/pcb.pdf

~Dr. Imago

I was wondering myself if the (apparent) early correlation might be related to the construction process in some way.

 

[jj]

Since the power on the lines has not changed in any way that would make them have a lower impact during modern times, I think this helps prove that the correlation of increased risk in the 60s and 70s was a correlation that was not a causation.

One word: PCB's. Yes, there are clusters around transformer cites that have leaked PCB transformer oil.

This is not terribly surprising, really.

This has nothing to do with EM fields, of course, and everything to do with chemical poisoning.

 

[crhkrebs]

Old news.

There has never been a meaningful study that shows low-level EMF induces DNA damage, the currently only accepted mechanism for cancer development.

I remember one of my medical professors facetiously giving an explanation for this "phenomenon" using the Piezo-electric effect. White blood cells are (mostly) made inside the marrow of the long bones. Low level EMF causes low grade oscillations of bone spicules on the inside surface facing the marrow. (Think how the watch battery drives the quartz crystal to keep accurate time in your watch). These bone crystal oscillations disrupt normal myeloproliferation and causes the release of immature white blood cells. Hence, leukemia.

This kind of makes sense, especially if you conflate EMF radiation applied to a crystal (a young child's bone growth while living close to power lines) with direct application of electricity to a crystal (the quartz watch example). They are not the same thing.

Of course this was just an intellectual exercise, as even in the mid 1980's, it was understood that living close to power lines produced no ill medical effects. And if low grade EMF actually did disrupt one's DNA, then we should easily see a plethora of developmental problems and diseases, as DR. Imago states.

Finally, I associate the word "crystal" and "woo" together too easily nowadays.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

One word: PCB's. Yes, there are clusters around transformer cites that have leaked PCB transformer oil.

This is not terribly surprising, really.

This has nothing to do with EM fields, of course, and everything to do with chemical poisoning.

Exactly. The link was established long ago. But it was the oil based paint and insulation they use for transformers as I remember. Maybe it was oil too, but I don't remember that. Anyway you are right, it was the PCBs, not EM fields. One of Monsanto's less than ethical moves of the past they prefer people forget.

 

[JSFolk]

One of the ways they keep areas around power lines, pipeline easements, etc, clear of foliage is by spraying defoliants. Could be that in the 60's and 70's, they were using defoliants that have since been phased out?