From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon May 01 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!CS.UWP.EDU!greeneba From: greeneba@CS.UWP.EDU (Ben Greenebaum) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Bioelectromagnetics 16(2) Date: 2 May 1995 11:57:27 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 79 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net BIOELECTROMAGNETICS VOLUME 16, No. 2 (1995) Table of Contents NOTE: Please contact your library or the authors for reprints or further information about specific articles, NOT the Editor, Society or Publisher!!! This issue will be mailed shortly. Full abstracts are posted on Bio-journals BIONET newsgroup. For information about the journal, contact the Editor. For member subscription information, contact the Bioelectromagnetics Society, 7519 Ridge Rd. Frederick MD 21702. For library or other non-member subscription information, contact the publisher, Wiley/Liss, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York NY 10158-0012, Attn: Subscription Dept., 9th Floor. Ben Greenebaum, Editor University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Box 2000, Kenosha WI 53141-2000 414-595-2140; Fax 414-595-2056 Internet: bems@cs.uwp.edu ______________________________________________________________ Bioelectromagnetics Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and the Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine Volume 16, Number 2, 1995 75 Model for External Influences on Cellular Signal Transduction Pathways Including Cytosolic Calcium Oscillations C. Eichwald, F. Kaiser 86 Childhood Cancer in Relation to Indicators of Magnetic Fields From Ground Current Sources N. Wertheimer, D. Savitz, E. Leeper 97 Microwave Ablation of the Atrioventricular Junction in Open- Chest Dogs J.C. Lin, K.J. BEckman, R.J. Hariman, S. Bharati, M. Lev, Y. Wang 106 Weak Extremely-Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields and Regeneration in the Planarian Dugesia tigrina K.A. Jenrow, C.H. Smith, A.R. Liboff 113 Recovery Characteristics of a Rigid, Nonmetallic Microdialysis Probe for Use in an Electromagnetic Field P.A. Mason, W.F. Romano 119 Melatonin and Puberty in Female Lambs Exposed to EMF: A Replicate Study J.M. Lee, Jr., F. Stormshak, J.M. Thompson, D.L. Hess, D.L. Foster 124 Millimeter Microwave Effect on Ion Transport Across Lipid Bilayer Membranes S.I. Alekseev, M.C. Ziskin 132 Imprecise Exposure Assessment and the Sample Size Requirements of Case-Control Studies of Residential Magnetic Field Exposure and Cancer in Adults V. Delpizzo 143 Comments on "Effects of 60 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields on the Development of the Rat Cerebellum," by Gona et al. M. Gledhil 144 Reply to Comment on "Effects of 60 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields on the Development of the Rat Cerebellum" S. Von Hagen, M. Yu, A. Gona 145 Errata (c) 1995, Wiley/Liss, Inc. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue May 02 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: editorial Date: 2 May 1995 21:16:46 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 18 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net There has been a great deal of grumbling... over the years about abuses in the peer review process in the emf-bio area. Thus, some readers might find an editorial (I wrote) of interest. It is being published in the FASEB Journal* this month (May) and is entitled "The courts are considering whether the identity of peer reviewers should be secret. Should we?" * The FASEB Journal is the journal of the Federation of American Societies in Experimental Biology and is read by about 100,000 biologists. 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 May 03 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU!Spadaroj From: Spadaroj@VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU (Joe Spadaro) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: "Phys. Reg. '95 Conference" Date: 4 May 1995 16:17:39 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 36 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT/CALL FOR PAPERS The 15th Annual meeting Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine (SPRBM) Oct. 11-14 1995 Hyatt Regency, Crystal City, Arlington, VA. In addition to contributed papers and updates, special symposia this year will focus on: electromagnetic field stimulation of wound healing; acoustic force effects on tissue repair; and thermal effects on tissue remodeling. MAY 12, 1995 is the DEADLINE for contributed papers! For abstract forms or to get on mailing list contact Ms. Debbie Stoutamire at: SPRBM@FASEB.ORG or at SPRBM 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3998 Fax: 301-530-7049 phone: 301-571-0680 The SPRBM (formerly, the Bioelectrical Repair and Growth Soc.) is known for its multidiciplinary scope centering on the interaction of mechanical, electrical, magnetic, ultrasound, and thermal stimuli with biological systems. Emerging clinical applications and the newest research on basic cellular mechanisms are equally represented at these conferences. SPRBM has a SINGLE SESSION meeting format, involving clinicians, engineers, physicists and biologists, and has extremely lively discussions in which all attendees are encouraged to be involved. Joe Spadaro, Ph.D. S.U.N.Y. Health Science Center - Syracuse spadaroj@vax.cs.hscsyr.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed May 03 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: vision junk Date: 4 May 1995 07:01:00 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 13 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net This vision junk, I've determined... is occurring because Brian Sandle cross-posted his original message to 6 groups. When someone in another group responds, it comes to us. I've tried to block it, but some may still get thru. I've also asked Sandle not to post to this group. If necessary, I'll block his access. 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 May 03 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: EMF codes and/or standards Date: 4 May 1995 06:41:01 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 40 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2FA86916@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net There is a great review: "Federal and Non-federal EMF Policy Activities" (August 18, 1993) done for the US Dept of Energy. Hopefully, you should be able to obtain a copy from the EMF RAPID program (Research and Public Information Dissemination). Phone: 1-202-586-5575. Since 1993, there has been an update of the TLV (Threshold Limit Value) and the continuing stream of governmental statements on EMF, but no additional exposure guidelines that I know of. Joe Bowman National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Cincinnati, OH jdb0 @ niobbs1.em.cdc.gov ---------- From: BIOSCI-REQUEST To: emf-bio Subject: EMF codes and/or standards I am looking for the existence of any codes, standards, or recommendations that limit electromagnetic field exposure, similar to, say, the recommendations for illumination set forth by the Illuminating Engineering Society. They don't have to be _law_ necessarily, but are there any official or quasi-official bodies who have developed such recommendations or standards such as "ambient ELF magnetic fields at workstations shall not exceed 5 mG" or something to that effect? Any pointers in the right direction would be helpful. I am working on a project that explores both EMF and light and their hypothesized link to cancer via the melatonin mechanism. Thanks! -- John Bullough, Research Associate TEL: (518) 276-8717 Lighting Research Center FAX: (518) 276-4835 School of Architecture EMAIL: bulloj@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute WWW: http://www.rpi.edu/~bulloj From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed May 03 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: relayed posting Date: 3 May 1995 19:15:46 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 41 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I attempted to post this to the newsgroup bionet.emf-bio. The system said I cannot post to that newsgroup. Could you forward it to the newsgroup, if it is an appropriate message? Thank you. -John Bullough bulloj@rpi.edu =============================================================== Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: EMF codes and/or standards Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: School of Architecture, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Keywords: Cc: I am looking for the existence of any codes, standards, or recommendations that limit electromagnetic field exposure, similar to, say, the recommendations for illumination set forth by the Illuminating Engineering Society. They don't have to be _law_ necessarily, but are there any official or quasi-official bodies who have developed such recommendations or standards such as "ambient ELF magnetic fields at workstations shall not exceed 5 mG" or something to that effect? Any pointers in the right direction would be helpful. I am working on a project that explores both EMF and light and their hypothesized link to cancer via the melatonin mechanism. Thanks! -- John Bullough, Research Associate TEL: (518) 276-8717 Lighting Research Center FAX: (518) 276-4835 School of Architecture EMAIL: bulloj@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute WWW: http://www.rpi.edu/~bulloj From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu May 04 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!Lehigh.EDU!Lehigh.EDU!not-for-mail From: x011@Lehigh.EDU Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: EMF and murder??? Date: 5 May 1995 09:36:41 -0400 Lines: 2 Message-ID: <3od9l9$2kkh@ns2-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: ns2-1.cc.lehigh.edu Does anyone know of EMF research that suggest a connection with murder? Ron Blue x011@lehigh.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu May 04 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ENVIR.HYDRO.QC.CA!cardinac From: cardinac@ENVIR.HYDRO.QC.CA (Claude Cardinal) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: IEE Report Date: 5 May 1995 07:14:33 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 20 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net In reply to your message of 21 April 1995 I would like to suggest that IEE committee considers also the following publication which have appeared in 1994, Cancer Risks Associated with Occupational Exposure to Magnetic Fields among Electric Utility Workers in Ontario and Québec,Canada and France: 1970-1989 G. Thériault et al.; American Journal of Epidemiology; Vol 139, N0 6, april 1994 Note: This is a case-control study nested with three cohords of workers at electric utilities. Among the more than 220 000 men included in the study, 4151 new cases of cancer occurred. Odds ratio have been obtained for 25 specific types of cancer as well as 7 groups of cancer. Both exposure to Electric field and to magnetic field have measured (more tham a 10 000 men-days). The results for the Electric field have not yet been published, but they are included in the final report summitted to the Electric utilities. This report is available in English and in French. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu May 04 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!HORNET.ONR.NAVY.MIL!MARRON From: MARRON@HORNET.ONR.NAVY.MIL ("Michael T. Marron") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Park: Am Phys Soc Gives Support to NULL Hypothesis Date: 5 May 1995 14:12:59 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 16 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9505051613.AA09739@131.250.9.42> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park Friday, 5 May 95 Washington, DC 2. APS ADOPTS STATEMENT ON "POWER LINE FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH"! The Council of the American Physical Society, by a vote of 29-1, declared that purported health effects of power line fields have not been scientifically substantiated, and the cost of mitigation and litigation "is incommensurate with the risk, if any." Since EMF was first linked to cancer in 1979, epidemiological evidence has grown ever fainter and proposed mechanisms more speculative. The Council action, taken at its 22 April meeting, was a result of several years of discussion and monitoring of the issue by the APS Panel on Public Affairs, and was endorsed by the leaders of the Biophysics Division of the Society. This is the strongest position on the EMF issue taken by a major scientific society. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu May 04 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!Lehigh.EDU!Lehigh.EDU!not-for-mail From: x011@Lehigh.EDU Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: neuro oscillations Date: 5 May 1995 09:47:54 -0400 Lines: 59 Message-ID: <3odaaa$2ldb@ns2-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: ns2-1.cc.lehigh.edu Your group may be interested in receiving a new neuroprocessing model that may explain why EMF would effect behavior. I can send it email. It is 78k long. Enclosed is an abstract. Ron Blue x011@lehigh.edu Abstract: The correlational opponent-processing theory is a neuro homeostasis integration psychological immune theory that would connect phenomena such as sensation, perception, movement, habituation, memory, representations, learning, cognition, personality, psychopathology, paradoxical integration, emotion, and evolution of the mind under a unified theory. Perception/learning/cognition may be viewed as an effort to assimilate and accommodate all experience into neuro-energy-efficient eigenfunctional equivalence or quasi-holographic correlational opponent-processing recordings. Stimuli causes brain wave modulations which interact with carrier or reference wavelets. This interaction creates a quasi-holographic stimulus wavelet. The opponent-process creates an opposing quasi- holographic memory wavelet. Through this process the correlations or associations of experience are encoded to memory. Every wavelet, regardless of source or type, triggers an opposing wavelet. The function of the opposing wavelet or feedback is to diminish the intensity of neural processing. A wavelet potential is stored or hard wired as long-term potentiation opponent-processes in nerve cells and the interconnections between nerve cells. The wavelets are quasi- holographic and allow recovery of information due to the interaction of reference carrier wavelets and stimuli, thought, motor movement, and emotional arousal. Outline: Discussion Neuro Net Quasi-holographic wavelets Habituation/immunization Memory Representations, copies or models Learning/Cognition Personality Sensations and Perceptions Movement Emotion Evolution Tools Implications Conclusion and applications from COP theory Discorrelation Education Biophysical Intelligence Defense Mechanisms Brain damage Creativity Brain Tape Computer Model Conclusion Bibliography Acknowledgments From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri May 05 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!southern.co.nz!equinox.gen.nz!equinox!not-for-mail From: Brian_Sandle@equinox.gen.nz (Brian Sandle) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: vision junk Date: 6 May 1995 05:52:51 GMT Organization: Southern InterNet Services Lines: 21 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3of2rj$hmj@southern.co.nz> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: equinox.gen.nz X-Newsreader: TIN [AMIGA 1.3 950131BETA PL0] Allan Frey (afrey@uunet.uu.net) wrote: : : This vision junk, I've determined... : is occurring because Brian Sandle cross-posted his original message : to 6 groups. Could you name the groups please, to my knowledge I added bionet.emf-bio to two others, to get the answer, making three altogether, sci.med and sci.med.vision When someone in another group responds, it comes to : us. I've tried to block it, I also wrote to the first poster. Have you written to the ones who are currently posting or taken a mechanical means to block? Maybe they do not know Sorry to break this in two. Brian. