Subject: Reply to your criticism of my "RF only" hypothesis (fwd)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 144444 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
Marjorie (Dr. Marjorie Lundquist) and I have a "pretty good" debate
going.... I am pleased to forward Marjorie's latest response below. I
think, here, she is making a "pretty good" point.....
Keep at it, Margie!!!!
Cheerio to all..... Hope you all had a GREAT holiday......
(I'm going to shut this machine down now for the rest of the holiday....)
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...............................................
DO YOU KNOW OTHER PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE INCLUDED ON THIS LIST??????
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:32:59 -0600
From: "Marjorie A. Lundquist"
To: rbeavers@mail.llion.org
Subject: Reply to your criticism of my "RF only" hypothesis
Roy, here is the reason I have been ignoring the research that so greatly
impresses you (and others). Where do most research scientists get their
60-Hz fields from?
The answer to this question is not always clear when one reads the pub-
lsihed scientific papers. But a great many of them probably get it from
"the mains"; that is, from their local electric utility. But 60-Hz fields
from this source are contaminated with RF fields from power line carrier,
in all probability!
This is why I don't want to waste my time on the 60-Hz research (unless
someone is willing to hire me to do a critical review of the scientific
literature). I'd bet that 95% of the published scientific research on the
bioeffects of 60-Hz EMF was REALLY done with RF-CONTAMINATED 60-Hz fields,
in which case the bioeffects reported may have been caused by the RF field
instead of the 60-Hz field to which it was attributed in the written re-
port.
My guess is that if an attempt were made to replicate the published
studies of bioeffects or health effects of exposure to 60-Hz EMF using
UNCONTAMINATED 60-Hz fields, the reported health effects could not be
discovered. There would be no sign of them. That is what I expect.
The only studies to which I could give credence would be ones in which
the source of 60-Hz fields quite clearly could NOT be contaminated with
power line carrier. I don't believe I have seen such a study anywhere in
the published scientific literature.
Most published scientific studies either don't say where the 60-Hz fields
came from, or it is pretty clear that they used power from the local elec-
tric utility, which I assume is contaminated with RF unless it can be
proved that this is NOT the case. So I consider that most of the publish-
ed scientific studies on bioeffects of exposure to 60-Hz fields are not
worth reading.
I think you and many others are being entirely too credulous. Scientists
do make mistakes. Not all scientific papers can be taken at face value.
The big value of my paper on power line carrier is that it proves that
major, big-name scientists have made a major, big-time error that invali-
dates their research findings! (So long as a question can be raised re-
garding the conditions under which their experiments were done, a shadow
is cast on the validity of their research results--not on their data, but
on its interpretation. It is not my responsibility to prove that their
60-Hz fields WERE contaminated; it is their responsibility to prove that
their 60-hz fields were NOT contaminated.) -- Marjorie
***************************************************************************
Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H.
Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist
P. O. Box 11831 Milwaukee, WI 53211-0831 USA
e-mail: marjorie@omnifest.uwm.edu
***************************************************************************
.-
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