From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jul 04 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!CS.UWP.EDU!greeneba From: greeneba@CS.UWP.EDU (Ben Greenebaum) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Bioelectromagnetics 16(3) Contents Date: 5 Jul 1995 13:34:42 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 63 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net VOLUME 16, No. 3, 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!!! For information about the journal, contact the Editor. For member sub- scription information, contact the Society at 7519 Ridge Road, 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 =================================================================== Bioelectromagetics Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and the Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine Volume 16, Number 3, 1995 (c) 1995 Wiley-Liss Articles 147 Itegin-M. Gunay-I. Logoglu-G. Isbir-T. Effects of Static Magnetic Field on Specific Adenosine-5'- Triphosphatase Activities and Bioelectrical and Biomechanical Properties in the Rat Diaphragm Muscle 152 Simske-S-J. Luttges-M-W. Suspension Osteopenia in Mice: Whole Body Electromagnetic Field Effects 160 Liu-L-M. Cleary-S.F. Absorbed Energy Distribution From Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation in a Mammalian Cell Model: Effect of Membrane-Bound Water 172 Morgan-M-G. Nair-I. Zhang-J. A Method for Assessing Alternative Effects Functions That Uses Simulation With EMDEX Data 178 Spadinger-I. Agnew-D. Palcic-B. 3T3 Cell Motility and Morphology Before, During, and After Exposure to Extremely-Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields 188 Rojavin-M. Ziskin-M. Effect of Millimeter Waves on Survival of UVC-Exposed Escherichia coli 197 Cavopol-A-V. Wamil-A-W. Holcomb-R-R. McLean-M-J. Measurement and Analysis of Static Magnetic Fields That Block Action Potentials in Cultured Neurons 207 Lai-H. Singh-N-P. Acute Low-Intensity Microwave Exposure Increases DNA Single- Strand Breaks in Rat Brain Cells ===================================================================== From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jul 04 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!hookup!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!finzi.ccinet.ab.ca!news@ccinet.ab.ca From: sbenger@ccinet.ab.ca (Stephanie Benger) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: radar gun causing cancer? Date: 5 Jul 1995 17:07:51 GMT Organization: CCI Networks Lines: 3 Sender: -Not-Authenticated-[3910] Message-ID: <3tegt7$8fe@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: edmr7.ccinet.ab.ca X-Posted-From: InterNews 1.0.5@edmr7.ccinet.ab.ca Xdisclaimer: No attempt was made to authenticate the sender's name. I've heard a rumor (twice, now) that the radar gun used for catching speeders is causing cancer in cops. Has anyone heard anything more substantial? From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jul 05 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news.biddeford.com!river.biddeford.com!frallen From: Frank Allen Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: radar gun causing cancer? Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 07:54:49 -0400 Organization: Biddeford Internet Corp. Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <3tegt7$8fe@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> <9507060146.AA04799@dora.auc.trw.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: river.biddeford.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <9507060146.AA04799@dora.auc.trw.com> How about a cellular phone repeater transmitter located in a housing area? The cellular phone people are placing towers all over the states, and many are not low power. 5 Jul 1995, Bill Hickey wrote: > > In most cases, the power is low enough and the antennas directional > enough that if "sensible" precautions are used, the danger is pretty > marginal. I suspect most people would term putting a live radar emitter > in your lap pretty careless -- I do anyway. > > Bill > Boulder, CO > > > From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jul 05 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!AUC.TRW.COM!bhickey From: bhickey@AUC.TRW.COM (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: radar gun causing cancer? Date: 5 Jul 1995 18:52:46 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 21 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9507060146.AA04799@dora.auc.trw.com> References: <3tegt7$8fe@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net From an earlier post: > > I've heard a rumor (twice, now) that the radar gun used for catching > speeders is causing cancer in cops. Has anyone heard anything more > substantial? Basically, this is pretty old "news" as I recall seeing concerns years ago. The two primary concerns are testicular cancer (usually attributed to police leaving the radar gun on and placing it in their lap (sort of like putting your gonads in the microwave oven), and the other was either brain cancer or cataracts (your choice) from the gun models that the officers were sighting as they irradiated their targets. In most cases, the power is low enough and the antennas directional enough that if "sensible" precautions are used, the danger is pretty marginal. I suspect most people would term putting a live radar emitter in your lap pretty careless -- I do anyway. Bill Boulder, CO From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jul 05 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!nwfocus1.wa.com!news.halcyon.com!usenet From: piccioni@halcyon.com Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: radar gun causing cancer? Date: Thu, 06 Jul 95 10:04:04 PDT Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Lines: 26 Message-ID: <3th5k2$bjg@news.halcyon.com> References: <3tegt7$8fe@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: blv-pm1-ip13.halcyon.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon -- TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage In article <3tegt7$8fe@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca>, writes: > Path: news.halcyon.com!nwfocus1.wa.com!news.sprintlink.net!europa.chnt.gteg sc.com!gatech!swrinde!hookup!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!finzi.ccinet.ab.ca !news@ccinet.ab.ca > From: sbenger@ccinet.ab.ca (Stephanie Benger) > Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio > Subject: radar gun causing cancer? > Date: 5 Jul 1995 17:07:51 GMT > Organization: CCI Networks > Lines: 3 > Sender: -Not-Authenticated-[3910] > Message-ID: <3tegt7$8fe@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> > NNTP-Posting-Host: edmr7.ccinet.ab.ca > X-Posted-From: InterNews 1.0.5@edmr7.ccinet.ab.ca > Xdisclaimer: No attempt was made to authenticate the sender's name. > > I've heard a rumor (twice, now) that the radar gun used for catching > speeders is causing cancer in cops. Has anyone heard anything more > substantial? See: Davis, R; Mostofi, K, Cluster of testicular cancer in police officers exposed to hand-held radar, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 24:231-3, 1993. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jul 05 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!wgl0 From: wgl0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Lotz, William G. ", Greg) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE:radar gun causing cancer? Date: 6 Jul 1995 12:50:39 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 160 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2FFBCE03@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net An earlier post asked: >I've heard a rumor (twice, now) that the radar gun used for catching >speeders is causing cancer in cops. Has anyone heard anything more >substantial? Senator Lieberman of Connecticut held a hearing on this issue in 1992, and later asked NIOSH to look into the matter. As indicated in a reply by another reader earlier to this question, testicular cancer is a concern, as are melanoma and a few other cancers which were not mentioned by the earlier reply. Cataracts have not been a recent subject of the radar gun debate. The concern is based, in part, on anecdotal data gathered by Gary Poynter, Research Officer for the National Fraternal Order of Police, of well over 200 cases of cancer in radar users. NIOSH has recently published a report on the matter titled "Occupational Exposure of Police Officers to Microwave Radiation from Traffic Radar Devices," by W. G. Lotz, R.A. Rinsky, and R.D. Edwards. It will later be available from NTIS, but for now, can be obtained upon request from the authors, or by calling the NIOSH technical information line at 800-356-4674. The Davis and Mostofi article mentioned by another reader is among the references in this report. If you choose to reply directly to me, be sure to indicate your name, affiliation, and address in the message, since our system usually drops the ID of the sender. The Executive Summary of the report follows: Greg Lotz Chief, Physical Agents Effects Branch NIOSH, MS C-27 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 513-533-8482 wgl0@niobbs1.em.cdc.gov --------------------------------- OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE OF POLICE OFFICERS TO MICROWAVE RADIATION FROM TRAFFIC RADAR DEVICES Executive Summary In August 1992, a Congressional hearing was convened by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Consumer and Environmental Affairs of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, on the safety of police traffic radar devices. Congress subsequently directed the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to study the cancer incidence among law enforcement officers who had used traffic radar devices. In response, NIOSH conducted a feasibility assessment to determine whether an epidemiologic study was possible and would provide meaningful information about potential risks. This report describes our findings. Included is an exposure assessment, an analysis of existing record sources, and a summary of our recommendations, including five specific recommendations to reduce or prevent exposure to microwave radiation from traffic radar devices. Exposure Assessment: Extensive assessments of exposure to microwave radiation emitted from traffic radar devices were conducted under a variety of conditions. These assessments indicated that present day exposures of law enforcement officers were consistent with published studies reporting low exposures. (Exposures to the police officers operating radar guns are, in most cases less than 20 ?W/cm2.) In addition to evaluating current exposure, we also sought to determine whether past radar exposure could be assessed among police officers. Because law enforcement agencies do not systematically record traffic radar use, surrogates for exposure, such as citation records, were sought to reconstruct past radar use. Unfortunately, no suitable records were found. Feasibility of Epidemiologic Study of Cancer and Use of Radar Guns: The purpose of an epidemiologic study would be to determine whether police officers who use radar guns are at an increased risk of disease, specifically, testicular cancer. Several types of epidemiologic study designs, including cohort mortality, incidence, and case-control, were considered. Each of these study designs has advantages and limitations. NIOSH investigators contacted police officers from several states, as well as officials of other federal agencies and selected state health departments, to assess whether existing data sources (such as historical police records and cancer incidence registries) would support an epidemiologic study. We determined that there were several problems in conducting an epidemiologic study of testicular cancer and radar exposure. First, the low incidence rate of the disease would necessitate the pooling of data from many state police departments to detect an association between testicular cancer and radar use. Second, there is no national tumor registry from which cases can be identified. Finally, no record system exists that specifically identifies officers exposed to traffic radar, the specific types of radar used, and the amount of radar exposure. In summary, these problems limit the ability to conduct a successful and scientifically valid epidemiologic study of radar gun use and risk of cancer. Recommendations to Reduce Exposure: Although conducting a definitive epidemiologic study of health risks associated with traffic radar devices does not seem feasible at this time, we are able to make concrete recommendations to reduce exposure. Following these recommendations should virtually eliminate exposure to microwave radiation while still permitting the use of radar guns. Several recommendations, specified in the technical report, pertain to the type, operation, placement, maintenance, and proper usage of traffic radar devices. The following procedures are recommended to reduce or prevent exposure to microwave radiation emitted from traffic radar devices: 1. Hand-held devices should be equipped with a switch requiring active contact to emit radiation. Such a switch, referred to as a "dead-man switch," must be held down for the device to emit radiation, even though the electrical power to the device is on. Adherence to this recommendation should permit the continued use of one-piece, or hand-held radar units. 2. Older hand-held devices that do not have a "dead-man switch" should not be placed with the radiating antenna pointed toward the body, whether it is held in the hand or placed near the officer. A holster or other similar device should be used as a temporary holder for the radar when not in use. 3. When using two-piece radar units, the antenna should be mounted so that the radar beam is not directed toward the vehicle occupants. The preferred mounting location would be outside the vehicle altogether, although this may not be practical with older units that cannot withstand adverse weather conditions. Other options, e.g., mounting on the dashboard of the vehicle, are acceptable if the antenna is at all times directed away from the operator or other vehicle occupants. Mounting the antenna on the inside of a side window is not recommended. 4. Radar antennas should be tested periodically, e.g. annually, or after exceptional mechanical trauma to the device, for radiation leakage or back scatter in a direction other than that intended by the antenna beam pattern. 5. Each operator should receive training in the proper use of traffic radar before operating the device. This training should include a discussion of the health risks of exposure to microwave radiation and information on how to minimize operator exposure. These exposure control recommendations can be implemented without delay, and are not contingent upon further epidemiologic studies. Recommendations for Future Work: In conducting this feasibility assessment, several papers were identified suggesting that police are at greater risk than the general population for a number of adverse health outcomes. Excess risks have been observed for premature death, specifically from cardiovascular disease, homicide, suicide, and certain cancers. The results of these studies and the large population of municipal, state, and federal police officers demonstrate the public health importance of better understanding the relationship between the many occupational exposures and health problems experienced by police. To learn more about the risks of job-related injury and disease for police officers, data concerning exposures and health outcomes should be collected for a large number of officers representing a variety of state and local law enforcement departments. Then, if disorders for which police appear to be at higher risk (e.g., testicular cancer) are identified, specific epidemiologic analyses could be completed more quickly and economically. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jul 05 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!wgl0 From: wgl0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Lotz, William G. ", Greg) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE:radar gun causing cancer? Date: 6 Jul 1995 11:51:46 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 159 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2FFB7970@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net An earlier post asked: >I've heard a rumor (twice, now) that the radar gun used for catching >speeders is causing cancer in cops. Has anyone heard anything more >substantial? Senator Lieberman of Connecticut held a hearing on this issue in 1992, and later asked NIOSH to look into the matter. As indicated in a reply by another reader earlier to this question, testicular cancer is a concern, as are melanoma and a few other cancers which were not mentioned by the earlier reply. Cataracts have not been a recent subject of the radar gun debate. The concern is based, in part, on anecdotal data gathered by Gary Poynter, Research Officer for the National Fraternal Order of Police, of well over 200 cases of cancer in radar users. NIOSH has recently published a report on the matter titled "Occupational Exposure of Police Officers to Microwave Radiation from Traffic Radar Devices," by W. G. Lotz, R.A. Rinsky, and R.D. Edwards. It will later be available from NTIS, but for now, can be obtained upon request from the authors, or by calling the NIOSH technical information line at 800-356-4674. If you choose to reply directly to me, be sure to indicate your name, affiliation, and address in the message, since our system usually drops the ID of the sender. The Executive Summary of the report follows: Greg Lotz Chief, Physical Agents Effects Branch NIOSH, MS C-27 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 513-533-8482 wgl0@niobbs1.em.cdc.gov --------------------------------- OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE OF POLICE OFFICERS TO MICROWAVE RADIATION FROM TRAFFIC RADAR DEVICES Executive Summary In August 1992, a Congressional hearing was convened by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Consumer and Environmental Affairs of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, on the safety of police traffic radar devices. Congress subsequently directed the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to study the cancer incidence among law enforcement officers who had used traffic radar devices. In response, NIOSH conducted a feasibility assessment to determine whether an epidemiologic study was possible and would provide meaningful information about potential risks. This report describes our findings. Included is an exposure assessment, an analysis of existing record sources, and a summary of our recommendations, including five specific recommendations to reduce or prevent exposure to microwave radiation from traffic radar devices. Exposure Assessment: Extensive assessments of exposure to microwave radiation emitted from traffic radar devices were conducted under a variety of conditions. These assessments indicated that present day exposures of law enforcement officers were consistent with published studies reporting low exposures. (Exposures to the police officers operating radar guns are, in most cases less than 20 ?W/cm2.) In addition to evaluating current exposure, we also sought to determine whether past radar exposure could be assessed among police officers. Because law enforcement agencies do not systematically record traffic radar use, surrogates for exposure, such as citation records, were sought to reconstruct past radar use. Unfortunately, no suitable records were found. Feasibility of Epidemiologic Study of Cancer and Use of Radar Guns: The purpose of an epidemiologic study would be to determine whether police officers who use radar guns are at an increased risk of disease, specifically, testicular cancer. Several types of epidemiologic study designs, including cohort mortality, incidence, and case-control, were considered. Each of these study designs has advantages and limitations. NIOSH investigators contacted police officers from several states, as well as officials of other federal agencies and selected state health departments, to assess whether existing data sources (such as historical police records and cancer incidence registries) would support an epidemiologic study. We determined that there were several problems in conducting an epidemiologic study of testicular cancer and radar exposure. First, the low incidence rate of the disease would necessitate the pooling of data from many state police departments to detect an association between testicular cancer and radar use. Second, there is no national tumor registry from which cases can be identified. Finally, no record system exists that specifically identifies officers exposed to traffic radar, the specific types of radar used, and the amount of radar exposure. In summary, these problems limit the ability to conduct a successful and scientifically valid epidemiologic study of radar gun use and risk of cancer. Recommendations to Reduce Exposure: Although conducting a definitive epidemiologic study of health risks associated with traffic radar devices does not seem feasible at this time, we are able to make concrete recommendations to reduce exposure. Following these recommendations should virtually eliminate exposure to microwave radiation while still permitting the use of radar guns. Several recommendations, specified in the technical report, pertain to the type, operation, placement, maintenance, and proper usage of traffic radar devices. The following procedures are recommended to reduce or prevent exposure to microwave radiation emitted from traffic radar devices: 1. Hand-held devices should be equipped with a switch requiring active contact to emit radiation. Such a switch, referred to as a "dead-man switch," must be held down for the device to emit radiation, even though the electrical power to the device is on. Adherence to this recommendation should permit the continued use of one-piece, or hand-held radar units. 2. Older hand-held devices that do not have a "dead-man switch" should not be placed with the radiating antenna pointed toward the body, whether it is held in the hand or placed near the officer. A holster or other similar device should be used as a temporary holder for the radar when not in use. 3. When using two-piece radar units, the antenna should be mounted so that the radar beam is not directed toward the vehicle occupants. The preferred mounting location would be outside the vehicle altogether, although this may not be practical with older units that cannot withstand adverse weather conditions. Other options, e.g., mounting on the dashboard of the vehicle, are acceptable if the antenna is at all times directed away from the operator or other vehicle occupants. Mounting the antenna on the inside of a side window is not recommended. 4. Radar antennas should be tested periodically, e.g. annually, or after exceptional mechanical trauma to the device, for radiation leakage or back scatter in a direction other than that intended by the antenna beam pattern. 5. Each operator should receive training in the proper use of traffic radar before operating the device. This training should include a discussion of the health risks of exposure to microwave radiation and information on how to minimize operator exposure. These exposure control recommendations can be implemented without delay, and are not contingent upon further epidemiologic studies. Recommendations for Future Work: In conducting this feasibility assessment, several papers were identified suggesting that police are at greater risk than the general population for a number of adverse health outcomes. Excess risks have been observed for premature death, specifically from cardiovascular disease, homicide, suicide, and certain cancers. The results of these studies and the large population of municipal, state, and federal police officers demonstrate the public health importance of better understanding the relationship between the many occupational exposures and health problems experienced by police. To learn more about the risks of job-related injury and disease for police officers, data concerning exposures and health outcomes should be collected for a large number of officers representing a variety of state and local law enforcement departments. Then, if disorders for which police appear to be at higher risk (e.g., testicular cancer) are identified, specific epidemiologic analyses could be completed more quickly and economically. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jul 06 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!EYEBEAM.BIOMED.MCGILL.CA!chaudhry From: chaudhry@EYEBEAM.BIOMED.MCGILL.CA (Baidar Chaudhry) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE Date: 6 Jul 1995 20:35:28 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 4 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9507070017.AA14555@eyebeam.Biomed.MCGILL.CA> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net please UNSUBSCRIBE me from this group. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jul 06 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!CBB.BTH.RO!CD From: CD@CBB.BTH.RO ("Dan Caracaleanu") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: need help Date: 6 Jul 1995 08:55:28 -0700 Organization: Biotehnos S.A. Lines: 6 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <16454EB2FB3@CBB.BTH.RO> Reply-To: cd@cbb.bth.ro I'm looking for some informations regarding the influence of electr.mag. field (50/60 Hz) on living organisms (even cells). Does anybody knows where can I find them? Many thanks. Dan Caracaleanu cd@cbb.bth.ro From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jul 06 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!AUC.TRW.COM!bhickey From: bhickey@AUC.TRW.COM (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE:radar gun causing cancer? Date: 6 Jul 1995 20:43:48 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 63 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9507070003.AA08322@dora.auc.trw.com> References: <2FFB7970@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Greg Lotz kindly provided some interesting information on a NIOSH report as follows: > ... NIOSH has recently published a report > on the matter titled "Occupational Exposure of Police Officers to Microwave > Radiation from Traffic Radar Devices," by W. G. Lotz, R.A. Rinsky, and R.D. > Edwards. It will later be available from NTIS, but for now, can be > obtained upon request from the authors, or by calling the NIOSH technical > information line at 800-356-4674. > [snip] > OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE OF POLICE OFFICERS > TO MICROWAVE RADIATION FROM TRAFFIC RADAR DEVICES > Executive Summary > > In August 1992, a Congressional hearing was convened by Senator Joseph > Lieberman of Connecticut, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Consumer > and Environmental Affairs of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, > on the safety of police traffic radar devices. Congress subsequently >[snip] > In summary, these problems limit the ability to conduct a successful and > scientifically valid epidemiologic study of radar gun use and risk of > cancer. In addition to this information, and also in addition to my heuristic comments before, one might check: "Microwave Exposure Levels Encountered by Police Traffic Radar Operators" by P. David Fisher (with Department of Electrical Engineering, Michigan State University), IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 35, No. 1, February 1993. (Manuscript was received 01NOV91 and revised 29JUN92...gives you a rough idea of the timeframe data was collected.) This is NOT an epidemiological study, but rather one of measuring the levels of radiation using various radars at various locations inside and outside a police vehicle. The average aperture power densites ranged from a low of 0.69mW/cm^2 for K-band hand-held units to a high of 2.66 mW/cm^2 for X-band hand-held devices. The minimum and maximum power densities measured for ANY unit were 0.1mW/cm^2 for X-band fixed mounted unit and 6.4mW/cm^2 also for an X-band fixed mounted unit. Although one might argue with Dr. Fisher's final conclusion: "there is no evidence to support the allegation that police traffic radar operators are at risk due to prolonged exposure to microwave emission from their radar guns", I submit that his testing laboratory, which tested over 7000 radar devices since 1980 is probably well-qualified to document the power density levels expected by most police radar operators. The real question is whether or not there is a connection to those levels and cancer incidence...an argument which continues unabated. > 5. Each operator should receive training in the proper use of traffic radar > before operating the device. This training should include a discussion of > the health risks of exposure to microwave radiation and information on how > to minimize operator exposure. > > These exposure control recommendations can be implemented without delay, and > are not contingent upon further epidemiologic studies. Excellent recommendations -- sensible, cost effective, and simple to implement. Bill Hickey Boulder, CO From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jul 06 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!OHGPU.HYDRO.ON.CA!skramer From: skramer@OHGPU.HYDRO.ON.CA (Stuart.Kramer) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Alternative effects functions? Date: 7 Jul 1995 07:00:52 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 20 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9507071409.AA03241@ohgpu.hydro.on.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net We are beginning an analysis of personal electric and magnetic field exposure data acquired in an occupational setting, with the intention of investigating alternative effects functions as opposed to mean exposure. A variety of alternate metrics have been described in generalities in the literature and recent workshops. I would be interested in suggestions from researchers regarding specific threshold levels, duration requirements or other exposure details which may be suggested by your cellular, animal or theoretical studies. Our occupational exposure data includes 60 Hz magnetic (x,y,z) and scalar electric field strength acquired at one minute intervals for up to 5 days of work for a large number of electric utility workers. Please respond to me directly (stuart.kramer@hydro.on.ca) if you have some ideas that may help to direct our work. Thank you. Stuart Kramer Science and Technology Dept. Health and Safety Division Ontario Hydro 1549 Victoria Street East Whitby, Ontario L1N 9E3 (905) 430-2215 ext.3264 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Jul 07 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!oakland.edu!liboff From: liboff@oakland.edu (A.R. Liboff) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: radar guns and cancer Date: 7 Jul 1995 20:08:34 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 15 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199507061400.AA25609@Cliff.ACS.Oakland.Edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Stephanie Benger inquired on July 5, 1995 about radar guns and cancer. Consulting the MicroWave News January/February edition, page 15 gave an update on this question. Apparently 20 suits nationwide have been unsuccessfully attempted. There is at least one case pending,involving the Vessels family, on behalf of Wayne Vessels, Jr.,an Ohio highway patrolman who died of cancer in December of 1992. A.R. Liboff Department of Physics Oakland University Rochester, MI 48309 liboff@oakland.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jul 09 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!mn5.swip.net!usenet From: m-17300@mailbox.swipnet.se (Staffan Crona) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Safety - standards for computers? Date: 10 Jul 1995 22:36:41 GMT Organization: Torrekulla Lines: 38 Message-ID: <3tsa1p$6gq@mn5.swip.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup96-123.swipnet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.14 It is estimated that more than 8000 persons in Sweden might have an allergy that has been termed ”electrical allergy”. People get an ”allergic” reaction from electricity and from light (neon light). Most of these people suspect they got an allergy from working with a computer. I have measured (1986) a transport of up to 300 million/sec molecules of something between a VDU computer screen and a plate of approx. 