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun May 07 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!Belgium.EU.net!chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be!news.sri.ucl.ac.be!NewsWatcher!user From: duhamel@emic.ucl.ac.be (Fabienne DUHAMEL) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: dielectric permittivity Followup-To: bionet.emf-bio Date: 8 May 1995 14:50:12 GMT Organization: Ucl EMIC Lines: 4 Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.104.34.134 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Does anyone know the dielectric permittivities of myelin and axoplasm at high frequency? Or where to find this information? Thanks in advance Fabienne From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun May 07 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!UNIXSRV1.LSUMC.EDU!amarino From: amarino@UNIXSRV1.LSUMC.EDU ("Andrew A. Marino") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: EMFs and chaos Date: 8 May 1995 13:20:28 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 83 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9505082017.AA21117@unixsrv1.lsumc.edu> Reply-To: "Andrew A. Marino" NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net EMFs AND CHAOS Positive nonthermal EMF studies are sometimes followed by negative studies, thereby creating doubt in the judgment of some reasonable observers regarding the truth of the statement "EMF bioeffects exist" (S-1) when said of particular classes of effects. The doubt is sometimes characterized as indicating a "controversy," or as a manifestation of "conflicting results;" more extreme observers, the Council of the Americal Physical Society for example, interpret the evidence to indicate that S-1 is false. The model usually applied to EMF bioeffects data is one in which the inference of a cause-and-effect relationship (CER) is based on comparison of the means of two groups, one of which was exposed to the EMF, the other of which served as the control. The approach rationalizes both inference of a CER and its inductive generalization (from MY rats studied under my circumstances, to ALL rats studied under plausibly similar circumstances). The difficulty that besets the EMF bioeffects literature is that such generalizations decay quickly in the face of the inability of other investigators to repeat the results. Suppose it were true that a reasonably coherent set of studies consistently resulted in observations whose inferences supported the truth of S-1. Since S-1 entails the statement "nonthermal EMFs are transduced" (S-2), the consistent observation of an EMF bioeffect entails S-2. By "transduced" I mean that the EMF was converted to a biological signal such as a sound wave converted into a neuronal spike or the presence of extracellular IL-1 converted into an intracellular second messenger. By a "biological" signal, I mean a measurable change in the organism that would not be manifested if the organism were dead. An example of such a set of studies is described more fully elsewhere (Marino, A.A.: Different outcomes in biological experiments involving weak EMFs: is chaos a possible explanation?, Am. J. Physiol. 268 (Regulatory Integrative Comp. Physiol. 37): R1013-R1018, 1995). Chronic exposure of rodents to EMFs (both electric and magnetic fields) consistently caused changes in the variance of body weight, even though body weight was not consistently affected. Perusal of the literature will reveal other instances where apparent inconsistency evaporates when significance-testing is performed on the sample variances. Perhaps it is possible to construct an approach that leads to even more uniformity among the results of credible EMF studies, and I would like to ask for advice regarding development of its associated statistical theory. Consider two groups of animals that are reasonably identical except that one group is exposed continuously to an EMF; measurements of a dependent variable are made in all animals at a particular time after commencement of exposure. The problem is to analyze the data to determine whether it provides support for S-1, and hence for S-2. One possible plan would be to compare the mean values from each group, but this is the method of analysis that has produced the present problem. Another approach would be to consider differences in variance, based on the idea that effects in different directions might be produced in different animals. A shortcoming in this approach is that it allows only effects on variance to serve as a basis for an inference of transduction; any impact of the EMF that manifested itself as an effect on mean weight would be incorrectly interpreted as no effect. I propose to consider, as the experimental quantity for evaluation, the absolute values of the differences between the magnitudes of the dependent variable in the exposed group and the values that WOULD HAVE MANIFESTED BUT FOR the presence of the EMF. By definition, the differences are zero unless S-1 is true; consequently, a reliable determination of non-zero differences is sufficient to justify accepting S-1 as true. The measurements in the control group could be used as the values that the animals in the exposed group would have manifested but for the EMF. The range of differences in the control group could serve as the statistical control because these differences are characteristic, in the particular study, of the expected variation if S-1 were not true. In summary, if I and J denote the Ith and Jth animals, W denotes the result of a measurement, and EMF and C denote the EMF and control groups, respectively, then the quantities to be compared are the absolute value of [W,I,EMF P W,J,C], and, [W,I,C P W,J,C]. Based on such a biological model, a well-behaved statistic can be developed (one that does not become infinite as the number of test subjects is increased). Can a statistical methodology be designed to permit an objective characterization of the difference between the two groups? Can it be shown that the procedure is not identical to tests involving comparison of group means or group variances? Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D. Dept. of Orthopaedic Surg., LSU Medical Center P.O. Box 33932 Shreveport, LA 71130-3932 amarino@lsumc.edu Phone: 318-675-6177 Fax: 318-675-6186 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon May 08 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!in1.uu.net!emi.com!pauling.wadsworth.org!tivol From: tivol@news.wadsworth.org (William Tivol) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EMF and murder??? Date: 8 May 1995 20:31:24 GMT Organization: Wadsworth Center, NY Health Dept. Lines: 8 Message-ID: <3olv2s$fjf@pauling.wadsworth.org> References: <3od9l9$2kkh@ns2-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: alcor.wadsworth.org X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] x011@Lehigh.EDU wrote: : Does anyone know of EMF research that suggest a connection with : murder? Ron Blue x011@lehigh.edu Dear Ron, You mean other than the electric chair? :-) Yours, Bill Tivol From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue May 09 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!decwrl!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!news.massey.ac.nz!sysadmin From: "Dexter N. Muir" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: dielectric permittivity Date: 10 May 1995 03:47:52 GMT Organization: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand Lines: 25 Message-ID: <3opd18$602@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: pt-pc7.massey.ac.nz duhamel@emic.ucl.ac.be (Fabienne DUHAMEL) wrote: > > Does anyone know the dielectric permittivities of myelin and axoplasm at > high frequency? Or where to find this information? > Thanks in advance > Fabienne Hi Fabienne... I am not 100% sure, however I think that the information you require regarding dielectric permittivity of myelin and axoplasm can be found in the CRC Handbook of the Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields. This seminal work covers both static and alternating fields for both electric and magnetic systems. It was first published in 1987, however there may be an update which is more recent. If you require any further information, please contact Bruce Rapley care of (c/-) the signatory below.Please advise me of your outcome. Dexter N. Muir Manufacturing Pilot Plant Technician D.N.Muir@massey.ac.nz Department of Production Technology Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue May 09 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!pipex!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!daresbury!not-for-mail From: Radu Branisteanu Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Request to emf-bio Date: 10 May 1995 10:10:25 +0100 Lines: 6 Sender: lpddist@mserv1.dl.ac.uk Distribution: bionet Message-ID: <3opvu1$as5@mserv1.dl.ac.uk> X-Sender: radub@tag content-length: 305 Original-To: emf-bio@dl.ac.uk Does anyone know of EMF research concerning the mathematical modelling of EMF absorbtion in the brain ? Or where to find this information ? Does anyone use computer administrated neurobehavioral testings for VDU users ? Or how to find such information ? Thanks in advance, Razvan From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu May 11 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!lafn.org!lafn.org!ai808 From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Subject: Re: comments on report X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995May7.205633.11032@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net References: Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 20:56:33 GMT Lines: 134 More on anonymity: Juried art shows often conceal the name of the artist so that the judges are less likely to deliberately award prizes to their friends. In receiving responses to RFPs for research projects, might such a numbered system, lessen bias on the part of those doing the evaluating? Or, is it still highly likely that the style (in the case of a painter) may be easily recognized as might the approach of a particular researcher? Best, Ellen (Stern Harris) In a previous article, afrey@UUNET.UU.NET (Allan Frey) says: > >Earlier this month... >Eric Spain mentioned a UK Institution of Electrical Engineer's report and >posed some questions. I give my answers below. > >Spain stated that some of the report's conclusions were: > >>"The large literature on laboratory studies is seriously undermined by the >>lack of replication and the absence of national/international co- >>ordination of research effort. At present there is no widely accepted >>experiments which can demonstrate any biological effect of low level >>electromagnetic fields." > >>...they discuss... findings...but conclude that they do not constitute >>evidence because they have not been replicated nor are 'widely accepted'. >>...(they) say that there is no proof that these effects can cause cancer. > > >First, I will address the question of replication in biology. > >In the relatively simple areas, such as physics and engineering, there are >few variables, they are largely known, so essentially all variables can be >controlled and a replication can be done. But the replication paradigm is >not an appropriate one for biology; that is the reason why it is rarely used >and there are rarely funds for it. > >In a difficult area, such as biology, where there are literally hundreds of >interacting variables, most of which are unknown, and numerous feedback >loops, there is no such thing as replication. How can you replicate the >conditions of numerous unknown variables? The paradigm in biology is to >take a finding, set up a new experiment that extends it, and carry it out. >If the original finding was valid, then the experiments built upon it will >give results that are expected (usually after a period of confusion and >difficulty while the important unknown confounding variables are >determined). > >Of course there is a lack of replication in the emf-bio area, the problem is >the attempt to impose a paradigm appropriate in one area on an area in >which it is not appropriate, and thus doomed to fail. There is no problem >with the biology, its following its normal course. > >Second, there is the statement in the report "...but say that there is no >proof that these (emf) effects can cause cancer." > >Of course there is no proof that these effects can cause cancer. How can >there be? Biologists do not know how cancer is caused or the molecular >mechanisms that are involved in the occurrence of cancer. We biologists, >as yet, have only a fragmentary understanding of the cancer mechanism. > >If biologists do not know the mechanism of cancer, no one can "prove" >that emf or anything else causes cancer. > >Third, there is the statement in the report "... there is no widely accepted >experiments which can demonstrate any biological effect of low level >electromagnetic fields." > >This makes me wonder if the report writers read the biological literature. >For example, thirty years ago I reported that there was a microwave >hearing phenomenon, a biological effect of low level emf. The scores, if >not hundreds, of microwave hearing experiments since then by many >people indicate wide acceptance of an effect. There are numerous other >effects that can be cited (see for example my recent book "On the nature >of electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems"). > >Also, how are the writers defining "widely accepted"? If they are doing as >usual, they are probably thinking in terms of the few hundred people of the >biohazards community; most are whom are not biologists. The biology >community accepts that emf is fundamental to the life processes of living >organisms. The journal of the Federation of American Societies in >Experimental Biology (FASEB Journal), for example, regularly publishes >articles about emf interactions with living systems. And the FASEB >Journal, which is read by 100,000 biologists, is a prime journal in biology. >In fact, ISI reported that the FASEB J. is first in impact among all the >world's biology journals. > >Fourth, there is a call for national/international coordination in the >report. This is another case of the inappropriate application of a paradigm >from one area to another area. > >In engineering, when most of the variables are known, creating a centrally >controlled project under the control of experts is an appropriate method >to get things done in the shortest time. A good illustration is the atomic >bomb project of WW 2. An engineering approach is also appropriate in the >human genome project in biology, where the sequencing equipment >variables are known and the project parts can be apportioned to machines >in various facilities. > >But when the basic