Subject: Re Panel Links EMF Exposure To Breast Cancer (fwd)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 111801 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
Guru received a number of good comments in response to the weekend message
that forwarded Cathy's press release regarding breast cancer. I thank
all of you. Below, I have forwarded one of the comments with a brief
statement by guru that follows....
I also appreciated receiving from some of you information about the
"RACHEL" commentaries concerning breast cancer. That is an excellent
service, which we have quoted a number of times before.... To give
the author, Peter Montague, his due ... I intend to forward separately
one of his chapters with a brief comment.....
Be sure and read Dr. John Goldsmith's valuable response below.....
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...............................................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 08:51:41 +0200 (IST)
From: John Goldsmith
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Cc: emfguru@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Panel Links EMF Exposure To Breast Cancer (fwd)
Dear Roy:
Thanks for the material on "EMF and Breast Cancer", a topic I have
been following with interest. The Data I know of refer to 60 cycle
exposure, often abbreviated as ELF. I have not yet seen comparable
results with radio-frequency exposures. The exposures, technical
challenges and effects of low frequency (50-60cycle) and Radio-Frequency
(kilohertz to megahertz) are different, and sooner or later the public
reaction and technical approaches to public health protection will differ.
Guru could help his insiders at least make a clear distinction. EMF is
too broad a term to describe what in fact should be either ELF or RF.
John Goldsmith Epidemiology
Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the
Negev, POB 653, Beer Sheva 84 120 Israel. gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
***************
Guru comments on above:
I (and most of the other EMF "pros" within this list) are in substantial
agreement with what Dr. Goldsmith has written, I'm sure.
None of us want to start one of those (fruitless and presently
unresolvable) arguments as to "which" is the more harmful: ELF or RF -- or
MW for that matter......
I do consider that Dr. Goldsmith is justified when he suggests that
the use of the term "EMF" (historically identified by some as referring
only to the power line, ELF frequency, problem) is tending to obscure the
possible importance of biological interaction in other frequencies, the RF
and MW frequencies in particular. That should not be the case because
there is nothing about the use of the term "EMF" that means one is only
talking about the ELF frequencies.....
Guru believes that: based on the evidence NOW available, it is not
possible to say WHICH frequency band may be the more harmful, but it IS
now possible to say that "health impacting" biological interaction is
being found to some degree THROUGHOUT the formerly identified
"nonionizing" frequency bands of the electromagnetic radiation (EMR)
spectrum. All we have to do ... is look for it! We are finding it!!
That we did not find it before is largely a consequence of NOT LOOKING
FOR IT!!!
That -- it seems to me -- is the important point we should all focus on.
And ... remember ... those frequency "bands" are not something _nature_
delineated. They are MAN's delineation ... and in terms of their
physical/biological properties ... they may all _act the same_ in
nature's world!!! It is just that man has ONLY BEGUN to understand
"nature's world" on this score.....
Guru's suggestion is that when Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper identified
the "ELF/childhood leukemia" problem in Denver in 1979, they were actually
pinpointing a _very small tip of a very large iceberg_ ... which a few
prescient observers (like Dr. Bob Becker) had predicted a few years
earlier. (And which, I might add, the Russians had been "experimenting
with" for more than two decades earlier ... AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT KNEW
IT!!!!!!)
At this point ... the message that must be "broadcast" to the public is
that: Science, the medical community and GOVERNMENTS have all ASSUMED
since the dawn of the electrical/electronic age that the "nonionizing"
frequencies are biologically benign....... We now know ... THAT is simply
not true!!!!!
I wrote a letter to a newsman some time ago, trying to encourage him to
get on this story. "It is the biggest science story since E=MC(squared),"
I wrote. I continue to believe that...........
As a "public health" environmental issue, the "EMF issue" (in its total
EMR spectrum context) DWARFS the champions of the past, like lead or
asbestos or PCBs or the other chemical contaminants ... which are also
serious in their consequences. I am not defending them!
I am merely trying to put this issue into a WORLDWIDE "public health
consequences" perspective ... given the EXPLOSION of EMF "invisible smog"
that has occurred across the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)
over the past twenty years and is occurring at an even greater rate
today...........
Cheerio......
Roy Beavers(EMFguru)
.-
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