From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Jun 03 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!newsjunkie.ans.net!news.intermedia.com!emi.com!pauling.wadsworth.org!tivol From: tivol@news.wadsworth.org (William Tivol) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Data variance Date: 2 Jun 1995 18:33:32 GMT Organization: Wadsworth Center, NY Health Dept. Lines: 21 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3qnlht$irp@pauling.wadsworth.org> References: <1410618384-445978@neurpath2.mcg.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: alcor.wadsworth.org X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Charles J. Hannan, Jr. (hannan@NEURPATH2.MCG.EDU) wrote: [snip] : I was delighted to read the earlier message from Andrew Marino "EMFs and : chaos" in which the question of data variance is discussed. I find : variance of data an excellent flag to herald the occurrence of some event : in my experiment for which I did not adequately control. The meaning of : experimental variance was never discussed in my formal training, but the : recognition of its importance by Dr. Marino may be an excellent issue to : explore with our colleagues, even those in the APS. Dear Charles, Indeed, data variance is important--especially when one is looking for a small effect on a large, noisy background. This definitely applies to stu- dies of emf effects on biological systems. Data variance can arise from many sources. As you suggest, there may be unknown (and, therefore, uncontrolled) variables. There may be an inherent statistical nature to the process under consideration. This is true both of radioactive decay and of the response of genetically identical animals to identical experimental treatments. Yours, Bill Tivol From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Jun 03 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!swrinde!sgiblab!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!waikato!auckland.ac.nz!news.iprolink.co.nz!usenet From: mstuart@iprolink.co.nz (Michael Stuart) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EMF-Link Address Date: 4 Jun 1995 15:09:48 GMT Organization: Your Organization Lines: 9 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3qsibs$ah9@innserv.iprolink.co.nz> References: <950530122645_17423362@aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts1-22.iprolink.co.nz Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.2 In article <950530122645_17423362@aol.com>, JamesD263@aol.com says... > >Can anyone tell me the address for EMF-LINK and in particular, the EMF >litigation in the News section? Thanks. How do I access It? Use WWW browser such as Netscape or Mosaic to access.... http://infoventures.microserve.com/ Good luck From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jun 04 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!msunews!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!iccu6!news From: sparkin@gil.ipswichcity.qld.gov.au (Stewart PARKINSON) Subject: EMF and Environment: HELP! Sender: news@ipswichcity.qld.gov.au Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 11:29:18 GMT X-Nntp-Posting-Host: cs3p14.ipswichcity.qld.gov.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Organization: Global Infolinks Internet Server, Ipswich Qld Australia X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.11 Lines: 6 Have a friend researching adverse effects of electromagnetic radiation on the environment. Any help with references or other information greatly appreciated. Thanks Stewart Parkinson. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jun 07 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NEURPATH2.MCG.EDU!hannan From: hannan@NEURPATH2.MCG.EDU (Charles J. Hannan, Jr.) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: more on variance Date: 8 Jun 1995 07:22:53 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 20 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <1409515466-3381846@neurpath2.mcg.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The search for elusive factors which can reduce data variance has had a triumph. In the area of epidemiology I would like to draw attention to the just published paper "Childhood cancer in relation to indicators magnetic fields from ground current sources" by Nancy Wertheimer, David Savitz and Ed Leeper (Bioelectomagnetics 16:86-96, 1995). In the language of the epidemiologist (not I), the control of data variance is indicated by an increase in the odds ratio. In this paper a very logical explaination is made for the finding of a highly significant association of cancer risk with the measurement of 'nonvertical fields'. Do others share my enthusiasm for this work, or does my lack of epidemiology training make me an easy target for such findings? Virtually yours, e-mail: hannan@np2.mcg.edu Charlie Hannan Radiology Dept. Medical College of Georgia Augusta GA 30912 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Jun 09 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news From: george lechter <74053.3324@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: EMF, ELF, Power lines & computers Date: 10 Jun 1995 04:12:27 GMT Organization: safe technologies corporation Lines: 1404 Message-ID: <3rb63b$498$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com> FACTS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (EMFS) AND ON MAGNETS. A Survey of present knowledge concerning low-frequency electromagnetic radiation from power lines, home wiring, appliances, televisions and computer displays EMF LINKED TO CANCER AND OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS Can electromagnetic fields (EMF) from power lines, distribution lines, home wiring and appliances cause brain tumors, leukemia, birth defects, and other health problems? Numerous studies have produced contradictory results, yet some experts are convinced the threat is real. Dr. David Carpenter, Dean at the School of Public Health, State University of New York, says "This is really harming people." According to Dr. Carpenter, it is likely that 10% to 15% of all childhood cancers come from exposure to residential power lines. The Environmental Protection Agency warns "There is reason for concern" and advises "prudent avoidance." Martin Halper, the EPA's Director of Analysis and Support, goes even further. "I have never seen a set of epidemiological studies that remotely approached the weight of evidence that we're seeing with ELF [extremely low frequency] electromagnetic fields. Clearly there is something here." Concern over electromagnetic radiation began to explode after Paul Brodeur wrote a series of lengthy articles in the New Yorker Magazine. When the articles were published in June, 1989, Brodeur had already established renown by bringing the previously unknown hazards of asbestos into public view. In this new revelation, Brodeur described how Louis Slesin, editor and publisher of VDT News, had pieced together a fascinating puzzle. For nearly a decade, Slesin had compiled details on studies which linked magnetic fields with cancer. Most experts thought that the results were erroneous because it seemed inconceivable that such low levels of non-ionizing radiation could cause harm. Consequently the studies were branded biased, and instead of praise for their pioneering work, the researchers who conducted these studies were ridiculed and their concerns ignored. Because of Paul Brodeur's reputation, his New Yorker articles had a catalytic effect on scientists, reporters and concerned people throughout the world. In 1989 and 1990, the EMF issue gained mainstream publicity, with alarming reports appearing in Time, the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and popular computer publications such as MacWorld. ABC's Ted Koppel aired a full 30 minute show and interviewed Paul Brodeur, while CBS' Dan Rather aired a special segment on an ominous EPA report. In October, 1989, an article in Business Week quoted a leading scientist as saying that low frequency magnetic fields were biologically active. This acceptance of EMF as having a measurable impact on living cells and organisms represented a major shift in the scientific community from debating whether EMF could cause biological effects to debating, instead, the level of harm caused by the radiation. "It is now clear that 60-hertz and other low-frequency electromagnetic fields can interact with individual cells and organs to produce biological changes," says a 1989 Office of Technology Assessment report. "The nature of these interactions is subtle and complex. The implications of these interactions for public health remain unclear, but there are legitimate reasons for concern." The word "epidemiology" is often used in conjunction with studies of EMF. "Epidemiology" comes from "epidemic" meaning common to or affecting a great number of people in a community at the same time. An epidemiologist studies the statistical relationship between health problems and suspected causes, but even when a positive relationship is found, such studies do not prove cause and effect, even if it seems obvious. To see why this is important, consider that a rooster will crow at sunrise, and on most mornings the temperature starts to rise. An epidemiological study of roosters crowing would show a positive correlation with subsequent temperature increases that day, but it would be invalid to conclude that the crowing causes the temperature rise. Similarly, there may be a factor other than EMF from power lines which causes cancer, such as traffic density. With so many variables, the cause-and-effect relationship is difficult to establish. In late 1989, the Wall Street Journal reported that electromagnetic radiation was linked to cancer and leukemia. Even more alarming, the Electric Power Research Institute, the leading arm of the electric utility companies, had "only praise" for the methodology used in a power line study that linked leukemia, prostate and other cancers in young men with chronic exposure to magnetic fields. In November of 1989, the Department of Energy reported that "It has now become generally accepted that there are, indeed, biological effects due to field exposure." EPA SAYS THREAT IS REAL By 1990, over one hundred studies had been conducted worldwide. Of these, at least two dozen epidemiological studies on humans indicated a linkage between electromagnetic radiation and serious health problems. In response to public pressure, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began reviewing and evaluating the available literature. In a draft report issued in March, 1990, the staff of the EPA recommended that magnetic fields be classified as a Class B carcinogen. This category is for "probable human carcinogens," and includes formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins and PCBs. However, in a later watered-down revision, the reference to Class B was deleted, and the following explanation was added: "At this time such a characterization regarding the link between cancer and exposure to EM fields is not appropriate because the basic nature of the interaction between EM fields and biological processes leading to cancer is not understood." Curiously, this rather unusual logic appears on the very same page as the following: "In conclusion, several studies showing leukemia, lymphoma, and cancer of the nervous system in children exposed to magnetic fields from residential 60 Hz electrical distribution systems, supported by similar findings in adults in several occupational studies also involving electrical power frequency exposures, show a consistent pattern of response that suggests a causal link." RECENT STUDIES RAISE CONCERN Until a few years ago, the electric and magnetic fields around power lines, electric motors and household appliances were thought to be harmless. However, on the basis of new studies, scientists are changing their opinions. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, "recent research with human cells and laboratory animals, plus epidemiological studies, all have suggested that the fields do have biological effects, and that they may foster a number of medical problems, including cancer and miscarriage. Leonard Sagan, the radiation expert at the Electric Power Research Institute, says that the latest experiment is important because 'this is humans, not rats, who are apparently showing an effect'." As early as 1976, scientists in Loma Linda demonstrated that exposure to weak levels of EMF could slow the outflow of calcium in cells from chicken brains. A major study of chicken embryos, sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Navy, found a significant increase in abnormal embryos of chickens when exposed to pulsed magnetic fields similar to the type of magnetic fields emitted by VDTs. Of six laboratories, two found a statistically significant increase in abnormal embryos, and three found non-statistically significant increases. Such abnormalities included lower birth weights and birth defects. One of the earliest studies on the human health effects of EMF was conducted in the greater Denver, Colorado area by epidemiologist Nancy Wertheimer and physicist Ed Leeper. Using data on children who had died before age 19 of cancer between 1950 and 1979, this study found significant excess risks among children who resided in homes close to heavy duty distribution lines. Other studies indicate that these lines typically produce strong magnetic fields. In 1982, the New England Journal of Medicine published a letter from Dr. Samuel Milham, Jr. describing his study of leukemia deaths in Washington state. His comprehensive study, which examined the data for 438,000 deaths occurring between 1950 and 1979, found that leukemia deaths were elevated in 10 out of 11 occupations involving exposure to EMF. In 1988, epidemiologist Dr. David Savitz set out to disprove the results of the earlier Denver study using a different group of children. Instead, his findings were nearly identical with the first study F indicating elevated risk for all cancers among children living in homes near power lines with magnetic fields at or above 2 milliGauss (mG). Perhaps the most publicized study was conducted in 1988 by the Kaiser Permanente HMO in Oakland, California, one of the largest health care facilities in the country. Kaiser's researchers tracked 1,583 pregnancies to find out whether pregnant women had been affected by the widespread use of aerial spray to kill medflies. No problem was found with the spraying, but the researchers were surprised to find a statistically significant 73% increase in miscarriages in working women using CRT-style VDTs (cathode ray tube style video display terminals), compared to other working women. The study also found an increase in birth defects, although the result was not statistically significant due to the sample size. