Subject:  Brief comment about 60-Hz fields (fwd)
Date:     Sun, 30 Nov 1997 125052 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
To:       emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------

Marjorie:

The "historical case" (previously "published") which you outline below, in
my view, ignores the current research (epidemiological, in vitro, and in
vivo) which clearly "implicates," (if it does not totally "condemn") the
60-Hz band.  Just as it also implicates other portions of the nonionizing
radiation (EMR) spectrum for their physical capacity to biologically
interact (adversely) with the cells and tissue of life.  

From the Russians to Becker to Wertheimer to Milham to Adey to Liburdy to
Blackman to Goodman ... and most recently to Litovitz (at San Diego) the
picture that is unfolding is the tip of a giant iceberg that is trying to
tell us:  Hey!  You haven't been noticing through the first 100 years of
the electrical/electronic age ... but the electrons of this process are
doing "something" -- perhaps through "resonating-with" or perhaps through
"disrupting" the electrons of human cells -- that can disrupt normal
chemical processes which, in turn, CAN redound (through the biological
cascade) to have an ADVERSE impact on human health.....  

The "worst" impact appears to include life threatening conditions like
brain cancer or leukemia; while the lessor impact may be conditions having
to do with neuro system disorders like Alzheimer's Disease or the group of
symptoms that lump together to describe what is known as ES 
(electrosensitivity).

That is the paradigm we are being forced to confront.

It is also true, that SOMETIMES (particularly if we learn how to "guide"
or control the resonating or disrupting electrons) that process may lead
to FAVORABLE health consequences......

The evidence that is telling us the above ... is becoming so voluminous
it can almost be described as "encyclopedic."  [My Wertheimer _et al_
"list" above was not nearly exhaustive.  There are many others who deserve
to be included.  I hope those whom I overlooked will forgive me...]

That we are diligently trying to ignore this new and urgently important
paradigm is a function of our political and social system ... not the
science!!!  

[It is also unfortunate that the one partially government-funded research
program, the RAPID program, was designed in such a way as to focus
attention on the "power lines issue" to the exclusion of all the rest.
Certainly, one of the recommendations that must come out of "RAPID" is not
only to GREATLY expand our research in dollar amount to learn more about
the "parameters" of this phenomenon ... but also in scope ... to include
the WHOLE of the nonionizing spectrum -- with urgent emphasis on the
cellular phones frequencies.]

While it is true that ... what we KNOW at this point is really only the
one truth: At existing environmental levels of "nonionizing" EMF exposure
... biological interaction CAN occur that can result in adverse health
consequences.   Still, the implications of that truth are enormous.......
And.......

.......Because we know virtually NONE of the important parameters which
will give that truth a "shape" in defining the hazard boundaries, or,
indeed a usefulness in society's body of knowledge; the next step, gaining
that knowledge about those parameters which will enable us to "live safely
and wisely" with electricity, becomes a matter of the highest priority.....

*********

Marjorie, I have some questions about the history you cite below.  I have
juxtaposed some questions in the text.....

Cordially......

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...............................................

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:26:48 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" 
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
Subject: Brief comment about 60-Hz fields (fwd)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:06:49 -0600
From: "Marjorie A. Lundquist" 
To: rbeavers@mail.llion.org
Subject: Brief comment about 60-Hz fields

 Roy, this is just a brief comment about 60-Hz fields to address your
skepticism about the "innocence" of 60-Hz fields.
 One reason I am convinced that 60-Hz fields by themselves do not pose a
hazard to health is that before 1911, there was no power line carrier on
electric power lines.  That means that radio-frequency fields did NOT
surround electric power lines in the 19th century, or in the first decade
of the 20th century.
 If 60-Hz fields were capable of causing disease, complaints would have
been reported during the 19th century.  

***[Were we keeping such records in the nineteenth century?  And were they
of such quality that they would have invited our attention to the problem,
given the MUCH lower -- individually and collectively -- exposures to EMF
at all frequencies at that time?  Remember, central system electrical
service first "appeared" in the 1880s.  It was a LONG, LONG way (and
time!) from that ... (in the 1940s,50s my home in Missouri had four 15
watt fuses, a total of 60 watts; today all homes are being built with 200
watts and more than that is not uncommon...) ... to the electric ovens,
washer-dryers, microwave cookers, heat pumps and garage door openers of
today!!!  The big national "transmission system" -- the GRID -- actually
got off to a fairly slow start in the 1950s after WWII.  Then, it
literally "took off" sometime in the 1960s.  Why was it so slow in getting
started?  Because the war effort had "used up" most of the necessary
material and had altered the production capacity to other things.]

The voltage used then is much the
same as today; the current in the power lines was probably lower then than
it is today, but the current in appliances would have been much the same
as it is today (or possibly even greater, since we now strive for energy
efficiency).

***[Are you assuming that the home "appliances" are a major part of the 
exposure problem????]

People who use an electric device often spend lots of time close to it.
A good example is a woman who cooks on an electric stove.  Women probably
spent more time cooking in the 19th and early 20th century than they do
today, so if 60-Hz fields were hazardous, we should have seen our worst
cases of disease in women from that time period who cooked on electric
stoves.

***[For most of the U.S. population (perhaps even more-so outside the
U.S.) electric stoves, etc., are clearly a "post WWII" case; not related
to the 19th century or even the first part of this century.  On the other
hand, I am struck by the fact that some of the most damning EMF research
results are those that show a high association of women "workers" in
factories at "electric sewing machines" and the high incidence of
Alzheimer's.  A 60-Hz case, clearly.]


 So if 60-Hz current were responsible for the diseases that I attribute
to RF fields around power lines, we would have seen these diseases early
on.  The hazard would have been present from the beginning.

***[Again, do we have any data from which we can honestly conclude that
these diseases were NOT occurring?  I believe such data as there may be ...
will show that these diseases were there, but we didn't make the EMF
association because the "incidence" was still too low (due to the modest
levels of exposure) for us to see it within the "noise level" of the
data????  The "explosion" in public exposure to EMF hazards of all EMR
bands began after World War II ... and has particularly been accelerating
since the 1970s......]

 And people were not shy about reporting their suspicions back then!  You
can be sure that if there had been ANY suspicion at all of a health haz-
ard from electricity, there would have been a lot of publicity in the
newspapers and magazines of the day.  But there is nothing there!

***[I don't think you can make the case that the public was (or would have
been) any more prescient about the negative impact of EMF than they were
about lead or half a dozen other environmental hazards which -- in
virtually every case -- the public was the last to know!!!  One obvious
exception:  breast implants!!  Perhaps there is a good reason for that
exception.....]


 The pattern of the appearance of these diseases does NOT parallel the
historical growth in the use of electricity.  

***[Data?]

It DOES parallel the growth
in the use of power line carrier on electric power lines.

***[Data?]

 I am not going to argue about whether 60-Hz fields are harmful IN THE
PRESENCE OF RF FIELDS because I don't know the answer.  It is certainly
possible that 60-Hz field exposure may have some effect when one is al-
ready being exposed to RF fields.  There is considerable evidence in the
scientific literature to indicate that exposure at one frequency can in-
crease or decrease the effects of exposure at another frequency.  So per-
haps 60-Hz fields do indeed pose some hazard to organisms that are exposed
at the same time to RF fields.
 Remember that I focus my attention on the PREVENTION of disease.  I am
still satisfied that we do not have to worry about adverse health effects
from exposure to 60-Hz fields by themselves.  

[Marjorie, honestly, I feel that you have a very weak case -- basing it on
"history" while ignoring all the other research.]

Cheerio......

Roy







.-


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