Peter Rice and Dr Annelie Maier look at the property implications of the alleged links between electromagnetic forces and cancer.
A debate which has raged for 20 years rose in significance for the property world in the latter part of 1996, when the RICS issued valuation guidance notes in respect of electromagnetic and electric fields (EMFs).
Practice Statement 3.7 from the RICS reads: “Public perception that higher than normal electromagnetic fields may affect health is likely to affect marketability and future value. Consideration should be given to further investigation prior to exchange of contracts.”
The guidance notes have attracted so much criticism that, only a few months after being issued, the RICS has already prepared draft amendments. Much of the criticism has revolved around “health”, as valuers are not experts on such an issue. However, with one substation for every 200 houses, plus numerous pylons and many thousand of miles of overhead power lines, EMF has obvious property implications.
Like it or not, valuers and surveyors will find themselves having to advise on properties close to high-voltage electrical installations. They should, therefore, be aware of facts and views in the debate.
What are EMFs?
Electromagnetic and electric fields occur naturally. Even sunlight is an electromagnetic field. At low frequencies EMF do not give cause for concern and, even at high frequencies, there are gains as well as losses – microwave ovens have revolutionised cooking, while excessive sun is a recognised cause of skin cancer.1 This article, however, is concerned with the EMFs which arise from overhead power lines, transformers and substations (see box 1).
Medical position
Despite some 10,000 papers on the subject, all sides in the debate agree that any evidence of a connection between EMFs and cancer is of an epidemiologic nature only, and that there is no biological evidence of a causal link to cancer. In fact, there is no biological evidence on the cause of cancer per se. For example, while clusters of childhood leukaemia have been confirmed in the Sellafield area, epidemiologic evidence is able to show that these are not abnormal.
The British Medical Journal and the Lancet carried reports on two major EMF studies at the end of last year. The first dealt with an epidemiologic cohort study2 in Finland (see box 2), while the other looked at a three-year investigation by the US National Research Council (NRC) into more than 500 reports on EMFs.
Charles Stevens, chairman of the NRC, confirmed that there was a “weak but statistically significant association” with high levels of EMF and childhood leukaemia: “Over the years, a number of epidemiologists have found that children who live near concentrations of electric power lines are about 1.5 times more likely to contract leukemia.”3 However, the conclusion to the investigations ruled out EMF exposure as causing cancer.
Government stance
In formulating policy, the British government is advised by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). Lord Inglewood summarised the NRPB position: “The evidence does not establish that exposure to EMF is a cause of cancer, although it does provide some evidence to suggest the possibility exists, which justifies moving forward with research.”4
When the RICS guidance notes were issued, president Simon Pott wrote to John Gummer urging him to commission and publish independent research into the subject “as soon as possible to establish the position as to the detriment to health” and to consider the need for more regulations and for compensation provisions.
Gummer replied: “As things stand, I see no case for extra regulation . . . in the meantime, I am sure your institution would not wish to take any action which adds to unfounded anxiety.”
Prior to this, the government had refused to issue regulations restricting EMF from National Grid power cables to 0.2µT and an application for a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision was rejected by Mrs Justice Smith. The level of 0.2µT is one supposedly adopted by the Swedish government, but dismissed as a myth by Dr David Jeffers, EMF consultant at the National Grid.5
The scientific view
Concern over possible health hazards from EMFs first arose in the 1970s, when a report from the then Soviet Union suggested an association between exposure of certain electricity industry workers to high electric fields and symptoms of ill heath, including tiredness, headaches, cardiovascular effects and loss of sleep.
Initial studies concentrated on electric fields, but subsequently moved to magnetic fields. Since then there have been numerous studies, mainly focused on magnetic fields.6
Most scientists believe that there is no conclusive evidence to show that EMFs are harmful, although all refuse to rule out any possibility of a connection.
The leading UK proponent of possible dangers, Professor Henshaw of Bristol University, is looking at both electric fields and magnetic fields and, unlike the Finnish study, cases of childhood leukaemia within 50m of power cables. Henshaw is convinced that a causal link will be established in the near future and expects this to have a detrimental effect on the value of properties near power lines.
In Electricity and cancer – the missing link Professor Henshaw referred to a study on electrical utility workers by the University of Toronto which showed a relative risk of leukaemia from magnetic fields. This was statistically insignificant at 1.6, but rose to 11.2 when combined exposure to electric and magnetic fields was considered.7
The electricity industry
In the past, utilities such as the RECs were considered public benefactors. Now they are seen as commercial organisations, making profits, but responsible to the individual.
Several RECs are owned by American utilities who face major problems in the US where, as the American Physical Society points out: “Costs of mitigation and litigation relating to the power line/cancer connection have risen to billions of dollars and threaten to go much higher.”8
The US Department of Energy is funding a $65m investigation, Research and Public Information Dissemination (RAPID), which will report to Congress in 1998.
In Britain, the Electricity Association has a declared policy of adhering to the NRPB’s guidelines. Last October, inquiries about EMF, which are analysed monthly, were running at 82% from the public and 3% from surveyors. Various “question and answer” fact sheets can be obtained from the EA.
The EA views Professor Henshaw’s hypothesis as “implausible” and “purely speculative”.9 While dismissing his theories, the EA states it is not complacent and will continue to fund research into any possible health connection.
