Subject: A further analyis of the Linet (NCI) study (Maxey)..
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 105821 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info.
--------------407CF58696858DB4FBFBAF84
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Content-ID:
Hi everybody:
=2E......Does everybody remember the Linet study? You should -- it was
mentioned (though not by name) last Sunday in the Sunday Times article.
It was the study they were referring to when they referred to a recent
study in the U.S. which found "no EMF effects," but which (as they=20
hinted) did not stand up well under the scrutiny of other experts who=20
knew "what to look for" when they got the actual data -- rather than=20
the 'words' as written by the researcher, Dr. Martha Linet of NCI.
(In fairness, some of us suspect that she didn't write the misleading
conclusions -- that was probably done by the "publicity" people....)
You may also remember that the Linet study became the launching platform
for a barrage of public propaganda statements -- traceable back to the
vested interests -- (including an editorial in the New England
Journal of Medicine) which claimed that (because of the Linet study
results) ... there was no good reason to spend more money on researching
EMF health hazards, particularly a link to cancer.....
Well, without recalling all the unfortunate details, the bottom line is
that the Linet study didn't turn out to be much of a study, really, as the
subsequent close analysis of the actual data proved..... (Though that
analysis did find that Linet's work confirmed a cancer/EMF linkage at
about 3 mG of exposure -- even though she had not recognized it.....)
Below you will find another -- very damning -- condemnation of that study,
taken from an altogether different analytical approach..... A "proving"
or "disproving" of the 'purely' mathematical PROBABILITY that it could be
accurate -- or inaccurate as the case may be..... =20
Dr. Ed Maxey of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is the author of this analytical
approach ... which has been accomplished with some considerable help from
"a politician" who was needed to "wrestle free" the information -- that
NCI did not want to have made public..... Good work, Ed ... and to your
political friend..... (Tell him there is still a great deal more he could
do to help this cause.....)
(After a few weeks time, I plan to include this item in the
"Research" file on guru's website.... In the meantime, comment or
rebuttal is welcome.....)
Cheerio......
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com
=2E....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness....=
=2E
NEW!!! Website
=2E..................People are more important than profits................=
=2E
DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST???
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:45:13 -0600
From: Edward Maxey
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Freedom of Information Act
Hello Roy Beavers and others,
Here is a report which may be of interest.
Cordially,
Ed Maxey
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
by
E. Stanton Maxey, M.D., F.A.C.S.
"RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE TO MAGNETIC FIELDS AND ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC
LEUKEMIA IN CHILDREN" appeared in the July 1, 1997, New England Journal
of Medicine.
The article concluded,
"Our results provide little evidence that living in homes
characterized by high measured time-weighted average magnetic-field levels
or by high-est wire-code category increases the risk of ALL in children."
Table 2 of the paper contains:
Magnetic-Field
Level (mG) No. Of Case Patients
<0.65 267
0.65-0.99 123
1.00-1.99 151
=3D>2.00 83
The median magnetic-field level for these 624 cases can not be
determined from the table. Inquiries to Martha S. Linet at the National
Cancer Institute remain unanswered.
A Freedom of Information action was filed on May 7, 1999, asking for the
precise magnetic-field level of these 624 cases. The action lay dormant
until United States Senator Tim Hutchinson interceded on August 23, 1999.
The requested data arrived on November 27, 1999. What follows was made
possible by Senator Hutchinson's intervention and sincere thanks are
extended to him.
Let us be clear about the term median. WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY
defines median as, "Designating a point so chosen in a series that half
of the individuals in the series are on one side of it, and half on the
other." If one knew the median of the leukemia victims homes and this
median proved to be the same as that of homes all across the nation one
could affirm that there is indeed no evidence that 60 Hertz magnetic
fields are causal to childhood leukemia.
The national median was determined by the Electric Power Research
Institute in 1993, as follows:
Table S-6
Spot Measurements and Combined Power Line/Grounding System Fields
Median Spot Median Combined Field
Measurement Power Line/Grounding
System
(992 residences) (986 residences)
Values exceeded in (mG) (mG)
50% of the residences 0.5 0.5
25% of the residences 1.0 1.0
10% of the residences 1.7 1.8
5% of the residences 2.6 2.5
1% of the residences 5.8 5.5
from EPRI TR-102759-V2
Project 3335-02
Final Report
September 1993
Page S-18
Half of the 992 homes having time-weighted values at or under 0.5 mG
satisfies the definition of the term median. However, the table's
resolution is only to 0.1 mG. Thus, 0.5 mG could be anything between 0.45
and 0.55 mG.
