From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Jan 02 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!psinntp!interramp.com!usenet From: "David C. Weber" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RF emissions and health Date: Tue, 03 Jan 95 15:19:38 EDT Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Lines: 6 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: ip206.rochester.ny.interramp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon -- TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage I need to get information concerning health effects of RF emissions. In particular there will be a new installation of a radio tower 6000 watts @ 107.3mhz close to my home (within 1000 feet). Any information or pointers would be appreciated....... From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jan 04 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Weber"s Q Date: 4 Jan 1995 14:19:40 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 15 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: >David C. Weber states >I need to get information concerning health effects of RF emissions. In >particular there will be a new installation of a radio tower 6000 watts ....... Information such as you seek concerning the possibility of hazards is gathered and distributed by a citizens group called the National EMR Alliance. I suggest that you contact them at 212-554-4073. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jan 04 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: FW: Brain DNA breaks? Date: 5 Jan 1995 12:14:08 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 40 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2F0BD494@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net There is a detailed report on a study by Henry Lai and Narendra Singh in the Nov/Dec issue of Microwave News. According to MN, their paper has been accepted by the BEMS journal, and will be published in the spring. MN also discusses a study by Sarkar et al, Mutation Research 320: 141-147, 1994. MN says that the Lai-Singh experiment was at 2.45 GHz (continuous and pulsed) with a SAR = 0.6 and 1.2 W/Kg. The subjects were rats. 20-30% increases were found in single-strand DNA breaks in the rat brains, with the pulsed radiation giving more breaks. The increases were statistically significant, and "appeared to be a dose-response relationship". MN has over two pages of discussion on these studies. Joe Bowman NIOSH Cincinnati, OH jdb0@niobbs1.em.cdc.gov ---------- From: BIOSCI-REQUEST To: emf-bio Subject: Brain DNA breaks? Date: Wednesday, January 04, 1995 2:21PM I've been told that there were reports a few days ago on TV network news shows about research showing breaks in brain DNA after exposure to cell phone frequency emf. Has anyone read a report of this work and have a citation? How good was the work? I guess I should watch TV more often. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jan 04 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Brain DNA breaks? Date: 4 Jan 1995 14:21:37 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 13 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: I've been told that there were reports a few days ago on TV network news shows about research showing breaks in brain DNA after exposure to cell phone frequency emf. Has anyone read a report of this work and have a citation? How good was the work? I guess I should watch TV more often. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 05 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!CS.Arizona.EDU!uunet!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news From: Mark Pinsky <71231.2211@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: RF emissions and health Date: 6 Jan 1995 04:04:23 GMT Organization: CDFI Coalitioh Lines: 21 Message-ID: <3eifg7$cht$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com> References: >I need to get information concerning health effects of RF >emissions. In particular there will be a new installation of a >radio tower 6000 watts hz close to my home (within 1000 feet). Any >information or pointers would be appreciated....... I have just published (1/95) a book covering research on the health effects of RF emissions and other electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) that ought to be a useful starting place. It includes recommendations for reducing exposures. It is called "THE EMF BOOK: WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION." If you have access to the Time-Warner Lifestyle forum on Compuserve (Go TWLIFE) you can find some excerpts, though they do not address your particular needs. In addition, if you provide more information I might be able to provide you some guidance or direct you to people who might help. Where are you located, what are all of the uses of the tower (radio? cellular phones? other?), how tall is the tower, whether you are in a densely populated or heavily wooded area, etc. Mark Pinsky Compuserve 71231,2211 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 05 22:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab190 From: ab190@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Richard W. Woodley) Subject: EMF Information Service Message-ID: Sender: ab190@freenet3.carleton.ca (Richard W. Woodley) Reply-To: ab190@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Richard W. Woodley) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 00:48:51 GMT Lines: 79 BRIDLEWOOD EMF INFORMATION SERVICE UPDATED The Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee (BRHLC) has brought in the New Year by updating all the information on its National Capital Freenet (NCF) EMF Information Service. On January 1, 1995 updated information files were uploaded onto the system. Over the past years concerns over electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have continued to grow. In the past year new studies have come out linking EMFs to Alzheimer's Disease, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). As well further studies have confirmed the links to childhood cancer and leukemia. Community struggles continue as more and more communities organize to protect themselves and take on the utility industry, particulary concerning EMFs and schools. Bring yourself up-to-date on this issue by dialling into the freenet and entering "go brhlc" to read the latest information. The information files include: About the Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee; History of the Bridlewood Hydro Line Struggle; Electromagnetic Fields and Health; Electromagnetic Fields and Schools and Playgrounds; Hydro Line and EMF Struggles Around the World; Sources of Electromagnetic Fields and How to Avoid Them; Bibliography and EMF Information Sources; and Extensive Bibliography on EMFs and Health (over 1,000 entries). Also included are information files on other EMF organizations: Coalition to Reduce Electropollution; National EMR Alliance; Planetary Association for Clean Energy Inc.; and Prudent Residents Opposed To Electric Cable Transmission. The system also provides a local discussion group on EMFs where you can ask questions or discuss the EMF issue. We have also added, in the last year, access to other Internet EMF resources, including: EMF-BIO Usenet Newsgroup; "sci.physics. electromag" Usenet Newsgroup; EMFLDS-L Mailing List; and EMF-Link. EMF-Link is a World Wide Web Server oriented to the biological effects of electric and magnetic fields. It is a multimedia resource directed to researchers as well as the general public. EMF-Link is prepared by Information Ventures, Inc. and includes information from the bimonthly EMF Health Report and quarterly BENER Digest Update. The NCF can be accessed by anyone with a computer and modem by dialling (613) 564-3600 (2400 baud) or 564-0808 (high speed) or via telnet at "freenet.carleton.ca" (134.117.1.25). To access the Hydro Line Committee section of the NCF type "go brhlc" at the "Your Choice" prompt anywhere within the NCF menu system. If you do not have access to the National Capital Freenet the information files are available via FTP at a site operated by Paul J. Guy at the University of Waterloo. The FTP address is "gaitlab1.uwaterloo.ca" and the file is under "pub/em/BRHLC" as "BRHLC.ref". Please note that ftp is case sensitive. If you do not have FTP capability you can request copies of our information files by internet e-mail.The Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee can be reached via e-mail at "ab190@freenet.carleton.ca" from virtually anywhere in the world, or from within the NCF at "ab190". If you are not registered on the NCF but have World Wide Web access the URL for EMF-Link is: "http://archive.xrt.upenn.edu:1000/0h/emf/top/emf-link.html". The National Capital Freenet is located in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. -- 30 -- -- ************* Richard W. Woodley (ab190@freenet.carleton.ca.)************** | National Capital Freenet Information Provider ("go brhlc") | | Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee EMF Information Service | ****************** "Communicate Globally - Act Locally"******************** From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jan 08 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ORAC.SUND.AC.UK!es0mda From: es0mda@ORAC.SUND.AC.UK ("mark.davies") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Pinsky's book Date: 9 Jan 1995 01:03:50 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 5 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <13749.9501090900@orac.sund.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Mark Pinsky's book looks like an interesting addition to the other recently published books on EMF. Any chance of a posting of a full reference? Mark Davies, University of Sunderland, UK es0mda@orac.sund.ac.uk From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jan 10 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: mss accepted for publication Date: 10 Jan 1995 16:38:56 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 33 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The FASEB Journal has accepted for publication two papers that have come out of the emf community. They will appear this Spring. One is an expansion of Blanchard and Blackman's work and is entitled "The Ion Parametric Resonance Model Predicts Magnetic Field Parameters that Affect Nerve Cells". It is by Blackman, Blanchard et al. The other paper is entitled "Database created from magnetic resonance images of a Sprague-Dawley Rat, Rhesus monkey, and Pigmy goat". It is by Mason, Walters et al. There are other papers under consideration. Earlier, the FASEB Journal published major papers involving emf by Richard Stevens, Russel Reiter, Martin Blank, Ruggero Cadossi, Jan Walleczek and Allan Frey. As you can see, the FASEB Journal is interested in this line of basic research. The requirements for an ms are that the submission be a major piece of work of significance (The FASEB Journal is number one in impact of all biology journals according to the Institute for Scientific Information and is read by approximately 100, 000 biologists, so there is a lot of competition for space). The area editor will accept papers concerned with basic biology, papers concerned with policy issues such as hazards are not appropriate. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jan 10 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!interramp.com!usenet From: "David C. Weber" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Thank you, to all who responded! Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 11:19:36 EDT Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Lines: 12 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: ip18.rochester.ny.interramp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon -- TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who responded to my question concerning RF emmissions and health. I was amazed at the response and quality of the information. As far as my town (East Bloomfield, NY) and the proposed RF tower: The zoning people/planning board have approved the site plan with certain restrictions placed upon the size, location, and power of the transmitter. It appears from all answers I received there is no significant biological health hazard, and that the transmitter would comply with the ANSI C95.1-1992 spec. However, I am still a bit concerned and will be doing further reasearch with the information that my first post generated. Thank you once again! :-) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jan 11 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news From: Mark A. Samuels <75371.2537@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Buy House near Power line? Date: 12 Jan 1995 03:47:15 GMT Organization: SpectRx/Laser Atlanta Lines: 18 Message-ID: <3f28o3$ksn$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> I want to buy a house that is 200 feet from a medium distribution line ( three small towers with one line each, 12 insulators) The power line appears to come within 60 feet of the ground in some places and is not one of the huge cross country lines. These towers are about 2 foot on a side triangular and 150 to 200 feet tall, held up by guy lines. I can't feel or hear anything directly under them. A small stand of trees block the house from view of the lines (shielding?) Should I no buy the house? I have one small child. -- MARK SAMUELS SPECTRX/LASER ATLANTA ATLANTA,GA (404) 242-8723 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jan 11 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news From: Mark Pinsky <71231.2211@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Pinsky's book Date: 12 Jan 1995 02:19:59 GMT Organization: CDFI Coalitioh Lines: 11 Message-ID: <3f23kf$jt7$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> References: <13749.9501090900@orac.sund.ac.uk> >Mark Pinsky's book looks like an interesting addition to the other >recently published books on EMF. Any chance of a posting of a >full reference? Gladly. Pinsky, Mark A. "The EMF Book: What You Should Know About Electromagnetic Fields, Electromagnetic Radiation, and Your Health," New York: Warner Books. Available in paperback, $9.95 US. The author welcomes comments at Compuserve 71231,2211. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jan 11 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news From: Mark A. Samuels <75371.2537@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Buy house near power line? Date: 12 Jan 1995 03:36:46 GMT Organization: SpectRx/Laser Atlanta Lines: 15 Message-ID: <3f284e$p1r$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com> I am considering buying a home that is within 200 feet of a medium distribution power line (three small metal towers, each carrying one cable, I counted 12 insulators). These are not the cross country type towers and the lines come within about 60 ft of the ground in some places (between towers). A stand of trees separates the house from the lines. Should I not buy the house because of the power lines?, I have one child 1.5 yrs old. -- MARK SAMUELS SPECTRX/LASER ATLANTA ATLANTA,GA (404) 242-8723 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jan 11 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ACCESS.DIGEX.NET!dr2 From: dr2@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET (Don) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Buy house near power line? Date: 11 Jan 1995 20:32:57 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 24 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <3f284e$p1r$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Uh, I wouldn't.... Don On 12 Jan 1995, Mark A. Samuels wrote: > I am considering buying a home that is within 200 feet of a > medium distribution power line (three small metal towers, each > carrying one cable, I counted 12 insulators). These are not the > cross country type towers and the lines come within about 60 ft > of the ground in some places (between towers). A stand of trees > separates the house from the lines. > > Should I not buy the house because of the power lines?, I have > one child 1.5 yrs old. > > -- > MARK SAMUELS > SPECTRX/LASER ATLANTA > ATLANTA,GA > (404) 242-8723 > > From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jan 11 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!TELEPORT.COM!seniorr From: seniorr@TELEPORT.COM (Russell Senior) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Buy house near power line? Date: 11 Jan 1995 21:29:49 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 23 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199501120529.VAA19779@desiree.teleport.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net >>>>> On 12 Jan 1995, Mark A. Samuels wrote: Mark> I am considering buying a home that is within 200 feet of a Mark> medium distribution power line (three small metal towers, each Mark> carrying one cable, I counted 12 insulators). These are not Mark> the cross country type towers and the lines come within about Mark> 60 ft of the ground in some places (between towers). A stand Mark> of trees separates the house from the lines. Mark> Should I not buy the house because of the power lines?, I have Mark> one child 1.5 yrs old. >>>>> "Don" == Don writes: Don> Uh, I wouldn't.... Do you mind telling us what you base your opinion on? Russell S. Senior seniorr@teleport.com seniorr@csos.orst.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ccmail.pnl.gov!ja_leonowich From: ja_leonowich@ccmail.pnl.gov Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re[4]: Buy house near power line? Date: 12 Jan 1995 20:42:22 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 24 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <01HLRTCE3OJ600004U@pnl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Slow microwave is a completely wrong analogy for 60 Hz. These are "fields not waves". Even so the relationship E = hf still holds. The energy is infintesimal compared to the microwave oven frequency of 2450 MHz, which does so well to cook food because of geometric considerations (within a few order of magnitudes or so as the wavelength of microwave radiation), and the presence of that very polar molecule water. Besides which, if you believe that analogy, then I suspect you better live in a house without any electricity. You are slowly being cooked by your household appliances. While I do not say that these fields do not have biological interactions in tissue, I still maintain the main reasons for not buying a house are economic, not field related. jal _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: Re[2]: Buy house near power line? From: dr2@access.digex.net at -SMTPlink Date: 1/12/95 20:25 I just don't see the need to put myself and family in what would amount to be a slow microwave.... My cells don't need the exposure to all that field energy. Don From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ccmail.pnl.gov!ja_leonowich From: ja_leonowich@ccmail.pnl.gov Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re[2]: Buy house near power line? Date: 12 Jan 1995 09:08:09 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 33 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <01HLR53QU77M00004U@pnl.gov> The main consideration here, in my opinion, would be resale value of the house due to the hysteria surrounding this issue. It is more of a economic issue than public health issue. The aesthetics are not great either. j.a leonowich, battelle pacific nw laboratory _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: Buy house near power line? From: dr2@access.digex.net at -SMTPlink Date: 1/11/95 20:32 Uh, I wouldn't.... Don On 12 Jan 1995, Mark A. Samuels wrote: > I am considering buying a home that is within 200 feet of a > medium distribution power line (three small metal towers, each > carrying one cable, I counted 12 insulators). These are not the > cross country type towers and the lines come within about 60 ft > of the ground in some places (between towers). A stand of trees > separates the house from the lines. > > Should I not buy the house because of the power lines?, I have > one child 1.5 yrs old. > > -- > MARK SAMUELS > SPECTRX/LASER ATLANTA > ATLANTA,GA > (404) 242-8723 > > From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ACCESS.DIGEX.NET!dr2 From: dr2@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET (Don) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Re[2]: Buy house near power line? Date: 12 Jan 1995 20:25:48 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 6 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <01HLR53QU77M00004U@pnl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I just don't see the need to put myself and family in what would amount to be a slow microwave.... My cells don't need the exposure to all that field energy. Don From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ACCESS.DIGEX.NET!dr2 From: dr2@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET (Don) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Re[4]: Buy house near power line? Date: 12 Jan 1995 20:46:03 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 11 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <01HLRTCE3OJ600004U@pnl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net jal, Your point is a well taken one, BUT, anytime I'm putting myself into a environment with that much flux concentration and level, I get concerned for the things I'm doing to myself that science may not find for many years.... Heck, remember how long SMOKING was considered good therapy for pulmonary problems????? Why ask for problems? Don From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ccmail.pnl.gov!ja_leonowich From: ja_leonowich@ccmail.pnl.gov Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re[6]: Buy house near power line? Date: 12 Jan 1995 23:14:49 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 20 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <01HLRYO1L0GI00004U@pnl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I am enjoying this discussion. I don't believe you've ever actually said what the electric and magnetic fields in the house and environs were. jal _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: Re[4]: Buy house near power line? From: dr2@access.digex.net at -SMTPlink Date: 1/12/95 20:45 jal, Your point is a well taken one, BUT, anytime I'm putting myself into a environment with that much flux concentration and level, I get concerned for the things I'm doing to myself that science may not find for many years.... Heck, remember how long SMOKING was considered good therapy for pulmonary problems????? Why ask for problems? Don From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!TECHNION.TECHNION.AC.IL!RPRNISN From: RPRNISN@TECHNION.TECHNION.AC.IL (* PF03 UNDEFINED) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Congress announcement Date: 13 Jan 1995 00:06:02 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 39 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199501130805.AAA08958@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Dear colleagues: This is first announcement of the 1st CONGRESS OF THE WORLD ASSOCOATION FOR LASER THERAPY "WALT" Jerusalem, ISRAEL, May 5-9, 1996 Basic research topics: Cellular, sub-cellular @ tissue response Laser-tissue interaction Dosimetry Wound healing etc. etc - all related issues Therapy topics again - all related issues and disciplines I am sorry for the very short announcement due to technical reasons. For further details please write to 1st Cong. of the World Ass. for Laser Therapy P.O.B 50006 Tel Aviv 61500 ISRAEL fax: 972-3-5175674 or 972-3-660325 Please DO NOT use the BITNET address. Dr. Moshe Nissan The Organizing Committee ********************************************!*************************** * MOSHE NISSAN, PHD ! FAX: 972-3-6974546 * * BIO-MEDICAL ENGINEER ! TEL: 972-3-6974720 (WORK)* * Dept. Orthopaedics B' ! : 972-4-371788 (home) * * TEL-AVIV SOURASKY MEDICAL CENTER ! * * 6 Weitzman st. Tel-Aviv 64239 ISRAEL ! Bitnet: RPRNISN@TECHNION * ************************************************************************ From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!VM.TEMPLE.EDU!V2058A From: V2058A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: (none) Date: 13 Jan 1995 11:37:27 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 93 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199501131937.LAA06397@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Frontier Perspectives Cumulative Index of Feature Articles Vol. 1 - 3 Prices for back issues, including postage: 1990: $10.00 1991: $10.00 1992: $15.00 1993: $15.00 Volume 1 (1) 1990 Kolenda, Nancy. The History of the Center for Frontier Sciences Rubik, Beverly. The Bermuda Conference on Quantum Theory, Biology, Medicine, Philosophy, and Cognition Rubik, Beverly. Fields and Living Systems Meeting Rubik, Beverly. Report on Willis Harman's lecture entitled, "The Role of Consciousness in Causality" Rubik, Beverly. Report on Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne's lecture entitled,"Mental Interactions with Random Physical Processes" Volume 1 (2) 1990 Becker, Robert O. A Technique for Producing Regenerative Healings in Humans Rubik, Beverly. The Interrelationship Between Mind and Matter Rubik, Beverly. Bioinformation and Sensitivity to Geophysical Fields Rubik, Beverly. Report on David Bohm's theory entitled, "Toward a New Theory of the Relationship of Mind and Matter" Solovey, Simona. Report on Marcello Truzzi's lecture entitled, "Reflections on the Reception of Unconventional Claims in Science" Del Giudice, Emilio. Superradiance: A New Approach to Coherent Dynamical Behaviors of Condensed Matter Andrews, C. Sperry. Promoting Health and Well-Being Through a Sense of Connectedness Volume 2 (1) 1991 Sternglass, Ernest. The Biological Effects of Low Level Ionizing Radiation Rubik, Beverly. Frontiers of Homeopathic Research Metzger, Joel; Rubik, Beverly. Report on Robert O. Becker's lecture entitled,"Bioelectromagnetics: A Scientific Revolution" Herkovits, Jorge; Perez-Coll, Cristina. Biological Effects of Homeopathically Potentized Microdoses Burns, Jean. Does Consciousness Perform a Function Independently of the Brain? Wagner, O. Edson. Do Plants Interact With Gravity? Lieber, Michael. Adaptive Mutations and Biological Evolution Ji, Sungchul. An Aristotelian Revolution in Molecular Biology Volume 2 (2) 1991 Peat, F. David. Unfolding the Subtle: Matter and Consciousness Blackman, Carl. Do Electromagnetic Fields Pose Health Problems? Nordenstrom, Bjorn. Bioelectrical Circuits in the Body Puthoff, Harold E. Quantum Fluctuations of Empty Space: A New Rosetta Stone of Physics? Del Giudice, Emilio. Orthodox and Heretical Orthodoxies Elitzur, Avshalom C. Consciousness and the Passage of Time: Two Persistent Wonders or One? Manley, Paul. Cranial Osteopathy and the Infantile Craniopathies Del Giudice, Emilio. Sonoluminescence Sheds New Light on Condensed Matter Physics Dubrov, Alexander. Recent Developments in Frontier Sciences in the USSR Volume 3 (1) 1992 Walleczek, Jan. The Immune System and ELF Electromagnetic Fields Root-Bernstein, Robert S. Rethinking AIDS Josephson, Brian D.; Rubik, Beverly A. The Challenge of Consciousness Research Fontana, David. Consciousness Studies from a Social Science Perspective Beal, James B. Electromagnetic Fields: How Dangerous? Rubik, Beverly. Three Frontier Areas of Science that Challenge the Paradigm Volume 3, (2) 1993 Edelman, Gerald M. Morphology and Mind: Is it Possible to Construct a Perception Machine? Benveniste, Jacques. Transfer of Biological Activity by Electromagnetic Fields Del Giudice, Emilio. Coherence in Condensed and Living Matter Adey, W. Ross. Whispering Between Cells: Electromagnetic Fields and Regulatory Mechanisms in Tissue Endler, P. Christian; Pongratz, Waltraud; Smith, Cyril W. Effects of Highly Diluted Succussed Thyroxine on Amphibia Development Josephson, Brian D. Report on a Symposium on Reductionism in Science and Culture de la Torre, Cristina S. The Choice Control Groups in Invasive Clinical Trials such as Acupuncture Benor, Daniel J. Healers and Changing Medical Paradigm From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!VM.TEMPLE.EDU!V2058A From: V2058A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: (none) Date: 13 Jan 1995 11:36:43 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 412 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199501131936.LAA06317@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net AUDIOCASSETTE TAPES THE CENTER FOR FRONTIER SCIENCES AT TEMPLE UNIVERSITY The Center hosts colloquia at Temple University, bringing distinguished pioneers in the frontier sciences to present lectures on their research. These professionally audiotaped presentations, which include discussions with the audience, are available for purchase. The following tapes, 90 minutes each, are available. CONSCIOUSNESS RESEARCH AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE David Bohm, Ph.D. The Relationship Between Mind and Matter, October 1989 [A-01] University of London Bohm's extension of quantum theory maintains that consciousness is implicitly interwoven London, England in matter, and that both mind and matter contain more subtle informational features that render the universe an integrated whole. Roger Penrose, Ph.D. Computability and the mind, September 1992 [A-02] University of Oxford Oxford, UK Certain types of mental activity such as mathematical understanding cannot be reduced to artificial intelligence. New ideas on a possible non-computational action of the brain are presented. Willis W. Harman, Ph.D. The Role of Consciousness in Causality, March 1989 [A-03] Institute of Noetic Sciences Sausalito, CA Research on consciousness and the full human potential require an expanded science and a revised scientific epistemology as outlined here. F. David Peat, Ph.D. Unfolding the Subtle: Matter & Consciousness, February 1990 [A-04] Independent Scholar Ontario, Canada The mind-matter duality is reframed from a