Subject: "A Change in the Wind," EMFL-9-96.html (fwd)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 212002 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
......This is the 1996 essay.......
EMFguru #9-96, A Change In The Wind?
Hi everybody:
Every "old" sailer knows that a change in the direction of the wind
foretells a change in the weather as well.
This message is written to invite your attention to what we believe is
an important change in the way the EMF health effects debate is being
waged.
A CHANGE IN THE WIND...
Remember guru's message about the "circled wagons" of the conventional
wisdom? .... "It [the circle of wagons] is but another in a long line
of futile attempts by mankind to smother the 'march of events' by
arguing from the warm cozy confines of the conventional wisdom rather
than coming to grips with a cold new reality." (EMFguru #5-96)
In that message we were talking about those scientists who are so well
schooled in the science of the past ... that they seem to be unable to
recognize or comprehend the new scientific realities that are being
revealed by the "march of events" ... a growing preponderance of
evidence that the "old truth" (the conventional wisdom) simply does
not explain what is being revealed about the effects of EMF on human
health.
For nearly two decades now, the cry we have been hearing loud and
clear from within that 'circle of wagons' has been:
"It is not possible ... It is not possible ... It is not possible."
Well ... now we are beginning to hear a new cry.
"It is not important ... It is not important ... It is not important,"
they are now saying.
However begrudgingly and reluctantly, the 'circle of wagons' has begun
to concede, "Well, perhaps it *is* possible ... but even if
deleterious biological effects are occurring at low levels of
prolonged EMF exposure, they are not causing enough health damage to
be concerned about."
"It is not important."
We should ignore those effects, they are now arguing, because of the
greater good that is provided by electricity. "Don't waste all that
money you are spending on the research or the mitigation of EMF
dangers for such marginal adverse health consequences," they are
telling us.
It is a back door admission that perhaps they were wrong after all --
now that it is becoming more difficult to deny the biological effects
and the concomitant health consequences.
Later in this message we will return to this new "rationalization" by
the 'circle of wagons,' but first let's review the recent .......
"MARCH OF EVENTS".........
During what seemed to be a long, slow, quiet summer, actually, a good
deal of new evidence bolstering the EMF health hazard case was
reported to the scientific community. Some of it is as persuasive as
any evidence unearthed so far.
-- Most persuasive was the "Study of Cancer Among Hydro Workers at
Ontario Hydro" in Canada. (Guru thinks that when the history of the
EMF saga is written, this study will mark "the death of the canary.")
This study, by Dr. Anthony Miller of the University of Toronto,
covered 30,000 current, former and retired employees. It found an
"increased risk of leukemia in association with increased exposure to
both electric and magnetic fields." Previous studies have been less
certain about the EMF/leukemia risk for adults, though many studies
have linked EMF/leukemia for children. Also significant was Dr.
Miller's finding that the electric field may indeed contribute more to
the leukemia incidence than does the magnetic field. This finding
should remind many EMF-L readers of the U.K. "radon daughter"
hypothesis we discussed on this network early in the year. Remember?
Dr. John Moulder (then a member of the group) more or less
"pooh-pooh-ed" the idea.
--In Australia, a former chief medical officer at the Australian state
operated phone company, Dr. Bruce Hocking, found disturbing evidence
of higher leukemia rates (particularly higher leukemia death rates) in
children who were "living near three television towers" compared to
those living "farther away."
--Dr. Robert B. Goldberg's analysis (in EMF Health Report, July/August
1996) reported on four experiments presented at this year's
Bioelectromagnetics (BEMS) Society meeting in Vancouver, Canada. All
four experiments were replications or near replications of previous
research. Their main value, therefore, is in the reinforcement which
they provide of evidence previously offered -- the kind of evidence
the 'circle of wagons' has been denying.
***The first experiment demonstrates blocking by a 60-Hertz magnetic
field of melatonin's growth restricting action on cultured cancer
cells. According to Dr. Goldberg, "This bioeffect occurs with a clear
threshold of 6 to 12 milligauss, which is within the range of typical
environmental EMF intensity levels physicists consider unresolvable
from random EMF 'noise'."
***The second experiment replicated the cancer-promoting effect of a
60-Hertz, 20 Gauss magnetic field on skin tumors in mice. A 20 Gauss
field is not the normal "power line" or work environment magnetic
field, but it remains to be seen whether the strength of the field or
the mechanism, itself, is the more important factor to be considered
at this stage of the research.
***The third experiment confirmed that a 60-Hertz 1 Gauss magnetic
field can attenuate lethal drug-induced seizures in rats. While this
experiment is only a starting point, its main significance lies in its
replication of an EMF-brain interaction mechanism.
***A further example of EMF-brain interaction research was the
impairment of spatial learning in rats by microwave exposure,
replicated in an experiment conducted by the University of Washington.
--In further analysis of the "business" portion of the Annual BEMS
meeting, Dr. Goldberg observed: "If the magnetic field effect on
melatonin inhibition of breast cancer cells proliferation is firmly
established as a universally repeatable experiment, it will be up to
the physicists to come up with a transduction mechanism that explains
how such an effect can be initiated by a 60-Hertz EMF as weak as 6 to
12 mG."
--The importance of this last aspect was highlighted, as if on signal,
by the appearance of a study coming out of Boston University which
concluded that EMF from "main frame" computers presents an increased
breast cancer risk for women. "This is consistent with the hypothesis
that electric fields can cause chemical changes in the body that
promote breast cancer," said epidemiologist Patricia F. Coogan of the
BU School of Medicine.
