From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Dec 11 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "John Pluth" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: EMF's and Brain Tumors...Please help. Date: 12 Dec 1997 11:12:03 -0800 Organization: Systems and Solutions Lines: 23 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <66rqba$qnc@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net EMF's and Brain Tumors...Please help. I am a 45 year old computer programmer who was diagnosed with a optic chiasm brain tumor in 1993. It is a pylocitic astrocytoma, mostly grade III but with some grade II cells mixed in. I had 2 surgeries initially, and after the tumor grew back doubled in size last year, I underwent radiation therapy. My question is, with my vision damaged by the tumor in my optic nerve, I am using a large oversized monitor for my programming work many hours everyday. The monitor is throwing off about 10 ugauus at about 10 inches. I have to get about 5 inches from the screen to read it. I am using a EMF shield around the monitor, but from some measurements that were made, I don't believe it is diminishing the radiation at all. Will the EMF exposure cause my tumor to regrow? I have heard about some research that confirms this. And the ultimate question is, should I stay away from the computer to save my live??? Thank you very much for your help. Sincerely, JVP jvpluth@worldnet.att.net From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Dec 14 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "Bowman, Joseph D." Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Meta-analysis for occupational magnetic fields with brain cancer Date: 15 Dec 1997 10:16:30 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 106 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199712151622.LAA29158@mailgate2.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Here's the abstract of the study which I referred to in the my reply to John Pluth's message "EMF's and Brain Tumors...Please help" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% META-ANALYSIS OF THE DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS FOR OCCUPATIONAL MAGNETIC FIELDS WITH BRAIN CANCER AND LEUKEMIA. J.D. Bowman1, S. Sivaganesan2, R.T. Elmore1,3, R.J. Smith1, A.J. Bailer1,3, and L. Stayner1. 1National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH; 2Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH; 3Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Miami University, Oxford, OH. OBJECTIVE: The dose-response (D-R) relationship is one of Hill's criteria for determining causality from epidemiologic evidence. Although there have been several reviews and one meta-analysis for the cancers associated with workplace EMF, overall D-Rs have never been examined by statistical hypothesis tests. To do this, we calculated D-R slopes for ELF magnetic fields with brain cancer, leukemia, and leukemia sub-types by a meta-analysis of the occupational epidemiologic studies with personal exposure monitoring. METHODS: The meta-analysis used the published data from eight studies of leukemia and/or brain cancer which measured workers' full-shift exposures. The study properties evaluated for this analysis were quality of the exposure assessment, the outcome (cancer incidence vs. mortality) and exposure duration (total career exposure vs. recent exposures 5-10 yr prior to diagnosis or death). Where the cumulative exposure (in uT-yr) was used, the time-weighted average (TWA) magnetic field magnitude (in uT) was obtained by dividing by the average exposure duration for the study population. To correct for the exposure of the reference category, the lowest mean TWA was subtracted from the mean exposures of the other categories. The categorical odds ratios (OR) were fitted to the logistic model: ln(OR) = beta TWA in order to estimate the mean slope beta (in uT^1) and 95% confidence interval over all studies. These slopes were calculated by both conventional and Bayesian statistics. The conventional approach used a fixed-effect model if the studies were homogeneous according to a Q test, and a random-effects models if they were heterogeneous. The Bayesian approach used a random-effects hierarchical model with posterior simulation of the mean slope and its variance (details in a poster presentation). To test the hypothesis that the mean beta is greater than zero, the p-value for a one-tailed test was calculated by conventional statistics, and the equivalent posterior probability Pr[beta<0|data] was calculated by Bayesian methods. The influence of individual studies was examined by analyzing the data with one study removed at a time, and noting when studies with design flaws affected the conclusions. Separate meta-analyses were performed for recent and total exposure and for each cancer type: brain cancer, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and acute non-lymphocytic leukemia (ANLL). RESULTS: For the five studies with recent magnetic field exposures, the mean slopes for brain cancer and CLL are increasing with marginal significance, but ANLL shows no D-R. Below are the D-R estimates from the Bayesian analysis, expressed as the OR's multiplicative increase for 1 uT increase in exposure = exp(beta). All studies with recent exposures Cancer Mean slope and 95 % CI p - values [OR increase per uT ] Bayes. Conven. Brain cancer 1.34 (0.77-2.38) 0.130 0.156 ANLL 1.08 (0.85-1.38) 0.275 0.271 CLL 2.56 (0.61-11.6) 0.071 0.085 Omitting the weakest study Cancer Mean slope and 95 % CI p - values [OR increase per uT ] Bayes. Conven. Brain cancer 1.84 (1.42-2.25) 0.006 <0.001 ANLL 0.94 (0.66-1.35) 0.650 0.657 CLL 3.94 (0.65-23.6) 0.055 0.082 The p-values from Bayesian and conventional statistics agree reasonably well, showing that their different mathematical assumptions do not affect the conclusions from this meta-analysis. For brain cancer, the slope becomes significant when we removed a single study which is arguably more susceptible to bias due to a design weakness. The omitted studies for brain cancer and the acute leukemias had incomplete exposure assessments. With CLL, a mortality study was excluded because the cancer's long survival time makes death a weak indicator of etiology. With total exposures, none of the mean slopes are significant (although the brain cancer D-R was marginally significant without the questionable study). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of all occupational epidemiologic studies with personal exposure measurements showed a marginally significant D-R between the TWA magnitude of ELF magnetic fields and the risks for CLL and to a lesser degree, brain cancer. Excluding one study with possible weaknesses in design, the brain cancer slope becomes significant. These conclusions can be tested further if the investigators for all eight studies would do their D-R analyses in a form that can be pooled without approximations. In the meantime, these findings provide some support for the hypothesis that the TWA magnetic field may be a causal factor for some (but not all) adult cancers. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Dec 14 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: Allan Frey Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: assumptions Date: 15 Dec 1997 11:11:44 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 28 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <34957F39.12FD@uu.net> Reply-To: afrey@UU.NET NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Joe Bowman mentions... > The EMF animal studies do not show any effect on brain cancers (e.g. the > recent paper by Mandeville in the FASEB Journal Can that conclusion be drawn from Mandeville's 60 Hz study? Mandeville indicates that the people who provided the magnetic field equipment made an effort to provide a clean sinusoidal magnetic field; one without any of the noise found in residential settings. I can understand their wanting to make a pure 60 Hz signal. But there is an implicit assumption in doing this, i.e. it is assumed that the critical part of the signal, biologically, is the 60 Hz waveform; and the other waveforms that typically accompany the 60 Hz one are irrelevant. But biological theory and data tell us that it is the spikes and the other waveforms that are likely what is significant biologically. It looks to me like the engineers may have done such a fine job that they doomed the relevance of the biological work, before the biological work even started. Allan -- Allan H. Frey Email: afrey@uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane Voice: 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Dec 14 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "Bowman, Joseph D." Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: EMF's and Brain Tumors...Please help. Date: 15 Dec 1997 10:15:34 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 111 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199712151532.KAA22995@mailgate2.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net On Friday, December 12, 1997 11:56AM, John Pluth wrote: >EMF's and Brain Tumors...Please help. > > I am a 45 year old computer programmer who was diagnosed with a optic >chiasm brain tumor in 1993. It is a pylocitic astrocytoma, mostly grade >III but with some grade II cells mixed in. I had 2 surgeries initially, >and after the tumor grew back doubled in size last year, I underwent >radiation therapy. > My question is, with my vision damaged by the tumor in my optic nerve, I >am using a large oversized monitor for my programming work many hours >everyday. The monitor is throwing off about 10 ugauus at about 10 inches. >I have to get about 5 inches from the screen to read it. I am using a EMF >shield around the monitor, but from some measurements that were made, I >don't believe it is diminishing the radiation at all. > Will the EMF exposure cause my tumor to regrow? I have heard about some >research that confirms this. And the ultimate question is, should I stay >away from the computer to save my live??? The science doesn't give a direct answer to John's question because there is no study on whether magnetiic field exposures make brain tumors re-grow. The epidemiologic evidence is on primary brain tomors, and is summarized by a meta-analysis which I presented at the Annual Review of Research on Biological Effects of EMF in November (abstract posted in a second message). The bottom line is that the dose-response for brain cancer risk with the best-done studies is: Odds Ratio = 1.84 ^ B where B = the workday average exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields in microTesla (uT). The odds ratio (OR) is the cancer risk relative to people who are not exposed to magnetic fields on the job. So a person with a average magnetic field exposure of 1 uT would have an average cancer risk of 1.84 or 84% higher than an unexposed person, which is something like 1 case per 100,000 people per year. The 95% confidence limits on this odds ratio are 1.42-2.25. Where John wrote "The monitor is throwing off about 10 ugauus at about 10 inches," I think he means 10 milligauss = 1 uT. His work-day average would be affected by the times is not working at the monitor, and the times he is closer than 10 inches. So 1 uT is a reasonable estimate of his average exposure, and the odds ratios above are reasonable