Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Public Health and BioMed Central.

Open Access Debate

A precautionary public health protection strategy for the possible risk of childhood leukaemia from exposure to power frequency magnetic fields

Myron Maslanyj1*, Tracy Lightfoot2, Joachim Schüz34, Zenon Sienkiewicz1 and Alastair McKinlay1

Author Affiliations

1 Health Protection Agency, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RQ, UK

2 Epidemiology & Genetics Unit, Department of Health Sciences, Seebohm Rowntree Building, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK

3 Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark

4 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon Cedex 08, France

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Public Health 2010, 10:673  doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-673

Published: 5 November 2010

Abstract

Background

Epidemiological evidence showing a consistent association between the risk of childhood leukaemia and exposure to power frequency magnetic fields has been accumulating. This debate considers the additional precautionary intervention needed to manage this risk, when it exceeds the protection afforded by the exposure guidelines as recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

Methods

The Bradford-Hill Criteria are guidelines for evaluating the scientific evidence that low frequency magnetic fields cause childhood leukaemia. The criteria are used for assessing the strength of scientific evidence and here have been applied to considering the strength of evidence that exposures to extremely low frequency magnetic fields may increase the risk of childhood leukaemia. The applicability of precaution is considered using the risk management framework outlined in a European Commission (EC) communication on the Precautionary Principle. That communication advises that measures should be proportionate, non-discriminatory, consistent with similar measures already taken, based on an examination of the benefits and costs of action and inaction, and subject to review in the light of new scientific findings.

Results

The main evidence for a risk is an epidemiological association observed in several studies and meta-analyses; however, the number of highly exposed children is small and the association could be due to a combination of selection bias, confounding and chance. Corroborating experimental evidence is limited insofar as there is no clear indication of harm at the field levels implicated; however, the aetiology of childhood leukaemia is poorly understood. Taking a precautionary approach suggests that low-cost intervention to reduce exposure is appropriate. This assumes that if the risk is real, its impact is likely to be small. It also recognises the consequential cost of any major intervention. The recommendation is controversial in that other interpretations of the data are possible, and low-cost intervention may not fully alleviate the risk.

Conclusions

The debate shows how the EC risk management framework can be used to apply the Precautionary Principle to small and uncertain public health risks. However, despite the need for evidence-based policy making, many of the decisions remain value driven and therefore subjective.