Data centers, residents and a mounting health worry
Communities across central and eastern Oregon — home to campuses operated by Google in The Dalles and major hyperscaler activity around Prineville — are raising alarms that a boom in data center construction and operations could be contributing to higher rates of cancer and miscarriages. The concerns center on a mix of local air emissions from construction and backup-generation, chemical use in cooling systems, and electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with high-voltage infrastructure. While no causal link is established, residents and public health advocates are demanding measurement, transparency and independent epidemiology.
What’s driving the worry?
Over the last two decades Oregon has become a major hub for so-called hyperscale data centers, drawn by low-cost power, fiber connectivity and favorable land-use policies. Google’s campus in The Dalles (operational since 2006) and the concentration of facilities in Prineville — where Apple and Meta also established data center operations — exemplify the trend. Data centers require substantial power and cooling capacity; they also use diesel or natural-gas backup generators that can produce short-term spikes in nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) during testing or outages.
Public-health literature links PM2.5 exposure to a range of adverse outcomes. The World Health Organization updated its Air Quality Guidelines in 2021 and noted there is essentially no safe level of PM2.5 exposure, warning lower concentrations still carry risk. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has long identified PM2.5 as associated with premature death, cardiovascular disease and respiratory illness. Some epidemiological studies also link air pollution to adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight and increased risk of pregnancy loss.
EMF, carcinogenicity and uncertainty
Separately, concerns about radiofrequency and other electromagnetic fields persist. In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).” That classification is cautious — signaling limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans — and it has been a focal point for community worries around high-voltage transmission lines and telecom infrastructure supporting data center networks.
Evidence so far: limited but worrying
To date, robust, peer-reviewed epidemiological studies directly linking data center operations to increased cancer or miscarriage rates in Oregon do not exist. What residents describe — clusters of adverse outcomes and anecdotal spikes following construction or generator testing — has catalyzed calls for environmental health monitoring. Local journalists and nonprofits have documented complaints to county health departments and petitions for environmental impact statements (EIS) for new data center projects.
Industry counters that modern data centers operate under strict environmental permits, use backup power only rarely, and increasingly procure renewable energy. Google has long pointed to power purchase agreements and investments in renewables for its The Dalles campus; Apple and Meta similarly tout their commitments to carbon neutrality and efficient cooling designs. Nonetheless, permitting typically focuses on air emissions, water use and land impacts rather than long-term epidemiological surveillance.
Expert perspectives
Public health specialists say the right next step is targeted monitoring and rigorous study. Environmental epidemiologists emphasize the need for baseline health data, air-quality monitors downwind of facilities, and tracking of generator testing schedules to correlate exposure with reported outcomes. As one environmental-health analyst noted in recent coverage, pinpointing causation requires time-series exposure data and control for confounders such as smoking rates, occupational exposures and socioeconomic factors.
Data center operators and trade groups including the Uptime Institute and The Green Grid point to investments in cleaner backup power, more efficient cooling (air- and liquid-based), carbon-offset arrangements and community benefit agreements as mitigation strategies. Regulators at county and state levels are being pressed to tighten requirements for cumulative impact assessments and to require continuous air monitoring around large campuses.
Implications for industry and policy
If regulators demand more environmental monitoring or stricter permitting, the cost and timeline for data center projects could rise — altering site selection decisions and potentially slowing expansion in Oregon. For tech companies, addressing community health concerns will become part of broader ESG and social-license-to-operate strategies. From a policy perspective, Oregon lawmakers and county planners face growing pressure to require health impact assessments, independent air-quality monitoring and transparent reporting of backup-generator usage.
Conclusion: what comes next
At the moment the evidence linking Oregon data centers to increases in cancer and miscarriages is suggestive but not definitive. The conversation underscores broader tensions between rapid digital infrastructure growth and community health protections. The next six to 18 months will likely bring more monitoring mandates, public records requests for generator and emissions data, and calls for independent epidemiological studies. For now, stakeholders — residents, health agencies, county planners and tech firms — are left advocating for one concrete remedy: better, publicly available environmental data so science can follow.
Related coverage: Investigative pieces on data center water use, renewable-energy sourcing by hyperscalers, and county permitting practices are natural follow-ups for readers tracking the issue.
About the Author