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) captured world-wide headlines in the spring of 1991 when it released the results of its study on the health effects of CRT-style VDTs and miscarriages. The study found no link between VDT use and miscarriages, after studying 730 pregnant directory assistance and general telephone operators. The study concluded that "the use of VDTs and exposure to the accompanying electromagnetic fields were not associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion in this study" (emphasis added). The media's immediate interpretation was: "[the new study] settles a question that has worried women of childbearing age for more than a decade: Can using a video display terminal cause miscarriage? The answer is clearly no..." Unfortunately, a close examination of the NIOSH report (published March 14, 1991, in The New England Journal of Medicine) shows that the media's interpretation was incorrect, and that the study's conclusions were limited. One group (the study population) of operators used CRT-style VDTs, and another group (the control group) of operators used a different type of video display, with either LEDs (light emitting diodes) or neon glow tubes. Interestingly, measurements of abdominal exposure to ELF magnetic fields were similar for both groups. Hence, the study reached no conclusions about health risks to pregnant women from the ELF radiation emitted by VDTs, although NIOSH attempted to minimize this major flaw by stating that the levels of abdominal exposure to ELF for both groups were in the same range as exposures in the home (i.e., .5 mG to 2.5 mG). Moreover, the study only dealt with two monochrome models of VDTs manufactured by IBM and Computer Controls, Inc. These VDTs emitted very low frequencies (VLF) in the range of 15 kHz, while a large percentage of video displays sold today produce VLF emissions in the 30 kHz to 85 kHz range. Furthermore, the researchers found that among the same model VDT, VLF levels varied by as much as 1500% (a fifteenfold difference), but the study made no attempt to determine if the higher levels were associated with increased risks. Finally, the study did not deal with other health risks, such as cancer, from VDTs. Other studies have yielded alarming results. A Johns Hopkins study showed that the incidence of leukemia among telephone cable workers was 7 times greater than among other telephone company employees. A subsequent study of 1.5 million past and present employees of AT&T found that men working as cable splicers and central office technicians had 1.7 times the risk of dying from leukemia than men working at jobs with less exposure to EMF. This is startling, considering that the field these men are exposed to is, on the average, relatively low (4.3 milliGauss.) As John Monahan of the Food and Drug Administration explains, "the effect is real. It is produced by a low-level magnetic field, but we don't yet know what the important parameters of the field are." Studies of cells and laboratory animals exposed to EMF show biological effects, including: changes in levels of neurotransmitters F the chemicals which send signals between nerves, changes in levels of calcium found inside or on the surface of cells, embryo abnormalities in chickens, mice and pigs, malignant lymphomas in mice exposed to very high-intensity EMF, slowing of repetitive learning and reduced testical weight in rats, changes in brain chemistry, heightened stress, and changes in the rate of growth and cell division of some cells. The latter effects have implications for the offspring of pregnant women and growing children. In some experiments, human cancer cells exposed to EMF exhibit increased resistance to attack by the body's cancer fighting white blood cells and the body's immune system. Further, a drop in the levels of melatonin have been reported in people sleeping with electric blankets. Melatonin is a hormone which controls the monthly female cycle and inhibits the growth of certain cancers. Other experiments on humans indicate that EMF can cause fatigue, headache, slower reaction times, slower heart rates and altered brain waves. A study released in February, 1991 by the University of Southern California (USC) Los Angeles unexpectedly found an increased rate of leukemia among children who watch black and white televisions. While the study is the first to make this link, it is a reminder to keep children as far back from a television as possible. This study also found that exposure to hair dryers, curling irons and electric blankets increased the risk of getting leukemia. In addition to leukemia in children, more recent studies have linked EMFs with new diseases. Loomis and Savitz of the University of North Carolina reported a doubling of the expected breast cancer rates for women in electrical trades aged 45-54. (Microwave News, Nov/Dec 1993). More recently, a major study linked EMFs with Alzeimer's. Results from two studies conducted in Finland and one in Los Angeles indicate that people with a high occupational exposure to EMF's are at least three times as likely to develop Alzeimer's disease a those without significant exposure. (Network News, Aug/Sep 1994). As more evidence is compiled, concern about the link between exposure to EMF and human health is growing. Yet the experts agree only on one thing: no one knows the extent, nature and cause of health hazards associated with electromagnetic fields. Should we take comfort in published reports that the evidence is "not conclusive," or should we take steps now to mitigate public exposure to EMF even if the scientific jury is still out? An interesting parallel exists with smoking. In spite of overwhelming evidence, the tobacco industry claims that ". . . it is not known whether smoking has a role in the development of various diseases" (quote from The Smoking Controversy: Why More Research Is Needed, published by the Tobacco Institute, November, 1989). Such statements only prove that there will always be experts who disagree, thereby causing widespread confusion. Intelligent people obviously need to sort through the information and reach their own conclusions. THE NATURE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION An AC electric current is defined as the movement of electrons in roughly the same direction, usually through a wire. This current, in turn, produces two types of fields: an AC electric field and an AC magnetic field, which together are called an electromagnetic field. The AC electric fields result from the strength of the charge and the AC magnetic fields result from the motion of the charge (i.e., the flow of electrons comprising the electric current). The AC electric field represents the force that electric charges exert on other charges, and this force may either repel (as with two positive charges, for example) or attract. The AC magnetic field forms a closed continuous doughnut-shaped loop around the current and radiates at a right angle to the direction of the current. People can sense an electric field of more than about 20 kilovolts/meter (kV/m) as a slight tingling sensation on their skin. This level can be found underneath high voltage power lines. On the other hand, most people cannot feel the presence of AC magnetic fields except at extraordinarily strong levels (although some people claim they can sense even low levels of EMF). Interestingly, while an AC electric current creates an AC magnetic field, it is also true that an AC magnetic field creates an AC electric current in a nearby conductor. This is the principle of induction, and it is how we detect and measure AC EMF fields. Induction is also the principle by which a transformer raises or lowers voltages. In a transformer, an AC electric current flowing through a coil of wire radiates an AC magnetic field, and another adjacent coil of wire picks up the AC magnetic field and converts it back into AC electric current. The number of coils on each side of the transformer determine by how much the voltage is increased or decreased. In order to distribute electricity economically over long distances, high voltages are used. Between the power plant and your home, a series of transformers reduce the voltage along the way so that by the time it reaches your home, the voltage has been reduced to the 120/240 volt level. It is desirable to use alternating current (AC), since most transformers work only with AC. AC means that the direction of the current alternates back and forth. The frequency of the back and forth cycle is measured in Hertz (Hz), which stands for cycles per second. Hence, when we talk about a 60 Hz current, which is the standard in the United States, this means that the direction of the current is changing back and forth 60 times per second. In Europe and other parts of the world, the frequency of AC electric power is 50 Hz rather than 60 Hz. A graph of AC current (voltage vs. time) will form a sine wave, with a positive voltage for half of the time, and a negative voltage for the other half. The same is true of the electric and magnetic fields, which travel in one direction and then the other, corresponding with the changes in direction of the AC current. Since power lines, household wiring and appliances all carry electricity with a 60 Hz cycle, the resulting AC electric and AC magnetic fields also oscillate at 60 Hz. Such frequencies are at the low end of the electromagnetic spectrum, and are referred to as extremely low frequency (ELF) fields. The 60 Hz frequency originates at the power generating station and ends up in our household appliances. Higher voltages change the strength of the fields, but not the 60 Hz frequency. Radiation is a broad term meaning the transmission of energy in the form of waves through space or through a material medium and also the radiated energy itself. The force field associated with radiation is the region throughout which the radiation is measurable. Sometimes electromagnetic radiation is called EMR, while electromagnetic fields are frequently referred to as EMF. EMR and EMF refer to the entire range of the electromagnetic spectrum, from extremely low frequencies to radio waves. In practice, EMF is used more often than EMR because "radiation" sounds scary and its use may create confusion with more dangerous radiation from X-ray machines and radioactive material. In news reports and articles written for the general public (such as this article), EMF is used loosely to indicate the low frequency electromagnetic fields coming from power lines, home wiring, appliances, TVs and computer displays. EMF from different sources can either add together or cancel each other out. This is due to the wave characteristics of electromagnetic radiation. If the radiation from two sources are in phase, then the peaks of each cycle will occur together, and the fields will add together. On the other hand, if the two sources are exactly out of phase, then one source will be reaching its greatest strength in one direction at exactly the same time as the other source is peaking in the opposite direction. If the magnitude of the fields is identical, then the fields will cancel each other out, and the magnetic field measurement will be zero. This is why neutral and hot wires in household wiring need to be paired close together. This characteristic also provides a mechanism for configuring power lines and VDTs so that EMF levels are reduced. EMF can be either man-made or occur naturally. Examples of electromagnetic radiation, in order of increasing frequency, are extremely low frequency (ELF), very low frequency (VLF), radio waves, microwaves, infrared (heat), visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. All electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light. The frequency of the electromagnetic radiation is what determines its character. X-rays (and other forms of ionizing radiation) can strip electrons away from an atom, thereby creating an "ion." When living systems are exposed to such radiation, detrimental effects are caused by breaking apart molecular bonds. Cancer can be caused by such ionizing radiation when DNA (the molecules that make genes) is broken apart. At ELF frequencies, electromagnetic radiation is non-ionizing, meaning it cannot knock electrons away from atoms or alter molecular structures. However, low frequency electromagnetic radiation is nevertheless an energy force, and this energy force can shake atoms and molecules back and forth. The field strength of electromagnetic fields can be calculated mathematically. Fields from compact sources containing coils or magnets (transformers, appliances, and computer displays, for example) diminish most rapidly with distance F in proportion with the distance cubed (1/d**3; d = distance). Fields from long wire conductors in power lines drop off in proportion with the distance squared (1/d**2), provided the currents flowing in opposite directions are well-balanced. The field strength drops off less quickly with secondary distribution lines, since the currents are frequently unbalanced. In practice, it is easier to measure the field strength than to calculate it, since there are usually multiple EMF sources which interact with each other in complex ways. THEORIES ON HOW EMF AFFECTS BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS For many years some scientists and engineers felt that low frequency EMF could not possibly produce significant biological changes or effects. This reasoning was based upon the fact that low frequency EMF cannot break molecular bonds and it generates only a miniscule amount of heat - not enough to heat body tissue. However, this argument has turned out to be incorrect because there are other ways in which fields can interact with individual cells to produce biological changes. If we recall that magnetic fields can induce an electric current in a nearby conductor, the implication is that AC magnetic fields will induce electric currents in our bodies (although such currents will be very small). That's because our bodies are mostly comprised of a conductive medium (salty water). Some of these currents are similar to what a salamander uses to regenerate a limb, and therefore the artificial creation of these currents in a human body are of concern. The way in which electromagnetic radiation affects the body is not fully known. A similar state of knowledge applies to the mechanisms behind how aspirin cures a headache or reduces fever, or why asbestos causes cancer. One theory is that EMF causes the cell walls to vibrate, or to resonate, in the same way you can shake a bowl of jello and observe it oscillate back and forth at a certain frequency. Resonance is not necessarily harmful. The body is composed of many elements that can resonate at different frequencies. The human ear is an example of a part of the body which resonates in tune with its environment. When we listen to the music of a violin, we are hearing a sound vibration of 5,000 cycles per second. The sound from a violin is transmitted by pressure waves in the air, not magnetic radiation. We know that the human body has no difficulty dealing with this kind of sound-induced resonance (unless, of course, the amplitude is very large, as with the sound of a jet engine). In the case of EMF, resonance with cells occurs when there is a "match" between the wavelength of the radiation and the physical size of the cell. The resonance maximizes the transfer of energy into the cell, and can result in observable biological effects which may be harmful. One observable effect is a disruption in the calcium flow through cell walls. Calcium acts as a messenger that penetrates into the cell, conveying important information and triggering proteins to carry out cell functions. Calcium also plays an important role in regulating certain body functions, such as muscle contractions, heartbeat, development of egg cells and cell division. Since cancer growth depends on cell proliferation, these findings seem to explain why EMF sometimes behaves like agents that pro mote, rather than initiate, cancerous growths. Another theory is that the altered calcium flow to the cell reduces the cell's ability to fight cancer. According to Craig Byus, a biochemist at the University of California at Riverside, just because the fields are very small doesn't mean they are innocuous. Cell membranes appear to have a way of amplifying the fields. Due to the poor conductivity of the thin cell wall, small induced currents produce large voltage potentials across the cell membranes, disrupting the chemical balance. Are weaker fields safer than stronger ones? Logically, our experience with other pollutants would lead us to answer yes, but scientists say this may not be the case because there are "windows" or ranges of biologically active frequencies and field strength. Some experiments show no effect with a strong field, but when the field strength is reduced an effect appears. Other experiments show that above a certain field strength, effects can be observed but no additional effects occur when the field strength is increased. The resonance effect between EMF and the surfaces of cells may help explain the strange window effect. To understand why, an analogy may be made with the noisy shaking of water pipes sometimes observed when running water from a faucet. As the faucet is opened, a small flow presents no problem. Then, as the initial low flow