In the final graph of "Uncovering Radiation: VDT Stories That Still Don't Make the News" (CJR, July/August 1990), Louis Slesin noted that "strong political forces are already lobbying the EPA to keep the lid on" a draft report recommending that extremely low magnetic fields be designated "probable human carcinogens." Slesin, editor of Microwave News, here provides an update on subsequent coverage (and uncoverage) of the electromagnetic fields-cancer story. In December 1990, after three years of work (and weeks after its scheduled release date), the EPA's 460-page report on electromagnetic fields was still stuck in the mail room as senior agency officials conferred with Bush administration officials on how and when the document should be released. What troubled them was its conclusion: that electromagnetic fields at certain extremely low frequencies might be causing higher cancer rates. Power lines, video display terminals, electric blankets, and the like are all sources of this type of electromagnetic field, or EMF.

On December 13, The Associated Press carried a story on the still-unissued report, and that evening the three broadcast networks aired stories on it. "The report is so controversial," said NBC News correspondent Robert Hager, "that White House science adviser Allan Bromley and assistant secretary of health James Mason attempted, unsuccessfully, to get the wording watered down."

The next day, the AP story was headline news coast to coast. USA Today featured it on the front page, as did many local papers. New York Newsday's front page bore a banner headline reading ELECTROMAGNETIC TIE TO CANCER EYED. That day, December 14, the agency mailed out the report with a disclaimer: "Given the controversial and uncertain nature of the scientific findings . . . this review draft should not be construed as representing agency policy." On December 15, The New York Times weighed in with a story that reflected the views of two EPA officials who sought to downplay the cancer link. One of them, Dr. William Farland, contended that the effect of magnetic fields on the health of humans could not be very significant because, to quote reporter Philip J. Hilts's paraphrase, "the records of disease in this century do not show notable increases as the electrification of the country went forward." (Interestingly, earlier that week the Times had provided information that might have prompted Hilts to challenge Dr. Farland's position. The headline of a December 11 piece by Natalie Angier, based on a report about to be published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, read SHARP RISE IN BRAIN CANCER RATES FOUND AMONG AMERICANS UNDER 45. A December 10 Washington Post front-page piece pegged to a related report was headed CANCER RATES IN INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES RISE.)

The Post's account of the EPA report, which ran on December 20 on the paper's Federal Page, focused not on the health implications of the study but on the political struggle between the EPA and the president's science adviser. Another difference: unlike the Times, where references to video display terminals are consistently absent from stories about EMFs, the Post to deal with the EPA report. The reason was that, since early November, Myron Levin had been looking at studies linking cancer and power lines, and his editors decided it would be best to let Levin discuss the new report in the context of his finished story. The article, which ran on December 24 under the headline CANCER AND POWER LINES -- AN UNCERTAIN CONNECTION, marked the first time the Times had run a major EMF story.

Then the cancer story dropped out of sight for over a month. In early February, an important new University of Southern California study -- this one funded by an industry group, the Electric Power Research Institute -- was released. The Wall Street Journal's February 8 article, by Frederick Rose, began: "Preliminary results of a major new study have added evidence that proximity to electric transmission wires may increase the risk of childhood leukemia."

The New York Times's February 8 piece, by Sandra Blakeslee, began, reassuringly: "Preliminary results of a new scientific study show that childhood leukemia is not associated with normal household exposure to electromagnetic fields." Then, less reassuringly -- and confusingly -- it continued: "But, in a finding that scientists say is baffling, the cancer is associated with proximity to power lines and the use of certain appliances like hair dryers." (On April 2, Blakeslee returned to the subject in a lengthy piece whose subhead stated that cancer RISK IS SEEN AS SMALL, BUT THE QUESTION IS GAINING URGENCY.)

The Los Angeles Times of February 8 carried a piece by Levin on the new study; three days later the paper followed up with an editorial titled "Worries About Electromagnetic Fields," which concluded with this advice: "But don't let fear dominate your life. In effect, don't panic."

And The Washington Post? It covered the EMF debate in two Style-section pieces in March by consumer reporter David Streitfeld, one of which briefly described the big industry-funded study. Other than that, the Post ignored the study, perhaps reflecting Health-section science editor Larry Thompson's conviction, as expressed in the January/February Washington Journalism Review, that the EMF story has been "hyped" and "doesn't deserve coverage at all."

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe