Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:

Response to “Magnetic fields and miscarriage: A commentary on Mezei et al., JESEE 2006”

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology volume 18, pages 538–540 (2008)Cite this article

The first paper was a retrospective analysis of existing exposure data sets “aimed at examining the stability of peak-exposure measures and at evaluating whether the maximum magnetic-field exposure is a function of activity as Savitz (2002) suggested,” as stated by Mezei et al. (2006). They reported that a day's peak exposure was dependent on sampling interval; that maximum exposures were far less stable over time (from <5 to >15 months) than measures of central tendency and less stable than even 99th percentile exposures; and that peak exposures were higher for individuals who occupied more locations (home, work, and so on) throughout the exposure measurement period. They concluded that “our results do not necessarily exclude the possibility of a relationship between peak exposure and miscarriage”…and…”[m]ore direct evidence may only be provided by a follow-up epidemiologic study of miscarriage among pregnant women with simultaneous monitoring of magnetic field and activity levels.” To correct Neutra and Li, this paper was submitted, accepted and published prior to the second paper discussed immediately below.

The second study (Saritz et al., 2006) was an assessment of 100 women at various stages of their pregnancy who for 1 week simultaneously wore both an EMDEX II personal magnetic field logger and a MTI Actigraph monitor that monitors physical activity. The study was added on to an existing NIH-sponsored study of this cohort in which physical activity was a central interest. Although the add-on design was constrained by the protocol for the NIH-sponsored study, this study addressed the part of the hypothesis proposing that “reduced physical activity is associated with a lower probability of encountering environmental sources of high magnetic fields,” and the study's results were broadly supportive of this relationship. As stated clearly in the paper, it was not designed to address the hypothesis that “nausea of early pregnancy and cumbersomeness in late pregnancy are associated with reduced physical activity,” although the data suggested reduced physical activity as pregnancy proceeded past the 25th week, providing some support for the cumbersomeness effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

References

  • AGNIR. Magnetic fields and miscarriage. Statement by the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation, National Radiological Protection Board 2002: http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/bulletin/e-no1/article1.htm (accessed on 5 November 2007).

  • Greenland S. Response and follow-up bias in cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol 1977: 106: 184–187.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee G.M., Neutra R.R., Hristova L., Yost M., and Hiatt R.A. A nested case-control study of residential and personal magnetic field measures and miscarriages. Epidemiology 2002: 13: 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li D.K., and Neutra R.R. Magnetic fields and miscarriage. Epidemiology 2002: 13: 237–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li D.K., Odouli R., Wi S., Janevic T., Golditch I., Bracken T.D., Senior R., Rankin R., and Iriye R. A population-based prospective cohort study of personal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage. Epidemiology 2002: 13: 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezei G., Bracken T.D., Senior R., and Kavet R. Analyses of magnetic-field peak-exposure summary measures. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2006: 16: 477–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole C. Invited commentary: evolution of epidemiologic evidence on magnetic fields and childhood cancers. Am J Epidemiol 1996: 143: 129–132; discussion 133–136.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Savitz D.A., Herring A.H., Mezei G., Evenson K.R., Terry J.W., and Kavet R. Physical activity and magnetic field exposure in pregnancy. Epidemiology 2006: 17 (2): 222–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savitz D.A. Magnetic fields and miscarriage. Epidemiology 2002: 13: 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environment Department, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, USA

    Gabor Mezei & Robert Kavet

  2. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Disease Prevention Institute, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA

    David A Savitz

Authors
  1. Gabor Mezei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A Savitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Kavet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabor Mezei.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mezei, G., Savitz, D. & Kavet, R. Response to “Magnetic fields and miscarriage: A commentary on Mezei et al., JESEE 2006”. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 18, 538–540 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2008.38

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2008.38

Search

Advanced search

Quick links