Students First....Safety Always

City:

Rating: Rate it:

Rees Candee Letter

October 10, 2006

Dear President Ledesma, Board members Ms. Doche, Dr. Christianson, Ms. Reese, Mr. Warren, Superintendent Ashby, and Dr. Frison,

We all need to better understand the potential negative effects of high levels of EMF for our children. We are asking that the board work to:

• Establish set a planning target for EMF levels in occupied space on school sites

• Audit all schools for EMF levels and identify those areas where the EMF levels are in excess of the planning target

• Take actions to reduce EMF levels in occupied spaces to at or below our planning target

The transmission lines at the STMS campus are a highly visible situation with verified high levels of EMF. There are also other areas with high EMF due to faulty wiring as noted in the audit that was done by Dr. Sierck at Horseshoe trails. We need to check all our schools to verify they are safe.

Lowering high EMF exposures to our children is an important decision that will have an impact on generations of children.

Here is a review summary of information to help you understand the urgent request for you to take the maximum steps available to you now to control the EMF hazard.

Considerations:

A preponderance of evidence shows the correlation between EMF & childhood leukemia.
The trend in recent evidence is that the amount and strength grows. In addition, our public health agencies are weighing in with warnings to avoid high EMF areas, other parts of the country are taking actions to control EMF in schools at the community and state level, and other countries are taking steps at the national level.
The cost of treating a single leukemia patient is nearly 1 million dollars.
Human harm, illness, anxiety, liability risks, impact on the district image, and decrease in property values are at stake.
Application of the precautionary principle is a most reasonable course.
Immediate goals

1. The Studies

These are approximately 42 residential and 54 occupational studies with respect to leukemia and electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure published between 1979 and 2004. 90 % of the studies report an increased rate of leukemia associated with exposure to EMF. Here are summaries of several significant studies. They verify evidence of biological changes to human beings from EMF and this information must be considered in relation to our 700 children at STMS.

Study Risk Ratio EMF Exposure Level

Green (1999) 5.7 (570% increased risk) >1.4 mG

(based on personal for acute lymphocytic leukemia

monitoring) in children < 6 yrs

3.7 (370% increased risk) >1.4 mG for all leukemias in

children < 6 yrs

4.5 (450% increased risk) >1.5 mG

for all leukemia in

children < 14 years

Wartenberg (1993) 1.4 (40% increased risk) >2.0 mG

for childhood cancers

1.9 (90% increased risk) >3.0 mG for childhood cancers

1.9 (90% increased risk) >2.0 mG

leukemia in children < 14 years

3.7 (370% increased risk) >3.0 mG

leukemia in children < 14 years

1.6 (60% increased risk) >2.0 mG

ALL in children < 14 years

5.3 (530% increased risk) >3.0 mG

ALL in children < 14 years

Olsen (1993) 1.5 (50% increased risk) >2.5 mG

for childhood leukemia

in children > 15 yrs old

5.6 (560% increased risk) >4.0 mG

for all childhood cancers

Feychting (1997) 1.7 (70% increased risk) >2.0 mG

for adult leukemia with

occupational exposure alone

1.3 (30% increased risk) >3.0 mG for adult leukemia with

residential exposure alone

3.7 (370% increased risk) >2.0 mG

for adult leukemia with both

occup. and residential exposure

6.3 (630% increased risk) >2.0 mG

for AML and CML with

combined occupational and

residential exposure

Michaelis (1997) 2.3 (230% increased risk) >2.0 mG

or childhood leukemia

7.1 (710% increased risk) >2.0 mG

for childhood leukemia

24-hour bedroom < 4 yrs

Ahlbom (2000) 1.11 (11% increased risk) 2.0- >4.0 mG

(meta-analysis) leukemia in children (all studies)

2.0 (200% increased risk) >4.0 mG

leukemia in children (all studies)

1.5 (50% increased risk) >4.0 mG

leukemia in children (Denmark)

(calculated EMF studies)

6.23 (623% increased risk) >4.0 mG

leukemia in children (Finland)

(calculated EMF studies)

3.74 (374% increased risk) >4.0 mG

leukemia in children (Sweden)

(calculated EMF studies)

Ahlbom (2000) 3.44 (344% increased risk) > 4.0 Mg

(meta-analysis) for childhood leukemia (USA)

(EMF measurement studies)

2.0 (200% increased risk) > 4.0 mG for childhood leukemia (Germany)

(EMF measurement studies)

1.55 (55% increased risk) > 4.0 mG for childhood leukemia (Canada)

(EMF measurement studies)

Item 2: The trend

We've had these EMF and childhood leukemia numbers looking at us for a decade. The evidence in recent studies is stronger and there is more of it. The preponderance of evidence says EMF is a health risk. Adding to this trend are a large number of the leading public health agencies in the world classifying EMF as a possible 2B carcinogen.