estimates of his cancer risk from the epidemiologic studies done to date. The EMF animal studies do not show any effect on brain cancers (e.g. the recent paper by Mandeville in the FASEB Journal), nor is the mechanism by which these weak magnetic fields could cause brain cancer understood. Some physicists argue from their models of biologic interactions that magnetic fields below 100 uT are too weak to have any biologic effects. So the evidence linking magnetic fields and brain cancer are not conclusive. In John's case, I think that the epdiemiologic evidence is hard to ignore, and reducing his average magnetic field exposures would be prudent. Some ideas I can thiink of are: * moving further away from the screen by e.g. getting magnifying lenses. * make sure that the computer's CPU is not near his chair * use a gauss meter to find other magnetic field sources in his work area that can be eliminated or reduced (e.g. electric pencil sharpeners). * spend less time in high-exposure areas. Of course, we are talking about "risks" here. With an active brain tumor, the most important things are good medical care, and taking care of the whole person. If reducing magnetic field exposures causes real hardships, John should think twice about the small magnitude of the EMF risks I estimate above. Wishing John renewed health, Joseph Bowman *************** Radiation Section Division of Biomedical & Behavioral Sciences National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 USA Phone: 513-533-8143 FAX: 513-533-8510 E-mail: jdb0@cdc.gov These opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect NIOSH policies. *************** From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Dec 15 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "Bowman, Joseph D." Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: assumptions Date: 15 Dec 1997 16:07:41 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 50 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199712152038.PAA23054@mailgate2.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The points that Allan Frey make below are valid. These are arguments why negative animal studies with EMF do not rule out a link with brain cancer. What I was getting at, however, was that the animal literature provides no support for the associations with brain tumors found by the occupational epidemiology (that I know of). If someone like John Pluth is looking to science for guidance on what to do, disciplines like animal toxicology and mechanistic theory provide little direct evidence that EMF is a risk factor for brain cancer. To reduce exposures, such a person must conclude that the positive epidemiologic evidence and indirect evidence from cellular studies, breast cancer studies, etc. are sufficient to outweigh many negative findings in other arenas. ---------- From: Allan Frey To: nobody@net.bio.net Subject: assumptions Date: Monday, December 15, 1997 2:04PM Joe Bowman mentions... > The EMF animal studies do not show any effect on brain cancers (e.g. the > recent paper by Mandeville in the FASEB Journal Can that conclusion be drawn from Mandeville's 60 Hz study? Mandeville indicates that the people who provided the magnetic field equipment made an effort to provide a clean sinusoidal magnetic field; one without any of the noise found in residential settings. I can understand their wanting to make a pure 60 Hz signal. But there is an implicit assumption in doing this, i.e. it is assumed that the critical part of the signal, biologically, is the 60 Hz waveform; and the other waveforms that typically accompany the 60 Hz one are irrelevant. But biological theory and data tell us that it is the spikes and the other waveforms that are likely what is significant biologically. It looks to me like the engineers may have done such a fine job that they doomed the relevance of the biological work, before the biological work even started. Allan -- Allan H. Frey Email: afrey@uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane Voice: 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Dec 15 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: aphilips@gn.apc.org (Alasdair Philips) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: assumptions Date: 15 Dec 1997 16:20:04 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 55 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199712152229.WAA15496@gn3.gn.apc.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Hi I know the original query was about VDU use and I have sent a message BUT TDMA digital phones typically give off ELF magnetic field pulses (50, 60, 75, 100, 217 Hz depending on the actual system + harmonics up to about 13) due to battery power surghes as the transmitter powers up. These are typically 4 to 8 microtesla (40 to 80mG) about half an inch from the earpiece! I have a letter in the forthcoming issue of Microwave News on this subject. Just food for thought following Joe Bowman and Allan Frey's useful comments. Alasdair Philips 'Powerwatch' Director (UK) and EMF researcher (and colleague of Roger Coghill at CRL) ========================================================================= At 14:04 15/12/97 -0500, afrey@UU.NET wrote: >Joe Bowman mentions... > >> The EMF animal studies do not show any effect on brain cancers (e.g. the >> recent paper by Mandeville in the FASEB Journal > >Can that conclusion be drawn from Mandeville's 60 Hz study? > >Mandeville indicates that the people who provided the magnetic field >equipment made an effort to provide a clean sinusoidal magnetic field; >one without any of the noise found in residential settings. I can >understand their wanting to make a pure 60 Hz signal. > >But there is an implicit assumption in doing this, i.e. it is assumed >that the critical part of the signal, biologically, is the 60 Hz >waveform; and the other waveforms that typically accompany the 60 Hz one >are irrelevant. But biological theory and data tell us that it is the >spikes and the other waveforms that are likely what is significant >biologically. It looks to me like the engineers may have done such a >fine job that they doomed the relevance of the biological work, before >the biological work even started. > >Allan >-- >Allan H. Frey Email: afrey@uu.net >11049 Seven Hill Lane Voice: 301.299.5181 >Potomac, MD 20854, USA > > > Alasdair Philips (aphilips@gn.apc.org) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Dec 16 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "Daniele Andreuccetti" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Announcement: Emf-In-The-Web Date: 17 Dec 1997 13:13:13 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 37 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9712170907.AA24954@iroe.iroe.fi.cnr.it> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Announcing "Emf-In-The-Web" =========================== Emf-In-The-Web is a (shortly) annotated reference list of Web sites addressing issues related to the Interactions between Electromagnetic Fields and Biological Systems. It has been developed starting from a list of URLs appeared on the EMFLDS-L mailing list during summer 1997. The list comprises approximately thirty addresses divided into three categories. 1. International Institutions (websites maintained by relevant institutions or containing documents of wide general interest). 2. International Research Groups (home pages of international research groups working in the cited fields). 3. Domestic Institutions and Research Groups (as above, in Italian). Currently Emf-In-The-Web is active from monday 9:00 GMT to friday 17:00 GMT at the following address: http://safeemf.iroe.fi.cnr.it/safeemf/emfref.htm Comments, hints, complaints, proposals for new links should be addressed to: dr. Daniele Andreuccetti CNR - Istituto di Ricerca sulle Onde Elettromagnetiche via Panciatichi, 64 - 50127 FIRENZE tel. +39.55.4235216 fax. +39.55.410893 andreucc@iroe.fi.cnr.it http://www.iroe.fi.cnr.it/~andreucc From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Dec 17 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: liboff@oakland.edu (A.R. Liboff) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re:assumptions Date: 18 Dec 1997 12:30:13 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 74 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199712181732.MAA14456@cliff.acs.oakland.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net There is something more involved in the choice of an experimentally "clean sinusoidal" signal than what is mentioned by Frey, who argues for biologically relevant waveforms. >From a purely scientific standpoint, the sine wave is not only the easiest signal to produce and replicate, it is also the signal best understood in terms of mathematical modelling and in comparing laboratory data with potential mechanisms. As an example,I bring to everyone's attention the confused state of affairs folowing the late Andy Bassett's introduction (1973) of pulsed magnetic signals (PMF) to repair bone. The biologists eagerly accepted this modality, which defied any reasonable analysis, trying all sorts of experiments on systems ranging from nerve regeneration to cell proliferation. Many effects were observed. A dialog took place as to what characteristics of the PMF were specific to the biological effects that were observed. The term "signal specific" became commonplace at meetings, as various commercial entities sought to show why this or that variation in the PMF was efficacious for this or that biological model. In time, there arose a large dataset of totally disconnected results,largely based on unknown parameters of pulsed signals to begin with, but also including variations in these unknown parameters.There are now dozens of such PMF systems around the world, each claiming uniqueness. We should not be too quick to blame all of this on the rush to commercialization. The biologists helped immeasurably with their dismal understanding of the simple basic physics underlying these systems, lumping all such uncomfortable things into the vague term "engineering". In the early eighties, at a meeting in England, I reported results that clearly showed that one could achieve exactly the same results in different cell systems when using a pure magnetic sine wave of 15 Hz as occurred when using a PMF with a repetition rate of 15 pps. The response from (friendly) biologists was remarkable: why was I bothering with sine waves when everyone else used pulsed signals? For some reason, the feeling among the biological community at that time was that it was easier to understand pulsed signals than sine waves. Despite all that has happened in the interim, that still seems to be the feeling abroad, even among some of the most distinguished of my biological colleagues. Some readers may already know the end of this story, where, in recent years, pure sine wave magnetic fields have been shown to do exactly what was claimed in bone repair for pulsed magnetic fields, have been approved by the FDA, and are applied at power levels approximately fifty times less than PMF devices. There is some truth to Frey's statement that "biological theory and data tell us that it is the spikes...that are...significant..." But, based on history, this does not mean that applying spikes to biological systems will necessarily help us understand what is happening. The spikes that are