Subject: Is it the time to end ELF/EMF research? (fwd) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 053432 -0600 (CST) From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org> To: emfguru@hotmail.com -------------------------------------------------- Hi Everybody: I am in receipt of a truly outstanding paper written by Don Maisch and Bruce Rapley of Australia and New Zealand. It is too long to transmit as a general message to the group in our usual fashion (50K). Below, I am forwarding the abstract and conclusions written by the authors. It is an overview of three recent studies: (1) the Linet study, also known as the NCI study; (2) the NAS/NRC study, (3) the Royal Adelaide Hospital ELF mice study. The paper also reviews the work of the NCRP draft study headed by Ross Adey. There is a very interesting recent quote by Nancy Wertheimer. Among other things, it addresses the transients, electric field and melatonin issues. It also addresses the importance of other adverse health conditions besides cancer or leukemia. It is fully annotated and all references are cited. If you would like for me to send you a copy of this paper - just let me know.... 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............................................... ********************************************************************* Powerline Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health - Is it the time to end further research? Abstract: On March 2nd of this year the results of a study by the Royal Adelaide Hospital were released which found, "No Evidence for Cancer Link with Powerlines", and has been quoted as confirmation that it "should be of great peace of mind to the many thousands of people who live near or under powerlines." On July 3rd 1997 The U.S. National Cancer Institute's Linet study was released which "found no evidence that magnetic fields (EMFs) in the home increase the risk for the most common form of childhood cancer." On October 31st. 1996 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council issued a review of the EMF literature and concluded that "there is no conclusive and consistent evidence showing that exposure to residential electric and magnetic fields produces cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental defects." Largely on the basis of these three studies, there are calls in Australia and the U.S. to put an end to further research into the possible adverse biological effects from human exposure to powerline frequency EMFs. However, a careful examination of the limitations of these three studies does not support this conclusion. ************************************************************************* Protective action or more research? At what point does the weight of evidence warrant some form of protective action for both home and occupational exposures? This question was addressed by Les Dalton, author of Radiation Exposures, in paper on ethics of radiation exposures: "At some point a growing body of evidence of an association between a disease and a biologically active agent raises ethical as well as scientific questions. The ethical questioning becomes more pertinent if exposure is involuntary rather than voluntary. A genuine scientific urge to resolve uncertainties over association between an imposed exposure and an incidence of disease, in a study population, cannot be allowed to obscure the fact that continued exposure takes on some aspect of human experimentation. At some point we have to decide who should have the benefit of the doubt, those who are exposed to, or those who emit, the agent in question". 9) Conclusions As a direct result of the U.S. National Academy of Science/National Research Council's report in 1995, the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Linet study in 1996, and now in Australia, the Royal Adelaide Hospital ELF mice study, we see calls for the ending of further research into possible adverse human health effects from exposure to powerline frequency electromagnetic fields. This call is not justified upon careful examination of these three studies. When one considers the totality of current evidence now available, there are indications that a risk may indeed exist. That risk may be small when compared to other risks in our modern society, but important due to its pervasive nature and possibility of serious consequences for affected individuals. For medical practitioners who are dealing with patients on a daily basis, there is the possibility that some of their patients may be adversely affected by prolonged exposure to powerline magnetic fields in excess of 2 to 3 milliGauss (NCRP-Wertheimer). The extent of that possibility is uncertain. It may be that only a small subset of the population is affected by these fields. It may be that the 50-60 Hertz sinusoidal wave is not the active agent, but that transients riding on that wave may be the active agent. Most research has centered on the magnetic component of the electromagnetic field. It may be that in situations of exposure to the electric field, adverse effects may also occur. For now, any conclusive answers to the question on the possible adverse effects of exposure to these fields must remain an uncertainty. However, it is the opinion of the authors that when the totality of existing scientific evidence is considered, a recommendation to patients (when there are indications of possible excessive EMF exposure), to avoid or lessen this exposure, would not be unwarranted. This could be considered a Precautionary Principle, which in this case could be defined as: The precautionary principle should guide medical practitioners when confronted by potential threats to human health. The lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent exposure to these potential threats. If measures generally reducing exposure can be taken at reasonable expense and with reasonable consequences in all other respects, an effort should be made to reduce exposures to a level below that level which evidence indicates may be harmful to health. Copyright: March 1998 Don Maisch EMFacts Information Service PO Box 96, North Hobart Tasmania 7002 Australia Fax: +61 (3) 6243 0340 e-mail: emfacts@tassie.net.au http://www.tassie.net.au/emfacts/ Bruce Rapley Bioelectromagnetic Research And Information Network of New Zealand. Suite 2, 37 Ferguson Street. Palmerston North New Zealand Fax: +64 6 3571079 ********************************** 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