That list includes (and is not limited to):

The World Health Organization (WHO)
National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB)
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
California Dept. of Health Services

A good example of these types of reports is the one by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). In their report to Congress in 1999 they urged utilities to continue to distance new power lines from where people live, work and go to school. This was based on the NIEHS Working Group Report (prepared by nearly one hundred research scientists) which concluded that EMF is classifiable as a Category 2B carcinogen. (Lead and DDT are among the 300+ substances that are Category 2B).

In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns that schools should be kept away from transmission lines.

The other trend is communities, states and countries legislating to protect people from EMF hazards. Many local communities are pushing people away from transmission lines. By now I’m sure you’re familiar with California’s 7 million dollar study of the EMF issue and their push to keep schools away.

Just a footnote: The California standard states that: the edge of the easement for a 230 KV line should be 150 feet away from the edge of the school property – not 150 feet from occupied spaces. It also says the level of EMF should be less than 1.4 mG in occupied spaces.

You need to know what the EMF levels in occupied spaces will be with Plan A and with plan B. If the levels are not under 1.4 mG you need to look into what other steps might be considered.

Note that in England they passed a law that new schools have to be 600 meter’s away.

Re local Arizona legislation: Awareness of the EMF hazard in this community is low. However the issue continues to grow in importance. We have been promoting legislation with legislators. The goal is legislation to help push new schools away from lines in the future. However, there is no legislation pending at this time and there will be no action for many years. And the legislature will not pass a law to make you move the lines because they could not fund it. This problem is ours. We need to deal with it.

3. Costs of treating leukemia:

For every child that gets leukemia, it’s about $900,000 to treat with no recurrence. One kid in 10,000 gets it from "whatever" - double that and you get two kids per 10,000 - triple that or quadruple that (a 2- fold to 4-fold increase) and you get an additional two, three or four in total. That makes the 1.3 million offset look reasonable.

And, that does not count the general ill-health, immune system disfunction, and other possible cancers like brain tumors.

The fact is “we” made a mistake putting the school there. There is no excuse for what happened. There should be no whining about the cost. We have to fess up, say "mea culpa" and bite the bullet. We cannot throw away the health of the neighborhood kids for any reason.

And when you try to compare removing this health risk to building 20 new classrooms you are framing the problem incompletely. To the cost of the new classrooms you must add the potential for a 2 to 4 fold increase in health risks to the kids at STMS. You can’t put kids at STMS at risk this way. You can’t trade their health for new classrooms. There is a spill in aisle five and we need clean up. It’s that simple.

4. Liability Risks:

In terms of potential human harm, illness, anxiety, liability risks, impact on the district image, and decrease in property values much is at stake. Here’s are some points to consider and the risks that are implied.

• High EMF levels at “STMS” put children and adults at increased risk for adverse health effects.

• Health liability for children and adults is too large to ignore.

• The District is aware of the issue, aware of people’s concern, the studies, the health agency recommendations and the actual levels on site.

• The District’s needs to act to reduce the potential harm

Historically, this mirrors what happened with lead paint in schools and asbestos building materials. We were warned for years but the science was ignored. We must learn from history and not repeat this pattern with EMF.

• Our school should lead in establishing a safe haven for learning.

Item 5: The Precautionary Principle

A preponderance of evidence indicates there is an increased rate of leukemia in relation to EMF exposure. The weight of the evidence trumps the uncertainty factor of exactly how EMF causes illness. The prudent choice is to take action so that our kid’s health is not put at risk from the wires. Kids deserve to be safe. Let's remove a risk when it’s easy to do so. The fix will cost, but not fixing will likely cost more. It will cost more in dollars, suffering, loss of reputation and eventually the lives of some of our kids. Not dealing with this turns our 700 kids into involuntary cancer study subjects. That is a bad story. We don’t want to see a 2 to 4 fold increase in their cancer rates from our kids in the next 10-20 years.

Item 6: Goals

• Establish a standard for EMF levels below the level where a correlation with cancer occurs. Set a planning target for occupied space on school sites equal or less than 1 mG

• Audit all schools for EMF levels in excess of planning target

• Take actions to reduce EMF levels in occupied spaces to at or below planning target.

You were looking at two plans. The questions that I did not hear you ask in regard to these plans were:

What is the outcome in average and projected EFM levels by moving the lines in Plan A and Plan B?
What might be done to improve the mitigation techniques in the proposal?
Are there less expensive solutions?
Have you asked for a second opinion from an independent EMF mitigation consultant vs. the power company that has a vested interest?
Why are you rushing this without thoroughly looking into solutions? To decide on plan A or plan B or some other plan you need to know:

What your planning target is.
What the outcome of your actions will be.
What the long term EMF levels from the transmission lines will be and the projected loads on those line over the next 2 decades.

If the Plan A or Plan B doesn’t lower the levels to the target then we would need to explore further options.

Respectfully submitted,

Rees Candee & Suzanne Wright

Scottsdale, Arizona