Subject:  Re Exposure recommendations (Lundquist)..
Date:     Tue, 30 May 2000 143148 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------


.........I don't want to start forwarding all the technical calculations 
that  are likely to be forthcoming on this issue -- but this one seems to
have some merit......  I agree with Marjorie's main premise -- that we 
don't really have much "hard data" to start with.....  So, why should we
argue about where we end up -- so long as we are prudently on the "safe"
side.....

I was in the nuclear weapons business (military) soon after WW II.
I remember that the "exposure standards" we were allowed to reach
on our personal "dosimeters" (which measured the exposure on a daily or
weekly basis) ... changed substantially during that period of time....

We used to joke that "we ought to be dead" because the standard changed
and perhaps we had already exceeded the new standard.....  None of us
(in my unit) had any ill effects -- ever -- to my knowledge.....  Though
there are many "tales" of accidents that did happen......

Cheerio.....  (Marj and Hans had a good exchange here.....)

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)           You gotta SHOWME -- I'm from Missouri....
roy@emfguru.com

.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
                    NEW!!! Website... http://emfguru.com
...................People are more important than profits.................


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 30 May 00 13:16:52 MDT
From: MARJORIE LUNDQUIST 
To: Hans Karow 
Cc: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Re: [your rec. EMR value]

Hans, I can't send you my submission just now, but here is how I arrived
at the value of 10 picoW/sq.cm.

Go to the emf guru's Web site (www.emfguru.com) and click on "EMF??" and
then click on Hyland's memo.  Go to Section 13 of that memo.  In that
section Hyland presents a number of low values at which effects have been
reported.

My submission to the IEGMP was commenting on the Hyland memo.  I took
the smallest value Hyland had listed -- 0.0028 microW/sq.cm. -- and
divided it by 100.  This was not to introduce a safety factor, but rather
because the response curve has the shape of a peaked curve (like a
resonance curve) and the underlying phenomenon responsible for this curve
is almost certainly "stochastic resonance" which I have been told by one
of the researchers in the field (who is a personal friend) extends over
about two decades of power density values.  [Two decades would be from 1
to 100, or from 1 to 1/100, because 100 equals 10 squared.]

Then I introduced a small safety factor by rounding the resulting value
down to 10 picoW/sq.cm. [replacing "28" with "10"].

This is simple, straightforward, and elementary; also unsophisticated.  I
expect some people would say it is "unscientific" but the fact is that there
is very little in the way of a factual basis for the establishment of ANY
standard!  So whatever method is used to establish a standard is necessarily
going to be crude, at present.

I don't want to criticize Dr. Cherry's proposed value.  It may or may not
turn out to be a better choice than my value.  The point is, at present we
don't know which is better, except on the basis that "lower is better"
(which would make my value more protective than Dr. Cherry's).

What I have done is simply to take the available data, make some
conservative assumptions based on existing scientific knowledge, and
arrive at a value.  I have probably taken a little more care than Dr.
Cherry has to be conservative
(in the sense of making errors in a direction that would cause my value
to be too low, so that it would have to be increased when errors were
corrected).  

I wanted a value that people could feel could be trusted to be truly
protective, maybe more so than was actually needed.

I hope this answers your question. -- Marjorie
*********************************
Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H.
Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist
P. O. Box 11831
Milwaukee, WI  53211-0831  USA
*********************************
========================
"Hans Karow"  wrote:

> --------------------------------------------- 
>	Attachment:  
>	MIME Type: multipart/alternative 
> --------------------------------------------- 
Marjorie,

thanks for the message to Guru re recommendation of the EMR value to
IEGMP group.

A chance that you can send me the whole text you sent to Sir W.
Stewart's group?

I am interested the reasoning why you recommendet that value.

Thanks, Hans.


____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1



Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com