Subject: (Karow) NIEHS Report ELF-EMF Class 2B carcinogen (fwd)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 040727 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
.......Hans, there are a number of well qualified experts in Canada....
Mike Milburn comes to mind (author of 'Electromagnetic Fields and Your
Health')......guru......
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:32:08 -0800
From: Hans Karow
To: "'rbeavers@llion.org'"
Subject: NIEHS Report: ELF-EMF Class 2B carcinogen
Dear Roy and all
Re: NIEHS EMF Class 2B human carcinogen requirements
As we have been informed through Guru's subscription site, the US
Government National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
Working Group have concluded that Extreme Low Frequency (ELF) EMFs are
possible carcinogens to humans ("Class 2B", evaluation method of the
International Agency for Research on Cancer)
see also : http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/home/htm
Question:
1. What else is listed in Class 2B, ( I am looking for all items in Class
2B) please give references or websites where to find it
2. Are there any requirements for Class 2B items, like warning labels,
banning of these items, etc?also please provide references or websites
3. If these requirements are supposed to be set independently by the
countries,
a) are they independently set on the federal level
b) are they independently set on the provincial/State level?
I appealed a recent decision from the Utilities Commission with regards of
a new proposed transmission line application, which appeal was accepted,
and I based my appeal besides others also on the recent NIEHS Class 2B
conclusion (see above).
The Commission's decision with regards of the EMF issue in my appeal was
the following:
"Mr. Karow cited the recently published report by the National Institute
of Environmental health Sciences ("NIEHS") as resulting in a fundamental
change in circumstances or fact since the Commission's Decision [meaning
the Decision after the public hearing...Hans].
// snip //
"Members of the Working Group voted 19 to 9 for the "possible human
carcinogen" designation, as defined by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer ("IARC"}. No members of the working group supported the
two stronger categories of "probable" or "known" human carcinogen
designation.
The EMFRAPID research, consisting primarily of animal exposure studies and
other laboratory research, was found to be largely negative. rather, the
Working Group's conclusion was primarily based on "limited evidence" in
some epidemiological studies that examined disease incidence in human
populations.
The report states that:
'Limited evidence' is not an unusual finding for epidemiological data in
the IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. This
degree of evidence is generally provided by studies for which there is
credible evidence of an association and for which a causal linkage cannot
be established with a high degree of certainty. This does not mean the
effect is weak, nor does it mean there is clearly an effect, although these
issues enter into the evaluation. In most cases, this degree of evidence is
associated with one or more of the following problems: questionable
identification of the exposure factor(s) associated with the disease
outcome (either a dose surrogate was used or individuals were
missclassified as to their exposure category), bias may have played a small
role in the finding, confounders were not ruled out to the satisfaction of
the original investigator and/or the Working Group, the observed effect was
small, making clear detection of an effect difficult, and/or there is
little information on dose-response in the available report"
(Chapter 5, Final Summary and Evaluation), assessment of Health Effects
from Exposure to Power-Line frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, July
1998.)
The results of this report are not inconsistent with or materially
different from previous reports and the evidence of Mr. Gallagher in the
hearing. Mr. Gallagher, who has reviewed the extensive literature on EMF
and conducted EMF studies in British Columbia, stated in the hearing: "I
would think that we are going to continue with a number of studies over the
next few years which show equivocal results, that is to say very slightly
positive or very slightly negative." (Transcript p.185 [Public Hearing
Transcript]). On this basis the Commission is not persuaded that this
report provides a fundamental change in circumstance or fact from previous
evidence considered by the Commission. Therefore, there are no grounds for
reconsideration based on the NIEHS report."
In another words EMFs are safe whatever their milliGauss level, meaning the
Commission would even declare lead, asbestos, DDT, formaldehyde, PCBs,
dioxin (which I know they belong to Class 2B category?) as being safe, in
spite the government authorities have ordered certain measurement about
these items.
I urgently need answers for my above question and feedback!
I am not giving up to challenge the Commission's EMF position. I need
suggestions who might be best recommended to invite as an independent EMF
expert. There is no one I can think of in Canada, ?so what you think who
might be willing to come to BC, cost will be discussed.
I know, you are all concentrating on cellular microwave issues, please
don't forget the power line EMF issue, if there is anyone else within the
list dealing with a power line struggle I like to exchange my many info and
strategies from two transmission line battles recently. By exchanging info
we safe a lot of time.
Regards, Hans.
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