is increased, a loud noise may occur due to pipe resonance. When the flow is increased even further, the effect doesn't get worse, and usually it stops. The shape of the magnetic pulse also seems to play a role, too, as different pulse shapes cause different effects. The strength of a 60 Hz EMF field from power lines and household wiring increases and decreases smoothly, while the VLF field from a VDT has a saw-tooth pattern. All this complicated evidence makes it difficult to reach any conclusions on what level of EMF exposure is safe and what isn't. The consensus is that more research is needed. ELF AND VLF RADIATION There are two frequency ranges for magnetic fields which are commonly found around our homes and businesses ELF (extremely low frequency) which radiates from a 60 Hz current, such as power lines, and VLF (very low frequency) which comes from the 15 kHz to 85 kHz scanning frequencies of TVs and cathode ray tube video displays. The full ELF frequency range is between 0 Hz and 1,000 Hz, and the VLF range extends from 1,000 Hz (1 kHz) to 500,000 Hz (500 kHz). THE GAUSS METER A Gauss is a common unit of measurement of AC magnetic field strength. A Gauss meter is an instrument which measures the strength of AC magnetic fields. Inside a Gauss meter there is a coil of thin wire, typically with hundreds of turns. As a magnetic field radiates through the coil, it induces a current, which is amplified by the circuitry inside the Gauss meter. If a Gauss meter were to have an induction coil with approximately 40,000 turns, a relatively low magnetic field strength of 1 milliGauss (1,000 milliGauss = 1 Gauss) would induce enough current to be read directly with a voltmeter. It is more practical, however, to build a Gauss meter with fewer turns and, through operational amplification circuitry, to increase the voltage or current and then calibrate the meter to read in Gauss or milliGauss (mG). Some Gauss meters measure only in the ELF range or the VLF range, but not both, so it is important to understand the capabilities of the Gauss meter you are working with. For example, if you have a Gauss meter which measures only ELF radiation and you use it to measure the field strength coming from a computer display, then you should be aware that you are not measuring the VLF field. In addition to frequency response (i.e., ELF or VLF sensitivity), Gauss meters may vary in the strength of the magnetic field they are capable of measuring. An ELF Gauss meter used for measuring strong AC magnetic fields may be incapable of displaying less than 1 Gauss, while an ELF Gauss meter for measuring radiation from power lines and appliances around your home should be able to measure as low as .1 mG. For measuring radiation from televisions and video displays with cathode ray tubes, a VLF Gauss meter should be able to measure down to .01 mG. On occasion, you may encounter different units of measurement for magnetic fields, such as a Tesla, a micro-Tesla (uT), a nano-Tesla (nT), and milliamps per meter. These units are related as follows: 1 Tesla = 10,000 Gauss (A Tesla is 10,000 times larger than a Gauss) 1 Gauss = 1,000 milliGauss (mG) (A Gauss is 1,000 times larger than a milliGauss) 1 milliGauss (mG) = .0000001 Tesla = .0001 milliTesla (mT) = .1 microTesla (uT) = 100 nanoTesla (nT) 1 milliGauss (mG) = 80 milliamps/meter To use a Gauss meter, it is necessary to take three readings, one for each axis. To avoid confusion, it is best to always take the readings in the same order. For example, take the first reading with the display facing the ceiling and the front edge of the meter pointed straight ahead, and call this the X-axis reading. For the second reading, rotate the meter 90 degrees toward you, so that you are looking directly at the display with the front edge of the meter pointed at the ceiling. Call this the Y-axis reading. For the third reading, rotate the meter 90 degrees to the left or right around the new vertical axis, still keeping the front edge of the meter aimed toward the ceiling. You can still see the display by tilting your head. Once the readings are completed, you can calculate a single combined reading by squaring the reading for each axis, adding the three squared numbers, and then taking the square root of the sum. For example, suppose you observe readings of 2.5, 1.7 and .6 mG from your meter. To find the combined field strength, perform the following calculations: (X-axis) times (X-axis) = 2.5 X 2.5 = 6.25 (Y-axis) times (Y-axis) = 1.7 X 1.7 = 2.89 (Z-axis) times (Z-axis) = .6 X .6 = 0.36 _______ Total = 9.50 Square root of Total = 3.08 In actual practice, it is not necessary to be so precise as to actually use the formula, particularly if the highest reading on one axis is much stronger than the rest. For example, readings of 2.5 mG, .4 mG, and .3 mG would result in a combined field strength of 2.55 mG. Thus, just by using the dominant axis reading, the result is nearly the same as performing the calculation. On the other hand, if the measurements for each axis are close to each other, then the combined reading could be as much as 73% more than any one axis (e.g., 2.5 mG on each axis results in a combined reading of 4.3 mG). POWER LINES An enormous amount of electricity is created at power generating stations and sent across the country through wires that carry high voltages. These voltages can be 69,000, 100,000, 161,000, 230,000, 500,000, or even 765,000 volts. All power lines emit magnetic and electric fields. The electric field is proportional to the line voltage, while the magnetic field depends on the load current. Typically high voltage transmission lines carry high current and therefore give off both high electric and high magnetic fields. The ELF magnetic field emitted by a 500,000 volt transmission line can be as high as several hundred mG directly underneath the power line, and the field can still be measured (at reduced levels) more than a thousand feet away. Unfortunately, the problem of EMF does not end with high power transmission lines. Networks of secondary distribution lines criss cross most cities and towns, and these distribution lines have strong magnetic fields, even if one is 10-50 feet away. The amount of EMF coming from a high power transmission line depends upon its particular configuration. Power companies know which power line configurations are best for reducing EMF, but most utilities feel that the evidence so far does not support costly changes in the way electricity is delivered. One of the more common transmission line configurations is called a "vertical double-circuit," where a set of three cables is attached, one on top of each other, to each side of the transmission tower. The three cables in each set comprise the "three phases" of the power network, with each cable carrying current. The current peaks in each cable are intentionally out of phase with each other (i.e., they don't peak at the same time) by 1/3 of a cycle. Electric utilities use the letters A-B-C to denote a three phase circuit, with each letter representing one cable and its phase. EMF can be reduced by 50 percent or more with very little expense by reversing the phase order in one circuit with respect to the other (i.e., C-B-A). This configuration causes both the electric and magnetic fields to partially cancel each other. In early 1989, the Bonneville Power Administration adopted this scheme for implementation on both old and new transmission lines. This configuration is not used by most utilities, however, because it creates interference with nearby TVs and radios, and it causes snapping and buzzing noises. A single-circuit transmission line still has three cables, one for each phase. Typically the three cables are strung in a flat configuration, with all three cables in the same plane. Significant cancelling can be achieved by merely changing from a flat configuration to a "delta" configuration, with the three cables forming a triangle. Moving the cables closer together also helps to cancel the fields, but it reduces safety for the maintenance workers and degrades the line's performance during lightning. Sometimes burying electric power lines can reduce EMF, but this is not necessarily the case, as magnetic fields travel through dirt, rocks and cement. Unless the underground lines are configured to reduce EMF, simply hiding the lines out of sight may create a false sense of security. If the underground service is just a single phase wire, radiation levels on the ground directly over the wire will be higher than from overhead lines because you will be closer to the source. On the other hand, some underground lines have several circuits which can be balanced to cancel the magnetic field. In a 1991 study conducted by the Electrical Systems Division of the Electric Power Research Institute, researchers found that magnetic fields produced by underground cables vary by as much as 10 to 1, depending on the method of installation and cable construction. According to the study, a person standing directly over an underground cable with the worst configuration (from an EMF perspective) will be exposed to the same level of EMF as a person standing at the edge of the right-of-way for an overhead transmission line. Unfortunately, the study also found that the best configurations for the lowest EMF are less efficient for electric power transmission. With concern about EMF in mind, new and different underground cable systems are being developed. The lowest field underground design has three insulated cables lying adjacent to each other in an oil-filled pipe that cools the cables. This configuration can result in magnetic fields 1/10 to 1/20 of the equivalent overhead line. The EMF can be reduced even further, sometimes to near ambient background levels, if the pipe is grounded in a special way. SUBSTATIONS A substation is an assemblage of circuit breakers, disconnecting switches, and transformers designed to change and regulate the voltage of electricity. Primary distribution lines, carrying high voltages typically of 115,000 volts to 230,000 volts, bring the current from the power plant to the substation, where the transformers reduce it to lower voltages, typically 4,000 to 13,800 volts. The transformers give off magnetic fields because they depend upon magnetic fields to operate. (See discussion of transformers under "The Nature of Electromagnetic Radiation.") Further compounding the problem, the incoming and outgoing currents at a substation are generally unbalanced. High magnetic fields from substations have been blamed for causing cancer clusters among nearby residents. Paul Brodeur wrote about several such cancer clusters in the July 9, 1990, issue of the New Yorker. Citing evidence that a cancer cluster had occurred among the residents of Meadow Street in Guilford, Connecticut, Brodeur pointed out that during a twenty year period, seven tumors - four brain tumors, an eye tumor, an ovarian tumor, and a bone tumor - were recorded among the residents. This was particularly extraordinary since the street has only nine houses. The cancer victims lived in five of six adjacent houses located near an electric-power substation and next to a pair of 115,000 volt high-current distribution lines, called feeders, which carry current to the substation. Measurements of magnetic fields taken at that time near the peripheral fence around the Meadow Street substation showed magnetic fields ranging from 20 mG to several hundred mG. NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSFORMERS A key component of a utility's electrical distribution network depends upon numerous, small transformers mounted on power poles. A transformer looks like a small metal trash can, usually cylindrical. Even when the electrical service is underground, you will often see a metal box (usually square) located on the ground near the street. Many people don't realize that when they see a transformer, the power line feeding the transformer is 4,000 to 13,800 volts. The transformer then reduces the voltage to the 120/240 volts needed by nearby homes. Since these transformers can be seen in almost every neighborhood, they are a source of popular concern. The ELF magnetic field near a transformer can be high, but due to its small structure, the field strength diminishes rapidly with distance, as it does from a point source. In fact, measurements at street level directly underneath a power pole transformer are no greater than underneath the power lines themselves. Ground level transformers may have readings as high as 200 mG right next to the box, and 50 mG at 4 inches away. Fortunately the fields drop off quite rapidly, with a 3 mG reading at 2 feet, and near ambient levels 10 feet away. For this reason, having a transformer located near your home is not usually a major source of concern, although just to make sure, you should measure the field strength around it. WIRING INSIDE THE HOME WARNING: DO NOT TOUCH ELECTRIC WIRES, EVEN IF YOU THINK THE CURRENT IS TURNED OFF. IF YOU NEED TO DISCONNECT ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS TO DETERMINE THE SOURCE OF MAGNETIC FIELDS, YOU SHOULD CALL A LICENSED ELECTRICIAN. AC magnetic fields can be found inside everyone's home. These fields can come from power lines outside the home, wiring inside the home, and appliances. Some experts feel a background level of less than 1 mG is desirable, but many homes have readings much higher than this level. If your home has high EMF readings, it is important to determine the sources of the magnetic field so that remedial action can be taken, if possible. Often the source of a high AC magnetic field is incorrect wiring, so it is important to understand how you can correct this problem. Household electric current comes through two hot wires and one neutral. For appliances that require 240 volts, the "hots" are put together; for appliances and outlets that need only 120 volts, just one hot wire is used. Modern homes have electrical outlets with three holes - two rectangles and a smaller half-round hole at the bottom. The rectangle on the right is smaller, and this is for the hot wire. The rectangle on the left is larger, and this is for the neutral wire. The ground is wired to the bottom, half-round hole in each outlet. The most important consideration in wiring a house is that the ground and neutral wires be kept separate and run directly back to the panel box (either a fuse box or a circuit breaker box), where they are grounded. This is a requirement of the National Electrical Code (NEC). Under no circumstances should the neutral or ground wires be grounded to the plumbing or any other ground except at the panel box. Electric current needs to flow through a closed loop in order to work. This closed loop is referred to as a circuit. To understand how the current is supposed to flow in a correctly wired circuit, let's examine a circuit used to power a refrigerator. From the panel box electricity flows through the hot wire to the refrigerator, where it turns the motor. The electricity then flows back through the neutral wire to the panel box. With the loop closed in this way, the field is canceled out because the hot and neutral wires are close together. A ground wire runs from the panel box to the refrigerator, but if everything is wired correctly then the ground carries no current. The ground is for safety reasons, so that you will not get electrocuted in case the insulation on the hot wire becomes worn and the hot wire comes into contact with the frame of the refrigerator. The frame of the refrigerator is connected to the ground, so that any stray current from a worn or loose wire will flow back through the ground instead of through your body. If the neutral has been grounded to your plumbing instead of running back to the panel box, your house is wired incorrectly, and this may result in a significant magnetic field. Suppose this is the case. Tracing the flow of the electric current from the panel box to the refrigerator, after the electric current powers the refrigerator it will run to the neutral and, if wired incorrectly, through the plumbing where it is grounded. Since it