Subject:  Incorrect BBC News (Philips)..
Date:     Wed, 8 Dec 1999 064307 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------


.......Alasdair has done some really good work here.....  It is a
continuation of the warnings which he (and I and Dr.s Ahlbom, Repacholi)
issued as soon as the barrage of conflicting press stories began last
week....

I believe it was just yesterday that I observed (for the umpteenth time!!)
that this has been a propaganda war for some years.....

The U.S. Government knows that as well -- and is a major player in that
war, on the wrong side!!  That is what is so galling.  The "true" facts
are NOT being sorted out for the public because the "officials" who
should be doing that are either intimidated or "bought" into silence.....

Obviously, it is the same in the U.K., too.....  Symbolically, all of this
says disheartening things about the future of democracy ... in a "free
market" society......

Cheerio.....  (Alasdair has much good info below....) 

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
                       NEW!!!  Website 
...................People are more important than profits.................

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 13:19:40
From: Alasdair Philips 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Cc: Louis Slesin / Microwave News ,
    Stewart Fist 
Subject: Incorrect BBC News

This BBC News is factually wrong and VERY misleading. There is enormous
political spin on these stories, but the ONLY part of the UK Childhood Cancer
study which was published only measured internal magnetic fields and did not
relate IN ANY WAY to the proximity of dwellings or schools to high voltage
power lines ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!

This was admitted when I raised the question at the press conference for
the Doll Study paper.
The UKCCCR Press release had a banner headline:
"Major Study finds no link between overhead power cables and childhood cancer"

I publicly asked Prof Nick Day, the paper's main author, how this title
related to the body text of the press release and to the actual paper and
he replied "It doesn't!". He went on to say that the body text had been
agreed and then some unknown person had inserted the banner headline which
did not relate in any way to what they were reporting(!) and that these
initial magnetic field results did not relate to overhead power cables.

Interestingly, this Press Conference was held on the 2nd Dec, and an 
embargoed Press Release from the Electricity Associated dated the 1st Dec (!)
strongly quotes this wrong UKCCCR banner headline which wasn't released
until the following day!  The whole exercise stinks of corruption.

The are VERY high level complaints being made about the unfair and incorrect
spin that was placed on these stories. The Lancet paper was mysteriously 
delayed publication by 1one or two weeks (it was due out in November) so
that it came out two days after the Bristol work.

The Bristol work is not primarily connected with childhood cancers. What
it clearly shows is a build up of natural and man-made radioactive aerosols
underneath and up to several hundreds of metres downwind of 132 kV lines and
above. This also applies to hazardous chemical aerosols and airborne bacteria
and viruses and so could results in people's general health being poorer as
well as likely increased rates of skin and lung cancer (which have previously
been reported).

