RF Safe

Relationship between distance to overhead power lines and calculated fields in two studies

2020 · Unclear · Moderate evidence

← Research stream
UnclearModerate evidencePaper 1587

Using exposure data from two studies (US and UK), calculated magnetic fields diminished approximately linearly with increasing distance from overhead power lines up to 100 m, particularly for 200+ kV lines. Within 100 m, distance to high-voltage lines predict…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2020
Study typeexposure_assessment
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Relationship between distance to overhead power lines and calculated fields in two studies Amoon AT, Swanson J, Vergara X, Kheifets LI. Relationship between distance to overhead power lines and calculated fields in two studies. J Radiol Prot. 2020 Feb 17. doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/ab7730. Abstract There is some evidence that both distance from transmission lines and measured or calculated magnetic fields are associated with childhood leukemia. Because distance is a key component when calculating the magnetic field generated by power lines, distance from lines and calculated fields based on lines tend to be highly correlated. Socioeconomic status (SES) and dwelling type are also associated with magnetic field exposure. We used exposure data from two large studies of childhood leukemia and other cancers, in the US and the UK, to describe a relationship between distance and magnetic fields across the population within 100 meters (m) of power lines as a whole and evaluate potential modifiers such as SES and type of dwelling. There were 387 subjects living within 100 m of an overhead power line. There was no significant difference in mean calculated fields nor distance to 200+ kV lines within 100 m by study. Within the range where the power line field is expected to be significant compared to other sources, which we take as 100 m, distance to high voltage lines predicted MF variation in both studies better than other functions of distance tested in both linear and logistic regression. There were no differences between high and low SES nor dwelling types (single-family home vs other). In conclusion, we found that calculated fields do appear to diminish linearly with increasing distance from overhead power lines, up to 100 m, particularly those 200+ kV and above. These results are stronger in the UK study. Within 100 m, distance to high voltage lines continues to be highly correlated with calculated magnetic fields and each can be a proxy for the other. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeexposure_assessment
Effect directionunclear
PopulationSubjects living within 100 m of an overhead power line from two large studies of childhood leukemia and other cancers in the US and the UK
Sample size387
ExposureELF
Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Using exposure data from two studies (US and UK), calculated magnetic fields diminished approximately linearly with increasing distance from overhead power lines up to 100 m, particularly for 200+ kV lines. Within 100 m, distance to high-voltage lines predicted MF variation better than other tested distance functions, and no differences were observed by SES or dwelling type; results were reported as stronger in the UK study.

Outcomes measured

  • Relationship/correlation between distance to overhead power lines and calculated magnetic fields (MF) within 100 m
  • Assessment of potential modification by socioeconomic status (SES) and dwelling type

Limitations

  • Only includes subjects living within 100 m of an overhead power line
  • Magnetic fields were calculated (not measured) as described in the abstract
  • Findings described as stronger in the UK study, suggesting possible heterogeneity between studies
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "overhead power lines",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Subjects living within 100 m of an overhead power line from two large studies of childhood leukemia and other cancers in the US and the UK",
  "sample_size": 387,
  "outcomes": [
    "Relationship/correlation between distance to overhead power lines and calculated magnetic fields (MF) within 100 m",
    "Assessment of potential modification by socioeconomic status (SES) and dwelling type"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Using exposure data from two studies (US and UK), calculated magnetic fields diminished approximately linearly with increasing distance from overhead power lines up to 100 m, particularly for 200+ kV lines. Within 100 m, distance to high-voltage lines predicted MF variation better than other tested distance functions, and no differences were observed by SES or dwelling type; results were reported as stronger in the UK study.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Only includes subjects living within 100 m of an overhead power line",
    "Magnetic fields were calculated (not measured) as described in the abstract",
    "Findings described as stronger in the UK study, suggesting possible heterogeneity between studies"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "overhead power lines",
    "transmission lines",
    "high voltage",
    "200+ kV",
    "distance",
    "calculated magnetic fields",
    "ELF",
    "socioeconomic status",
    "dwelling type",
    "exposure assessment",
    "childhood leukemia (context)"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.1,
      "reason": "Mentions SES and dwelling type but focuses on residential proximity; occupational exposure is not a clear match."
    }
  ]
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/ab7730
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library