is no longer paired with the hot wire, the magnetic field will not cancel out. Instead, there will be a magnetic field around the hot wire that is connected to the refrigerator, and another field may surround all your plumbing. Just one incorrectly grounded appliance can send electricity through all your water pipes, and create a magnetic field throughout your entire house! Changing the plumbing from metal to plastic is not a proper solution, because electric current is not supposed to flow through the plumbing. The only solution is to rewire correctly, with all hot and neutral wires paired closely together, and without any current flowing through the ground wire or through your plumbing. Ground currents from underground non-electric utility lines have also been implicated in as a major source of EMF in the home. Present regulations in the United States require that utility lines such as gas, cable TV, telephone, and water be connected at each residence to the same ground as used for electric current. This practice "provides an alternate path for the [neutral return] current to flow from your house back to the distribution system," says Gary Johnson, an executive at a General Electric facility doing EMF research for the Electric Power Research Institute. As a result, an imbalance is created which reduces the cancelling effect of the neutral's field on the hot conductor. This little-known fact can be an eye opener for explaining mysterious EMF in some homes. According to Johnson, you could create fields in your neighbor's house when you switch your appliances on and off, and your neighbor could create them in your house, too. This phenomenon can also account for fields outside of the home and in overhead distribution lines. Still another source of EMF comes from the power line where it enters your home. The area of your home near this feeder line will have a reading even if the rest of the house is properly wired. If your supply line enters your home with an overhead wire, as opposed to underground, you may want to avoid using a corner of your home, or part of a room, for any prolonged period of time. To test your home for magnetic fields, walk through your home with an ELF Gauss meter. If the reading is generally below 1.0 mG except near appliances, your home is wired correctly. If you find extensive zones of higher readings, you need to first determine if the EMF is coming from your own wiring or from a source outside your home. To start, walk outside and see what the readings are around your home. Then turn off your electricity at your panel box and check inside your home. The results will tell you if you need to go further and check your wiring. If you suspect that your home is wired improperly, obtain the services of a licensed electrician. Ask the electrician to disconnect all circuits at the panel box and test one circuit at a time. If your home has circuit breakers, you can just turn off all the circuit breakers and turn on one at a time. Then take a reading throughout the house with the Gauss meter. As an alternative, your electrician can test for the presence of unwanted ground currents with a clamp-on ammeter attached to your plumbing (it should read zero), but a Gauss meter is still recommended as it is generally more sensitive and doesn't require open access to the plumbing. This way, you'll be able to determine which circuits or appliances are causing the problem. Hopefully only a single circuit will be responsible for most of the trouble, but sometimes the house is in need of complete rewiring. Automatic ice makers in refrigerators and in-sink disposal units are often the source of unwanted EMF since these devices are usually connected through copper piping to your plumbing. It is important that these devices be wired so that no current flows through the ground. COMPUTER DISPLAYS A video display terminal (VDT) is used to display information from a computer, either in the form of text or graphics. A VDT can be one of several different types: cathode ray tube (CRT), liquid crystal display (LCD), gas plasma display, and electroluminescent display. By far the greatest percentage of video displays are of the CRT type, and for this reason the term "VDT" is generally used to mean the CRT-style VDT. CRT-STYLE VDTs A CRT-style VDT uses the same type of picture tube as a television set. The cathode ray tube is a large vacuum tube made of glass, and coated with phosphor on the inside. An electron gun shoots a beam of electrons from the back of the tube toward the front of the screen (i.e., toward the computer operator) until it hits the phosphor. The phosphor gives off visible light when it is excited by the electrons. A full screen image is comprised of thousands of dots, each one of which is refreshed (re-excited by a burst of electrons) between 50 and 80 times per second. A CRT's resolution is expressed as two numbers, such as 320 X 200, 640 X 480, 800 X 600, or 1024 X 768. The first number is the number of horizontal dots, or pixels, between the left and right sides of the screen, and the second number is the number of vertical dots between the top and bottom of the screen. The electron beam starts in the upper left corner of the screen, and then scans each horizontal line from left to right, one at a time, lighting up whatever pixels are required to comprise the picture. At the end of each line, the electron beam is pushed back to the beginning of the next line, where it begins another horizontal scan. The deflection coils, which are wound around the yoke (the rear, narrow part of the tube) of the CRT, control the movement of the electron beam as it sweeps across the screen. The horizontal deflection coils push the electron beam from side to side between 15,000 and 85,000 times a second (corresponding with a scan rate of 15 to 85 kHz), and the vertical deflection coils push the electron beam from the bottom line back to the top line 50 to 80 times a second (corresponding with a refresh rate of 50 to 80 Hz). CRT-style VDTs give off all sorts of electromagnetic radiation: radio waves, infrared radiation (heat), visible light, ultraviolet light, microwaves, X-rays, ELF and VLF radiation. The radio waves are typically shielded with a layer of conductive material in order to meet the limits set by the Federal Communications Commission. The infrared radiation in the form of heat is not a health hazard, and of course the visible light is necessary in order to see the screen. The levels of ultraviolet light are substantially less than indoor fluorescent lights or outdoor sunlight, and the amount of microwaves is so small that it is almost undetectable. X-rays were once a problem, but strict guidelines in effect since 1970 have reduced the level of X-rays to less than what is naturally present in the environment. Most experts now agree that X-rays from CRT-style VDTs pose no problem unless the display is defective. It is the ELF and VLF electromagnetic radiation from CRT-style VDTs which is presently raising concern. The ELF radiation (50 Hz to 80 Hz) comes from the vertical deflection coils, and the VLF radiation (15 kHz to 85 kHz) results from the horizontal deflection coils. CRT-style VDTs also have a power transformer which creates a 60 Hz field, and a flyback transformer which steps up the CRT's voltage to tens of thousands of volts and emits VLF electromagnetic radiation. The levels of EMF emitted by a VDT can be quite high, but the measurements drop off rapidly with distance. That's why it is important to sit back at least an arm's length from the front of the screen. Measurements taken from a typical color VDT (a popular 13 inch color display was used for this test) show 37 mG of ELF at 6 inches, 12.6 mG at 12 inches and 4.5 mG at 20 inches. The VLF field (which contains several hundred times more energy than an ELF field at the same mG reading) is 6.3 mG at 6 inches, 2.0 mG at 12 inches, and .66 mG at 20 inches. At 6 to 7 feet the ELF level drops to background, but the VLF level is still measurable 10 feet away. Because the EMF comes from the internal components, the EMF levels on the back and sides of a VDT are higher than in front, often by a factor of 2. This means you must distance yourself further away from the back and sides of a VDT (at least 3 to 4 feet, respectively) in order to achieve the same level of exposure. Smaller VDTs are not necessarily better, either. A 12 inch VDT might well generate a stronger magnetic field than a 19 inch one, because the field's strength depends more on the internal design of the deflection coils and electronic components than on the screen size. Monochrome displays typically produce 1/2 to 1/5 the levels of EMF than color displays, although this is not always the case (e.g., a 9" display emitted a field of .30 mG of VLF at 20 inches in front of the screen). The electric components of a VDT consist of an electrostatic potential and alternating electric fields at ELF, VLF and radio frequencies. The electrostatic potential results from a build-up of an electric charge on the surface of the screen. Its effect is similar to what most of us have experienced when we get a static shock by walking across a carpet and touching a metal object in a dry environment. This static may attract dust on your screen and cause eye irritation. On some occasions, skin irritations have been reported, although this is infrequent and the cause has not been proven. Fortunately, no long-term or serious health effects have been attributed to the electrostatic or alternating electric fields. Moreover, the electric fields can easily be blocked by incorporating a grounded conductive layer into an anti-glare shield. On the other hand, ELF and VLF magnetic radiation is not easy to block. Low frequency magnetic fields can easily travel through layers of solid aluminum, copper or steel with little reduction in strength. Further, unlike an electric field which travels in a straight line, a magnetic field loops outward in curves, forming an irregular, rounded envelope of energy. Adding to the problem is the source of the EMF, which is not the front of the screen but the deflection coils, flyback transformer, and power supply inside the VDT. The EMF travels up and over the top of the screen, around the sides, and underneath in all directions. "Screen savers" designed to blank out the screen after a short period of inactivity are useful to prevent "burn in" or damage to the VDT's phosphor coating from constant use, but even if the image is blank, the components which generate ELF and VLF emissions are still active. Similarly dimming the display will do nothing to reduce the fields. Shields placed in front of a VDT's screen do not block ELF magnetic fields. They do block electric fields, but the ELF magnetic field is the main concern. Some well-meaning people, when they hear the word radiation, think that lead shielding is a solution. It isn't. Unlike X-rays, ELF and VLF magnetic fields can penetrate right through lead. One shielding method which has shown partial success is to install a Mu metal barrier around the deflection coils and flyback transformer inside the cabinet of the VDT. Mu metal is an alloy of nickel, iron, and various other trace metals which is magnetically permeable, meaning that it is a good conductor of magnetic lines of force. The percentage of each element in the Mu metal affects its performance, as does the thickness and the method of manufacture. While Mu metal can reduce magnetic radiation if installed properly, it cannot block all the radiation in the same way that lead blocks out X-rays. Mu metal is not recommended as a do-it-yourself solution for several reasons. The configuration and placement of the Mu metal will vary with each different model of VDT, sometimes requiring many hours of experimentation to determine the optimum configuration. Frequently its use may cause distortion in the image, requiring retuning by a service technician. Moreover, because the Mu metal redirects the magnetic fields, it is possible to actually increase fields, rather than reduce them. And last but not least, CRT-style VDTs can provide a dangerous electric shock if you don't know what not to touch, since the tube stores up thousands of volts, even when it is not plugged into the wall. In short, using Mu metal is an art rather than a science. In response to users' concerns, many display manufacturers have modified their VDTs to produce lower levels of magnetic radiation. Some low radiation models use a compensating coil adjacent to the deflection coils to create an opposite magnetic field. When the two opposing fields meet, most of the radiation is canceled out. Low radiation displays may also incorporate extra shielding around the yoke and flyback transformer. HEALTH CONCERNS RELATING TO CRT-STYLE VDTs According to a study by The Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the 9 to 5 National Association of Working Women organization, there are now 36 million VDTs in the United States. Of those, 67%, or 24 million, are being used by women. Out of that subset, approximately 3 million are used by women who are either pregnant or likely to become pregnant in a short period of time. Is there reason this very large group of VDT workers should be more concerned than others? Based upon the results of a number of studies, the answer is uncertain (see section on "RECENT STUDIES CAUSE CONCERN"). Manufacturers such as IBM cite studies and reports by reputable organizations such as the American Medical Association to back their position that there is no evidence that VDTs are harmful to pregnant women or to anyone else. In May, 1991, IBM wrote: "Based on our examination of available scientific evidence and on the conclusions of national and international health organizations, we believe our VDTs are safe. . . . We concur with the International Radiation Protection Association which, in conjunction with the World Health Organization, stated that available epidemiological data 'do not provide any basis for health risk assessment useful for the development of exposure limits.'" Meanwhile IBM has obtained a patent on a device which reduces VDT radiation and the company is using this technology to reduce the EMF coming from its displays. Other studies concerning the effects of EMF on embryos show reason for concern. According to Dr. Ezra Berman of the Environmental Protection Agency, "the Henhouse Study [of chicken embryos exposed to low frequency magnetic fields] performed in four countries has contributed significantly to the growing database implicating an association of [EMF with an] increase of abnormalities in chick embryos." Expert Louis Slesin, publisher of VDT News, says "the new results should help convince skeptics that magnetic fields can be biologically active at very low levels." However, pregnant women and their unborn fetuses are not the only ones at risk. CRT-style VDTs can emit levels of ELF magnetic radiation which is far higher than 2 to 3 mG (the level associated with higher risks of brain tumors, leukemia and other cancers). A link between VDT use and cancer has not been established, but this does not mean there is no danger. Consider the fact that the vast majority of VDT operators in the U.S. are women and that the incidence of female breast cancer has been rising steadily along with VDT use. Breast cancer now accounts for 29% of all cancers among women, and an astounding 1 out of 9 women will contract the disease. Because of the relatively short period of time computers have been used, more studies are needed before there is conclusive evidence regarding adverse long-term effects. However, with the extremely strong evidence that ELF magnetic radiation increases the incidence of leukemia and brain cancer, some experts fear that long-term VDT use will also be shown to increase the likelihood of contracting cancer, and/or inhibit the ability of the computer operator to fight off cancer that might otherwise be held in check or destroyed by the body's immune system. Remember that power lines have been around for one hundred years and the cancer link is just now being established. It took over 40 years of