Subject: Re Dr. Goldsmith's standpoints (fwd)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 120742 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 11:52:49 +0300 (IDT)
From: John Goldsmith
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Cc: emfguru@hotmail.com, John Goldsmith
Subject: Re: Dr. Goldsmith's standpoints (fwd)
The simple answer to Dr. Cvijovic's question is "Yes"; the cynical answer
is "what safety regulations ?"
There is a perennial battle over whether a drug or industrial agent
or process has to be proven "safe" by those who want to produce or sell
it, or has to be proven unsafe by some agency which is responsible for
regualtion. In the case of drugs in the U.S. the dominant attitude is the
former. In the case of agents producing environmental health risks, the
battle has yet to be engaged, but the need is clear.
A second part of the problem is defining what is the operational
meaning of "safe", and who we agree is qualified or delgated to make that
decision. I think the problem can be divided into a scientific component
of determining what health risks may be and a political one of determing
what risks are felt to be acceptable for a given community.
A third fundamental part of the problem is to determine what health
risks to consider. I can present a case for RF exposure producing a small
increase in leukemia, or for a more prevalent impariment of sleep. In my
view both are risks which should be avoided. We need a way to move the risk
assessment system away from exclusive concern for cancer, if we are to do a
good job of assuring health protection.
The classical public health decision system, copied from occupational
health standard setting, is to attempt to establish by
evidence a level or standard above which no serious or long-term health
effect is expected aomg workers exposed during working hours. When longer
term or essentially continous exposure is involved, this doesn't help much
and when we consider the various sensitive groups in the community, we can
quickly see that we would need more restrictive standards to protect them.
In short our present system is a body-counting, engineering based
approach, which fails to anticipate any effects with a latency period
(most cancers and many respiratory problems). A system of "prudent
avoidance" promulgated among others by a group of Swedish environmental
agencies offers an alternative approach. It will be some time before we
shall have enough experience to determine its overall value.
Finally,-- and here is an issue on which scientists and their
organizations should have an impact, there is the matter of who determines
what the possible effects are and the levels of exposure at which they are
likely to be risks for sensitive groups in the population. Recently the
World Health Organization and German Radiation Protection agencies and
some others sponsored an International Seminar on "Biological Effects of
Non-Thermal Pulse and Amplitude Modulated RF Electromagnetic Fields and
Related Health Hazards". The Report of the Meeting was published in
Bioelectromagnetics, vol 19, pp1-19, 1998 as a Review Article, with the title
"Low Level Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: Health Effects
and Research Needs" by Dr. Michael Repacholi for the World Health
Organization. The abstract says: "It was concluded that, although hazards
from exposure to high-level(thermal) RF fields were established, no known
health hazards were associated with exposures to RF emitting fields too low
to cause significant temperature rise in tissue".
As a participant in the meeting, I can affirm that no such conclusions
were made; furthermore many presentations showed health hazards
associated with non-thermal exposure conditions.
It is a task for scientists and their organizations, including
public-health organizations like WHO, to avoid such distortions of
evidence and if they and we cannot do so, we do not deserve public trust nor
support.
John Goldsmith
On Fri, 17
Apr 1998, Roy L. Beavers wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:40:34 +0200
> From: "D. S. Cvijovic"
> To: rbeavers@llion.org
> Subject: Dr. Goldsmith's standpoints
>
>
> Dear Mr. Beavers,
> I must say I am not sure how the messages are posted to your (new) list, so
> I am replying to your address, and you would decide whether to post my
> comment of below:
>
> I react to the correspondence innitiated by Dr. Goldsmith. I appreciate his
> particular view on the matter, but the problem is that it remains one of
> the individual views... And who cares for the whole? What about the
> responsibility?
> To illustrate, let me add some reflections, inspired by latest Dr.
