At the Pub: Friendly conversations about the biological effects of power lines and electric appliances.
July 4, 2026. I was decluttering my office and found documents from my years of teaching, which I no longer need as I retired in 2018. I came across something I wrote back in 2001 entitled, At the Pub. It was my attempt to share information about the health effects of power line electromagnetic fields, something I had been studying since 1995. As I reread my article, I realized it was still relevant and decided to post it here. Note that this was written 25 years ago and there was less concern about wireless radiation as few people used cell phones back then. We didn’t have smart meters on our homes and WiFi was not as ubiquitous as it is today. If you want to know about the biological effects of power lines and other sources of low frequency electromagnetic fields … read on.
At the Pub, written on January 1st, 2001.
It’s Friday night. Physico is sipping his beer waiting for his friends to join him at the local pub. He glances down at the evening paper. The headlines on the front page catch his attention and he shakes his head. “Can’t do anything without someone trying to stop you.” He mutters under his breath.
Just then Epidemio, Invitrio and Simplistico join him.
“Sorry we’re late but a student dropped by my office just as I was leaving.” Simplistico offers while taking off his jacket and hanging it on the back of the chair.
They order a pitcher of beer and begin to relax reviewing the events of the week. They’ve been meeting like this for the past 6 years, discussing issues over beer every Friday night. It helps them unwind.
“So, what were you reading in the paper?” Invitrio asks.
“Remember that new power line they’re going to erect on London street? Well, surprise, surprise, there’s a public protest. Seems that the residents are concerned about the electromagnetic fields. The meeting’s tonight at City Hall.” Physico offers.
“There’s always something to protest, isn’t there?” Says Simplistico.
“Yes, but I think they have a reason to be concerned.” Says Epidemio. “The power lines are just a few feet away from the houses and the new ones are going to be 44 kilo volts and that’s a much higher voltage than the existing line. I certainly wouldn’t want to be living that close. And there’s concern about cancers from powerlines so thank goodness people are taking their health seriously and opposing the new line.”
“Come, come Epidemio. There’s no evidence that electromagnetic field from power lines cause cancer. Scientists are divided on the issue.” Physico pipes up.
“They may be divided but the evidence is mounting. Anyone who reads the literature and has an open mind can see the evidence.” Epidemio asserts. “This is politically a very hot issue and we know that scientists can be bought. Just give them a bit of research money and they’ll say anything you want them to say.”
“Now, now Epidemio. You’re over stating the issue. I don’t think the evidence is strong at all and I HAVE read the literature. Also, just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they’ve been bought.” Invitrio asserts. “Even the epidemiological studies are inconclusive. You know that.”
“Yes, it states right here,” Simplistic says reading the newspaper. “Although the results of studies on childhood cancer are disturbing, they are inconclusive and none of them indicate causation.”
“But epidemiological evidence never shows causation, only association. That’s a red herring. It’s meant to mislead the unsuspecting public.” Asserts Epidemio.
“Causation/association … what’s the difference?” asks Simplistico.
‘Epidemiological studies compare a control population with a test population. The test population is exposed to the agent being studied (tobacco, lead, electromagnetic fields, whatever), while the control population is not exposed or exposed to a much lower amount. Scientists then examine the odds ratio or the relative risk of getting the illness. This is a simple ratio of the number of cases they observed compared with the number they expect for a given population. Values above one show an increased risk and the higher the ratio the greater the risk. It’s that simple. If it happens enough you begin to suspect that where there’s smoke (association) there’s fire (causation) but we need the lab studies to find the fire.” States Epidemio.
“And the lab studies haven’t found fire so perhaps it’s all just smoke.” Says Invitrio.
“Perhaps, but perhaps the lab scientists aren’t doing the right experiments.” Says Epidemio.
“But is has to be statistically significant and you need a large sample size with appropriate controls and we know how difficult this is to do in the real world. Also, where do you get your control population if we are all exposed to electromagnetic fields?” said Invitrio. “Studies in the real world are always so messy. That’s why I like to work in the lab. If you control all the variables then you can state things for certain.” says Invitrio.
“Even laboratory-based experiments are messy, Invitrio. I prefer to work on models in theoretical physics. Now that’s where the action is. Once we had a model, we can predict what will happen and we don’t have to go out into the field to measure anything. Nor do we have to waste time setting up artificial experiments in the laboratory.”
“I’ve been thinking about this topic ever since it was first raised and I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Electromagnetic fields at 60 Hertz frequencies are NOT a health concern! There is simply not enough energy to cause any type of known damage to human cells. We can’t even dislodge an electron at that frequency so how could it possibly affect living cells! If only you guys knew more about physics, you wouldn’t waste your time on this topic.” Says Physico.
