Subject: Analogue or digital, which is worse?? (Rowe)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 183845 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
......Mark, the answer to your question is that we don't know
which is worse -- analogue or digital.... Neither has been studied
sufficiently for a good judgement.....
However, some LABORATORY studies have suggested that digital
signals may have more effect on cells than analogue.....
I'm forwarding this for other comments......
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at:
EMF-L archives can be found at:
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 18:19:08 -0300
From: Mark
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: Dr. Liburdy comments, from the Bioelectromagnetics Discussion Group , web-site (fwd)
Roy,
The daily news in Bermuda finally picked up on the
Liburdy story. They got it all wrong but did at least
call Dr David Carpenter for an opinion, who
said that the story was deceitful. We have further
counteracted the story with the help of all the information
you have been sending out by getting an article
into a weekend paper today stating that the Liburdy
case is totally irrelevant and quoting the NIEHS findings.
Thanks.
Now I need some advice. The tower we have been
opposing is up and running; although we are still
hoping for an eviction order from the landowner.
Meanwhile, CellularOne, the operator have stated
that in about 6 months they will be switching from
analogue to digital system. I can't imagine them doing
anything that results in less potential harm to the
community. Can someone inform us as to the difference
in terms of health risks. Thanks.
Mark.
----- Original Message -----
From: Roy L. Beavers
To: emfguru
Cc:
Sent: 12 August, 1999 17:16
Subject: Dr. Liburdy comments, from the Bioelectromagnetics Discussion Group
, web-site (fwd)
>
> ......The following has just been brought to my attention.....
> I'm sure you will notice how closely it tracks with what we have been
> reporting here on EMF-L...... This information has been available to
> "the press" since the Long Beach meeting in mid-June..... It has been
> totally ignored -- so that some "physicist" could be quoted ... ignorantly
> condemning the entire EMF research community (By the New York Times)....
>
> Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
> rbeavers@llion.org.......
> .....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
> EMF-L web-site can be found at:
> EMF-L archives can be found at:
> ..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
>
>
> .........DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST?????............
>
>
> Dr. Liburdy's Comments
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> By Robert P. Liburdy Ph.D. on Tuesday, July 20, 1999 - 12:35 pm:
>
> Robert P. Liburdy, Ph.D.
> Here are presented two statements I have prepared which address
> allegations against me of scientific misconduct. A charge of
> misconduct is a serious allegation and all facts relevant to the
> issues should be considered carefully.
> Thus, I feel it is important to present the following statements,
> below, which contain facts which were not mentioned in the Federal
> Register notice posted by the government. One statement was read by me
> at the 1999 Bioelectromagnetics Society meeting, and the second is a
> recently published letter-to-the-editor of SCIENCE in response to a
> news article. Further information will be available at the website
> www.liburdy.com.
> The key facts, presented in the statements below, are:
> 1) The allegations involve a disagreement over how calcium (fura) data
> were graphed in three figures in two papers from 1992. My raw data for
> these figures remain valid, and they support my findings, as
> published.
> 2) In these two 1992 papers I also present calcium-45 data which
> cross-validate the fura data. Thus, the findings of the papers are
> supported by data obtained using two different, complementary
> techniques.
> 3) No papers of mine are being retracted. Not a single word of my
> scientific conclusions are invalid, and they remain as published.
> 4) Independent scientists have reviewed the graphing issues and each
> has concluded that no misconduct occurred, and that my data supports
> my findings.
> 5) I do not admit any scientific wrongdoing. However, I could not
> afford to challenge the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in
> a protracted legal battle, and I entered into a settlement in which I
> admit no liability.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Bioelectromagnetics Society 1999 Annual Meeting, Hyatt Regency
> Hotel, Long Beach, CA
> Read at the annual business meeting on June 23, 1999.
> At our annual meeting this week I learned that a charge of scientific
> misconduct was announced against me in the Federal Register. I saw
> this text yesterday and I have already spoken to some colleagues but
> not all of those I wanted to contact, and I thank them for their time.
> I would like to provide some comments here to the rest of my
> colleagues and professional friends.
> I wish to state several facts not mentioned in the announcement.
> First, at my request other scientists have independently reviewed the
> facts and do not agree with this charge. The allegations stem from a
> disgruntled employee who claimed my research was not reproducible. LBL
> used this as an opportunity to extensively review my research and to
> forward a complaint to the Office of Research Intergrity (ORI). The
> ORI charges center on graphic techniques I used in presenting fura
> data depicting calcium changes in one figure in a 1992 review paper,
> and two figures in a 1992 research paper. For example, in one graph I
> used a computer to process fura data for graphical presentation
> including a baseline adjustment and normalization to graphically
> overlay and compare exposed vs. control traces. Techniques like these
> are used in the literature, however, I did not mention this computer
> processing in the methods section. Such "processed" data was then
> characterized by ORI as being intentionally "fabricated" data in the
> charge.
> I emphasize that the fura data in my studies are valid. Moreover, this
> data was complemented by calcium-45 data presented in the same papers.
> This data support my conclusions and the scientific findings in my
> papers, and they stand as published. This fact was not mentioned in
> the government notice. It is important to emphasize that I am not
> retracting any papers nor any scientific conclusions from these
> studies because they remain valid. I am retracting three fura figures,
> which are supported by calcium-45 data in the same papers, and I
> intend on submitting for publication a description of the graphical
> methods with new corrected figures to complete the record.
