From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Nov 01 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: BARRY GILBERT Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: NAS report on powerline fields & health (fwd) Date: 2 Nov 1996 14:26:57 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 31 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <55ghrh$2vv@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net So what does everyone (anyone?) think about dthe NAS resport? On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, John Moulder reported: > The National Academy of Science Report on human health effects from > residential exposure to powerline fields has been released. > > >From the chair of the committee that wrote the report: > "The findings to date do not support claims that electromagnetic fields are > harmful to a person's heath... Research has not shown in any convincing way > that electromagnetic fields common in homes can cause health problems, and > extensive laboratory tests have not shown that EMFs can damage the cell in way > that is harmful to health" > > I, for one, am in agreement with the conclusion. This is based on 1) my own research which has all failed to show an effect 2) My talking with other scientist, mostly physicists, to be sure, but also other researchers in England while I was on sabbatical at Cambridge. 3) My gut-level instincts and prejudices (acknowledged but there none-the-less) Barry Gilbert Physics Rhode Island College From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Nov 01 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: NAS p[ress release (full text) Date: 2 Nov 1996 14:24:18 -0800 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 255 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <55ghmi$2k5@net.bio.net> Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Complete text of NAS press release follows (quoted with permission of the NAS) Editorial note: The press release adequately conveys the tone of the Executive Summary of the report. Obviously I have not read the entire report yet ------------------------ National Research Council Oct. 31, 1996 Contacts: Dan Quinn, Media Relations Associate Shannon Flannery, Media Relations Assistant (202) 334-2138; Internet No Adverse Health Effects Seen From Residential Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields WASHINGTON -- No clear, convincing evidence exists to show that residential exposures to electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are a threat to human health, a committee of the National Research Council has concluded in a new report. After examining more than 500 studies spanning 17 years of research, the committee said there is no conclusive evidence that electromagnetic fields play a role in the development of cancer, reproductive and developmental abnormalities, or learning and behavioral problems. "The findings to date do not support claims that electromagnetic fields are harmful to a person's health," said committee chair Charles F. Stevens, investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and professor, Salk Institute, La Jolla, Calif. "Research has not shown in any convincing way that electromagnetic fields common in homes can cause health problems, and extensive laboratory tests have not shown that EMFs can damage the cell in a way that is harmful to human health." Concern about the health effects from EMFs arose in 1979 when researchers showed that children living close to high concentrations of certain types of electrical wires were 1.5 times more likely to develop leukemia. Because it is difficult, time- consuming, and expensive to measure electric fields in a home over a long period of time, researchers relied on a substitute to estimate the levels of electromagnetic fields to which residents may have been exposed. Using factors such as the size of wires going past the home and distance between the home and power lines, researchers estimated the fields inside. The Research Council committee's report says that studies in the aggregate show a weak but statistically significant correlation between the incidence of childhood leukemia, which is rare, and wire configurations. It never has been demonstrated that this apparent association was caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields, however. Outside wiring correlates poorly with measurements of actual fields inside the home, in that it accounts for only a fraction of the fields inside. Scientists have tried unsuccessfully to link leukemia to EMFs by measuring fields inside of homes of children who had the disease. The results "have been inconsistent and contradictory and do not constitute reliable evidence of an association," the report says. The weak link shown between proximity to power lines and childhood leukemia may be the result of factors other than magnetic fields that are common to houses with the types of external wiring identified with the disease. These possible factors include a home's proximity to high traffic density, local air quality, and construction features of older homes that fall into this category, the committee said. ** Cells, Tissues Unaffected ** To try to explain and expand on the knowledge gained from early epidemiologic studies, researchers have studied the potential effects of EMFs on individual human cells or tissues, and on animals. To date, they have found no evidence to show that EMFs can alter the functions of cells at levels of exposure common in residential settings. Only at levels between 1,000 and 100,000 times stronger than residential fields have cells shown any reaction at all to EMF exposure, and even these changes -- mainly in the chemical signals that cells send to each other -- are not a clear indication of the potential for adverse health effects. In fact, exposure may actually help the body in some subtle ways, for example by speeding up the healing process after a bone is broken. Most important, there has been no case in which even tremendously high exposure to EMFs has been shown to affect the DNA of the cell, damage to which is believed to be essential for the initiation of cancer. Similarly, no animal experiments have shown that EMFs, even at high doses, can act as a direct carcinogen or can affect reproduction, development, or behavior in animals. ** Future Research ** Electromagnetic fields are generated by wires or electrically powered devices, and dissipate quickly, like light. When assessing potential impact of EMFs on health, scientists focus mainly on magnetic fields produced by power lines and electric appliances, which can pass through the body and generate small electric currents. Unlike magnetic fields, electric fields themselves lose most of their strength when they pass through metal, wood, or even skin. In fact, the strongest of either fields that the body encounters are the electric currents produced naturally when the heart beats, or as nerves and muscles function, the report says. The committee focused on the health studies of low-frequency electric and magnetic fields common in homes. Sources of exposure include transmission and distribution lines and electric appliances, including shavers, hair dryers, video display terminals, and electric blankets. The committee did not study in detail occupational exposures, such as those experienced by electrical workers close to higher-frequency power lines. New research is needed to answer some of the questions that linger after nearly two decades of intensive research, the committee said. Most compelling is the need to pinpoint the unexplained factor or factors causing a small increase in childhood leukemia in houses close to power lines. The precise factors that are related to an increased number of childhood leukemia cases need to be identified. The committee also called for more research into the relationship between high exposures to EMFs and breast cancer in animals already exposed to other carcinogens, and on reasons why electromagnetic fields seem to affect the levels of the hormone melatonin in animals, an effect not reproduced in humans. This congressionally requested study by the National Research Council was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, non-profit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. Pre-publication copies of Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields are available from the National Academy Press at: National Academy of Science Office of news and Public Information 2101 Constitution Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Tel. (202) 334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242. The cost of the report is $45.00 (prepaid) plus shipping charges of $4.00 for the first copy, and $.50 for each additional copy. This news release is available on the World Wide Web at http://www2.nas.edu/ whatsnew/ NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Commission on Life Sciences Board on Radiation Effects Research Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems Charles F. Stevens, M.D., Ph.D. (1) (chair) Professor and Investigator Howard Hughes Medical Institute Salk Institute La Jolla, Calif. David A. Savitz, Ph.D. (vice chair) Professor, Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Larry E. Anderson, Ph.D. Staff Scientist Pacific Northwest Laboratories Richland, Wash. Daniel A. Driscoll, Ph.D. Program Research Specialist Office of Energy Efficiency and Environment New York Department of Public Service Albany Fred H. Gage, Ph.D. Professor, Laboratory of Genetics Salk Institute La Jolla, Calif. Richard L. Garwin, Ph.D. (1,2,3) IBM Fellow Emeritus, IBM Research Division Thomas J. Watson Research Center Yorktown Heights, N.Y. Lynn W. Jelinski, Ph.D. Director, Biotechnology, and Professor of Engineering Center for Advanced Technology - Biotechnology Cornell University Ithaca, N.Y. Bruce J. Kelman, Ph.D., D.A.B.T. National Director of Health and Environmental Sciences Golder Associates Inc. Redmond, Wash. Richard A. Luben, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biomedical Sciences and Biochemistry Division of Biomedical Sciences University of California Riverside Russel J. Reiter, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Cellular and Structural Biology University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio Paul Slovic, Ph.D. President Decision Research Eugene, Ore. Jan A.J. Stolwijk, Ph.D. Professor of Epidemiology and Acting Chair Department of Epidemiology and Public Health Yale University School of Medicine New Haven, Conn. Maria A. Stuchly, Ph.D. Professor, and NSERC/BC Hydro/TransAlta Industrial Research Chair Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Victoria British Columbia, Canada Daniel Wartenberg, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Environmental and Community Medicine Robert Wood Johnson Medical School University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Piscataway John S. Waugh, Ph.D. (1) Institute Professor Department of Chemistry Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge Jerry R. Williams, Sc.D. Professor of Oncology