By Hannah W. Wever

Published: April 10, 2008

To the editor,
I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Sandy James’ article on EMF that appeared in your March 27 edition.  It was nice to see both sides of the argument presented.  I know due to various restraints that only so much time and space can be devoted to one subject, and a great deal of both has been expended over the months on this subject.  Every time I think I am done with it, something else is said or written that needs a response.
The only personal interest I have in this discussion is that I believe the wrong decisions have been made for the wrong reasons, and there is no valid data that supports the argument that EMF poses no health risk at the eastern middle school site.
I have no family member that will ever attend the school, either as a student or teacher, nor do I know anyone that will teach at or attend the school.  We have heard or seen it reported that the tests have been conducted at the school site that prove there is no risk to students or teachers.  The fact is that only one test has been conducted, which yielded one data point.  To reach any valid conclusions, hundreds, if not thousands, of data points should have been taken.  The one that was taken was conducted under almost ideal conditions to produce low EMF values, a mild late autumn day, when the electrical load on the power lines would have been at a minimum.  Even at that, the report generated by this test did not say that there was no health risk associated with the site.  It tried to imply that there was no risk by comparing site test results to levels of EMF found in the average home.  This is not a valid assumption.  Exposures in the home are from short-term, low-voltage, low-current forms of EMF.  At the school site, exposure will be from long-term, high-voltage, high-current forms of EMF.
Site testing should have taken place over an extended period of time, during various weather conditions and varying load conditions on the high-voltage transmission lines and substation.  A dozen or more EMF monitors with recorders should have been put in place at various locations on the site’s footprint to measure EMF levels during varying conditions.  Prior to any testing, a valid hypothesis should have been developed and the testing should be done to prove or disprove this hypothesis within a certain degree of confidence.
For example: 
Hypothesis A:  The site provides no health risks due to the exposure of EMF.  To prove this it would take a great deal of time and expense, measured in years and millions of dollars.
Hypothesis B: The school site is as safe as the average home environment.  This could be done if we could determine and agree on what constitutes the average home environment.  But it is only valid if you are planning to home-school instead of sending a child to school at that site.
Hypothesis C: The school site provides no greater health risk from EMF than either the Locust Grove or Prospect Heights’ school sites.  This could be done fairly easily: place EMF monitors with recorders at various but similar locations at each site to measure EMF levels during varying conditions.  Compare the results. You would test for the following: (a) There is no significant difference in health risk between the three sites, or (b) There is significant difference in health risk between the three sites.  It is somewhat more involved than I presented here, but, not really that difficult to do.
In fact, I believe that students within the Orange County school system could determine the proper testing requirements, design the test, and conduct at least 80 percent of the actual testing.  Collaboration with a known authority would take place to validate results and findings.  There is a local firm in Fredericksburg that has expertise in this area, who has met federal government requirements and is on the GSA schedule.
However, when all is said and done, the answer to the key question of site safety will not have been completely answered.  But there will be enough information to make a valid risk assessment of the site.  That assessment could be compared to other risks, such as getting up in the morning, riding a school bus, playing sports, walking your dog, etc.  There are risks associated with everything we do, and we determine if they are worth taking.  When I talk to professionals about the school site and its EMF issues, one question is always asked, “Why was that site selected in the first place?” Good question, one of many I don’t have an answer to.
To satisfy my own curiosity, I recently did a Google search on the following “EMF positive effects” and got 57,700 hits; “EMF negative effects” 62,500 hit.  I then used MSN’s search engine “EMF positive effects: 135,000 hits; “EMF negative effects” 139,000 hits.  I admit that most of these hits are probably not worth reading, but if only 1 percent is, then that’s a lot if information to process.  Since there are no Internet police, you are never 100 percent sure what you’re reading is fact or fabrication.  So, then you have to validate the information with known reliable sources.  So when you read or hear that someone has researched this issue and found the site to be safe, or they have read everything they could get their hands on about this issue, take that with a grain of salt.  One other thought on this subject, what has the county’s or school system carrier said about the liability risks associated with the school site?  I wonder if they have been apprised of the situation.
John Bangs
Orange