Subject:  (Coghill) (Maxey) Linet & McBride vs. EPRI (fwd)
Date:     Tue, 4 May 1999 181312 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 19:00:43 EDT
From: Cogreslab@aol.com
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Re: (Maxey) Linet & McBride vs. EPRI (fwd)

Dear Dr Maxey,

It is important to realise that in such studies we are inevitably dealing not 
only with an alternating magnetic field but also with an electric field. Both 
these studies have avoided collecting or analysing electric field data. This 
deliberate avoidance of electric fields (where the plausibility both in terms 
of physics and biology is easy to connect with bioeffects), is the common 
denominator.

When will people replicate our study of the measured electric field and its 
clear dose response relationship with childhood leukaemia, and thereby 
confirm that the electric component is the active parameter in these epi 
studies?

Ref. Coghill, Steward et al., Europ. J. Cancer Prevention 5: (1996)




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