Subject: malignant melanoma (fwd)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 105736 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
During my weekend clean-up of files, I found the following which
has not been forwarded to the whole gang..... It is a private
discussion which these two (good scientists!) have been good enough to
include me for copies.... I think you may find Marge Lundquist's
answer to Sam of some interest.... (Marge and Sam, I hope this is
O.K. with you...)
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...............................................
DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST????
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:51:46
From: marjlundquist@usa.net
To: smilham@halcyon.com
Cc: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: malignant melanoma
To: Dr. Sam Milham April 23, 1998
From: Marjorie Ludnquist, Ph.D., C.I.H.
Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist
Subject: Malignant Melanoma (in Tanning Salons and Elsewhere)
Malignant melanoma has long been considered to result from overexposure
to the ultraviolet component of natural sunlight. Dermatologists are
still thinking like this. In the past decade or so, however, there have
been reports that link malignant melanoma to exposure to fluorescent
light in offices! This association is now stronger, in some instances,
than the association with exposure to sunlight where the UV component is
strong (e.g., in the tropics).
There is not much exposure to UV from fluorescent light in offices.
Some UV is generated, but it is filtered out by the glass of the
fluorescent tube and in some fluorescent luminaires, by the plastic
diffuser that covers the lamps. Therefore, if malignant melanoma really
and truly is associated with office fluorescent lighting exposure,
something other than UV radiation has to be involved. Also, since
fluorescent lights have been around since about 1940, but this
association of malignant melanoma with fluorescent light exposure has
developed just in the past decade or two, this "something" that is
related to malignant melanoma must be fairly new on the scene, in terms
of fluorescent lighting technology.
Fluorescent lights have long been known to be sources of radio
interference. This means they are radio-frequency sources. (I can
produce documentation from the 1950s, if you wish.)
I am aware of two possible sources of RF generation in a fluorescent
luminaire (luminaire = the complete ceiling unit = fluorescent lamps,
their housing, ballast, and any diffusive covering). One is the
electrodes at the end of the lamp itself; this can get worse as the lamp
gets older (as initially smooth electrodes get pitted). The other is the
ballast, which is actually a transformer.
Something called an electronic ballast has recently come on the scene
which operates at a frequency in the RF region. Older ballasts not only
operated at much lower frequencies but also emitted an annoying hum. The
electronic ballast is more energy-efficient than the older type of
ballast, and it does not have that annoying hum, so it is probably being
specified much more widely now than formerly for use in fluorescent
luminaires.
I am deeply suspicious that the RF field from the electronic ballast in
overhead fluorescent luminaires is responsible for the cases of malignant
melanoma that are being associated with office fluorescent light
exposure. Confirmation is needed, but will be difficult to obtain, since
it will require knowing what kind of ballast is being used with
luorescent lights. However, I think it could be feasible to do such a
study with tanning salons. I belive the equipment used employs
fluorescent lights. It should not be difficult to determine what kind of
ballast a given item of equipment uses. If the equipment is much the
same everywhere, then general eipdemiological data from tanning salon
exposure would provide useful information that possibly might permit
demonstration of a correlation between the use of an electronic ballast
with fluorescent lights, and the subsequent development of malignant
melanoma in people exposed to these fluorescent lights.
It may be difficult for you to believe that RF field exposure could be
related to cancer incidence, but I have been convinced since 1993 that
there is a real (and very likely causal) relationship for other cancers.
Therefore I find the possibility of a relationship between the incidence
of malignant melanoma and the use of an electronic ballast with
fluorescent lights very credible. -- Marjorie
____________________________________________________________________
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