“Physico, theory is fine and it has its place but how do you explain all of those studies that have found a statistically significant increase incidence of leukemia among children? One of the latest studies was done in Toronto by researchers at the Sick Kids Hospital. And what about occasional studies that have found not only leukemia but also brain tumors and breast cancer? And then there’s the studies showing increased incidence of miscarriages. These are all statistically significant finds. They can’t all be wrong.
“No, they can’t but if EMFs cause leukemia, when why haven’t all of the studies found an increased incidence of leukemia? How come some find more breast cancer or brain cancer? How can they differ? Isn’t this a serious inconsistency in the data?” says Physico.
“It is an inconsistency if you assume that EMFs are initiating the cancer. But, if they are simply promoting cancerous growth, which is what the invitro studies show, then the results aren’t inconsistent. You need cancerous cells to be present and you need exposure to electromagnetic fields to enhance their growth.” Says Invitrio. “That might explain why some studies don’t show an effect as well. If the cancer cells aren’t present then the electromagnetic fields can’t affect their growth.”
“But you don’t even know if it’s the electric field or the magnetic field that’s important biologically. If you don’t have a good handle on that how can you state with any confidence that they promote cancer?” says Physico.
“Well, there’s evidence that both are important but you’re right, it is difficult to separate the two since they occur together.”
“So, what’s the evidence? More epidemiological studies I expect.” Says Simplistico.
“Well, the first time we were alerted to this is when switch yard workers in the former Soviet Union began to complain about ill health. This happened shortly after they installed 500 kV lines.” Said Epidemio.
“I’ve heard of those studies and they weren’t well documented.” Says Physico.
“That may be true but that doesn’t mean there weren’t complaints of ill health. Indeed, some more recent studies of switchyard workers in Norway suggest there may be several biological effects including changes in sperm viability and these studies are well document.” Said Epidemio.
“So, what did they find?” asked Simplistico.
“They found abnormally developed sperms, an increase in the number of female offspring (I think). Anyway, a different sex ratio in offspring and an increased incidence of miscarriages.”
“Good thing we were conceived more than 40 years ago or some of us might be women!” chuckled Simplistico to himself.
“Didn’t they find an increased incidence of miscarriages among women using computers just a few years ago?” asked Invitrio. “And some problems for women working on commercial sewing machines that give off a very high field. Brain cancer, was it?”
“Could be coincidence. What about chemicals in the work place? What about smoking or poor diet? How can all of this be blamed on electromagnetic fields? Asked Physico.
“Usually, the studies try to account for things like smoking, but you’re right. Chemicals in the workplace can’t be ruled out. Although the Ontario Hydro study reported an increased incidence of leukemia among their electrical workers … linemen I think. Now what chemicals would these groups be exposed to?” asked Epidemio.
“You’re joking! Ontario Hydro actually reported that?”
“Yup.”
“Since they are working in a high electric and magnetic field environment, it’s not clear which of the two fields caused the problems, possibly both.” Said Epidemio.
“In residential settings the electric field from power lines should be relatively unimportant since these fields are blocked by buildings. Electric fields inside the home should be much lower than electric fields directly under power lines.” Says Physico.
“Now magnetic fields … that’s a different story. They can penetrate buildings and while their strength will decrease with distance from the power line, they can still be elevated inside buildings.” Says Physico.
“That’s exactly how it was reasoned in the early studies by Wertheimer and Leeper back in 1979.” Says Epidemio. “Leeper came up with a classification scheme based on wire codes. He gave a very high current configuration to homes within 50 feet of power lines that had multiple wires or those thick wires you sometimes see.”
“You’re referring to primary distribution lines, I suppose?” asked Physico.
“Yes, that’s right.” Says Epidemio. “Homes further away from the primary distribution lines or homes near secondary distribution lines had lower wire code rankings. Leeper reasoned that more wires had the potential for more current and the closer you were to these lines the higher the magnetic field would be.”
“Makes sense to me. Leeper did some good reasoning.” Says Physico.
“What does current have to do with magnetic fields?” asked Simplistico.
“Current is moving charge. When you turn on a lamp (or example), that lamp is drawing current to light the bulb. Electrons (negatively charged particles) are moving through the wire. This is called a current (or moving charge) and currents create the magnetic field. A moving electric field creates a magnetic field and a moving magnetic field creates an electric field.” Explains Physico.
“Does that mean if my lamp is turned off there is no current?” asked Simplistico.
“That’s right. No current and no magnetic field. But there’s still an electric field. Once you turn it on you then generate a magnetic field.”
“So, there’s a magnetic field with every electric appliance that is turned on. Is that right?” asks Simplistico.
