From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Aug 02 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIEHS.NIH.GOV!bernheim From: bernheim@NIEHS.NIH.GOV ("Bernheim.Naomi") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: (none) Date: 3 Aug 1995 10:56:36 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 1 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net subscribe From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Aug 04 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!library.ucla.edu!info.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!raffles.technet.sg!einstein.technet.sg!clydexi From: clydexi@technet.sg (XI WeiGuo) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Look For EM Sensors Date: 31 Jul 1995 23:51:32 GMT Organization: Technet, Singapore Lines: 15 Message-ID: <3vjqa4$494@raffles.technet.sg> NNTP-Posting-Host: clydexi@einstein.technet.sg X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Hi, everyone: I am looking for sensors for detecting near fields (E and/or H field) over a wide band, say from 30kHz up to 1 GHz. Antennas are NOT what I am looking for. The sensors must be of small size. Does someone out there know any company which produces or is developing such sensors? Any lead or advice is welcomed. Thanks in advance. Clyde clydexi@technet.sg or clydexi@sp.ac.sg From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Aug 04 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!nuhou.aloha.net!hawaii-28.u.aloha.net!user From: kehena@aloha.net (David Wright) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: *NEW WEBPAGE - HAWAI'I Date: 5 Aug 1995 22:13:56 GMT Organization: Friends of the Red Road Lines: 67 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: hawaii-28.u.aloha.net X-Newsreader: Value-Added NewsWatcher 2.0b24.0+ Aloha from the Big Island of Hawai'i! This message is to inform you of the newly established Website describing, with investigative detail, the precedent setting case unfolding here in Puna's coastal Red Road area upon the most active volcano on Earth. The setting of this pivotal case is one of the last remaining pristine areas of Hawai'i (home to many endangered and threatened species) in established (quarter-century), solar-powered, residential neighborhoods. An electric power grid has been installed here by Hawai'i Electric Light Co. with the aid of the County of Hawai'i. The project has been implemented without any environmental permits, proper public notice, due process or environmental review and is against the wishes of a vast majority of area residents and resident property owners. Delivery of grid electricity is being prevented by our legal proceedings. Throughout January hearings to the coming court action, Friends of the Red Road continues to set precedent by 1) uncovering recent legal violations, 2) insuring that the laws protecting this area from development are enforced and 3) that offenders are held accountable. As massive development is planned for this paradise, Friends of the Red Road intends to further improve the effectiveness of the Environmental Review Process within the State of Hawai'i and, by doing so, help preserve all the Islands for generations to come. This story, as the wider implications are becoming known to the greater community, is taking on huge proportions here in Hawai'i. We are therefore proud to announce our new Webpage detailing this issue with journalists in mind. We would greatly appreciate any advice and/or distribution of these web addresses in terms of attracting media attention to this case. We have great legal standing and an excellent chance of a positive outcome in the coming court action. It is therefore necessary to inform the world. If you have ways of posting, linking, etc. these pages, please note the details below. Apologies for cross-postings. Mahalo and ALOHA! David Wright for Friends of the Red Road Friends of the Red Road Homepage http://planet-hawaii.com/redroad/ http://hoohana.aloha.net/redroad/ Intro: This Webpage describes, in investigative detail, the precedent setting environmental case unfolding here in Puna's coastal Red Road area on the most active volcano on Earth. The setting of this pivotal case is one of the last remaining pristine areas of Hawai'i (home to many endangered and threatened species) in established (quarter-century), solar-powered, residential neighborhoods. Keywords: community, development, dolphin, electric, electricity, electromagnetic, endangered, energy, environment, field, hawaii, hawai'i, hazard, homepage, island, journalism, journalist, justice, lava, law, media, network, pacific, photovoltaic, planning, population, power, press, public, rainforest, report, right, seabird, solar, species, sustainable, utility, volcano, volcanic, webpage, website From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Aug 05 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!AUC.TRW.COM!bhickey From: bhickey@AUC.TRW.COM (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Role of Scientists in Society Date: 6 Aug 1995 12:03:43 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 195 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9508061859.AA28339@dora.auc.trw.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net On Sun, 6 Aug 1995 at 02:45:12 GMT, Ellen Stern Harris wrote in <1995Aug6.024512.23896@lafn.org>: ESH>As scientists are also citizens, with all the rights and ESH>responsibilities of other citizens... For the most part, this is a true statement. However, there are exceptions where scientists from other countries are not yet citizens with "all" rights and responsibilities of other citizens in a country. ESH>...do they too have an obligation to participate in developing ESH>public policy? The simple answer is "of course." The more complex answer lies in examining the personalities of public policy makers and scientists. A scientist has been trained to observe, document, make impartial judgements, and try to understand the underlying principles on which a particular phenomenon is based. Public policy makers, on the other hand, are political animals whose job it is to please the majority of a public who may or may not be rational and realistic. Far more often, public policy decisions are made based on ignorance of fact, fear, suspicion, or inequity. Thus, when policy makers call on scientists to justify a new law, they are many times disappointed because the scientific community is inherently a conservative body, albeit one with diverse opinion about any given topic. In the 1600's, it was "public policy" to burn at the stake any person (usually women) who exhibited any of a number of unusual traits -- otherwise labelled "witchcraft." At that time, the scientists backed the public policymakers, because to do otherwise was to invite the penalty on themselves (self-preservation). Today, average citizens can examine the historical records of the witch trials at Salem and be aghast at the miscarriages of "justice" which were solely based on fear and lack of understanding. However, to be fair, we have 300+ years of 20-20 hindsight to help us -- not to mention that time for scientific advancement such that most people today accept that there is no such thing as "witchcraft" (Wiccans and others, no flames please.) In the 1930's and 1940's, the Third Reich made it "public policy" to incarcerate Jews and exterminate the race using ignorance, hate, fear, and suspicion as their mass hysteria tools. It took a World War to stop that public policy and hopefully realize the danger the world faces when a few loud and persistent individuals can sway the masses with ignorant rhetoric. While there were indeed "scientists" who bought into this program and willingly participated, there are countless others who again stayed out of the public policy arena out of fear for their own lives or the lives of their families (self-preservation again). Again, looking back in 20-20 hindsight, we could laugh at the ignorance of the public-policy makers if it weren't so tragic. There are countless examples in history where public policy was, at the time, the accepted norm for everyone -- scientists included. Anyone remember the persecutions of Galileo, Copernicus, and others when they challenged the accepted positions of the Church and state? Now, I realize that people like Ms. Stern-Harris can point to these examples and say, "see -- these people were in the minority, and they were right after all." However, that is not the point of my use of those examples. I merely reinforce my point that the personalities of scientists and public officials are not really all that compatible. Occasionally you get someone like a Carl Sagan, an Einstein, or someone else who dares to speak out on select causes. But you also find that there are not _that_ many instances where scientists have ventured out of their back yards into the domain of the politician -- and few of those successfully. ESH>Scientists can have an important role in educating and influencing ESH>decision-makers, opinion-makers and the political process in general. Absolutely. HOWEVER, if the decision-makers, opinion-makers and politicos in general don't WANT to be educated but only seem to their constituents that they are, you venture into public policy making at its worst. When you get the public themselves avoiding science and math class because its "hard", you get the uninformed leading the ignorant, IN SPITE of reality and fact because they can't or won't accept it. Most of these people want scientists to "cut to the chase" or "get to the bottom line" when in fact there is no clear-cut way to do that and still preserve the OBJECTIVITY of a scientist. ESH>When they attempt to do so, how do other scientists respond? It depends. If the scientist attempts to portray him/herself as an expert outside their realm of study, the results will not generally be favorable. Again, scientists are NOT politicians. Without meaning to impugn the integrity of many of our leaders, a politician's job is to get reelected. After that, their job is to make as many of their constituents as possible believe that every vote they cast is on the side of an overwhelming majority, when that may not always be the case. We all know that political "deal-making" is done at every level of government, and those deals don't always result in a public policy that is correct, wise, or fair. ESH>On occasions a group of Nobel prize winning scientists have taken ESH>political action. Einstein, Pauling and Oppenheimer met with mixed ESH>reactions in their political commentary. Look at the entire body of Nobel prize scientists and tell us again how many of that august body have been politically active, and of those politically active how many have been successful at it. In Pauling's case, one particularly poignant example is his championing of Vitamin C and other dietary supplements in mega-doses as a way to prevent or cure cancer. The problem here was that Pauling was a chemist, and his adverse reactions came largely from the medical community because he dared to step on a few toes with some anecdotal evidence which, no matter whether you agreed with or liked Linus, hasn't been proven effective en masse. ESH>So did the APS when it recently came out with a statement on EMF. Again, most of the adverse reaction has come from those who believe there IS a connection between EMF and cancer because this body dared to put scientific OBSERVATION ahead of emotion and tell the story like it really is. The APS did not say categorically that EMF's were good or bad; they said the body of evidence doesn't support a connection. Those with a vested interest in proving that EMF's cause or contribute to an aggravation of various cancers had no choice but to viciously attack the APS statement at every opportunity. ESH>Many scientists are now participating in or following the struggle to ESH>understand whether certain exposures to EMF may have adverse health ESH>effects. They often agree that it may take many years to understand ESH>this issue. I think "often" is perhaps a little mild for that agreement. The body of knowledge currently available is so riddled with inconsistency and methodical errors that almost anyone knowledgeable AND unbiased in the discussions agrees that we need to throw out a great deal of the work. Where you also get a great deal of agreement today is in the fact that the amount of time, manpower, funding, and effort to examine this issue which has potential for a very minor effect, if at all, is way out of proportion with other more pressing issues, scientific and cultural, that need URGENTLY to be addressed. ESH>Some of these scientists believe that prudent avoidance is a wise ESH>precaution. "Prudent avoidance" is a too-convenient catch-all phrase that lets too many people latch onto uncertainty and pretend that there is a real danger out there. It would be "prudent" to avoid flying because you could be on that 1 in a million flight that explodes or crashes. It would be "prudent" to not ride in an automobile because the risks of auto fatalities are significantly greater than most other illnesses in this country. Are those activities which we can avoid? Not generally. Thus, we learn to live with "risk" and uncertainty in everyday life. When one looks at the "risk" associated with EMF, it pales to insignificance with