20x20 cm placed at a distance of 50 cm from the computer. I am surprised that all attention are focused on magnetic and electrical fields. The most probable problem would in my mind be toxification from substances in the plastic or electronics inside the computer. A computer is the first plastic that we work close together with. A new computer will smell terrible when new (measurement (from IBM) show that a new computer after 20-30 hours only give away about 5% of the ”smell” after this burn in. Many person have stated that they became allergic after receiving a new low level ”TCO approved” computer. All new computers should be allowed a burn in time in a well ventilated room before they are used in my mind. A ”TCO approval” or MPRII etc. have no proven meaning - in the sense of biology. TCO have never been able to prove any safety from this standard. In my mind the MPRII and the TCO approval is only a extra cost and a way for TCO to make some extra money. I think the TCO MPRII standard is dangerous in the sense that it might give a false feeling of safety. The highest electrical field around a computer is the static charge generated from friction between the textile in your cloth and the textile in the chair (often around -5000 volt) and that is not even mentioned from TCO. This is information that might give me problem because TCO is a labor union and employers are not ”allowed” to criticize labor unions in Sweden. By the way I also learned how to give the correct detoxification for most of the ”el-allergic”, but I am not a medical doctor so I am not allowed to tell you. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jul 12 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!AUC.TRW.COM!bhickey From: bhickey@AUC.TRW.COM (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: radar gun causing cancer? Date: 12 Jul 1995 21:13:31 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 30 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9507130409.AA01705@dora.auc.trw.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net In message <3th5k2$bjg@news.halcyon.com> wrote: >See: Davis, R; Mostofi, K, Cluster of testicular cancer in police >officers exposed to hand-held radar, American Journal of Industrial >Medicine, 24:231-3, 1993. While I have not read the referenced article, and I recommend trying to find it for those who have access to that journal, I would also like to take a brief opportunity to cast some additional light on "Clustering" techniques commonly used in the medical field. If you are really interested in how "clustering" works (or more appropriately doesn't always work), I recommend you send mail to: infoserv@infosci.org and issue the commands: get ms-docs clusters.txt get ms-docs msresrch.txt These documents are by Dr. Richard Korejwo, a research PhD, and they attempt to explain both the clustering issue as well as medical research in general. Although the topic concerns MS, you could just as easily substitute any disease you like instead and the comments would be just as germane. I do not always see eye to eye with Rich, but it will be well worth your while to retrieve those documents and read them as well as the cited document above. Regards, Bill Hickey Boulder, CO From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jul 12 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!inews.intel.com!itnews.sc.intel.com!chnews!ennews!asuvax!news.asu.edu!aztec.asu.edu!bobcat From: bobcat@aztec.asu.edu (BOB SCHAEFER) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: milligauss meters Date: 12 Jul 1995 22:30:29 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ (USA) Lines: 14 Message-ID: <3u1ie5$4l7@news.asu.edu> Reply-To: bobcat@aztec.asu.edu (BOB SCHAEFER) NNTP-Posting-Host: aztec.asu.edu About a month ago, someone asked about the availability of milligauss meters. Mitchell Instruments carries 3 models in their 95/96 catalog. They sell from $200 to $500. Mitchell Instrument Co. (619) 744-0083 - Fax (619) 744-2690 - info/order If you want more details, e-mail me directly. -- \\// Bob Schaefer ( oo ) ------oOo--( )--oOo------- bobcat@aztec.asu.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jul 12 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!AUC.TRW.COM!bhickey From: bhickey@AUC.TRW.COM (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Radar Gun/Cell Phone Repeater Date: 12 Jul 1995 21:16:53 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 59 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9507130413.AA01717@dora.auc.trw.com> References: <9507130400.AA01688@dora.auc.trw.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Members of emf-bio: A few days ago, Frank Allen posted a message expressing concern about cellular phone repeaters being located in housing area, many not low power. The only reason I am citing his comment here is that he made that comment in response to my comments about lower power radars in police use. >How about a cellular phone repeater transmitter located in a >housing area? The cellular phone people are placing towers all >over the states, and many are not low power. I also responded at some length to a prior posting by someone concerning a similar issue being discussed in a California newspaper (I'm sorry, I have forgotten your name, and I don't have the original correspondence in front of me to jog my memory). I think it would be most beneficial for those who wish to express concerns if they would FIRST do a little homework before running around pointing fingers at various sources of EMF radiation. In this particular case, the issue is a question of "high power" cellular repeaters in a housing area or at a school. Here are some facts: For the most part, cellular systems use 800-900 MHz allocations, and again for the most part they are currently analog form with more and more systems switching to TDMA and CDMA digital forms because of demand for access time. Most cellular base stations will use either an omni or sector antenna (120 degree HPBW), which yields around 2-3 dBi gain for the omni and around 10-12 dBi for the gain antenna. Also, the MAX power for the systems is 100 Watts at HAAT 500', with a typical implementation being 20 Watts at 100' HAAT. In any case, OSHA limits the field strength to a maximum of 500 uV/m at 100' from the transmitter. Note: if you are at 100'HAAT, you are by definition 100' away from the antenna at the base of the tower (assuming it is ground mounted). Most systems will hopefully have some protective fence to preclude unauthorized climbing of the towers, which could be hazardous and not necessarily from EMFs either. Now, for those who are concerned, if you don't understand the abbreviations I just used or you don't appreciate the power levels I just cited, I highly recommend you do a little homework before continuing on this "high power" cellular phone kick. FYI, check out the power levels used by UHF TV transmitters (FYI-2, UHF TV channel 69 is 800-806 MHz, and you'll typically find those transmitters running MILLIONS of watts both Video and Audio ERP. I'll grant you that they are rarely in housing areas, but I know in Washington DC there are TV and radio broadcast towers right next to housing so it does happen. I'd like someone to define "high power" just a little more clearly for me before this discussion takes off any further. With a declared power level, one can straightforwardly calculate field strengths and compare them to approved radiation standards (whether you agree with those standards is another point entirely). Let's deal with NUMBERS please, not vague generalities. Regards, Bill Hickey Boulder, CO From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Jul 15 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!usenet.cis.ufl.edu!clas.ufl.edu!afass From: afass@grove.ufl.edu (Andrew Marc Fass) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Lancet article? Date: 16 Jul 1995 03:23:13 GMT Organization: University of Florida's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Lines: 8 Message-ID: <3ua0n2$cfs@cutter.clas.ufl.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: grove.ufl.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] I was watching the local news today when they briefly mentioned a new article in the "Lancet" magazine which studied health effects of EMF exposure and pregnant women. If anyone has any information about this article or could give me a summary of it, please post it here or respond to afass@grove.ufl.edu. Thanks, Andy From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jul 16 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!daresbury!trane.uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!in1.uu.net!mr.net!news.mr.net!msp7-4.nas.mr.net!user From: emfproj@rsba.com (Margie Grilley) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Lancet article? Followup-To: bionet.emf-bio Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 09:50:00 -0500 Organization: Robert S. Banks Associates, Inc. Lines: 13 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: msp7-4.nas.mr.net Andrew Marc Fass inquired on 16 July 1995 about an article in Lancet on EMF exposure and pregnant women. The article is: Infante-Rivard, Claire. Electromagnetic field exposure during pregnancy and childhood leukemia. Lancet 346(8968): 177; 1995 July 15. -- Margie Grilley EMF Information Project Information Specialist Robert S. Banks Associates, Inc. emfproj@rsba.com Minneapolis, Minnesota USA (612) 623-4600 All opinions expressed are solely those of the author. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jul 16 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!eng.ufl.edu!clas.ufl.edu!afass From: afass@grove.ufl.edu (Andrew Marc Fass) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Lancet article? Date: 17 Jul 1995 21:45:20 GMT Organization: University of Florida's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Lines: 33 Message-ID: <3uellg$smn@cutter.clas.ufl.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: grove.ufl.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Margie Grilley (emfproj@rsba.com) wrote: : Andrew Marc Fass inquired on 16 July 1995 about an article in Lancet on EMF : exposure and pregnant women. The article is: : Infante-Rivard, Claire. Electromagnetic field exposure during pregnancy : and childhood leukemia. Lancet 346(8968): 177; 1995 July 15. I would like to thank Margie Grilley for this information and also John Moulder who gave me the following summary of the Lancet piece. He is unable to post this due to a full disk error of some sort. C. Infante-Rivard: Electromagnetic fields exposure during pregnancy and childhood leukemia. Lancet 1364:177, 15-Jul-95 A one page letter, not an article. No formal summary/abstract Case control study in Spain. 128 cases of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children (15 or younger at diagnosis?) vs a similar number of population based controls. Odds ratio (with 95% LI) of 7 (1.6-31), for "mothers working at home during pregnancy, most being hired by local industries to sew different types of tissues" When adjusted for income and mothers level of schooling, OR was 5.8 (1.3-26). No actual assessment of exposures, and no measurements of fields available for the machines. Notes that elevated OR for leukemia reported by another group, for mothers who worked in the textile industry (Am J Epidem 121:216-224, 1985) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jul 18 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!iroe.fi.cnr.it!olmi From: olmi@iroe.fi.cnr.it Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: HELP Date: 19 Jul 1995 08:18:03 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 2 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199507191517.IAA29750@net.bio.net> Reply-To: olmi@iroe.fi.cnr.it NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net HELP From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Jul 24 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!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: Epidemiology Faces Its Limits X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995Jul25.181149.4069@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: Los Angeles Free-Net Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 18:11:49 GMT Lines: 19 "The search for subtle links between diet, lifestyle or environmental factors and disease is an unending source of fear -- but often yields little certainty," is the sub-head of this extensive article. I would be interested in the views of Bionetters on how epidemiology might improve its methodologies to achieve greater usefulness. For example, rather than only critiquing the structure of a study after it has been released, we might require peer reviews of the proposed methodology prior to commencing an epidemiologic research project. Indeed, this is one measure being taken by the California EMF Stakeholders Advisory Committee. I would also be interested in other suggestions as well. Thank you, Ellen Stern Harris Fund for the Environment From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jul 25 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!psgrain!nntp.teleport.com!ip-pdx4-19.teleport.com!normans From: normans@teleport.com (norman d. smith) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Epidemiology Faces Its Limits Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 09:43:24 Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <1995Jul25.181149.4069@lafn.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: ip-pdx4-19.teleport.com X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] In article <1995Jul25.181149.4069@lafn.org> ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) writes: >From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) >Subject: Epidemiology Faces Its Limits >Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 18:11:49 GMT >"The search for subtle links between diet, lifestyle or environmental >factors and disease is an unending source of fear -- but often yields >little certainty," is the sub-head of this extensive article. >I would be interested in the views of Bionetters on how epidemiology >might improve its methodologies to achieve greater usefulness. For example, >rather than only critiquing the structure of a study after it has been >released, we might require peer reviews of the proposed methodology prior to >commencing an epidemiologic research project. One of the problems as I see it is peer review. This tends to continue the same line of thinking and methodology, leaving little or no room for new ideas/approaches. Perhaps a similarity exists between this and the acceptance of Quantum Physics can be made. One person said that it was necessary for the Newtonian physicists to move on before the new physics can ever really be accepted into the community. I am not throwing stones. I just see a locked on condition, a set way of thinking, a strict critique for acceptance, all of which may need to change. Such a change would mean a totally new approach/way of thinking about such things. Just a thought. Norm From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jul 26 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!daresbury!nntp-trd.UNINETT.no!Norway.EU.net!EU.net!CERN.ch!na49-2.cern.ch!usseglio From: Alessandro Usseglio Viretta Subject: Re: Epidemiology Faces Its Limits In-Reply-To: X-Sender: usseglio@na49-2.cern.ch X-Nntp-Posting-Host: na49-2.cern.ch Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Sender: news@news.cern.ch (USENET News System) Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 21:16:59 GMT Lines: 57 On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, norman d. smith wrote: > One of the problems as I see it is peer review. This tends to continue the > same line of thinking and methodology, leaving little or no room for new > ideas/approaches. Perhaps a similarity exists between this and the acceptance > of Quantum Physics can be made. One person said that it was necessary for the > Newtonian physicists to move on before the new physics can ever really be > accepted into the community. > > I am not throwing stones. I just see a locked on condition, a set way of > thinking, a strict critique for acceptance, all of which may need to change. > Such a change would mean a totally new approach/way of thinking about such > things. Well said! The main problem of science is that new ideas and theories always have to struggle before being accepted by the scientific community. Einstein as well had many problems. What's really disappointing is that everyone realises that, in the past, good ideas have been rejected just because they 'looked' strange or because theu were against religion (Galileo), but many scientist are ready to finght against newborn theories just because it's not possible to deduce them using what has been so far discovered. An example: in Italy a doctor(surgeon) started experimenting with EMF on cancer-ill patients, only after having requested (and got) all the needed authorisations. Now his studies have been stopped, because ha lacks a special permission (he didn't really need it), requested by a law issued some 50 years ago by the king. The real reason seems that he's too far away from science for his studies to be effective and they can only lead to misinformation. A famous surgeon said, in an interview, that it's ridicolous to think that EMF can have something to do with cancer, in spite of research being made in the USA and elsewhere (http://www.infoventures.com). I could notice the anthalgic effect of EMF quite directly: my mother has a lung cancer, and after just 3 days of therapy (1 hour of exposition to radio frequencies of well-determined wave shape, lenght and duration), she didn't need any more the morphine-like anthalgic medicines she used to take. Further study could bring to improvements of these tecniques or even lead to a cure for some kinds of cancer. If EMFs can provoke cancer, maybe well-tuned EMFs could cure it. Anyhow, experimentation has been blocked for some months. I must ask excuse for my poor english, the pronunciations is even worse! So long, Alessandro Usseglio Viretta. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Jul 29 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!news.ecn.bgu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!lafn.org!lafn.org!ai808 From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Subject: L.A.Times Feature Article on EMF X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995Jul30.024922.24709@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: Los Angeles Free-Net Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 02:49:22 GMT Lines: 13 The economic consequences of scientific uncertainty re EMF are clearly laid out in this extensive article. Among those interviewed: A scientist, utility executive, environmentalist, mortgage banker, real estate agent and a physician. It is the physician who stopped making his monthly payments of $3,500 when he learned he could not sell or rent his powerline-adjacent house at any price. The question remains: What is to be done, in economic and social terms, pending scientific agreement? L.A. Times Real Estate Section, Pg.1, Sunday 7/30/95 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jul 30 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!noc.netcom.net!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!lafn.org!lafn.org!ai808 From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Subject: Who gets Access to The Data ? X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995Jul31.042927.10490@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 04:29:27 GMT Lines: 36 Now under discussion by a subcommittee of the California Dept. of Health Services EMF Stakeholders Advisory Committee: Who gets access to the research data, when and under what circumstances? Example: A state regulated, investor owned utility, responding to a DHS request, does a "drive-by" EMF measurement of all schools in its service area. Some are adjacent to transmission lines. At one such school it becomes known that several children have leukemia and several teachers have various kinds of cancer. Further, it is known that measurements of this school have been taken. Concerned parents request that the principle release the data. She says the Superintendent of Schools would have to approve such a request. The Superintendent says the parents will have to ask the School District's Board of Trustees. Facing a forthcoming election, they stonewall. The parents and teachers union sue to obtain the data. When the court documents are filed, the media runs with the story. What might be a better scenario? Is such data proprietary to either the School District or the utility? Must the parents and teachers union await the publication of the peer reviewed research? Should all public health-related research data be available to anyone in a timely fashion? Or are there valid reasons to withold such data? Your thoughts will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ellen Stern Harris Fund for the Environment From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jul 30 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!AUC.TRW.COM!bhickey From: bhickey@AUC.TRW.COM (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: L.A. Times Feature Article on EMF Date: 30 Jul 1995 21:18:04 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 77 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9507310413.AA01268@dora.auc.trw.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Ms. Harris: In your 1995Jul30.024922.24709@lafn.org, you say: > The economic consequences of scientific uncertainty re EMF are clearly > laid out in this extensive article. If the article is so extensive, why did you only paraphrase the part about the physician? Is it because it's the only one that makes your point? If anyone out there gets the LA Times and has read the article, those of us without access to the referenced item might appreciate a clear and cogent SUMMARY of all the points, not just one. > It is the physician who stopped making his monthly payments of $3,500 > when he learned he could not sell or rent his powerline-adjacent house at > any price. Pardon my lack of sympathy for someone who can afford $3500/mo house payments, which also tells us about how much the physician paid for the house. Either the person was foolish enough to pay that knowing up front that the power lines were there, or there's just something more to the story than power lines nearby. Secondly, "at any price" I think is misleading. If he offers to sell the house at the RIGHT price, _someone_ will buy. If one is to believe news stories from the LA area, real estate is not exactly the smartest market to be in for the LA area right now, so maybe he should have tried to sell BEFORE the exodus or earthquakes. There is simply something missing from this anecdotal story about someone trying to sell their home and blaming EMF for the whole problem. I don't buy the simple answer. For every complex problem, there is a simple, easy to understand, straightforward solution THAT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG! > The question remains: What is to be done, in economic and social > terms, pending scientific agreement? Here's a couple of comments on your question: (1) What do you WANT the scientific community to do, falsify data? If the answer you want to hear can't be justified, what will you do then? You may NEVER get scientific agreement, despite years of work and many many $$ in research. That doesn't mean your answer is either right or wrong...it means there is no convincing mechanism either way. (2) Have YOU given thought to what you want out of all this brouhaha over EMF? Is it that you want buried power lines? I can't seem to figure what you want science and engineers to do for you. Economically, I'll wager you haven't even looked at the first order costs for burying power lines across this country. So, _economically_ speaking, you might well find the cost to do what you want is too high for the citizens of this or any other country to bear for not too much benefit. Also, those who simply want buried power lines because it "reduces" fields haven't really done their homework properly. People who just don't like to look at power lines can't rationally justify the costs (ex post facto, or even up front) based on scenery considerations alone. The only way buried power lines can be justified by this group of people is to wave a finger and try to have everyone believe that their MAIN concern is health risk -- despite the lack of clear and convincing scientifically obtained and reproducible evidence. There ARE reasons for buried lines in some places, but not everywhere. Lastly, the "real estate" section of a newspaper is not exactly where I would expect to find hard scientific discussions on EMF's. I suspect you are getting EMOTIONAL comment, not subjective and probably not even rational in some cases. At last look, EMF's don't pollute water sources, don't pollute our air, and don't cause split-end frizzies either. Maybe we ought to be focusing our attentions on more critical and identifiable problems instead of constantly beating up on EMF's...people are working on the problem, but you can't make scientific breakthroughs on a PERT/CPM chart, at least reliably so. Bill Hickey Boulder, CO bhickey@auc.trw.com From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jul 30 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: Who gets Access to The Data ? Date: 31 Jul 1995 14:07:11 