Given the growing accumulation of evidence that EMF causes or
contributes to biological activity which can account for the
deleterious health consequences being consistently reported by the
epidemiologists, it is not surprising that the 'circle of wagons'
would begin to seek a new rationalization which would better explain
(within the context of their pro-electric industry bias) the unfolding
scientific evidence. The continued cry of "It's not possible!" just
doesn't "sell" anymore.
THE NEW RATIONALIZATION........
Now ... to an examination of the new rationalization: "It's not
important," they now want us (the public) to believe. The seriousness
or the increased numbers of the illnesses resulting from EMF are not
worth all this fuss .. or all the expenditure on research and
"mitigation."
First, it can fairly be stated that the claims of "costly mitigation"
which supposedly is occurring (like the "prudent avoidance" claims)
are greatly exaggerated. Mostly "P.R." propaganda for public
consumption. Any independent (outside) audit of these claims would
show that.
Second, if you stop to think about it, the cries of industry that, "We
are wasting money on preventive measures that are not needed," assumes
that they have some kind of divine right to pass all risk and
uncertainty on to the public in order to avoid such costs cutting into
their "profits." Industry wants to "pass the buck," shift the burden
of protecting society upon society rather than upon themselves.
Third, isn't it clear that when society picks up these costs that have
been caused by industry ... society is in fact *subsidizing* industry!
The world -- particularly the U.S. -- desperately needs a new ethos
that addresses the accelerating assaults upon our environment which
are being experienced with ever increasing frequency and intensity as
our modern technological society "progresses."
The recent assault (within the last 40 or 50 years) by EMF is but one
of many such challenges. It was there earlier, of course, but it was
not detectable at the lower levels of exposure then being encountered.
Finally, what is the answer society is being given by the
profit-driven ethos of the electric and telecommunications industries?
"Well," they are saying, "what does society expect? A 'risk free'
society..... That is not possible."
OF COURSE a risk free society is not possible! But that being true ...
are we to conclude that that means it is "open season" for industry
(or anyone else, e.g., the government) therefore to impose added risks
at will?
Of course not! That notion is preposterous. But that is the argument
we are being given.
THE "TIME FACTOR" ..........
Now, as to the "It is not important" claim by the 'circle of wagons':
may guru again call to mind the importance of the "time factor" in any
valid assessment of the nature of the threat. In an earlier message,
we suggested that mankind is (over the past 30 years or so) "just
entering" the damaging region of the EMF exposure envelope.
We quote from EMFguru #1-96:
"What we wish to concentrate on here is the "time-lag" factor. We
believe it is crucial to an understanding of the full dimensions of
the EMF health threat. And its importance derives in part out of the
continued misdirection of public attention that is brought about by
the present emphasis on the "cancer has not been proved therefore
don't worry" non sequitur.
"Virtually all research that has taken place so far has come to the
conclusion that these adverse health responses (from EMF exposure)
probably do not occur instantaneously.
"They appear to arise slowly over a long period of time and perhaps
prolonged exposure. (e.g., 5 to 10 years in the case of leukemia or
perhaps 30 to 40 years in the case of Alzheimer's.)
"Consider this: the health cases that are coming to light in 1996
probably had their origin in the 1980s or before.
"*The damage that is being inflicted today we cannot see.* We cannot
even estimate it because a government that does not admit that
"there's a problem" is not gathering the data that would provide us a
basis for such an estimate.
"Finally, add to the above picture the fact that the amount of EMF in
the public's exposure environment is increasing each year at a (gross)
rate of two-and-a-half to three percent per year compounded. That is
based upon the average annual rate of growth in electricity
production, so it must be a gross number. (Don't use it to estimate
the increase in 'your' environment which is certain to be impacted by
many other variables not addressed here.) It is provided to suggest
the extent to which the EMF problem increases over time if we continue
to avoid it."
WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE FOOLING...........???????
When the 'circle of wagons' tells you that the EMF health effects
being observed over the past decade or so "are not important," guru
hopes you will call to mind the "time factor" consideration cited
above.
Remember: The damage that is being done today ... we cannot see.
Another thing -- in the name of humanity, society can not let it be
argued that these "small" ("small" today??) adverse health
consequences are but the "price" that some must pay for the many
advantages of an electricity-powered technological world.
That is the old "sweat shop" argument: society simply "must have" the
cheap goods produced by the sweat shop laborers. "Their sacrifice (in
long hours of demeaning and unhealthy work conditions) is necessary
for the good of society." It was used in the case of the coal miners,
too, remember(?) ... in Wales and the American Appalachia.
The suggestion that mankind is simply going to have to "live with" EMF
health hazards -- as a part of the "trade-off" for the benefits of
modern technology -- is an ABSURD notion!
That notion lies at the very heart of the word "electrophobia" -- the
latest label (replacing "junk science") that is used by the 'circle of
wagons' for ridicule and "put-down" of those who are concerned about
EMF consequences.
It is particularly inappropriate given that we already know how to
deal with many of the EMF hazards that are being exposed. Our learning
curve is certain to be much shorter than was man's experience with
fire, perhaps the closest parallel situation to the EMF challenge.
There is no need to be apologetic because we are not going to let the
'circle of wagons' rationalize away the damage that is being revealed.
It is time to "shine the light" on the "profit"-driven ethos that is
getting in the way of the good judgment of some in the scientific
community.
The EMF health hazard IS IMPORTANT ... to the victims.
Cheerio.........
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@mail.llion.org
http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
______________________________________________________________________
[1]Back to the FEB home page http://www.feb.se
References
1. http://www.feb.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