From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Oct 01 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: mikerios@ix.netcom.com (Michael Rios ) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Help! Info on EMR from power lines Date: 1 Oct 1995 18:08:13 -0700 Organization: Netcom Lines: 15 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Distribution: world Message-ID: <44icc8$50k@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I've been following the literature on the effects of low frequency EMR from computer monitors for years, but I just found out that we may be moving to a house near some power lines. Can anyone here tell me where to find out more about this topic, or perhaps what newsgroups would handle this topic? I'm going to have to make a stand pretty quickly, so I would appreciate e-mail responses. Thanks for listening. Michael Rios mikerios@ix.netcom.com From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Oct 01 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: GEERT PRAET Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: electromagnetic fields and its effect on health. Date: 1 Oct 1995 18:13:21 -0700 Organization: INnet NV (post doesn't reflect views of INnet NV) Lines: 9 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Distribution: world Message-ID: <44girq$o7a@news.INbe.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net i am looking for documents, books etc. about the effect of electromagnetic fields on our health. anyone with experience in this particular domain ? please contact me. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Oct 01 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: ab190@freenet.carleton.ca (Richard W. Woodley) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: BRHLC EMF Information Service Updated Date: 1 Oct 1995 18:17:34 -0700 Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 148 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Distribution: world Message-ID: Reply-To: ab190@freenet.carleton.ca (Richard W. Woodley) NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net NOTE: Posted for information purposes only SEPT 1995 ab190 BRIDLEWOOD RESIDENTS HYDRO LINE COMMITTEE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS INFORMATION SERVICE "go brhlc" Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee 23 Riding Way, Kanata, Ontario, K2M 1C3 ab190@freenet.carleton.ca PLEASE NOTE: extensive revision done in September 1995 - new sections added - most others updated. ABOUT THE BRHLC ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS INFORMATION SERVICE The Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee (BRHLC) maintains an information service on electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and health on the National Capital Freenet (NCF) in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The system includes information files (see below) and access to other Internet resources on EMFs. Over the past years concerns over electromagnetic fields have continued to grow. New studies have come out linking EMFs to Alzheimer's Disease, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). As well, further studies have confirmed the links to childhood cancer and leukemia and occupational studies continue to link EMFs to diseases such as cancer. Community struggles continue as more and more communities organize to protect themselves and take on the utility industry, particulary concerning EMFs and schools. To find out more about this issue access the BRHLC EMF Information Service on the NCF. The National Capital Freenet can be accessed by anyone with a computer and modem by dialling (613) 564-3600 (2400 baud) or 564-0808 (high speed) or via telnet at "freenet.carleton.ca" (134.117.1.25). To access the Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee section of the NCF type "go brhlc" at the "Your Choice" prompt anywhere within the NCF menu system. The BRHLC Information Service can now be accessed via the World Wide Web at the following URL: "http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/freeport/ social.services/eco/orgs/bridlewd/menu". INFORMATION FILES If you wish to read the information files while on the Freenet simply select them by number. The information will then scroll screen by screen for you to read. However, if you wish to save them to read or print out later set your modem to capture or log the session. Then enter "nopage" at the prompt before selecting the number. This will capture the full text of the section without the annoying "Shown 10%, press for more, 'q' to quit, or 'h' for help" messages. A list of the information files with their revision dates is provided below: About the BRHLC EMF Information Service (SEPT 1995) History of the Bridlewood Hydro Line Struggle (SEPT 1995) Electromagnetic Fields and Health (SEPT 1995) Electromagnetic Fields and Schools and Playgrounds (SEPT 1995) Hydro Line and EMF Struggles Around the World (SEPT 1995) Sources of Electromagnetic Fields and How to Avoid Them (SEPT 1995) Electrical Sensitivity (SEPT 1995) Bibliography and EMF Information Sources (SEPT 1995) Extensive Bibliography on EMFs and Health (SEPT 1995) American Physical Society Statement and Responses (SEPT 1995) Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (SEPT 1995) EMR Alliance (SEPT 1995) Planetary Association for Clean Energy Inc. (1 JAN 1995) Prudent Residents Opposed To Electric Cable Transmission (1 JAN 