research to conclusively establish the dangers of smoking. VDTs have only been widely used for the past twenty years. Other less severe problems sometimes associated with VDTs are headaches, fatigue, nausea, dizziness, irritability, skin redness or rashes, and eye strain. THE SWEDISH STANDARD Sweden has been a leader in developing recommended visual ergonomic and electromagnetic emission standards for computer displays. In 1987 the Swedish National Board for Measurement and Testing (MPR) introduced the first, non-mandatory testing procedures for VDTs. The test methods, called MPR 1, specified a maximum of 50 nT (.5 mG) of peak VLF magnetic field strength in the 1 kHz to 400 kHz range at 50 cm (19.7 inches) from the front of the screen. The full test procedure called for 16 measurements taken on 5 horizontal planes at 22.5 degree intervals all around the display F for a total of 80 measurements in all. No ELF requirements were included in the MPR 1 standard, because widespread concern over ELF radiation was just developing. On July 1, 1991, new guidelines became effective. The new test methods, called MPR 2, specify less than 2.5 mG rms (root mean square) of ELF magnetic emissions in the 5 Hz to 2 kHz range (Band 1) and less than .25 mG rms of VLF magnetic emissions in the 2 kHz to 400 kHz range (Band 2). The number of measurements was reduced to 48 for each band F taken at 50 cm (19.7 inches) starting from the front of the screen and every 22.5 degrees all around the display (16 points) on each of three horizontal planes 25 cm apart. The change in the VLF standard from the previous .5 mG peak to .25 mG rms, as explained by Lars-Erik Paulsson of Sweden's National Institute of Radiation Protection, is not a tightening of the standard, but rather a change in the method of measurement. "The two limits are essentially the same," Paulsson stated, because "the peak value is the maximum reading during each cycle, while the rms value is a time-weighted average." Commenting on this, electrical engineer Mark Kettering says that "using an oscilloscope to study the wave forms from VDTs shows that the two limits are not 'essentially the same.' The shape of the wave form (mG vs time) varies, depending upon the manufacturer. Some VDTs have sharp spikes in their wave form, but the rms value essentially ignores these spikes." Based on current knowledge, it is not known which method of measurement is most appropriate. MPR 2 also includes guidelines for visual ergonomics (such as focus, jitter and character distortion), X-ray radiation (which is not a problem), electrostatic potential, electrostatic discharge, and AC electric fields. The source of the electric fields are the power supply and deflection coils. These components can also create a surface potential of several kilovolts, depending upon humidity, temperature, air velocity and ion concentration in the air. Reduction of the electrostatic potential and the electric fields is normally achieved by a conductive surface coating on the screen, which is connected to the power ground, together with metallic shielding of the power supply. Sometimes a CRT-style VDT will include a metal cage around all the components, or metal foil on the inside of the cabinet, to help shield the electric field. The Swedish guidelines have received a formal embrace from many major manufacturers of computer displays. Yet even in Sweden there is not a complete consensus on the limits. A major Swedish union (the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees, or TCO) is seeking more stringent limits and test protocols F as low as 2 mG for ELF magnetic fields at 30 cm (12 inches) from the front of the screen. Their reasoning is that levels above 2 mG have been linked to increased risks of cancer, and that many VDT users' heads, hands and/or breasts are often closer than 50 cm from the screen. Some experts have also questioned the validity of .25 mG for VLF, pointing out that the higher frequency VLF field contains more energy than ELF. These experts say that if induction levels are used to measure the amount of energy in the radiation, then 2.5 mG of ELF is equal to .01 mG of VLF. MPR's response is that "there are no proven biological reasons" for limiting VDT EMFs, and that the guidelines are not based on health risks. Rather, the recommended limits are based on what is technically feasible to measure and on what is achievable "today or within the near future." This presents a dilemma for VDT users: If a computer display meets the Swedish guidelines, is it safe? No one can say for sure, since there are no conclusive studies which quantify the danger. On the other hand, there is no harm in being cautious. This means when buying a VDT you should know whether it meets just MPR 1 (in which case the ELF fields could still be quite high), or whether it complies with MPR 2, which includes ELF measurements. Purchase your low radiation VDT from a reputable company, or bring along a Gauss meter and buy the display with the lowest emission levels, not just the one which claims it meets the Swedish standard. The United States does not have any regulations governing ELF and VLF emissions from VDTs. FCC requirements deal only with radio frequency emissions. NON-CRT DISPLAYS LCDs (liquid crystal displays) are commonly used in portable laptop and notebook computers. Many experts consider LCDs safe, believing that they have lower EMF levels. These experts are surprised to learn that LCDs produce VLF and ELF electric fields which can be the same or higher than from a CRT. When backlit or sidelit with fluorescent lights, LCDs also emit magnetic fields in the ELF and VLF range. The strength of the ELF and VLF magnetic fields coming from an LCD vary greatly, depending upon the manufacturer. Although LCD magnetic fields are less than those produced by CRT-style VDTs at comparable distances, at 6 inches some laptops emit up to 22 mG of ELF magnetic fields, and 2 mG of VLF fields F and that far exceeds the levels set under the Swedish MPR 2 guidelines at 20 inches. This is significant because a laptop may actually be placed on a person's lap. Electroluminescent displays emit similar levels of EMF as LCDs. Gas plasma monitors have a high electric and magnetic fields within a few inches of the display, but these fields drop off rapidly. TELEVISIONS TVs emit the same assortment of radiation as computer displays, since both devices incorporate a cathode ray tube (CRT). Fortunately, a viewer doesn't have to sit right next to a television set to still see the image. Sitting ten feet away from a 19 inch TV distances the viewer from any measurable ELF or VLF fields. Some televisions, though, are particularly strong, so it makes sense to test your TV with both an ELF and VLF Gauss meter. A Gauss meter is also useful when buying a TV, since sets can vary quite a bit from one another. Many appliances generate AC electric and AC magnetic fields, even when they are turned off. For example, televisions with remote controls still have current flowing when not in use. This current generates EMF, although it is less than when the TV is in use. Radios, too, may produce EMF even when turned off. If you need to watch TV in a confined space, you should consider purchasing a small LCD TV. They have quite a strong electric field at 1 inch, but at the distance of 1 foot, both the electric and magnetic fields are negligible. ELECTRIC BLANKETS Electric blankets create an AC magnetic field that penetrates about 6 or 7 inches into the body. Thus it is not surprising that an epidemiological study has linked electric blankets with miscarriages and childhood leukemia. This pioneering work was performed by Dr. Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper, who originally discovered that magnetic fields were linked to childhood leukemia. In response to EMF concerns, the major U.S. electric blanket manufacturers: Fieldcrest, Casco-Belton and Northern Electric (Sunbeam) have come out with "zero magnetic field" blankets. In one design the wires are laid out in pairs so that the magnetic fields are balanced. Another design uses DC electricity, which doesn't emit pulsed EMF. Although these models reduce or eliminate magnetic fields, the blanket may still produce electric fields, even when turned off. This is because current does not have to be flowing for an electric field to exist. If the on/off switch cuts the neutral wire instead of the hot wire, the user would then be subjected to the electric field coming from the hot wire in the blanket. That's why it is best to use an electric blanket only to warm your bed before you get in it. Once you're in bed, the blanket should be unplugged to be absolutely safe. This advice is especially valid for children and pregnant women. Waterbeds should be warmed during the day, but unplugged before going to bed. However, an unheated water bed can get quite chilly, so you may need a thick mattress pad or quilt to stay warm. Use of heating pads for chronic problems should be discontinued and replaced with hot water bottles. ELECTRIC CLOCKS A dial-face (analog) electric clock has a very high AC magnetic field, as much as 5 to 10 mG up to two feet away. If you are using a bedside plug-in dial-face alarm clock, it should not be placed near your head. Studies have linked high rates of brain tumors with chronic exposure to magnetic fields, so it is wise to place all plug-in clocks and other electric appliances at least 5 feet from your bed. Better yet, you may want to use a battery-powered alarm clock. Some travel clocks feature snooze, a digital display and even a radio alarm, yet they work on batteries so they have a negligible magnetic field. FLUORESCENT LIGHTS Fluorescent lights have replaced incandescent lights in most offices and schools. Fluorescent lights are cooler, last longer and consume less electricity, so they are more economical to use. A fluorescent bulb has no filament. Instead, the bulb is coated on the inside with a fluorescent material called a phosphor. The bulb is also filled with argon gas and mercury vapor, and a transformer (called a ballast) is used to increase the voltage to the electrodes on each end of the bulb. The high voltage excites electrons in the gas, which give off ultraviolet light. When the ultraviolet light strikes the phosphor coating on the bulb, the phosphor emits visible light which passes through the glass. Fluorescent lights produce much more EMF than incandescent bulbs. At a distance of two inches from an incandescent bulb, the ELF field is .3 mG, and at six inches it is barely measurable. On the other hand, a typical fluorescent lamp of the type commonly found in office ceilings can have a reading of 160 to 200 mG 1 inch away. At 6 inches the reading drops to 45 mG, at 12 inches the reading is 14 mG , at 24 inches the level is 1.7 mG, and at 30 inches the level is close to background. Thus rooms with low ceilings and fluorescent lights may have readings above 2 mG at head level. In multi-story schools with fluorescent lights, although young children may be far enough away from the ceiling fixtures, they may still be exposed to EMF from the lights on the floor below. MICROWAVE OVENS Microwave ovens are interesting because they emit two types of radiation: microwave and ELF. The microwave radiation, which is very high in frequency (in the billion Hertz range), is produced by an element called a magnetron. Microwaves make water molecules vibrate. It is this vibration that creates the heating process, and stray microwaves can cause serious health problems by heating body tissue. Current regulations require that a microwave oven leak no more than 1 milliwatt per square centimeter when it leaves the factory. We have no idea if this level is safe, and one study has indicated that the level should be less than .5 milliwatt per square centimeter. Since microwave emissions can change with normal use, it is best to have a qualified repairman check your oven each year. Microwave ovens also create a 60 Hz EMF field because they have a strong power transformer. The 60 Hz component of a microwave oven usually travels five feet, so it is recommended that you stay at least five feet away from a microwave oven while it is in operation. TELEPHONES Telephones can emit surprisingly strong EMF, especially from the handset. This is a problem because we hold the phone so close to our heads. Measuring different telephones before you buy is important because the field strength can vary a great deal in just a matter of inches. Place a Gauss meter right against the ear piece and the mouth piece. There are several telephone handsets in the market with no measurable fields, while others emit a relatively strong field that travels several inches. That's the same distance from your ear to your brain! As with most small appliances, the body of the telephone has a magnetic field that extends one or two feet. Because of this it is a good practice to position the phone as far as possible from the user. ELECTRIC RAZORS AND HAIR DRYERS An electric razor which plugs into the wall produces an extremely high-strength AC magnetic field, as high as 200 to 400 mG one-half inch away from the cutting edge. This seems alarming, but we don't know if this is worse (or better) than exposure to a 2 to 3 mG field (the level linked to increased risk of cancer). If exposure to such high fields is a problem, the duration of the exposure (the dose-rate concept) might mitigate the effects. To understand the dose-rate concept, consider that we can zip a finger through the flame of a match without burning ourselves. This is evidence that short-term exposure to certain harmful influences can produce dramatically different results than longer exposure. If the dose-rate concept applies to EMF (and we don't know if it does), since an electric razor is used only a few minutes each day, it is probably safe. Keep in mind, however, that the data on short-term exposure to high-strength fields is incomplete, and that the use of non-electric razor blades will eliminate all EMF risks. Electric hair dryers are another source of extremely high AC magnetic fields because they require high currents to produce heat. A 1600-watt model will produce 100 to 200 mG near the handle and 10 to 50 mG at normal drying distances (6 to 18 inches). When it is operated on its "high heat" setting, it will draw more current and generate a higher magnetic field than when it is operated on its "low heat" setting. Again, in evaluating the health risks, the dose-rate concept may provide comfort, since a hair dryer is used only a few minutes each day. On the other hand, hairdressers who use a hand-held hair dryer repeatedly each workday may have something to worry about. PRUDENT AVOIDANCE Electricity is an inseparable part of our modern day society. This means that electromagnetic radiation will continue to be all around us for the foreseeable future. But, as Discover Magazine postulated, aside from making our lives easier, is electricity also making our lives shorter? Perhaps a more important question is "Until more is known, what can we do to minimize the potential risks?" Prof. M. Granger Morgan, a well-known expert at Carnegie Mellon University, says it certainly can't hurt to take simple steps. EMF "may pose no risk," he says, "but most experts I have talked with give me odds somewhere between 10 percent and 60 percent that within the next decade it will become clear that they do." Prof. Morgan advocates "prudent avoidance." "Prudence" means to be sensible and to exercise sound judgment in practical matters. Hence, prudent avoidance means that we should avoid exposure to EMF when it is consistent with sound judgment. In other words, learn where EMF comes from and then distance oneself from it whenever such avoidance won't cause too much personal or economic disruption. Most experts agree that limited, non-chronic exposure to EMF is not a threat. For example, it is probably acceptable to be near a toaster in the morning, but it is not advisable to sleep under an electric blanket operating all night. Certainly the person who works on a computer all day, watches TV close up at night, lives near a power line, and sleeps under an electric blanket, is under an extreme case of chronic exposure. This condition applies to millions of Americans and people throughout the world. If you wish to practice prudent avoidance, the following advice is offered: Measure your environment with a Gauss meter, and avoid areas where the field is above 1 mG. Measure the fields both inside and outside your home, and don't let your children play near power lines, transformers and microwave towers. Measure the magnetic fields from appliances, both when they are operating and when the are turned off. Magnetic fields are created only when current is flowing, but some appliances (such as TVs) are still drawing current even when they are switched off. Don't sleep under an electric blanket or on a water bed. If you want to warm your bed before go to sleep, when you're ready to get under the cover, unplug the electric blanket (don't just turn it off). Even though there is no magnetic field when the blanket is turned off, there may still be a high electric field. Don't sit too close to your TV set. Distance yourself at least 6 feet, but keep in mind that EMF from some TV sets can be measured as far away as 10 feet or more. An ELF and VLF Gauss meter can help you decide where to sit. Don't sit too close to your computer display. Keep at least an arm's length away from the screen, but remember that at this distance you will still be within the magnetic field. Computer monitors vary greatly in the strength of the magnetic fields which they emit, so you should check yours with an ELF and VLF meter. Rearrange your office work area so that you and your co-workers are not exposed to EMF from the sides and backs of each other's VDTs. Turn off your VDT when you are not using it. Consider purchasing a low radiation VDT which contains an active compensating coil, or a zero radiation display based on shielded LCD technology. Don't stand close to your microwave oven when in use. Even if your microwave oven is not leaking microwaves, it will still give off strong ELF magnetic fields. Move your electric clock away from your pillow. Several feet away should be sufficient. Better yet, buy a battery-powered digital clock. Keep other electric appliances away from your pillow, too. Telephones and answering machines generate EMF. Eliminate dimmers and three-way switches; they create high fields. Eliminate wires running under your bed. Be wary of cordless appliances such as electric toothbrushes, which use magnetic induction to charge the battery. Such devices deliberately create a large magnetic field. Remember that EMF passes right through walls, so check out what's on the other side. It could be a cordless electric toothbrush, or a television set, or a clock-thermostat radiating EMF into your bedroom. A final note on AC fields: just like medicines have good and bad effects, not all AC electric and magnetic fields are negative influences. Under controlled circumstances, AC fields can be used to help our health. Some AC magnetic fields, for example, are used at hospitals to promote bone growth in the case of fractures. Similarly, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machines are very useful in detecting tumors, aneurysms, etc., and are an excellent alternative to X Rays or CAT Scans. Other devices that use AC magnetic fields are also in use, such as AC Tens units to treat pain, as well as other magnetic devices that treat other symptoms and complaints. About the Author Mr. George S. Lechter holds a BS in mechanical engineering from M.I.T. (1975) with a concentration in computers, and holds an MS degree from M.I.T.'s Sloan School of Management (1977). He has had 16 years of experience in the computer field. He worked as a management consultant for Harbridge House, Inc. (then a Sears Roebuck company) and as a strategic market planning consultant for Braxton Associates in Boston. He was a minicomputer marketing specialist at Nixdorf in Waltham, MA, and worked in the software industry for 9 years. In 1988 he founded Safe Technologies Corporation (formerly Safe Computing, Inc.). Mr. Lechter holds several patents, and is in the Who's Who in the East. About Safe Technologies Corporation Safe Technologies Corporation, located in Miami, FL, has been a pioneer in the area of prudent avoidance of EMF. Safe Technologies manufactures a zero radiation LCD computer display and several models of hand-held, inexpensive Gauss meters for measuring magnetic radiation from power lines, home wiring, appliances, televisions, and computer displays. Safe Technologies also markets ultra-low radiation CRT-style video displays, and offers a radiation reduction service for retrofitting selected models of existing CRT-style VDTs. Safe Technologies Corporation has received worldwide acclaim for its innovative products. The company has been featured or mentioned by the following news sources: The Boston Globe, the Chicago Sun Times, The Washington Post, Business Week, MIS Week, The Boston Business Journal, UPI, NBC radio, WXEX in Richmond, Virginia, Channel 6 in Providence, RI, Good Morning America, USA Tonight, Channel 7, an ABC affiliate in New York, Glamour Magazine, PC Week Magazine, Lotus Magazine, Compuserve Magazine ("Averting Desktop Cherno-byl"), Adweek's Computer Magazine (Cover story: "Are VDT's Safe?"), Marketing Computers Magazine (Cover story: "Caught in the Crossfire"), PBS TV, WAGA Atlanta TV (a CBS affiliate), Channel 4 WNBC NY TV, and CNN Business News. For free information, contact: Safe Technologies Corporation 1950 NE 208 Terrace Miami, FL 33179 Phone 1-800-638-9121 1-305-933-2026 Fax 1-305-933-8858 Copyright 1991, 1994 Safe Technologies Corporation. All Rights Reserved. This material or portions of it may not be reproduced, unless written permission has been authorized. -- afd@gate.net From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Jun 09 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!gatech!asuvax!news.asu.edu!aztec.asu.edu!bobcat From: bobcat@aztec.asu.edu (BOB SCHAEFER) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Milligaussmeter wanted Date: 9 Jun 1995 00:01:55 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ (USA) Lines: 26 Message-ID: <3r831j$f97@news.asu.edu> References: <3qe881$c0i@kelly.teleport.com> Reply-To: bobcat@aztec.asu.edu (BOB SCHAEFER) NNTP-Posting-Host: aztec.asu.edu In a previous article, pactran@teleport.com (Mark McClure) says: >Does anyone know where I can buy -- preferably by mail order -- a >milligaussmeter suitable for measuring the emf around my house? > >Mark McClure > or <76641.100@compuserve.com> > >-- > Mark McClure > Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. > I just saw in a trade (electrical) magazine today that AMPROBE has a new milligauss meter out. AMPROBE has been making good quality electrical metering products for many years. This new unit uses a series of LEDs to indicate readings from 1 to 800 milligauss. The list price was (about) $30. I wish I'd written down the AMPROBE model number, but I didn't. It may be available at home improvement type stores, but you'll probably have to go to an electrical supply house to buy one. BTW, AMPROBE is a company name, but it so famous (like KLEENIX) that it is often used genarically for any clamp-on amperage reading meter, just as kleenix is often used genarically for tissues. -- \\// Bob Schaefer ( oo ) ------oOo--( )--oOo------- bobcat@aztec.asu.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jun 11 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!prodigy.com!usenet From: JFMJ47A@prodigy.com (Maurice Mallah) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Average monitor radiation? Date: 12 Jun 1995 00:36:39 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Lines: 13 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3rg26n$1am0@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: inugap4.news.prodigy.com X-Newsreader: Version 1.2 Hello. Does anyone know the average radiation given off by a computer monitor, and what the range of frequencies are and the breakdown of amplitudes; or where I would be able to find such information; and would I be able to find such detail about my own monitor? (A SV1280c1994 Eng*cmp). Please e-mail me. Thank you very much. Richard Mallah jfmj47a@prodigy.com ____________________ Be. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jun 11 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!HORNET.ONR.NAVY.MIL!MARRON From: MARRON@HORNET.ONR.NAVY.MIL ("Michael T. Marron") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Park's Latest on EMF Bioeffects Date: 12 Jun 1995 06:37:19 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 12 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9506120937.AA39059@131.250.9.42> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Robt Park's June 9th What's New includes the following item: "EMF: 'EARTH ENERGY PENDANT' OFFERS PROTECTION FOR ONLY $99.95! It was developed by a physicist, according to a New Jersey mail- order company ad. The pendant uses a 'Tachyon crystal' to ground fields from computers and power lines. WHAT'S NEW has no idea how the pendants work; nevertheless, we are able to assure our readers that if they wear one they will not be harmed by EMF." Park's newsletter is distributed weekly by the American Physical Society and can be found at http://aps.org. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jun 11 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ACS.BU.EDU!patton From: patton@ACS.BU.EDU (Wayne F. Patton) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Park's Latest on EMF Bioeffects Date: 12 Jun 1995 10:04:52 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 18 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199506121700.NAA56500@acs-mail.bu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net >Robt Park's June 9th What's New includes the following item: > >"EMF: 'EARTH ENERGY PENDANT' OFFERS PROTECTION FOR ONLY $99.95! >It was developed by a physicist, according to a New Jersey mail- >order company ad. The pendant uses a 'Tachyon crystal' to ground >fields from computers and power lines. WHAT'S NEW has no idea >how the pendants work; nevertheless, we are able to assure our >readers that if they wear one they will not be harmed by EMF." > >Park's newsletter is distributed weekly by the American Physical Society and >can be found at http://aps.org. I believe Tachyon crystals emit Tachyon particles. These are well known to interfere with Romulon Cloaking devices and to cause other subspace anomalies (temporal distortions and such). Captain Jean Luc Picard of the U.S.S. Enterprise is an expert on this eclectic field of science. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Jun 12 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews From: pb1977@ix.netcom.com (Paul Yost) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: So Cal EMF and Noise Measurement Date: 13 Jun 1995 17:00:56 GMT Organization: Netcom Lines: 3 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3rkg88$h3r@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-lb6-19.ix.netcom.com Does anyone know of a company in Southern California (Orange County) that can make EMF and noise measurements? (Other than Southern California Edison) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jun 13 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Frontline program Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 18:21:54 -0500 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 17 Distribution: world Message-ID: <9506141821.AA54921@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> References: <1995Jun14.162636.1311@titan.sfasu.edu> Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 2.1.2 In article <1995Jun14.162636.1311@titan.sfasu.edu>, asanchez@tstc.edu (Andrew Sanchez) writes: > I would be interested in hearing the results of > any study which checked the relative incidence of cancer in higher > than average exposure (however you want to measure that) areas where > a subject had suffered a bone fracture. The clinical trials of bone-healing devices that I am aware of claim that there have been no adverse late effects. However, none of the studies I am aware of have been big enough, or used followup long enough, to be relevant to the presence or absence of a cancer risk. John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jun 13 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.uh.edu!titan.sfasu.edu!wa48239 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Frontline program Message-ID: <1995Jun14.162636.1311@titan.sfasu.edu> From: asanchez@tstc.edu (Andrew Sanchez) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 22:28:55 GMT Organization: Texas State Technical College Summary: What about other parameters influencing the effect? Nntp-Posting-Host: wa48239.tstc.edu X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #3 Lines: 13 Since some doctors are using electricity (albeit low levels) to heal bone fractures, Medicine recognizes that biological systems can be affected by electricity to influence growth. Perhaps it IS an over-simplification to think this implies a link to cancer and EMF exposure, but I would be interested in hearing the results of any study which checked the relative incidence of cancer in higher than average exposure (however you want to measure that) areas where a subject had suffered a bone fracture. n balance, I thought Frontline did a good job of presenting both sides, and I learned quite a bit, novice that I am to this subject. (Nor am I at all skilled in statistics or epidemiology.) Andrew Sanchez From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jun 13 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: PBS' Frontline program, "Currents of Fear" Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 11:22:47 -0500 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 18 Distribution: world Message-ID: <9506141122.AA47972@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> References: <01HROUMQX05M94DODG@pnl.gov> Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) NNTP-Posting-Host: admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 2.1.2 In article <01HROUMQX05M94DODG@pnl.gov>, ja_leonowich@ccmail.pnl.gov writes: > I wouldn't change a thing. Finally "Frontline" got something almost > right. My only criticism is that the melatonin work was only mentioned > in passing. If there is a plausible mechanism for effects, it > probably involves melatonin. While I doubt that the producer reads this newgroup, he is on the net, and would probably be interested in comments. He is: jon_palfreman@wgbh.org I have tried to get WGBH to put the transcript on the net, but so far no luck. John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jun 13 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ccmail.pnl.gov!ja_leonowich From: ja_leonowich@ccmail.pnl.gov Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: PBS' Frontline program, "Currents of Fear" Date: 14 Jun 1995 08:38:14 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 58 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <01HROUMQX05M94DODG@pnl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net When I first turned on the show last night I thought here is another left-wing expose on the environment and the perfidious utilities. However, after it was over I thought it was a balanced, fairly effective, review of this issue. Brodeur, as usual, came across as a hysterical layman (and non-expert on asbestos, emf's and whatever else he feels like), and Bob Adair was as excellent as ever. I wouldn't change a thing. Finally "Frontline" got something almost right. My only criticism is that the melatonin work was only mentioned in passing. If there is a plausible mechanism for effects, it probably involves melatonin. jal _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: PBS' Frontline program, "Currents of Fear" From: ai808@lafn.org at -SMTPlink Date: 6/14/95 6:42 AM Here are excerpts from two reviews of "Currents of Fear" The New York Times: "The dispute goes on, with respectable voices on both sides