> I emphasize that several independent scientists have reviewed these
> facts at my request and they do not agree with a charge of scientific
> misconduct. However, I cannot financially afford to continue to
> legally challenge these charges over the next several years. As a
> result I have agreed to a voluntary exclusion with ORI, and this is
> not an admission of liability on my part, as stated in the government
> announcement.
> I trust that my colleagues in the Society will consider the above
> issues in a fair and unbiased manner.
> Finally, and importantly, I should state for clarity that the breast
> cancer research I have conducted over the past six years is not part
> of these charges and has never been challenged. My published studies
> stand and these findings have been independently replicated by four
> other laboratories. For example, at this meeting Dr. Kabuto and Dr.
> Ishido and their colleagues from Japan report in poster P40 that they
> successfully replicated our melatonin findings at 12mG. This
> constitutes the fourth independent laboratory replication of this
> finding.
> In closing I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to
> make these comments to you today.
> Robert P. Liburdy, Ph.D.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Letter to the Editor of SCIENCE
> Published in the July 16, 1999 issue.
> CALCIUM AND EMFs:
> GRAPHING THE DATA
> The article "EMF Researcher made up data, ORI says" (News of the Week,
> 2 July, p. 23) by Dan Vergano deals with research I did on the effect
> of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on calcium in lymphocytes that was
> published in 1992. An allegation of scientific misconduct is a serious
> charge, and a balanced and neutral review of the facts is essential
> for truthful conclusions to be drawn about the science. I was
> attending the annual Bioelectromagnetics Society meeting in June when
> Vergano sent me a fax (and thus I missed the opprotunity to be
> interviewed by him), but I would like to now provide several facts.
> The raw data for my two calcium studies (1) are valid. Thus, these two
> papers are not being retracted, and my scientific conclusions stand as
> published. I admit no scientific wrongdoing. I could not afford a
> protracted legal battle with the federal Office of Research Integrity
> (ORI), and a settlement was reached in which I admit no liability.
> The crux of the charges by ORI center on the way fura data (obtained
> using the fura fluorescent probe) were graphed. For example, to
> overlay calcium traces for visual comparison, a baseline adjustment
> was done, and traces were normalized and synchronized for reagent
> addition. My error was in not describing these procedures in the
> methods section. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and ORI
> then characterized this "processed" data as "fabricated" data, which
> technically meets the definition of misconduct, but these techniques
> are used in the literature: for example, baseline adjustment and
> normalization of calcium traces have been graphically depicted in (2).
> In my 1992 papers calcium-45 isotope data were also presented to
> cross-validate the fura data; these calcium-45 data fully support my
> scientific conclusions, as published.
> Neutral, scientific experts reviewed the graphical issues
> independently at my request: Carl Blackman (Environmental Protection
> Agency); Richard Nuccitelli (University of California, Davis); James
> W. Putney, Jr. (National Institutes of Health). Each one
> constructively criticized me for not reporting these details, but each
> concluded there was no intent to deceive, that data supports the
> conclusions, and this was not misconduct.
> Since 1992 additional experimental studies have provided support for
> alterations in calcium in cells exposed to EMFs (3).
> Replication of findings is critical to the scientific process and,
> since 1993, in our laboratory, environmental level magnetic fields
> have been shown to block tamoxifen and melatonin action in human
> breast cancer cells (4). Four independent replications of these
> findings have been reported at scientific meetings in 1998 and 1999
> (5).
> Robert P. Liburdy, Ph.D.
> 1820 Mountain View Drive
> Tiburon, CA 94920, USA
> E-mail: [4]Rpliburdy@aol.com
> REFERENCES
> 1. R.P. Liburdy, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 649, 74 (1992); R.P. Liburdy,
> FEBS Lett. 301, 53 (1992).
> 2. D.O. Ruehlmann et al., FASEB J. 12, 613 (1998).
> 3. These studies are reviewed, in part, at
> www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid.
> 4. R.P. Liburdy et al., J. Pineal Res. 14, 89 (1993); J.D. Harland and
> R.P. Liburdy, Bioelectromagnetics 18, 555 (1997); J.D. Harland, S.
> Engstrom, R.P. Liburdy, Cell Biochem.Biophys., in press.
> 5. C.F. Blackman, S.G. Benane, D.E. House, EPA, Research Triangle
> Park, NC, poster P-11, The Bioelectromagnetics Society meeting, St.
> Pete Beach, June 7-11, 1998; R.A. Luben and A.P. Morgan, University of
> California, Riverside, CA, presentation A-3-4, ibid.; J.E. Morris,
> W.B. Chrisler, D.L. Miller, L.B. Sasser, L.E. Anderson, Battelle,
> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA; poster P-12,
> ibid.; M. Ishido, Y. Kurokawa, H. Nitta, M. Kabuto, National Institute
> for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan, poster P-40, The
> Bioelectromagnetics Society meeting, Long Beach, CA June 20-24, 1999.
> Battelle, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is a National
> Replication Laboratory in the National Institutes of Envirnmental
> Health Sciences/Department of Energy RAPID program.
> 6. Further information on the topic of this letter can be found on the
> discussion page of The Biolectromagnetics Society website,
> www.bioelectromagnetics.org.
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com