Subject: Re Brief comment about 60-Hz fields (fwd)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 103502 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
For those of you who may not yet know Clas -- he is an electrical
engineer in Sweden who has been grappling with the technical aspects
of the EMF matter for many years. He is also the webmaster of the
"Electrosensitivity" web-site: www.feb.se
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...............................................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 13:14:00 +0100
From: Clas Tegenfeldt
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: Brief comment about 60-Hz fields (fwd)
At 14:26 1997-11-29 -0600, you wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:06:49 -0600
>From: "Marjorie A. Lundquist"
>To: rbeavers@mail.llion.org
>Subject: Brief comment about 60-Hz fields
>
> Roy, this is just a brief comment about 60-Hz fields to address your
>skepticism about the "innocence" of 60-Hz fields.
> One reason I am convinced that 60-Hz fields by themselves do not pose a
>hazard to health is that before 1911, there was no power line carrier on
>electric power lines. That means that radio-frequency fields did NOT
>surround electric power lines in the 19th century, or in the first decade
>of the 20th century.
> If 60-Hz fields were capable of causing disease, complaints would have
>been reported during the 19th century. The voltage used then is much the
I would like to argue that it /may/ have been so, but we cannot today
say what names were used to describe the complaints... I seriously
doubt that it was possible to connect any symptoms causally with the
new use of electric power.
I mean, we have problems today with deciding the causal relationship between
various symptoms/diseases and the exposure of EMFs, don't we?
>crease or decrease the effects of exposure at another frequency. So per-
>haps 60-Hz fields do indeed pose some hazard to organisms that are exposed
>at the same time to RF fields.
That is an important line of thought worthy of further investigation!
> Remember that I focus my attention on the PREVENTION of disease. I am
>still satisfied that we do not have to worry about adverse health effects
>from exposure to 60-Hz fields by themselves. The way to correct our cur-
>rent problems with power line health hazards is to get rid of the radio-
>frequency that is present: the power line carrier. The extremely low
>frequency fields that remain will not produce disease--because they have
>not done so in the past! -- Marjorie Lundquist
I cannot agree. We cannot rule out the importance of 50 or 60 Hz. I firmly
believe that the problem is /not/ restricted to power frequency but includes
problems high up into the microwave region, but I am not inclined to
limit the area of interest /either/ on low or high frequency! We simply do
not know, but we have indication of both...
/Clas
Clas Tegenfeldt ,,,
(o o)
------------oOOO------(_)------OOOo-------------------
BEMI - Better Electromagnetic Enviroment
BEMI Telephone/fax +46 (0)13-74075
Tornevalla Gamla Skola Timezone GMT-1
S-590 62 LINGHEM E-mail tegen@bemi.se
SWEDEN Web http://www.bemi.se
.-
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