Subject: Roy Beavers' answer about the NIEHS meeting..... (fwd)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 235521 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
Jim Crabtree of Environmental News Service asked me to comment on an
item he received.... All of you may be interested.... See below.
Cheerio....
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: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 23:51:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: "Environment News Service (ENS)"
Cc: emfguru
Subject: Roy Beavers' answer about the NIEHS meeting.....
Jim:
It looks to me like it is the same announcement about this same
meeting I received a month or so ago. (Which I do not seem at the
moment to be able to locate.) I regularly receive all such notices from
NIEHS.
However, rest assured that it IS legit. The series of meetings
(past) described below are some of the various EMF scientific meetings
which I have been attending and provide, in part, the basis for the guru's
"vast" knowledge (and writing) on the subject. As I have attended the
earlier meetings, I will also be attending the next scheduled meeting in
Minneapolis (June 16-24) cited below.....
I think you know the general area of 'my' misgivings about this
RAPID project (described below) -- I do not trust what the government
is doing with the RESULTS of the research!!!
I know from my presence at these meetings, and from my visits with many of
the researchers, that much of the most "damaging" research results is not
being given to the public!!! NIEHS might answer my charge by saying:
"Well, Roy, we aren't finished yet. Let us complete the RAPID project
before we are forced to draw conclusions." (Implying that they have not
already reached their conclusions?!?!)
That might be all right, if there were not already on the record a series of
public announcements by various government and quasi-government
groups which were ***deliberate*** misrepresentations of the research
results!!!!!! I think you know that I have complained about
those on my EMF-L net (the "Linet" NCI study, the National Academy of
Science "study" two years ago, the "burial" of the NCRP draft study
four years ago, the study that was done by EPA 7 or 8 years ago, etc.)
Based upon much of the government's behavior so far, I fear that the
forthcoming "report" described below, too, may turn out to be be just
another stall. I say the evidence of EMF harm is ***already there*** in
this so-called "RAPID" research effort. And the public has the right to
know: "We've got a problem." !!!!!!
I have never heard of "scientific judgments" being arrived at by "vote,"
for instance. Who will be voting??? It is too easy to "load" the
outcome in these ad-hoc "voting" situations, such as I see described
below.... One can certainly expect that all the "industry" scientists
will be there (they have unlimited expense accounts -- and there are
MANY of them). The "publics" few scientists who see this EMF problem as
"real" (people like David Carpenter, chief health officer for the State of
New York) probably won't even be there. He does not conceal his 'disdain'
for the way the government has handled this EMF matter already....
Three generations of "establishment" science "experts" failed to confirm
the validity of Charles Darwin's work..... I think the idea of a "vote"
by anyone who shows up is simply ridiculous!!!!! The industry
"conventional wisdom" scientists will be there..... it will be their
vote!!!!
What SHOULD count is the opinion of the FEW researchers who are actually
doing the work!!!! Rather than all the "big name" outsiders, academic
names, heads of big government-funded (or industry funded) laboratories,
etc., who still hold the old conventional wisdom "protect the
establishment" views ... and who come to the table on this EMF issue
skeptical ... as well as funded by either the government
(military) or industry in many cases. It will be easy for those
government/industry people to "stuff" the 'ballot box'!!!!
Jim, the only question I would accept a "vote" on in this issue is: Would
you (Dr. researcher) be comfortable with allowing your children/grand
children to grow-up living alongside power lines? AND THAT SHOULD BE
TAKEN BY SECRET BALLOT!! -- so that honest "gut feelings" could be
expressed. That is also the kind of question that forces a judgment on
the basis of the ***total weight of the evidence***, rather than the "we
have not yet conclusively proved" formulations that have typified results
reported about this issue so far....
Finally, Jim, I am very concerned that honest, independent opinions
***cannot*** be expressed in the ***present*** environment of
'overwhelming' governmental and industry presence and influence in the EMF
research milieu.....!!!! One where researchers know that if they appear
to be deviating from the establishment "party line" they run the risk of
being denied future funds for their research, or worse......
That, in a nutshell, Jim, is what you do not get out of the press release
below!
Anyway, I intend to be there to see what goes on.....
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...............................................
On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, Environment News Service (ENS) wrote:
> Roy
>
> My researcher just sent this release to the editorial department. Is this a
> legitimate meeting or just another NIEHS insiders party? It sort of looked
> like propaganda to me, but hey, when in doubt 'ask the guru.'
>
> Thanks for any insight you can lend us on this. BTW we're always open to
> EMF stories if you or someone you could recommend cared to write something
> up.