everyday life risks just getting out of bed and going to work. ESH>However, many of these same scientists seem reluctant to take their views ESH>one step further, into the realm of public policy recommendations. That's possibly because when the MAJORITY of scientists tell public policy makers that something DOESN'T happen and the policy makers didn't want to hear that, they look for others who will tell them what they want to hear and will believe them. For those who understand Meyers-Briggs personality type indicators, it should come as no surprise that many (not all) scientists are ISTJ (Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging) while many (not all) policy makers are ENFP (Extroversion, iNtuition, Feeling, Perception). It should likewise come as no surprise that these two types are at opposite ends of the personality-type spectrum, and thus have extremely difficult times in communicating with each other. The bottom line here is that, as regards the EMF issue, there is a CLEAR majority of the scientific community who believes either that there is NO connection between EMF and cancer or that what connection _might_ be there is so weak and tenuous as to not be a concern. Certainly, 300 years from now, with all that 20-20 hindsight, there MIGHT be improved knowledge that would show this belief to be wrong. However, the opposite can be just as easily hypothesized. Until we run into that advanced civilization from the stars that gives us all this knowledge ahead of time or until we invent time travel so we can figure out what dangers lie ahead before we embark on the pathway, we are going to have to accept life as we get it. We cannot make life fair, it isn't. We cannot make everyone smart, they aren't. We cannot change fundamental laws of physics because we don't like them. It is clear that Ms. Stern-Harris believes passionately in her cause; it is equally clear that she is unwilling to accept the majority opinion on the issue and move on. It is clear that she, and others with her, wish to attribute much more significance to a phenomenon than can be proven realistically and practically. Since they cannot prove their case objectively with hard data, they will attempt to prove it with emotion and public rhetoric to gain sufficient momentum (another scientific principle, with which politicians are VERY familiar) to change public policies DESPITE the lack of a proven danger. Perhaps the real answer is to emphasize math and science in our public schools and begin to exclude the sociology experiments. When I was in school (back in the dark ages of the 50's and 60's), we laughingly said that a sociologist was someone who never ceased to be amazed by the obvious. Now I'm not so sure that this comment may sadly be true. I apologize to the members of the net for this tome. I did not realize emf-bio had become emf-bio-public-policy. Bill Hickey bhickey@auc.trw.com Boulder, CO From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Aug 05 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!lafn.org!lafn.org!ai808 From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Subject: The Role of Scientists in Society X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995Aug6.024512.23896@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 02:45:12 GMT Lines: 36 On this, the anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, a good deal of attention is being given to what the appropriate role of scientists should be in helping to determine public policy. As scientists are also citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities of other citizens, do they too have an obligation to participate in developing public policy? Scientists can have an important role in educating and influencing decision-makers, opinion-makers and the political process in general. When they attempt to do so, how do other scientists respond? On occasions a group of Nobel prize winning scientists have taken political action. Einstein, Pauling and Oppenheimer met with mixed reactions in their political commentary. So did the APS when it recently came out with a statement on EMF. Many scientists are now participating in or following the struggle to understand whether certain exposures to EMF may have adverse health effects. They often agree that it may take many years to understand this issue. Some of these scientists believe that prudent avoidance is a wise precaution. However, many of these same scientists seem reluctant to take their views one step further, into the realm of public policy recommendations. Your views on such matters would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Ellen Stern Harris Fund for the Environment From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Aug 06 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!news.msfc.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!noc.near.net!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!husc7.harvard.edu!mlevin From: mlevin@husc7.harvard.edu (Michael Levin) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: is there/let's make a list of possible funding sources for EM work Date: 7 Aug 1995 21:17:06 GMT Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA Lines: 15 Distribution: usa Message-ID: <405vsi$5gq@decaxp.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: husc7.harvard.edu Does the following exist somewhere: a list of funding agencies which would support or have supported any kind of biological EM research? I'm talking about govt. agencies, special offices/grants under established funding agencies (such as the NIH), power companies, private institutions and organizations, etc. - any place where a scientist interested in doing Em-related research can turn for grant support. If there is such a list, could someone please email me a reference to it? If not, could we start one? People could post ideas and someone (even me, if that's wanted) could compile it into one list. Or we could make it available for FTP. Please include any interesting things you may have seen under funding in the "aknowlegements" in EM-related papers, etc. Mike Levin From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Aug 06 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bcm!news.msfc.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!an772 From: an772@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Mike James) Subject: Re: L.A. Times Feature Article on EMF Message-ID: Sender: an772@freenet3.carleton.ca (Mike James) Reply-To: an772@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Mike James) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet References: <9507310413.AA01268@dora.auc.trw.com> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 17:37:23 GMT Lines: 57 Bill Hickey (bhickey@AUC.TRW.COM) writes: > Ms. Harris: > > In your 1995Jul30.024922.24709@lafn.org, you say: > >> The economic consequences of scientific uncertainty re EMF are clearly >> laid out in this extensive article. > > If the article is so extensive, why did you only paraphrase the part > about the physician? Is it because it's the only one that makes your point? > > > > > >> The question remains: What is to be done, in economic and social >> terms, pending scientific agreement? > > Here's a couple of comments on your question: > > (2) Have YOU given thought to what you want out of all this brouhaha > over EMF? Is it that you want buried power lines? I can't seem to > figure what you want science and engineers to do for you. Economically, > I'll wager you haven't even looked at the first order costs for burying > power lines across this country. So, _economically_ speaking, you might > well find the cost to do what you want is too high for the citizens of > this or any other country to bear for not too much benefit. Also, those > who simply want buried power lines because it "reduces" fields haven't > really done their homework properly. > > People who just don't like to look at power lines can't rationally > justify the costs (ex post facto, or even up front) based on scenery > considerations alone. The only way buried power lines can be justified > by this group of people is to wave a finger and try to have everyone > believe that their MAIN concern is health risk -- despite the lack of > clear and convincing scientifically obtained and reproducible evidence. > There ARE reasons for buried lines in some places, but not everywhere. I don't think burying the lines will eliminate the magnetic fields which are thought to do the damage > At last look, EMF's don't pollute water sources, don't pollute our air, > and don't cause split-end frizzies either. Maybe we ought to be focusing > our attentions on more critical and identifiable problems instead of > constantly beating up on EMF's...people are working on the problem, but > you can't make scientific breakthroughs on a PERT/CPM chart, at least > reliably so. > > Bill Hickey > Boulder, CO > bhickey@auc.trw.com > -- Mike James VE3PDE From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Aug 07 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!gatech!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: L.A. Times Feature Article on EMF Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 09:13:55 -0500 Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin Lines: 34 Distribution: world Message-ID: <9508080913.AA55180@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> References: 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 , an772@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Mike James) writes: > I don't think burying the lines will eliminate the magnetic fields > which are thought to do the damage This is a common misunderstanding. In fact, burying transmission lines greatly reduces their magnetic fields. The reduction occurs because the underground high voltage lines use rubber, plastic or oil for insulation rather than air. This allows the conductors to be placed much closer together and allows greater phase cancellation. The problem is that while placing low voltage distribution lines underground is relatively cheap, placing high voltage lines underground is very expensive, adding costs that may exceed one million US dollars per mile. I have the following figures for a proposed 138 kV line. The figures are in US $$ for 1995 construction, and assume a rural route (not under streets) and straight section (no angles) Overhead: $180,000 to 255,000 per mile 0.5 miles underground: $715,000 to $1,110,000 1.0 mile underground: $1,245,000 to $2,255,000 4.0 mile underground: $4,415,000 to $6,680,000 The range of figures covers different ways of undergrounding. For higher KV lines the difference between overhead and underground is even bigger. For lower voltages the differences is smaller, and in most new construction in the US, the distribution lines are underground. John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Aug 07 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!AUC.TRW.COM!bhickey From: bhickey@AUC.TRW.COM (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: The Role of Scientists in Society Date: 8 Aug 1995 16:08:26 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 23 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9508082304.AA07208@dora.auc.trw.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Dave: > At some point you have to have a rough estimate of lives saved per > mitigation dollar, so we know how to compare with clean air and water? > What mG level are you talking about? Best Wishes, Dave Hafemeister In the same vein, to calculate that number, you must also be able to attribute "x" cases against air pollution or water pollution. The trouble here is that our environment is NOT a single variable system, and in some cases not only is it multivariate, but higher order in relationships as well. When we talk about levels of pollution vs. mitigation dollar, I could turn the question around and ask anyone else what the dose-response effect of EMF is and the simple answer is that no one knows and there just doesn't appear to be a dose-response connection between emf and cancer (for example). Thus, if there is no particular dose-response curve to work against, any dollar spent mitigating is essentially infinite cost per life saved. Cheers, Bill From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Aug 07 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!CYMBAL.AIX.CALPOLY.EDU!dhafemei From: dhafemei@CYMBAL.AIX.CALPOLY.EDU (David W Hafemeister) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: The Role of Scientists in Society Date: 8 Aug 1995 14:15:54 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 4 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <1995Aug6.024512.23896@lafn.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net At some point you have to have a rough estimate of lives saved per mitigation dollar, so we know how to compare with clean air and water? What mG level are you talking about? Best Wishes, Dave Hafemeister From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 08 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOSHE2.EM.CDC.GOV!tyw1 From: tyw1@NIOSHE2.EM.CDC.GOV ("Wenzl, Thurman") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: FW: dose-resp and Role of Scientists in Society Date: 9 Aug 1995 10:19:43 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 89 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <30287DB8@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net If I could add to Joe Bowman's interesting response - that yes, there is some evidence (a bit inconclusive) of dose response findings in separate Swedish childhood and adult cancer studies. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is not a very common cancer: with incidence rates from 15-25 per million in North America, but if the Floderus findings are correct ) - then it is possible to estimate the percent of CLL which we might attribute to emf exposure. I used a formula from Fleiss (Stat Meths for Rates and Proportions., pg 76, Wiley, 1981), assuming a rel. risk of 3.7 for those with average workplace exposures to mag fields above .41 uT, and estimated either 5 or 10% of the working population to be so exposed, and got attributable risk percentages of 16 and 27%. Presumably, larger percentages would be found with such a calculation based on the upper quartile, rather than the topmost decile's rel. risk which I've chosen. By the way, the citation for Floderus is 'Cancer causes and Control, 1993, vol 4, pp. 465-476' It is a case-control study across many (non-utility) occupations in central Sweden, and is based on personal measurements of ave. mag. field exposures across some 90 jobs comparable to those held by study subjects. I urge other epidemiologists (and others) to elaborate on this, but in my opinion these hints of dose-response relation(s) are worthy of discussion and replication, with study designs which have the ability to detect such differences (slopes). Thurman Wenzl tyw1@nioshe2.em.cdc.gov (from a different part of) Natl Inst for Occ Saf and Health, Cincinnati And as usual, these are my own thoughts, and should not be interpreted as those of NIOSH. To Dave and Bill: >> At some point you have to have a rough estimate of lives saved per >> mitigation dollar, so we know how to compare with clean air and water? >> What mG level are you talking about? Best Wishes, Dave Hafemeister >When we talk about levels of pollution vs. mitigation dollar, I could >turn the question around and ask anyone else what the dose-response >effect of EMF is and the simple answer is that no one knows and there >just doesn't appear to be a dose-response connection between emf and >cancer (for example). Thus, if there is no particular dose-response >curve to work against, any dollar spent mitigating is essentially infinite >cost per life saved. > >Cheers, >Bill The epi literature has relevant dose-response curves. For residential EMF, Feychting and Ahlbom (Table 5) shows the relative risk for childhood leukemia vs. long-term average magnetic fields: Exposure <.1 uT .1-.29 uT > .3 uT Relative 1 1.5 (0.4-4.2) 3.8 (1.4-9.3) risk The EPRI survey of residential fields reports that the 24-average fields from exterior power lines (distribution and transmission) are above 0.15 uT for 5% of homes and above 0.4 uT for 1% of homes. For occupational EMF, there is Floderus et al (Table 3): Exposure .2 - .28 uT >=.29 uT >=.41 uT All leukemia 1.2 (0.8-1.9) 1.6(1.1-2.4) 1.7(1.0-2.7) Chronic lymp. 2.2 (1.1-4.3) 3.0(1.6-5.8) 3.7(1.8-7.7) leukemia Floderus et al measured shift-averaged exposures above 0.2 uT in half of their controls -- drawn randomly from all male workers in the heavily populated and industrialized counties of mid-Sweden. If these results are reliable (clearly a matter for discussion), a little calculation shows that extremely low frequency magnetic fields would be a public health problem comparable to established hazards on which much mitigation money is being spent. Joe Bowman National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health jdb0@niobbs1.em.cdc.gov As always, these are my opinions, not those of my agency. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 08 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: The Role of Scientists in Society Date: 9 Aug 1995 08:46:06 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 58 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <302867C7@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net To Dave and Bill: >> At some point you have to have a rough estimate of lives saved per >> mitigation dollar, so we know how to compare with clean air and water? >> What mG level are you talking about? Best Wishes, Dave Hafemeister >When we talk about levels of pollution vs. mitigation dollar, I could >turn the question around and ask anyone else what the dose-response >effect of EMF is and the simple answer is that no one knows and there >just doesn't appear to be a dose-response connection between emf and >cancer (for example). Thus, if there is no particular dose-response >curve to work against, any dollar spent mitigating is essentially infinite >cost per life saved. > >Cheers, >Bill The epi literature has relevant dose-response curves. For residential EMF, Feychting and Ahlbom (Table 5) shows the relative risk for childhood leukemia vs. long-term average magnetic fields: Exposure <.1 uT .1-.29 uT > .3 uT Relative 1 1.5 (0.4-4.2) 3.8 (1.4-9.3) risk The EPRI survey of residential fields reports that the 24-average fields from exterior power lines (distribution and transmission) are above 0.15 uT for 5% of homes and above 0.4 uT for 1% of homes. For occupational EMF, there is Floderus et al (Table 3): Exposure .2 - .28 uT >=.29 uT >=.41 uT All leukemia 1.2 (0.8-1.9) 1.6(1.1-2.4) 1.7(1.0-2.7) Chronic lymp. 2.2 (1.1-4.3) 3.0(1.6-5.8) 3.7(1.8-7.7) leukemia Floderus et al measured shift-averaged exposures above 0.2 uT in half of their controls -- drawn randomly from all male workers in the heavily populated and industrialized counties of mid-Sweden. If these results are reliable (clearly a matter for discussion), a little calculation shows that extremely low frequency magnetic fields would be a public health problem comparable to established hazards on which much mitigation money is being spent. Joe Bowman National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health jdb0@niobbs1.em.cdc.gov As always, these are my opinions, not those of my agency. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 08 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOSHE2.EM.CDC.GOV!tyw1 From: tyw1@NIOSHE2.EM.CDC.GOV ("Wenzl, Thurman") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Correction to attrib. risk calc./Floderus Date: 9 Aug 1995 10:37:24 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 7 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <302881DE@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net A correction: I was too quick with my algebra using the Fleiss formula a few minutes ago: the attributable risks, assuming that the Floderus finding is correct for the upper decile, are not 16 and 27%, but 12 and 21%. Thurman Wenzl From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 08 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!AUC.TRW.COM!bhickey From: bhickey@AUC.TRW.COM (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: dose-response data Date: 9 Aug 1995 11:07:33 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 55 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9508091803.AA10102@dora.auc.trw.com> References: <302867C7@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I want to thank Joe Bowman of NIOSH for the data provided recently. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding on my part, but when we discuss "relative risk" we may not be discussing actual incidence. For example, if the relative risk (normalized at 1.0) is based on 1 case per 100,000 people at large, then a relative risk of 2 would mean that 2 cases per 100,000 would be observed. That is a 100% increase in incidence, but the incidence level is still so low that it is tempting to question statistical significance. If the relative risk is based on 1 in 1,000,000 then an increase in risk from 1 to 2 would still be a 100% increase, but the absolute increase would still be very very small. (It _IS_, of course, extremely significant to the person who happens to be the 2nd case, but to the other 999,998 people in the general population the overall "risk" is minimal.) Now, if the relative risk is based on 100 people, then we have a totally different set of concerns. So, I would ask the following questions for clarification: (1) I need confirmation of my presumptions that: > The EPRI survey of residential fields reports that the 24-average > fields from exterior power lines (distribution and transmission) > are above 0.15 uT for 5% of homes and above 0.4 uT for 1% of homes. 24-average means an average of the fields [which field"S" - I thought we were only discussing the magnetic field (singular)] over a 24 hour period. And it also sounds like we are concerning ourselves with a problem that affects somewhere between 1-5 % of the population at large-with the attendant implication that 95% of the folks don't have that problem. Whereas, for other areas (water and air pollution for example) the exposure to the overall population might reach 95-100%. (2) I need to know what incidence of population was used for the baseline (100, 100,000, 1,000,000 etc.) This gives us the ability to calculate cost per case per capita. > If these results are reliable (clearly a matter for discussion), From my discussions with those much more familiar with statistics and procedures than I, this is CLEARLY an issue in many cases. > a little calculation shows that extremely low frequency magnetic fields > would be a public health problem comparable to established hazards on > which much mitigation money is being spent. Again, I would want to look at data, because if we are talking about spending the same levels of absolute dollars against a problem that affects 5% or so of the population versus a problem that affects 100% of the population, we have apples and oranges again even though we may have similar relative "risks". If the data supports the additional information, I'd like to see it if possible. Thanks again, Bill From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 08 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ns1.faseb.org!darwin.sura.net!mother.usf.edu!news From: tabibzadeh@rics.moffitt.usf.edu (SIAMAK TABIBZADEH) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Frontiers in Bioscience, an electronic journal and virtual library Date: 9 Aug 1995 16:40:35 GMT Organization: Moffitt Cancer Center at USF Lines: 40 Message-ID: <40aoe3$rp6@mother.usf.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc3160.moffitt.usf.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.11 Frontiers in Bioscience, an electronic journal and virtual library An electronic journal and virtual library has been created in order to facilitate rapid dissemination of scientific data as well as to provide investigators with numerous online tools for use in their day-to-day research activities. The publication cost is minimized or completely eliminated. A section of the journal is dedicated to publishing manuscripts that contain real time events. Access to a large number of databases is quite easy from the journal. These include databases for analysis of scientific data, search strategies, dictionaries, atlases, tutorials, conferences, information on products of various manufacturers, links to online journals and many other valuable information. Access to the journal and these services is free. The staff members of the journal are in the process of creation of various databases. One such database on gene knockout is already online. The journal can be accessed at the following address on WWW: http://bayanet.com/bioscinece Although submission of data for publication in electronic platforms has just begun, this method of distribution of scientific information would certainly be the logical route of the future. The first volume of the journal to be published around Jan 1996 will contain excellent manuscripts. Please take a moment to examine the journal and consider to send manuscripts for publication in this new and novel forum. The address of the editorial office is as follows: Frontiers in Bioscience S Tabibzadeh, MD, Dept of Pathology University of South Florida 12901 Bruce B Downs Blvd Tampa, FL 33612 Tel: 813-979-7237 Fax: 813-979-3085 E-mail: tabibzadeh@rics.moffitt.usf.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 08 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: RE: dose-response data Date: 9 Aug 1995 14:21:00 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 135 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <3028B64A@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net After reading the recent postings by Thurman and Bill, I'ld like to add the following notes: First, my risk estimates below are back-of-the-envelope calculations. They were originally part of an examination of why study EMF, rather than some other occupational hazard. So I offer this to you all in the same exploratory spirit. Now, to reply to the questions: Bill> when we discuss "relative risk" we may not be discussing actual incidence. For example, .... a relative risk of 2 would mean ..... a 100% increase, but ...... the absolute increase would still be very very small. You are right. From the numbers in the epi papers, you can only calculate percent of cancers (or deaths due to the cancer) due to EMF. However, absolute incidence or mortality rates are needed to get to the bottom line. In my personal exercise, I used mortality tables and the Floderus data to estimate the number of male leukemia deaths attributable to EMF. The result was in the same ballpark as the number of deaths attributable to asbestos exposure. Although those estimates are inexact due to the data available to me (such as using EMF incidence rates from Floderus to get U.S. mortality), they illustrate one very important fact: Although the leukemia and brain cancers currently linked to EMF exposures by the epi studies with measurements are relatively rare, the large numbers of people exposed to EMF makes this a potential problem comparable to recognized environmental health risks. Bill> I need confirmation of my presumption that the EPRI survey of residential fields is reporting ...... the magnetic field (singular)] over a 24 hour period. That's what I meant to say: extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields (plural). I can't help using the plural because ELF fields have many sub-groups: high and low harmonic contents, linear and elliptical polarization, coherence (whatever that means), etc. Bill> it also sounds like we are concerning ourselves with a problem that >affects somewhere between 1-5 % of the population at large-with the >attendant implication that 95% of the folks don't have that problem. Everyone is exposed to EMF. Epi studies can only tell us what happens to the folks with the higher exposures (just like air and water pollution studies). Note also that significant CLL risk were found at ELF exposures measured in 50% of the Swedish male workforce. Lastly, you can't tell who has high exposures unless someone invests in EMF measurements. Therefore, some expenditures are needed to make rational public health decisions. Thurman> I used a formula from Fleiss ... assuming a rel. risk of 3.7 >for those with average workplace exposures to mag fields above .41 uT, >and estimated either 5 or 10% of the working population to be so exposed, >and got attributable risk percentages of 16 and 27%. Inspired by Thurman, I did my own attributable risk calculations for both sets of epi data in my earlier posting. In my Floderus table, the first column is 25% of the population (50th - 75th percentiles), the second column is the highest quartile, and the last column is the highest 10 percent. Unlike Thurman, I use all exposure columns in my risk estimates. For Bill's sake, I've included mortality stats for males from "Vital Stats of the US 1989" (Centers for Disease Control, 1993). Note that my gender discrimination is due to the absence of an EMF epi study on female workers (although a couple are in progress). Attributable risks from occupational ELF magnetic fields (based on Floderus et al, 1993): % cancers Deaths per year due to EMF (U.S. males) All causes ---- 1,114,190 All leukemia 19% 10,039 CLL 82% 2,019 For the residential risks (from Feychting and Ahlbom), I guessed exposure percentiles for my previous table by a little extrapolation from the EPRI residential survey's Table S-2. Below are the needed data. To correct an error in my previous posting, these are ELF magnetic fields due to power lines, either from the currents on outside lines OR from ground currents inside the house. EPRI data on Feychting & Values exceed in: 24-h average in Ahlbom cut-points overall living space 50% of residences 0.2 mG 25% 0.5 10% 1.0 1.0 mG 5% 1.5 ?? --- 3.0 1% 4.0 mG So, I estimate about 10% of the childhood leukemias are due to residential ELF magnetic fields. I don't have childhood cancer rates at hand. Otherwise, that should be enough to work out your own conclusions. Joe Bowman National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health jdb0@niobbs1.em.cdc.gov As always, this is my own opinion, not necessarily that of NIOSH. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 08 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!daresbury!nntp-trd.UNINETT.no!Norway.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!news!news From: Loan Le Subject: EMF Effects X-Nntp-Posting-Host: server.uwindsor.ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: Sender: news@news.uwindsor.ca (Usenet) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: University of Windsor Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 20:14:49 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP19) X-Url: news:bionet.emf-bio Lines: 15 I'm currently doing a research on the biological, microwave and cellular effects of EMF. Also, I am looking for information on the theraputic effect of EMF. If you have any information or the location of any of the listed topics, please email me at: loanle@server.uwindsor.ca Thanks in advance Vicky From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Aug 09 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!CYMBAL.AIX.CALPOLY.EDU!dhafemei From: dhafemei@CYMBAL.AIX.CALPOLY.EDU (David W Hafemeister) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: The Role of Science in Society Date: 10 Aug 1995 12:35:24 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 12 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I think this discussion has nothing to do with research dollars. The question is when do you have regs that require fields less than x mG, at that point miigation costs come in. Dave Hafemeister On Thu, 10 Aug 1995, norman d. smith wrote: > Are we seriously allowing the dollar to be the measuring stick as to whether > research is conducted or not? Especially mitigated dollars? That bothers me. > Norm, Oregon > > From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Aug 09 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!ns1.faseb.org!darwin.sura.net!mother.usf.edu!news From: tabibzadeh@rics.moffitt.usf.edu (SIAMAK TABIBZADEH) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Frontiers in Bioscience, a journal and virtual library Date: 10 Aug 1995 14:35:34 GMT Organization: Moffitt Cancer Center at USF Lines: 40 Message-ID: <40d5fm$73c@mother.usf.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc3160.moffitt.usf.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.11 Frontiers in Bioscience, a journal and virtual library An electronic journal and virtual library has been created in order to facilitate rapid dissemination of scientific data as well as to provide investigators with numerous online tools for use in their day-to-day research activities. The publication cost is minimized or completely eliminated. A section of the journal is dedicated to publishing manuscripts that contain real time events. Access to a large number of databases is quite easy from the journal. These include databases for analysis of scientific data, search strategies, dictionaries, atlases, tutorials, conferences, information on products of various manufacturers, links to online journals and many other valuable information. Access to the journal and these services is free. The staff members of the journal are in the process of creation of various databases. One such database on gene knockout is already online. The journal can be accessed at the following address on WWW: http://bayanet.com/bioscience Although submission of data for publication in electronic platforms has just begun, this method of distribution of scientific information would certainly be the logical route of the future. The first volume of the journal to be published around Jan 1996 will contain excellent manuscripts. Please take a moment to examine the journal and consider to send manuscripts for publication in this new and novel forum. The address of the editorial office is as follows: Frontiers in Bioscience S Tabibzadeh, MD, Dept of Pathology University of South Florida 12901 Bruce B Downs Blvd Tampa, FL 33612 Tel: 813-979-7237 Fax: 813-979-3085 E-mail: tabibzadeh@rics.moffitt.usf.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Aug 09 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de!usenet From: Thorsten Lehn Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: (no subject) Date: 10 Aug 1995 13:29:11 GMT Organization: University Frankfurt / AK Magnetobiology Lines: 11 Message-ID: <40d1j7$16k@zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin053.rz.uni-frankfurt.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) To: mail.server.uni-frankfurt.de Hallo, I am working with grashoppers (insecta, Locusta migratoria) and the influence of elektromagnetic-fields (9ooMhz, 217 Hz pulsed) of the Decsending contralateral movement Detector (DCMD) Interneuron. Do anybody know, if there are some other experience about insects and the biological effects of elektromagnetic-fields? I´m glad to get an answer very soon, sincerly Thorsten From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Aug 09 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de!usenet From: Thorsten Lehn Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: (no subject) Date: 10 Aug 1995 13:21:36 GMT Organization: University Frankfurt / AK Magnetobiology Lines: 10 Message-ID: <40d150$16k@zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin053.rz.uni-frankfurt.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) To: all,people Hallo, I am working with grashoppers (insecta, Locusta migratoria) and the influence of elektromagnetic-fields (9ooMhz, 217 Hz pulsed) of the Decsending contralateral movement Detector (DCMD) Interneuron. Do anybody know, if there are some other experience about insects and the biological effects of elektromagnetic-fields? I´m glad to get an answer very soon, sincerly Thorsten From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Aug 09 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!daresbury!not-for-mail From: "mark.davies" Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Post-Doc Position Date: 10 Aug 1995 10:48:27 +0100 Lines: 28 Sender: lpddist@mserv1.dl.ac.uk Distribution: bionet Message-ID: <40cklb$moj@mserv1.dl.ac.uk> Original-To: biojobs@dl.ac.uk ****************************************** POST-DOCTORAL POSITION AVAILABLE ****************************************** A Postdoctoral Research Assistant is required to study the influence of electromagnetic fields on the motility of marine diatoms under a two-year project funded by the EMF Biological Research Trust. The project will involve the culture of diatoms and analysis of movement by video microscopy. Applicants with a background in marine microbiology will be preferred. An interest in bioelectromagnetic phenomena and a knowledge of the physics of electromagnetic fields is desirable but not essential. Anticipated (flexible) starting date is 1 October 1995. Salary range: 13 470 - 17 013 Sterling p.a. Informal enquiries are welcomed by Dr Mark Davies, Ecology Centre, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, SR1 3SD, UK. Voice UK+191 515 2517, Fax UK+191 515 2603, email mark.davies@sunderland.ac.uk To apply write for an information pack to Personnel Services, University of Sunderland, Langham Tower, Ryhope Road, Sunderland, SR2 7EE, UK or 'phone UK+ 191 515 2055 or 2425 or 2046 quoting reference ENRP03. Closing date 1 September 1995. ************************************************************** From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Aug 09 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!psgrain!nntp.teleport.com!ip-pdx1-56.teleport.com!normans From: normans@teleport.com (norman d. smith) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: The Role of Science in Society Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 09:21:02 Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 Lines: 3 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: ip-pdx1-56.teleport.com X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] Are we seriously allowing the dollar to be the measuring stick as to whether research is conducted or not? Especially mitigated dollars? That bothers me. Norm, Oregon From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Aug 09 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU!Spadaroj From: Spadaroj@VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU (Joe Spadaro) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: EMF Risk vs Benefit Date: 10 Aug 1995 09:10:49 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 32 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Just a note to add to the interesting (and important) discussions if EMF risks in recent days on this net: Calculations on relative risk will eventually have to incorporate other potential risks and diseases to fully assess the risk to a population. I would imagine that since these may still be undiscovered, this is a gradual learning process. There is a further complication that may emerge. Suppose, just suppose, that there are biological BENEFITS from exposure to low intensity EMFs (analagous perhaps to the benefits of some minerals in hard water, otherwise called "pollutants", or perhaps the purported benefits of a small glass of wine now and then...). This symmetry in biological risk/benefit probably ought to be considered, although there is an underlying assumption (bias) that the only things on the planet before we arrived are good. May be worth keeping our eyes open. Perhaps a crude but interesting example might emerge from the evidence so far that bone and bone cells under certain circumstances seem to respond to pulsing fields, stronger than environmental (0.1-1 mT), by increasing bone formation rates and/or reducing bone loss rates. Just a thought. Joe Spadaro, Ph.D. S.U.N.Y. Health Science Center - Syracuse spadaroj@vax.cs.hscsyr.