> Goldsmith's reply (cited at the bottom):
>
> As it seems to be admitid by Dr. Goldsmith in his latest message,
> authorities/scientific community have failed to warn about the danger of
> the cellular phone handsets. So, for about ten years people have been using
> those tumor promoters, and is now anybody guilty for that? Well,
> authorities/scientists now admit there might have been made a mistake in
> designing those handsets, but the mistake would be corrected by designing
> the new ones. Does anybody feel guilty or at least regrets for it hasn't
> been done before? No!
> What a happy ending! For those who will use the new handsets. If the new
> handsets are not also harmfull (by non thermal, longer time effects).
>
> !!!We have to point out here that if nothing is to be changed in the
> complete attitude to safety, we can expect that each invention could cost
> the human race several thousand of sick people (but it should be considered
> the price of progress)!!!
>
> And here we come to the very foundation of this issue, to my oppinion:
>
> We deffinitely have to sacrifice something once in while, for the sake of
> common good.
> ***But the questionable is the ratio (probability of affliction)/(expected
> effect), or "cost effectiveness". As it seems to be going on now, we are
> sacrificing our health for the sake of future robots who would live in a
> very progressed world :-).
> Who is entitled to decide what ratio is appropriate?
> If, for example, we would agree that cellular phone towers (according to
> temporary - INCOMPLETE - knowledge) are posing health hazard to 50% of
> urban population, by chance of 30% (more likely that they are harmless, but
> there is a very significant chance that they are not), WHAT POTENTIAL
> BENEFIT FROM SUCH DEVICES HAS TO BE, SO TO COUNTERWEIGHT THE POTENTIAL
> RISK!?
> For example, people do work in hazardous conditions, but just for a lot of
> money, and they decide on their own whether is the ratio risk/pay
> appropriate. Here we have a situation that we seem to be trusting the
> authorities to do the estimations instead of us, and they keep making
> deccidions that prove us they estimate progress is so precious. What
> progress do we, meanwhile, see, in fact!!??
>
> So, what I suggest, is that scientists should be honest, and let us know
> the estimated probability of potential risks, as they are not able to give
> final answers. At least their estimations of probability. As long as they
> give estimations of the binary type "it is safe", or "it is not safe", we
> would be in a position to consider safe the devices that are dangerous by
> probability of, say, 30%... And when the cancer is in question, even 0.3%
> probability that there would be a correlation, has to be counterwighted by
> much "progress"...
>
> All such deccidions are GAMBLING. Life is gambling, as well. Honest
> scientists can help us know what probabilities are in game. That might
> change a lot. But, unfortunately, making estimations of (non causal)
> probability "is not scientific", it is subjective. (The only way is that
> some of them speak of his private estimation, but he would risk loosing his
> position...) So, the deccidions are left to politicians/industry who
> sometimes don't even (want to) know all the aspects and to consider the
> probabilities... You know, both politics and industry are working on binary
> principle: who has 51%, he wins, regardless of the rest! In that manner
> present probability that EMFs are dangerous means to them just a threat
> that it might become 51% one day! When it reaches critical percentage, they
> would just say "OK, you win, so we have to replace the devices"...
>
> I could write more, but it is already long...
>
> My question to Dr. Goldsmith: Do you see anything wrong with the present
> practice in safety regulation?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Drasko Cvijovic
>
> PECINA@EUnet.yu
> Belgrade, Serbia, Yugoslavia
>
> ================
> ================
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 09:40:10 +0200 (IST)
> From: John Goldsmith
> To: "Roy L. Beavers"
> Cc: emfguru@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: NBC TV News, "The Fleecing of America" also "The Brits don't ,
> understand" (fwd)
>
> Stewart:
> I like and have no disagreement with your comments. You were more
> patient than I. I especially appreciate your comments on the "sound the
> alarm" issue. I think that I have become convinced from the evidence that
> the cellphone risk is real and substantial, but not directly proven. This
> is largely on the basis of the measured levels of head and neck radiation
> from various phone configurations. These levels can easily be reduced by
> better designed equipment. This latter point makes it ethical in my view
> to create a modicum of public concern, so that the public can show its
> preference for certified safer equipment in the marketplace.
> Warm regards, John Goldsmith
>
>
>
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html