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 99 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <301CCBA6@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net If you are asking about EMF survey measurements, your question about data access (below) is easily answered: EMF exposure data should be available to the public and the media as soon as its accuracy has been validated and the information given to the immediate stakeholders (e.g. school board, utility, parents of sick children, citizen committees, etc.) . That's basic ethics in my profession (industrial hygiene), and most other branches of health sciences I know. Disclosing exposure data does not violate anyone's rights (in contrast to personal medical records). The political scenarios below should have no part in decisions possibly related to the public health. Neither medical ethics nor the Constitution guarantees public officials the freedom from making tough decisions or answering hard questions from their constitutents. The one complication is the school with the cancer cluster. This should be treated in the same manner as any cancer cluster (which is tantamount to saying "this should be treated as any other case of dynamite"). With all the EMF publicity, it is unlikely that a cluster would be uncovered a result of the survey, but that outcome causes no ethical problem beyond the ordinary cluster report. A cluster known before the survey could be investigated with the current cluster SOP. A clandestine exposure survey of a known cluster site without informed consent would be highly unethical for everyone responsible. This discusssion does point out that a state-wide survey of a controversial health hazard needs to be prepared IN ADVANCE to: * distribute the information promptly (which rules out peer-reviewed journals), * interpret the exposure data in terms of possible health risks, * be prepared to address serious concerns (like a cancer cluster) that may result from the study. Public discussion and peer review of all this should ideally happen before a single measurement is taken. As always, these are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of NIOSH. Joe Bowman National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health Cincinnati, OH jdb0@niobbs1.em.cdc.gov P.S. Are the scenarios below hypothetical or real? ---------- From: BIOSCI-REQUEST To: emf-bio Subject: Who gets Access to The Data ? Date: Monday, July 31, 1995 4:29AM Now under discussion by a subcommittee of the California Dept. of Health Services EMF Stakeholders Advisory Committee: Who gets access to the research data, when and under what circumstances? Example: A state regulated, investor owned utility, responding to a DHS request, does a "drive-by" EMF measurement of all schools in its service area. Some are adjacent to transmission lines. At one such school it becomes known that several children have leukemia and several teachers have various kinds of cancer. Further, it is known that measurements of this school have been taken. Concerned parents request that the principle release the data. She says the Superintendent of Schools would have to approve such a request. The Superintendent says the parents will have to ask the School District's Board of Trustees. Facing a forthcoming election, they stonewall. The parents and teachers union sue to obtain the data. When the court documents are filed, the media runs with the story. What might be a better scenario? Is such data proprietary to either the School District or the utility? Must the parents and teachers union await the publication of the peer reviewed research? Should all public health-related research data be available to anyone in a timely fashion? Or are there valid reasons to withold such data? Your thoughts will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ellen Stern Harris Fund for the Environment From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jul 30 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Who gets Access to The Data ? Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 16:25:43 -0500 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 32 Distribution: world Message-ID: <9507311625.AA43444@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> References: <1995Jul31.042927.10490@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 > Example: A state regulated, investor owned utility, responding to a > DHS request, does a "drive-by" EMF measurement of all schools in > its service area. A "drive-by" reading such as this is essentially meaningless. > Concerned parents request that the principle release the data. She > says the Superintendent of Schools would have to approve such a > request. The Superintendent says the parents will have to ask the > School District's Board of Trustees. Facing a forthcoming election, > they stonewall. > The parents and teachers union sue to obtain the data. When the > court documents are filed, the media runs with the story. > > What might be a better scenario? A better scenario would be for the concerned parents to get a gauss meter (and someone who knows how to use it) and check the school themself. If they can't get in the school, they can at least do a "walkaround". Even a "walkaround" would be better than "drive-by" data. Of course, I don't know what they're going to do with the numbers when they get them, but at least they will have the numbers. Why on Earth would someone sue to get data they could get themsleves with a $400 instrument?? John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jul 30 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!sdd.hp.com!night.primate.wisc.edu!newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: L.A. Times Feature Article on EMF Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 16:19:45 -0500 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 38 Distribution: world Message-ID: <9507311619.AA45020@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> References: <9507310413.AA01268@dora.auc.trw.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 > > The economic consequences of scientific uncertainty re EMF are > > clearly laid out in this extensive article. > > If the article is so extensive, why did you only paraphrase the part > about the physician? Is it because it's the only one that makes > your point? > > If anyone out there gets the LA Times and has read the article, those > of us without access to the referenced item might appreciate a clear > and cogent SUMMARY of all the points, not just one. The article is mostly anecdotal The summary is: 1-Some people are afraid of powerlines 2-Some sellers, real estate agents, and appraisers think that houses along high tension lines show lower than expected selling prices 3-The science is controversial. The people who are interviewed are: - Mark McCartin, the doctor who abandoned his house. This same doctor was also an unsuccessful plaintiff in a property value lawsuit - Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News - A number of real estate people from California - Ellen Stern Harris, who you all know by now - Jack Sahl, research scientist for Calif Edison I have placed the full text on our outreach server ftp://ftp.mcw.edu/emf-and-cancer/LA_Times.text I probably shouldn't have, because it's copyrighted material. If the LA Times or anybody else complains, I'll have to delete it. John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) Radiation Biology Group Medical College of Wisconsin From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Jul 31 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.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: To Obtain A Copy of the L.A.Times EMF article X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995Aug1.175102.3651@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 17:51:02 GMT Lines: 17 Several Bionetters have asked if I would please send them a copy of the 7/30/95 feature article on EMF in the Sunday Real Estate Section of the L.A. Times. Unfortunately, we don't have a scanner and faxing gets quite costly. However, we will have copies made. So, anyone who sends a self-addressed, stamped envelope toFund for the Environment, P.O.Box 228, Beverly Hills,CA 90213 will receive a copy. Anyone who sends a scanner gets a tax-deductible Thank You note ! Best, Ellen Stern Harris