“That’s right. The greater the current it draws, the larger the magnetic field. So, the fields around appliances will differ depending on the current they draw. A study by the U.S. EPA showed the ratings of appliances. Hair dryers were very high as were electric can openers, electric shavers and power tools.”
“When we think of occupational exposure, we should not ignore the fact that hair stylist who use hand-held hair dryers or professional carpenters who work with power tools are getting a good dose of EMFs.”
“Sounds like what we normally consider electrical occupations needs to be reconsidered.” Says Simplistico.
“That’s right. I was in an airplane a few years ago flying from Toronto to Calgary and I had recently purchased a meter that measures electric and magnetic fields. Out of curiosity, I decided to take this meter on the trip. I thought I would measure the fields at the airport, on the plane, and in my hotel room. What an eye-opener!”
“What did you find?”
“Well, at the airport, those pop machines and the scanners that you walk through give off a high magnetic field. I mentioned this to one of the attendants and suggested she might step back from the scanner she was leaning on but she assured me that the scanners are tested regularly and they’re fine. Just then I heard my flight announced so I left. I didn’t think I would get very far with her anyway.”
“Why were the pop machines so high?” asked Simplistico.
“It’s probably those fluorescent tubes behind the panels.” Offered Physico. “They produce magnetic and electric fields.”
“Fluorescent lights? You mean even fluorescent lights give off magnetic fields?” Asked Simplistico.
“Yup!”
“Interesting. I have fluorescent lights in my office but don’t like to have them on. They give me a headache and I feel exhausted by the end of the day. I now use an incandescent lamp on my desk instead. Do you think that means I might be sensitive to electromagnetic fields?” Asked Simplistico.
“Can’t say. You may not like the colour of the light or the intensity or the buzzing of the fluorescent tube. However, I understand that some people are sensitive and can’t go into a drug store that has these bright fluorescent tubes because they also get a headache and feel disoriented. It could be that you’re sensitive but I couldn’t say for certain. There’s a group in Sweden studying EMF sensitivity. You could contact them if you’re really interested.” Offers Epidemio.
“Anyway, let’s get back to your story.” Invited Invitrio.
“When I got onto the plane heading to Calgary, I was seated in row 37. I turned on my meter and found that the magnetic field was fluctuating between 5 and 8 mG. I was expecting something much higher since there’s a lot of electrical wiring on the plane. On the return trip I sat in row 8 and once again turned on my meter and this time the reading was 30 mG. I realized that the field varied along the length of the plane and then tested this by walking down the aisle with my meter turned on.”
passengers seating in the interior plane clipart
“Didn’t anyone object when they saw you doing this?” asked Physico.
“No, but I got a lot of curious glances and a few questions as to what I was doing so I explained to the passengers and to the flight attendant.”
“I also talked to the flight attendant to ask the pilot if I could enter the cockpit. I gave her my university business card and explained to her what I was measuring so as not to alarm her. She came back within a few minutes and the answer was “yes”.
“In the cockpit, the readings were off scale. My meter only read up to 100 mG. The hotspots were behind the pilot and co-pilot where wires funnel through conduits and at the front windshield. The magnetic field were above 100 at both of these locations. I wasn’t surprised by the conduits but I was surprised about the cockpit windshield. The pilot explained to me that the windows are heated to give them elasticity in case some object, a bird or some debris, hits the window. If they’re elastic they are less likely to shatter. He then turned off the heater and I remeasured the field and the reading dropped to about 10 mG.”
“At this stage both the pilot and co-pilot wanted to know about the health effects. I told them about the epidemiological studies with kids and occupational studies showing increased incidence of various cancers. At this stage the co-pilot decided to leave.”
The pilot then said, “Come to think of it. Many of my colleagues don’t seem to live long after retirement and you know that pilots retired at age 55.”
“We exchanged business cards but nothing much has come of this. I did read somewhere that the stories of premature deaths among retired airline pilots was not substantiated but I think this would be worth revisiting.”
“Did you know that planes don’t work at 60 Hz frequencies. They use 400 Hertz.” Said Physico.
“No, I didn’t know that. The meter I used measures up to 1000 Hertz so the readings are still valid. The magnetic fields were high compared to residential settings.”
“So, what are normal residential exposures?” asked Simplistico.
“The ones that epidemiologists are concerned about are in the neighbourhood of 2 to 4 mG. A value of 2.5 mG is often used in the literature. What this means is that kids who are exposed to magnetic fields above 2.5 mG have an increased risk of developing leukemia.” Said Epidemio.
“What surprises me is that we can live on a planet that products a magnetic field of 500 mG and feel no ill effects but kids get cancer if they’re exposed to a magnetic field from power lines and electric appliance above 2.5 mG. That’s a small fraction of the earth’s magnetic fields.” Says Physico.
