Subject:  Comments on recent studies (Philips)....
Date:     Mon, 16 Aug 1999 151331 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------

Alasdair:

I am happy to forwardthe following -- inciteful -- discussion.
However, I have removed the discussion about the "active" radioactivity
(plutonium, etc.).....  I find it very disruptive to an understaning
about non-ionizing radiation if "ionizing" is mixed in with it....

Disruptive, that is, to the average lay person who does not start from a
position of knowing about the differences between the two....

Amen, Amen.....  To your criticism of studies that have relied on
something "called" a time-weighted-average (TWA) exposure.....  When that
conept is examined in a real world context ... it just disappears into
thin air....  Only of good to those who have an undying faith in
"averages" and assume that the average EMF field (magnetic field,
actually) also will accurately represent all the "averages" of the other
possible metrics.....

God!!!  I thought we had finished with all that a couple years or two
back!!!  It (TWA) is rearing its ugly head again (Not becuse of Kaune --
whom I have heard discuss this same problem-- I think he agrees with us.)
but because of the NIEHS report which almost totally ignored it.....
Except for a "veiled" reference to "various ways" to measure EMF
exposure.....

Cheerio......

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: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 18:08:45
From: Alasdair Philips 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Various

Roy
You will probably be aware of recent media coverage of childhood leukaemia
and EMFs (we have mentioned these on EMF-L) and now nuclear radiation and
‘infective agents’.  This is a short note to explain my understanding of
what is going on. I though EMF-Lers might find my
thoughts interesting and, hopefully, maybe even helpful.

(i) Mary McBride paper - Electric and magnetic fields and childhood
leukaemia in Canada.
Her Conclusion: "These results provide little support for a relation
between power-frequency EMF exposure and risk of childhood leukaemia."

(a) They used time weighted 48 hour average (TWA) magnetic field exposure
from monitors worn on the children taken as soon as possible after
diagnosis. This did not show a dose response relationship.
However the US NIEHS asked for the raw data and DID find a small but real
increasing dose-response relationship of incidence of childhood leukaemia
with increasing magnetic field level.

(b) The electric fields (no relationship found) were measured using a
‘Positron’ meter worn by the child in a small backpack. This could not
possibly give any meaningful indication of electric fields from the front,
sides or above as these would be attracted to the child and would therefore
be screened from being picked up by the meter.

I am increasingly concerned about the use of time weighted averages (TWA).
The driving force for these seems to be the US Government and Bill Kaune.
It is like saying you won’t get burned if you put your hand in a fire for 1
minute every 24 hours because the TWA temp is not much above ambient room
temperature. TWA is not an appropriate measure to use as the only way to
present data. It is interesting to note that this study was funded by the
Canadian Electricity Assn and EPRI (the US Utility club).

[......EPRI "invented" TWA.....guru.....]

(ii) Lois Green - Child.Leuk. in Ontario and exposure to magnetic fields in
residences.
Her Conclusion: "For Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia with respect to fields
above 130 nanotesla in the child’s bedroom, the increase was 2.83 fold.
For children under 6 years at diagnosis the incidence increased by 3.45
fold when outdoor fields were above 130 nanotesla."

[......This study has not been publicized in the U.S.  Who knows why???
Maybe because the "official" U.S. policy suggests that it is going to
**ignore** foreign science these days -- on hormones in cows food, etc....
Or maybe because the results were not quoted in mG.....  U.S. is using
its own set of "metrics" these days -- again, perhaps to discourge
public understanding of what is being learned overseas.....guru....]

When bedroom fields were above 130 nT during the first two years of life
(for diagnosis at all ages and all leukaemias) the incidence increased to
an astounding 13.52 times.    [.....!!!!!!!......guru......]
This is a much better study with more data being published. It is very
supportive of an EMF link.
This was sponsored by Quebec Hydro which has sponsored previous work
showing EMF links.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Philips,   BSc(Eng), DAgE, MIAgE
Director, UK Powerwatch, (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
EMC Engineer and EMF-bioeffects researcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com