science is not yet understood, centralizing the work >under the control of the "experts" only hinders and delays. There are many >illustrations of this in the history of science. > >Consider, for example, Marconi's efforts to establish wireless >communication between the US and the UK. If there was central control, >he never would have gotten the money for such a deviant idea. The >"experts" at the time said long range radio communication would violate >the laws of physics and Maxwell's equations and was impossible. > >But what the "experts" of each day typically fail to recognize is that they >don't have ultimate truth, they implicitly assume that they know >everything that there is to know. Marconi got the money and showed that >long range radio communication was possible. And because of that, the >ionosphere was discovered. The ionosphere made long range radio >communication possible and no laws of physics were violated. (In my book, >I discuss this and other aspects of philosophy of science in more detail.) > >In sum, the IEE report is just more of the same thing that afflicts this >area of biology and hinders and delays the advance of knowledge. > >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 May 11 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!lafn.org!lafn.org!ai808 From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Subject: June 8 Meeting re EMF X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995May7.210512.13008@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 21:05:12 GMT Lines: 17 Thursday June 8, 10 AM till 7:30 PM, the California Dept. of Health Services will be holding an all-day+ meeting in Berkeley. The public is welcome. The discussion will include proposed research topics and approaches as well as how to avoid conflicts of interest regarding researchers, peer reviewers, members of the EMF Stakeholders Advisory Committee and DHS staff. The location: Berkeley Conference Center at Bancroft & Shattuck. If you are unable to attend, please send me your thoughts on these topics at ai808@lafn.org along with a c.c. to RNEUTRA@HW1.CAHWNET.GOV Many thanks, Ellen Stern Harris, Member Calif.Dept. of Health Services EMF Stakeholders Advisory Committee From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu May 11 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!NewsWatcher!user From: kcowing@aibs.org (Keith L. Cowing) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio,bionet.metabolic-reg,bionet.immunology,bionet.emf-bio Subject: UPDATE: US Army Persian Gulf War Illnesses Proposal Solicitation Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 17:20:37 -0500 Organization: American Institute of Biological Sciences Lines: 129 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: kcowing-ppp.clark.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Xref: biosci bionet.metabolic-reg:476 bionet.immunology:4110 bionet.emf-bio:334 The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC) posted the following three announcements in the CBD (Commerce Business Daily) on 9 May 1995: Epidemiological Studies Persian Gulf War Illnesses (PGI-l) Pyridostigmine Bromide studies Persian Gulf War Illnesses (PGI-2) Clinical Research and Other Studies Persian Gulf War Illnesses (PGI-3) No conventional solicitation will be issued by the Army for this action. Updates will be posted to various newsgroups if/when they are received by AIBS. For updates on this and other biomedical RFPs, proposal solicitations, fellowships, and research opportunities, check the AIBS Gopher at gopher.aibs.org or via WWW at gopher://aibs.org - updates will appear in the PROFESSIONAL OPPORTUNITIES folder. NOTE: Direct all inquires to the US ARMY Point of Contact: CRAIG D. LEBO, 301-619-2036 U.S. ARMY MED. RESEARCH ACQUISITION ACT MCMR-RMA FORT DETRICK BLDG, 820, FREDERICK MD 21702-5014: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ RECORD NUMBER: 1342PRA0008 CBD ISSUE DATE: 5/9/95 SECTION: Procurements FSC CODE: A TITLE: R&D STREAMLINED CONTRACT SOL DAMD17-95-#-0008 DUE 052495 Point of Contact: CRAIG D. LEBO, 301-619-2036 Epidemiological Studies Persian Gulf War Illnesses (PGI-l) The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC) on behalf of the Departments of Defense, Veteran's Affairs and Health and Human Services Cooperative Research Program, is supporting Epidemiological studies of possible health consequences of military service or employment in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War. The USAMRMC is seeking proposals to study the incidence, prevalence, and nature of illnesses and symptoms and risk factors associated to symptoms or illnesses as a result of Persian Gulf War Service. No conventional Solicitation will be issued for this action, but the details of the requirements will appear in a future edition of the Commerce Business Daily (CBD). This action follows the guidelines of the RED streamlined contracting procedure outlined in DFARS 235.7000. Any offeror desiring to receive any amendments to this solicitation and any supplemental packages, if developed, should send their name and address, citing this announcement to the issuing office. U.S. ARMY MED.RESEARCH ACQUISITION ACT, MCMR-RMA, FORT DETRICK BLDG. 820, FREDERICK MD 21702-5014 (0125) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NUMBER: 1342PRA0003 CBD ISSUE DATE; 5/9/95 SECTION: Procurements FSC CODE!: A TITLE: R&D STREAMLINED CONTRACT SOL DAMDl7-95-#-0009 DUE 05/24/95 , POC CRAIG D. LEBO, 301-619-2036 Pyridostigmine Bromide studies Persian Gulf War Illnesses (PGI-2) The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel. command (USAMRMC) on behalf of the Departments of Defense, Veteran's Affairs and Health and Human Services Cooperative Research Program, is supporting Pyridostigmine studies of possible health consequences of military service or employment in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War. The USAMRMC is seeking proposals to determine whether the use of pyridostigmine bromide alone as a pretreatment against nerve agents, or combined with exposures to pesticides, other organophosphorous compound, caramates or other relevant chemicals would result in increased toxicity. No conventional solicitation will be issued for this actions but the details of the requirements will appear in a future edition of the Commerce Business Daily (CBD). This action follows the guidelines of the R&D streamlined contracting procedure outlined in DFARS 235.7000. Any offeror desiring to receive any amendments to this solicitation and any supplemental packages, if developed, should send their name and address, citing this announcement to the issuing office. U.S. ARMY MED. RESEARCH ACQUISITION ACT, MCMR-RMA (PGI-2), FORT DETRICK BLDG, 820, FREDERICK MD 21702-5014 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ RECORD NUMBER: 1342PRA0006 CBD ISSUE DATE: 5/9/95 SECTION: Procurements FSC CODE: A TITLE: R&D STREAMLINED CONTRACT SOL DAMDl7-95-#-0010 DUE 05/24/95 POC CRAIG D. LEBO, 301-619-2036 Clinical Research and Other Studies Persian Gulf War Illnesses (PGI-3) The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC) on behalf of the Departments, of Defense, Veteran's Affairs and Health and Human Services Cooperative Research Program, is supporting Clinical Research and other studies on the health consequences of military service or employment in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War. The USAMRMC is seeking proposals for clinical studies and other research on the cause(s), mode(s), of transmission(s), and appropriate treatment( s) of Persian Gulf War illnesses.. No conventional solicitation will be is sued for this action, but the details of the requirements will appear in a future edition of the Commerce Business Daily (CBD). This action follows the guidelines of the R&D streamlined Contracting procedure outlined in DFARS 235.7000. Any offeror desiring to receive any amendments to this solicitation and any supplemental packages, if developer should send their name and address Citing this announcement to the issuing office. U.S. ARMY MED. RESEARCH ACQUISITION ACT, MCMR-RMA (PGI- 3) FORT DETRICK BLDG, 820 FREDERICK MD 21702-5014 -- Keith L. Cowing - Manager of Planning and Operations American Institute of Biological Sciences 10700 Parkridge Blvd Suite 380 - Reston, VA, USA 22091 703-758-1212 voice - 703-758-1222 fax kcowing@aibs.org - gopher://aibs.org From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu May 11 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!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: comments on report Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 08:53:36 -0500 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 33 Distribution: world Message-ID: <9505120853.AA36436@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> References: <1995May7.205633.11032@lafn.org> 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 2.1.2 I> More on anonymity: Juried art shows often conceal the name of the > artist so that the judges are less likely to deliberately award prizes > to their friends. In receiving responses to RFPs for research > projects, might such a numbered system, lessen bias on the part of > those doing the evaluating? Part of the problem is that reviews of research proposals place great emphasis on factors that usually will tell the reviewers who the authors are anyway: * track record: Does the investigative group have experience in this line of work, with the required techniques, etc.? * preliminary results: What work has the group already done to support their hypothesis? * facilities: Does the group have the requisite facilities to carry out the work? > Or, is it still highly likely that the style (in the case of a > painter) may be easily recognized as might the approach of a > particular researcher? Unless the research group were complete outsiders to the field of work (in which case they might not be qualified to do it), their identities would usually be obvious to an experienced group of peer reviewers. The only way I can see blinded reviews working, is if the material to be reviewed was just a brief research outline, without preliminary results or a detailed research plan, and without information about the experience of the group or the facilities available to doe the work. John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) Radiation Biology Group Medical College of Wisconsin From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri May 12 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!asuvax!news.asu.edu!aztec.asu.edu!bobcat From: bobcat@aztec.asu.edu (BOB SCHAEFER) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Hello Date: 12 May 1995 00:36:15 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ (USA) Lines: 21 Message-ID: <3ouahv$8b9@news.asu.edu> Reply-To: bobcat@aztec.asu.edu (BOB SCHAEFER) NNTP-Posting-Host: aztec.asu.edu Hello all... I realize this newsgroup is intended for professionals to discuss serious research, and not particularly for the public (such as myself). Therefor, I don't plan on loading up the newsgroup with posts (other than this one), but as an electrician I enjoy reading your discussions. I have never been concerned about EMF hazards as I work mostly around low voltage instalations. I did however become more aware lately after an incident cought my attention. I have a "tic-tracer" that is designed to detect the EMF of a live circuit. It is designed to "tic" when in close proximity to live voltage, generally when within about 1/4 inch of a live circuit. Recently I was working under some LARGE primaries. The voltage is unknown, but the standard distribution voltage in this area is 69KV, But this line is a higher voltage circuit. Standing on the ground and pointing the tic-tracer up toward the lines, the tracer tics like crazy. I assume these lines are radiating EMF like crazy! I now am more aware of my surroundings, and enjoy reading up on the subject. Thanks for making your posts available to the everyday guys like me. Bob Schaefer, Phoenix, Az bobcat@aztec.asu.edu -- From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun May 14 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!bq795 From: bq795@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William Becker) Subject: Re: EMF and brain dysfunction Message-ID: Sender: bq795@freenet2.carleton.ca (William Becker) Reply-To: bq795@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William Becker) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet References: Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 04:52:34 GMT Lines: 33 Steve et al ... Even our power company (Ottawa Hydro) includes in their info pack acknowledgement that melatonin levels have been proven altered by fields. I, too, want to learn more. William In a previous posting, Steve Hansen (hansen@netcom.com) writes: > Has anyone researched, or have M.D.'s found thru clinical experience, > temporary or permanent brain dysfunction from static EMF? Someone > would need to know what to look for, since symptoms could be > diverse: depression for one person, memory problems for another, > limbic dyfunction (causing adrenal imbalances or hypothyroidism) > in another? Have there been reports of people feeling bad once > they work in front of a computer monitor, only to feel better > once they stopped working (where the individual discovered the > relationship only _after_ symptoms were experienced for a long > time--where anxiety, etc. can be ruled out)? > > Steve > > > > > From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon May 15 23:00:00 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: APS on "POWER LINE FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH" Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 11:14:49 -0500 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 55 Message-ID: <9505161114.AA49984@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> 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 Keywords: powerlines, magnetic fields, EMF, ELF, cancer health X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 2.1.2 The American Physical Society Statement on "POWER LINE FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH" has received a lot of press locally, although few to have actually seen the report. There are two pieces: 1) A short "statement" by the APS Council 2) A long background paper The "statement" follows. The background paper is too long to post to a group where some people receive postings by mail. I have posted it on "sci.med.physics" ------- Statement by the Council of the American Physical Society, April 22, 1995 POWER LINE FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH Physicists are frequently asked to comment on the potential dangers of cancer from electromagnetic fields that emanate from common power lines and electrical appliances. While recognizing that the connection between power line fields and cancer is an area of continuing study by research workers in many disciplines in the United States and abroad, we believe that it is possible to make several observations based on the scientific evidence at this time. We also believe that, in the interest of making the best use of the finite resources available for environmental research and mitigation, it is important for professional organizations to comment on this issue. The scientific literature and the reports of reviews by other panels show no consistent, significant link between cancer and power line fields. This literature includes