Subject:  Re FLASH!!! New NCI (childhood) emfstudy (fwd)
Date:     Thu, 23 Apr 1998 165330 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------

Hi everybody:

Excellent commentary follows from Alasdair.....  I will refrain from
repeating or citing all the past statements he (and I and others) have
made about the (mainly U.S.) research community's myopia on magnetic
fields to the exclusion of the other EMF metrics, particularly the
electric component mentioned by Alasdair.  You should also keep in mind
the transients, harmonics and induced "ground currents" which have been
virtually totally ignored in the conduct of these (U.S.) studies.....
These latter metrics are also more closely a part of the 'electric' than
the 'magnetic field' component.....

The "bottom line" is that such studies (including this latest by NCI)
may be recording (and basing their conclusions) on one of the _less
important_ characteristics of the EMF phenomenon ... thereby missing the
'real' cause or causes of the observed effects.....  That is the thrust of
Alasdair's submission below....  Good stuff!!!

P.S.
The U.S. science has not acknowledged the possible role of the 'radon
daughters' (or other of the aerosols) either -- which I expect we will yet
hear more about from the U.K.  ....Again, these appear to be more closely
a function of the electric field.....

Cheerio......

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
................................It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness...............................................

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 22:04:38 +0100 (BST)
From: Alasdair Philips 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" , emfguru@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: FLASH!!! New NCI (childhood) emfstudy (fwd)

Dear Roy & Co

NCI still don't seem to have released this on their web sites (Thurs April
23rd).

The mentioned associations confirm my opinion that the electric field is
more important than the magnetic field.  All the appliances listed tend to
give of high electric fields.  Roger Coghill's and my paper (in European 
Journal Cancer Prevention, Vol5, No3, June 1996; pp153-158) showed that we
found no association with magnetic field, but a dose-response association
between childhood ALL and bed area power frequency electric fields over
about 10 volts/metre.

Electric blankets give off high E-fields, as do televisions, video games,
and hair driers as these are almost always "double insulated" and do not
have an earth ["ground"] connection.  This means that they "float" up to
half the supply voltage (i.e. about 60 volts ac in the USA) and therefore
give off high electric fields (several hundreds of volts per metre close
up!). It is a great shame that NCI did not include measurement of electric
fields.

Further work currently taking place in the UK and in the USA in a number of
labs is also STRONGLY implicating the electric field in bio-effects.
Hopefully at least some of this work will get into the peer-reviewed
literature later this year.  Some should be "postered" at BEMS and may even
cause a paradigm shift in biology......

When power frequency magnetic fields are also present the effect is enhanced.

I do not believe that chronic low level EMFs actually initiate cancers (I am
happy to leave that to nuclear radiation and chemicals) but I am convinced
that they can significantly promote carcinogenesis.

There is what will be a most interesting Conference at Bristol University UK
24/25th September 1998 on "Mechanisms and Consequences of Power Frequency
Electromagnetic Field Exposures".  See http://www.phys.bris.uk/research/
Many interesting speakers including hopefully (if it does get published in
time ~ the target is August/September) a presentation of the EMF results of
the large UK Childhood Cancer Study....

Whatever some may be saying, there are still lots of surprises in store
regarding EMF-bioeffects research. 

Good wishes to all EMF-L'ers

Alasdair Philips
"Powerwatch" + independent EMF researcher (UK)

===================================================================

At 14:52 22/04/98 -0500, Roy L. Beavers wrote:
>Hi everybody:
>
>Once again, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) -- one of those RICH
>health bureaucracies -- has done a study examining the possible connection
>between EMF and childhood cancer.  Once again, their study weakly
>corroborates that such a connection DOES EXIST!!!  But they just can't
>bring themselves to admit what their own data reveals.  You will recall
>... that was the same problem they had with the results of their earlier
>power line study......
>
>The major results of this latest study and abstract (both written by the
>study authors) is printed below.....  
>
>One IMPORTANT point concerning the UNIVERSAL problem with epidemiological
>studies about EMF effects:  Remember guru's essay about the "Ugly
>Secret?"????..... 
>
>......Because EMF exposure is so widespread in our society, epidemiology
>researchers CANNOT always say that they are succeeding in comparing
>"exposed" subjects to "unexposed" subjects.  
>
>That means that EMF epidemiological studies tend to be biased in the
>direction of showing no effect or very little effect... i.e., low "risk
>factors" or low ORs.... as in the study below......  Still, the
>***incriminating*** EMF/adverse health effect is there!!!!!!  (And you
>don't have to read "between the lines" in order to see it this time!)
>
>Given the agency in charge of this study (and the people, some of the same
>as in the earlier Linet study), the results below should be regarded quite
>seriously by those who seek the truth in this matter -- and who are not
>ready to be "bought off" by RICH health bureaucracies that are more
>interested in providing "explanations" which defend government policy and
>promote "special interest" causes other than the public's health
>interests.......
>
>Cheerio......
>
>Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
>rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
>................................It is better to light a single candle ...
>than to curse the darkness...............................................
>
>************
>
>The abstract.  The study did report increased odds ratios associated with
>use of electric blankets and some other applicances.  Refer also the
>editorial by Savitz et al that accompanies the article in the same issue of
>Epidemiology.  The saga continues.
>
>**************
>
>Association between Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia and Use of
>Electrical Appliances during Pregnancy and Childhood
>
>Elizabeth E. Hatch,1 Martha S. Linet,1 Ruth A. Kleinerman,1 Robert E.
>Tarone,1 Richard K. Severson,2 Charleen T. Hartsock,3 Carol Haines,4
>William T. Kaune,5 Dana Friedman,1 Leslie L. Robison,2 and Sholom Wacholder1
>
>As part of a comprehensive study of residential magnetic field exposure in
>nine midwestern and mid-Atlantic states, we evaluated the use of appliances
>by 640 patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, 0-14 years of age,
>diagnosed between 1989 and 1993, and 640 matched control children. Mothers
>were interviewed regarding use of electrical appliances during their
>pregnancy with the subject and the child's postnatal use. The risk of acute
>lymphoblastic leukemia was elevated in children whose mothers reported use
>of an electric blanket or mattress pad during pregnancy [odds ratio (OR) =
>1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.11-2.29] but was reduced for use of
>sewing machines during pregnancy (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.59-0.98). The risk
>of acute lymphoblastic leukemia was increased with children's use of
>electric blankets or mattress pads (OR = 2.75; 95% CI = 1.52-4.98) and
>three other electrical appliances (hair dryers, video machines in arcades,
>and video games connected to a television), but the patterns of risk for
>duration in years of use and frequency of use were inconsistent for most
>appliances used by children. Risks rose with increasing number of hours per
>day children spent watching television, but risks were similar regardless
>of the usual distance from the television. The inconsistency in the
>dose-response patterns for many appliances, reporting and selection bias,
>and the lack of an effect for measured 60 Hertz magnetic fields or wire
>codes in our companion study must be considered before ascribing these
>associations to exposures from magnetic fields.
>
>Key words: magnetic fields, appliances, leukemia, childhood, case-control
>study.
>Kenneth R Foster
>Department of Bioengineering
>University of Pennsylvania
>220 S. 33rd St.
>Philadelphia PA 19104-6392
>215-898-8534
>fax 215-573-2071
>President IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology 1997-8
>Chair, EMBS Committee on Man and Radiation 1997-
>*****************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
 
Alasdair Philips    (aphilips@gn.apc.org)




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