Magnetic fields exposure and childhood leukemia risk: A meta-analysis based on 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls

The Stem Cell Division Theory of Cancer

“…New studies are in line with these large pooled analyses [30,31,[174][175][176]. For example, a meta-analysis based on 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls showed that the relative risk was 1.57 for exposure above 0.4 μT [31]. It has been estimated that 2% of childhood leukemia cases in Europe are attributable to ELF-EMFs [32,33].…”

“…Another pooled analysis published the same year, which included 15 studies based on less restrictive inclusion criteria, showed a relative risk of 1.7 for exposure above 0.3 μT [29]. New studies are in line with these large pooled analyses [30,31,[174][175][176]. For example, a meta-analysis based on 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls showed that the relative risk was 1.57 for exposure above 0.4 μT [31].…”

“…Human studies indicate that the risk of cancer is increased by hormone therapy (several cancer types) [17][18][19], shift work that involves circadian disruption (breast cancer) [20][21][22][23], drinking very hot beverages (esophageal cancer) [24][25][26][27] and exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (childhood leukemia) [28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. Carcinogenesis experiments in rodents have also shown that non-mutagenic factors can have a major impact on cancer incidence and development [13].…”

The effects of extremely low frequency magnetic fields on mutation induction in mice

“…A meta-analysis, similar to pooled analysis, is a statistical method extensively used in biomedical research, which is specifically useful in providing a more reliable outcome when data from different studies are inconclusive (Lagiou et al, 2002 were included under strict selection criteria. Again using <0.1 μT as the reference, a statistically significant association was exhibited between both total childhood leukaemia and more specifically acute lymphocytic leukaemia and magnetic field intensity of > 0.4 μT and, OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.03-2.40 and OR = 2.43, 95% CI: 1.30-4.55, respectively (Zhao et al, 2014). While this indicates some concordance between studies and potentially identifies a very specific exposure limit associated with damage, only a few residences registered average spot-or long-term measurements >0.3 µT (1-4 %) and even fewer (1-2%) >0.4 µT (Ahlbom et al, 2000;Greenland et al, 2000).…”

“…Furthermore, that their lack of significant data does not alter the previous assessment that magnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic (Kheifets et al, 2010). More recently still, Zhao et al (2014) aimed to further assess the link between childhood leukaemia and magnetic field exposure in a meta-analysis based on circa 25,000 individuals. A meta-analysis, similar to pooled analysis, is a statistical method extensively used in biomedical research, which is specifically useful in providing a more reliable outcome when data from different studies are inconclusive (Lagiou et al, 2002 were included under strict selection criteria.…”