Power Line Task Force

2 Sunfish Lane

Sunfish Lake, MN 55118

January 19, 2001

Jan K. Malcolm

Commissioner

Minnesota Department of Health

P.O. Box 64975
St. Paul, MN, 55164-0975

Dear Commissioner Malcolm,

On December 22, I wrote regarding the Assessment on the Health Effects of EMF developed by your department. I pointed out the Assessment failed to incorporate new research that invalidates the studies upon which it had relied in reaching its conclusions.

This letter is to share with you new information regarding a change in Xcel Energy’s views regarding the health dangers of EMF.

Xcel has traditionally insisted that there was no evidence of an adverse health impact associated with EMF.

In September 1999, Xcel (then NSP) wrote a letter to the Sun Current newspaper saying:

The simple fact is that after more than 20 years of intensive research on power lines and EMF, and recent examination of that body of research by our country's most prestigious government research organizations, there is no evidence of health effects from power lines or exposure to EMF, even at high levels.

In the same letter, it went on to malign those who believed there were health effects:

Unfortunately, even these scientific findings do not stop opponents from alleging precisely the opposite.  We all must recognize that opponents are arguing their personal opinions about EMF against the overwhelming scientific facts established by our nations most respected medical and public health institutions.

In a brochure copyrighted in 2000, titled Electric and Magnetic Fields-Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, Xcel repeated the first statement, word for word.

Xcel has dramatically altered its views. It now believes EMF can be dangerous.  In a court affidavit dated June 14, 2000, an Xcel official agreed that, when electric fields equal or exceed 1 kV/m (which is common near power lines), "EMF can interfere with pacemakers." 

The newspaper, City Pages, reports in a January 17, 2001, article that an Xcel official, referring to the association between EMF and cancer in the context of the British Journal and other recent studies, concedes

...The issue is still open. And I think we still need additional research and an attempt to look at higher exposures, which has not been done in the past.

More information on the affidavit and the article is provided by the Task Force on its website, www.powerlinefacts.com.

The Xcel statement contrasts dramatically with the MDH Assessment, which you reaffirmed in your November 28 letter. The Assessment does not even view the issue as being open. Rather, it sees no prospect of a danger to health, concluding:

…The current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields is a health hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer or any other adverse human health effect.

In short, the electric utility has adopted a position regarding EMF that is more sensitive to health concerns than that espoused in the Health Department’s Assessment.

In the same City Pages article, the Mayor of Sunfish Lake is quoted as saying:

As a city, we cannot deny that permit without clear evidence that there is a public health hazard. And the Minnesota Department of Health's position is that there is no hazard. If there is no hazard, it's a no-brainer.

The MDH’s position as expressed in the Assessment is less sensitive to health concerns than the mainstream of informed scientific thinking, and is less sensitive than the position now adopted by Xcel. Given the degree to which decision makers are relying upon the MDH’s position, this is a very serious matter.

According, we reiterate our hope and expectation the Department now will harmonize its position with the new scientific findings, thereby acknowledging that radiating people with high doses of power line EMF is no longer an acceptable health practice.

Sincerely,

Roger R. Conant, MGA, Ph.D., CLU

Spokesperson

cc: Chuck Stroebel, Dept. of Health

Michael Michaud, Department of Commerce

John Hines, Environmental Quality Board

Kate O’Connell, Department of Commerce

Janet Gonzales, Public Utilities Commission

Susan Heffron, Pollution Control Agency