Alternate utility responses for possible risks of lower frequency electromagnetic fields

Abstract

This paper outlines a series of alternate responses that electric utilities might take in the face of the possible risks posed by human exposure to low frequency electric and magnetic fields. There are basically three arguments that can be used to justify limiting people's exposures to low frequency fields: safety, equity and prudence. A safety based standard would limit field exposure to those exposure circumstances which do not pose a risk to health. Scientifically based safety standard is not possible today due to conflicting results of field effects. Standards based on considerations of equity do not provide any assurance of safety. Regulations based on prudence are designed to keep people out of fields with modest investments of time and resources. This paper explores thoroughly different options, some of which could be combined, that electric utilities may adopt as strategy and approach in the face of field effects issue. These options include: denial, passive and active information supply, research and development support, limited response for new facilities or major response, elimination of selected man-power line field exposures, and limited and major retrofits of old facilities. Some of these options would clearly be very expensive.