Subject: SF Chron article NIEHS hearing (fwd)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 115328 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
.......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