What should we do about EMFs?: a survey of magnetic field levels from power lines and electrical appliances in Wellington and an investigation of policy and planning mechanisms for limiting the community's exposure to the possible, but unproven threat to health of power frequency electromagnetic fields and the athermal effects of high frequency electromagnetic radiation

Abstract

A survey was carried out of ELF magnetic fields in residences and primary schools in Wellington. The results of this survey showed low level exposures to magnetic fields in the order of 0.01 - 0.2μT. Higher exposures were found under and around electricity transmission and distribution lines and substations and from periodic exposure to electrical appliances. Such exposures were in the range suggested by some overseas studies as posing a risk to human health. A review of policy and planning mechanisms used overseas and in New Zealand for regulating the public's exposure to power frequency electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation was carried out Such mechanisms include exposure standards and legislation at a national, state or local level. Exposure standards or limits are set to protect the public from proven threats to health and do not cover postulated or perceived health risks. However, some regulators have arbitrarily set exposure limits in an attempt to reduce their communities' exposure to electromagnetic fields. These limits seemingly have little or no scientific basis. In New Zealand there is limited effort applied by regulators to protect the public from the perceived threats to health suggested by some scientists and community groups. Rather, New Zealand has followed the mainstream of scientific opinion and awaits proof of adverse effects before taking action. I have come to take the view that in the absence of such proof, regulators should not implement EMF control options that cannot be justified on other grounds. I suggest the adoption of a "no-regrets" policy whereby development options are chosen that allow avoidance or reduction of EMF exposures, but only if such options can be justified by economic, societal or environmental benefits as well as that of reduced EMF exposure.