Johns Hopkins Oncology Center Baltimore RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF Larry H. Toburen, Ph.D. Study Director John D. Zimbrick, Ph.D. Board Director Lee R. Paulson Senior Staff Officer (1) Member, National Academy of Sciences (2) Member, National Academy of Engineering (3) Member, Institute of Medicine ------------- John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Nov 01 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: Russell Senior Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Free EMF Data via the Internet! Date: 2 Nov 1996 14:25:43 -0800 Organization: EMF Measurements Database Lines: 62 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <55ghp7$2nm@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The U.S. Department of Energy is sponsoring a tutorial on the use of the EMF Measurements Database, from the points of view of both contributor and user. The tutorial will be held during the Annual EMF Research Review in San Antonio, TX, from 7 to 9 pm on Wednesday November 20, 1996 in the St. Anthony Hotel's Jefferson Manor. The EMF Measurements Database is being developed and implemented under the sponsorship of the DOE RAPID Program. The tutorial is free and open to all interested participants. The purpose of this tutorial is to describe the content and structure of the database and to demonstrate procedures for submitting data to and for retrieving information from the database. Topics to be discussed are: o About the database Purpose Goals Scope o Structure of the database Data products Metadata Reports o Contribution procedures Preparation/transmission of data products Preparation of metadata Preparation of reports Opportunities for credit/acknowledgement Opportunities for continuing involvement o Database use Data sets available now and in the future How to access the database, online and offline Responsibilities of users Opportunities for feedback and contribution by users If you've got some EMF data starting to gather dust in a back closet and don't want to watch it pass into oblivion, or if you just want to find out what the EMF Measurements Database is all about, you will want to attend this tutorial. A limited supply of the database's first data set will be available on diskette at the tutorial for attendees to take home with them. For more information about the EMF Measurements Database online, see the web site at: http://www.tdb.com/~tdb/rapid5.html If you need information on attending the Annual EMF Review, please contact W/L Associates at (301) 663-1915. -- Russell S. Senior russell@tdb.com EMF Measurements Database seniorr@teleport.com T. Dan Bracken, Inc. 5415 S.E. Milwaukie Avenue, Suite 4 (503) 233-2181 Portland, Oregon 97202 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Nov 01 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: mason@rfr.brooks.af.mil Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Dosimetry data on WWW Date: 2 Nov 1996 14:28:14 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 16 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <55ghtu$3c5@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Armstrong Laboratory, Radiofrequency Radiation Division at Brooks Air Force Base, TX, in collaboration with Sami Gabriel of Microwave Consultants Limited, London, England has converted the recent 268 page publication (AL/OE-TR-1996-0037) titled "Compilation of the Dielectric Properties of Body Tissues at RF and Microwave Frequencies" by Dr. Camelia Gabriel, Kings College, London into html pages for presentation on the World Wide Web (WWW). This document may be reached at http://www.brooks.af.mil/AL/OE/OER/Title/Title.html. Some individuals have reported that this URL address is case sensitive. Patrick Mason AL/OERB-SRL mason@rfr.brooks.af.mil From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Nov 03 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: afrey@UU.NET (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: New emf research facility Date: 4 Nov 1996 12:00:53 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 39 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <55li1l$3g6@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The following was recently distributed and may be of interest. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA >Navy and Marine Corps Medical News (MEDNEWS)#96-37 >>12 September 1996 >> Stories for this week include: >> >>Headline: Ground Broken on Directed Energy Bioeffects Lab >> Brooks Air Force Base (AFB), TX--Construction will begin this month >>on the Directed Energy Bioeffects Laboratory, a joint service facility that >>will bring Navy, Air Force and Army scientists together to study the effect >>of microwaves, lasers, radio frequency and other non-ionizing radiation >>exposures on Sailors, soldiers and airmen. >> Prior to 1993, each of the three services had their own research >>program. In that year, the services re-located their programs to Brooks >>AFB under the auspices of Project Reliance, a DOD initiative to collocate >>similar research and development activities. >> "By collocating all three services' research programs here, DOD >>has created a center of excellence second to none for studying the effects >>of electromagnetic radiation," said Navy LT R.K. LeBlanc, MSC, who is the >>officer in charge of the Navy Medical Research Detachment at Brooks AFB. >> The lab will bring together about 200 scientists, engineers and >>technicians, making this the largest research effort on this subject in >>the world. It is expected to be completed in the fall of 1997. >> -usn- From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Nov 03 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "Wenzl, Thurman" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: NAS ordering info Date: 4 Nov 1996 12:03:16 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 20 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <55li64$3jl@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net In case other folks are trying to follow up on Lou's suggestion - to read the whole report, here are the ordering details: 800 624-6242 or 202 334-3313 at Natl Academy Press they take credit card orders they're out of stock right now (Mon aft) but expect more copies to be available later this week. I too am very interested to read the whole thing, for example: Do they say that such exposures, in general, are without harmful consequences, or just that residential ones are?? What, if anything, do they say about future (observational) research, if any - for ex, on other populations which may be more highly exposed than near distribution or transmission lines? Thurman Wenzl, NIOSH ..usual disclaimers; these of course, are my own questions and doubts. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Nov 03 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: mwn@pobox.com (Louis Slesin / Microwave News) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: NAS-NRC EMF Report Date: 4 Nov 1996 07:20:25 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 80 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <55l1jp$23g@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I would advise any serious student of the EMF-cancer story to look beyond the press release issued by the NAS and read the report --especially the chapter on epidemiology. It is unfortunate the NAS-NRC committee set such a strict standard for evaluating the data: They looked for **CONCLUSIVE** evidence of a link to EMFs. When this requirement was not met, they were able to dismiss the EMF link to childhood cancer and tell the world that there was nothing to worry about. This is a strange conclusion given that the panel said that the original association between childhood leukemia and wire codes, first reported by Dr. Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper in 1979, was "statistically significant" and "robust in the sense that eliminating any single study from the group does not alter the conclusion that the association exists." What the NAS-NRC committee was unwilling to conclude is that EMFs were responsible for the wire code link. What then are wire codes surrogates for? At this point, the committee threw up its hands and said they do not know. According to the report: "At present, confounding remains a possible explanation for the wire code and cancer association. However, past efforts to identify such confounders have failed and few strong candidates can be postulated at present." (p.153) That is the committee has no idea what else --if not EMFs-- could be responsible. Is it therefore fair for the committee to sound the all clear? The committee also said the occupational EMF-cancer studies could be useful in explaining the EMF-wire code "paradox": "The sources of bias are largely distinct for the studies of residential exposure and childhood cancer versus occupational exposure and adult cancer, so that if both research avenues have been misleading, they have been so in different ways. If occupational studies are pursued to clarify the issue and if they provide more conclusive evidence that magnetic fields can cause brain cancer and leukemia in adults, they will add more substantial indirect support to the proposition that magnetic fields can cause cancer in children." (p.161) and, more specifically: "Overall, the most recent studies have increased rather than diminished the likelihood of an association between occupational exposure to electric and magnetic fields and cancer, but they have failed to establish an association with a high degree of certainty." (p,169) Here again the data cannot meet the strict burden of proof required by the NAS-NRC panel. But the occupational data, according the committee **DOES** support the childhood data. I would agree with the NAS-NRC panel that there is no conclusive proof. But I would just as strongly disagree that we can tell families with small children that there is nothing to worry about as the academy did last Thursday and succeeded in putting this conclusion on the front pages of virtually every newspaper in America. At the press conference, I asked Dr. Charles Stevens and Dr. David Savitz, the chair and the vice-chair of the committee, respectively, what probability (short of 100%) they would venture that a link between childhood leukemia and EMFs? Neither was willing to answer the question. Louis Slesin Editor -------------------Louis Slesin, PhD ------------------- Microwave News A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation Phone 212-517-2800; Fax 212-734-0316 E-mail: mwn@pobox.com, Internet: www.microwavenews.com Mail: PO Box 1799 Grand Central Station New York, NY 10163, U.S.A. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Nov 04 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: Richard Luben Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Press Release on NRC-NAS EMF report Date: 5 Nov 1996 13:58:54 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 112 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <55odau$oo5@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net All: For those who may not have seen this, here is a separate press release issued by three presidents of BEMS (who were also members of the NRC committee). In our opinion, although we all agree with what was actually concluded by the committee and written in the report, NAS gave excess attention to the parts of the report in which no conclusion was reached, and too little attention to the very important positive scientific findings and the strong call for more research in a number of specific areas. Richard Luben BEMS President, 1996-97 ------------------------- NAS REPORT CONFIRMS NEED FOR EMF RESEARCH, SAY SCIENTISTS Frederick, MD, October 31, 1996 -- The president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, Dr. Richard Luben, today welcomed the release of the official report of a National Research Council - National Academy of Sciences Committee, entitled "Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields" (released by NRC-NAS at 11:00 am EST this date). Dr. Richard Luben, a Biomedical Sciences professor at the University of California, Riverside and president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, served on the NRC-NAS committee along with two past presidents of the Society, Dr. Maria Stuchly of the University of Victoria (Canada), and Dr. Larry Anderson of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington. They stated that "The most important aspect of this report is that it establishes that even under the strictest possible standards of proof, there is a reliable, though low, statistical association between power lines and at least one form of cancer. This fact in itself shows that we need to do more to find out why this relationship exists." The NRC-NAS report concludes that although a statistical association can be shown between measurements of the current-carrying ability of power lines near residences and the relatively rare blood cancer, childhood leukemia, proof that this association is due to the electric or magnetic fields from the power lines is still lacking. Epidemiologic studies cited in the report show that households in the "high-wire-code" categories, which have higher-capacity wiring or are closer to power stations or high-energy transmission lines, show approximately a 1.5-fold increase in childhood leukemia over households with low capacity wiring or those farther away from power sources. In previous public statements, the Bioelectromagnetics Society has taken the position that more research is needed on the relationship between EMF exposure and cancer-like changes in cells, and on the possible mechanisms by which EMFs, perhaps in concert with other factors, may contribute to leukemia and other cancers in humans. The report states on page 1 that "Based on a comprehensive evaluation of published studies relating to the effects of power-frequency electric and magnetic fields on cells, tissues, and organisms (including humans), the conclusion of the committee is that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human-health hazard." However, the report also concludes that "the energy policy act of 1992 is not anticipated to answer all the questions regarding the possible health effects..." and that "continued research is important..." It goes on to make several further points. To summarize some of these points, 1) a link appears to exist between distance to power lines and risk of at least childhood leukemia; 2) there are biological effects of magnetic fields down to at least 1 gauss [about twice the magnetic field of the Earth]; and 3) mammary [breast] tumor experiments need to be pursued. The concluding paragraph of the report indicates "continued research is important, however, because the possibility that some characteristic of the electric and magnetic field is biologically active at environmental strengths cannot be totally discounted. If ongoing or future research should uncover evidence of potential mechanisms that could lead to such a result, research should be continued to follow those leads and address that possibility." Drs. Luben, Anderson and Stuchly agree with the report's key conclusions that the data are not convincing that there is a proven danger to the public from electromagnetic fields -- but also that EMF exposure does result in a number of biological effects. They caution against taking the attitude that a lack of confirmed proof at this point in the study of EMF effects means that the question can be ignored. They point out that even in the case of cigarette smoking, it took nearly 50 years after the demonstration of a statistical association with lung cancer for scientists to define a specific cellular mechanism by which compounds in smoke could definitely cause the cellular changes associated with lung cancer. They emphasize that, in the view of scientists, research is the only way to find the answers to unexplained observations such as the apparent link between EMF exposure and some forms of cancer. "There are many factors contributing to all cancers," said Luben, "this report documents that EMF exposure produces a number of biological effects, both on cells in the laboratory and on animals, that could possibly play a role in cancer development." The report points out that none of these effects have been reliably demonstrated at the field strengths normally encountered as background levels in households, even those which may be at slightly higher risk for leukemia due to their "wire code" ratings. However, the three scientists emphasized that most of the studies published to date have been preliminary studies in which high "doses" of the suspected agent (EMF in these cases) are applied to demonstrate effects. More extensive studies are currently being funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and companies in the energy and communications industries; results of these studies are scheduled to be evaluated and reported to Congress by NIEHS in 1998. "In the final analysis," said Luben, "the approach taken by this Committee is the only way to answer the questions raised here or in any scientific disagreement. We looked at the available data with an objective, impartial attitude, asking what the data really showed and not what we wished it to show. We found a few answers, but there are still important questions that need to be addressed." Richard A. Luben, President 1996-97 Division of Biomedical Sciences University of California, Riverside Riverside, CA 92521-0121 (909) 787-5991 Fax (909) 787-3799 richard.luben@ucr.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Nov 04 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: Richard Luben Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: BEMS Web Page Date: 5 Nov 1996 14:01:32 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 12 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <55odfs$p84@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net For those who may not be aware of it, the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) has a web page. Of particular recent interest, the web page includes the text of the executive summary of the recent National Academy of Sciences report on Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields, as well as press releases by the NAS and BEMS on the subject. The address is: http://biomed.ucr.edu/bems.htm Richard Luben BEMS President, 1996-97 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Nov 06 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: holson@california.com (Howard Olson) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Pineal effects of EMF Date: 7 Nov 1996 10:49:19 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 8 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <55tavf$khq@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Earth strength levels of magnetic fields directly affect pineal secretion of melatonin. It is likely that this is significant in terms of cancer since melatonin has anti-carcinogenic effects. See Robert O. Becker, MD (1990) CROSS CURRENTS From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Nov 06 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "Bowman, Joseph D." Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE(2): medical magnets?? Date: 7 Nov 1996 10:51:06 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 100 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <55tb2q$kt8@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I received a few last comments to my earlier thread on medical therapies with permanent magnets. Together with the references to the scientific literature, these two threads pretty well sum up what little is known about the subject. Thanks to all who responded. Joe Bowman NIOSH jdb0@niobbs1.em.cdc.gov ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________ Date: Wednesday, November 06, 1996 6:25PM Dr. Bowman, I just wanted to add to your list on magnet effects a review that R.O. Becker published way back in 1963 which reviewed the story up until that time (on biological effects of magnetic fields). The reference is: Medical Electronics and Biological Engineering 1: 293 ff (1963). I have a copy somewhere I am sure, but right now do not know where. Perhaps if interested you would be able to recognize this reference. (Title ?). At any rate, I hope this isn't too far afield from your interesting inquiry. Joe Spadaro Joseph A. Spadaro, Ph.D. Associate Professor - Orthopedic Research S.U.N.Y. Health Science Center - Syracuse NY spadaroj@vax.cs.hscsyr.edu ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________ From: sastre To: jdb0 Subject: DC magnets Date: Monday, October 28, 1996 12:44AM Joe: I am not sure about your conclusions. If a static field (or gradient) can affect AP conduction or generation in sensory ganglia, then in principle that is precisely what you would need for *peripheral* nerve block. My read of the literature and of the replies you got is that no one has done the right experiments yet, although it does not seem impossible that such an effect could be documented in vivo. Tom Tenforde would seem to be the one with most relevant information, even if anecdotal... All the best. Tony ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________ From: CHOU, CK To: jdb0 Subject: magnetic field and pain Date: Thursday, October 24, 1996 12:51PM Joe: Prof. Zhang from Shenzhen University uses rotating 6000 gauss magnetic field for pain relief and many other diseases including for relieving drug withdraw symptoms. The mechanism is that beta endorphin is increased after treatment. C.K. Chou REFERENCE (added by JDB): Zhang X-Y, Luo Z-G, Ma Y: Impact of magnetic field on plasma beta-endorphin. Abstract Book, BEMS Annual Meeting (1996), p. 167. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________ In reply to my October 11 questions on medical uses of permanent magnets, I received many interesting replies, which I've edited to meet the standards of this listserver and strung together below. From reading them, I would say that the scientific evidence does support some neurologic effects from arrays of permanent magnets, but not relief from pain or inflammation. Do people agree with those conclusions? DISCLAIMER: These are my private opinions, not those of NIOSH nor the U.S. government. Joe Bowman U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health jdb0@niobbs1.em.cdc.gov From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Nov 08 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: Ben Greenebaum Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Bioelectromagnetics Vol. 17, No. 5, 1996 Table of Contents Date: 8 Nov 1996 16:51:18 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 84 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <560ki6$ec9@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net BIOELECTROMAGNETICS VOLUME 17, No. 5, 1996 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 subscription information, contact the Society at 7519 Ridge Road, Frederick, MD 21702-3519. 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 Unversity of Wisconsin-Parkside, Box 2000, Kenosha, WI 53141-2000 414-595-2065; Fax 414-595-2056 Internet: bems@cs.uwp.edu ============================================================================== Bioelectromagnetics Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, the Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine, and the European Bioelectromagnetics Association Volume 17, Number 5, 1996 (c) Wiley-Liss, Inc. Review 339 EMF and current cancer concepts Robert Kavet Articles 358 Exposure to strong static magnetic field slows the growth of human cancer cells in vitro Raymond R. Raylman, Anaira C. Clavo and Richard L. Wahl 364 Acute exposure to 50 Hz magnetic field does not affect hematologic or immunologic functions in healthy young men: A circadian study Brahim Salmaoui, Andre Bogdan, Andre Auzeby, Jacques Lambrozo and Yvan Touitou 373 Differential modulation of natural and adaptive immunity in Fischer rats exposed for 6 weeks to 60 Hz linear sinusoidal continuous-wave magnetic fields Lyna Tremblay, Michel Houde, Ginette Mercier, Jacky Gagnon and Rosemonde Mandeville 384 Difference in frequency spectrum of extremely low frequency effects on the genome conformal state of AB1157 and EMG2 E. Coli cells Y. D.Alipov and I. Y. Belyaev 388 Extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields disrupt rhythmic slow activity in rat hippocampal slices S. M. Bawin, W. M. Satmary, R. A. Jones, W. R. Adey and G. Zimmerman 396 Light and magnetic fields in a neonatal intensive care unit John Bullough, Mark S. Rea and Richard G. Stevens 406 Validity of surrogates for determination of 30-1000 Hz magnetic field exposure for video display terminal users in office settings Sassan Abdollahzadeh, S. Katharine Hammond, and Marc B. Schenker 411 Development of chicken embryos exposed to an intermittent horizontal sinusoidal 50 Hz magnetic field A. Veicsteinas, M. Belleri, A. Cinquetti, S. Parolini, G. Barbat o and M. P. Molinari Tosatti Brief Communication 425 Dielectric properties of human fetal organ tissues at radio frequencies Yongjun Lu, Hongming Cui, Jue Yu and Satoru Mashimo (c) 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Nov 08 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: NAS report of powelines & Health Date: 8 Nov 1996 16:48:57 -0800 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 271 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <560kdp$e3g@net.bio.net> Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net As another poster said, you have to go beyond the press release if you ar= e=20 seriously interested in the science. The NAS report is not on the web, a= nd it=20 probably never will be. However, BEMS has the executive summary on the w= eb=20 at: http://biomed.ucr.edu/NASrept.htm Having now read the entire report (except for some parts of the exposure=20 assessment and epidemiology chapters, which I skimmed), I am quite favora= bly=20 impressed with the job the Committee did. The Executive Summary largely reflects the content of the report. It sho= uld=20 be understandable to a well-educated lay person. I'm afraid the report i= tself=20 will be unreadable to the non-scientist General comments: 1) By mandate, the report focuses on residential exposures. While much = of=20 the report is relevant to occupational exposures and human health, the re= port=20 does not directly address that issue. 2) The Committee largely (and correctly in my view) restricted its revie= w to=20 peer-reviewed sources. There are very few references to abstracts or non= - reviewed chapters or proceedings. 3) The report is reasonably up-to-date, with good coverage of the litera= ture=20 though mid-1995. I found no serious omissions in the coverage of the pre= -1995=20 literature. The major reports that were omitted because of the mid-1995 = cut- off date are: - two residential exposure studies that report no association of powerlin= e=20 fields and childhood brain cancer (Gurney et al, 1996; Preston-Martin et = al,=20 1996); - two studies that show no effects of power-frequency fields on melatonin= in=20 humans (Selmaoui et al, 1996; Graham et al, 1996); - an unreplicated claim of an Alzheimer=B9s disease connection (Sobel et = al,=20 1995); - Henshaw=B9s hypothesis of a powerline-radon connection (Henshaw et al, = 1995;=20 Strather et al, 1996); - a third failure to replicate the gene expression studies (Desjobert et = al,=20 1995); - a study showing the absence of mutagenesis in mice exposed to power- frequency fields (Kowalczuk et al, 1995); - the latest melatonin work in animals, much of which suggests that power= - frequency magnetic fields have little effect on melatonin levels (Bakos e= t al,=20 1995; Lee et al, 1995; Selmaoui & Touitou, 1995; Truong et al, 1996; Yell= on et=20 al, 1996); - several new studies of cancer promotion in animals which show mixed res= ults=20 (Loscher & Mevissen, 1995; McLean et al, 1995; Mevissen et al, 1995; Mevi= ssen=20 et al, 1996). 4) I don=B9t think that any of the above studies cast any serious doubt = on the=20 conclusions reached by the Committee, and some of them provide additional= =20 support for the Committee's conclusions The exposure assessment chapter (Chapter 2) makes a couple of interesting= =20 points 1) The reports points out that wire codes are poor predictors of magneti= c=20 fields in homes. Left unsaid is that if they are poor predictors of=20 contemporary fields, it is hard to see how they could be good predictors = of=20 what fields were in the past (when the cancers in the epidemiology studie= s=20 actually arose). 2) Human exposure studies have generally assumed that some type of time=20 average of the field is the relevant =B3dose=B2 parameter, whereas other = possibly=20 relevant field parameters have been ignored. An unstated question: How d= o you=20 design a rational epidemiology study in the absence of a theoretical or=20 laboratory basis for choosing an exposure metric? The answer is that you= =20 can't. If you choose the wrong metric you probably miss the association.= If=20 you use all possible metrics, the multiple comparison problem makes it=20 impossible to assess statistical significance. 3) A large number of laboratory studies continue to be published with=20 inadequate exposure conditions (or with inadequate descriptions of exposu= re=20 systems) and a lack of blinding. The cell and molecular effects chapter (Chapter 3), reaches some possibly= =20 controversial conclusions: 1) The report concludes that no in vitro effects have been demonstrated = (with=20 independent replication) at field strengths below 1 microT (10 mG). 2) The only effect the Committee considers to be proven at or below 100=20 microT (1000 mG) are effects on ODC activity at 50-500 microT (500-5000 m= G). 3) The Committee did not consider the evidence for "power-density window= s",=20 "frequency windows" or "temperature windows" to be credible. 4) The Committee places far more emphasis on the genotoxicity studies th= an=20 any of the other types of study. This is consistent with the current thin= king=20 in the carcinogenesis research community. 5) From the large body of studies on power-frequency fields and calcium=20 concentrations, the Committee found only three which met its standards fo= r=20 review, replication and adequate exposure conditions. All of these three= used=20 magnetic flux densities many orders of magnitude above those found in the= =20 human environment. The animal and tissue chapter (Chapter 4) also reaches some potentially=20 controversial conclusions: 1) In looking at the carcinogenesis studies, the Committee puts far more= =20 emphasis on "tumor initiation" and "complete carcinogen" studies than on=20 promotion and cocarcinogenicity studies. Again, this is consistent with = the=20 current thinking in the carcinogenesis research community. 2) The Committee considers that the "promotion" models being widely used= in=20 power-frequency studies "cannot predict hazards to human populations livi= ng in=20 realistic environments". 3) The Committee finds the evidence supporting the melatonin hypothesis = to be=20 unconvincing, but that the hypothesis is worthy of further investigation. The epidemiology chapter (Chapter 5) may be the most controversial. 1) The report concludes that high current wire configurations are associ= ated=20 with a small increase in childhood leukemia, but that the data does not=20 support an association with any other types of childhood cancer or any ty= pe of=20 adult cancer. This is a dramatic narrowing of scope, as the original=20 epidemiology studies had claimed a much stronger association, and had cla= imed=20 associations with multiple types of cancer in both children and adults. 2) The Committee states that one cannot conclude that the association of= =20 wirecodes with childhood leukemia is due to the magnetic field. This see= ming=20 contradiction disappears when you actually read the chapter, as the Commi= ttee=20 is looking at far more than simple associations when reaching their=20 conclusions. 