Subject: Microwave radiation cancer risk (Lundquist)..
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 233925 -0500
From: Roy Beavers
To: Roy Beavers
--------------------------------------------------
.........From EMF-L..........
Marj Lundquist often speculates about EMF matters "where others fear to tread."
Her "speculations" often deserve to be seriously pursued, too.... This is one
such example, I suggest..........guru.......
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Microwave radiation cancer risk: low latency period
Date: 7 Aug 00 20:58:50 PDT
From: marjlundquist@address.com
To: guru@emfguru.com
Roy, Dr. John Goldsmith and I engaged in some discussion a year or so ago,
prior to his death, in which we differed regarding the utility of cancer as a
disease or endpoint for the study of microwave radiation health effects.
I said I thought it would be fairly easy to show an association between cancer
and microwave exposure, but Dr. Goldsmith thought cancer was a poor choice of
disease or health effect to use for a variety of reasons. One reason he gave
was the long latency period for the development of cancer.
At the time of our discussion I had only an impression, and no data, so I did
not challenge him on this point; but I did not see a long latency period for
cancers that seemed good candidates for being microwave-induced (I saw only
short latency periods; e.g., less than one year).
Now there is a published report on the short latency period of such cancers!
And it comes from a group at the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical school in
Jerusalem, Israel (Israel being Dr. Goldsmith's home at the time of his
death).
I found it on Medline. The citation is:
- - - - - -
Cancer in Radar Technicians Exposed to Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation:
Sentinel Episodes
E. Richter, T. Berman, E. Ben-Michael, R. Laster & J. B. Westin
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, vol. 6, no. 3
(July 2000), pages 187-193.
I quote a selected portion of the abstract: "Information about work
conditions suggested prolonged risks for the entire body. Clusters involved
many different types of tumors. Latency periods were extremely brief in index
patients and a larger self-reported group. The findings suggest that young
persons exposed to high levels of RF/MW radiation for long periods in settings
where preventive measures were lax were at increased risk for cancer. Very
short latency periods suggest high risks for high-level exposures.
Calculations derived from a linear model of dose-response suggest the need to
prevent exposures in the range of 10-100 muw/cm(2)."
- - - - - -
It is my impression that the concept of a long latency period for the
development of cancerous tumors comes from studies of cancer associated with
chemical agents. Perhaps it ought not to be surprising that some of these
parameters are quite different when the apparent cause is not a material
agent, but an electromagnetic field.
The laboratory studies of animals have indicated small increases in risk
(e.g., two-fold) and this has allowed people to down-play the seriousness of
the increased cancer risk to human beings. I believe the real-world risk is
far higher than the laboratory studies indicate, at least for certain human
populations with unusual exposures.
One reason for this, I think, is that the data from human studies seems to
indicate that the near field of a transmitter poses a far higher risk than
does the far field. But laboratory studies are always designed to be done in
the far field (because it is possible to obtain a more uniform field intensity
in the far field, allowing more reliable exposure quantitation).
If the really hazardous exposures are to the near field, but laboratory
studies of animals are always done in the far field, then one would expect
that the laboratory studies on animals would show a small increased cancer
risk, even though the cancer risk to human beings (from exposure to the near
field) would be far higher.
This is what I think is actually happening.
As for cancer resulting from chemical exposure, I think it likely that there
is also some slight exposure to RF radiation in the far field which can
interact with the chemical exposure. Cities in the USA since the 1920s have
been filled with radio waves from commercial broadcasting. So very low far
field RF exposure would be present, even if not an intended part of the
expoeriment, simply from the background radiation of the urban environment
(which is where most such studies are carried out). So long latency periods
may be associated with far-field exposures (as well as very low intensities);
and short latency periods may be associated with near-field exposures (as well
as rather high intensities).
These ideas represent speculation at present, but they are testable.
For those who are not especially knowledgeable about near and far fields,
these refer to portions of the field around a transmitter or transmitting
antenna for RF/MW radiation. Users of cellular/mobile phones place part of
their head and brain in the near field of an antenna every time they use such
a phone with an antenna in the handset; but if they use an extension earpiece
and microphone, or attach a speakerphone, so that the device is kept about two
feet away from the user's head or body, then (for analog phones certainly, and
for digital phones probably) the user is staying in the far field of the
transmitter, where the increased cancer risk seems to be greatly reduced
(judging by animal studies, at least).
I still believe that studies of cancer incidence (but probably not cancer
mortality) will prove to be a good way to demonstrate an association between
disease and the use of mobile/cellular phone use by human beings. -- Marjorie
*********************************
Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H.
Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist
P. O. Box 11831
Milwaukee, WI 53211-0831
*********************************
____________________________________________________________________
Get Free Internet Access and WebEmail at http://www.address.com Click on this link
http://www.address.com/giveaways/free.asp for great offers.
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com