1995) Safe Technologies Corporation (SEPT 1995) The system also provides a discussion group on EMFs where you can ask questions or discuss the EMF issue and access to other Internet EMF resources, including: EMF-BIO Usenet Newsgroup; EMFLDS-L Mailing List; and EMF-Link. If you do not have access to the NCF the information files are available via FTP at a site operated by Paul J. Guy at the University of Waterloo. The FTP address is "gaitlab1.uwaterloo.ca" and the file is under "pub/em/BRHLC" as "BRHLC.ref". Please note that ftp is case sensitive. If you do not have FTP capability you can request copies of our information files by internet e-mail.The BRHLC can be reached via e- mail at "ab190@freenet.carleton.ca" from virtually anywhere in the world, or from within the NCF at "ab190". ABOUT THE BRIDLEWOOD RESIDENTS HYDRO LINE COMMITTEE The Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee was first formed in 1986 to fight 500 kV high voltage transmission lines that Ontario Hydro proposed to construct through the community and was focused on the health effects from the electromagnetic fields emitted by the lines. Since then the committee has broadened its mandate to a much greater research, information and education role. Our participation in the National Capital Freenet is part of that continuing educational role. The Bridlewood community's struggle has been going on now for over ten years. The first public meetings on the issue were held in 1984 at which time Ontario Hydro stated that the then existing transmission corridor through Bridlewood, that was eventually chosen for the new 500 Kv lines, was unsuitable because it did not meet their technical requirements nor their community impact guidelines and therefore was not a serious alternative. However in November of 1985 a Joint Board of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Board and Ontario Municipal Board selected that route. In September of 1986 concerns were raised in the community by an article in the Ottawa Citizen, by April Lindgren, which raised the issue of the health effects of the electromagnetic radiation from high voltage transmission lines. This led to the formation of the Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee which began extensive research of the issue. This was followed by formal appeals to the Ontario Cabinet, an extensive lobbying and public education campaign and legal action to have new hearings ordered for the lines. However in October of 1989 the BRHLC withdrew its legal action due to lack of funds. The BRHLC simply could not compete with Ontario Hydro's unlimited legal and financial resources. We are, however, continuing the struggle. Our resources are now focused on providing public education on the health risks of electromagnetic radiation. This EMF Information Service provides information files on EMFs and EMF organizations as well as access to the EMFLDS-L Mailing List, the EMF-BIO Usenet Newsgroup and the EMF-Link World Wide Web Server. We also have an extensive Bibliography on Electromagnetic Radiation and Health which is continuously updated. It currently includes over 1,000 references. -- ***** Richard W. Woodley (ab190@freenet.carleton.ca) ***** Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee EMF Information Service On the National Capital Freenet "go BRHLC" / On the World Wide Web URL: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/freeport/social.services/eco/orgs/bridlewd/menu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Oct 12 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: patton@acs.bu.edu (Wayne F. Patton) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: EMF-Cancer link Date: 13 Oct 1995 14:37:59 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 27 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Message-ID: <199510111300.JAA98991@acs-mail.bu.edu> The September 29th issue of Science reports: "Another blow weakens EMF-cancer link". It reports on two articles to be published in the Journal of Radiation Research that refute studies by Drs. Goodman and Henderson concerning 200-300 % increases in Myc mRNA expression arising from exposure of "immature human blood cells" (promyelocytes?) to low-level EMF. Drs. Saffer and Thurston, funded by the Department of Energy in the U.S., and Dr Hesketh, funded by a power distribution company in the U.K. both failed to replicate the effect on Myc despite extensive collaboration with Drs. Goodman and Henderson. According to the article, the Goodman/Henderson group now report a 50-60% increase in Myc mRNA due to EMF and suggest that changes the other investigators made in the original protocol may have eliminated the effect. I would be interested in comments about the news story. Is funding from the DOE and a power company of EMF hazards similiar to funding by the tobacco industry of smoking hazards, or have some form of safeguards been implimented to guarantee impartiality. Also, I'd appreciate the exact citations of the new studies, so I can read the work first hand. Cordially, Wayne F. Patton, Ph.D. Biology Department Boston University From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Oct 15 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: tvaughan@athena.mit.edu (Timothy E Vaughan) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EMF-Cancer link Date: 16 Oct 1995 12:26:39 -0700 Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 31 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Distribution: world Message-ID: <45tp46$9bq@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> In article <199510111300.JAA98991@acs-mail.bu.edu>, patton@acs.bu.edu (Wayne F. Patton) writes: |> I would be interested in comments about the news story. Is funding |> from the DOE and a power company of EMF hazards similiar to funding by the |> tobacco industry of smoking hazards, or have some form of safeguards been |> implimented to guarantee impartiality. Also, I'd appreciate the exact |> citations of the new studies, so I can read the work first hand. I cannot comment on the news story. However, I would say that the power companies funding this research is distinctly UNLIKE the tobacco companies funding smoking research. We had a workshop at MIT last year, with researchers, industry people, public policy officials, etc. invited. I got the impression that the industry people are genuinely concerned about the risk. (And I am not naive.) Part of the reason is that the current climate of uncertainty leaves them in perhaps the worst position in terms of both mitigating against an unknown hazard and being open to lawsuits. If someone could definitely RULE OUT the hazard, that would be great. But also, if a clear dose-response to some aspect of the fields could be definitely ESTABLISHED, then they could mitigate against it and again be perceived as "safe". I think that EPRI and other industry- funded research hopes that by providing an answer one way or the other, constructive action can be taken to resolve the problem. Tim From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Oct 15 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: GAILEY P C Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EMF-Cancer link Date: 16 Oct 1995 12:32:11 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 119 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Message-ID: The article you read may be somewhat misleading. Research by Henderson and Goodman has been funded for years by the Department of Energy (DOE) and reported at the Annual EMF Research Review sponsored by DOE and others. The program is peer reviewed and scrutinized in several ways. Because of the urgent need for risk information and the high level of controversy surrounding this issue, extensive quality checks are built in. Each year, a QA team visits all the DOE-funded labs, often bringing experts in specific disciplines (such as gene expression studies). Exposure systems, experimental procedures, experiment designs, and other factors are reviewed in detail and specific suggestions offered to the researchers to insure the best quality research possible. In recent years, increasing attention has been given to replication efforts. There are several reasons for this focus: 1) While a wide range of EMF effects have been reported in the literature, few have been independently replicated. Review bodies attempting to draw conclusions from the literature often cite this as a deficiency which makes even preliminary risk assessment impossible. 2) A well-defined and reasonably robust laboratory effect is needed to systematically investigate the underlying physical interaction mechanism. Here, I make a distinction between physical and biological mechanisms. The idea that EMF exposure may affect melatonin rhythms possibly influencing tumor growth, etc. is an example of a biological mechanism. Prior to any biological signal transduction, there must be a primary physical interaction between the fields and some biological system which the body can distinguish. The obvious parallel in the area of ionizing radiation would be the formation of free radicals through ionization. Until an EMF mechanism is uncovered, there is no logical basis for choosing laboratory exposure conditions or environmental conditions for epidemiology studies. 3) Arguments about the plausibility of EMF effects have raged for years. While bioeffects of a new chemical compound are seldom questioned on theoretical grounds, there is wide controversy about how weak fields can cause effects against the background of noise and endogenous bioelectric signals in the body. The scientific community is polarized over this issue, with each side feeling so secure in their position that they see no reason to even seriously acknowledge the arguments of the other side. Until a theoretical basis can be demonstrated, the problem boils down to very simple terms - empirical evidence vs. theory. The intensity of the controversy and the social impact of the results increase the stakes beyond that experienced in other areas of study. This situation places a much greater burden of proof on the empirical findings. While many researchers find replication studies unpalatable and perhaps even insulting, they are, in my opinion, necessary. 