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Aug 10 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!AUC.TRW.COM!bhickey From: bhickey@AUC.TRW.COM (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: The Role of Science in Society Date: 10 Aug 1995 20:42:21 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 34 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9508110338.AA15928@dora.auc.trw.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Norm: > Are we seriously allowing the dollar to be the measuring stick as to whether > research is conducted or not? In that there are basically infinite demands for research support (LOTS of good worthy areas to be researched), but only FINITE funding available (whether through government, industry, or private sources) -- yes, out of necessity. However, it is NOT necessarily the cost of research that determines whether it will be funded or not, rather the PRIORITY or relative significance of that research in comparison with all the other items on this infinite list. The particle accelerator in Texas was a good worthy project (expensive too), but when placed on a list of things we NEED to do, it didn't make the cut of things we could AFFORD to do. So, the dollar is not so much the "measuring stick" as it is used to define the realistic boundaries of what is attainable. > Especially mitigated dollars? That bothers me. > Norm, Oregon Unfortunately, if one looks at two research projects of relatively equal significance and cost, then one looks at potential payoff (in simpler words, how many lives can be saved with this research), the sad fact of life is that the project with GREATER significance in savings of life will usually win out over one with lesser impact. No one likes admitting that THEIR project is less important or worthy than another, but someone has to be #1 on the list, and someone has to be last. The good news is that positioning on the list is rather dynamic over time, so persistence will sometimes pay off. Regards, Bill From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Aug 10 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: The Role of the Science in Society Date: 11 Aug 1995 07:55:00 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 51 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <302AFECF@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net In reply to: >I think this discussion has nothing to do with research dollars. >The question is when do you have regs that require fields less >than x mG, at that point mitigation costs come in. >Dave Hafemeister > >On Thu, 10 Aug 1995, norman d. smith wrote: > >>Are we seriously allowing the dollar to be the measuring stick >>as to whether research is conducted or not? Especially >>mitigated dollars? That bothers me. >>Norm, Oregon Why bring up regulations (i.e. safe exposure levels enforced by the government)? They are not the only way to deal with a potential hazard. There is also voluntary mitigation, public information, exposure measurements, and research. Regulations haven't been invoked in the case of ELF magnetic fields and cancer because the data isn't sufficient to meet the legal requirements. So, the issue for me is whether the scientific data provides any guidance for people concerned about their own health or responsible for the health of others on how to respond to EMF exposures. Dollars expended on any measure (research included) is only one possible criterion for making judgements about EMF exposures. Their obvious drawback is also placing a dollar cost on the potential illness. As a public health professional, I prefer estimating the total number of potential illnesses, and comparing them to other recognized hazards. Of course, most health decisions (public or private, environmental or not) are made by qualitative weighing of the relevant factors. The quantitative risk analysis which we've started on the EMF-BIO newsgroup makes the decision logic clearer (especially to scientists), but the disadvantages are incomplete information and the temptation to neglect the human dimension. After we're done with our quantitative risk assessment, imagine yourself giving advice to a mother living next to a high-voltage transmission line after her child has been diagnosed with leukemia. Joe Bowman National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health jdb0@niobbs1.em.cdc.gov As always, these are my opinions, and not necessarily NIOSH's. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Aug 10 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!AUC.TRW.COM!bhickey From: bhickey@AUC.TRW.COM (Bill Hickey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: The Role of Science in Society Date: 11 Aug 1995 13:01:24 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 135 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9508111957.AA18242@dora.auc.trw.com> References: <199508111629.AA17905@Cliff.ACS.Oakland.Edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Professor Liboff posted: > I fail to understand arguments aginst emf research dollars based on the > costs of mitigation. What they appear to be saying is that we should not > pursue bioelectromagnetic research because, on the basis of what we now > know, mitigation is unwarranted. Let's try again. I don't believe I said anything about stopping bioelectromagnetic research or any other kind of research. What I said (or at least intended to say) was that there is a VERY LARGE BODY (for all intents and purposes, INFINITE) of research work that needs to be done. There is also a RESTRICTED (FINITE) pot of money with which to fund that work. One simply cannot put 10 pounds into a 5 pound sack, so unless some brilliant scientist or businessman out there can tell us how to fund an infinitely large requirement set with a finite money supply, we are forced by external considerations into PRIORITIZING this big list of research projects. How you choose to prioritize it really doesn't matter, and what _sometimes_ happens is that the review boards (your peers, professor) look for the "biggest bang for the buck" or the highest probability of payoff for the investment of funds. It's done every day by charitable organizations, governments, and businesses in deciding which proposal has more merit than another. Mitigation issues CAN play a factor, but they needn't be the ONLY factors used in deciding where to put scarce research dollars. > The question of mitigation is a non-sequitor in discussing emf research. In an ideal world, this is correct. We live in a real world, and mitigation does play a role, right or wrong. People will rightly ask, if I can't afford to solve the problem, why bother telling me about it. Sort of the ostrich syndrome taken to an extreme. > First introduced by Hafemeister and the APS, it is being used as a sort of > scare tactic to discourage further research funding in bioelectromagnetics. Hopefully, what they are saying is that, IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER RESEARCH PRIORITIES, continuing to fund bioem research at the same levels cannot be supported by results to date. In business, if one spends money chasing down an opportunity which eventually turns into a dead end or shows signs of being less productive (profitable) than another alternative, we usually stop the less-productive work and concentrate on that which will yield higher return. Again, not an ideal scenario, but a real one nonetheless. If bioem researchers keep turning up negative connections, keep producing inconclusive or incongruent data, keep arguing amongst themselves about HOW to set up the data collection only to have others bicker about procedure and data structural integrity -- what kind of picture does that paint to those outside the field who are being asked to render a subjective judgement on the worth of continuing to fund their research? I, for one, think more research is needed, but I also think that much of the research to date was poorly conducted, due in part to a lack of understanding of the physical phenomenology when setting up the data collection. There are other arguments, much more detailed about conclusions drawn from incomplete work, and so on. Thus, I tend to side with those who say we haven't seen too much information resulting from work to date that indicates (a) we have a big problem that is URGENT, or (b) that the level of the problem is large enough to warrant funding a project the size of the supercollider to figure out whether or not we have something to worry about. There is also my own personal concern about people who try to simply a very complex issue beyond a reasonable point (this is the "it lost a little in the translation" syndrome). > My earlier comments on the lack of competence within the APS Council to > address such questions can only be reinforced by this bass-ackwards > approach towards emf research costs. I think it is "bass-ackwards" for NSF to fund major research to the tune of $30-40K only AFTER the data collection and experiment is actually done and all that is left is the write up. Yet, we see that quite frequently. In many cases, in order to qualify for research funding, you have to have already done the work and are only looking for funding to document and publicize it. THAT's bass-ackwards! > Starting in 1968, I have been intimately involved with most of the research > in this area. There are probably close to a thousand researchers studying > bioelectromagnetics worldwide, and I am familiar with many of these > individuals, having read their papers, attended meetings with them, > corresponded with them, and helped review their manuscripts. I do not > recall any professional interaction with either Hafemeister or Hickey. This > is not meant to say that well-meaning individuals, especially other > scientists, should not take part in scientific debates. But it is clear > that individuals far removed from the action may sometimes lack the insight > to render meaningful opinions. It is generally a dangerous paradigm to assume that only those who work in a field can have insight or render meaningful opinions to a discussion. In many cases, it is precisely because these people lack the indepth familiarity that they ask the questions which eventually spur those in the field to look in another direction (otherwise known as the "can't see the forest for the trees" syndrome). My personal area of expertise is related and allied. However, have I gone out and taken blood samples and correlated them to EM exposures? Nope. Probably won't either. I _have_ been involved in instrumentation, electromagnetic compatibility effects and other interesting sidelights since about 1969. However, for reasons not important to this discussion, you will not likely see my name appear in journals for all the work I've done. > Only a very small segment of the bioelectromagnetics research community is > involved with mitigation concerns. Perhaps very true. However, the vocal "civilian" population IS concerned with mitigation NOW, in the absence of conclusive rationale for their concerns. Since that civilian body is the ultimate source for your research funding, you tell me whether or not mitigation prospects will enter into the funding deliberations. Put another way more politely: WHO IS YOUR ULTIMATE CUSTOMER? > Although it is an important issue, most > of my colleagues spend their days worrying about this or that experimental > result, what the latest theoretical work implies, and how their most recent > funding request, (which took two months to prepare), is being handled. > Above all, everyone understands that any serious discussion regarding the > costs of mitigation must ultimately depend on the research outcomes. To capsulize: you CAN'T mitigate what you don't understand. > Interposing the straw man of mitigation has done a lot of potential harm to > these workaday scientists, who are merely doing what scientists always do, > namely investigate interesting problems. Again, in a perfect world, each scientist would be free to pursue that which interests him/her the most to their heart's content, free from worry about funding. Unfortunately, Maslow's heirarchy is at work, and we all must concern ourselves with food, clothing, and shelter which means most of us have a boss telling us where to put our efforts. IF we are lucky, we get to put our efforts where we want them. If not, well... Cheers, Bill Hickey From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Aug 10 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!CYMBAL.AIX.CALPOLY.EDU!dhafemei From: dhafemei@CYMBAL.AIX.CALPOLY.EDU (David W Hafemeister) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: The Role of Science in Society Date: 11 Aug 1995 12:54:07 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 22 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <199508111629.AA17905@Cliff.ACS.Oakland.Edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net A.R.Liboff, I thought this discussion began with Ellen Harris's Aug. 8 note on the responsibiliy of scientists. My response to that was at the mitigation/litigation level and was not addressed to research on EMF, which I strongly support. Most of the responses have been along that line, quoting various epidemiological results, but not yet at the cost to mitigate a life and not yet at a comparison of other evvironmental problems. I tried to make that clear on Aug. 10 to NSmith (?), but apparently didn't do that comment very clearly. Sorry. The APS statement did not ding research. I have no great wisdom whether the proper amount should be $20M or $50M per year. I can live with either. What are your views on the optimal research progrom for EMFields (I am now refraining from using EMF becasue of our friend MFaraday.) How would you prioritize funding? I don't ask this question to be snippy, but to learn. Dave Hafemeister From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Aug 10 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!torn!news!news From: Loan Le Subject: Help: EMF info. X-Nntp-Posting-Host: server.uwindsor.ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: Sender: news@news.uwindsor.ca (Usenet) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: University of Windsor Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 17:31:14 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP19) X-Url: news:bionet.emf-bio Lines: 16 I'm doing research on the effects of EMF: biological, microwave, cellular and theraputic effecs. I need help locating these topics. If you know where I can find infomation or know the URL location or have any information on EMF, please email me at: loanle@server.uwindsor.ca Thanks in advance Vicky From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Aug 10 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!oakland.edu!liboff From: liboff@oakland.edu (A.R. Liboff) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: The Role of Science in Society Date: 11 Aug 1995 09:33:07 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 43 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199508111629.AA17905@Cliff.ACS.Oakland.Edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Both Hafemeister's and Hickey's responses (8/10/95) to Norman Smith's (8/10/95) question concerning research dollars were framed in terms of mitigation dollars; although emf mitigation and emf research are related, I fail to understand arguments aginst emf research dollars based on the costs of mitigation. What they appear to be saying is that we should not pursue bioelectromagnetic research because, on the basis of what we now know, mitigation is unwarranted. The question of mitigation is a non-sequitor in discussing emf research. First introduced by Hafemeister and the APS, it is being used as a sort of scare tactic to discourage further research funding in bioelectromagnetics. My earlier comments on the lack of competence within the APS Council to address such questions can only be reinforced by this bass-ackwards approach towards emf research costs. Starting in 1968, I have been intimately involved with most of the research in this area. There are probably close to a thousand researchers studying bioelectromagnetics worldwide, and I am familiar with many of these individuals, having read their papers, attended meetings with them, corresponded with them, and helped review their manuscripts. I do not recall any professional interaction with either Hafemeister or Hickey. This is not meant to say that well-meaning individuals, especially other scientists, should not take part in scientific debates. But it is clear that individuals far removed from the action may sometimes lack the insight to render meaningful opinions. Only a very small segment of the bioelectromagnetics research community is involved with mitigation concerns. Although it is an important issue, most of my colleagues spend their days worrying about this or that experimental result, what the latest theoretical work implies, and how their most recent funding request, (which took two months to prepare), is being handled. Above all, everyone understands that any serious discussion regarding the costs of mitigation must ultimately depend on the research outcomes. Interposing the straw man of mitigation has done a lot of potential harm to these workaday scientists, who are merely doing what scientists always do, namely investigate interesting problems. A.R. Liboff Department of Physics Oakland University Rochester, MI 48309 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Aug 12 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!noc.netcom.net!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!lafn.org!lafn.org!ai808 From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Subject: Letters to The Editor re EMF Article X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995Aug13.170230.26753@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: Los Angeles Free-Net Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 17:02:30 GMT Lines: 23 Today, 8/13/95, the L.A.Times Real Estate Section was devoted entirely to four letters in response to the 7/30/95 article entitled, "High Tension: Concern About Potential for Health Risks Make Homes Near Power Lines Hard or Impossible to Sell." The Letters Column headline is "Aftershocks From EMF Article." The lead letter is from E. Gregory Barnes, Asst. General Counsel for San Diego Gas & Electric. The second letter is from Vann Priest, Asst. Prof. of Physics at Whittier College. The last two letters were from individuals in Auburn and in Seal Beach. Each of the four letters were highly critical of the article. As we offered to send copies of the original article to all those who send us a self-addressed, stamped envelope, we are also offering to send a copy of the letters on the same basis. Please specify if you want only the letters or the article as well. Sincerely, Ellen Stern Harris Fund for the Environment P.O.Box 228 / Beverly Hills, CA 90213 From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Mon Aug 14 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Emf-bio conversion Date: 15 Aug 1995 09:19:04 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 58 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I have taken definitive action to eliminate the extraneous out-of-charter messages that have been increasingly plaguing our group. Up to now, I have tried to minimize such out-of-charter messages by having private correspondence with various individuals. But this has not been entirely successful and has been costly to me in time. Also, many of the scientists in this group have complained about them in private messages to me, and rightly so. Thus, the newsgroup has been converted to what is called a moderated one. For nearly all of the members of this newsgroup, this will mean only that out-of-charter messages will not appear. Below is a copy of our group's charter. The bounds of the charter are loose, only the clearly inappropriate messages will not appear. The bionet manager shall be posting a message to the group about this change that will take effect next week. Allan Allan H. Frey, Moderator email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA The emf-bio Newsgroup was set up by the International Society for Bioelectricity, a FASEB* Society (afrey@uunet.uu.net Allan H. Frey), for use by the biological research community. *FASEB (The Federation of American Societies in Experimental Biology) is the largest coalition of life sciences societies in the United States, and represents over 42,000 biomedical and biological scientists. The purpose of the Newsgroup is to provide a means of easy communication among people doing research in or interested in electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems. It also provides the general biological community with a window into a field which has broad implications for biology. The Newsgroup is primarily for discussions among bioscientists. Lay people interested in hazards should contact the appropriate groups for such information such as the National EMR Alliance (212-554-4073). Those interested in arguing about hazards, which is a policy issue, have other forums where discussions of policy issues are appropriate. The Newsgroup can be used for discussion of books, articles and methods. Users can pose questions on techniques to be used in experiments and seek solutions for problems they have encountered in experiments. A preprint of a paper can be posted for comment before sending it in for publication or starting the next experiment. Theories can be debated and the validity of experiments can be discussed. Important new findings can be announced. Journal editors can post abstracts of papers accepted for publication and society newsletters can be distributed. Announcements of funding for new programs and jobs can be posted. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 15 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!daresbury!nntp-trd.UNINETT.no!Norway.EU.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de!usenet From: Thorsten Lehn Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: ellectrolyte- filled- glas-micropipet Date: 16 Aug 1995 14:58:44 GMT Organization: University Frankfurt / AK Magnetobiology Lines: 10 Message-ID: <40t134$gcf@zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin040.rz.uni-frankfurt.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) To: bionet.emf Hallo all together, does anyboby have experience in using an glas electrolyte-filled micropipet as reference-electrode in a neurophysiological experiment? I am working with Locusta migratoria (grashopper) and the influence of electro-magnetic-fields to the DCMD. Yours Thorsten From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 15 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Suggestions for FASEB Convention? Date: 15 Aug 1995 18:48:14 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 13 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The next FASEB Convention will be in Washington, DC from April 14 to 18. There will be symposia on emf interactions with biological systems. The symposia are now being planned. Suggestions as to speakers to invite and topics to be presented are welcome. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 15 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.gmi.edu!msunews!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yarrina.connect.com.au!warrane.connect.com.au!gamera.zeta.org.au!godzilla.zeta.org.au!root From: geintl@zeta.org.au Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: emf Date: 16 Aug 1995 07:56:33 GMT Organization: Kralizec Dialup Unix Sydney, +61-2-837-1183 V.32bis Lines: 3 Message-ID: <40s8bh$3rv@godzilla.zeta.org.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: godzilla.zeta.org.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) I am interested in EMF test gear! From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 15 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!daresbury!nntp-trd.UNINETT.no!Norway.EU.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de!usenet From: Thorsten Lehn Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: ellectrolyte- filled- glas-micropipet Date: 16 Aug 1995 14:59:47 GMT Organization: University Frankfurt / AK Magnetobiology Lines: 10 Message-ID: <40t153$gcf@zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin040.rz.uni-frankfurt.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) Hallo all together, does anyboby have experience in using an glas electrolyte-filled micropipet as reference-electrode in a neurophysiological experiment? I am working with Locusta migratoria (grashopper) and the influence of electro-magnetic-fields to the DCMD. Yours Thorsten From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Aug 16 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV!jdb0 From: jdb0@NIOBBS1.EM.CDC.GOV ("Bowman, Joseph D.") Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: FW: Suggestions for FASEB Convention? Date: 17 Aug 1995 06:06:02 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 30 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <3032CDDF@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Invite Frank Peto and Stefan Engstrom (VA in Loma Linda, CA) to talk about ion magnetic resonance mechanisms. Joe Bowman National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health jdb0@niobbs1.em.cdc.gov 513-533-8143 ---------- From: BIOSCI-REQUEST To: emf-bio Subject: Suggestions for FASEB Convention? Date: Tuesday, August 15, 1995 6:48PM The next FASEB Convention will be in Washington, DC from April 14 to 18. There will be symposia on emf interactions with biological systems. The symposia are now being planned. Suggestions as to speakers to invite and topics to be presented are welcome. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Aug 17 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!NYX.CS.DU.EDU!sbalu From: sbalu@NYX.CS.DU.EDU (sarayu balu) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: Government Restricts Internet!! Date: 18 Aug 1995 14:28:19 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 34 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <412h81$r8m@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net This doesn't belong in this list. Got it ? You inconsiderate activist. = SBalu On Fri, 18 Aug 1995, Restrict wrote: > > > > > SPEAK UP AMERICA -- MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT > > > Question: Should the United States Government interfere and put > restrictions on the use of the Internet?? > > > CALL: 1-900-945-5600 ext 163 and cast your vote. > > Cost: $1.98 per call (NOT per minute) Call Today > > Must be 18+/Touch Tones Only > > InfoService/Studio City, CA/213-993-3366 > > > Results of this survey will be compiled and sent to members of > the House and Senate. Thank you for casting your vote and for > making your voice heard. > > > > From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Aug 17 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: ellectrolyte- filled- glas-micropipet Date: 18 Aug 1995 09:58:53 -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 You are right, Bob... the title from one paper was combined with the citation info of another paper. My apologies. The correct reference is: Brain stem evoked responses associated with low-intensity pulsed UHF energy. Journal of Applied Physiology, 23, 6, 1967, 984-988. Thanks for the correction Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Aug 17 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!UNO.CC.GENESEO.EDU!BEASON From: BEASON@UNO.CC.GENESEO.EDU (Bob Beason) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: ellectrolyte- filled- glas-micropipet Date: 18 Aug 1995 09:39:24 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 9 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <01HU7VN50QOY000P1D@UNO.CC.GENESEO.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net There seems to be an error in the reference that was posted a short time ago: Brain stem evoked responses associated with low intensity pulsed UHF energy. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 63, 1967, 121-125. Neither the title nor the subject deal with electrodes and recordings. The paper deals with ions in the air. Were two references combined? Bob Beason From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Aug 17 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!uunet.uu.net!afrey From: afrey@uunet.uu.net (Allan Frey) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: ellectrolyte- filled- glas-micropipet Date: 18 Aug 1995 09:05:54 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 34 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Thorsten asked: >does anyboby have experience in using an glas electrolyte-filled >micropipet as reference-electrode in a neurophysiological experiment? >I am working with Locusta migratoria (grashopper) and the influence of >electro-magnetic-fields to the DCMD. Many years ago, I made a systematic study of electrode interaction with emf prior to a series of experiments on the brain. (1) I found that electrolyte filled microelectrodes were questionable to use in at least some em fields. The phenomena of ionoelectrophoresis can lead to the salts being driven into the cell and giving a false positive result. In fact, several years later this is what happened to another investigator. I ultimately developed electrodes for brain work and worked out how to orient and use them in an em field. I then got valid results. (Unknown to me at the time, the sponsor of the research, the Office of Naval Research, obtained a patent in my name on one of the electrodes I developed.) I suggest that if you can set up an experiment without using an electrode that you do so. You have a high risk of error if you use an electrode in an em field and the technique is difficult and time consuming to work out. 1. Brain stem evoked responses associated with low intensity pulsed UHF energy. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 63, 1967, 121-125. Allan Allan H. Frey email afrey@uunet.uu.net 11049 Seven Hill Lane voice 301.299.5181 Potomac, MD 20854, USA From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Aug 18 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!bighorn.accessnv.com!usenet From: rictell@accessnv.com (Richard Tell) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: L.A. Times Feature Article on EMF Date: Fri, 18 Aug 95 13:30:58 PST Organization: Richard Tell Associates, Inc. Lines: 26 Distribution: world Message-ID: <412tik$sna@bighorn.accessnv.com> References: <9508080913.AA55180@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: bighorn Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.5 In connection with the issue of burying power lines to reduce magnetic fields, one needs to remain aware of the following consideration: While burying the lines will greately reduce the magnetic fields due to phase cancellation due to the conductors being almost on top of one another, the proximity of these conductors is now very close to the surface of the earth, relative to where they may have been prior to burying them. The consequence is that the maximum value of the magnetic field, as measured by a person on the ground, will usually be substantially greater, not lesser, than the maximum value of the field when they were hanging way up in the air. Even though the phase cancellation is significantly enhanced, it is not sufficient to reduce the maximum value found over ground. Sometimes, based on a few field studies of such lines, where they transition from above ground to below ground (the same line) this maximum magnetic field can be rather substantial compared to the above ground situation. However, because the conductors are so close to one another under ground, the spatial distribution of these higher fields is much, much less than for the above ground case. Hence, burying lines generally will increase the maximum value of magnetic fields one can measure, but the spatial extent of the fields will be much less. I point this out because of the tendency to tell the public that burying lines will reduce the fields; yes and no. ...Ric Tell From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Aug 18 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!bighorn.accessnv.com!usenet From: rictell@accessnv.com (Richard Tell) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: L.A. Times Feature Article on EMF Date: Fri, 18 Aug 95 13:30:58 PST Organization: Richard Tell Associates, Inc. Lines: 4 Distribution: world Message-ID: <412tit$sna@bighorn.accessnv.com> References: <9508080913.AA55180@admin-one.radbio.mcw.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: bighorn Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.5 ...Ric Tell From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sat Aug 19 23:00:00 1995 Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Path: biosci!bcm!news.msfc.nasa.gov!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uucp3.netcom.com!lafn.org!lafn.org!ai808 From: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Subject: Re: Government Restricts Internet!! X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lafn.org Message-ID: <1995Aug20.154732.24613@lafn.org> Sender: news@lafn.org Reply-To: ai808@lafn.org (Ellen Stern Harris) Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net References: <412h81$r8m@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 15:47:32 GMT Lines: 59 Having been admonished against posting matters of science and public policy on the EMF Bionet, I was delighted to see a call to action ("Government Restricts Internet") on the EMF postings. Since science does not take place in a societal vacum and I believe we should include a place for Science, Public Policy and EMF in our discussions. This posting re Internet policy exemplifies the critical inter-relationship of science and public policy. Sincerely, Ellen Stern Harris (As one of the few women posting on this board, I can't help but wonder if my viewpoint on this is strictly female. Your comments will be most helpful.) In a previous article, sbalu@NYX.CS.DU.EDU (sarayu balu) says: >This doesn't belong in this list. Got it ? You inconsiderate >activist. > >= SBalu > >On Fri, 18 Aug 1995, Restrict wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> SPEAK UP AMERICA -- MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT >> >> >> Question: Should the United States Government interfere and put >> restrictions on the use of the Internet?? >> >> >> CALL: 1-900-945-5600 ext 163 and cast your vote. >> >> Cost: $1.98 per call (NOT per minute) Call Today >> >> Must be 18+/Touch Tones Only >> >> InfoService/Studio City, CA/213-993-3366 >> >> >> Results of this survey will be compiled and sent to members of >> the House and Senate. Thank you for casting your vote and for >> making your voice heard. >> >> >> >> > From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Aug 20 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!CS.UWP.EDU!greeneba From: greeneba@CS.UWP.EDU (Ben Greenebaum) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Bioelectromagnetics 16 (4) Contents Date: 21 Aug 1995 09:46:46 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 86 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net BIOELECTROMAGNETICS VOLUME 16, No. 4, 1995 Table of Contents ============================================================================== NOTE: Please contact your library or the authors for reprints or further information about specific articles, NOT the Editor, Society or Publisher!!! For information about the journal, contact the Editor. For member subscription information, contact the Society at 7519 Ridge Road, Frederick, MD 21702-3519. For library or other non-member subscription information, contact the publisher, Wiley/Liss, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York NY 10158-0012, Attn: Subscription Dept., 9th Floor. Ben Greenebaum, Editor University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Box 2000, Kenosha, WI 53141-2000 414-595-2140; Fax 414-595-2056 Internet: bems@cs.uwp.edu ============================================================================ Bioelectromagnetics Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and the Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine Volume 16, Number 4, 1995 (c) 1995 Wiley/Liss Articles 211 Evaluation of Whole-Animal Data Using the Ion Parametric Resonance Model J.P. Blanchard, D.E. House, C.F. Blackman 216 Magnetic Field Exposure Among Utility Workers T. Dan Bracken, Richard F. Rankin, Russell S. Senior, J. Richard Alldredge, Stanley S. Sussman 227 Power Lines and the Geomagnetic Field Abraham R. Liboff, Bruce R. McLeod 231 Applied AC and DC Magnetic Fields Cause Alterations in the Miotic Cycle of Early Sea Urchin Embryos Michael Levin, Susan G. Ernst 241 Microwave Influence on the Isolated Hearth Function: I. Effect of Modulation Andrei G. Pakhomov, Boris V. Dubovick, Igor G. Degtyariov, Anatoly N. Pronkevich 250 Microwave Influence on the Isolated Heart Function: II. Combined Effect of Radiation and Some Drugs Andrei G. Pakhomov, Boris V. Dubovick, Igor G. Degtyariov, Anatoly N. Pronkevich 255 Membrane Potential Perturbations Induced in Tissue Cells by Pulsed Electric Fields Mark S. Cooper 263 Neurochemical Effects of a 20 kHz Magnetic Field on the Central Nervous System in Prenatally Exposed Mice Yvonne Dimberg Comments 268 Comments on "Clarification and Application of Ion Para- metric Resonance Model for Magnetic Field Interactions With Biological Systems" by Blanchard and Blackman V.V. Lednev 270 Reply to Comments on "Clarification and Application of Ion Parametric Resonance Model for Magnetic Field Interactions With Biological Systems" Janie Page Blanchard, Carl F. Blackman 272 Comments on "Clarification and Application of Ion Parametric Resonance Model for Magnetic Field Interactions With Biological Systems" by Blanchard and Blackman A.R. Liboff, S.D. Smith, B.R. McLeod 274 Reply to Comments on "Clarification and Application of Ion Parametric Resonance Model for Magnetic Field Interactions With Biological Systems" J.P. Blanchard, C.F. Blackman, D.E. House From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Aug 20 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU!Spadaroj From: Spadaroj@VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU (Joe Spadaro) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: "Physical Regulation..." Conference Date: 21 Aug 1995 09:03:53 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 84 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Dear Colleagues, I have been asked to relay the following brief outline of the "Phys. Reg. Conference" (SPRBM) in Washington this October. Folks staying current in E-M effects and clinical applications, as well as the effects of mechanical strain, and ultrasound on cells and tissues, should be interested. ********************************* The 15th Annual SPRBM Meeting (Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine) Oct. 11-14 1995 Hyatt Regency, Crystal City, Arlington, VA.,USA. 1995 PROGRAM OUTLINE WEDNESDAY EVENING, Oct. 11: 19:00-21:00 Welcome Reception and Cocktails THURSDAY, Oct. 12 8:15-10.15 ***Symposium on Electromagnetic Field Effects on Wound Healing I 10:30-12:30 ***Symposium on Electromagnetic Field Effects on Wound Healing II 13:30-14:45pm ***Papers: Electromagnetic Field Effects on Wound Healing III 15:00-16:30 ***Papers: Electromagnetic Field Effects on Bone Remodeling/Repair 16:45-17:30 ***Papers: Electrochemically Stimulated Responses FRIDAY, Oct. 13 8:00-10:00 ***Symposium on Thermal Regulation of Biological Processes I 10:15-11:45 ***Symposium on Thermal Regulation of