different perspective in which they are seen as two aspects of one reality. Daryl J. Bem, Ph.D. Does ESP Exist? Experimental Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Cornell University Information Transfer, March 1995 [A-05] Studies that demonstrate psi phenomena are described, although such phenomena remain unexplained. The skepticism of academic psychologists is also discussed. Robert G. Jahn, Ph.D. Margins of Reality, April 1989 [A-06] Princeton University Princeton, NJ Since 1979 the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory has observed the influence of conscious intention of operators on the output of random event generators in numerous experiments. Marcello Truzzi, Ph.D. Reflections on the Reception of Unconventional Claims in Eastern Michigan University Science (2 tapes), November 1989 [A-07] Ypsilanti, MI The history, philosophy, and sociology underlying scientific anomalies are discussed. Henryk Skolimowski, Ph.D. The Methodology of Participation, December 1993 [A-08] Technical University of Lodz Lodz, Poland Science contains in itself a new epistemology that leads to a new methodology of participation, which will have an impact on many aspects of life. Helmut Schmidt, Ph.D. Experiments and Thoughts on Mind-Matter Interaction, September 1991 Mind Science Foundation [A-09] San Antonio, TX Research on the influence of conscious intention on sensitive electronic equipment is used to explore some fundamental questions concerning the role of the observer in quantum physics. Steven M. Rosen, Ph.D. The Frontiers and Foundations of Science: A Neo-Intuitive Approach, College of Staten Island February 1992 [A-10] Staten Island, NY The seemingly anomalous phenomena of the frontier sciences are accommodated by revising the foundations of science via an intuitive reformulation of space and time. Beverly A. Rubik, Ph.D. Three Frontier Areas of Science that Challenge the Paradigm, Temple University March 1991 [A-11] Philadelphia, PA The Center for Frontier Sciences is focussed mainly on three key areas--consciousness studies, bioelectromagnetics, and alternative medicine--that are paving the way toward a new scientific paradigm. FRONTIERS OF BIOLOGY Gerald M.Edelman, M.D., Ph.D. Morphology & Mind: Is it Possible to Construct a Perception Rockefeller University Machine? February 1991 [B-01] New York, NY A developmental theory of the brain is proposed in which the selection of groups of neurons occurs to yield the most useful circuits that allow the organism to perceive, remember, and creatively adapt to its environment. Karl H. Pribram, M.D. Brain and the Variety of Conscious Experience, Radford University February 1994 [B-02] Radford, VA The holographic view of the brain in perception and memory is catalyzing a paradigm shift in the neurosciences and psychology. Harry Rubin, D.V.M. Alternatives to Molecular Mechanistic Thinking in Biology and Cancer, April 1992 [B-03] University of California Berkeley, CA Laboratory evidence challenges the oncogene hypothesis. A complex interplay of environmental factors also contribute to the origin and development of cancer as shown in tissue culture. Richard C. Strohman, Ph.D. Ancient Genome, Wise Body, Unhealthy People: The Rediscovery University of California of Creativity in Biology but not in Medicine, March 1993 [B-04] Berkeley, CA A new epigenetic paradigm is emerging in biology that goes beyond the genetic paradigm and also has important implications for the future of medicine. Stewart Wolf, M.D. The Organizing Power of Experience, April 1993 [B-05] Temple University Medical School Philadelphia, PA Humans store information from past experiences and yield physiological responses unique to their individual makeup and experience. This has been explored through quantitative changes seen in various visceral functions. Beverly A. Rubik, Ph.D. Rethinking Microbiology: AIDS, Infectious Disease, and the Temple University Terrain of the Body, May 1995 [B-06] Philadelphia, PA The concept of pleomorphism, the multiplicity of forms of microbes is described in light of scientific evidence, and ramifications for the new infectious diseases of our times are discussed. Elisabet Sahtouris, Ph.D. Gaia, Planetary Autopoiesis, and Ecology, March 1992 [B-07] Independent Scholar St. Augustine, FL By regarding the present phase of human evolution as analogous to the evolution of life on earth, new insights into our global ecological and social problems are gained. FRONTIERS OF MEDICINE Peter Duesberg, Ph.D. Contrasting Views on the Etiology of AIDS, April 1991 [C-01] University of California at Berkeley (2 Tapes) Berkeley, CA Prem Reddy, Ph.D. This panel explores various viewpoints and scientific evidence ranging from the University of Pennsylvania mainstream view that HIV is the sole Philadelphia, PA cause of AIDS to a view in which HIV is considered as only one of several causal factors, to the unorthodox view that HIV is unrelated to AIDS. Robert Root-Bernstein, Ph.D. Michigan State University East Lansing, MI Edward C. Whitmont, M.D. The Role of Mind in Health, Disease, and the Practice of Homeopathy Independent Scholar and Physician Sherman, CT March 1994 [C-02] Homeopathy and modern psychology involve a subtle interaction between mind and matter and are more efficacious and non-invasive than conventional treatments for chronic disease. Bruce Pomeranz, M.D., Ph.D. Recent Advances in Acupuncture Research, April 1994 [C-03] University of Toronto Department of Physiology Acupuncture relieves pain by promoting the release of natural endorphins in the Toronto, Ontario, Canada body, and new research suggests that there are other beneficial effects from acupuncture as well. James S. Gordon, M.D. Toward a 21st Century Medicine, February 1993 [C-04] Georgetown University School of Medicin Medicine and medical education must be reformed to focus on the whole patient Washington, D.C. and her/his interpersonal and sociocultural context. Brian M. Berman, M.D. New Developments in Pain Management, October 1993 [C-05] University of Maryland School of Medicine Alternative medical practices including acupuncture, behavioral medicine, Baltimore, MD homeopathy, and other modalities are integrated with conventional medical practices in a novel clinical research setting for pain management. Beverly A. Rubik, Ph.D. Alternative Medicine and the Center for Frontier Sciences, Temple University 1992-1994, October 1994 [C-06] Philadelphia, PA The changing climate for alternative medicine in the light of the work of the Center and the Office of Alternative Medicine at the U.S. National Institutes of Health is addressed with a special emphasis on how energy medicine is shifting the paradigm. Jennifer Jacobs, M.D., M.P.H. Homeopathic Medicine: Fact or Fantasy? Results of a Double- University of Washington Blind Clinical Trial in Nicaragua of Acute Childhood Diarrhea, Edmonds, WA September 1994 [C-07] A scientific overview for homeopathic efficacy and the results of a new study on childhood diarrhea, which is the first homeopathic study ever published in the journal Pediatrics, are presented. Margaret A. Naeser, Ph.D., Lic.Ac., Research and Clinical Experience with Acupuncture and Laser Dipl.Ac. Acupuncture in the Treatment of Paralysis in Stroke Patients, Boston University Medical School Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Alopecia Areata, and Other Disorders, Boston, MA April 1995 [C-08] The use of acupuncture and low energy lasers to treat stroke, baldness, diabetes, AIDS, and other disorders is addressed. BIOELECTROMAGNETICS AND SUBTLE ENERGIES Robert O. Becker, M.D. Bioelectromagnetics--A Scientific Revolution, March 1990 [D-01] State University of New York at Syracuse The history of the struggle to launch this new area of science is revealed. Possible hazards of electropollution from Syracuse, NY power lines and appliances as well as the promise of electromagnetic medicine are also described. Jacques Benveniste, M.D. New Data on the Transfer of Biological Activity by Electromagnetic Fields INSERM October 1992 [D-02] Clamart, France Water exposed to either highly dilute bioactive substances or oscillating magnetic fields can transfer specific biological information has been demonstrated in various ways. Carl F. Blackman, Ph.D. Do Electromagnetic Fields Pose Health Problems? U.S. Environmental Protection April 1990 [D-03] Agency Triangle Park, NC Research on the potential health risks from exposure to ambient electromagnetic fields in the environment is discussed. Bjrn Nordenstrm, M.D. Bioelectricity Circuits in the Body, September 1990 [D-04] Karolinska Institute Stockholm, Sweden A novel role for bioelectricity in the body fundamental to bioregulation and healing is proposed. Philip S. Callahan, Ph.D. Biological Forms as Radiators and Antennae for University of Florida Electromagnetic Bioinformation, November 1990 [D-05] Gainesville, FL Evidence is presented in which certain biological forms such as insect antennae may serve as a communication system between organisms and their environment. W. Ross Adey, M.D. Whispering Between Cells: Electromagnetic Fields & Essential VA Medical Center and Regulatory Mechanisms in Tissue, November 1991 [D-06] University School of Medicine Loma Linda, CA Experimental evidence for the biological effects of weak electromagnetic fields suggests that many known communication links at the level of the cell membrane are involved. William A. Tiller, Ph.D. Subtle Energies: What Are They and How Are They Important to Stanford University the Emerging Field of Energy Medicine? September 1993 [D-07] Stanford, CA Research shows subtle human influences via conscious intention on gas discharge tubes and other laboratory systems. A new framework for subtle energy and energy medicine is also proposed. Emilio Del Giudice, Ph.D. Coherence in Biology, October 1991 [D-08] University of Milano Milano, Italy A new theoretical approach to condensed matter physics from quantum electrodynamics predicts novel informational storage properties in water and also in living systems. Werner Grundler, Ph.D. The Influence of Microwaves on Cell Growth Rate, April 1992 Institute for Biophysical Radiation [D-09] Research Neuherberg, Germany Specific frequencies and intensities of microwave radiation are shown to stimulate the growth and cell division of yeast. NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES Harold E. Puthoff, Ph.D. Quantum Fluctuations of Empty Space: A New Rosetta Stone of Physics? Institute for Advanced Studies October 1990 [E-01] Austin, TX The vacuum contains an enormous amount of energy that may be involved in the stability of matter and may provide a new energy source. Each tape unless otherwise indicated costs $10.00. Charges for delivery in the U.S.: $3.00. If you are ordering more than one tape, add an additional $1.00 for each tape. International postage and handling charges: add an additional $1.00 to the rates listed above for delivery in the U.S. Special Offer! Buy 10 tapes and receive 2 free tapes of your choice. (Free postage and handling on the 2 free tapes). Pre-payment is required. Send check or money order payable to the Center for Frontier Sciences. Credit card orders not accepted. TAPE NUMBER _____________________ QUANTITY __________ PRICE __________ _____________________ __________ __________ _____________________ __________ __________ _____________________ __________ __________ _____________________ __________ __________ _____________________ __________ __________ _____________________ __________ __________ _____________________ __________ __________ _____________________ __________ __________ _____________________ __________ __________ TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED __________ NAME:________________________________________________________ Street:__________________________________________________________ City:_________________________ State________ZIP_______________ Mail to: Center for Frontier Sciences, Temple University, Ritter Hall 003-00, Rm.478, Philadelphia, PA 19122 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!RFR.BROOKS.AF.MIL!sorensen From: sorensen@RFR.BROOKS.AF.MIL Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Re[4]: Buy house near power line? Date: 13 Jan 1995 08:30:57 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 32 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9500137900.AA790014827@rfr.brooks.af.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net jaldr@onramp.net (James Aldridge) at *INTERNET-access wrote >Isn't 60 Hz emr just like any other electromagnetic radiation in a qualitative >sense, differing only in frequency from, say, radio waves or light or x-rays? >Aren't all of these forms of emr just waves - i.e., waves of oscillating >magnetic and electric fields ? All of electromagnetics is based on the phenomenon of the forces that electric charges exter on each other, mathematically expressed by Couloumb's law. We use a quantity called electric field strength vector (E-field) to account for the forces in complicated electrical systems. At lower frequencies (including 50-60 Hz utility power), we use the concepts of electric field potential (voltage) and electrical current to describe electrical systems. However, these concepts are not useful at higher frequencies (RF and microwave frequencies or above) and electromagnetic-field theory (Maxwell's equations) must be used. Additionally, biological bodies (i.e. people and animals) react differently to exposure at differently frequencies. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength. Shorter wavelength have shallower penetration into objects in the electromagnetic field. The low frequencies of utility power, appear to have substantially different bioeffects than frequencies above 10 MHz. The effects seen in the reflecting chamber of a 2.45 GHz, household, microwave oven cannot be extrapolated into the free space effects of 60 Hz power lines. Finally, I'm not saying 60 Hz power doesn't have an effect on people. But, my major concern in buying a house 200 ft (62 m) from a power line would be a child choosing to climb the forbidden towers either now or in the coming years. Sherrie Sorensen Armstrong Laboratory From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Buy house near power line? Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 17:17:09 -0600 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 30 Distribution: world Message-ID: <9501131717.AA09744@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> References: <01HLRYO1L0GI00004U@pnl.gov> Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 2.0.1 > I am enjoying this discussion. I don't believe you've ever actually > said what the electric and magnetic fields in the house and environs > were. Well, what the original poster said was "within 200 feet of a medium distribution power line" A very large proportion of the total housing stock, at least in pre-1970 residential areas, would fit this description. Worst case would be that this is a 72 kV line with a fairly high current load; in that case the field at 100 ft is going to be around 0.1 microT (1 mG), and the field at 200 ft is going to be tough to measure. But it could also be a "thin" three-phase primary, in which case the field would be even lower. For those of you into wirecoding, this would not appear to be a high current configuration. It sounds line an ordinary low current configuration; as a matter of fact, under the original W&L scheme, these wires would not even count, since they appear to be more than 130 ft from the residence. John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) Maintainer: Powerlines & Cancer FAQs USENET: sci.med.physics, sci.answers, news.answers. FTP://cdmas.crc.mcw.edu/pub/powerlines_and_cancer FTP://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/news.answers/powerlines-cancer-FAQ http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/powerlines-cancer-FAQ From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!FDADR.CDRH.FDA.GOV!JPC From: JPC@FDADR.CDRH.FDA.GOV ("Jon P. Casamento 443-3840") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Savitz-Loomis EMF Study Date: 13 Jan 1995 13:52:43 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 24 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <01HLSZLYWN5G95O5H7@CVAX3.CDRH.FDA.GOV> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net --Boundary (ID nE99XoevaUFDWW8Z6yx5GA) Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN --Boundary (ID nE99XoevaUFDWW8Z6yx5GA) Content-type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 11:26:00 EST Subject: RE: Savitz-Loomis study on EMF and caner Sender: "Jon P. Casamento 443-3840" To: "daemon@net.bio.net" Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN Posting-date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 11:28:00 EST Importance: normal A1-type: MAIL Was the long term exposure to creosote considered? What effects can be expected from exposure to creosote? Working near a creosoted pole on a hot day is nasty work. -Jon- JPC@FDADR.CDRH.FDA.GOV --Boundary (ID nE99XoevaUFDWW8Z6yx5GA)-- From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news.onramp.net!stemmons03 From: jaldr@onramp.net (James Aldridge) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Re[4]: Buy house near power line? Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 12:14:02 GMT Organization: On-Ramp; Individual Internet Connections; Dallas/Ft Worth/Houston, TX USA Lines: 12 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3f5qk3$rro@news.onramp.net> References: <01HLRTCE3OJ600004U@pnl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: stemmons03.onramp.net X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #2.1 ja_leonowich@ccmail.pnl.gov wrote: >These are "fields not waves". Isn't 60 Hz emr just like any other electromagnetic radiation in a qualitative sense, differing only in frequency from, say, radio waves or light or x-rays? Aren't all of these forms of emr just waves - i.e., waves of oscillating magnetic and electric fields? James Aldridge jaldr@onramp.net aldrjame@tenet.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ccmail.pnl.gov!ja_leonowich From: ja_leonowich@ccmail.pnl.gov Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re[6]: Buy house near power line? Date: 13 Jan 1995 08:18:53 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 27 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <01HLSHMW9H7600004U@pnl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Because of the extremely long wavelength of 60 Hz it is not approriate to consider them "oscillating waves". An analogy would be that the earth appears flat to us, even though we know it has curvature. It is therefore appropriate, from a physical basis, to consider the effects of the electric and magnetic field components separately. jal _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: Re[4]: Buy house near power line? From: jaldr@onramp.net at -SMTPlink Date: 1/13/95 4:14 ja_leonowich@ccmail.pnl.gov wrote: >These are "fields not waves". Isn't 60 Hz emr just like any other electromagnetic radiation in a qualitative sense, differing only in frequency from, say, radio waves or light or x-rays? Aren't all of these forms of emr just waves - i.e., waves of oscillating magnetic and electric fields? James Aldridge jaldr@onramp.net aldrjame@tenet.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 12 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Savitz-Loomis study on EMF and caner Date: 13 Jan 1995 07:26:45 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 247 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2F161D4C@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Here are the primary press release on the study by David Savitz and Dana Loomis on EMF and cancer in electric utility workers. Joe Bowman NIOSH jdb0@niobbs1.em.cdc.gov %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Title: Savitz Study: UNC Summary 1/09/95 - The following is a summary by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill of its study on magnetic field exposure in relation to leukemia and brain cancer mortality among U.S. electric utility workers. EMBARGOED: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE BEFORE 6 AM WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1995 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL The School of Public Health The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Department of Epidemiology CB# 7400 McGavran-Greenberg Hall Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-7400 FAX: (919) 966-2089 Magnetic Fields in Relation to Leukemia and Brain Cancer Among U.S. Electric Utility Workers: Summary for a General Audience David A. Savitz, Ph.D., and Dana P. Loomis, Ph.D. University of North Carolina School of Public Health Background Starting in the early 1980s, reports of increased leukemia and brain cancer among "electrical workers" began to appear. Scientists reasoned that men who held such jobs as electrician, lineman, or radio and TV repairman might have more frequent or intense exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) than men in other jobs, and that the higher rates of these cancers could result from those exposures. This explanation was largely speculative because job titles were not necessarily a good marker of EMF exposure and other chemical agents commonly used in the same jobs (solvents, for example) might account for the reported increase in disease risks. More recent epidemiologic studies, including one of electric utility workers in southern California and another in Canada and France, attempted to address both concerns. However, these more sophisticated studies did not resolve the uncertainties regarding EMF and cancer, since the associations neither became clearer and stronger nor did they disappear. Most, but not all, studies found increased risks for certain types of leukemia associated with magnetic field exposure, and weaker associations between brain cancer and magnetic fields. Under the sponsorship of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), we developed a study of U.S. electric utility workers that had as its goals a more detailed assessment of magnetic field exposure based on a large number of workplace measurements, consideration of chemical exposures that might be related to leukemia and brain cancer, and a large enough group of workers to obtain statistically reliable results even for the rare cancers of interest. This report is a summary of the study methods, the results, and the conclusions that we draw from those results. Methods Through EPRI, we recruited a sufficient number of large electric utility companies in the U.S. to conduct the study (Carolina Power and Light Company, Virginia Electric Power Company, PECO Energy Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company). The overall plan was to identify all the men who had worked at the participating companies over a long period of time (1950 to 1986) and compile their job histories, determine exposures in those jobs, and determine who had died and what their cause of death was. We used personnel records to determine that there were 138,905 eligible men who worked full-time for at least six months and recorded every job they held in the company and when they held it. We then tried to determine whether each worker was alive or dead as of December 31, 1988, using a number of different computerized lists such as state death records, credit bureaus, and drivers license rosters. For the 20,733 men who had died, we obtained a copy of the death certificate and recorded the information on the disease that led to their death. There were only 778 men for whom we could not determine whether they were alive or dead. The job titles were the link to estimating magnetic field exposure. We organized the lists of thousands of different jobs into 28 groups for assigning exposure, using categories such as manager, linemen, power plant operator, and electrician. For each of the groups at each of the five companies, we developed a plan to measure magnetic fields of workers who were currently doing those jobs. Using a sampling plan designed to randomly select the number of workers needed to get an adequate estimate of the average exposure, we sent magnetic field meters to the workers for them to wear for a full shift. Some workers were asked to wear the meters on several different days. The product of this effort was 2,842 workshift magnetic field measurements that were used to assign a score to each of the occupational groups at each of the companies. The workers' job histories could then be translated into estimates of exposure for each worker over long periods in the past. We determined that the chemical exposures most common in the electric utility industry that were most likely to be associated with leukemia and brain cancer were solvents and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). A group of experts at each of the companies was consulted to estimate for each job the likelihood of exposure for different periods in the past. All of these sources of information (work histories, magnetic field and chemical exposures, and deaths) were compiled for the analysis. We calculated the rates of death from leukemia and brain cancer in relation to the magnetic field exposure history, comparing higher exposure groups to lower exposure groups to obtain a "relative risk." The relative risk describes how much higher or lower the rate of disease is in more exposed compared to less exposed workers, that is, 1.0 means that they are the same, 2.0 means the death rate is twice as high among more exposed workers, 0.5 means the death rate is half as high among more exposed workers. Besides studying associations between estimated magnetic field exposure and cancer, we calculated the associations between cancer mortality and the amount of time that men worked in the most common jobs with high exposure, including linemen, electrician, and power plant operator. We made statistical adjustments for exposure to solvents and PCBs, as well as for age, race, and some other factors that are associated with dying from cancer. Results Overall, the workers at these companies had low rates of death from most illnesses, including total cancer; this is typically seen for industrial workers due to the selection of healthy men for employment. For all deaths, the electric utility workers only had 77% of the mortality of the entire U.S. population and, for cancers, 86% of the mortality of the U.S. population. However, this tells us little about whether magnetic fields are related to disease. We did not find any association between total leukemia and work in a group of exposed jobs nor with work as a linemen or power plant operator. There was an association between total leukemias and the number of years worked as an electrician (relative risk of 2.5 for long-term electricians) and an association for one specific type of leukemia, called chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and work in an exposed job. When we studied the estimated magnetic field exposure in relation to the risk of leukemia, we found no association. That is, higher exposure to magnetic fields was not related to a higher risk of total leukemia or to any subtype of leukemia. In contrast, brain cancer mortality was increased for men who worked for long periods in exposed jobs and specifically for men who worked as linemen or electricians (relative risks around 1.5 for five or more years in those jobs). When we studied the magnetic field exposure level, a stronger association was found. Compared to the lowest exposure group, the middle exposure groups had relative risks around 1.5 and the highest group had relative risks of 2.3 to 2.5, somewhat more than double the risk in the lowest category. Interpretation The large size of the study, random selection of a large number of workers for magnetic field measurements, and examination of chemical exposures are clear strengths of our study relative to most previous ones. Although the most recent studies had found evidence that magnetic fields were related to leukemia, we did not. Some suggestions of an association were found in our study, but overall we did not find nearly the degree of support seen in a number of other studies, including the Canada-France study of electric utility workers. The positive association between magnetic fields and brain cancer that we saw was stronger than had been seen in previous studies of electric utility workers, again compared to both the Southern California Edison study and the Canada-France study. A number of previous studies have found weak associations between EMF and brain cancer. It is disappointing that our results do not provide a clearer picture when combined with the previous studies of electrical workers and particularly electric utility workers. There are a number of reasons that this may have occurred. Many decisions must be made in conducting epidemiological studies concerning how to group workers, how to assign magnetic field exposure, and how to analyze the data. Although there is no obvious reason why these decisions would have led to different results, this may have occurred. For example, we conducted a random sample of workers, unlike other studies, but only had total time-weighted average magnetic fields, whereas other studies had a broader array of electric and magnetic field indices available. One of the problems with our study was the use of death certificates rather than detailed medical information to classify the cancers. In contrast, the Canada-France study had such information. Some of their key findings came from analyses that used detailed medical information about the leukemia cases which we did not have available, perhaps explaining some of the disparity in results. In spite of our best efforts and some real advancements, classification of EMF exposure remains the biggest challenge in epidemiologic studies. Because of the rare diseases with which we are concerned, we must study large populations of workers over long periods of time to obtain statistically useful estimates. In order to accomplish this, we must reconstruct (rather than measure directly) historical exposures to a complex agent for which there is tremendous day-to-day variability. Certainly, our study did a better job of estimating that exposure than previous studies based on job titles alone, but relative to the "gold standard" of accurate historical information, we undoubtedly fell far short. If some more subtle aspect of magnetic fields is truly related to leukemia or brain cancer, then we may have captured it more (or less) accurately than was done in other studies, and what appear to be comparable EMF exposures really are not. To advance our understanding, rather than more studies of the type just completed, we need to follow up on opportunities to measure exposure more accurately or develop and test more refined hypotheses about the biologically relevant aspect of exposure potentially related to cancer. Scientific Publications from U.S. Utility Worker Mortality Study Loomis DP, Peipins LA, Browning SR, Howard RL, Kromhout H, Savitz DA. Organization and classification of work history data in industry-wide studies: an application to the electric power industry. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 1994;26:413-25. Loomis DP, Kromhout H, Peipins LA, Kleckner RC, Iriye R, Savitz DA. Sampling design and field methods of a large, randomized, multisite survey of occupational magnetic field exposure. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 1994;9:49-52. Kromhout H, Loomis DP, Mihlan GJ, Peipins LA, Kleckner RC, Iriye R, Savitz DA. Assessment and grouping of occupational magnetic field exposure in five electric utility companies. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 1995; in press. Savitz DA, Loomis DP. Magnetic field exposure in relation to leukemia and brain cancer mortality among electric utility workers. American Journal of Epidemiology 1995;141: in press. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Jan 13 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ccmail.pnl.gov!ja_leonowich From: ja_leonowich@ccmail.pnl.gov Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re[4]: Buy house near power line? Date: 13 Jan 1995 20:07:12 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 14 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <01HLT6EVSTPE00004U@pnl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I now am even more concerned over the house, the power company measured a magnetic field of 5.8 milligauss at the prperty line and .4 milligauss at the house. The electric field was not measured, but I beleive was about 300 V/m. It's a nice house, but I'm afraid to take the chance. -- MARK SAMUELS SPECTRX/LASER ATLANTA ATLANTA,GA (404) 242-8723 Actually Mark, I concur ---- jal / pnl From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Jan 13 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news From: Mark A. Samuels <75371.2537@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Re[2]: Buy house near power line? Date: 14 Jan 1995 01:44:27 GMT Organization: SpectRx/Laser Atlanta Lines: 12 Message-ID: <3f7a9r$nef$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com> References: I now am even more concerned over the house, the power company measured a magnetic field of 5.8 milligauss at the prperty line and .4 milligauss at the house. The electric field was not measured, but I beleive was about 300 V/m. It's a nice house, but I'm afraid to take the chance. -- MARK SAMUELS SPECTRX/LASER ATLANTA ATLANTA,GA (404) 242-8723 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Jan 13 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews From: labriola@ix.netcom.com (Donald Labriola) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: power line corona causing X-ray? Date: 14 Jan 1995 05:39:30 GMT Organization: Netcom Lines: 99 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3f7o2i$qot@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-ont1-27.ix.netcom.com I have been following the various studies on the correlation of power line proximity and cancers for several years. What has been missing is the nature of the causative agent. I believe that I may have located at least one of the methods of effect. I pass a series of high tension power lines while driving to work. I have noticed the variation in corona noise generated by different poles and in different weather... the thought came that the corona could possibly be capable of generating soft X-radiation. Curosity led to a series of experiments utilizing several different radiation sensing methods. The first test involved CaSO4 :Dy Thermoluminescent Dosimetry capsules from the Radiation Detection Company in Sunnyvale, California. As I understand it -- probably simplified -- this material acquires dislocations in the crystal structure as the gamma particles pass through. When gently heated, the crystal dislocations rebound and give ff photons which may be counted to give an estimation of the radiation to which the detecter was subjected since last annealed. These detectors are normally shielded to hide their responsitivity low energy gamma (X-rays), but were obtained individually without shields. In the experiment they were shielded from ultra violet light by an opaque plastic. A group of twenty freshly annealed capsules were placed at various sites near and away from power poles of various voltages. The detectors were exposed for approximately one month and returned to the company for readout. All of the detectors save one were very close in value (mean=16.7, variance = 1.015, milliroentgens based on exposure of controls to 60Co.); the remaining detector had a reading of 23: this was 6.2 standard variations above the mean! This placed the reading of the particular power tower 37% above the background. The unusual tower is a 500kV (guess) / 6 wire power tower that transverses San Dimas and LaVerne in the proximity of Foothill Boulevard. It was also a copious producer of radio frequency interference (RFI), able to overpower even strong AM radio stations when the receiver was within a block of the tower. This was interesting, but I wanted second test to verify the results. This time a pair of Geiger counters were utilized. One was equipped with a low energy gamma scintillator (Ludium Model 3 with detector model 44-3), the second was a hard particle detector (Ludium Model 3 with detector model 44-7). The hard particle detector was used to verify that the results were not skewed due to the presence of natural radioactive rock (the tower was in what had once been riverbed). No measurable differences were noted between the reference area readings and the site of interest when using the hard detector. The low energy gamma detector told quite a different story. Away from the high tension lines revealed a reading of 150 to 250 cpm (counts per minute); under the power tower gave a reading of approximately 500cpm on a dry day and 600 on a foggy morning. The readings decreased as I proceeded from beneath the pole to approximately 1/2 block away. The corona produced a very significant audible crackling on the foggy morning. The other locations that showed no significant variations from the background levels on dry days. A couple showed increases of 50 to 100% on foggy mornings. A third measurement of the site in question was made using a Bicron MicroRem LE with a solid state tissue equivalent ion chamber. It was made on dry day; the time averaged reading at the site was approximately 30% higher that at a reference location approximately 2 blocks away (~7.75 microRem/Hr vs. ~6 microRem/Hr). The differences in the results would be expected if the energy were skewed to the soft end of the X-ray scale --- the Ludium counter has a greater sensitivity at low energy than the Bicron. This would be expected as a greater number of free electrons in the air would be able to attaing lower velocities than would attain the higher energy states (the further it travels, the better chance of running into an air molecule and giving up most of the energy). These results, if verified, could show a measurable link between the presence of high tension power lines and some of the reported health effects. The spotty nature of which poles have corona problems and which do not could also explain statistics which have the various cases located near power lines, but not everyone near a power line having problems. It could also explain the 4x higher rate of breast cancer among male power line workers than the background level (usually below the power lines with the upper torso exposed). I would be very interested in finding others with the appropriate equipment to verify my initial experiments, or with the knowledge to point me to appropriate tests. Sincerely, Donald Labriola II, P.E. (labriola@ix.netcom.com) Disclaimer: The tests were done to the best of my ability, but my background and training are 17 years of biomedical instrumentation electronics and an MSEE, with nothing formal in radiology or high energy physics. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Jan 13 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ACCESSNV.COM!rictell From: rictell@ACCESSNV.COM (AccessNevada) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re. power line corona causing x-rays Date: 13 Jan 1995 23:46:21 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 14 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9501140750.AA00433@bighorn> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net This is an interestng observation. I'm not sure of the statistical validity of the measurements but still interesting. My background is in electromagnetic field measurements and I began to wonder about possible EMI (interference with your meters) a definite possiblity caused by the relatively strong electric fields beneath the power line. However, your data would tend to suggest that this is not necessarily a problem since you have data obtained on both a dry day and a foggy day and you show an increase on the foggy day. Would be interesting to see some more data. ...Ric Tell From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Jan 13 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.starnet.net!wupost!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews From: labriola@ix.netcom.com (Donald Labriola) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Re. power line corona causing x-rays Date: 14 Jan 1995 23:15:21 GMT Organization: Netcom Lines: 44 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3f9lu9$6jr@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> References: <9501140750.AA00433@bighorn> NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-ont1-30.ix.netcom.com In <9501140750.AA00433@bighorn> rictell@ACCESSNV.COM (AccessNevada) writes: > >This is an interestng observation. I'm not sure of the statistical validity >of the measurements but still interesting. Agreed, but correlation by a couple of different means imcreases the chances that I am not just chasing my tail! I wanted collect some ideas for additional experiments and problems to be aware of with these detectors before further time and money were consumed. > My background is in >electromagnetic field measurements and I began to wonder about possible EMI >(interference with your meters) a definite possiblity caused by the >relatively strong electric fields beneath the power line. However, your >data would tend to suggest that this is not necessarily a problem since you >have data obtained on both a dry day and a foggy day and you show an >increase on the foggy day. I also wondered about this, and am not yet sure that I am in the clear, as the additional corona generated in the fog could be responsible for both effects. I am pretty sure it was not affected by 60Hz effects as none of the other towers in the area (several miles in either direction for those towers to which I could gain public access to) showed similiar readings or radio interference. > >Would be interesting to see some more data. > I would love to set up some of the high tension line workers with the thermo-luminiscent detectors to measure both their exposure and the readings in proximity a strong corona source (leaving the detector in place for a month or so)! > >...Ric Tell > > Don Labriola (labriola.ix.netcom.com) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Jan 14 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ACCESSNV.COM!rictell From: rictell@ACCESSNV.COM (AccessNevada) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Re. power line corona causing x-rays Date: 14 Jan 1995 21:37:54 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 10 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9501150542.AA00465@bighorn> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Your thoughts about equipping live line workers with some form of low-energy x-ray detector is very interesting. I can't believe that someone hasn't done this before though. Isn't there someone out there in the ionizing community that has done such checks. I can imagine possible problems with getting certain electronic instruments to work but the idea of the TLDs would certainly get around any such interference. But what is the energy spectrum that TLD is responsive to? ...Ric Tell From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jan 15 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!daresbury!trane.uninett.no!nntp.uio.no!nac.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!cityscape.co.uk!usenet From: ab49@ab49.cityscape.co.uk (Williams) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Effects of EMFs on PLants Date: 15 Jan 1995 18:12:19 GMT Organization: IP-GOLD User Lines: 14 Message-ID: <3fboi3$4su@ns.cityscape.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: ac044.du.pipex.com X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.90.5 I'm about to do an A-Level project on the effects of EMFs on the growth of cress plants. It involves coils of wire with d.c. going through surrounding a number of cress plants. Anyone know if anything'll happen or experiments similar to this have been done in the past, if so, what was found to have happened? Any information on general effects of EMFS on biological systems would be gratefully received. It would be great if you could point me at any relavent references. TIA John From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Jan 16 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu!user From: jmoulder@its.mcw.edu (John E. Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Buy house near power line? Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 19:01:13 -0600 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <3f7a9r$nef$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu In article <3f7a9r$nef$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com>, Mark A. Samuels <75371.2537@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > I now am even more concerned over the house, the power company > measured a magnetic field of 5.8 milligauss at the prperty line > and .4 milligauss at the house. The electric field was not > measured, but I beleive was about 300 V/m. > > It's a nice house, but I'm afraid to take the chance. Buying a house is a personal, and generally very major decision, so I'm not about to suggest that you change your mind. But if your criteria for purchase are going to be that the fields everywhere in the house be less than 0.4 mG, and the fields on the property be less than 5.6 mG, you're not going to have much choice in properties. Fields of 2 mG and above are quite common in dwellings, particularly in kitchens. Last figures I saw indicate that well over 50% of the housing stock in the US has time-averaged magnetic fields of 0.4 mG and above. To find a property where the field does not exceed 5.8 mG at any point on the property will be a bit easier, but only if you confine your search to newly built areas where the distribution lines are buried and the housing density low. In any urban environment where the distribution system are above ground (anything built prior to about 1970), this figure is likely to be exceeded at the edge of the property next to the lines unless you are virtually in an end-pole configuration (that is, that the distribution system feeding your house ends near or at your residence). Even if you can achieve all of the above, you will still have to be very careful if you want to meet your strict mG standards. You need to make sure that all wiring is code (no ground returns, inadvertant loops, etc). You will also need to minimize your use of electric appliances; so electric dryers are out, as are vacuum cleaners and most kitchen appliances (I'm not sure about electric stoves). In addition, essentially all devices with AC electric motors are out, unless they are located in places where people can't get close to them (so no hair dryers, electric drills, etc). While you're at it you should also check for asbestos and lead (unlikely, since you're essentially confined to new housing) and radon (quite possible in new construction) -- and make sure you have smoke detectors and wear your seat belts. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Jan 16 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Savitz's data analysis Date: 16 Jan 1995 14:00:37 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 26 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: There was a recent posting summarizing Savitz and Loomis's study (Magnetic Fields in Relation to Leukemia and Brain Cancer Among U.S. Electric Utility Workers). The authors make clear that an assumption underlying their data analysis and conclusions is that - emf acts as a toxin and that the data is distributed in a dose response fashion -. Is that assumption appropriate? There is good reason to believe, based on theory and data, that a toxicology model such as they use is not appropriate (On the Nature of Electromagnetic Field Interactions with Biological Systems. Allan H. Frey, ed. 1994, R. G. Landes Co., Austin, TX.; Frey, A. H. Is a toxicology model appropriate as a guide for biological research with electromagnetic fields? Journal of Bioelectricity, 9 (2), 1990, 233-234; and other authors.) I wonder if their data needs to be reanalyzed using a more appropriate model. Such a reanalysis may affect the conclusions that they have drawn. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Jan 16 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Savitz's data analysis Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 13:34:59 -0600 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 74 Distribution: world Message-ID: <9501171334.AA59166@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> References: Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 2.0.1 In article , afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) writes: > There was a recent posting summarizing Savitz and Loomis's study... > The authors make clear that...the data is distributed in a dose > response fashion -. Is that assumption appropriate? > > There is good reason to believe, based on theory and data, that > a toxicology model such as they use is not appropriate.. > > I wonder if their data needs to be reanalyzed... Certainly the Savitz & Loomis study is based on the hypothesis that the incidence of cancer is related to the magnitude of the exposure. And yes, if exposure to power-frequency fields is related to cancer, we certainly do not know what the dose-response curve looks like, and we probably don't know what the appropriate exposure metric is. But if you're going to do an epidemiological study you must assume that there is _some_ relationship between exposure and effect, because otherwise you can't define "exposed". Lacking any firm biological rationale for assuming otherwise, it is logical to assume that if there is a relationship between exposure and risk, the groups with the higher exposure would have the higher risk. Suppose that higher exposure doesn't actually yield higher risk. If the risk plateaus above a certain level, then higher exposure will still have higher risk as long as some of the one or more group has exposures below the plateau level. Suppose on the other hand, that risk rises with exposure (perhaps with a threshold), peaks when a specific exposure level is reached, and then drops again. Such dose-response models are known -- one example is (ionizing) radiation-induced leukemia in mice. If this were the underlying biology, then for an epidemiological study you would need: - fairly precise individual dosimetry, AND - you would need to know the correct exposure metric In addition to the above, you would have to either: - know fairly exactly what exposure produced the highest risk and roughly how fast the risk decreases beyond that point; OR - have enough cases to divide the cases into multiple exposure categories (4 or 5 at a minimum, but preferably more). Since no current or planned epidemiological study can meet the above criteria, I don't wee what choice Savitz & Loomis have other than testing the hypothesis that more is worse. and In article <199501171612.IAA19880@net.bio.net>, TROZZELL%NAS.BITNET@VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU (Tom Rozzell) writes: > I had assumed loooooong ago that everyone knew (or at least agreed) that > a toxicology model is NOT appropriate for emf bioeffects research. I > was really shocked and surprised when I saw their Savitz' data and > the subsequent discussion thereof. I'm not sure that there is anything that is agreed to in emf bioeffects research. What model are either of you suggesting that Savitz and Loomis use? BTW: Since neither I, nor anyone I've contacted, has actually seen the study, maybe we should wait till the article is actually out before we tear the authors to pieces (our library hasn't even received the 1 Jan issue yet). John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) Maintainer: Powerlines & Cancer FAQs USENET: sci.med.physics, sci.answers, news.answers. FTP://cdmas.crc.mcw.edu/pub/powerlines_and_cancer FTP://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/news.answers/powerlines-cancer-FAQ http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/powerlines-cancer-FAQ From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Jan 16 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!massey.ac.nz!V.R.Breen From: V.R.Breen@massey.ac.nz ("V.R. Breen") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: sub Date: 17 Jan 1995 13:50:09 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 1 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9501172145.AA02779@cc-server4.massey.ac.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net subscribe Bruce Rapley From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Jan 16 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU!TROZZELL%NAS.BITNET From: TROZZELL%NAS.BITNET@VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU (Tom Rozzell) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Savitz's data analysis Date: 17 Jan 1995 08:12:30 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 9 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199501171612.IAA19880@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Text item: Re: Savitz's data analysis I had assumed loooooong ago that everyone knew (or at least agreed) that a toxicology model is NOT appropriate for emf bioeffects research. I was really shocked and surprised when I saw their Savitz' data and the subsequent discussion thereof. Tom From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jan 17 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!MEGADYNE.CO.NZ!peter From: peter@MEGADYNE.CO.NZ (Peter Armstrong) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: none Date: 18 Jan 1995 04:50:31 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 3 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net unsubscribe emf-bio From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jan 17 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Savitz's data ... Date: 18 Jan 1995 07:15:32 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 55 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net John Moulder states, commenting on my comment on the Savitz release: >BTW: Since neither I, nor anyone I've contacted, has actually seen the study, >maybe we should wait till the article is actually out before we tear the >authors to pieces The authors, in the summary they wrote and released, stated that they used a dose response model. Thus, it is appropriate to comment on that now. Also is it fair, John, to say I "tear the authors to pieces" because I said the following: > The authors make clear that...the data is distributed in a dose > response fashion -. Is that assumption appropriate? > > There is good reason to believe, based on theory and data, that > a toxicology model such as they use is not appropriate.. > > I wonder if their data needs to be reanalyzed... John also talks about ionizing radiation in his example as though it is comparable to emf's for a living organism. It is not. Electromagnetic fields are a fundamental component of life processes as I noted in my recent book. Emf's are used in everything from DNA conformation, to protein folding to nervous system function. Ionizing radiation and toxins are insults to the body. John states: >I don't wee what choice Savitz & Loomis have other than testing the hypothesis >that more is worse. There are actually several choices. I do a fair amount of consulting on the design of experiments and the statistical analysis of data. One does not have to make a dose response assumption anymore than one has to assume homogeneity of variance in a set of data in order to do an analysis. In fact, I pointed out in a paper published years ago how a common assumption made in the emf area could lead to an inappropriate statistical analysis and erroneous conclusions. Further, if John feels a need for a model, then the one published by Blanchard and Blackman would be more appropriate. It at least has data providing it with support. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jan 17 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!library.ucla.edu!psgrain!rainrgnews0!news.teleport.com!news.teleport.com!seniorr From: seniorr@teleport.com (Russell Senior) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Savitz's data analysis Date: 18 Jan 1995 15:30:35 GMT Organization: Teleport Lines: 15 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: Reply-To: seniorr@teleport.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ip-pdx1-09.teleport.com In-reply-to: afrey@uunet.uu.net's message of 16 Jan 1995 14:00:37 -0800 >>>>> "Allan" == Allan Frey writes: In article afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) writes: Allan> I wonder if their data needs to be reanalyzed using a more Allan> appropriate model. Such a reanalysis may affect the Allan> conclusions that they have drawn. Like what, for example? Russell S. Senior seniorr@teleport.com seniorr@csos.orst.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jan 17 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOSHE2.EM.CDC.GOV!TYW1 From: TYW1@NIOSHE2.EM.CDC.GOV ("Wenzl, Thurman") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: names and return addresses Please Date: 18 Jan 1995 10:23:26 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 10 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2F1CDE3F@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Many of our mail software packages (in my case MS Mail for Windows) clip off the header, so we cannot learn where a message has come from - so Please, sign your notes, and leave your individual e-mail return addresses, in case we wish to respond in that way. Thanks in advance, Thurman Wenzl, NIOSH, Cincinnati tyw1@nioshe2.em.cdc.gov From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jan 18 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: emf book Date: 19 Jan 1995 12:05:13 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 13 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: An increasing number of people are sending me email to let me know they are having problems getting my book from CRC Press (On the nature of electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems). If you are having this problem, please be patient. The Publisher has sold out and is doing a second printing. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jan 18 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!GLUE.UMD.EDU!jsu From: jsu@GLUE.UMD.EDU (Joong Sung Uhm) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: (none) Date: 18 Jan 1995 19:32:45 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 1 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199501190332.WAA24690@stochastic.eng.umd.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net unsubscribe emf-bio From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jan 18 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!daresbury!trane.uninett.no!sunic!pipex!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu!user From: jmoulder@its.mcw.edu (John E. Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Savitz's data ... Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 10:23:25 -0600 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 59 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu > Further, if John feels a need for a model, then the one published by > Blanchard and Blackman would be more appropriate. It at least has > data providing it with support. I fail to see how the Blanchard and Blackman model, even if validated, would provide an alternative method of analysis for a retrospective occupational epidemiological study. The Blanchard/Blackman model proposes that biological effects are the result of an ion paramagnetic resonance between an AC magnetic field (power-frequency in this case) and the Earth's static (DC) field. This is an extension of the Lednev model and has nothing to do with the now-discredited cyclotron resonance model. The Blanchard/Blackman resonance is predicted to occur only when the fields are parallel, and only for certain combinations of static field strength and AC frequency. Thus to use this model in an epidemiological study, it would appear that one would need to know not just the AC exposure, but also the DC exposure (which will vary from place to place and time to time) and the relative vectors of the AC and DC fields. Since I can see no reason to assume that certain classes of workers would be in resonance more often than others, one would clearly need this information on a time-course basis for individual workers. It would appear (but here I am not certain of the math), that when the conditions of resonance are fulfilled, the magnitude of the Blanchard/Blackman resonance is a function of the intensity of the AC field. In that case, since any one worker could be assumed to be in resonance just as often as any other worker, one might still expect a relationship between the intensity of the AC field and the effect. I have several generic problems with the resonance models: 1) People would seldom be in resonance, so the effect would have to be very potent when they were. 2) The resonance models to date have ignored cell biology and biophysics. Many of the models, for example, ignore the fact that ions in solution undergo frequent collisions, and have assumed no damping. 3) The database supporting the idea that biological effects occur only at certain combinations of AC frequency, DC field strength and AC/DC orientation is quite suspect. Many of the original studies that provided evidence for this interaction have failed attempts at replication, and many studies that have looked for resonance effects on ions have failed to find them. The big advantage of the resonance models, however, is that they provide a potential mechanism to overcome signal-to-noise problems. It will be interesting to see how well the Blanchard/Blackman model holds up to biophysical analysis (several potentially serious problems were brought up at the Albuquerque meeting), and whether any other groups can find experimental data to support it (again at the Albuquerque meeting, there were reports from several groups that had looked for, and not found, this resonance). BTW: The paper is out, although the journal is slow in reaching most libraries. I've got a FAX of a FAX of a FAX. The full reference is: DA Savitz & DP Loomis: Magnetic field exposure in relation to leukemia and brain cancer mortality among electric utility workers. Am J Epidem 141:123-134, 1995. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 19 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: Savitz study and resonances Date: 20 Jan 1995 13:50:48 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 35 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2F1FB1DB@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net From: kfoster@eniac.seas.upenn.edu To: jdb0 Subject: RE: Savitz study and resonances Date: Friday, January 20, 1995 3:57PM >"The bottom line is that more theoretical and biological research >on mechanisms is needed." > > >But people have been studying mechanisms of interaction of nonionizing >radiation with biological for many years, and many mechanisms are >well known. Problem is, these either require very high fields >(eg. shock) or have nothing discernable to do with cancer >(eg. orientation of magnetic bacteria). > >What, precisely, did you have in mind. 1. Stochastic resonances 2. Induced currents from transients 3. Other induced currents 4. Temporal coherence 5. Magnetosomes 6. Free radicals 7. Ion parametric resonances 8. Other forms of ion magnetic resonance There are theoretical objections to the list above. However, the continued stream of epi and laboratory effects reported with ELF fields makes it difficult to maintain the position that EMF cannot possibly affect the body. Joe Bowman NIOSH jdb0 @ niobbs1.em.cdc.gov From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 19 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Magnetic resonance monitor (abstract) Date: 20 Jan 1995 12:21:27 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 61 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2F1F9CEC@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net A MAGNETIC RESONANCE MONITOR. J. D. Bowman and D.P. Engel, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH 45226. An instrument has been designed and built to measure combinations of static and extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields which may be affecting biological processes by resonance interactions with the body. OBJECTIVE: Laboratory and epidemiological evidence have suggested that biological effects, including leukemia in children, may result from resonances between biological magnetic moments and environmental magnetic fields. By fitting equations for hypothesized magnetic resonance mechanisms to the exposures which are reported to affect biologic processes such as calcium transport and diatom mobility, resonant combinations of static and ELF magnetic fields have been identified. The ion parametric resonance mechanism proposed by V.V.Lednev is due to an ELF field at cyclotron resonance frequency with spatial orientation parallel to the static field vector. The optical double resonance mechanism is due to fields with the Larmour frequency (half the cyclotron frequency) and circular polarization which is rotating perpendicular to the static field vector with plus helicity. Resonant frequencies fo depend on the magnitude of the static magnetic field Bo through the gyromagnetic equation: 2*pi*fo = n*gamma*Bo where n is the harmonic number and gamma is the gyromagnetic ratio for the mechanism. To investigate whether these mechanisms may account for the reported associations between ELF magnetic fields and adverse health effects, an instrument is being developed to measure exposure to magnetic resonance conditions directly. METHOD: A prototype of the magnetic resonance monitor has been developed by special programming for the MultiwaveTM System II (Electric Research and Management, Inc., State College, PA USA). The Multiwave II has a three- dimensional fluxgate magnetometer probe to measure the static and ELF magnetic fields simultaneously. Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) software determines the magnetic field's magnitude and phase spectra as a function of frequency. In the magnetic resonance program, the resonant frequencies are selected with a digital bandpass filter whose central frequency fo obeys the gyromagnetic equation with the n, gamma, and bandwidth parameters for the selected mechanism. At the frequencies which pass through this gyromagnetic filter, the monitor next determines the two spatial components of ELF field which can produce resonances (parallel to the static field for parametric resonances and perpendicular with plus helicity for double resonances). From these quantities, the monitor calculates the resonance yield, which is defined as the percent change predicted by the hypothesized mechanism in a molecular or biological property due to the measured magnetic field exposure. With the magnetic resonance program, the Multiwave II reads out the resonance yield directly and stores the value in a data logger for subsequent analysis. DISCUSSION: The prototype instrument has been programmed to measure resonance conditions for up to nine mechanisms. This version of the resonance monitor can take area measurements of resonance yields in magnetic fields with frequencies of 0 - 3 kHz, static field magnitudes of 0.25 - 500 uT and ELF magnitudes of 0.002 - 350 uT rms. Poster from the 1994 Review of EMF Bioeffects in Albuquerque, NM. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 19 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Epi study of resonances (abstract) Date: 20 Jan 1995 12:21:14 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 50 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2F1F9CDC@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net HYPOTHESIS: THE RISK OF CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA MAY BE RELATED TO COMBINATIONS OF POWER-FREQUENCY AND STATIC MAGNETIC FIELDS J.D. Bowman, D.C. Thomas, S.J. London, J.M. Peters Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH (J.D.B.) ABSTRACT We present an hypothesis that the risk of childhood leukemia may be related to exposure to specific combinations of static and extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields. Laboratory data from calcium efflux and diatom mobility experiments were used with the gyromagnetic equation to predict combinations of 60 Hz and static magnetic fields hypothesized to enhance leukemia risk. The laboratory data predicted nineteen bands of the static field magnitude with a bandwidth of 9.1 uT that, together with 60 Hz magnetic fields, are expected to have biological activity. We then assessed the association between this exposure metric and childhood leukemia using data from a case-control study in Los Angeles County. ELF and static magnetic fields were measured in the bedrooms of 124 cases determined from a tumor registry and 99 controls drawn from friends and random digit dialing. Among these subjects, 26 cases and 20 controls were exposed to static magnetic fields lying in the predicted bands of biological activity centered at 38.0 uT and 50.6 uT. Although no association was found for childhood leukemia in relation to measured ELF or static magnetic fields alone, an increasing trend of leukemia risk with measured ELF field was found for subjects within these static field bands (P for trend = 0.041). The odds ratio (OR) was 3.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.4-30.5) for subjects exposed to static fields within the derived bands and to ELF magnetic field above 0.30 UT (compared with subjects exposed to static fields outside the bands and ELF magnetic fields below 0.07 uT). When the 60 Hz magnetic fields were assessed by the Wertheimer-Leeper code for wiring configurations, leukemia risks were again greater with the hypothesized exposure conditions (OR = 9.2 for very high current configurations within the static field bands, %95 CI = 1.3-64.6). Although the risk estimates are based on limited magnetic field measurements for a small number of subjects, these findings suggest that the risk of childhood leukemia may be related to the combined effects of the static and ELF magnetic fields. Further tests of the hypothesis are proposed. To be published in Bioelectromagnetics 16:48-59 (1995). From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 19 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: Savitz study and resonances Date: 20 Jan 1995 12:15:15 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 90 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2F1F9B74@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net In response to the the following comments, >I fail to see how the Blanchard and Blackman model, even if validated, >would provide an alternative method of analysis for a retrospective >occupational epidemiological study. > >The Blanchard/Blackman model proposes that biological effects are the >result of an ion paramagnetic resonance between an AC magnetic field >(power-frequency in this case) and the Earth's static (DC) field. This is >an extension of the Lednev model and has nothing to do with the >now-discredited cyclotron resonance model. > >The Blanchard/Blackman resonance is predicted to occur only when the >fields are parallel, and only for certain combinations of static field >strength and AC frequency. Thus to use this model in an epidemiological >study, it would appear that one would need to know not just the AC >exposure, but also the DC exposure (which will vary from place to place >and time to time) and the relative vectors of the AC and DC fields. Since >I can see no reason to assume that certain classes of workers would be in >resonance more often than others, one would clearly need this information >on a time-course basis for individual workers. I just put two abstracts out on the net: HYPOTHESIS: THE RISK OF CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA MAY BE RELATED TO COMBINATIONS OF POWER-FREQUENCY AND STATIC MAGNETIC FIELDS J.D. Bowman, D.C. Thomas, S.J. London, J.M. Peters A MAGNETIC RESONANCE MONITOR. J. D. Bowman and D.P. Engel These show that magnetic resonances can be measured, and are relevant to epidemiologic studies. Based on my measurements with the resoance monitor, the following speculation: >It would appear (but here I am not certain of the math), that when the >conditions of resonance are fulfilled, the magnitude of the >Blanchard/Blackman resonance is a function of the intensity of the AC >field. In that case, since any one worker could be assumed to be in >resonance just as often as any other worker, one might still expect a >relationship between the intensity of the AC field and the effect. is only partly right. There is a correlation between the AC field and whatever resonance we choose to measure (r = 0.6 in data from 4 workplaces). However, the remaining discrepancies between AC fields and resonance metrics (however defined) would be important to the risk estimates from an epi study, IF the resonances are the mechanism leading to cancer. The inability to identify and measure the exposure metric responsible for cancer is the most plausible explanation for the contradictory results recent occupational epi studies. With all that said, I do agree with most of the comments about the purported biological consequences of ion parametric resonance: >I have several generic problems with the resonance models: >1) People would seldom be in resonance, so the effect would have to be >very potent when they were. >2) The resonance models to date have ignored cell biology and >biophysics. Many of the models, for example, ignore the fact that ions in >solution undergo frequent collisions, and have assumed no damping. >3) The database supporting the idea that biological effects occur only at >certain combinations of AC frequency, DC field strength and AC/DC >orientation is quite suspect. Many of the original studies that provided >evidence for this interaction have failed attempts at replication, and >many studies that have looked for resonance effects on ions have failed to >find them. > >The big advantage of the resonance models, however, is that they provide a >potential mechanism to overcome signal-to-noise problems. > >It will be interesting to see how well the Blanchard/Blackman model holds >up to biophysical analysis (several potentially serious problems were >brought up at the Albuquerque meeting), and whether any other groups can >find experimental data to support it (again at the Albuquerque meeting, >there were reports from several groups that had looked for, and not found, >this resonance). The bottom line is that more theoretical and biological research on mechanisms is needed. That can hopefully lead to new approaches for measuring exposures. With such tools, future epi studies might resolve the contradictions produced by the