Planning
Other than standard safety clearances, there are no restrictions to building under power lines. An application in 1994 for a residential development near Mold was refused on the grounds that power lines immediately above might be detrimental to the health of the residents.10
The councillors, however, acted against the advice of its planning officers, and an appeal to the Welsh Office was successful. The bungalows, were subsequently built but have remained unfinished for 12 months, despite what local property experts describe as quite an active market.
At Barking Reach, Bellway Homes and English Partnerships arranged for 13 pylons to be taken down and over 10 miles of power line to go underground at a cost of some £3m. While this was not a planning condition, and a 30m exclusion zone had been considered, Noel Tuitt of Bellway stated that without the removal of the lines the development would not have proceeded.
The lending institutions
The Council of Mortgage Lenders refrained from making a public statement on the RICS’ guidance notes. It has, however, suggested amendments since it believes that the notes should take account of the NRPB’s conclusions.
Prior to the RICS taking its lead, many building societies had issued guidance to their panel surveyors on EMFs, some as early as 1994. While most omit any reference to health, Nationwide included electric overhead power cables on a list headed “Hazardous materials/ circumstances”. It instructed its valuers to report tactfully and factually: all properties were to be accepted “in principle” unless there was clear market resistance to buy.
Britannia makes no reference to health, but advises its surveyors to “consider the less tangible associations with this type of equipment as suggested by certain media reporting over the past few years”.
Valuation/market effects
With the official position being that there are no health risks attached to EMFs, it would be surprising to find evidence of statutory compensation, although a recently reported Lands Tribunal case does provide a certain perspective.11 The tribunal assessed compensation for 1l kV power lines crossing the boundaries of a dwelling house and made an award based on some 2% of capital value.
The surveyor for the Southern Electricity Board quoted six settlements in respect of 132kV power lines, with distances to dwellings varying between 90m and 300m. Settlements were in terms of capital value ranging from 0.25% to 4%, with a settlement of about 22% in respect of a pylon within a few feet of a dwelling’s garden.
As to market reaction, ISVA’s Liverpool and North Wales branch held a forum to discuss the RICS guidance notes. Many of the corporate valuation firms were represented with the Health and Safety adviser for MANWEB. Most valuers stated that they were following the individual instructions of lending institutions and not the RICS guidance.
Most considered substations to be detrimental for aesthetic rather than health reasons, although proximity was relevant. Pylons and powerlines caused greater concern because of perceived health fears, but some valuers considered buyers’ resistance was due to more immediate matters such as bird noise and droppings.
As for sales falling through or proving difficult, it was impossible to rule out reasons such as a slow market or purchasers seeking excuses. In cases where a problem might exist, the majority view was that a reduction in price would encourage a sale, although opinions as to the level of reduction varied from 5% to 20%.
A consensus was reached on only one issue. Unanimous silence was the response to the question: “Would you buy a house situated under power lines?”
Conclusion
In the absence of definite evidence, public perception may prove the determining factor. The chief medical officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, looked at such an issue in a lecture on “Cancer: science and society, the communication of risk”,12 describing how a variety of health scares have shown a very rapid change in the public’s behaviour, based on evidence which is often “quite weak”. In the words of Kant: “We see things not as they are, but how we are.”
For the present, individual valuers should follow events in the market and leave policy to their professional societies. Valuers can, however, assist in establishing the actual level of public concern by notifying their representatives of any problems encountered, overcoming the profession’s tendency for individuals to hoard information.
Where valuers are required to give advice, it is suggested they follow the conclusions of the NRPB and the majority of scientists: that there is no definite evidence of a causal link between EMFs and ill health, but the possibility cannot be completely excluded.
References
1Jeffers D, “Electric and magnetic fields and health”, Structural Survey 1996; 1: 4-8
2Verksalo et al, “Magnetic fields of high-voltage power lines and risk of cancer“, BMJ 1996; 313: 1047-51
3Medical News & Perspectives, “Possible health effects of exposure to residential electric and magnetic fields”, JAMA 1996, December 4
4Hansard (House of Lords) March 23 1995 – cols 1397-98
5As 1
6EMF Briefing, Electricity Association, November 1995
7Miller et al, “Cancer in electrical utility workers at the Canadian power company Ontario Hydro”, American Journal of Epidemiology 1996; 144: 150-160
8American Physical Society, Council statement, April 1995
9Electricity Association, news release, November 28 1996
10Initial research, Susan Jones, NEWI College, Wrexham
11Naylor v Southern Electricity Board, EGLR 9626 138-141, June 29 1996
12Calman KC, “Cancer: science and society and the communciation of risk”, BMJ 1996, 313: 799-802
Contact addresses
National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0RQ
Electricity Association, 30 Millbank, London SW 4RD
Further reading
Henshaw et al, “Enhanced deposition of radon daughter nuclei in the vicinity of power frequency electromagnetic fields” International Journal of Radiobiology, February 14 1996
Ahlbom & Norell, Introduction to Modern Epidemiology, Epidemiology Resources Incorporated.
Peter Rice FSVA, previously with Richard Ellis, Storey Sons & Parker and Sykes Waterhouse. Took a sabbatical last year to look at the business and environmental aspects of property.
Dr Annelie Maier PHD is a Merseyside GP with a special interest in the subject.