I reproduce some of the BBC News text below with my added ##comments##
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>BBC NEWS Friday, 3 December, 1999, 01:15 GMT 
>Battle lines drawn in pylon debate 
>After a week filled with conflicting scientific evidence over the health
risks of living near power lines, BBC News On-line examines what the latest
figures mean. 
>
>Whether it was sheer coincidence or not, the publication of two, entirely
contradictory, studies relating to power line safety in the same week will
leave consumers rightly feeling confused and concerned. 
## they are NOT "entirely contradictory" - they are about ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
## aspects of EMF:
##  
## The UKCCS (Doll) paper is only about internal house and school MAGNETIC
## fields ONLY and do not relate to high voltage overhead power lines. 
## 
## The two Bristol papers are about real measured physical effects caused
## by outdoor electric fields from high voltage overhead powerlines.
~~~ snipped ~~~
>  
>   EMF Studies: Conflicting evidence 
>  Sweden - slightly increased risk 
>  Norway - no link 
>  Finland/Denmark - studies too small 
>  US - no increased risk ##
## NOT true. 
## The US National Research Council - National Academy of Sciences issued 
## a report entitled "Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential
## Electric and Magnetic Fields” [9].  The most important aspect of this 
## report is that it does establish and agree that even under the 
## strictest possible standards of proof,  there is a reliable, though low,
## statistical association between power lines and at least one form of
## cancer (childhood leukaemia).  
## Ref: US National Research Council - National Academy of Sciences report,
## 31st October 1996,	“Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential
## Electric and Magnetic Fields”
##
## The USA National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) committee of 11 
## top scientists charged with assessing published information on these 
## issues has allowed a version of its epidemiology conclusions to be 
## published [in Ch.7 in the Handbook of Biological Effects of Electro-
## magnetic Fields,  Eds. Polk & Postow, CRC Press, Second edition, 1996].
## This states: "The weight of evidence supports an association of proximity 
## to power lines and risk of, at least, childhood leukaemia, and the weight 
## of evidence supports an association of putative occupational EMF exposure 
## and increased risk of leukaemia and brain tumours.  ...   In addition, 
## other possible associations have begun to be examined that are plausible
## based on laboratory research on melatonin.  These include breast cancer 
## in women and prostate cancer in men.   ...   Even effects which 
## initially seem implausible in the laboratory may prove to be causative, 
## as illustrated in the early difficulties in confirming carcinogenic 
## effects of benzene and inhaled arsenic, known human carcinogens.
##
## In June 1999 the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 
## released a report to Congress in which its Director, Dr. Kenneth Olden,
## states that epidemiological data show a “fairly consistent pattern of 
## a small, increased risk of childhood leukaemia and acute lymphocytic
## leukaemia in adults with increasing EMF exposure.”. Olden concludes that
## “inexpensive and safe reductions in exposures should be encouraged, 
## through electric companies measuring fields in customers’ homes and 
## helping them identify sources of high fields”. He also suggested that 
## “the power industry continue the current US practice of siting power 
## lines to reduce exposure.” This report classified power frequency EMFs
## as "a possible human carcinogen" in the same category (2B) as DDT.
##

>  Canada - no increased risk 
## Not true. One recent study (McBride et al) showed no significant 
## increase and another (Green et al) found a 3.45 increase in childhood
## leukaemia for magnetic fields over 0.15 microtesla.

>  Germany - possible link 
>  New Zealand - possible link 

>  UK (1999) - no link
## Not true. What IS true is that there seems to be no association with
## the estimated (from measurements) levels of time averaged power frequency
## magnetic fields in the one year before diagnosis with the vast majority
## of childhood cancers (mainly leukaemias).
## Recent studies have been pointing the finger at electric field
## exposure and, although the UKCCS has measured E-fields (under pressure
## from me and others ~ the NRPB had said that E-field measurement was
## unnecessary and very difficult to do and so was not included in part 1 
## of the UKCCS. The Foundation for Children with Leukaemia gave the extra
## money required and I agreed to stop my independent epidemiological study
## provided the UKCCS added electric field measurements to Part 2, which it
## duly did. HOWEVER the E-field results are not expected for another three
## or four months yet ! ! ! !!!!

~~ snipped ... ~~
>  
It is estimated that more than 20,000 families live near or under power
lines in the UK. 
>
>If Professor Henshaw is right, his theory would be backed by
epidemiological evidence - an analysis of every childhood cancer case would
show more cases than expected living in these conditions. 
>
##The next two paragraphs are complete crap! ##
>So the UK Childhood Cancer Survey, headed by Sir Richard Doll, effectively
debunks the Bristol team's work - or at least as far as the UK is concerned. 
>
>In the largest study of its kind, researchers looked at every case of
childhood cancer - and found no association whatsoever with EMFs, whether
created by power lines or simply by wiring arrangements in the home. 
>
>Previous studies 
>
>So, should people living near the lines feel reassured? 
>
>In the UK, the answer is yes. The Doll study is larger than every single
previous study combined, and the answer is unequivocal. 

## Crap again. The Doll results published so far includes NO evidence AT ALL
## about people living near to overhead power lines! ##

It found no association between children who fell ill and the strength of
electromagnetic ## magnetic fields ONLY ## fields in their homes. 
## The electric field results are not due out for 3 or 4 months yet. ##

While the report, published in The Lancet, appears to give the all-clear to
the UK electricity industry, its results do not extend to other parts of
the world where different methods of electricity supply produce far larger
electromagnetic fields. 
## It certainly does NOT give the OK. Need to wait for further UKCCS
papers. ##

The study was headed by professor Sir Richard Doll, the scientist who first
spotted the link between smoking and lung cancer, and he described it as
"definitive". 
He said: "This major study provides firm evidence that exposure to the
levels of magnetic fields found in the UK does not augment risk for
childhood cancer." 
## THIS quote is correct. It refers specifically to magnetic fields. ##

## Where the next two paragraphs came from is unclear.##
## There is absolutely NOTHING in their published pare (in Lancet) to
## justify either of the following two sentences. ##

In fact, of the 1,000 cancer children they examined in detail, only seven
actually lived anywhere near a power line, and none lived within 100m. 
Where electromagnetic levels were found to be higher than average, this was
usually due to the wiring arrangement of the houses involved rather than
power lines. 
##
## In fact I do not believe the "7 and none within 100m." I think that 7 
## children (cases and controls) DID live within 100m of a 275 or 400 kV
## overhead power line, PLUS an unknown further number within 100m of
## a 132 kV line ~ and MOST of the main UK overhead power lines near to
## houses are of the 132 kV size. Very few of the main 'super grid' 400
## and 275 kV lines go near houses.
## Also Few's and Henshaw's (et al) work would require distance up to about 
## 500m from the line to be examined for cases and controls. Much of his
## work was done around 132 kV overhead power lines.
##
## I was unofficially told that it was unlikely that the UKCCS data on
## proximity of houses to power lines of various sizes would ever be 
## published as Prof Draper is conducting a separate study of cancer 
## mortality vs distances from power lines. Of course this would not be 
## nearly as helpful as mortality data can be very misleading ~ and also 
## very few child cancer cases actually die these days.
##
## I hope this has put the incorrect BBC News into some proper context.
##
## From Alasdair Philips
## Director of Powerwatch and 
## Advisor to the Foundation for Children with Leukaemia.






 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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