Originally posted by David Schwab
View Post
None of this is true: The National Science Foundation (?) did a study and refuted each and every of the claims. The report should be on their website, but I couldn't find it. May be too old. Or it may have been a similarly named organization that issued the report I'm remembering. The EPA, NIOSH, et al, also did studies and came to the same conclusion. Which is why there were no changes made to the power system and the issue died down.
The part about high tension wires and leukemia is a classic case of confounding correlation and causation, coupled with selection bias. One of the best established correlations in Epidemiology is that between health and income - richer people have better health than poorer people. (There are many arguments as to why this is so.) Who lives under high tension lines, richer or poorer? This is a classic case of selection bias, which has invalidated many a study.
Cost benefit analysis: Replacing the north american power system with a shielded equivalent would cost at least a trillion US dollars. If the intent is to improve the general state of health, one could instead spend that money directly on health. There could be EMT teams on every street corner, waiting for someone to have a problem, etc. Medical care could be free to all. The number of lives saved would vastly exceed that due to replacing the power system et al, even if one accepts Brodeur's thesis and estimates. Which the NSF et al did not.
It was quite the fight. Here is one pointer: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/brodeur.htm.
Back to pickups. The fields over a guitar pickup vastly exceed those that Brodeur worries about, so soon there will be a new occupational hazard of guitar players, starting in the fingers ....
Comment