Subject: (Markov) Re SF Chron article NIEHS hearing (fwd)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 130859 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 14:01:19 -0400
From: "Dr. Markov"
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: SF Chron article: NIEHS hearing (fwd)
Hi all,
At "World News" on CNN at October 1, 1998 between 8:30 and 9 p.m EST
was a report from San Francisco. I believe from the same meeting you
talk about. They said "this is true, but it may not be true". You may
put whatever meening for "this" and you will see what this reporter and
his "experts" said. The faces of those experts I never saw at BEMS or
DOE meetings which basically deal professionally with the hazard of EMF.
Somebody in the media search for credit, this is all.
Dr. Marko Markov
Roy L. Beavers wrote:
>
> .......The following news story was not done by a particularly
> enterprising reporter. If it had been, perhaps that reporter would
> have found out that Patricia Buffler (quoted authoritatively below) is
> (in fact) defending her own earlier involvement in research (funded,
> I believe, by the electric industry) which attempted to show that the
> EMF health hazard is bogus..... But which failed to do so.....
>
> Her quotation should be read as the self-serving statement which it
> is........
>
> Moreover, 'our reporter' states that some whom he interviewed (at this
> meeting) were of the opinion "that the 1997 report was closer to the
> mark." If 'our reporter' had actually pulled out that 1997 report, he
> would have seen that its finding concerning __childhood leukemia and
> proximity to power lines__ was virtually the same as the NIEHS report.....
> Not surprisingly, in both cases essentially the same dozen or so
> epidemiological studies were reviewed.... Thus, one may conclude,
> tending to validate both the studies and the panels conducting the
> review (There was some overlap of personnel in the two panels, but not
> enough to be decisive.)......
>
> It doesn't seem to matter how much ***condemning EMF evidence*** is
> presented or by whom -- the press is not going to report that evidence ...
> without going to some industry-backed scientists to obtain rebutting
> statements...... Thus adding to the publics confusion and
> uncertainty about a subject that is already confusing enough without
> press collusion in reinforcing that uncertainty..... The statements of
> doubt, by those who were not even present at the 10 day working group
> meeting in Minneapolis, are purely and simply given for the purpose of
> ingratiating the speaker with the electric industry -- thus insuring the
> future flow of _consulting fees, expert witness fees, research money and
> endowments_!!! It doesn't take much of a reporter to find plenty of
> "copy" like that......guru......
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 08:55:57 -0700
> From: dingel@concentric.net
> To: emfguru
> Subject: SF Chron article: NIEHS hearing
>
> New Report on Electric Fields Draws Criticism, Some Support
>
> Carl T. Hall, Chronicle Science Writer
>
> Friday, October 2, 1998
> ©1998 San Francisco Chronicle
>
> Mixed reviews greeted a federal task force in San Francisco yesterday
> after the panel raised new concerns about the possible cancer-causing
> effects of everyday encounters with electromagnetic fields.
>
> Some public-health experts questioned the objectivity of the task
> force, sponsored by the National Institute of Environmental Health
> Sciences.
>
> About 50 people turned out for a public hearing on the volatile issue
> of whether living and working around power lines, computers and
> communications equipment may be contributing to such diseases as childhood
> leukemia and breast cancer.
>
> The hearing in downtown San Francisco follows the release of a report
> by the government-sponsored task force that differed sharply from the key
> conclusion of a 1997 National Academy of Sciences report.
>
> After an extensive review of the scientific literature, the 1997 study
> found minimal evidence of any health risks due to so-called extremely
> low-frequency electromagnetic fields.
>
> But the majority of members on the new task force, after looking back
> over essentially the same data, concluded that those same invisible energy
> fields -- as common as toasters and cell phones -- should be considered
> ``possibly carcinogenic to humans.''
>
> Some experts, including those who testified during yesterday's
> hearing, and several interviewed separately, insisted that the 1997 report
> was closer to the mark.
>
> J.D. Jackson, a researcher at the Lawrence Berkeley National
> Laboratory, was one of several experts who said that some of his peers may
> be trying to fan public worry about electromagnetic field (EMF) hazards in
> part because that would justify juicier research grants.
>
> Patricia Buffler, dean emeritus of the School of Public Health at the
> University of California at Berkeley, said there are ``unresolved
> questions'' about the risks of exposure, particularly in terms of
> childhood leukemia.
>
> But she insisted that the task force is taking the wrong approach by
> reanalyzing what has already been done.
>
> ``This dubious process does not help at all,'' she said, adding that
> the important answers depend on the outcome of major studies under way.
> ``It serves to alarm the public.''
>
> But public-health advocates testifying during yesterday's hearing said
> a heightened sense of urgency is just what is needed.
>
> ``What needs to be considered is the human costs,'' said Howard
> Egeman, a local safety officer for the American Federation of Government
> Employees, who likened the hidden dangers of EMF to those of asbestos.
>
> ``I'm very concerned about this -- and very worried,'' said Patricia
> Carey of San Francisco.
>
> She said she suspects her 45- year-old daughter is suffering the ill
> effects of spending too much time near a high-powered antenna. But Carey
> conceded that her daughter, who also smokes, doesn't agree.
>
> ``She just thinks she's working too hard,'' Carey said.
>
> ©1998 San Francisco Chronicle Page A2
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