Subject:  Re Inconsistency...... (fwd)
Date:     Tue, 19 May 1998 023813 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 03:19:40 EDT
From: Cogreslab 
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Re: Inconsistency......

Roy, I liked Abe's letter.  [that's Dr. A. R. Liboff....guru] 

The point to make to him is that the new Linet findings effectively support
the view that it is the electric field, not the magnetic which would be
implicated in the appliances listed. I stick to my view that the utilities
have been suppressing the importance of the electric field for decades, and
thereby have fooled the bioelectromagnetics community into focusing in the
direction of magnetic field (to which, as the geomagnetic field,  we have been
exposed since creation). ****Only the ambient alternating electric fields
are a novel influence on the planet, and affect inter alia the major
electric field related processes operated by the brain and the heart. ****

When you start looking at the (much less frequent) electric field literature
the case for bioeffects from weak field levels strengthens immensely. Even
today my study is the only one in the residential studies literature reporting
measured electric fields in childhood leukaemia bedplaces, (and the only one
which reports a firm dose response relationship). 

Abe's Cyclotron resonance hypothesis can be equally applied to the e-field, so
Valeri Lednev tells me.


Best, Roger



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