“I wasn’t expecting this one from you, Physico.” Says Invitrio. “Surely, you of all people know that there’s a big different between the earth’s static magnetic field and the alternating currents generated by electric power. Frequency is one of the parameters that can make a big different on biological effects.”
“And not only that, but we’ve evolved with the earth’s static magnetic field.” Adds Epidemio. “This alternating field is quite new to the human species. When was it that Edison introduced electric lighting in the United States?”
“Around 1880.” says Physico.
“Exactly, We’ve been exposed to 60 Hertz frequencies as a species for just over 100 years. Sixty cycles per second is not a natural source of EMFs.” Said Epidemio.
“Did you know that the early light bulbs functioned at 25 cycles per second? This drove people crazy because some could perceive the flicker. It was soon raised to 60 Hertz with fewer complaints.” Epidemio continued.
“OK, so let’s get back to residential exposure.” Said Simplistico. “So, kids shouldn’t be in an environment above 2.5 mG. What about adults? Are they equally sensitive?”
“No, they’re not. Little evidence that residential exposure from power lines is associated with adult cancers. We begin to see an association only in occupational exposures.” Says Epidemio.
“And how high are these?”
“They vary and we don’t have good exposure measurements. Many of them have been estimated and categorized as high possible exposures or high probable exposures.”
“That doesn’t sound very scientific to me.” Said Simplistico.
“No, but it’s a first step. We need much better exposure measurements for a variety of occupations.” Says Epidemio. “It seems that biological effects have been documented at 12 mG for adults.”
“Yes, that’s right. I recall a very interesting paper by Liburdy who found that estrogen-sensitive breast cancer cells grew more rapidly when they were exposed to magnetic fields above 12 mg.” said Invitrio.
“What’s estrogen-sensitive breast cancer? Aren’t all breast cancers the same?” Asked Simplistico.
“No, they’re not. Some types of breast cancer are stimulated by the hormone estrogen. The more estrogen you have in your body the more rapidly these cancer cell grow. What Liburdy found is that melatonin can inhibit the production of estrogen. So, the more melatonin you have in your body the less estrogen that is produced. It just so happens that 12 mG or higher inhibits melatonin production.”
“Oh, I understand. You expose someone to a magnetic field above 12 mG. This then results in less melatonin produced by that person, which in turn causes an increase in estrogen, which then stimulates the growth of this type of breast cancer. Is that right?” asks Simplistico.
“That’s about it. They also found that tamoxifen, one of the drugs used to treat this type of cancer, is less effective in a magnetic field of 12 mG.” adds Invitrio.
“Now that is pretty powerful evidence. Even I can see that.” Says Simplistico. “And are these magnetic fields of 12 mG are actually found in residential settings?”
“Yes.” Says Epidemio. “Electric blankets can produce magnetic fields at or above 12 mG, although they are designing some that generate a lower magnetic field. And people who live under power lines are likely to be exposed to fields above 12 mG”
“If melatonin is linked with estrogen and estrogen is a female hormone important for reproduction can’t this also explain miscarriages and some of the reproductive problems you mentioned earlier?” asked Physico.
“We don’t know a great deal about melatonin. But what we do know is that it might be much more important biologically than what we first suspected. I think melatonin is one of the keys to unlocking the mechanisms involved with EMF exposure.” Says Epidemio.
“Yes, I agree.” Says Invitrio. “Melatonin production is light sensitive. People who use bright light at night actually decrease their night-time melatonin levels.”
“And we know that light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.” Offers Physico.
“Melatonin seems to be involved with a good night’s sleep. The more you have the better and the longer you sleep. Infants have high levels of melatonin and this begins to decrease in your early 20s and falls sharply as you continue to age.”
“Does that explain why teenagers like to sleep so much and why seniors seem to get by on such little sleep?” asked Simplistico.
“It might.” Answers Invitrio.
“Melatonin appears to be involved with the natural reproductive cycles of animals like sheep that ovulate in the fall and have their lambs in the spring. So, it could very well play a role in miscarriages as well.”
“I thought melatonin helps you get over jet lag.” Says Simplistico.
“That’s what they say. It helps reset your internal clock.” Adds Invitrio.
Just then, the bar announces, “last call”.
“Where has the time gone?” exclaims Physico. “Can I borrow your meter to measure my home and office at the university?”
“I’d like to borrow it as well.” Says Simplistico. “No need to be exposed to high magnetic fields if we can avoid them.
The friends pay the bill and gather their jackets. All went home a bit better information about electromagnetic fields and their biological effects.
___________
NOTE: The scientific information provided above is based on scientific publications. I did indeed measure the magnetic field on the airplane and the data provided including the dialogue with the pilot are captured as accurately as I can recall.