and the mere viewer at the mercy of the experts. But on at least one point, you don't have to be a statistician: high among the least reliable sorts of evidence about scientific problems are television's ever popular human-interest stories." -- Walter Goodman The Los Angeles Times: "What 'Currents of Fear' erroneously suggests is that those who dismiss the cancer link are, with very few exceptions, worthy scientists, while those who believe in links are either scared housewives or non-scientists such as New Yorker journalist Paul Brodeur. "And although 'Currents of Fear reports on recent federally funded lab studies that couldn't show a cancer link, other studies and scientists have -- yet they are missing here. They include medical doctor and author Robert O. Becker, biophysicist Andrew Marino and cancer researcher Jerry Phillips, all of whom have argued that EMF-cancer links are to be taken seriously. "The only scientific voice on Brodeur's side here is Dr. David Carpenter, who himself wavers on the linkage issue. "It may be that, at the end of the day, the link is illusory. But the imbalance of the scientific scales here is unbecoming of "Frontline." When Julie Larm decries a cover-up about the issue, we may be looking at it." -- Robert Koehler. I'd like to know your impressions of the program. If you had been the producer what might you have done differently? Sincerely, Ellen Stern Harris Fund for the Environment From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jun 13 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!lafn.org!lafn.org!ai808 From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Subject: PBS' Frontline program, "Currents of Fear" X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995Jun14.134221.14621@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris)References: Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 13:42:21 GMT Lines: 36 Here are excerpts from two reviews of "Currents of Fear" The New York Times: "The dispute goes on, with respectable voices on both sides and the mere viewer at the mercy of the experts. But on at least one point, you don't have to be a statistician: high among the least reliable sorts of evidence about scientific problems are television's ever popular human-interest stories." -- Walter Goodman The Los Angeles Times: "What 'Currents of Fear' erroneously suggests is that those who dismiss the cancer link are, with very few exceptions, worthy scientists, while those who believe in links are either scared housewives or non-scientists such as New Yorker journalist Paul Brodeur. "And although 'Currents of Fear reports on recent federally funded lab studies that couldn't show a cancer link, other studies and scientists have -- yet they are missing here. They include medical doctor and author Robert O. Becker, biophysicist Andrew Marino and cancer researcher Jerry Phillips, all of whom have argued that EMF-cancer links are to be taken seriously. "The only scientific voice on Brodeur's side here is Dr. David Carpenter, who himself wavers on the linkage issue. "It may be that, at the end of the day, the link is illusory. But the imbalance of the scientific scales here is unbecoming of "Frontline." When Julie Larm decries a cover-up about the issue, we may be looking at it." -- Robert Koehler. I'd like to know your impressions of the program. If you had been the producer what might you have done differently? Sincerely, Ellen Stern Harris Fund for the Environment From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jun 13 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!oakland.edu!liboff From: liboff@oakland.edu (A.R. Liboff) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Frontline Comments Date: 14 Jun 1995 14:48:10 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 71 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199506142145.AA04365@Cliff.ACS.Oakland.Edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I think the FRONTLINE program on emfs that was aired Tuesday evening was one of the worst bits of reporting on this subject that I have yet seen. Where in the world did the producers get the idea that a discussion of DNA damage resulting from ionizing radiation is even remotely connected to this problem? As someone who has been looking at potential mechanisms for more than a decade, I have never heard any responsible member of the bioelectromagnetics community talk about ionizing radiation. The discussion by Moulder in this connection was totally irrelevant. FRONTLINE might just as easily have gotten someone to talk about term limits, about prayerin public schools or who is going to take the Stanley Cup, for all the good it did. The producer has to be faulted for coming up with someone whose views: (1) seem to reflect his activities on behalf of the electric power industry as an expert witness, (2) are not based on any first-hand ELF research activities, and (3) have little to do with any of the current hypothesized mechanisms. Moulder as the objective scientist giving an elevated, factual discussion in response to the poor uninformed public was a nasty move, considering how cleverly the producer also managed to contrast physicists Adair and Bennett with the writer Brodeur. Talk about level playing fields! The arguments used against the epidemiological work centered around the fact that there is a high noise level associated with each study, and anyway, the odds ratio, even if you believe it, is too low to worry about. There was no mention of the fact that the results since 1979 have converged remarkably to what is now recognized as a rather repeatable odds ratio for leukemia in children. Even the most crass scientists among us, one might think, would be energized to ask the reason for this persistent odds ratio. My education in physics (Brooklyn College happily, not Yale) gave me the old-fashioned idea that scientists are supposed to inquire about cases like this, and not walk away from them. There was one key aspect of this business that the producer did not pursue (presumably his or her advisors from the electric power industry saw fit not to mention it) The energies of the magnetic fields involved are so small as to make the ELF problem more vexing than one usually finds in science (more vexing, and to some of us, more interesting). Few of my colleagues would deny that Adair has done the very best analysis, to date, of this problem, in an article in the Physical Review a few years back. FRONTLINE raised this issue in saying that the epidemiological results cannot be believed since the energies involved are too weak. What is left unsaid in this syllogism, however, is that there are now dozens of experiments on biological systems where effects have been noted following exposure to such miniscule fields. These reports have not been publicized in the media since they do not bear directly on the question of cancer. But they are undeniably real, and they are being published in respectable journals at an increasing pace (see, for example,the July, 1995 issue of Endocrinology). The question then is whether one can discount the epi studies merely because the fields are too low, when there are well-documented laboratory reports indicating that similarly weak fields affect biological systems in other ways? For this reason, I have maintained over the past few years that the cancer business is only one part of a larger biological response to weak ELF electromagnetic fields, and that this bioelectromagnetic question should be studied in its own right as a new and exciting problem in science. It is silly to believe that Maxwell's Equations or Quantum Mechanics or any of the pillars of physics are in jeopardy because of these results. It is fairly clear, however, that biological systems have somehow found one or more means of detecting these intensities without violating any of the things we hold dear. To me observation carries the highest value in science. Certainly we have to understand the basics, but our preconceptions must yield when faced with the reality of observation. In short, I thought the FRONTLINE presentation was biased and poorly researched. I have so informed the people at WGBH. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jun 13 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!BEHV08.ENVMED.ROCHESTER.EDU!STERN From: STERN@BEHV08.ENVMED.ROCHESTER.EDU (Sander Stern) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: PBS' Frontline program, "Currents of Fear" Date: 14 Jun 1995 11:36:06 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 59 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <01HRP6S53BXE000DUD@ehsct7.envmed.rochester.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Date sent: 14-JUN-1995 14:28:01 In response to the following >From: UORDBV::IN%"ai808@lafn.ORG" 14-JUN-1995 11:47:40.35 >To: emf-bio@net.bio.NET >Reply-to: ai808@lafn.org.References: (Ellen Stern Harris) > >I'd like to know your impressions of the program. If you had been the >producer what might you have done differently? > >Sincerely, > >Ellen Stern Harris >Fund for the Environment My initial reactions to the PBS Frontline "Currents of Fear" are the following: The program was generally well-balanced and probably should have been informative for the general public. Revisions to consider: 1. Since I assume that Mr. Brodeur would assert that he arrives at his conclusions based upon evidence, perhaps it would have been interesting to ask him the following: a. What evidence would be required to convince him that exposure to EM fields does NOT impose significant health risks for the general population? b. Since he apparently feels that the available evidence demonstrates adverse health effects, what should the PEL or TLV be, and how did he arrive at those numbers? c. It would also be interesting to examine the extent to which he actively avoids exposure to EM fields. The level of avoidance could not be used as evidence for biological actions of the fields, but it might be an interesting statement about level of confidence in stated beliefs. 2. Perhaps the same questions should be asked of Dr. Carpenter. 3. Although a complex issue, and the time was limited, perhaps it would have been useful to explore further the problem of moving from the data available to the setting of exposure standards (as an extension of 1.b). ________________________________________________________________ | Sander Stern, Department of Environmental Medicine, Box EHSC | | School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of | | Rochester, Rochester, NY 14642 | | Phone: (716) 275-5980 | | FAX: (716) 256-2631, (716) 256-2591 | | (Internet) STERN@ENVMED.ROCHESTER.EDU | ________________________________________________________________ From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jun 14 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!oakland.edu!liboff From: liboff@oakland.edu (A.R. Liboff) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: EM Bone Repair Date: 15 Jun 1995 06:04:35 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 24 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199506151303.AA22682@Cliff.ACS.Oakland.Edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Sanchez (10:28pm,6/14) asked about possible cancers arising from bone repair procedures. Sometime before the first 200,000 patients treated a number of us who were involved in BRAGS (an early group mainly catering to orthopedic types using EM techniques) asked the same question. This became the basis of a short note I wrote to JAMA, which was never published, because Andy Bassett (now deceased) called me and claimed that there had been follow-ups on all patients receiving tthe EBI pulsed emf treatment, (which he was primarily responsible for). He maintained there had been no evidence in these patients showing statistically higher cancer incidence. I never saw the data relevant to Bassett's claim, but he was trustworthy, and there was no reason to disbelieve him. It may be that the EBI company still has these records around. Meanwhile, the number of people treated has increased dramatically, as has the variety of treatments. Whereas the Bassett treatment involved very large (20G peak) transients, the Brighton treatment (capacitive coupling) uses 60 kHz electric fields, and the Ortholgic treatment uses weak ELF magnetic signals combined with a static magnetic field. I was partially responsible for the latter treatment, and recall Orthologic having to perform a set of toxicological tests on a great many animals for the FDA, in which the animals were subjected to long term exposures. I suspect the same type of testing was required of the other companies. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jun 15 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bcm!news.msfc.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!lafn.org!lafn.org!ai808 From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Subject: Cellular Phone Transmission Facilities X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995Jun16.004200.12481@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: Los Angeles Free-Net Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 00:42:00 GMT Lines: 32 A recent article in the Los Angeles Times discussed neighborhood protests over the siting of cellular towers in residential areas. The article focused exclusively on the aesthetic aspects of such installations. With full page cellular ads being a mainstay of newspapers' revenues, I wonder if the following will ever be published. I hope so, but meanwhile, here's to self-publishing via the magnificent media of Bionet: Los Angeles Times / Letters to the Editor: Aesthetics may be the least of our problems with cellular antenna (Metro Section, 6/7/95). Of far greater concern should be the fact that there is not yet any independently funded, peer reviewed research establishing the safety of such facilities. The burden of proof should be on the industry, not on the health of the public. In accordance with reservations expressed by the California Dept. of Health Services, San Francisco is no longer allowing the placement of cellular antennas on public school grounds. Our children and our neighborhoods should not be subjected to the possible adverse health effects of exposures which are not fully understood. Experiments are for guniea pigs, not for people. Sincerely, Ellen Stern Harris Executive Director, Fund for the Environment If indeed this letter is published, Bionet will be the first to know! From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jun 15 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!emi.com!pauling.wadsworth.org!tivol From: tivol@news.wadsworth.org (William Tivol) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EM Bone Repair Date: 15 Jun 1995 21:13:39 GMT Organization: Wadsworth Center, NY Health Dept. Lines: 17 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3rq7q3$9gh@pauling.wadsworth.org> References: <199506151303.AA22682@Cliff.ACS.Oakland.Edu> <3rq72r$9gh@pauling.wadsworth.