present crop (both childhood and residential) that only measured the AC field. Joe Bowman NIOSH jdb0 @ niobbs1.em.cdc.gov-- From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 19 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: Savitz study Date: 20 Jan 1995 11:55:37 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 32 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2F1F96DE@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net If my memory serves me correctly, the five recent occupational epi studies with measurements of the ELF magnetic field gave the following results: Brain cancer Acute Mylogenous Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Leukemia Floderus MAYBE NO YES Sahl NO MAYBE ?? London not studied YES MAYBE Theriault MAYBE YES NO Savitz YES NO MAYBE (I omit Matanoski's study from this list, because a NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation found the telephone workers in the contral offices used radium bromide tubes, whose ionizing radiation is certainly a confounder for leukemia). Even if I haven't gotten the table completely right, the basic outline is an amazing patchwork of contradictions. Does anyone have any explanations? Joe Bowman NIOSH jdb0 @ niobbs1.em.cdc.gov From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jan 19 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!daresbury!not-for-mail From: bpida@picr.cr.man.ac.uk (Donald Allan) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: power line corona causing X-ray? Date: 20 Jan 1995 12:42:21 -0000 Lines: 22 Sender: lpddist@mserv1.dl.ac.uk Distribution: bionet Message-ID: <3fob3d$juo@mserv1.dl.ac.uk> Original-To: emf-bio@dl.ac.uk I am afraid I have lost track of who has said what on this topic, so I am not sure who to credit, but someone said:- [lots deleted] > >Try running your tests under lines but away from poles/towers. I'm not > saying > >that you'll get different results, but I would be more assured (but not > >convinced) that you are measuring effects from the power lines, not the > >support structures (which are probably constructed with concrete, a > possible > >source of low-level radiation [lots more deleted] If there is a real effect, it would be quite likely that coronas would more frequently occur at the support towers as the line support hardware will likely have sharper edges etc than the conductors themselves and so will more easily initiate corona discharges. So you might well get lower radiation readings midway between support poles for this reason too. It will take some careful measurements to sort all this out - good luck! Donald Allan bpida@picr.cr.man.ac.uk From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Jan 20 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: Savitz study Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:50:37 -0600 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 53 Distribution: world Message-ID: <9501201750.AA37967@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> References: <2F1F96DE@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 2.0.1 In article <2F1F96DE@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov>, jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") writes: > If my memory serves me correctly, the five recent occupational epi > studies with measurements of the ELF magnetic field gave the > following results: > > Brain cancer Acute Mylogenous Chronic Lymphocytic > Leukemia Leukemia > > Floderus MAYBE NO YES > > Sahl NO MAYBE ?? > > London not studied YES MAYBE > > Theriault MAYBE YES NO > > Savitz YES NO MAYBE But just to make the confusion worse, Iıd add Tyne(94) NO NO (all leukemia) Guenel NO NO (acute or all leukemia) > > Even if I haven't gotten the table completely right, the basic outline > is an amazing patchwork of contradictions. Either you memory is very good, or you used a crib sheet, although Iım not sure that I wouldnıt have listed Theriault as NO on brain. > Does anyone have any explanations? A real effect, but: - the relative risk is very close to unity - the wrong field metric is being measured - the retrospective dosimetry is inadequate - the real dose-response relationship is non-monotonic - it requires a co-factor not present in all occupations An artifact, because of: - a confounder in some but not all occupations - multiple comparisons - publication bias - reporting bias John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Jan 21 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news From: JOHN W. GASKO <75763.2443@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS Date: 22 Jan 1995 00:38:29 GMT Organization: STUDENT: S.U.N.Y MARITIME COLLEGE Lines: 13 Message-ID: <3fs9e5$bn8$4@mhadg.production.compuserve.com> I HOPE THIS SUBJECT FITS UNDER THE HEADING OF THIS BOARD. I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON PATENTING A MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMIC DEVICE INVOLVING THE USE OF THREE PHASE AC POWER. THIS DEVICE WORKS, AND HAS BROAD APPLICATIONS, BUT I NEED SOMEONE OR SOME CORPORATION WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN BUYING IT. ANY HELP WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATED. RESPECTFULLY, JOHN GASKO 75763.2443@COMPUSERVE.COM -- 75763.2443@COMPUSERVE.COM From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jan 22 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOSHE2.EM.CDC.GOV!TYW1 From: TYW1@NIOSHE2.EM.CDC.GOV ("Wenzl, Thurman") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Please again + Savitz Date: 23 Jan 1995 08:28:39 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 22 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2F235AD6@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I too am very interested in hearing people's comments on the recent epi, but PLEASE 'sign' your messages in the body thereof. TIA, Thurman tyw1@nioshe2.em.cdc.gov ---------- From: Wenzl, Thurman To: 'emf-bio' Subject: names and return addresses Please Date: Wednesday, January 18, 1995 1:13PM Many of our mail software packages (in my case MS Mail for Windows) clip off the header, so we cannot learn where a message has come from - so Please, sign your notes, and leave your individual e-mail return addresses, in case we wish to respond in that way. Thanks in advance, Thurman Wenzl, NIOSH, Cincinnati tyw1@nioshe2.em.cdc.gov From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jan 22 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: Savitz study Date: 22 Jan 1995 16:39:47 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 34 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Joe Bowman states: >Even if I haven't gotten the table completely right, >the basic outline is an amazing patchwork of contradictions. >Does anyone have any explanations? If you look back in the history of biology Joe... you will find that this is a common pattern that appears prior to significant advances in biology. Biological organisms are very complex nonlinear systems with numerous feedback loops. Identifying the critical variables to control in experiments in order to get clean results takes a lot of work. This is why biology is so difficult compared to many of the other sciences. Because it is so difficult, biology has only recently entered its revolution, several generations after the revolutions in physics and chemistry. The pattern of results that is unfolding in the emf work is what would be expected in the context of the history of biology (just delayed by the non-scientific factors). The problem in the emf experiments is also due, in part, to the need for basic biology to advance further. And that is happening now at an accelerating and phenomenal pace. We should all have patience and have some tolerance; Rome wasn't built in a day. Besides, its fun watching it unfold. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jan 22 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: Savitz study Date: 23 Jan 1995 06:53:22 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 38 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2F23446E@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net >From: Chris Davis > Electrical Engineering Department > University of Maryland, College Park > davis@eng.umd.edu >Date: Sunday, January 22, 1995 3:00PM > >The amazing patchwork of contradictory results from epidemiological >studies seems to cover all the studes I have seen or heard about. >Even for the positive findings the risk elevation factors are >generally not much greater than 1. In fact most of the risk >elevations take the form x plus or minus y, where x is slightly >greater that 1 and y is greater than (x-1). The simple conclusion to >draw is that there is no significant risk elevation from normal EMF >exposure. This is incorrect. The basic methodology of all epi studies tests for random variation. For example, the most convincing dose-response curve in the Savitz & Loomis paper comes for brain cancer with exposures 2-10 years before the death of the subject (Table 4). For the highest risk group (cumulative exposures > 0.7 uT-years), the relative risk is 2.56 with a 95% confidence interval of 1.35-2.81, i.e. a significant elevation in risk. All of the findings I listed as YES had both significant risk at some level of exposure and a significant trend in the dose-response. >Variability in various epidemiological studies reflects that >epidemiology is not an exact science, and that there are almost certainly >known, or unknown confounding factors -- like the creosote treated poles >scaled by telephone linemen. That is a good point. Savitz & Loomis did adjust their risk estimates confounding by PCBs and solvents, but not by creasote. However, that cannot totally explain their findings. The highest risk of brain cancer is reported for electricians (Table 3), who do all of their work at generating and sub-stations away from the poles and their creosote. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jan 24 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!adam.cc.sunysb.edu!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: Savitz study and resonances Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 09:49:02 -0600 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 66 Distribution: world Message-ID: <9501250949.AA02885@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> References: <2F1FB1DB@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 2.0.1 > >But people have been studying mechanisms of interaction of > >nonionizing radiation with biological for many years, and many > >mechanisms are well known. Problem is, these either require very > >high fields (e.g. shock) or have nothing discernible to do with cancer > >(e.g. orientation of magnetic bacteria). > > > >What, precisely, did you have in mind. > > 1. Stochastic resonances > 2. Induced currents from transients > 3. Other induced currents > 4. Temporal coherence > 5. Magnetosomes > 6. Free radicals > 7. Ion parametric resonances > 8. Other forms of ion magnetic resonance > > There are theoretical objections to the list above. It is important to note that there are two fundamentally different types of problems with the above mechanisms - for some mechanisms (such as some of the resonance proposals) there are fundamental biophysical and biological problems - other mechanisms (such as induced currents or radical pairs) are biophysically and biologically sound, but simply are not applicable at ambient field levels > However, the continued stream of epi and laboratory effects reported > with ELF fields makes it difficult to maintain the position that > EMF cannot possibly affect the body. I don't think that this follows: - the positive laboratory studies that have independent validation have mostly (perhaps entirely) involved field strengths of 100 microT and above. These field strength are high enough that induced currents are a biophysically and biologically plausible mechanism. The existence of biological effects for fields of 100 microT and above, and particularly for fields of 500 microT and above, have little bearing on whether effects at 0.1-10 microT are plausible. - by themselves, the epidemiological studies are neither strong enough, or consistent enough, to establish a causal link. So I would argue that it is not valid to claim that the biophysics can be proven to be wrong by the existence of effects that the biophysics would claim are impossible. Note also that while people like Bob Adair are frequently quoted as saying that power-frequency biological effects are impossible, the actual statements are generally rather different. For example, in Phys Rev A (43:1039-1048, 1991), Adair writes: "any biological effects of weak ELF fields [less than 50 microT] on the cellular level must be found outside of the scope of conventional physics". John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) Maintainer: Powerlines & Cancer FAQs USENET: sci.med.physics, sci.answers, news.answers. FTP://cdmas.crc.mcw.edu/pub/powerlines_and_cancer FTP://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/news.answers/powerlines-cancer-FAQ http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/powerlines-cancer-FAQ From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jan 24 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!BIGSIS.SPH.JHU.EDU!breysse From: breysse@BIGSIS.SPH.JHU.EDU Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: bowman's recent comment on matanoski paper Date: 25 Jan 1995 14:15:09 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 77 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <95012517141945@bigsis.sph.jhu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net From: Patrick N. Breysse breysse@bigsis.sph.jhu.edu RE: Response to Bowman Joe Bowman recently complied a table of EMF studies and left out a publication by Matanoski et al. for the following reason:"I omit Matanoski's study from this list because a NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation found telephone workers in central offices used radium bromide tubes, whose ionizing radiation is certainly a confounder for leukemia." This commment suggests there is some confusion about the Matanoski's studies. Matanoski performed essentially two different studies on telephone linemen One a National Case-control and the other a cohort study of New York telephone lineworkers. The New York study (1), which is the most relvant study to the NIOSH HHE (since the NIOSH HHE was in response to the Matanoski study), found an excess leukemia in cable splicers - NOT CENTRAL OFFICE WORKERS!! So the NIOSH HHE is irrelevant to this leukemia finding. The radium bromide tube obsevation is important with repect to the observed male breast risk also noted in this study(2). Bowmans table did not deal with male breast cancer however and this is another story. It should be noted that the NY telephone company did not cooperate in this study so we were not allowed the same access as G. Moss and the NIOSH HHE. With respect to the case-control study(3)... This study found an excess risk for leukemia