Twenty years ago concerns were raised that exposure to power frequency (or extremely low frequency (ELF)) electromagnetic fields (EMFs) may be associated with an increased risk of cancer or other health hazards. Subsequently no associations have been shown between laboratory magnetic field exposures and carcinogenesis in either animal or cellular models. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that magnetic fields are not associated with cancer. However, the puzzle remains that the results of some epidemiological studies may be interpreted as suggesting that living close to high-voltage transmission (HVT) lines appears to increase slightly the risk of childhood leukaemia. Alternatively, these results could result from small biases and errors in individual studies, which might not necessarily be the same in each study. The nature of the epidemiological studies (power-line, wire code, magnetic field or appliance based) appears to determine whether and how the EMFs associated with HVT lines might be a risk factor. It is possible that a simple association with either magnetic or electric field exposure may not be the whole answer, and an alternative mechanism is always a possibility. Although the interpretation of the available evidence by most expert bodies has led them to conclude that exposure to power frequency electric and magnetic fields is not a human health hazard, a working group under the auspices of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) concluded that there was a possible low risk associated with certain exposures to ELF magnetic fields. NIEHS itself interpreted the finding as insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern but stated that, because virtually everyone is routinely exposed to ELF EMFs, passive regulatory action is warranted, such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. These analyses, conclusions and advice are not contradicted by subsequent studies, and therefore the conclusion of the World Health Organisation that further research is needed seems valid.