4) Independent researchers are not particularly interested in replication. Researchers are generally more interested in breaking new ground then in repeating the work of others. For this reason, DOE, NIEHS, and other federal agencies have decided that EMF replication is best directed as a government effort. Both Saffer and the Henderson/Goodman team were funded by DOE at the time of the replication reported in Science which represented one of many replication efforts. Currently, we have a multi-laboratory replication program underway at a number of government labs around the country (progress will be reported at the Palm Springs meeting next month). A great deal has been learned about the difficulty of replication and the attention to detail required for a successful effort. Our goal is to replicate several key findings in the literature, or alternatively, to explain any differences in results between laboratories. We are in continuous contact with the original research teams and exchange personnel between labs as necessary to study procedures, etc. A steering committee with members from government and national laboratories is overseeing the effort. This is just a capsule view, and I encourage anyone interested to attend the Annual EMF Review to be held in Palm Springs, CA during Nov. 12-16. The ongoing replication activities will be presented and open for discussion. There is no registration fee for the meeting (call 301-663-1915 for hotel and meeting details). Please note that the views expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of DOE or any other government agency. The DOE program is managed by Dr. Imre Gyuk at the department headquarters in Washington. The program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory assists DOE with several ongoing program activities. Paul Gailey Program Manager EMF Bioeffects Research Oak Ridge National Laboratory On 13 Oct 1995, Wayne F. Patton wrote: > The September 29th issue of Science reports: "Another blow weakens > EMF-cancer link". It reports on two articles to be published in the > Journal of Radiation Research that refute studies by Drs. Goodman and > Henderson concerning 200-300 % increases in Myc mRNA expression arising > from exposure of "immature human blood cells" (promyelocytes?) to low-level > EMF. Drs. Saffer and Thurston, funded by the Department of Energy in the > U.S., and Dr Hesketh, funded by a power distribution company in the U.K. > both failed to replicate the effect on Myc despite extensive collaboration > with Drs. Goodman and Henderson. According to the article, the > Goodman/Henderson group now report a 50-60% increase in Myc mRNA due to EMF > and suggest that changes the other investigators made in the original > protocol may have eliminated the effect. > I would be interested in comments about the news story. Is funding > from the DOE and a power company of EMF hazards similiar to funding by the > tobacco industry of smoking hazards, or have some form of safeguards been > implimented to guarantee impartiality. Also, I'd appreciate the exact > citations of the new studies, so I can read the work first hand. > > Cordially, > > Wayne F. Patton, Ph.D. > Biology Department > Boston University > > > > > > From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Oct 16 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: Ron Blue Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EMF-Cancer link Date: 17 Oct 1995 08:29:21 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 6 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The Japanese use 75 hertz and we use 60 hertz. If the problem is the transport mechanism of the microtubuline creating an emf effect there\ should be different observations. Do you have any data to suggest this is true. Ron Blue From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Oct 16 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: NCRP Press Release Date: 17 Oct 1995 08:36:25 -0700 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 63 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Distribution: world Message-ID: <9510161438.AA44759@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The following is the complete text of the recent NCRP press release. The onlu changes are in formatting, and in correction of the e-mail accress -----start press release----- NCRP NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 11, 1995 NCRP Has No ELF EMF Recommendations Contrary to many erroneous sources of information, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) has not made recommendations on Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (ELF EMF). Draft material formulated by NCRP Scientific Committee 89-3 on ELF EMF has been improperly disseminated and does not reflect NCRP recommendation. When an NCRP scientific committee completes what it considers to be its final draft, the draft enters an extensive review process. This process generally follows the following scenario: (1) general peer review by several selected expert reviewers, (2) revision of the report based on the comments received, (3) review of the revised draft by the 75 NCRP members and approximately 50 organizations involved in the Council's program, (4) further revision of the report to address the comments proffered -- keeping in mind that the 75 Council members must be virtually unanimous in approval before a report can be issued. The draft report in question will soon be ready to enter step (1) above. Therefore, it has absolutely no standing at this time. Thus, it should not be copied, quoted, cited, or referenced outside of the NCRP. Considering the extensive nature of the review process, it is impossible to predict when the NCRP may have a report on the subject of ELF EMF and it is not possible to know the extent of recommendations that might be made. One of the primary objectives set forth in the Congressional Charter of the NCRP is to collect, analyze, and disseminate information and recommendations about radiation protection and measurements. The unauthorized distribution of the current draft material is certainly not