Subject: (Fist) Help needed for Australian Radiation scientists (fwd)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 182928 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
.......Our 'science/research' members ought to be able to help Stewart
with this........ It is the old 'physics' argument vs the cell
biologists.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at:
EMF-L archives can be found at:
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 09:04:12 +1000
From: Stewart Fist
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Help needed for Australian Radiation scientists
Australian readers will know the Australian Radiation Laboratory (ARL) as the
fierce defender of the idea that radio waves can not possible do harm to
biological tissue because the signals lack the power to cause problems. This
is also the old stamping ground of Dr Michael Repacholi -- and it was the ARL
speakers who have taken on the government's task of conveying the message to
Australian citizens and local councillors (via special meetings) that
cellphone towers and handsets have no potential health effects.
So I think this list could help advise and acquaint them with some of the
research available which presents a contrary view.
They have come to me for help. I received this last night from their
information officer (who you might note uses the domain address
"health.gov.au"! -- Sir Humphrey Appleton would be proud!)
Subject: Animal studies
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:24:06 +1000
From: Graeme.Elliott@health.gov.au
To: fist@ozemail.com.au
Mr Fist,
In your Crossroads column "Media rethinks mobile claims" (The Australian 1
June 1999), you referred to "dozens of different animal studies conducted
around the world which showed higher cancer rates in exposed animals".
Leaving aside the Adelaide Hospital study (I have a copy of that paper), I
would be grateful for a list of the references for the other (at least) 23.
Thanks,
Graeme Elliott
Information Officer
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.
---------
I have replied to Graeme, giving him some basic information, but others on the
list might be able to help with even more. My reply was fairly hurried and
cursory, because I was overloaded at the time.
Subject: Re: Animal studies
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 19:19:16 +1000
From: Stewart Fist
Organization: Independent writer and columnist
To: Graeme.Elliott@health.gov.au
Graeme Elliot wrote:
> In your Crossroads column "Media rethinks mobile claims" (The Australian 1
> June 1999), you referred to "dozens of different animal studies conducted
> around the world which showed higher cancer rates in exposed animals".
> Leaving aside the Adelaide Hospital study (I have a copy of that paper), I
> would be grateful for a list of the references for the other (at least) 23.
Yes, you are right; I've probably overstated the case. There are probably only
a dozen in this primary category. I was using so-called 'journalistic license'
when dealing with lay readers, and including exposure studies conducted on
animals, where the cells were found to have suffered pre-cancerous (etc.)
damage or change -- like Lai Singh, Sakar, Verscheave etc. and many others
where non-ionising radiation has obviously directly effected the DNA and
genetic structure. This is not tumour promotion in the scientific sense --
just the precursor to it.
I am so pleased that the ARL has finally decided that it needs to catch up on
this matter, and do some reading. You will find it most instructive and rewarding.
I haven't read all of the references below by any means. I've possibly only
even read the abstracts of some of the more important ones, but you can find
references and abstracts in the on-line literature if you look. There are also
some excellent overviews, like the CSIRO (1994) study.
Since ARL obviously doesn't have a library of these basic research papers, you
might like to start by collecting the work of these scientists:
Cleary, Chou (1992), Adey (numerous), Guy (1984), US Air Force (1997 breast
cancer), Repacholi (1997), Szmigielski (1998), Loscher (50Hz).
They all found increased tumour rates in the exposed rodents compared with controls.
Further details of these studies and others of a similar nature at:
and there are also many in the early (pre-1994) bibliography at my site
(The CSIRO might be able to help you find some of the referenced papers)
Also on the borderline are reproductive and fetal damage which is possibly
cancerous in origin such as Magras & Xenos. Then there are those animal
studies which show cancer-like cell-growth mechanism-changes in animals, like
de-Pomerai, and direct DNA breaks like Sakar, Lai-Singh and Verscheave.
Then there are those who found EMF influencing the immune system like Elekes,
Szmigielski, Huang and Mold (1980), Baranski (1971), Ragan (1983),
Wiktor-Jedrzejczak (1977, 1980). Some of these are obviously effecting the
DNA, and some possibly not.
Then there's a bit of interesting work on corneal ulcerations and vascular
leakage like Kues (1985 and 1988), Carpenter (1979) and Monahan (1988). Then
there are those like Lin and Salford, who find blood-brain barrier breeches.
There are hundreds of references for other (cancer-related and mutagenic,
etc.) effects on animals and on animal cell cultures, where gene transcription
and expressions of cancer-causing genes have been found. And you'll find that
the work on possible mechanisms is instructive. You might like to check on
Sarkar, Lai-Singh, A Maes (1996), Adey, Dutta, Jerry Philips, Tice, Byes,
Blackman, Juutilainen, Kwee, Luben, Libudy, Morris (Battel Labs),
Belokrinitski, Veyret, Elekes, D’Inzeo, O'Brien, Kues, Frolen, Roti-Roti
(esp. March 1999), Verscheave, Svedenstals, Scott, Uckun and a few dozen
others who have found related evidence with associated mechanisms, such as
apoptosis inhibition, changes in melatonin's and tamoxifen's protective mechanisms
Then there are the human studies and epidemiological evidence, some of which
is unconvincing, and others which appears to be relatively significant. But
since ARL appears to dismiss all statistical human evidence of this kind, I
won't burden you.
==========================================
Since we have now established this mutual information-exchange relationship,
can you please have someone with the required authority to speak on the ARL's
behalf give me a detailed answer to the following questions (for possible publication):
1. Does the ARL still holds the view that it is not possible for radio waves
to cause adverse health effects because non-ionising photons lack sufficient
energy to break hydrogen bonds? Do you still subscribe to the "thermal only" viewpoint?
2. Do you now embrace the precautionary principle of limiting exposures to the
minimum possible with reasonable maintainance of functions? If you do, how did
your representatives vote on the matter in the recent Australian Standard
dispute? Does your organisation perhaps subscribe now to the Vienna Declaration?
3. In the past various members of the ARL have made (or supported) claims by
the cellphone industry, that there are (variously) 6,000 or 20,000 or
"innumerable" studies which prove cellphones are safe? Do you still subscribe
to these views? If so, would you send me a list of ten studies which
establish this fact beyond reasonable doubt?
4. In the past the ARL has stated that a majority of scientists support the
view that there is no evidence that cellphones can produce any harm in humans.
Does your organisation still hold to this view? If so, what sort of
scientists are we talking about?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Fist - writer and columnist
See http://technology.news.com.au/opinion/
http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/ (some archives)
http://www.electric-words.com (main archives)
70 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, 2070, N.S.W, Australia
Phone +61 2 9416 7458 Fax +61 2 9416 4582
--
Stewart Fist - writer and columnist
See http://technology.news.com.au/opinion/
http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/ (some archives)
http://www.electric-words.com (main archives)
70 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, 2070, N.S.W, Australia
Phone +61 2 9416 7458 Fax +61 2 9416 4582
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