>
> Cheers
> **************************************
> Jim Crabtree
> Managing Editor
> Environment News Service (ENS)
> E-Wire
> http://envirolink.lycos.com/news/
> crabtree@ens-news.com
> "We Cover the Earth for You!"
> **************************************
>
>
> http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun98/niehs-03.htm
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
> National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> FOR RELEASE
> Wednesday, June 3, 1998
> Bill Grigg
> (301) 402-3378
> Tom Hawkins
> (919) 541-1402
>
>
>
> Scientists to Prepare Advisory Report on What's Been Learned About the
> Possible Adverse Health Effects of Electric Fields
>
> Scientists will meet June 16 to 24 in Brooklyn Park, Minn., to review
> the research and write an advisory report on what is now known on the
> possible adverse health effects of the extremely low frequency electric
> and magnetic fields created in the generation, transmission and use of
> electricity. The meeting is open to the press and public.
> The scientists' appraisal will be based on a comprehensive review of the
> scientific literature as well as discussion reports from recent EMF
> science review symposiums organized under the Congressionally mandated
> EMF/RAPID Program (the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public
> Information Dissemination Program) by the Department of Energy and the
> National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, one of the National
> Institutes of Health. The Working Group is composed of scientists with a
> broad range of expertise. Some have experience in EMF-related research
> while some have other backgrounds.
>
> The members will provide guidance to NIEHS on the strength of the
> experimental data and its implications for human health and disease
> etiology, and NIEHS Director Kenneth Olden, Ph.D., will use the
> appraisals and working group review as well, as other relevant
> information, in formulating his own report to Congress later this year.
>
> The questions to be answered, by votes at the end of the open meeting,
> are those which have been asked by many concerned citizens and which
> caused Congress, in 1992, to fund the accelerated research program
> EMFRAPID: Does electricity used heavily in some occupations, carried by
> transmission lines and employed in homes cause increases in leukemia,
> brain tumors, breast cancer and reproductive and developmental ills? Is
> there no risk, a possible risk, a likely risk or a certain health risk
> from exposure to the extremely low frequency electric and magnetic
> fields (EMF) that result from generating, transmitting and using
> electrical energy?
>
> BACKGROUND: Some limited studies had hinted at the possibility of
> adverse health effects. And there was a good deal of public concern --
> Is it safe to live near transmission towers? Or cover my child with an
> electric blanket? Or make toast in an electric toaster?
>
> As a result of these concerns, Congress asked the Department of Energy
> to administer the EMF/RAPID Program. The National Institute of
> Environmental Health Sciences is responsible for funding studies aimed
> at understanding effects of EMF on biological/health endpoint , and the
> Department of Energy is responsible for directing research on exposure
> assessment and field management techniques.
>
> Studies of people living amidst electric and magnetic fields had already
> been begun and were continued, but the new federally coordinated effort
> also supported studies of how EMF affects animals and cellular
> systems -- effects that might be too subtle to show up in real-world
> epidemiological studies of exposed groups. Beginning with about $4
> million from the federal government and a matching $4 million from
> industry, total research costs under this effort have reached $46
> million -- about $23 million from the federal government matched by the
> same from industry.
>
> In recent months, data have been reviewed in three public science
> symposiums on various types of studies. Laboratory findings and
> theoretical mechanisms of action were reviewed in March 1997,
> epidemiology findings in January 1998, and in vivo and clinical studies
> in April 1998.
>
> The working group writing the advisory report will meet in public
> sessions June 16-24 to discuss the research that has been done and vote,
> on the last day, on what it indicates. The meeting will be at the
> Northland Inn, Brooklyn Park, Minn., near Minneapolis, and some public
> comments can be made by prior arrangement. For the full agenda,
> additional information or registration information send a request by fax
> to (919) 541-0144 or call (919) 541-7534 or visit the EMFRAPID website.
> The Working Group report will be available for public review and comment
> in late July.
>
> Individuals wanting a copy of this report, or a non-technical summary,
> should request it by fax to the number above or by mail to the EMF-RAPID
> Program, NIEHS, NIH, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-16, Research Triangle Park,
> NC 27709. The report and non-technical summary will also be available at
> the EMF section of the NIEHS web site:
> http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/home.htm
>
> The draft may be commented upon in writing for two months or at public
> meetings to be held during that time period. The meetings, in various
> parts of the United States, are still being planned. One of these will
> be held Sept. 14-15, 1998 in Tucson, Ariz. and the locations of the
> others will be announced in the future.
>
> NIEHS Director Olden will then use the working group report, along with
> data being collected by NIEHS, to prepare his report to Congress. The
> views of the advisory working group are not binding but are expected to
> be given a good deal of weight.