epidemiological studies, research on biological systems, and analyses of theoretical interaction mechanisms. No plausible biophysical mechanisms for the systematic initiation or promotion of cancer by these power line fields have been identified. Furthermore, the preponderance of the epidemiological and biophysical/biological research findings have failed to substantiate those studies which have reported specific adverse health effects from exposure to such fields. While it is impossible to prove that no deleterious health effects occur from exposure to any environmental factor, it is necessary to demonstrate a consistent, significant, and causal relationship before one can conclude that such effects do occur. From this standpoint, the conjectures relating cancer to power line fields have not been scientifically substantiated. John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) Maintainer: Powerlines & Cancer FAQs, Static Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer FAQs USENET: sci.med.physics, sci.answers, news.answers. FTP://cdmas.crc.mcw.edu/pub FTP://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu May 18 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!nntp.hk.super.net!tst.hk.super.net!slip139.hk.super.net!user From: ericjs@hk.super.net (Eric Spain) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EMF and brain dysfunction Followup-To: bionet.emf-bio Date: 18 May 1995 16:14:44 GMT Organization: Hong Kong SuperNET Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: slip139.hk.super.net In article , bq795@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William Becker) wrote: > > > Steve et al ... > > Even our power company (Ottawa Hydro) includes in their info pack > acknowledgement that melatonin levels have been proven altered by fields. > > I, too, want to learn more. > > >William > Steve & William, I have just seen an answer to your correspondence. . Some years ago I read a personal account written by a cousin of a friend who experience bad symptoms and was diagnosed as having some pretty awful disease which, from her own research, did not believe was correct. She then realised that she was getting worse through the week and better at the weekends. When she went on holiday, she got better and when she returned to work it all returned again. She concluded it was because she was using a computer all day. She left her work and the illness disappeared. I sent this to Dr. Cyril Smith, Electrical Engineering Deartment of the University of Salford, UK. (He has written a book 'Electromagnetic man'. He replied that he had encountered several cases like this. It might be worth contacting him as he may have accumulated more information by now. I know that he and a Dr. Julian Kenyon, (separately, I think) tried exposing people to varying fields and frequencies by wrapping them in an electric blanket. I believe that they had some concrete results - some of them a bit frightenening! Eric > > > > > > > > > > From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun May 21 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!HORNET.ONR.NAVY.MIL!MARRON From: MARRON@HORNET.ONR.NAVY.MIL ("Michael T. Marron") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: The Rest of the Story on APS Powerlines Stmt Date: 22 May 1995 14:25:50 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 52 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9505221626.AA00354@131.250.9.42> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net John Moulder posted the first two of three paragraphs in the APS stmt on powerline fields and the public health. I am reposting the stmt below because I suspect there may be some interest in the final paragraph of the stmt. Additional information may be obtained by contacting Robert Park at 202-662- 8700, or David Hafemeister at 805-756-2205. A lengthy (25pp) background report on this issue by Hafemeister is available through the APS HomePage at: http://aps.org under the "recent additions" button. =Mike Marron ============================================================================== Statement by the Council of the American Physical Society, April 22, 1995 POWER LINE FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH Physicists are frequently asked to comment on the potential dangers of cancer from electromagnetic fields that emanate from common power lines and electrical appliances. While recognizing that the connection between power line fields and cancer is an area of continuing study by research workers in many disciplines in the United States and abroad, we believe that it is possible to make several observations based on the scientific evidence at this time. We also believe that, in the interest of making the best use of the finite resources available for environmental research and mitigation, it is important for professional organizations to comment on this issue. The scientific literature and the reports of reviews by other panels show no consistent, significant link between cancer and power line fields. This literature includes epidemiological studies, research on biological systems, and analyses of theoretical interaction mechanisms. No plausible biophysical mechanisms for the systematic initiation or promotion of cancer by these power line fields have been identified. Furthermore, the preponderance of the epidemiological and biophysical/biological research findings have failed to substantiate those studies which have reported specific adverse health effects from exposure to such fields. While it is impossible to prove that no deleterious health effects occur from exposure to any environmental factor, it is necessary to demonstrate a consistent, significant, and causal relationship before one can conclude that such effects do occur. From this standpoint, the conjectures relating cancer to power line fields have not been scientifically substantiated. These unsubstantiated claims, however, have generated fears of power lines in some communities, leading to expensive mitigation efforts, and, in some cases, to lengthy and divisive court proceedings. The costs of mitigation and litigation relating to the power line-cancer connection have risen into the billions of dollars and threaten to go much higher. The diversion of these resources to eliminate a threat which has no persuasive scientific basis is disturbing to us. More serious environmental problems are neglected for lack of funding and public attention, and the burden of cost placed on the American public is incommensurate with the risk, if any. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon May 22 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ric.edu!facwhite From: facwhite@ric.edu Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE Date: 23 May 1995 08:24:50 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 1 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <01HQUA74CELU0005RQ@grog.ric.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net UNSUBSCRIBE EMF-BIO From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon May 22 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!GROG.RIC.EDU!DWHITE From: DWHITE@GROG.RIC.EDU Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: SUBSCRIBE Date: 23 May 1995 08:29:17 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 1 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <801243237.250000.DWHITE@GROG.RIC.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net SUBSCRIBE DUNCAN A. WHITE From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue May 23 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!gatech!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!news From: "Bruce H. Kleinstein" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: What's New on EMF-Link Date: 24 May 1995 01:52:57 GMT Organization: Information Ventures, Inc. Lines: 38 Message-ID: <3pu3hp$r99@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts8-14.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) New during the week of May 21 to May 27, 1995: -Suit by Reynard against NEC and GTE for cell phone injury claim dismissed. New during the week of May 14 to May 20, 1995: -Questions and Answers About EMF: Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electrical Power (for registered users only). -APS Adopts Statement On "Power Line Fields and Public Health"! [Includes link to full report]. -Selected entries from "WHAT'S NEW," by Robert L. Park, American Physical Society. New during the week of May 7 to May 13, 1995: -NIEHS RFP: Studies to Evaluate the Potential of 50/60 Hz Magnetic Fields to Promote Breast Cancer in DMBA-Treated Female Sprague Dawley Rats for the National Toxicology Program. -Reflection and absorption of human skull to microwave radiation [letter]. -Plant life near power transmission lines [letter]. New during the week of April 30 to May 6, 1995: -EMF Litigation in the News; a new section of EMF-Link entirely devoted to EMF-related litigation. Check it out. -EMF-Induced Alteration of Gene Expression Not Replicated. -Wireless Technology Research Issues RFP for Radiofrequency Radiation Tests Using the Single Cell Gel/DNA (SCG) Assay. -Wireless Technology Research and Expert Team Complete Protocol to Study Cellular Phones and Potential Pacemaker Interference. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue May 23 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!decwrl!svc.portal.com!news1.best.com!idiom.com!localhost!jason From: jason@idiom.com (Jason Venner) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: EMF and household wiring Date: 24 May 1995 17:09:12 GMT Organization: Idiom Consulting Lines: 6 Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost Does any one know what types of wiring reduce EMF in a house? I am getting my house rewired, and thought I might as well try to minimize it. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed May 24 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci.uq.edu.au!jacobsen From: jacobsen@biosci.uq.edu.au (Michael P.Jacobsen) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: (none) Date: 25 May 1995 16:54:30 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 2 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199505252349.JAA13880@florey.biosci.uq.oz.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net unsubcribe From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed May 24 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU!2248001%RUTVM1.BITNET From: 2248001%RUTVM1.BITNET@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (Daniel Wartenberg) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Why no response to APS/EMP Statement? Date: 25 May 1995 14:15:42 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 10 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199505252115.OAA17915@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Thanks to Ellen Stern Harris for posting excepts of my letter to the New York Times. I had not gotten around to posting it, as yet, and would be willing to continue some discussion on this issue, if others deem this useful. +-------------------------Daniel Wartenberg-------------------------+ | Dept. of Environmental and Community Medicine 675 Hoes Lane | | UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Piscataway, NJ 08854 | | PHONE: (908) 445-0197 FAX PHONE: (908) 445-0784 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed May 24 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!UNIXSRV1.LSUMC.EDU!amarino From: amarino@UNIXSRV1.LSUMC.EDU ("Andrew A. Marino") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Was the APS guilty of scientific misconduct? Date: 25 May 1995 12:51:07 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 282 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9505251946.AA03334@unixsrv1.lsumc.edu> Reply-To: "Andrew A. Marino" NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The Council of the American Physical Society (APS) recently issued "Power Line Fields and Public Health", a 3-paragraph statement that expressed opinions concerning potential dangers of cancer from electromagnetic fields that emanate from powerlines. The councillors lamented "the costs of mitigation and litigation relating to the power-line cancer connection ..." and complained that there had been a diversion of resources from other environmental problems. However, neither the identities of the councillors nor their area of expertise were identified. At my request, the following list was provided by the APS on May 23, 1995. Individuals who attended the meeting at which the vote to adopt and issue the statement was taken are indicated by a line of asterisks. The APS was unable to provide information regarding who voted for or against adoption of the statement. COUNCIL OFFICERS: President: C. Kumar N. Patel (12/96) ********************************** UCLA, Office of the Chancellor, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-825-7943 Fax: 310-206-4997 patel@research.ucla.edu President-Elect: Robert Schrieffer (12/97) ***************************** Fla. State Univ., National High Magnetic Field Lab, 1800 E. Paul Dirac Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32306 904-644-2032 Fax: 904-644-5038 schrieff@magnet.fsu.edu layne@magnet.fsu.edu Vice President: D. Allan Bromley (12/98) 272 Whitney Avenue, Yale Univ., Write Nuclear Struct. Lab., P.O. Box 208124, New Haven, CT 06520 203-432-3090 Fax: 203-432-3522 mary-anne@riviera.physics.yale.edu Past President: Burton Richter (12/95) Stanford Univ., Linear Accelerator Center, P.O. Box 4349, Stanford, CA 94309 415-926-2601 Fax: 415-926-4500 brichter@slac.stanford.edu Executive Officer: Judy R. Franz (stat) *********************************** One Physics Ellipse, American Physical Society, College Park, MD 20740 301-209-3270 Fax: 301-209-0865 franz@aps.org Treasurer: Harry Lustig (stat) The American Physical Society, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740 301-209-3220 Fax: 301-209-0844 lustig@aps.org Editor-in-Chief: Benjamin Bederson (stat) ********************************* New York Univ., Department of Physics, 4 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003 212-998-7695 Fax: 212-677-5943 bederson@acf2.nyu.edu Chair, Nominating Committee: James S. Langer (12/95) ********************** Inst. for Theoretical Phys., UC, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 805-893-2280 Fax: 805-893-2431 langer@avalon.itp.ucsb.edu Chair, POPA: David Bodansky (12/95) ********************************** University of Washington, Department of Physics, FM-15, Seattle, WA 98195 206-543-2996 Fax: 206-685-0635 bodansky@phys.washington.edu CONCILLORS WITH PORTFOLIO: Condensed Matter Physics: Allen M. Goldman (12/96) ************************ Univ. of Min., Dept. of Physics, 116 Church Street, SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 612-624-6525 Fax: 612-626-8029 goldman@tensea.spa.umn.edu Condensed Matter Physics: Shirley Jackson (12/95) Dept. of Physics, Rutgers University, Serin Physics Lab., Piscataway, NJ 08855 908-445-4607 Fax: 908-445-4343 saj@physics.rutgers.edu Condensed Matter Physics: Lu J. Sham (12/97) ****************************** Inst. Pure & Appl. Phys. Sci., UC-SD, 9500 Gilman Dr., 0319, La Jolla, CA 92093 619-534-3269 Fax: 619-534-3163 lusham@ucsd.edu Condensed Matter Physics: Joe Thompson (12/98) **************************** P-10 MS K764, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545 505-667-6416 Fax: 505-665-7652 jdt@rayleigh.lanl.gov Chemical Physics: R. Stephen Berry (12/95) ******************************** Univ. of Chicago, Dept. of Chemistry, 5375 South Ellis Ave., Chicago, IL 60637 312-702-7021 Fax: 312-702-7052 berry@rainbow.uchicago.edu Fluid Dynamics: Guenter Ahlers (12/98) ************************************ Univ. of California, Santa Barbara, Dept. of Physics, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 805-893-3795 Fax: 805-893-4170 guenter@tweedledum.ucsb.edu High Polymer: Andrew J. Lovinger (12/96) ********************************** AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 1D-252, 600 Mountain Ave., Murray Hill, NJ 07974 908-582-2151 Fax: 908-582-3609 ajl@clockwise.att.com Materials Physics: Bill R. Appleton (12/95) P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge National Lab., Bethel Valley Road, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 615-574-4321 Fax: 615-574-0323 gsb@ornl.gov Nuclear Physics: Steven E. Koonin (12/95) Calif. Inst. of Tech. 206-31, Vice President and Provost, Pasadena, CA 91125 818-395-6336 Fax: 818-795-6247 sek@starbase1.caltech.edu Nuclear Physics: Peter Paul (12/97) *************************************** Dept. of Physics, SUNY, Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794 516-632-8109 Fax: 516-632-8573 paul@nuclear.physics.sunysb.edu Physics of Beams: Andrew Sessler (12/97) ********************************** MS 71H, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720 510-486-4992 Fax: 510-486-6485 tbalbl@lbl.gov Particles & Fields: Henry J. Frisch (12/98) University of Chicago, EFI-HEP 320, 5640 Ellis Ave., Chicago, IL 60637 312-702-7479 Fax: 312-702-1914 frisch@uccdfa.uchicago.edu Particles & Fields: Anne Kernan (12/95) *********************************** University of California, Department of Physics, Riverside, CA 92521 909-787-4302 Fax: 909-787-2238 kernan@ucrph0.ucr.edu Plasma Physics: Roy Gould (12/98) ************************************** MS128-95, Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125 818-395-4811 rwgould@cco.caltech.edu Forum On Physics & Society: Barbara Levi (12/95) 1616 La Vista del Oceano, Physics Today, Santa Barbara, CA 93109 805-962-8900 Fax: 805-963-2574 bgl@aip.org Forum on History of Physics: Albert Wattenberg (12/98) ******************** Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Illinois, 1110 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801 217-333-4172 Fax: 217-333-4990 a-wattenberg@uiuc.edu Forum on International Physics: Ernest M. Henley (12/97) ****************** University of Washington, Dept. of Physcis, FM-15, Seattle, WA 98195 206-543-2896 Fax: 206-685-0635 henley@phys.washington.edu Forum on Education: James J. Wynne (12/96) ******************************** P.O. Box 218, IBM, T.J. Watson Rseearch Center, Yorktown Hts., NY 10598 914-945-1575 Fax: 914-945-3715 army@watson.ibm.com GENERAL COUNCILLORS: Kevin Aylesworth (12/97) ********************************************* 2456 Massachusetts Ave., #404, Cambridge, MA 02140 617-491-9872 kda@pinet.aip.org Arthur Bienenstock (12/97) ******************************************* Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab, P.O. Box 4349, Bin 69, Stanford, CA 94309 415-926-3153 Fax: 415-926-4100 a@slac.stanford.edu Virginia R. Brown (12/98) ******************************************** Lawrence Livermore National Lab., Bldg. 181, Room 1007, MS L-288, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550 510-422-4092 Fax: 510-423-8086 vrbrown@llnl.gov Jolie A. Cizewski (12/96) ******************************************** Rutgers Univ., Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, P.O. Box 849, Piscataway, NJ 08855 908-445-3884 Fax: 908-445-4343 cizewski@ruthep.rutgers.edu Jennifer Cohen (12/98) ********************************************* 18 Richard Avenue, Shippensburg, PA 17257 717-530-5098 Fax: 717-530-4009 jenc@aip.org Charles B. Duke (12/98) ******************************************** 114-38D, Xerox Webster Research Center, 800 Phillips Road, Webster, NY 14580 716-422-2106 Fax: 716-265-5080 duke.wbst128@xerox.com Elsa Garmire (12/97) USC 1112, Center for Laser Studies, University Park, Los Angeles, CA 90089 219-740-4235 Fax: 213-740-8158 garmire@mizar.usc.edu Jerry P. Gollub (12/95) ******************************************** Haverford College, Dept. of Physics, Haverford, PA 19041 610-896-1196 Fax: 610-896-4904 jgollub@haverford.edu Laura H. Greene (12/96) ******************************************** Univ. of Illinois, Loomis Laboratory, 1110 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801 217-333-7315 Fax: 217-333-9819 lig@uiuc.edu William Happer (12/98) ******************************************** Physics Dept., Princeton Univ., Jadwon Hall/Washington Rd., Princeton, NJ 08544 609-258-4382 Fax: 609-258-2496 happer@pupgg.princeton.edu Wick C. Haxton (12/95) ******************************************** University of Washington, Dept. of Physics, FM-15, Seattle, WA 98195 206-685-2397 Fax: 206-685-0635 haxton@gurnow.npl.washington.edu Anthony M. Johnson (12/977) **************************************** Univ. Hts., Rm. 468, Tiernan Hall, Dept. of Physics, NJ Inst. of Technology, 161 Warren Street, Newark, NJ 07102 201-596-3531 Fax: 201-596-5794 johnsona@admin.njit.edu Miles Klein (12/96) *********************************************** Univ. of Illinois, Loomis Laboratory, 1110 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801 217-333-1744 Fax: 217-244-2278 miles_klein@stcs.mrl.uiuc.edu Zachary Levine (12/97) ******************************************** NIST Building 221/A253, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 301-975-5453 Fax: 301-975-3038 zachary@molphys.nist.gov Barbara A. Wilson (12/95) ****************************************** Jet Propulsion Lab., MS 302-205, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818-354-2969 Fax: 818-393-5143 barbara_a_wilson@ccmail.jpl.nasa.gov DIVISIONAL/FORUM COUNCILLORS: Atomic, Molecular & Optical Physics: Joseph L. Dehmer (12/96) ************* Argonne National Laboratory, Bldg. 362, Room E361, Argonne, IL 60439 708-252-4194 Fax: 708-252-3222 jdehmer@anl.gov Gordon Dunn (12/98) *********************************************** JILA, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309 303-492-7824 Fax: 303-492-5235 gdunn@jila.colorado.edu Astrophyscis: Frank C. Jones (12/97) *********************************** Lab for High Energy Astrophysics, NASA Goddard Space Flt. Ctr., Code 665, Greenbelt, MD 20771 301-344-5506 Fax: 301-286-3391 jones@lheavx.gsfc.nasa.gov Biological Physics: Watt W. Webb (12/95) Clark Hall, Cornell Univ., Sch. of Appl. & Engineering Phys., Ithaca, NY 14853 607-255-3331 Fax: 607-255-7658 www2@cornell.edu Computational Physics: David V. Anderson (12/96) ************************** 912 Kingston Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 510-658-1287 dva@llnl.gov The Public Health Service (PHS) issued a proposed rule in which misconduct in science was defined as "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, deception or OTHER PRACTICES THAT SERIOUSLY DEVIATE FROM THOSE THAT ARE COMMONLY ACCEPTED WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY FOR PROPOSING, CONDUCTING OR REPORTING RESEARCH (emphasis added); ...". A National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel defined misconduct in science as: "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reporting research. Research in science does not include errors of judgment; errors in the recording, selection, or analysis of data; differences of opinion involving the interpretation of data; or misconduct unrelated to the research process." The definitions represent two competing notions of misconduct in science: the NAS view is narrowly based on the legal concept of fraud, whereas the PHS view goes beyond fraud in recognizing the existence of misconduct. 1. Perusal of the list of APS councillors that attended the meeting at which the powerline statement was adopted reveals that, insofar as I have been able to determine, not one councillor is an expert in the biological effects of electromagnetic fields and, further, none has contributed to the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the EMF area. 2. The statement, when it was issued and disseminated to the news media, did not disclose the names of the individuals whose collective judgment it reflected. 3. It seems apparent that the purpose of the statement was to lend the authority and prestige of the American Physical Society to the opinions expressed in the statement for the purposes of swaying American public opinion with regard to those issues. I suggest, for the purposes of this discussion, that when councillors of a scientific society adopts a statement with the intent of affecting public opinion and (1) the councillors are not experts in the substantive science pertinent to the opinion proffered, (2) the wording of the statement when released to the press either fails to indicate the lack of expertise of the councillors or is crafted in such a way that the typical American citizen cannot ascertain from the face of the statement that the councillors are opining beyond their area of expertise, then, the individual councillors are guilty of scientific misconduct within the PHS meaning because their action seriously deviates from the commonly accepted practice for reporting scientific data to the general public. The substantive content of the statement - whether it is for or against any particular position - is irrelevant. If the APS councillors lacked expertise regarding the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, then their statement would apparently not be scientific misconduct under the NAS definition in the absence of a specific intent to defraud. The statement would, however, be junk science which, by definition, is the proffering of a scientific opinion either in the absence of supporting evidence, or with supporting evidence but by a person lacking the expertise to evaluate that evidence. For a further discussion of scientific misconduct as a general concept see J. Marks: American Scientist, vol. 81, pp. 380-382, 1993; G. Taubes: Science, vol. 261, pp. 1108-1111, 1993; and H. Schachman: Science, vol. 261, pp. 148, 149, and 183, 1993. Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D. Dept. of Orthopaedic Surg., LSU Medical Center P.O. Box 33932 Shreveport, LA 71130-3932 amarino@lsumc.edu Phone: 318-675-6177 Fax: 318-675-6186 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed May 24 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!lafn.org!lafn.org!ai808 From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Subject: Why no response to APS/EMF Statement ? X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995May22.204920.11255@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 20:49:20 GMT Lines: 36 Sunday 5/14/95 the New York Times published an article entitled: "Cancer Fear Is Unfounded, Physicists Say: Power Line Concern Is Called Needless." Notice of the report upon which this story was based has been posted. In addition, Saturday May 20 the New York Times Letters column published a statement from Daniel Wartenberg, Assoc. Prof., Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences Inst., Piscataway, N.J. In it he said: "The American Physical Society's statement about the risk of cancer from EMF flies in the face of conventional science. "Epidemiologists are trying to understand and explain the patterns of cancer incidence. In 9 or 11 epi. studies of children, those with leukemia lived closer to 'high exposure' power lines more often than those without leukemia. "In the four most recent and most sophisticated occupational epi. studies, workers in three of the four studies showed elevated leukemia and brain cancer rates. While these studies are not definitive, none of the investigated alternative explanations for these cancers have shown similar consistency. "Whether or not exposure to magnetic fields is confirmed as a cause of cancer is beside the point. If done at limited cost and inconvenience, prevention of exposure until the hazard is understood is good public health practice." I would appreciate comments on the original APS statement as well as this response to it -- hopefully from physicists as well as biologists. Thank you, Ellen Stern Harris Fund for the Environment From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu May 25 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NEURPATH2.MCG.EDU!hannan From: hannan@NEURPATH2.MCG.EDU (Charles J. Hannan, Jr.) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: APS, Power lines & the public Date: 26 May 1995 13:01:06 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 27 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <1410618384-445978@neurpath2.mcg.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I'm not a member of APS, but imagine it is composed of a mixture of scientists with widely differing opinions and generally good intentions, much as the scientists I know in the Societies to which I do belong. Perhaps the expertise in emf research is not to be found in the membership listed in the message from Andrew Marino "Was the APS guilty of scientific misconduct", but the accusation of scientific misconduct is a priori out of order. As an organization of scientists, APS has a duty to voice an educated opinion to the general public. The concerns expressed by APS certainly have some basis and should be commented on, countered or supported. To bring the issue of misconduct into this forum will just polarize individuals and generate further detailed arguments on issues of intent and credentials; issues I think unnecessary in this situation. I have not read the whole report which contains the background material for the controversial 3-paragraph policy statement (from Audrey Leath, Public Information Division, American Institute of Physics, e-mail: fyi@aip.org), but we are all aware of the problem of over litigation, public panic and limited resources. I was delighted to read the earlier message from Andrew Marino "EMFs and chaos" in which the question of data variance is discussed. I find variance of data an excellent flag to herald the occurrence of some event in my experiment for which I did not adequately control. The meaning of experimental variance was never discussed in my formal training, but the recognition of its importance by Dr. Marino may be an excellent issue to explore with our colleagues, even those in the APS. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu May 25 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!oakland.edu!liboff From: liboff@oakland.edu (A.R. Liboff) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: APS/EMF Date: 26 May 1995 16:35:23 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 45 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199505262332.AA26693@Cliff.ACS.Oakland.Edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I do not agree with Dr. Hannan (1:01pm, 5/26/95; APS, Power lines & the public) that the mission of the APS gives it a certain responsibility to speak out on issues such as the power line controversy. If it were indeed true that the APS had this global responsibility, covering all sspects of science and society, then why have they refrained from commenting on AIDS research dollars, on the safety of breast implants, on cigarette smoking, on asbestos problems, or even on things that they might have some expertise in, things such as global warming. Even right-thinkiong individuals such as Dr. Hannan must believe that the APS is in no position to intelligently judge important questions in surgery, in neurobiology, in molecular biology, in genetics, or in microbiology. Is bioelectromagnetism somehow different? Its tenuous link to physics lies in the inability to formulate a reasonable physical mechanism to explain the experimental results. But physics has a very poor track record when it comes to describing biological mechanisms.For example before the Hodgkin Huxley model was introduced, the physics community (not the APS!) was extremely critical of electrophysiology, with many insisting that these people didn't really understand what they were doing. Even earlier there was (I think) at least one article in the Physical Review "proving" that it was physically impossible for birds to use the geomagnetic field as a navigational aid. It is unfortunate that the great success that physics enjoys in formulating natural law does not lead to humility, as might be expected of those who have been exposed to the Inner Workings, but instead results in many becoming "Masters of the Universe", individuals who will not believe any experimental results that do not fit their preconceptions. In this sense some in physics have forgotten that they are also scientists, and that science puts the highest premium on observation. There are simply too many confirmatory experiments in the ELF area to deny biological effects, regardless of whether there are reasonable explanations. Most important of all, the American Physical Society simply carries no special imprimatur to judge epidemiological or biological studies. The recent statement by the APS must accordingly be regarded as arising either from overweening hubris or political malevolence. A.R.Liboff Professor of Physics Oakland University Rochester, MI liboff@oakland.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri May 26 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!COSY.UTMB.EDU!bruce From: bruce@COSY.UTMB.EDU ("Bruce A. Luxon") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: EMF/APS Date: 27 May 1995 09:22:01 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 59 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9505271126.ZM27603@cosy.utmb.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Why all the whining about the American Physical Society's position on EMF? They simply looked at what the EMF community has produced over the last several decades and came to the reasonable conclusion that no response has been demonstrated. You can't compare this to AIDS, breast implants, cigarette smoking or asbestos problems. These all have irrefutable, demonstrable exposure/response paradigms. Global warming is probably a closer model to the EMF experience in that while a lot of controversy has been stirred up, no solid, consensus building scientific evidence has been produced to show an exposure/response link. For years, researchers of many persuasions have examined the effects of exposure to EMF using the classic dose/response model. It has not been fruitful. Any spectroscopist can tell you that if you can't get your signal to rise above the noise, you either have no sample, a very weak signal or your instrument sucks. I suggest that the last two choices are operating here. The signal of interest in our experiment, of course, is the biological response by a human to exposure by non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Perhaps the problem is that the approach has been wrong. Straightforward dose/response models aren't working or aren't sensitive enough to show what we're looking for. A more stochastic approach may produce more fruitful results. What if the periodic incident EMF field appears more chaotic than periodic to the organism (us) than we have thought. Depending on the relative time constants this can be more or less reasonable. If aperiodic biological events (DNA transcription or brain impulses for instance) are exposed to a 'quasi' aperiodic EMF then the result of the exposure is not likely to show up in a classical dose-response experiment unless an immense dynamic range, huge sample or extremely long experimental duration is used by the experimenter. This may not even be possible. The result is that while the response does exist, the researcher can not manifest it to the satisfaction of science without a new set of tools and a new set of thoughts. Statistical tomfoolery won't cut it forever if you want to convince the scientific community at large. Sort of the "been burned by the same match too many times" thinking that you might expect from experienced observers. You don't have to be an expert in a specific field to come to the conclusion that their strategies have not demonstrated their hypothesis so there's no need to pick on the APS. With the intense competition for research dollars comes the need to produce defensible results if you want to stay in the game (look at a some physics projects like the super collider, for example). My suggestion is that we work smarter and harder. Whining won't get us there. Bruce -- *=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-* * Bruce A. Luxon, Ph.D * * Assistant Professor * * UTMB NMR Center U * Dept. of Human Biological Chemistry & Genetics T * University of Texas Medical Branch M * Galveston, TX 77555-1157 B * * * (409)747-6802; Fax (409)747-6850 * * bruce@nmr.utmb.edu http://www.nmr.utmb.edu/ * *=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-* From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri May 26 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!BVSD.K12.CO.US!hickeyb From: hickeyb@BVSD.K12.CO.US (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: APS/EMF Date: 27 May 1995 13:47:29 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 111 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net It would not normally be in my nature to get into the overly emotional and irrational arguments about EMF and biological systems, but I must take issue with many of the points in Professor Liboff's recent post. As a professor of physics at Oakland University, he has a certain set of credentials which qualify him to make pronouncements in the area of physics, but I would question his expertise in biological effects. I have long maintained that there are TWO problems with EMF-BIO interactions. One is that Doctors, who are trained in the biological sciences generally have little or no knowledge of the SCIENCE involved with electromagnetic fields. To _REALLY_ understand electromagnetics to the degree necessary for this endeavor, one needs AT LEAST a postgraduate education and possibly a PhD specialization in the field. The Second problem is that the physicists and EE's with the requisite background in electromagnetics rarely if ever have the MD credentials to allow them to speak with authority about BIOLOGICAL issues. When we have studies, typically we see hidden agendas being presented, inadequate experimental procedures (either electromagnetically OR biologically), poor data analysis, faulty conclusions, and generally irreproducible results. Until such a time as we can produce a research-quality MD (or PhD with the biological background) who ALSO happens to have the MS/PhD in electromagnetics and can tie those two diverse disciplines together effectively, we will continue to have this controversy. I don't see a solution anywhere near the horizon. The AMA would not dream of allowing ME, with an MSEE to make any kind of medical diagnosis or treatment based on my taking a few biology or medical school courses. Likewise, I would hope that no credible MD would ever think they can learn electromagnetics well enough by simply reading and working in the field for a few years. I guess the plain hard fact is that the MD's want to be the medical/biological authorities and don't know where to back off and let other scientists make the electromagnetic piece fit, and the EM folks don't know where to back off and let the MD's make the biological piece fit. Until we can get a TEAM together to work on the issues long enough to get reproducible and statistically SIGNIFICANT results, we will continue to have the emotional and hysterical responses to just about any work that is done. > Even right-thinkiong individuals such as Dr. Hannan must believe that the > APS is in no position to intelligently judge important questions in > surgery, in neurobiology, in molecular biology, in genetics, or in > microbiology. Is bioelectromagnetism somehow different? Likewise, the AMA and its constituency are in no position to intelligently judge the important aspects of electromagnetics until they have studied the mathematics and understand the phenomenology better than they currently do. If the rules of "intelligently judging" apply to the APS, they apply to the AMA and others in this brouhaha. > Its tenuous link to physics lies in the inability to formulate a > reasonable physical mechanism to explain the experimental results. There is also the lack of consistent, predictable, and quantifiable cause-and-effect and dose-response mechanisms on the biological side. > But physics has a very poor track record when it comes to describing > biological mechanisms. Physics cannot tell me for certain WHERE an electron is at any given time either. It doesn't stop physicists from describing mechanisms they don't understand with probability and statistics or the uncertainty principle. Didn't Einstein say something like "God does not throw dice with the universe"? The amount of what we do NOT know about physics and all other sciences greatly exceeds what we do know...that's why the human animal continually seeks knowledge and understanding. > In this sense some in physics have forgotten that they are also scientists, > and that science puts the highest premium on observation. And, in this sense, some in the medical community have forgotten that they are also scientists, and that science puts the highest premiums on observation _and_ OBJECTIVITY. > There are simply too many confirmatory experiments in the ELF area to > deny biological effects, regardless of whether there are reasonable > explanations. There are simply too many CONTRADICTORY, poorly structured, poorly performed, and poorly documented and reported experiments in the ELF and other Electromagnetic Radiation areas to confirm or quantify biological effects from ELF causes, regardless of other explanations. > Most important of all, the American Physical Society simply carries no > special imprimatur to judge epidemiological or biological studies. The > recent statement by the APS must accordingly be regarded as arising > either from overweening hubris or political malevolence. Most important of all, the American Medical Association carries no privileged imprimature to judge electromagnetic phenomenology without understanding the mathematics or the physics involved. The recent statement by the APS must accordingly be regarded as providing notice that the scientific community will accept nothing less than ACCURATE, REPRODUCIBLE, PREDICTABLE results from experiments in epidemiology or other biological studies where they purport to connect a physical phenomena (such as electromagnetics) with a biological effect. With all due respect to the august bodies present on this list, I remain Sincerely, Bill Hickey Boulder, CO hickeyb@bvsd.k12.co.us bhickey@dora.auc.trw.com From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat May 27 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!lafn.org!lafn.org!ai808 From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Subject: Conflict of interest X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995May28.140150.4834@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 14:01:50 GMT Lines: 94 At their June 8 meeting in Berkeley, the Calif. Dept. of Health Services will ask its EMF Stakeholders Advisory Committee for their views on the following questionnaire. As a member of the SAC, I would appreciate your comments, including proposed additions and/or deletions: To be filled out by each member of the research team: Name and role in the proposed research contract: It is our intent to insure that the Principal Investigator, the California Co-investigator and, when taken together, the team of collaborators, will neither appear to have prejudged or have in fact prejudged the best course of action for EMF policy, and that they will not frame the policy analysis in ways which steer it to some preconceived conclusion. We recognize that persons with a definite point of view can make valuable contributions as advocates of competing alternatives, and therefore the participation of such persons in the project is acceptable, provided that the overall composition of the team is balanced. To this end, we request that you respond to the following questions, using supplementary pages if necessary: The identity of the persons answering these questions will be known only to members of the panel assessing the proposals. Please write your name on the line indicated at the top of the page. It will be removed before further distribution. After announcing the winning bidder, the proposals and the anonimized questionnaires of the top three teams will be available for public inspection. The questionnaires will be destroyed 12 months after the submission of the final report. 1) Have you served as an expert witness for the plaintiff or the defense in an EMF tort suit? If so, please indicate the nature of the involvement and list the cases and law firms for whom you testified. 2) Was your testimony with regard to the safety or hazard of EMF? 3)What was your testimony with regard to the best policy in dealing with the EMF issue? 4) During the past 5 years, what public verbal or written position have you taken with regard to the safety or hazard of EMF? Please include examples, if applicable. 5) During the past 5 years, what public verbal or written position have you taken with regard to the best policy regarding EMF avoidance? Please include examples, if applicable. 6) Do you own, (either jointly or individually) A) Utility stock? If yes, what best describes their value: less than $ 10,000 / $10,000 - $49,000 or $50,000? B) Property which is less than 300 yards from a transmission line or a substation? If yes, what best describes the value of this property? Less than $10 / $10,000 - $49,000 or $50,000+ ? C) An interest in a company or business activity which is involved with EMF measurement or mitigation? 7) In the past 5 years, what percentage of your income or research support was derived from work with utility companies or with lawyers representing utility companies? 8) In the past 5 years, what percentage of your income or research support was derived from work with lawyers on EMF cases? 9) Are there any other circumstances, relationships or experiences in your life that may affect your ability to carry out this project in an unbiased manner? 10) You receive a call from someone who is about to buy a house near a transmission line. Measurements by the local utility suggest that, due to the presence of the line, the lowest magnetic field on the property is about 4 mG. He wants to know if there is evidence of a hazard, how big any risk might be and what he should do. Please write the response which you would give and the logic you would use. Give us one typewritten page of answer. 11) What kind of scientific information about EMF health risks or about mitigation costs would you need in order to give more or less cautionary advice from that mentioned above? 