3) The Committee devotes a large amount of text to a post-hoc analysis o= f the=20 childhood leukemia studies. Lost in all this post-hoc analysis is that = a=20 major problem with the data base is that few of these studies used hypoth= esis- testing designs. No amount of post-hoc analysis of hypothesis-generating= =20 studies is a substitute for a few hypothesis-testing studies 4) The Committee places much emphasis on the claim that the association = of=20 wire codes with childhood leukemia is one that is unlikely to have arisen= by=20 chance. However, in analyzing the statistical significance of the=20 association, they may not have asked the right statistical question. For= this=20 type of post-hoc analysis, the relevant statistical question is: "What is= the=20 chance that some type of cancer in children or adults will show an associ= ation=20 with some measure of exposure?" Given the large number of different type= s of=20 cancer that have been assessed (at a minimum: total childhood cancer,=20 childhood brain cancer, childhood lymphoma, childhood leukemia, total adu= lt=20 cancer, adult leukemia and adult brain cancer) and the number of differen= t,=20 and only weakly-correlated, exposure metrics (wire codes, distance, histo= ric=20 reconstruction, actual measurements) the probability that some type of ca= ncer=20 would show an association with some exposure metric by random chance is v= ery=20 high. This is a common problem with post-hoc analysis that is not hypoth= esis=20 driven. The risk assessment chapter (Chapter 6) is rather strange; it takes a lot= of=20 words to reach the basic conclusion that you cannot do risk assessment wh= en=20 you cannot find conclusive evidence that risk exists. Most of the contro= versy=20 about risk assessment involves agents that are known to be hazardous to s= ome=20 group of humans or animals under some conditions. The controversy is the= n=20 over how to extrapolate to actual exposure conditions. With power-freque= ncy=20 fields we have no fixed point to extrapolate from. Also: - The Committee refused (and correctly so) to deal with "prudent avoidanc= e",=20 "exposure guidelines" or "numerical risk estimates". When asked about=20 "prudent avoidance" in the news conference Steven's said "We wouldn't be = able=20 to tell them specifically what to avoid." This is an important point tha= t is=20 often neglected -- if there is a cancer risk associated with living near = a=20 powerline, we do not know what aspect of the line or the fields the risk = is=20 associated with. Avoiding one aspect could easily increase "exposure" to= =20 another. - Another point made better in the news conference than in the report is = that=20 one cannot prove that something does not cause cancer, the best one can d= o is=20 repeatedly try to prove that something does cause cancer, and repeatedly = line 230fail. =20 Stevens made a very good comment along these lines, but I can't find a di= rect=20 quote. This is perhaps one of the most critical ideas in risk assessment= , but=20 one of the most difficult to explain to the general public (or even to th= e=20 media). Will this report settle the issue? - the general public: yes, but probably only till the next report of a=20 "positive finding" - the media: I'm not sure. I get the impression that the media is getti= ng=20 tired of this issue. - the scientists: I think that the general scientific community has long= ago=20 written this off as a nonissue. I suspect that the "EMF community" will = be=20 more influenced by the results of the RAPID program and the NCI leukemia = study=20 than by the Committee report. - the lawyers: Certainly this should give great pause to any lawyer thin= king=20 of bringing a case involving anything except childhood leukemia arising i= n a=20 "high wire code" residence.=20 ------------------------------------ John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) Maintainer: Powerlines & Cancer FAQs,=20 Static EM Fields and Cancer FAQs Cell Phone Antennas & Health FAQ USENET: sci.med.physics, sci.answers, news.answers. http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/ From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Nov 08 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: NAS report, URL for full text Date: 8 Nov 1996 16:49:55 -0800 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 20 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <560kfj$eam@net.bio.net> Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I take it back, it appears that the full text of the NAS report is on the Web. It can be found by going to: http://www2.nap.edu and then doing a search by title. The fill URL is: http://www2.nap.edu/htbin/docpage/dload=0&title=Possible+Health+Effects+of+ Exposure+to+Residential+Electric+and+Magnetic+Fields&path=/ext7&name= ni000121%2Erdo&colid=4%7C22%7C69&docid=00805F50FE7B%3A846907075&start=1/ Warning: 1) The document is very big 2) The quality is not great, I think its a scan rather than actual text. John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Nov 09 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: liboff@oakland.edu (A.R. Liboff) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: NAS report Date: 10 Nov 1996 10:03:45 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 95 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <5655e1$eq1@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I do not share Dr. Moulder's positive appraisal of the recently released NAS report on powerlines and health, at least not those materials dealing with bone repair therapy. In my first casual glance at the prepublication hard copy, I was surprised to learn, as stated on page 105 that "Little evidence can be found for effects of magnetic or electric fields on bone at magnetic field strengths below ...[1 Gauss] or at current densities below 1 mA/cm2. " It apparently escaped the committee's attention that the FDA, about five years ago, approved the Orthologic device for bone repair. This device operates at approximately 0.2 G. There is every reason to believe that repair would also occur at lower iintensities,probably down to 0.1 G or lower. Because of smaller power requirements and minimal treatment time, this device has captured a substantial fraction of the market sales from the other firm approved by the FDA in this area, namely Electro-Biology,Inc (which is specifically mentioned, thank you, on p. 108 of this NAS report). The report devotes fully seven pages (105-112) to the EBI technology and its "scientific" basis, replete with references from the early seventies that were used at the time to make the EBI technology more palatable. Nowhere in the report, or in the list of references, did I find mention of the journal articles that provide the basis of the newer technology, articles for example, by: Ross, (1990) Bioelectromagnetics Smith et al (1991) J Bioelectricity Diebert et al (1994) J Orthopedic Res Ryaby et al (1993) E & M in Biology and Medicine Fitzsimmons et al (1993) E & M in Biology and Medicine Fitzsimmons et al (1994) Cell Tiss Intl Fitzsimmons et al (1995) J Bone and Mineral Res Fitzsimmons et al (1995) Endocrinology I hope the average reader will asppreciate the real significance of this neglect of this body of work. The "fact" that no biological interactions are found at levels below 1 Gauss, as claimed on p. 105, makes other conclusions in the report more palatable. But there are other issues: The question of hazard can be approached directly, by looking for smoking guns and in-your-face evidence, but it can also be argued that if other biological evidence exists implicating weak-field interactions, no matter how disconnected from hazard, then the door is left open for as-yet unknown physiological pathways. This may be especially true for the reports showing changes in IGF-II (insulin-like growth factor-II) with the application of weak ICR (ion cyclotron resonance) magnetic fields in cell culture. This substance, important in growth and repair, if unchecked, can also lead to tumor progression. The reader must therefore also realize that more is involved in the non-reporting of the references listed above than merely providing comfort to the electrical power industry in the form of a 1 Gauss threshold for bone repair. There is also non-reporting of a potential cancer connection. The informed reader, on the other hand, will appreciate that all of the above non-reported references, (as well as the Orthologic approach to bone repair) reflect ICR experimental designs. I often think that some of my well-intentioned biology and biochemistry friends shy away from ICR experiments not because they have really thought it through, but because they have been told by others that it should not be given serious consideration on theoretical grounds. Others are simply scared to get involved with anything that smacks of controversy. For example, I am not aware of even one genetics experiment, in the Goodman/Phillips/Saffer genre, that has been designed around ICR. One researcher told me privately he could not publish some research results simply because in his text he referred to his experiment as an ICR experiment, and the reviewer turned it down, never going beyond the abstract in his criticism that "everyone knows that there is nothing to ion cyclotron resonance". Even Orthologic, which uses ICR patents, employs the term "combined magnetic field" in its advertising literature, for fear of scaring off those that do not know any better. Those that do know better continue to see biologic interactions at very weak AC intensities when augmented by selected DC fields, even though their results may be non-listed in the references in documents such as this NAS report. Finally, I find it disturbing that the NAS list of references, obviously lacking in these critical details, still manages to include two,( yes two!) references to Langmuir's writings on "pathological science". This characterization may continue to be a source of amusement to certain scientists and lawyers, but it is anything but funny. Once again, a seemingly serious look at a critical question is marred by individuals who carry prejudices into the arena of discussion. Once again, we have to deal more with spin and less with science. A.R. Liboff Professor of Physics Oakland University Rochester, MI 48309 liboff@oakland.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Nov 09 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: afrey@UU.NET (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: NRC report Date: 10 Nov 1996 10:06:02 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 47 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <5655ia$f5n@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Barry Gilbert asks: >So what does everyone (anyone?) think about the NAS report? The conclusions presented in a report are only as good as the data assessed and the assumptions made. Since the major assumption underlying the NAS/NRC report is not credible, the conclusions are not credible. The NRC report concludes: "No clear, convincing evidence exists to show...(EMFs) are a threat to human health...." This conclusion is based on the assumption that emf biology has been allowed to proceed in its normal course to find such evidence, and such evidence has not appeared. Since there is abundant documentation that emf biology has not been allowed to proceed in its normal course, the assumption underlying the conclusion is not credible and, thus, the conclusion is not credible. The DOE sponsored NRC report is only the latest in the long string of reports intended to reassure the Public. But the Public sees the conflicts of interest; and they see that emf biology has not been allowed to proceed in its normal course. Thus, the NRC report will only generate more anger in the Public which will only generate more lawsuits; the Public's only recourse. Its likely that only a few frequencies and modulations have health consequences; but an angry Public won't make such discriminations. Its already apparent that the Public is being pushed down the path that they were pushed down by the tobacco industry and before that by the asbestos industry. As I wrote years ago, the funding entities don't seem to recognize that they are shooting themselves in the foot. They should read the book entitled "The March of Folly" by the historian Barbara Tuchman. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Nov 12 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: afrey@UU.NET (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Reply to Moulder Date: 13 Nov 1996 12:46:26 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 88 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <56dc32$4lt@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Moulder refers to my posted comment: >>Since there is abundant documentation that emf biology has not been >>allowed to proceed in its normal course,.... and he states: >If the documentation is "abundant", perhaps you could share some of it >with us. Since you ask, I'll share lots of it with you. For example, read a chapter I wrote entitled "From the laboratory to the courtroom: Science, scientists, and the regulatory process" which was published in a book entitled "Risk/ benefit analysis, the microwave case". The book was edited by Nicholas H. Steneck and my chapter runs from page 197 thru 228. In the chapter, you will find details of events, people, dates, documents, etc. Professor Steneck, at the time, was Director of the Collegiate Institute for Values and Science at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He is nationally known for his studies on medical ethics and values in science. He, and the Institute Fellows, in biology, physics and engineering got interested in the emf bio area as a possible case study on values in science. They obtained a major grant from the NSF's program concerned with such ethical matters and they did an in-depth study of the emf bio area of research. After they completed their study, Steneck invited me to write the above mentioned chapter for the book he edited. Some of the research I've done in basic biology was in the emf bio area, in its early days, so I had an insider's knowledge of what had, and what was, going on. Steneck, subsequently, wrote his own book based on the Institute's study entitled "The microwave debate" which was published by MIT Press. Read, as another example of abundant documentation, his chapter entitled "Science, Scientists, and Science Policy", page 144 thru 176. A few extracts from his conclusions on pages 175 and 176 will convey what an authority on ethics thinks after studying the emf bio research area in depth. Steneck states: "... the establishment that controls RF bioeffects research has misled the public and researchers." and "Policy deliberations too have been hampered by the politicization of RF bioeffects research and by the biases and inconsistencies discussed earlier. The knowledge that key decisions on such research have been influenced by persons with vested interests in technological expansion raises questions about the legitimacy of the research." and "The (emf bio) scientific community has allowed social, economic, and political pressures to influence its activities, thereby destroying the credibility of its product." Moulder also states in his posting >What areas of research do you think have been forbidden? When you read the abundant documentation noted above, you will see some of the answers to that question. After you have looked at the skeletons in the closets that you had me open, I will be happy to open more closets for you, if you wish. The crucial point with regard to this emf bio research area is that those who fund the research, determine what gets funded. They thereby determine what information is gathered. Thus, they determine what conclusions are drawn and publicized. I think I can make the point clear with an example. The tobacco industry funded numerous studies by outside researchers on the bio effects of tobacco. The presidents of these companies concluded that the studies showed no convincing evidence of adverse bio effects. We even saw and heard them on TV tell congress that tobacco was not addictive. Going back to the emf bio area, few frequencies and modulations likely have health effects. What could be a minor nuisance for a technology that has great value to our Society, has been turned into a looming self inflicted disaster for the technology. And this continues even today. They are shooting themselves in the foot. They need to read Tuchman's book to understand what they are doing to themselves, Society and basic biology. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net line 7011049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Nov 12 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: NAS report Date: 12 Nov 1996 17:27:44 -0800 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 81 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <56b86g$t19@net.bio.net> References: <5655e1$eq1@net.bio.net> Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net In article <5655e1$eq1@net.bio.net>, liboff@oakland.edu (A.R. Liboff) writes: > I was surprised to learn, as stated on page 105 that > > "Little evidence can be found for effects of magnetic or electric > fields on bone at magnetic field strengths below ...[1 Gauss] or > at current densities below 1 mA/cm2. " >From the context of the above quote I assumed (and still do assume) that their reference to 100 microT is to 50/60-Hz sinusoidal fields, not to pulsed fields > It apparently escaped the committee's attention that the FDA, about > five years ago, approved the Orthologic device for bone repair. > This device operates at approximately 0.2 G. It hardly "escaped their attention", since they discuss it several pages later This is a pulsed machine, and I believe that the induced current density is above 1 mA/cm2. > Nowhere in the report, or in the list of references, did I find mention > of the journal articles that provide the basis of the newer > technology, articles for example, by: > > Ross, (1990) Bioelectromagnetics... One of the Committees criteria was "independent replication". I don't think that any of the above have been independently replicated. I would speculate that another reason why the above were not included is that most of them are based in the Ion cyclotron Resonance (ICR) model that the NAS Committee (like other reviews of the field) did not find credible. >From pg 70: "the ICR model, as currently set forth, is not a viable mechanism for biological systems" > The question of hazard can be approached directly, by looking for > smoking guns and in-your-face evidence, but it can also be argued that > if other biological evidence exists implicating weak-field > interactions, no matter how disconnected from hazard, then the door > is left open for as-yet unknown physiological pathways. Agreed, but first you have to demonstrate that these "weak field interactions" are robust and replicable. The conclusions of the NAS Committee were that they were not, so the point is moot. > There is also non-reporting of a potential cancer connection. I can't see that any of the reports you're complaining were excluded show a "potential cancer connection", unless you are making the argument that all biological effects are potentially relevant to cancer. > The informed reader, on the other hand, will appreciate that all of > the above non-reported references, (as well as the Orthologic approach > to bone repair) reflect ICR experimental designs. The informed reader could also conclude that your major complaint is that they have not referenced some of your papers, and that they have dismissed a mechanistic theory you developed as "not a viable mechanism" > I often think that > some of my well-intentioned biology and biochemistry friends shy away > from ICR experiments... because they have been told by others that it should > not be given serious consideration on theoretical grounds. They also shy away from it because: 1) The biological/biophysical implausibility of the ICR model is quite obvious to most researchers 2) Most of the attempts to independently replicate the ICR findings have failed. > Finally, I find it disturbing that the NAS list of references, > obviously lacking in these critical details, still manages to include > two,( yes two!) references to Langmuir's writings on "pathological > science". It's difficult to fault them for these refs without knowing the context of the reference. I have not been able to find where Langmuir was referenced, and the on line version does not appear to be searchable. John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Nov 12 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: NRC report Date: 13 Nov 1996 12:27:05 -0800 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 34 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <56daup$25v@net.bio.net> References: <5655ia$f5n@net.bio.net> Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net In article <5655ia$f5n@net.bio.net>, afrey@UU.NET (Allan Frey) writes: > The conclusions presented in a report are only as good as the > data assessed and the assumptions made... > > This conclusion is based on the assumption that emf biology has been > allowed to proceed in its normal course to find such evidence, and such > evidence has not appeared... > > Since there is abundant documentation that emf biology has not > been allowed to proceed in its normal course, the assumption > underlying the conclusion is not credible and, thus, the conclusion is > not credible. If the documentation is "abundant", perhaps you could share some of it with us. I look at the field and see: - Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers per year on the biophysics, biology and epidemiology of power-frequency fields; - Peer-reviewed papers appearing in multiple journals and from many countries - At least two journals devoted largely to the biology of power-frequency fields; - Several professional societies devoted to the field; - Set-aside funding for the field (at least in the US); - A moderated USENET group devoted to the field, plus wide-ranging discussions of the area in unmoderated groups. What areas of research do you think have been forbidden? John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Nov 13 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: liboff@oakland.edu (A.R. Liboff) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Moulder's Comments on NAS Report Date: 14 Nov 1996 12:13:04 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 100 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <56fugg$1jl@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I am again forced to take issue with Dr. Moulder's comments, this time even more vehemently: (1).Despite Dr. Moulder's attempts to soften the NAS statement, the issue of pulsed vs sinusoidal magnetic fields was simply not addressed as a caveat on page 105 of the NAS report. The NAS statement is categorical as regards the effects on bone, "Little evidence can be found for effects of magnetic or electric fields on bone at magnetic-field strengths below...1 G...". As I have previously pointed out,this statement is totally at variance with the facts. (2). I listed a total of seven references, only one of which (Ross) Dr. Moulder seems inclined