>
> Research on EMF-related issues is likely to continue at some level. The
> future focus of the research may depend on the views expressed by the
> working group and the Director's report to Congress.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> Steven Phillips
> stevenp@ens-news.com
> Environment News Service (ENS)
> http://www.lycos.com/envirolink/news/index.html
>
>
>
>
> . -----Original Message-----
> . From: Roy L. Beavers [mailto:rbeavers@llion.org]
> . Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 6:09 PM
> . To: emfguru@hotmail.com
> . Subject: Re: Tumours/Wireless ( (fwd)
> .
> .
> .
> . ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> . Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 10:23:58 +1000
> . From: Don Maisch
> . To: "Roy L. Beavers"
> . Subject: Re: Tumours/Wireless ( (fwd)
> .
> . Roy
> .
> . Leif's message below brings to my mind the following study, which I
> . mentioned in my paper "Melatonin, Tamoxifen, 50-60 Hertz Electromagnetic
> . Fields and Breast Cancer: A Discussion Paper", August 1997, which is
> . available on my home page:
> .
> . I also have available John Holt's paper in hard copy. If there is enough
> . interest I can have it put on disk to send out on e-mail.
> .
> . Don Maisch
> .
> . **********************************************************************
> .
> . "Although this paper only deals with powerline EMFs, electromagnetic
> . radiation (EMR) from radiofrequency and microwave emissions are also now
> . being implicated in breast cancer. Besides some epidemiological studies,
> . such as one showing a significant increase in breast cancer for female
> . radio operators, there is evidence that breast cancer tumors absorb
> . significantly more EMR than other cancers, or healthy tissue. To quote
> . from one study, conducted at Duke University, North Carolina,
> . USA, in 1993.
> .
> . "In general, at all frequencies tested [50 to 900 MHz], both conductivity
> . and relative permittivity were greater in malignant tissue than in normal
> . tissue of the same type. For tissues of the same type, the
> . differences in electrical properties from normal to malignant were least
> . for kidney ( about 6% and 4% average differences over the frequency range
> . in permittivity and conductivity, respectively), and these
> . differences were
> . the greatest for mammary gland (about 233% and 577% average
> . differences in
> . permittivity and conductivity, respectively ) (27)
> .
> . The ability of breast cancer tumors to absorb significantly more EMR than
> . normal tissue should be of concern when compared to an official joint
> . statement, made in the Information sheet, Safety of Mobile Phones and
> . Towers - The Answers (Nov.1995) by the Australian Radiation Laboratory,
> . Spectrum Management Agency, Austel and the Commonwealth Science and
> . Industrial Research Organisation, (under the heading, Is Cancer an issue?)
> .
> . "There is yet insufficient scientific knowledge of many aspects of health
> . effects of radio waves. One common question is: Do radio waves
> . from mobile
> . phones increase the risks of cancer? The answer is that there is no
> . experimental evidence that radio waves directly cause cancer. Laboratory
> . studies on animals suggest that where cancer exists, radio waves
> . may accelerate its growth."
> .
> . For this reason, acting under the Precautionaly Principal as mentioned
> . prevously, one should also consider radiofrequency and microwave exposures
> . as a possible risk factor to be avoided [for breast cancer patients]."
> .
> . 27) Joines W.T., Zhang Y., Chenxing L., Jirtle R.L. (1993)The measured
> . electrica
> . properties of normal and malignant human tissues from 50 to 900 MHz
> . Medical physics, Vol. 21, April 1994, p.547-550.
> .
> . **********************************************************************
> . >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> . >Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 07:18:14 +0200
> . >From: "[iso-8859-1] LEIF S.DERGREN"
> . >To: rbeavers@llion.org
> . >Subject: [iso-8859-1] Re: Wireless (
> . >
> . >--- Inkommet frĀn SK.SODLEA +46 31 816482 98-05-29 14.23
> . > -> rbeavers(a)llion.org
> . >John holt of Australia who is an expert on Microwaves, since he
> . >uses them to kill cancer cells, says that certain cellphone
> . >frequencies make existing tumours grow. In other way, they act as
> . >a fertilizer on a tumour .... Charming idea is it not?
> . >Leif Sodergren
> . >
> .
> . **********************************
> . EMFacts Information Service
> . P.O. Box 96,
> . North Hobart 7002,
> . Tasmania
> . AUSTRALIA
> . Phone: +61 (3) 62430195
> . Fax: +61 (3) 62430340
> . E-Mail: emfacts@tassie.net.au
> . HomePage: http://www.tassie.net.au/emfacts/
> . **********************************
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
>
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