12) (Only for the principal investigator to fill in) What have you done to assure that the team you have assembled is balanced as to points of view on EMF hazard and EMF policy? _____________________________________________________________________________ Also, if you know of a model conflict-of-interest policy / questionnaire applying to EMF research or any other applicable scientific research, please let me know. Many thanks, Ellen Stern Harris From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun May 28 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!BVSD.K12.CO.US!hickeyb From: hickeyb@BVSD.K12.CO.US (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Yet More APS/EMF Date: 29 May 1995 08:09:40 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 151 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <9505291337.AA01334@dora.auc.trw.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net On Sunday, 28 May 1995, Jon Dobson wrote: > In my opinion, the problem with the statement is that it can be > construed by the general public as the final word on the topic rather > than a preliminary assessment of investigations that are still, in > relative terms, in their infancy. Hear! Hear! The important parts of the statement (current work showing no consistent, significant link; impossibility of proving a negative effect; and relative prioritization needed to make best use of scarce research funding) will go largely ignored. This is one of those nagging issues that just won't go away, no matter what. Thus, I may not live to see the "final" word on the subject. > I also would like to quickly address some of the comments from Dr. Hickey. Just to set the record straight, and while I appreciate Jon's "promotion," I am not a Doctor (M.D. or PhD). I have an undergraduate degree in Chemistry (Organic and Instrumental) and an MSEE (Electronic Warfare and Electromagnetics) and around 30 years as a trained scientist and engineer, with the last 20 or so being a "systems engineer" where one must remove one's self from the "micro" aspects and back up and look at the bigger picture. I was building and repairing NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometers before it became the more politically correct and sophisticated MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). > None of us pretend to be experts in all aspects of this research. From some of the statements coming out of individuals, you could have fooled me. When a "team" comes out united on an issue, that carries one class of credence, when an individual (even me) comes out on such a complicated issue, it is an entirely different matter. I know of NO MD with a specialty in epidemiology who also has taken the PhD in Physics or EE with a specialty in Electromagnetics. If there's one out there, s/he is strangely quiet. What I've said before is that it simply is not plausible (or at least likely at this stage) that any one person has the background in both complex areas to be able to understand both and make concrete pronouncements without some failing. > Prof. Liboff also works with members of the medical profession and the > biological sciences and his work is solid and professional, as is his > knowledge of this multidisciplinary topic. I'm sure Professor Liboff will be disappointed to know that I personally haven't seen much of his work. In fact, I have a stack of papers on the topic in my basement that is about 2 feet high, some dating back into the 1970's. Pulling two "classics" of the field (one from 1972 and one from 1981) each with almost 150 citations, Professor Liboff's name shows one time. There's nothing wrong with this, it simply illustrates that there are a LOT of people out there doing research, a LOT of papers out there, a LOT of inconsistent and irreproducible results. Since this is a "hobby" of mine, PLEASE, don't feel obligated to send me a curriculum vitae on the matter. Secondly, my particular "beef" with much of the work, if you have to hone in on it, is that people seem to be focusing in on one effect on one bio-chemico-physico-electromageto phenomenon in their work and then making the great intuitive leap of faith that this effect is somehow THE answer to the problem. Much like the unified field theory problem, EMF-BIO involves the study of EMF's (a complex enough problem in itself) with a biological SYSTEM comprised of literally THOUSANDS of subsystems, each comprised of hundreds or thousands of sub-subsystems, until we come down to the molecular biological level. Twiddling with effects on one particular sub-subsystem (let's just say Calcium channels for the sake of argument) doesn't give you the answer for how the interaction occurs with the SYSTEM. There will be literally hundreds of systems which react positively, hundreds reacting negatively, and probably many, many other systems totally unaffected by EMF-BIO interactions. For some reactions, the body may well produce counter-reactions which nullify the effects, and for others it may produce enhancement reactions which intensify the effects. But extrapolating from a small frequency window, a small power level, a particular distance, a particular configuration, etc., into a sweeping condemnation that all EMF's are bad at all power levels at all exposures is just as bad science as saying there are NO effects whatsoever. If there is a consistent complaint with the EMF-BIO research work that I've heard, it is that there is simply no dose-response correlation or relationship that is investigated and proven. What I hope we are saying is that WE DON'T KNOW if there are significant adverse effects, that WE CAN'T PROVE it one way or the other, and -- most importantly -- that WE AREN'T IGNORING the question, merely adjusting priorities to those areas where we can justify spending scarce funding resources in the hopes of a higher payoff. Perhaps the problem today is that our instrumentation is inadequate or our techniques are too coarse -- both areas where time will improve our abilities. > I feel that calling his credentials in this area into question is > unfounded - especially as he has more experience in EMF/bioscience > research than most of the APS statement signees. I hope that my earlier comments were not taken as a personal insult or attack. My concern is more global than with one person. Professor Liboff is indeed qualified to speak on Physics (I don't even know what his specialty is), but as to the biological parts, I have no way of knowing his academic and post-academic training. If he were speaking on behalf of a TEAM of individuals with the sum of qualifications in both areas, I'd have less of a problem. As to the APS signees, remember they too are scientists, and for such a large body to agree on anything is remarkable in itself. I read the statement more as a challenge to the EMF-BIO research world to get their collective act together -- get consistent results, get reproducible results, demonstrate a consistent and significant causal relationship, establish the links. The APS statement is no more or no less significant than an EMF-BIO research group prematurely announcing a relationship between EMF and cancer (or whatever) that they cannot prove or which does not withstand scientific scrutiny from their peers. Neither side should be posturing, both should be working on the problem as OBJECTIVE observers, not predisposed journalists. > My personal opinion is that the jury is still out. Biological systems are > incredibly complex and, to expect totally reproducible results from such a > complex and dynamic system is perhaps expecting too much at this stage. I wholeheartedly agree. It does not mean that we merely "give up" on the research, but we also have to recognize the immense sums that have been spent to date with little tangible evidence of correlation. When taken in the big picture of "infinite questions - finite budget" we must seriously wonder if we shouldn't move on to an area of potentially higher payoff at least for a while until our instrumentation systems are more sensitive and our understanding of the molecular-biological system is a little more comprehensive. > As an analogy, pharmaceuticals companies decide to bring drugs to market > based on statistical evidence that would make a physicist cringe. They are > making the best estimate of the effects of the drugs on a complex system > based on the information available. Sometimes that information is > conflicting, rarely is it a case of overwhelming statistical evidence. > However, that does not mean that the drug is not effective in many cases. Yes, and those of us familiar with the Thalidomide tragedy will say that this is precisely the kind of adverse (hysteria) effect we should try and avoid. The drug manufacturers went with what they had, and unfortunately they didn't have enough. Likewise, for AIDS sufferers today, if we wait until we have enough proof of safety, the intended beneficiary may well be dead. It is an incredible balancing act of efficacy and safety that must be managed...and not without peril. > The history of science is riddled with controversies. If we keep our minds > open and our scientific investigations sound, we can continue to resolve > some of them. Agreed. Let's not go LOOKING for the needle in a haystack, let's examine the haystack to see what we have...we may well find the needle we seek, but we might also find something totally unexpected as well. My apologies to all for the tome. Sincerely, Bill Hickey Boulder, CO hickeyb@bvsd.k12.co.us From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun May 28 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!UNIWA.UWA.EDU.AU!jdobson From: jdobson@UNIWA.UWA.EDU.AU (Jon Dobson) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: More APS/EMF Date: 28 May 1995 19:29:26 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 49 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Regarding the APS/EMF controversy which has been debated on this service, I would like to say that, while I am not in favour of the APS's sweeping statement, I think it may be an over-reaction to imply that the APS has committed scientific misconduct. In my opinion, the problem with the statement is that it can be construed by the general public as the final word on the topic rather than a preliminary assessment of investigations that are still, in relative terms, in their infancy. I also would like to quickly address some of the comments from Dr. Hickey. I am in total agreement that physicists are not a priori experts in all areas of science. There are, however, groups conducting research in this field which are composed of physical scientists, biologists and medical doctors. None of us pretend to be experts in all aspects of this research. Prof. Liboff also works with members of the medical profession and the biological sciences and his work is solid and professional, as is his knowledge of this multidisciplinary topic. I feel that calling his credentials in this area into question is unfounded - especially as he has more experience in EMF/bioscience research than most of the APS statement signees. My personal opinion is that the jury is still out. Biological systems are incredibly complex and, to expect totally reproducible results from such a complex and dynamic system is perhaps expecting too much at this stage. Especially when the number of subjects is, by necessity, sometimes very limited. I totally agree with Dr. Hickey, that we need to work on getting statistically significant results before we can get a more definitive perspective. This is precisely the argument against making, what appears to be a premature, sweeping dismissal of these effects. As an analogy, pharmaceuticals companies decide to bring drugs to market based on statistical evidence that would make a physicist cringe. They are making the best estimate of the effects of the drugs on a complex system based on the information available. Sometimes that information is conflicting, rarely is it a case of overwhelming statistical evidence. However, that does not mean that the drug is not effective in many cases. The history of science is riddled with controversies. If we keep our minds open and our scientific investigations sound, we can continue to resolve some of them. Jon Dobson ____________________________________________________________________________ Jon Dobson E-MAIL: jdobson@uniwa.uwa.edu.au Department of Physics FAX: 61-9 380 1014 University of Western Australia TEL: 61-9 380 3818 ____________________________________________________________________________ From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon May 29 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: APS/emf statement Date: 29 May 1995 20:25:16 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 46 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net E. Harris asks: >Why no response to APS/EMF Statement ? Why bother? The biomedical area has a long history of being afflicted with people who have little or no knowledge of biology offering their "expert" opinions to promote some notion or product. That is why all States have laws requiring a high level of training and experience in biology for one who is going to advise the public on health matters; i.e., a medical degree. The Public does not consist of fools. They would expect, and might accept, such conclusions if offered by the American Medical Association which would be a credible source. But from a bunch of physicists? This makes as much sense as would the orthopedic surgeon society, whose members work with structures, telling the Public how civil engineers should design bridges. The Public will perceive the APS statement as one from a trade association that has a vested interest in promoting the development and use of electromagnetic energy. After all, use of emf makes jobs for physicists. What is happening though is that some physicists, like people working in any given industry, tend to disregard risks that are not immediate and gross. They see what they want to see. Consider coal miners, textile workers, asbestos workers, smokers, etc. Barbara Tuchman spelled this out well in her book "The March of Folly." The value of the conclusions of these physicists can be judged just by considering the history of ionizing radiation. Over many years, the physicists repeatedly misjudged the health hazard of ionizing radiation; and we ended up with a substantial body count. And some of the dead were physicists. The arguments we hear now in the APS statement are similar to those made by the physicists of years ago in their poo-pooing the "alleged hazards" of ionizing radiation. So, why bother responding? But then, the APS action raises a question of ethics.... 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 May 29 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!aol.com!JamesD263 From: JamesD263@aol.com Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: APS/emf statement Date: 30 May 1995 09:30:13 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 2 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <950530122645_17423362@aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Can anyone tell me the address for EMF-LINK and in particular, the EMF litigation in the News section? Thanks. How do I access It? From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon May 29 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!jcl5 From: jcl5@acpub.duke.edu (James C. H. Lee) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Milligaussmeter wanted Date: 30 May 1995 16:45:55 GMT Organization: Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Lines: 19 Distribution: usa Message-ID: <3qfi43$b3m@news.duke.edu> References: <3qe881$c0i@kelly.teleport.