observed in calcium-fluorochrome studies or membrane voltage fluctuations are often greatly distorted by the assaying system. At best,in trying to replicate such signals, one is limited to applying pulse characteristics that may have the same pulse repetition rate, but little else. Even if we were able to apply excellent replicates of such signals in laboratory settings, there would still be the problem of knowing what aspect of the pulse is biologically operative. I think what Frey is arguing for is a more clinical approach to understanding electromagnetic biology, that is, one based strictly on empirical findings. I think this is shortsighted in that the more basic our bioelectromagnetic understanding, the greater likelihood that we can use this knowledge to make important advances in medicine. From where I sit the simplest and most effective probe of bioelectromagnetic interactions are sine wave magnetic fields. AR Liboff Professor of Physics Oakland University Rochester, MI 48309 (248) 370-3412 liboff@oakland.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Dec 18 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: Allan Frey Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Assumptions Date: 18 Dec 1997 16:55:04 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 43 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <34998F20.3C5A@uu.net> Reply-To: afrey@UU.NET NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Some corrections are needed in what Liboff said. Liboff said >There is some truth to Frey's statement that "biological theory and data >tell us that it is the spikes...that are...significant..." What I said was >>=85 biological theory and data tell us that it is the >>spikes and the other waveforms=85 Liboff said >I think what Frey is arguing for is a more clinical approach to >understanding electromagnetic biology, that is, one based strictly on >empirical findings. No, in fact I think of myself as more a theorist than an experimentalist despite my more than a hundred experiment papers. =20 I think if one makes implicit assumptions, as Mandeville did, then they should be recognized as such, i.e. pure 60 Hz, of all the waveforms associated with electric power in the home, is the only one that could have a biological effect. This is particularly the case if one's results are used to make public health decisions. If the assumptions can not be shown to be correct, then conclusions with respect to the public health should not be drawn. As to emf biology being messy, that's true. But its been true in all the sciences through history until there is a paradigm shift and all the pieces fall into place. That's what makes the emf-bio area interesting. When everything is neat, then one is merely crossing the Ts and dotting the Is and there is nothing of significant being done.=20 Allan --=20 Allan H. Frey Email: afrey@uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane Voice: 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Dec 28 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "Bowman, Joseph D." Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Postdoctoral position at NIOSH Date: 29 Dec 1997 09:54:16 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 46 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199712191551.KAA26208@mailgate2.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net RESEARCH / CAREER DEVELOPMENT FELLOWSHIP on the Health Effects of Non-ionizing Radiation The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is seeking a postdoctoral fellow to conduct research on new methods for measuring exposures to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) and parameters which characterize the field's biological impact. The fellowship is designed for a recent Ph.D. with a strong physics or engineering background who wants start a career in occupational health research, specializing in non-ionizing radiation. The fellow would work in NIOSH's research program on the possible health effects of EMF at radio frequencies (RF) and extremely low frequencies (ELF). Research opportunities include: (1) developing improved instruments and techniques to measure body currents in workers exposed to RF and ELF sources; (2) developing models for determining measures of the EMF's biological impact, such as the specific absorption rate (SAR), induced body current, resonances with biological ions, rate of free radical reactions, etc. (3) developing instrumentation to measure worker exposure to the biologically-effective characteristics of ELF fields; (4) testing these exposure measurement techniques with workers in health studies and laboratory animals in toxicological studies. This 2-3 year fellowship includes an annual stipend of at least $38,000 (dependant on qualifications), reimbursement of relocation expenses, travel to professional meetings, and health insurance. The fellow can also elect to take courses in health physics and industrial hygiene at the University of Cincinnati, providing the basis for a career in occupational health. Qualifications include a Ph.D. in physics, physical chemistry, health physics, industrial hygiene, electrical engineering, or biomedical engineering, the ability to work well with a multi-disciplinary research team, and a strong background in EMF theory, computer programming, and electronics. For information on applications, interested candidates should contact: Joseph D. Bowman, Ph.D. NIOSH, Mail stop C-27 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 513-533-8143 E-mail: jdb0@cdc.gov From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Dec 28 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: liboff@oakland.edu (A.R. Liboff) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: sine waves Date: 29 Dec 1997 09:55:08 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 49 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199712200041.TAA27632@cliff.acs.oakland.