Biological Processes II 13:00-14:45 ***Papers: Cell Injury by Electric Force 15:00-16:45 ***Papers: Transductive Coupling: Extracellular Matrix Effects SATURDAY, Oct. 14 8:00-10:00 ***Symposium on Ultrasound I 10:15-11:45 ***Symposium on Ultrasound II 13:00-14:00 ***Papers: Cellular Responses to Physical Stimulation 14:15-15:30 ***Papers: Mechanical Stimulation of Bone 15:30-16:30 ***SPECIAL LECTURE: Elliot Postow, Ph.D., (NIH, Div. Research Grants) "Peer Review at the NIH: The Next Fifty Years" 16:30-17:30 ***SPRBM Business Meeting 18:30+ ***Reception and Banquet *********************************** The SPRBM (formerly, the Bioelectrical Repair and Growth Soc.) is known for its multidiciplinary scope centering on the interaction of mechanical, electrical, magnetic, ultrasound, and thermal stimuli with biological systems. Emerging clinical applications and the newest research on basic cellular mechanisms are strongly emphasized at these conferences. SPRBM has a SINGLE SESSION meeting format, involving clinicians, engineers, physicists and biologists, and has extremely lively discussions in which all attendees are encouraged to be involved. Lunch together as well as all functions are included in the modest 3-day registration fee. ********************************** The full program booklet, with titles, speakers, registration information, and accomodations at special rates is available by contacting: SPRBM@FASEB.ORG or by mail SPRBM 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3998 Fax: 301-530-7049 Voice: 301-571-0680 ********************************** Joe Spadaro, Ph.D. S.U.N.Y. Health Science Center - Syracuse spadaroj@vax.cs.hscsyr.edu From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Wed Aug 23 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!in2.uu.net!news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!a2i!davidj.a2i!davidj From: David Josephson Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Re: EMFs and UPS Date: 24 Aug 1995 22:19:12 GMT Organization: Josephson Engineering Lines: 16 Message-ID: <41itt0$c36@bug.rahul.net> References: <41ilt1$r3j@ccnet3.ccnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bolero.rahul.net NNTP-Posting-User: davidj Keywords: emf ups apc In <41ilt1$r3j@ccnet3.ccnet.com> deaded@ccnet.com (Ed Leiken) writes: >Does anyone here know the strength of the electromagnetic fields produced >by the batteries in uninterruptable power supplies (ups) for personal >computers (such as those made by APC)? My search has turned up nothing. The batteries themselves produce no fields. The power supply charging them will produce a weak DC field during the charge cycle, and probably some AC hash like any other switching power supply. Likewise when the UPS is powering the computer there will be some radiated field from the power supply -- about the same level as the computer itself makes. You can confirm this with a cheap EM meter like the Bell ELF. -- David Josephson / Josephson Engineering / San Jose CA / david@josephson.com From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Thu Aug 24 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!ccnet.com!ccnet.com!not-for-mail From: deaded@ccnet.com (Ed Leiken) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: EMFs and UPS Date: 24 Aug 1995 13:02:41 -0700 Organization: CCnet Communications (510-988-7140 guest) Lines: 9 Message-ID: <41ilt1$r3j@ccnet3.ccnet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ccnet3 Summary: need info on emfs created by pc power supplies Keywords: emf ups apc X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Does anyone here know the strength of the electromagnetic fields produced by the batteries in uninterruptable power supplies (ups) for personal computers (such as those made by APC)? My search has turned up nothing. Thank you in advance, (if possible, please respond by email to deaded@ccnet.com) -- peace ed From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Fri Aug 25 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!src.honeywell.com!The-Star.honeywell.com!flame.cfsmo.honeywell.com!news3.mr.net!mr.net!news.mr.net!msp1-14.nas.mr.net!user From: emfproj@rsba.com (Margie Grilley) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: NCRP Response Followup-To: bionet.emf-bio Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:12:41 -0500 Organization: Robert S. Banks Associates, Inc. Lines: 86 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: msp1-14.nas.mr.net NCRP Responds to Concerns Over Microwave News Article 8/22/95 - Responding to the unauthorized publication last week of part of a draft EMF report, Charles Meinhold, President, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Bethesda, Md., stated today in an open letter [reproduced here in its entirety]: Draft material formulated in connection with the work of The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements' (NCRP) Scientific Committee 89-3 on Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields has been disseminated outside of the Committee membership and portions have been published and widely distributed without the authorization of the NCRP. The availability of this draft material makes it necessary to make evident the Council's procedures for producing NCRP recommendations, procedures that, over the NCRP's more than 60 years of service to the public interest, have proved effective in producing a consensus of the leading scientific thinking on matters of radiation protection and measurement. At the point that an NCRP scientific committee completes what it considers to be its final [emphasis added] draft, the draft enters the extensive review process employed by the NCRP. This process generally follows the following scenario: (1) General peer review by several selected reviewers who are considered to be experts in the field of the report, (2) revision of the report based on the comments received, (3) review of the revised draft by the 75 volunteer NCRP Council members as well as approximately 50 Collaborating and Special Liaison Organizations involved in the Council's program, (4) further revision of the report to address the comments proffered-keeping in mind that the 75 Council members must be virtually unanimous in the approval of the draft before a report can be issued, and finally, (5) preparation of the draft for printing as an NCRP report. As the draft in question is still undergoing revisions to prepare it for entry into the initial review phase, it exists only as a working draft which should not have been released outside Scientific Committee 89-3. Thus, it should not be copied, quoted, cited, or referenced outside of the NCRP. The current draft material has absolutely no standing at this time. Furthermore, since all of the reviewers and NCRP Council members serve as volunteers, and considering the extensive nature of the review process, it is impossible to predict when the NCRP may have a report on the subject of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields. One of the primary objectives set forth in the Congressional Charter of the NCRP is to collect, analyze, and disseminate information and recommendations about radiation protection and measurements. The unauthorized distribution of the current preliminary draft material is unfortunate and not the sanctioned means of disseminating information. It is hoped that interested parties will ignore this material and allow the NCRP process to proceed so hat a report endorsed by the NCRP can be obtained. Meinhold's statement was made as concerns rose surrounding the publication of an article by "Microwave News" in its July/August 1995 issue, published last week. The cover story reported extensively on the status of NCRP's Scientific Committee 89.3 EMF draft report. The newsletter also reproduced an entire chapter containing the subcommittee's June 13, 1995 draft recommendations on public and occupational exposure guidelines. Dr. Thomas Tenforde, chair of NCRP's Non Ionizing Committee, that oversees the activities of SC 89-3, and Dr. Ross Adey, SC 89-3 chair, also received copies of the letter. NCRP is a not-for-profit corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1964. Its purpose is to analyze and disseminate information regarding ionizing radiation protection and measurements. The information is disseminated through authoritative reports available to the public for sale. In 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requested that NCRP investigate the EMF health effects issue. SC 89-3 was then established. REPORTED BY: CGLynch, Robert S. Banks Associates, Inc. 612/623-4600 (FAX-3645) Copyright 1995 Robert S. Banks Associates, Inc. From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Sun Aug 27 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 Musing Date: 28 Aug 1995 06:45:53 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 28 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9508280944.AA54869@131.250.9.42> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net WHAT'S NEW by Robert L.Park Friday, 25 Aug 95 Washington, DC 1. "MAJOR EMF REPORT"? OR JUST A MAJOR GOOF BY SCIENCE MAGAZINE? "Microwave News," a bimonthly newsletter that has been living off news of reported health effects of non-ionizing radiation for 15 years, published what it claimed was a draft report by a panel of the National Council on Radiation Protection. Charles Meinhold, NCRP President, completely disavowed the document, saying it had "absolutely no standing." The "report" contains no references, but the information on which it appears to be based has been dismissed by other groups, including the APS, as inconclusive or worse. The document, which calls for "a substantive national commitment to further research," was written by EMF researchers. Some NCRP members told WHAT'S NEW they believe the statement was leaked precisely because it had no chance of adoption. In fact, the draft hasn't even been approved by the panel itself. If it ever is, it will still face review by selected experts, as well as by the 75 member NCRP Council and 50 "Liaison Organizations." Nevertheless, Science Magazine carried a summary of the Microwave News story with a headline describing the not-even-a-draft as a "Major EMF Report," which is the impression Microwave News sought to convey. August news must be slow for Science Magazine to resort to dredging stories from a source like Microwave News. THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 29 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!neubio.sld.ar!Postmaster From: Postmaster@neubio.sld.ar (Administrador del Nodo) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Bioemitted microwaves Date: 30 Aug 1995 09:59:14 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 22 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <295hf551@neubio.sld.ar> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net I forgot; to start the pyramid of citations in the Science Citation Index, besides Green & Triffet the- re is also other "classic": Tourenne, C.J., J. theor. Biol 116 (4), 495-507, 1985. Greetings, Mariela =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Prof. Mariela Szirko, Centro de Investig. Neurobiologicas, MSyAS, and Hospital "Dr. Jose Tiburcio Borda", Munic. Buenos Aires, Office: Phone/Fax (54 1) 306 -7314 e-mail Standard disclaimer: Este mensaje es personal y no compromete las dependencias a cargo del firmante Reply to THIS message, ONLY to: =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 29 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!daresbury!nntp-trd.UNINETT.no!Norway.EU.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de!usenet From: Thorsten Lehn Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Man emetting microwaves? Date: 30 Aug 1995 12:58:00 GMT Organization: University Frankfurt / AK Magneto-Neurobiology Lines: 6 Message-ID: <421n8o$287@zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin046.rz.uni-frankfurt.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) Is there any information about man and other organism emitting microwaves (94 GHz, with a 5 GHz IF bandwidth)? Do anybody know something about (publication, paper, etc.)? Sincerely, Thorsten From owner-emf-bio@net.bio.net Tue Aug 29 23:00:00 1995 Path: biosci!neubio.sld.ar!Postmaster From: Postmaster@neubio.sld.ar (Administrador del Nodo) Newsgroups: bionet.emf-bio Subject: Bioemitted microwaves Date: 30 Aug 1995 09:59:54 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 23 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <256hf694@neubio.sld.ar> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Thorsten asks for microwave emission in man; I should recommend to start search in the works of Green, H.S and Triffett, T., J. theor. Biol. 115 (1) 43-64, 1985, and the same (but in reverse order), same journal, 131 (2), 199-221, 1988; to make then their pyramid of citations at the Science Sitation Index. Cheers, Mariela =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Prof. Mariela Szirko, Centro de Investig. Neurobiologicas, MSyAS, and Hospital "Dr. Jose Tiburcio Borda", Munic. Buenos Aires, Office: Phone/Fax (54 1) 306 -7314 e-mail Standard disclaimer: Este mensaje es personal y no compromete las dependencias a cargo del firmante Reply to THIS message, ONLY to: =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=