to mention. His argument is that the others I list failed a test of independent replication used by the NAS group to cull articles that were not among the "good", replicated variety from those that were "bad". Looking over the in vitro articles that were in the references in the NAS report, I can easily identify a number that have never been replicated, and furthermore, other articles that that have had problems in replication. If one looks at the emf area in detail, it becomes very clear that the replication argument is a myth. The very individuals who are so vocal in demanding what they call replication pay the least attention to their own protestations. How else to explain their lack of acceptance of the Ca-efflux work, now two decades old? The proper way to assess scientific work,imperfect as it may be, is through the journal process, and not through misbegotten,ill- defined attempts by science wannabes to set out their own rules of "replication", (attempts, sadly enough, that the serious scientists among us should have fought more vigorously against when they were foisted on us by federal agencies). The thing that makes us believe in an observation is the body of work that surrounds it, other work that either reinforces or diminishes the original observation. I am always leery of papers that include "replication" in the title because I suspect that the author brings little to the table in the way of insight or perspective. One well-referreed paper in a demanding journal is worth a half-dozen "replications". (3). Dr. Moulder is in complete error when he states that the Orthologic device is a "pulsed machine". This device senses the geomagnetic field and adds the proper amount of DC field in the direction of the AC field, oscillating at the calcium ion resonance frequency (or harmonic thereof). The oscillation is sinusoidal. It is not pulsed. The NAS report ignores the FDA acceptance of this device,it ignores that this acceptance was based partially on well-characterized peer-reviewed literature, it ignores that the levels of AC magnetic intensity are perhaps reduced by 100-fold from the older, pulsed bone repair devices, and, most importantly, it ignores that this device is designed around the ion resonance concept. (4). Dr. Moulder fails to understand my complaint regarding ICR, misreading me badly. Nowhere in my comments did I mention anything at all about my own papers, or anything concerning my original "mechanistic" concept. Again, Dr. Moulder falls into the trap of not distinguishing between the inadequacy of the ion cyclotron resonance "model", (an inadequacy that I have long maintained) and the more-than-adequate experimental results. I am sure that Dr. Moulder understands that things can work in a certain way without our knowing the underlying reason. (Actually, if we understood why things behave as they do, would we still be interested?) The most magnificent question that the scientist has to face in dealing with truth in his laboratory is to ask whether he should change his mind about what he observes if there is no explanation for what is seen. This is a very deep and profound question, one really at the heart of what science is about. To me, the answer always has to be that the act of observation is the dominant component in forming scientific belief, not what one expects to find. We should all remember the phrase attributed to Galileo: E Pur Si Muove--and yet it moves. The somewhat disheartening thing about certain of my colleagues when it comes to ICR is that they do not share this philosophical approach to laboratory observations. (Not all: early on, Liburdy,and then the PNL people, realized the experimental design possibilities in combined magnetic field exposures that might be tied to charge-to-mass ratios). Perhaps some in our community are uncomfortable pursuing scientific regimens that are outside of their educational background. After all, it's bad enough dealing with magnetic fields, and precise definitions of intensity, when one has been trained to use molarity as a yardstick. It may be too much to ask biochemists and cellular and molecular biologists to deal with such matters; the controversy connected to ICR modeling is as good a reason as any to avoid doing ICR experiments. sic transit science! (5). Dr. Moulder is still seemingly unaware of the dozens of ICR experiments that have been attempted, most of them positive. He is grossly incorrect in stating "most of the attempts to independently replicate the ICR findings have failed." One group of papers in this regard that he is apparently unaware of is the work by Fitzsimmons et al, most recently reported in Endocrinology, dealing with the effect of ICR exposures on IGF-II receptor density. It is revealing that the NAS report saw fit to report Fitzsimmons' earlier work on electric field effects and IGF-II, but decided to avoid any mention of the later work using magnetic fields, even though the same "replicated" lab model was used in the second series of papers, and even though they were published before the deadline set by the NAS staff. The critical difference in not reporting the second set of papers is that they were conducted under ICR conditions, and that they involved weak ELF magnetic fields. (6). Again, Dr. Moulder has not explained why the two references to Langmuir were included in the list of references. Whoever added these citations, in the area of pathological science, must have felt they were more important than other scientific references that were excluded. Whoever added these references was obviously not concerned, (in this case), with matters of independent replication, nor in examining the evidence. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Nov 20 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: amarino@lsumc.edu (Marino, Andrew) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: NIEHS Proposal Date: 20 Nov 1996 16:50:19 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 123 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <57090b$9bq@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net NIEHS will conduct a fact-finding procedure to provide the basis for the response of the NIEHS Director to Congress regarding the issue whether exposure to powerline EMFs is a health risk. The procedure that best serves the public interest is now being designed. An initial Proposal has been widely circulated, and further details were given by Dr. Christopher Portier at an NIEHS-sponsored workshop on the RAPID program, November 17, 1996. Although the current NIEHS Proposal envisions a more realistic and reasonable process than that followed by previous EMF bioeffects inquiries, my view is that the Proposal still has serious shortcomings. An outline of the response that I provided Dr. Portier is given below: The full text can be accessed at www.ortho.lsumc.edu/Faculty/Marino/Marino.html. COMMENT ON "STRATEGY FOR EVALUATING DATA RELATED TO THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS" Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D., J.D. INTRODUCTION THE NIEHS PROPOSAL EVALUATION OF NIEHS PROPOSAL Resort to Blue-Ribbon Committees is an Historical Error Seeking Consensus Among Scientists is an Unreasonable Strategy for Findi ng the Truth Regarding EMF Health Risks A Tri-Partate Adjudicatory Process is Logically Defective Symposium 1 is Unnecessary The Proposal's Verbal Ambiguities Preclude Its Implementation The Proposal Inextricably Commingles Science and Values Extrinsic Validity of the Data is Not Assured Work Product of Previous Blue-Ribbon Committees Not Excluded Failure to Consider Industry Arguments Financial and Personal Risks Not Adequately Considered ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL Important Unresolved Issues Stipulated Questions The Science Court The Judges Should Be Laymen The Lay Judges Should be Judges Procedures in the Science Court Bioethical Considerations FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES Dr. Portier's presentation was apparently designed prior to the detailed consideration of any of the comments that were received following circulation of NIEHS's proposed strategy. Consequently, the presentation largely paralleled the Proposal and mirrored its shortcomings. If you agree that changes are needed in the proposed strategy, it would be appropriate to contact Dr. Portier immediately with your suggestions. Some particularly significant issues are as follows. 1. Will the scientists appointed to the Working Group be expected to be both advocates and judges? If so, then the Working Group judgment will be known instantly after the Working Group members have been identified, as has been the case with virtually all previous blue-ribbon committees. 2. Will the proponents of various viewpoints be required to provide a written statement of their position, and subject themselves to confrontation by scientists holding an opposite view? Unless the position is written, it cannot be adequately ascertained. Unless the written position is challenged, it cannot be adequately judged. 3. Will individuals who concede that they have considered less than all of the evidence be permitted to make a judgment regarding whether powerline EMFs are a health risk? For example, should an endocrinologist who admits he has not himself evaluated the epidemiology or an epidemiologist who admits he has not evaluated the animal experiments be permitted to make the ultimate judgment? 4. Will a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard be employed, or will NIEHS require stronger evidence to sustain a conclusion that EMFs are health risks? 5. Who will define pivotal terms such as CAUSE? If it can be demonstrated that the physicists and the biologists use CAUSE differently, whose definition is to be employed? 