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: godzilla.acpub.duke.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Mark McClure (pactran@teleport.com) wrote in 29 May 1995 21:51:13 -0700: > Does anyone know where I can buy -- preferably by mail order -- a > milligaussmeter suitable for measuring the emf around my house? > Any leads would be much appreciated. I am also interested. Please help. Thanx. -- .,, _____________________________oOO_(o o)__OOo______________________________ < -== James Lee ==- (_) *** jcl5@acpub.duke.edu *** > / \ \ /|/| | school address: | permanent address: / / /O,O | _//| | Box 97847 | 1300 E. Katella Ave. \ \ |/^^\ | /oo | | Duke University | Orange, CA 92667 / / \m_m/| \mm_| | Durham, NC 27708 | \ \ | (919) 613-2032 | / <=========================================================================> From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon May 29 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!psgrain!nntp.teleport.com!nntp.teleport.com!not-for-mail From: pactran@teleport.com (Mark McClure) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Milligaussmeter wanted Date: 29 May 1995 21:51:13 -0700 Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 Lines: 15 Distribution: usa Message-ID: <3qe881$c0i@kelly.teleport.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kelly.teleport.com Does anyone know where I can buy -- preferably by mail order -- a milligaussmeter suitable for measuring the emf around my house? I'd be looking to spend around $100 or less. Any leads would be much appreciated. Thanks -- Mark McClure or <76641.100@compuserve.com> -- Mark McClure Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue May 30 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!nwfocus1.wa.com!news.halcyon.com!halcyon.com!newsman From: newsman@halcyon.com (Christian Ricci) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Milligaussmeter wanted Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 17:51:13 LOCAL Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Lines: 16 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <3qe881$c0i@kelly.teleport.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chinook.halcyon.com X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #4] In article <3qe881$c0i@kelly.teleport.com> pactran@teleport.com (Mark McClure) writes: >Does anyone know where I can buy -- preferably by mail order -- a >milligaussmeter suitable for measuring the emf around my house? Try Safe Technologies Corp. (800) 638-9121. They make a meter (I wouldn't put a lot of faith in it but it should serve your needs) called Dr. Gauss for about $39.00. Also, some Industrial Hygiene companies will rent you a meterlike an EMDEX LITE for $30-$50.00 per day. Take care. Chris BTW - I think its an analog display and it peaks at 10mG From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue May 30 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!UUNET.UU.NET!afrey From: afrey@UUNET.UU.NET (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Monthly posting of charter Date: 31 May 1995 07:27:38 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 185 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The emf-bio Newsgroup was set up by the International Society for Bioelectricity, a FASEB* Society (afrey@uunet.uu.net Allan H. Frey), for use by the biological research community. *FASEB (The Federation of American Societies in Experimental Biology) is the largest coalition of life sciences societies in the United States, and represents over 42,000 biomedical and biological scientists. The purpose of the Newsgroup is to provide a means of easy communication among people doing research in or interested in electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems. It also provides the general biological community with a window into a field which has broad implications for biology. The Newsgroup is primarily for discussions among bioscientists. Lay people interested in hazards should contact the appropriate groups for such information such as the National EMR Alliance (212-554-4073). Those interested in arguing about hazards, which is a policy issue, have other forums where discussions of policy issues are appropriate. The Newsgroup can be used for discussion of books, articles and methods. Users can pose questions on techniques to be used in experiments and seek solutions for problems they have encountered in experiments. A preprint of a paper can be posted for comment before sending it in for publication or starting the next experiment. Theories can be debated and the validity of experiments can be discussed. Important new findings can be announced. Journal editors can post abstracts of papers accepted for publication and society newsletters can be distributed. Announcements of funding for new programs and jobs can be posted. The Newsgroup is unmoderated and will continue to be so as long as the postings concern bioscience research. The emf-bio newsgroup is a regular usenet group. You can access it when you read newsgroups. The first time type: get bionet.emf-bio After that it will appear as a newgroup (if there is news) whenever you read the newsgroups that you have subscribed to. If you only have email and canUt read newsgroups, do the following: send a mail message to the Internet address biosci-server@net.bio.net Leave the Subject: line of the message blank and enter the following line into the body of the mail message: subscribe emf-bio This message will be automatically read by the computer and your e-mail address will be extracted from the mail header and added to the list. Allan Allan H. Frey, Moderator email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA Canceling your subscription: ---------------------------- IF YOU ARE LOCATED IN EUROPE, AFRICA, OR CENTRAL ASIA: first be sure that you are sending mail from the address at which you signed up to receive news postings, and then send the command (in the body of your mail message) UNSUB bionet-news.bionet.emf-bio to MXT@dl.ac.uk. This message will be automatically read by the computer and your e-mail address will be extracted from the mail header and removed from the list. IF YOU ARE LOCATED IN THE AMERICAS OR THE PACIFIC RIM: send a message to biosci-server@net.bio.net Leave the Subject: line of the message blank and enter the following line into the body of the mail message: unsubscribe emf-bio in the body of the message. Please be sure to send the message from the account whose address matches the one on the list. If your address differs, we will be notified automatically and will remove you manually from the list if we can determine what was your old address. Please contact biosci-help@net.bio.net if you have problems. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM: ---------------------- Please send a message to one of the following addresses depending upon your location Address Location ------- -------- biosci@daresbury.ac.uk Europe, Africa, and Central Asia biosci-help@net.bio.net Americas and the Pacific Rim and someone on the staff will help you. How to post a message to the group: ----------------------------------- If you use news, simply post a message into bionet.emf-bio. Be sure to set your "distribution" to either bionet or world or else the message might not leave your site!! To post by e-mail, mail your message to one of the following addresses depending upon your location: Posting Address Location --------------- -------- emf-bio@daresbury.ac.uk Europe, Africa, and Central Asia emf-bio@net.bio.net Americas and the Pacific Rim and your message will be distributed automatically to everyone on the list and the USENET newsgroup. There is no editorial intervention. PLEASE DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTION REQUESTS TO THE POSTING ADDRESSES as you will bother everyone on the newsgroup!!! How to reply to a message on the group: --------------------------------------- If you are using a newsreader, simply use the reply or follow-up command on your newsreader (these vary from program to program) to send either private or public replies. If you are using e-mail, replies to messages that you receive will *NOT* be automatically returned to the group. This is the standard for Internet mailing lists as opposed to BITNET LISTSERVs which often send all replies back to everyone. You must be certain that your reply contains either of the two newsgroup posting addresses above in your message header if you want to share it with everyone on the group. Otherwise in most cases your reply may go back to only the original poster of the message to which you are replying. ALWAYS be certain that you examine the address on your messages before you send them!!! Once a message is sent there is no way to cancel it or bring it back!!! Some non-Internet compliant mail systems may attempt to send replies to our error-trapping address called BIOSCI-REQUEST. If yours does this, please be sure to readdress your message to emf-bio@net.bio.net or emf-bio@daresbury.ac.uk if you want to send it to the newsgroup. How to look at archives of the list: ------------------------------------ Archives for EMF-BIO/bionet.emf-bio are kept in the anonymous FTP account at net.bio.net [134.172.2.69]. Look in the directory pub/BIOSCI/EMF-BIO for posting archives. Each file is assigned a date such as 9312 for December 1993. Please note that ours is a UNIX system and all file and directory names are case-sensitive, i.e., upper case file names are different from lower case names. You can also access these same files via Gopher if you start a gopher session using net.bio.net as your gopher server. Gopher also allows you to view the individual messages within each monthly archive file. The files are in the EMF-BIO directory. WWW/Mosaic users can open the URL gopher://net.bio.net/. Postings to bionet.emf-bio are also WAIS indexed and can be searched via either gopher or WAIS at our site. In gopher the option at net.bio.net is "Search Bionet USENET Articles" and in WAIS one should use the WAIS source biosci.src. This is a WAIS index of all BIOSCI/bionet messages including this newsgroup. Please see the BIOSCI FAQ for details. The FAQ can be requested from biosci-help@net.bio.net. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed May 31 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!ratty.wolfe.net!big.aa.net!news.alt.net!news.net99.net!news.rtd.com!news.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!aztec.asu.edu!bobcat From: bobcat@aztec.asu.edu (BOB SCHAEFER) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Milligaussmeter wanted Date: 1 Jun 1995 05:41:35 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ (USA) Lines: 19 Message-ID: <3qjjuf$g3p@news.asu.edu> References: <3qe881$c0i@kelly.teleport.com> Reply-To: bobcat@aztec.asu.edu (BOB SCHAEFER) NNTP-Posting-Host: aztec.asu.edu In a previous article, pactran@teleport.com (Mark McClure) says: >Does anyone know where I can buy -- preferably by mail order -- a >milligaussmeter suitable for measuring the emf around my house? > >I'd be looking to spend around $100 or less. You can give MITCHEL INSTRUMENTS a call (619) 744-2690. I can't find my current catalog, but I remember they sell 2-3 different models. The problem is that they sell high quality/professional equipment. Seems like their cheap model started about $150, and I believe they had 1 for about $350. I believe the *good* model had several ranges, ranging from (I think) about 1mg up to something like 10 gauss. IF I find my catalog, I'll post again with updated info! -- \\// Bob Schaefer ( oo ) ------oOo--( )--oOo------- bobcat@aztec.asu.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed May 31 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Milligaussmeter wanted Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 15:58:08 -0500 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 47 Distribution: world Message-ID: <9506011558.AA08010@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> References: <3qe881$c0i@kelly.teleport.com> 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 2.1.2 > Does anyone know where I can buy -- preferably by mail order -- > a milligaussmeter suitable for measuring the emf around my house? > > I'd be looking to spend around $100 or less. I'm afraid I have to agree with the other posters that there are no meters that are simultaneously, cheap, easy to use and reliable. A 1993 issue of Consumer's Report found that the inexpensive (under $200) meters available in the USA were unreliable. The meters used by environmental health professionals are too expensive for "home" use. A unit suitable for home use should meet the following criteria. - a reasonable degree of accuracy and precision (plus/minus 20% seems reasonable for home use); - true RMS detection, otherwise readings might be exaggerated if the waveform is non-sinusoidal; - a tailored frequency response, because if the unit is too broad-band, higher frequency fields from VDTs, TVs, etc. may confound the measurements; - the correct response to overload; if the unit is subjected to a very strong field, it should peg, not just give random readings; - the presence of a strong electric field should not affect the magnetic field measurement. Meters meeting these requirements are quite expensive; $300 would probably be the bare minimum, and these meters may not be suitable for the non-technically trained. I have heard it suggested that you could just wind a coil and use a high impedance multimeter. I would recommend against this -- clever physicist or engineer could anticipate and correct for nonlinearity and interference, but for the average person, even one technically trained, this is unreasonable. ------------------------------------ John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) Maintainer: Powerlines & Cancer FAQs, Static Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer FAQs USENET: sci.med.physics, sci.answers, news.answers. FTP://cdmas.crc.mcw.edu/pub FTP://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed May 31 23:00:00 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: APS/emf statement Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 16:05:29 -0500 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 18 Distribution: world Message-ID: <9506011605.AA29307@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> References: <950530122645_17423362@aol.com> 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 2.1.2 > Can anyone tell me the address for EMF-LINK and in particular, the > EMF litigation in the News section? Thanks. How do I access It? Home page http://infoventures.microserve.com/ Legal page: http://infoventures.microserve.com/emf/legal/litigate.html Access: If you have World Wide Web access and a web brouser (Mosaic, Netscape, etc) the above URLs will take you right there. If you don't have Web access, I can't help you. John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed May 31 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!gatech!EU.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!daresbury!not-for-mail From: "Alex W. Thomas, Psychology" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: milligauss meter .. Date: 1 Jun 1995 18:53:50 +0100 Lines: 16 Sender: lpddist@mserv1.dl.ac.uk Distribution: bionet Message-ID: <3qkure$f7b@mserv1.dl.ac.uk> Original-To: emf-bio@dl.ac.uk