the sanctioned means of "disseminating" information. This situation makes evident the value of following NCRP's procedures, which for more than 60 years have served the public interest, and have proved effective in producing a consensus of the leading scientific thinking on matters of radiation protection and measurement. It is hoped that interested parties will ignore the improperly disseminated draft report material and allow the NCRP process to proceed. The National Council on 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 800 Radiation Protection Bethesda, Maryland 20814-3095 and Measurements Telephone: (301) 657-2652 FAX: (301) 907-8768 E-mail: 73221.2461@CompuServe.com -----start press release----- ------------------------------------ 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://ftp.mcw.edu/emf-and-cancer ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/powerlines-cancer-FAQ From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Oct 17 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: bhickey@auc.trw.com (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EMF-Cancer link Date: 18 Oct 1995 09:28:10 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 11 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Distribution: world Message-ID: <9510180232.AA06304@dora.auc.trw.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Ron: > The Japanese use 75 hertz and we use 60 hertz. IF they use 75 Hz, then it is NOT uniform throughout Japan and it's possessions. Okinawa (Ryukyu Is) uses 50 Hz as does the island of Hokkaido. I don't know where you got the idea they use 75 Hz, but I suspect it might well be in error. Bill From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Oct 17 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: D020297@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU (Scott Ravan) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EMF-Cancer link Date: 18 Oct 1995 09:25:14 -0700 Organization: USC Lines: 12 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Distribution: world Message-ID: <1743AED48S85.D020297@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I am a second year law student at the University of South Carolina. I am looki ng to find the most current, definitive works in the field that posit or refute a link between EMFs and cancer. Any help you can supply will be greatly appre ciated. Thanks in advance. >Scott Ravan email: ScottR@oz1.admin.scarolina.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Oct 30 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Chinese res info Date: 31 Oct 1995 09:07:19 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 54 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net There has been a substantial emf-bio research program in China for a number of years. From my experience in China, I know that relatively little of the information from it gets to the USA. Thus, I thought the following information might be of interest to some members of this group since they say they will answer questions. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA ______________________ | | | CHINESE MEDICAL NEWS | |______________________| free released twice a month from November 15, 1995 through e-mail to you prepared by * BEIJING CONS BIO-TECH * --------------------- Mainly concern: Chinese latest reserach, technology & market information, Chinese biomedical & pharmaceutical regulations and rules, Answers to any requests on information in special field. Wish to connect Chinese and foreign partners, and help foreign companies know more about China. Topic of first issue includes: * Biotech Products which Applied Protection ( latest released ) * Development of Chinese Biotech Drugs * Intellectual Property in the field of Biotech Products * Quality Inspection Standard of in vitro Diagnostic Kits ( 2nd Batch ) * Introduction of the Chinese Association of Medicinal Biotechnology etc. If you want to receive CMNews on time, please send a e-mail back to wangyq@sun.ihep.ac.cn or wangyq@bepc2.ihep.ac.cn and type "CMNews" on the subject line. And if you have any information about foreign interests to Chinese market, or if you have any special request on Sion-foreign cooperation, please fell free to tell me. Thank you. Wang Yuquan Beijing Cons Bio-Tech From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Oct 31 22:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "Bruce A. Luxon" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Magnetic Monitor Shielding Date: 1 Nov 1995 15:23:40 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 27 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Distribution: world Message-ID: <9510311247.ZM3625@cosy.utmb.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net EMF-BIONETTERS, I need some pointers to any outfit that sells or can fabricate magnetic EMI shields for several of my Silicon Graphics Monitors. We have an 18 Tesla magnet and the field is splitting the electron gun in the monitors into red, green and blue spots. The effective field at the monitors themselves is probably a little less than 5 gauss so I'm sure this problem is manageable. Any info gladly received! Thanks, Bruce -- *=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-* * Bruce A. Luxon, Ph.D * * Assistant Professor * * Sealy Center for Structural Biology 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/ * *=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*