Subject: Re The "way" of politicians...... (fwd)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 034914 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:05:20 +0300 (IDT)
From: John Goldsmith
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Cc: emfguru@hotmail.com, John Goldsmith
Subject: Re: The "way" of politicians......
Dear Roy:
Wolfgang's use of "we" and discussion of the need for "proof"
and Bill Curry's discussion of the need for a mechanism before
epidemiological evidence of risk can be taken seriously prompt this reply.
I spent several decades in the California Department of Public Health with
responsibility for evaluation of the health effects of air pollution, so
in some respects I have been through the arguments we seem to be having.
My first point is that the California Department of Public Health was
a powerful agency, both in the scientific sense--it had an outstanding
laboratory-- and in the sense that it had a reputation for use of itss
powers in an effecctive way in many areas. Sspecifically, it was directed
by the legislature to define air quality and emission standards, and was
able to mobilize scientific and industrial personnel to advise and oversee
its work. Concerning cellphone health risks, there is no such delegation
of responsibility, and the existing standards are based on outdated
concepts such as that all biological risks can be equated with heat
absorption in tissues. In the California Health Department, the dominant
role overall was given to people with engineering training relevant to
public health. The health related decisions were recommended by a
committee nominated by the State Medical Association, but appointed by the
Director of the Health Department, so once decisions were reached they had
a constituency behind them.
On Bill Curry's point, as an environmental epidemiologist, I must
insist on the validity and need for response to epidemiological findings
whether or not a mechanism or animal model gives the analogous results.
Most known occupational carcinogens were identified prior to models or
confirming animal experiments. Of course epidemiological findings should
stimulate and partilly justify the search for mechanisms. In the case
of most of the community air pollutants after a decade of research,
convergence of epidemiological and laboratory findings occurred. But
delay in provision of health protection from epidemiologicallly identified
risks until there is a known mechanism is not a tolerable position.
Finally, who are "we"? If we think of ourselves as only a gaggle of
upset scientists and anxious citizens, "we" have defined our own
vulnerability and cannot wonder that politicians decide which way the wind
blows, despite our concerns. Should "we" be, assume the role of, or
represent the local agencies and concerns we can enroll in health
protective positions, those making policy are certain to be more
receptive. Is it not time that rather than only venting our local
concerns, and bewailing the insensitivity of policy makers, we begin to
work toward new associations and organizations which can help channel
research and community surveys, provide a dependable source for community
agency information, and provide leadership in response to a rapidly
changing and potentially responsive industry. Roy, I think that the
consensus of the RAPID EMF task force also gives a model of how even
complex data can be digested and interpreted for the protection of the
public.
John Goldsmith
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Roy L. Beavers wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:07:45 +0000
> From: "Wolfgang W. Scherer"
> Reply-To: w-m-a@reach.net
> To: "Roy L. Beavers"
> Subject: Re: (Coghill) Re: (Curry) Re: "A Change in the Wind," EMFL-9-96
>
> Roy, while Bert may be right about her assessment of politicians
> the fact is that they will never act on assumptions only..
>
> Unfortunately it has been for ages the accepted mode of action
> that the onus is on proving first that something is dangerous
> before you can act against it.
>
> Maybe we should always require proof that something is harmless
> before we allow it to go public - but this applies to very limited
> things today - like medications - and is not foolproof either as
> history shows. ( protective laws always come after the fact)
>
> We can only move the "public" opinion with bullet proof facts.
> (you must convince the media too on this issue - they are on the
> user side !!!!!) .Only this will then force politicians to do the
> public's bidding ( and if only for re-election ).
>
> We need to get there fast - as we all here are convinced of the
> hazards. The more data, facts, ideas and theories we share and
> discuss, the faster we can get the desired results.
>
> Let us work on that - with open minds.
>
> Greetings
> Wolfgang
> Wolfgang W. Scherer
>
> http://www.reach.net/~scherer/p
> ....................................................
> Impossible tasks are resolved immediately
> Miracles take a little more time.
> ..................................................
>
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