"Global Possibilities"

Committed to educating the public about solutions to our ecological, economic and political crises.

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Bios
    • Educational Archives
      • Donald W. Aitken Keynote Presentation
    • Links
  • Film & Video
    • “Who’s Got The Power?”
    • Video
  • Casey Coates Danson
    • Design Projects
    • Casey Coates Danson Bio
  • Angels Unawares
    • US Homeless Sleeping Accommodation Directory
  • Topics
    • Activism
    • Architecture
    • Climate Change
    • Conferences
    • Design
    • Economy
    • Energy
    • Environment
    • Food
    • Fracking
    • Health
    • Media
    • News
    • Oceans
    • Politics
    • Sustainability
    • How To Be Green
    • Visionaries
    • Water
  • Contact Us
Home » Health » Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields and Risk of Childhood Leukemia

Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields and Risk of Childhood Leukemia

Aug 7, 2018 by Casey Coates Danson

[Translate]

Abstract

The relation between exposure to electric and magnetic fields in the home, as assessed by measurements, wiring configuration, and self-reported appliance use, and risk of leukemia was investigated in a case-control study among children from birth to age 10 years in Los Angeles County, California. Cases were ascertained through a population-based tumor registry from 1980 to 1987. Controls were drawn from friends and by random digit dialing. Interviews were obtained from 232 cases and 232 controls. Available for analysis were measurements of the magnetic field in the child’s bedroom over 24 hours or longer (164 cases and 144 controls), spot measurements of magnetic and electric fields (140 cases and 109 controls), and wiring configuration (219 cases and 207 controls). No clear associations between leukemia risk and measured magnetic or electric fields were seen. An association between the Denver Wertheimer-Leeper wiring configuration and childhood leukemia risk was observed (odds ratio for very high relative to very low current and underground configuration combined = 2.15, 95% confidence interval 1.08–4.28; p for trend = 0.008) and was not substantially altered by adjustment for potential confounding factors. Cases were more likely than controls to report use of several appliances that produce high electric and magnetic fields. Our results support an association between childhood leukemia risk and wiring configuration, but not direct measurements of electric and magnetic fields.Am J Epidemiol1991; 134:923–37.

 

electromagnetic radiation, environmental exposure, leukemia, occupational exposures
Stephanie J. London Duncan C. Thomas Joseph D. Bowman Eugene SobelTsen-Chung Cheng John M. Peters
American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 134, Issue 9, 1 November 1991, Pages 923–937, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116176

Related Posts

  • In new lawsuit, pregnant doctor says RFK Jr.’s vaccine policy puts her at risk

    Posted on Jul 8, 2025

  • Three Months After Missouri Voted to Make Abortion Legal, Access Is Still Being Blocked

    Posted on Feb 6, 2025

  • Regular Use of Ivermectin as Prophylaxis for COVID-19 Led Up to a 92% Reduction in COVID-19 Mortality Rate

    Posted on Sep 9, 2022

  • The supreme court has left the US with no plan for the climate crisis

    Posted on Jul 7, 2022

Tags

  • childhood leukemia
  • electromagnetic radiation
  • EMF
  • Health
  • Radiation

Share This

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to receive new blogposts


 

Contact Us!

Donate to Global Possibilities

Recent Posts

  • The Federal Farm Policy Trap

Purchase – ANGELS UNAWARES

Angels Unawares Awarded Outstanding Book of the Year – Most Original Concept for 2019 by Independent Publisher Book Awards!

Image result for independent publishing awards

Archives

  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015

Donate to Global Possibilities

Follow Us!

Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on LinkedIn

Adsense

google.com, pub-2848125826401092, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by WordPress

العربية العربية česky česky dansk dansk Deutsch Deutsch español español فارسی فارسی français français עברית עברית हिन्दी हिन्दी italiano italiano 日本語 日本語 한국어 한국어 Nederlands Nederlands norsk norsk polski polski português português русский русский svenska svenska ภาษาไทย ภาษาไทย tiếng Việt tiếng Việt ייִדיש ייִדיש 中文 (简体) 中文 (简体) 中文 (繁體) 中文 (繁體) powered byGoogle