Subject: (Lundquist) Scientific publications (fwd)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 011925 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
.......A scientist who is willing to speak out......
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org................
...It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness...
.................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS...............
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 24 Apr 99 20:30:05 MDT
From: MARJORIE LUNDQUIST
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Scientific publications
Roy, I haven't made any comments about the Preece study because I haven't read
it yet: the April 1999 issue of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION
BIOLOGY has not yet arrived in Milwaukee!
However, the May 1999 issue of EPIDEMIOLOGY carrying my letter criticizing a
published epidemiological study of cellular phones has arrived, so I'll give
the citation and discuss it briefly:
Need for Categorization of Exposure in Studies of Cellular Telephone Users
Marjorie Lundquist
Epidemiology, vol. 10, no. 3 (May 1999) 347.
In my letter, I very obliquely criticized the SAR, saying that more than this
needed to be taken into account. I said that it was important to know whether
a given cellular phone emitted a digital or analog signal, and I mentioned
that there is evidence to suggest that a digital type is more likely to
produce biological effects. I also reminded readers that the two controlled
lifetime studies of rodents, one of which exposed rats to 2450 MHz radiation
and the other of which exposed transgenic mice to 900 MHz radiation, were both
exposures to pulsed radiation, and had both produced a statistically
significant elevation in the cancer rate.
I also mentioned the distance between the antenna and the user's head, while
conceding that this variable had been addressed in various studies. And I
mentioned that the nominal frequency of the transmission is also an important
variable for evaluating disease effects in users of analog devices (cellular
or cordless phones), saying "I anticipate that in carefully designed studies,
lethal brain cancer will be found to occur more often in users of analog
cellular phones having a nominal frequency near 900 MHz, while users of
lower-frequency cordless phones will be more likely to experience tumors in
the neck region."
While I didn't explicitly say so, I have flown in the face of electrical
engineers, because they insist that the SAR, all by itself, is a valid measure
of exposure. In my letter, I am showing that this is not true, but I have
done so in a very subtle way (to ensure that my letter would get published).
Also, that quote amounts to a prediction, something that scientists do not
normally do, because it puts them out on a limb, and makes them look reckless.
A brief reply by two of the authors of the epidemiological study states that
"for practical purposes the information that we have relates solely to analog
telephones" operating in the range of 800-900 MHz. -- Marjorie
*********************************
Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H.
Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist
P. O. Box 11831
Milwaukee, WI 53211-0831 USA
*********************************
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
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