6. The financial and personal risks that would be assumed by the participants in the proposed NIEHS strategy have not received anything like the consideration due them. The selfless courage and ultimate fate of Robert O. Becker, M.D. loom large, and must be considered if the NIEHS process is to be credible. In 1975, Robert O. Becker, M.D., was the first investigator in the Unite d States to seriously warn of health risks from powerlines. At that time he was an established investigator with an international reputation. He had received the highest award offered by the Veterans Administration (VA) for scientific research, was a fully funded medical investigator within the VA, and had several NIH grants. When he opined publicly (in a proper forum, at the request of the officers of that forum, and without remuneration) that powerline electromagnetic fields were health risks, the bottom simply dropped out of his scientific career. During the next 5 years Dr. Becker lost all his grants, and was forced into retirement at the age of 56. Dr. Becker's fate is well known within the EMF community, and stands as a strong deterrent to those who would speak publicly on the wrong side of the powerline EMF issue. Powerful organizations including EPRI, the law firms of Crowel & Moring and Watson & Ritter, the American Physical Society, the Department of Energy, and Florida Power & Light Company steadfastly maintain that powerline electromagnetic fields are not health risks. Why would anyone choose to oppose that view publicly, despite the evidence? If someone did, how would that investigator be protected from reprisals? Participation in the symposia will largely be self-funded. This plan will present no problem for the industry groups, which possess abundant resources, but it will largely preclude scientists with opposing views from participating because these scientists have no sponsor. What resources would be made available to someone who agrees to oppose the industry groups? ************************************* Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D. Dept. Orthopaedic Surgery, LSUMC P.O. Box 33932, Shreveport, LA 71130 Phone: 318-675-6177 Fax: 318-675-6186 email: amarino@lsumc.edu ************************************* From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Nov 24 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: afrey@UU.NET (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Newsgroup's charter & access Date: 24 Nov 1996 16:33:06 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 179 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <57apg2$9gs@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The emf-bio Newsgroup was set up by the International Society for Bioelectricity, a FASEB* Society (afrey@uunet.uu.net Allan H. Frey), for use by the biological research community. *FASEB (The Federation of American Societies in Experimental Biology) is the largest coalition of life sciences societies in the United States, and represents over 42,000 biomedical and biological scientists. Charter and moderation policy: The purpose of the Newsgroup is to provide a means of easy communication among people doing research in or interested in electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems. It also provides the general biological community with a window into a field which has broad implications for biology. The Newsgroup is primarily for discussions among bioscientists. Lay people interested in hazards should contact the appropriate groups for such information such as the National EMR Alliance (212-554-4073). Those interested in arguing about hazards, which is a policy issue, have other forums where discussions of hazard policy issues are appropriate. The Newsgroup can be used for activities such as discussion of books, articles, methods and experiments. Theories can be debated and the validity of experiments and approaches can be discussed. Important new findings can be announced. Users can pose questions on techniques to be used in experiments and seek solutions for problems they have encountered in experiments. A preprint of a paper can be posted for comment before sending it in for publication or starting the next experiment. Journal editors and scientists can post papers or abstracts of papers accepted for publication or published papers. Announcements of funding for new programs and jobs can be posted. The newsgroup is moderated, but the bounds of the charter are loose. Only the clearly inappropriate messages as defined by the charter will not appear. The emf-bio newsgroup is a regular usenet group. You can access it when you read newsgroups. The first time type: get bionet.emf-bio After that it will appear as a newgroup (if there is news) whenever you read the newsgroups that you have subscribed to. If you only have email and can't read newsgroups, do the following: send a mail message to the Internet address biosci-server@net.bio.net Leave the Subject: line of the message blank and enter the following line into the body of the mail message: subscribe emf-bio This message will be automatically read by the computer and your e-mail address will be extracted from the mail header and added to the list. Allan Allan H. Frey, Moderator email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA How to look at archives: ------------------------------------ Archives for EMF-BIO/bionet.emf-bio are kept in the anonymous FTP account at net.bio.net [134.172.2.69]. Look in the directory pub/BIOSCI/EMF-BIO for posting archives. Each file is assigned a date such as 9312 for December 1993. Please note that ours is a UNIX system and all file and directory names are case-sensitive, i.e., upper case file names are different from lower case names. You can also access these same files via Gopher if you start a gopher session using net.bio.net as your gopher server. Gopher also allows you to view the individual messages within each monthly archive file. The files are in the EMF-BIO directory. WWW/Mosaic users can open the URL gopher://net.bio.net/. Postings to bionet.emf-bio are also WAIS indexed and can be searched via either gopher or WAIS at our site. In gopher the option at net.bio.net is "Search Bionet USENET Articles" and in WAIS one should use the WAIS source biosci.src. This is a WAIS index of all BIOSCI/bionet messages including this newsgroup. Please see the BIOSCI FAQ for details. The FAQ can be requested from biosci-help@net.bio.net. Canceling your subscription: ---------------------------- IF YOU ARE LOCATED IN EUROPE, AFRICA, OR CENTRAL ASIA: first be sure that you are sending mail from the address at which you signed up to receive news postings, and then send the command (in the body of your mail message) UNSUB bionet-news.bionet.emf-bio to MXT@dl.ac.uk. This message will be automatically read by the computer and your e-mail address will be extracted from the mail header and removed from the list. IF YOU ARE LOCATED IN THE AMERICAS OR THE PACIFIC RIM: send a message to biosci-server@net.bio.net Leave the Subject: line of the message blank and enter the following line into the body of the mail message: unsubscribe emf-bio in the body of the message. Please be sure to send the message from the account whose address matches the one on the list. If your address differs, we will be notified automatically and will remove you manually from the list if we can determine what was your old address. Please contact biosci-help@net.bio.net if you have problems. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM: ---------------------- Please send a message to one of the following addresses depending upon your location Address Location ------- -------- biosci@daresbury.ac.uk Europe, Africa, and Central Asia biosci-help@net.bio.net Americas and the Pacific Rim and someone on the staff will help you. How to post a message to the group: ----------------------------------- If you use news, simply post a message into bionet.emf-bio. Be sure to set your "distribution" to either bionet or world or else the message might not leave your site!! To post by e-mail, mail your message to one of the following addresses depending upon your location: Posting Address Location --------------- -------- emf-bio@daresbury.ac.uk Europe, Africa, and Central Asia emf-bio@net.bio.net Americas and the Pacific Rim and your message will be distributed automatically to everyone on the list and the USENET newsgroup. There is no editorial intervention. PLEASE DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTION REQUESTS TO THE POSTING ADDRESSES as you will bother everyone on the newsgroup!!! How to reply to a message on the group: --------------------------------------- If you are using a newsreader, simply use the reply or follow-up command on your newsreader (these vary from program to program) to send either private or public replies. If you are using e-mail, replies to messages that you receive will *NOT* be automatically returned to the group. This is the standard for Internet mailing lists as opposed to BITNET LISTSERVs which often send all replies back to everyone. You must be certain that your reply contains either of the two newsgroup posting addresses above in your message header if you want to share it with everyone on the group. Otherwise in most cases your reply may go back to only the original poster of the message to which you are replying. ALWAYS be certain that you examine the address on your messages before you send them!!! Once a message is sent there is no way to cancel it or bring it back!!! Some non-Internet compliant mail systems may attempt to send replies to our error-trapping address called BIOSCI-REQUEST. If yours does this, please be sure to readdress your message to emf-bio@net.bio.net or emf-bio@daresbury.ac.uk if you want to send it to the newsgroup. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Nov 25 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: afrey@UU.NET (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: FASEB journal article Date: 25 Nov 1996 16:59:27 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 17 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <57dfdf$r0d@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net A paper is being published in this month's issue of the FASEB Journal that is entitled "Reorganization of microfilament structure induced by ac electric fields" by Michael R. Cho et al of Harvard Medical School. They report that exposure of cells to ac electric fields induced alterations in microfilament structure in a manner that depended on the frequency of the applied field. They concluded that applied ac electric fields could initiate signal transduction cascades, which in turn cause reorganization of cytoskeletal structures. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Nov 26 22:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "Dr. Indira Chatterjee" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: post-doctoral position Date: 27 Nov 1996 10:06:06 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 24 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <57hvue$fi1@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net POSTDOCTORAL POSITION Applications are invited from individuals with a biomedical engineering or related degree who have an interest in studying the mechanisms by which powerline-frequency electromagnetic fields can interact with excitable cells and cause effects at the cellular, sub-cellular and molecular levels. The research is part of an interdisciplinary, NIH-funded project that utilizes fluorescence imaging of intracellular calcium, assays of biosynthetic processes and analysis of gene expression in cultured cells exposed to electromagnetic fields generated by Helmholtz coil and Merritt coil exposure systems. Experience in bioelectromagnetics, imaging techniques, biochemistry or molecular biology is desirable. The position is for two years with a start date of April 1, 1997. Salary is commensurate with NIH salary scales for postdoctoral fellows and is negotiable, based on experience. To apply, please send curriculum vitae, a statement regarding research experience and interests, and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of three references to : Dr. Gale L. Craviso, Department of Pharmacology, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Howard Building, Reno, NV 89557. Review of applications will continue until the position is filled. AA/EOE.