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: alcor.wadsworth.org X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Dear A.R., : A.R. Liboff (liboff@oakland.edu) wrote: : : Meanwhile, the number of people treated has increased dramatically, as has : : the variety of treatments. Whereas the Bassett treatment involved very : : large (20G peak) transients, the Brighton treatment (capacitive coupling) : : uses 60 kHz electric fields, and the Ortholgic treatment uses weak ELF : : magnetic signals combined with a static magnetic field. The last follow-up got trashed by the editor, so here I go again. The best (IMHO) proposed mechanism for bioeffects of EMF's involves resonance behavior. John Kirshvink's calculations predict maximal effects at ~tens of Hz. There may not be any excess cancer (or other adverse bioeffect) consequent to these treatments due to a mismatch in frequencies. Yours, Bill Tivol From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jun 15 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!emi.com!pauling.wadsworth.org!tivol From: tivol@news.wadsworth.org (William Tivol) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EM Bone Repair Date: 15 Jun 1995 21:01:15 GMT Organization: Wadsworth Center, NY Health Dept. Lines: 25 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3rq72r$9gh@pauling.wadsworth.org> References: <199506151303.AA22682@Cliff.ACS.Oakland.Edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: alcor.wadsworth.org X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] A.R. Liboff (liboff@oakland.edu) wrote: : Sanchez (10:28pm,6/14) asked about possible cancers arising from bone : repair procedures. Sometime before the first 200,000 patients treated a : number of us who were involved in BRAGS (an early group mainly catering to : orthopedic types using EM techniques) asked the same question. This became : the basis of a short note I wrote to JAMA, which was never published, : because Andy Bassett (now deceased) called me and claimed that there had : been follow-ups on all patients receiving tthe EBI pulsed emf treatment, : (which he was primarily responsible for). He maintained there had been no : evidence in these patients showing statistically higher cancer incidence. : I never saw the data relevant to Bassett's claim, but he was trustworthy, : and there was no reason to disbelieve him. It may be that the EBI company : still has these records around. : Meanwhile, the number of people treated has increased dramatically, as has : the variety of treatments. Whereas the Bassett treatment involved very : large (20G peak) transients, the Brighton treatment (capacitive coupling) : uses 60 kHz electric fields, and the Ortholgic treatment uses weak ELF : magnetic signals combined with a static magnetic field. : I was partially responsible for the latter treatment, and recall Orthologic : having to perform a set of toxicological tests on a great many animals for : the FDA, in which the animals were subjected to long term exposures. I : suspect the same type of testing was required of the other companies. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Jun 16 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!AUC.TRW.COM!bhickey From: bhickey@AUC.TRW.COM (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Cellular Phone Transmission Facilities Date: 16 Jun 1995 21:46:45 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 57 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9506170444.AA05984@dora.auc.trw.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net > A recent article in the Los Angeles Times discussed neighborhood protests > over the siting of cellular towers in residential areas. The article > focused exclusively on the aesthetic aspects of such installations. > [snip] > Aesthetics may be the least of our problems with cellular antenna > (Metro Section, 6/7/95). Of far greater concern should be the fact that > there is not yet any independently funded, peer reviewed research > establishing the safety of such facilities. Well, there has certainly been a LOT of research done, and the question of independently funded gets to the heart of prioritization of limited funding against an unlimited "need" to do research. Frankly, the significance of these installations is so trivial as to not warrant a great deal of concern by anyone capable of doing simple mathematics and link budget calculations. I might ask if you know what frequency they operate on (800-900 MHz)? I might also ask if you know that TV channel 70 starts at 800 MHz and we've had UHF TV stations for I can't remember how many years that put out MILLIONS of watts of EIRP and I don't believe anyone has put together the kind of concerns we are seeing with stations operating in the 10's of watts range at those same frequencies. > The burden of proof should be on the industry, not on the health of the > public. In accordance with reservations expressed by the California > Dept. of Health Services, San Francisco is no longer allowing the > placement of cellular antennas on public school grounds. (1) In THIS country, the DEFENDANT is INNOCENT until proven guilty, not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the uninformed public who haven't taken the time to do their homework, who are REALLY more concerned about aesthetics -- but know that won't sway governments so they point to "possible" health concerns as a way around the situation. (2) California is not exactly a sterling example of common sense in many areas. It just goes to show you that if enough people yell loud enough, the fact that they don't understand math well enough to find out that the pocket cell phones are putting more EIRP into their bodies than the cell antennas from any reasonable distance, politicians will do just about anything to keep their jobs -- including doing irrational things to placate the uninformed. > Our children and our neighborhoods should not be subjected to the > possible adverse health effects of exposures which are not fully > understood. Experiments are for guniea pigs, not for people. People in California should be more concerned about the health effects of SMOG and polluted water than they should be about the "potential" health effects of cellular transmitters. They should be more concerned by guns and knives in schools and in cars on the highway than the "potential" health effects of cellular transmitters. Let's get some sense of perspective and priority here. There are LOTS of things worth worrying about, this just isn't one of the more important ones. Bill Hickey Boulder, CO From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Jun 16 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Transmission Facilities Date: 16 Jun 1995 17:00:33 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 15 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Ellen Stern Harris wrote "...meanwhile, here's to self-publishing via the magnificent media of Bionet:... Aesthetics may be the least of our problems...." This posting is a clear example of what is not an appropriate posting to a scientific research group. Allan Allan H. Frey, Moderator email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Jun 16 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!post.its.mcw.edu!slip-2.its.mcw.edu!user From: jmoulder@its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: magnetic field meters Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 13:01:32 -0600 Organization: Radiation Biology, Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 17 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-2.its.mcw.edu There was a recent series of postings about magnetic field meters. I have just come across an excellent survey of meters: Testing and evaluation of magnetic field meters. Electrical Power Research Center, Ames, Iowa, 50011 1994 (tel 515-294-8057) This booklet has tests and evaluations of 12 magnetic field meters that are representative of what is currently available plus basic information on 20 additional models. In addition to the usual performance tests, each meter is rated for its use by the expect, the non-expert and the lay-person (defined on the basis of understanding of magnetic field theory and familiarity with personal computers). The cheapest meter they rate a suitable for use by a lay-person is $450; it is a three-axis internal sensor meter. For the expert or non-expert (i.e., the intended audience of this newsgroup) who has a good multimeter, and knows how to use a spread sheet, a suitable unit can be gotten for as little as $115. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Jun 17 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!hookup!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!nntp-ucb.barrnet.net!jeeves.usfca.edu!noc.usfca.edu!dons!chapmi00 From: chapmi00@ac.usfca.edu (Chapnik) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: What ever happened To CREAM????? Date: 18 Jun 1995 07:21:05 GMT Organization: University of San Francisco Lines: 11 Message-ID: <3s0k51$jhf@noc.usfca.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: dons.ac.usfca.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] To all those who care: A friend and myself were discussing the other day what ever happened to the rock group CREAM. We know that Eric Claptom is famous but where are the other two guys and why did the group CREAM stop making albums? Thank you for your response ..... Ma Ma MIa.... From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jun 21 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!asuvax!news.asu.edu!aztec.asu.edu!bobcat From: bobcat@aztec.asu.edu (BOB SCHAEFER) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Direct Evidence Date: 21 Jun 1995 04:53:20 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ (USA) Lines: 24 Message-ID: <3s88k0$70i@news.asu.edu> References: <3rsikb$2m8@news.asu.edu> Reply-To: bobcat@aztec.asu.edu (BOB SCHAEFER) NNTP-Posting-Host: aztec.asu.edu In a previous article, schemati@aztec.asu.edu (DENNIS P. BLUM) says: > > >VLMF Exposure - Easy Evidence > >The investigation of the effects of VLMF fields >may require years of observation and data collection. >For those interested in saving time making these >observations, a unique opportunity exists at a location >in Phoenix Arizona. > >A stand of approximately 40 palm trees grew up parallel >to a high voltage distribution line in a residential >neighborhood on 59th Avenue and Orangewood. Wow, neat! I've seen those trees before but have never given it any thought. I was in that area today so I made a point to drive by and look at them. You're right, unique! (and interrrresting) -- \\// Bob Schaefer ( oo ) ------oOo--( )--oOo------- bobcat@aztec.asu.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jun 22 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!daresbury!not-for-mail From: polyak@sol.cc.u-szeged.hu (Dr. Poly\ak B\ila) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: registration Date: 23 Jun 1995 11:21:52 +0100 Lines: 5 Sender: lpddist@mserv1.dl.ac.uk Distribution: bionet Message-ID: <3se4k0$qe9@mserv1.dl.ac.uk> X-Sender: polyak@sol content-length: 124 Original-To: emf-bio@dl.ac.uk We have an electrobioreactor to observ the influence of electric current on metabolism of lactobacillus. Dr. Polyak Bela From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Jun 25 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!lafn.org!lafn.org!ai808 From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Subject: Cellular Phone Facilities X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995Jun25.133606.27395@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 13:36:06 GMT Lines: 21 CSPAN's recent coverage of a symposium on Media & Credibility seemed to reinforce my skepticism. The difficulty of advertising-dependent publications covering controversial subjects affecting advertisers' interests was emphasized. However, to my great surprise and delight, the letter I wrote to the Los Angeles Times on June 7, re possible health hazards of cellular facilities, was published today, June 25. In fact, I'm glad they waited for the Sunday issue. Its circulation is 1,058,498. Being able to share my views with Bionetters was greatly appreciated. And, as I promised to let you know if my letter got published, this is the good news. I'll be toughing it out without a computer, cable TV, fax, etc. for a few weeks. But I will pick up my e-mail upon my return at ai808@lafn.org Thank you, Ellen (Stern Harris) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Jun 26 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab190 From: ab190@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Richard W. Woodley) Subject: EMF-Link Down ? Message-ID: Sender: ab190@freenet2.carleton.ca (Richard W. Woodley) Reply-To: ab190@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Richard W. Woodley) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 12:05:23 GMT Lines: 10 Does anyone know if EMF-Link is down or experiencing problems. I cannot seem to connect at: "http://infoventures.microserve.com". Have they changed the URL again. -- ************************ Richard W. Woodley ************************** ab190@freenet.carleton.ca. | rwoodley@pipsc.ca Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line |Indexer-Analyst, Index and Reference Committee EMF Information Service| Service, House of Commons (Canada) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Jun 26 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!psgrain!nntp.teleport.com!ip-pdx5-59.teleport.com!normans From: normans@teleport.com (norman d. smith) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EMF Link Down? Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 15:07:18 Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 Lines: 3 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: ip-pdx5-59.teleport.com X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] Apparently they were but I got them late Monday night. You might try again. Norm, Oregon From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Jun 27 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.sprintlink.net!psgrain!nntp.teleport.com!ip-pdx5-59.teleport.com!normans From: normans@teleport.com (norman d. smith) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EMF Link Down? Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 15:07:18 Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 Lines: 3 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: ip-pdx5-59.teleport.com X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] Apparently they were but I got them late Monday night. You might try again. Norm, Oregon From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Jun 28 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews From: "sbsoep@ix.netcom.com" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Effects of 450 mhz radios on users Date: 29 Jun 1995 15:28:08 GMT Organization: Netcom Lines: 8 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3sugq8$ei8@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> References: <1995Jun25.133606.27395@lafn.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-nyc5-27.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) I'm a manager in a television facility in which our employees utilize 450 mhz hand held radios daily. I'm looking for information on any published studies on the effects of long term exposure to 450 mhz radio frequencies. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Please e-mail me at sbsoep@ix.netcom.com Thank you all for your time and consideration. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Jun 29 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!uwvax!newssinet!news.u-tokyo.ac.jp!wnoc-tyo-news!news.join.ad.jp!news.caren.net!sun330.snu.ac.kr!usenet From: jgray@tpa.cent.com (Joel A. Gray) Subject: Brain Tumor Factory Message-ID: <1995Jun28.141236.18373@news.snu.ac.kr> Sender: usenet@news.snu.ac.kr (NEWS POSTER) Nntp-Posting-Host: 199.222.18.3 Reply-To: jgray@tpa.cent.com Organization: SNU,KOREA X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent v0.55 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 14:12:36 GMT Lines: 19 I am one of seven ex employees of ECI, Electronic Communications Inc., a division of E-Systems in St.Petersburg, Florida who have various cancers. Brain tumors seems to predominate ( 4 of 7 ) The company manufacturers radio transmitters for the government, as well as other communications devices. I'm trying to collect information that would assist in some kind of assistance for these individuals ( Including myself.) The prospects do not look good or at least easy . If anyone knows of other employees of this company who have similiar experiences, I certainly would like to know about it. I'd also appreciate hearing from / of other electronic techs. who have cancer. Especially brain tumors. It seems there are just too many electrical / communications workers who are experiencing cancers. Especially brain tumors. Any feedback from this group will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Joel Gray , jgray@tpa.cent.com Ph. 813-347-4541 U.S. Mail: 5912 Fifth Avenue North St.Petersburg,Florida 33710 U.S.A.