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net More on the discussion on the biological usefulness of sine wave versus pulsed stimulatory probes: Although (low-frequency) sine waves can be readily characterized in terms of frequency, amplitude, and, if one wishes, phase angle, this is simply not true for pulses. To replicate a pulsed signal properly requires that one know its amplitude. its repetition rate, its leading edge, or rise time, its fall time, its width, the amount of clipping, if that occurs, and its undershoot. This all can be subsumed by knowing the Fourier breakdown of the pulse, information that is not readily available without the addition of a wide-band spectrum analyzer. Even if one were able to apply to a biological system a signal which was properly characterized, the high frequency components of a pulse tend to distort on entering tissue, which makes it likely that the interactive signal would not have the same physical characteristics as that which was originally incident on the system. All this boils down to asking: (1) how does one choose the best characteristics for pulses from among the six or seven variables required to describe a pulse? (2) how does one ensure that the pulses used in laboratory A are the same as in lab B and C? (3) how does one take into account the different attenuations that occur in different biological model systems, even if the applied pulse could be prepared in the same way from lab to lab? In my opinion, the biologists have been unthinking in their use of pulses and magnetic fields. Data keeps pouring out, much of it carefully obtained and catalogued, some of it showing interesting effects, but all of it so hopelessly characterized that it defies any reasonable attempt at analysis. Biologists do things with magnetic fields that they would never be permitted to do with biochemicals. Imagine the problems that would ensue if experiments were conducted in such a way as to study the effects of adding proteins of all sorts en masse to various sytems, along with an occasional carbohydrate and perhaps a nucleotide or two, all unspecified. After all, one could argue, aren't they all biochemicals? Biologists must learn to begin thinking of electromagnetic fields as entities no less complex than the wide range of chemical compounds that they usually work with. And, not only should these fields be regarded as complex, but the response of biosystems to this complexity is probably as varied as it is for the entire array of biochemicals. A.R. Liboff Professor of Physics Oakland University Rochester, MI 48309 (248) 370-3412 liboff@oakland.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Dec 29 22:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!biosci!not-for-mail From: "Wenzl, Thurman" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: adult cancers-emf epi idea Date: 30 Dec 1997 14:31:55 -0800 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 50 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Approved: afrey@uu.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199712301534.KAA22322@mailgate2.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Will the NIEHS meeting in a few weeks be considering new ideas for epi studies? My reading of their purpose (below) suggests that they may not. I think they need to do more than decide whether the current evidence is equivocal or shows a slightly increased risk; it seems to me that whichever of these 'is the case', more epi research is warranted if a 'new' population with high exposures can be identified. So, I have a suggestion for highly exposed adult population(s) - which could be studied but which would require direct interviews with study subjects: Trains powered by overhead power freq. AC current place their passengers (and not just their crews) in relatively strong fields - with averages in the 30 -40 mG range; that means that if someone commutes 45 min one way on such a train, one would be exposed to about 45 mG hr each day, comparable to 16 hrs in a 3 mG home - which most of us believe to be quite uncommon. So why not design a regionally based case-control study where there are many commuters on such trains. For confidence in the above exposure estimate (which is based on some actual monitoring), it would be best to choose areas served by power frequency trains, rather than those powered at 25 or 16.67 Hz, since the personal monitors may not be believed at those low freqs. But there are still are several regions available; in the US, the NY to New Haven line is powered by 60 Hz overhead between Pelham and NH. In Europe, I believe that much of England, Austria, Finland, and Portugal have trains operating with these overhead power freq supplies. The disadvantages of this idea include cost, since study subjects would have to be interviewed on commuting habits and confounders (such as pregnancy history, for breast cancer) - but the size of these exposed populations (about 40,000 per day on the New Haven line) suggest that even a slightly increased rel. risk would have public health significance. Thurman Wenzl, ScD the usual disclaimers apply; these are my own ideas, and not those of my employer. from the NIEHS web page: "Purpose: (1) To review the epidemiological research on EMF, addressing the quality of studies and research findings and (2) to evaluate if there is sufficient evidence to support a causal linkage between exposure to EMF and a biological effect."