Subject: (La Duca) NIH Public Comment - DC (fwd)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 022825 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 23:14:05 EDT
From: Sal La Duca
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: NIH Public Comment - DC
Hi Roy,
You might find some thoughts on my DC visit interesting.
I was one of about 28 people scheduled to present public comment in DC.
It was surprising to note that only about 10 showed up. I was beginning
to think that they had received some form of threat letter to prevent
their appearance ...
Of those ten that spoke, about 5 were electric industry affiliates, of
one sort or another, and their general tone was congratulatory, to the
NIH, to the Working Group, and to the "open" process.
Of the other 5 or so that spoke against the process, the dubious results,
and the way the analysis was rigged, I must admit that I was the least
prepared. The others were commenting on personal stories, which were well
rehearsed. I simply spoke regarding the obvious flaws in their logic and
the contradictory information that should tend to support a more positive
cause-and-effect relationship. I was subsequently hounded for business
cards, an event that I must admit I was unprepared for.
Nonetheless I believe my comments are valid, and I offer their essence
forthwith:
------------------
I am not one to attack the electric industry for providing electricity
for power and light, as I have come to appreciate the obvious
conveniences rendered by electric-driven appliances. However, I probably
can object to HOW that electricity has been delivered.
Those within the scientific community have come to know for what has been
a relatively long time that EMFs pose a danger to human health. Those
within the administrative and oversight agencies have been in a stage of
denial for this same length of time, keeping the facts hidden from the
public.
I would like to submit 2 ways why there has been a strong negative bias
in favor of no effect:
1) Due to a Cyclotron Resonance effect which is mainly discredited
by the "steered" physics community, the Geomagnetic field is usually
neglected in Lab Studies. It may be coincidence that the Geomagnetic
field has changed orientation several times, a few millennia apart, and
it may also be circumstantial that species die-offs have coincided with
those same orientation changes (a good place to start is SCIENCE, 1967,
V.158, p.1001, Hays J.D., & Opdyke N.D.), but it is no coincidence that
the Resonance effect tends to influence atomic motion, separate from any
other influence, as the law is well understood (see any good college
Physics text). Could it be that a reduction in this atomic motion, as the
graphic representation of this relationship indicates (for an easy fix to
visualizing the formula from the physics book, look up CROSS CURRENTS,
1990, Becker R.O. p.237), can reduce normal chemical reactions, hampering
the survival of a species? The connection is more than coincidental. As
most Laboratories are enclosed within structures that divert (or reduce)
the Geomagnetic field, study conditions are rendered unrealistic. Because
the background magnetic field is different from lab to lab, and since
alternating magnetic fields interact with the geomagnetic field to
produce conditions that are different form effects produced from
alternating or geomagnetic fields separately, replicability is
essentially voided.
2) Odds Ratios and Relative Risks are deceptive because of the
latency period of up to possibly 20 years (as noted within the Working
Group Report) after a trigger mechanism is produced, before the disease
manifests itself. Epidemiological statistics thus suffer from fundamental
flaws.
Despite these limitations, The EMF Working Group came to the conclusion
that EMFs are carcinogenic, primarily based on Epidemiological data,
which involves real-life conditions, where Electric Fields also play a
part; and despite the conservative conclusion, it was predicated by
International Guidelines for determining carcinogenicity. I suspect this
conclusion was a total surprise to the NIH.
It is embarrassing to have our leaders mislead the general public in such
a fundamental area as concern for human life, when we harp on it so much
to other nations.
We can still redeem ourselves, become pro-active, and possibly save a
bunch of lives. A few suggestions toward this goal follow:
1) We should implement a national program where all schools are
surveyed to identify and correct EMF problems, whether the problem is
owned by the school or the neighboring utilities. We owe this to our kids
as their cellular metabolism runs at a higher rate, and I believe they
are more susceptible to damage because of it.
2) We should implement a national program to survey all public
buildings and take similar corrective action.
3) We Should standardize laboratory research requirements to
include, source(s) of funding, Geomagnetic and Alternating magnetic field
conditions, as well as voltage field conditions, when present.
4) Revision of Epidemiological Statistical methods to take into
account the lack of a real control group.
5) We should revise current exposure standards, that are based on
Calculated effects, to reflect current knowledge such that they provide a
more realistic index of where or when we should be concerned.
ETC . . .
Kindest Regards
Sal
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
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