Accordingly, in the calculations below, 0.55 mG will be taken as
national median, thus giving the Linet study the best possible comparative
figure.
The raw data from the NCI was computer sorted in terms of ascending
time-weighted average. This table is appended below. Here one may find:
311 0.073 NJ
312 0.074 IL
313 0.076 MI
Case # 312, at the middle of the 624 total number, had a time-weighted
average of 0.74 mG (the table being in microtesla) and was from Illinois.
The preceding case from New Jersey was 0.01 mG lower and the succeeding
case from Michigan was 0.02 mG higher.
Clearly, the 0.74 median of Linet's 624 cases is significantly higher
than the 0.55 median of EPRI's 992 homes. Could chance alone account for
this difference? If so, how likely is it that chance rather than elevated
time-weighted magnetic fields produced these results?
Christoph Reuss, a Swiss mathematician, in a June 14, 1998, email
message wrote, "The probability of 267 or less heads appearing after a
basket of 624 coins was overturned is:
P [H<=3D267] =3D 1/2^624 * SUM(k=3D0..267) (624! / (624-k)! / k!)
=3D 0.0001795451715
=3D 1/5569.629033"
Prof. John Clark, a now retired mathematician who taught computer
science at Orange Coast College, wrote a computer program in PASCAL. It
performs the equation conveyed by Christoph Reuss. This equation solves
the question posed in the preceding paragraph.
Since the 60 Hertz magnetic field median is higher than that of the EPRI
median one needs to determine how many leukemia cases occurred in homes
at or below the EPRI median of 0.55 mG discussed above. If one returns to
the sorted table one finds that there were 219 cases under 0.56 mG (0.056
=E6T).
What is the probability that chance alone would place only 219 out
of 624 cases on one side of the median when approximately 312 would be
expected? Here is the computed solution as seen on the computer screen.
Please enter your Total Case number now 624
Please enter your Questioned Case number now 219
The results are
NUMERATOR =3D 2.99006405675314E+0174
DENOMINATOR =3D 6.96173189944793E+0187
QUOTIENT =3D 4.29500029581757E-0014
RECIPROCAL =3D 2.32828854743920E+0013
The probability of chance yielding 219 or less
Questioned Cases out of 624 Total Cases is one
in 23,282,885,474,392.
The Linet raw data reveals a 23,282,885,474,392 to one probability that
elevated 60 Hz time-weighted 60 Hertz magnetic fields are in some manner
causal to childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
This analysis is strengthened by noting the similarities of the EPRI
study to that of Linet at the NCI. Both used time-weighted averages. The
NCI study had cases from eleven states, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
The EPRI study does not list states but instead provides the names of
the twenty-two electric utilities which participated in gathering the
data.
A preliminary internet study of these companies shows that their evaluated
residences were in at least nine of the same eleven states as the Linet
study.
Accordingly, the median values for their residences and those for the
NCI would be expected to be quite close if 60 Hertz magnetic fields were
in no way causal to childhood leukemia. But they are not!
What is the remedy? One might begin by applying the physics known to
Michael Faraday more than a century ago. Supply and return currents
should be kept in close proximity so that their magnetic fields cancel.
Instead, the WYE distribution system in our country conducts return
currents on water gas and sewer pipes, on metal sheaths of TV and
telephone cables, and on any other metallic path available.
Legislation to restrict electric power delivery to a power company's
lines would go a long way toward reducing 60 Hertz magnetic fields in
homes and working environments.
This writer wishes to again express his gratitude to Senator Tim
Hutchinson for fostering the delivery of the Linet raw data. Without that
data this could not have been written.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Addendum
Christoph Reuss in a November 29, 1999, emailing wrote:
".... For now, I'm confirming your 23,282,885,474,392 figure
and attaching a visualisation of the data you sent me ...."
His EMF.GIF is attached herewith.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SORTED RAW DATA TABLE
//////snip-snip////// [.....Removed for mass transmission. May be
obtained from Dr. Maxey......guru.....]
--------------407CF58696858DB4FBFBAF84--
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com