Static magnetic field measurements in residences in relation to resonance hypotheses of interactions between power‐frequency magnetic fields and humans

Bowman et al. used epidemiologic data to test a model in which subjects were classified as being “in‐resonance” or “not‐in‐resonance” for 60‐Hz magnetic‐field exposures depending on single static magnetic‐field measurements at the centers of their bedrooms. A second paper by Swanson concluded that a single static magnetic‐field measurement is insufficient to meaningfully characterize a residential environment. The main objective of this study was to investigate exposure‐related questions raised by these two papers in two U.S. data sets, one containing single spot measurements of static magnetic fields at two locations in homes located in eight states, and the other repeated spot measurements (seven times during the course of one year) of the static magnetic fields at the centers of bedrooms and family rooms and on the surfaces of beds in 51 single‐family homes in two metropolitan areas. Using Bowman's criterion, bedrooms were first classified as being in‐resonance or not‐in‐resonance based on the average of repeated measurements of the static magnetic field measured on the bed where the presumed important exposure actually occurred. Bedrooms were then classified a second time using single spot measurements taken at the centers of bedrooms, centers of family rooms, or on the surfaces of beds, as would be done in the typical epidemiologic study. The kappa statistics characterizing the degree of concordance between the first (on‐bed averages) and second (spot measurements) methods of assessing resonance status were 0.44, 0.33, and 0.67, respectively. This level of misclassification could significantly affect the results of studies involving the determination of resonance status. Bioelectromagnetics 22:294–305, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.