Subject: Latest U.S. Gov't position on EMF hazards... (Guru)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 114949 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
Take your time with this one. There is a lot here!
My message below reviews a document which has just come into my hands --
a letter written by a middle level official in the Department of
Agriculture. Mr. Thomas L. Eddy is replying to a request from Ms.
Linda S. Statham of Alpharetta, Georgia. She wrote to "her" government
seeking some honest answers to the questions in her mind about the
possible health effects of EMF.
What follows is her government's reply. I have forwarded only the three
key paragraphs of Mr. Eddy's letter that deal with the EMF issue. I have
refrained from the urge to offer commentary in the text.... However, I
do offer a long commentary and criticism of "the government's position"
at the end of Mr. Eddy's letter.
It can be said, "Oh, this letter is just the opinion of a middle level
bureaucrat." True. But, my own experience in the government taught me
that such letters do not go out with out clearance from the "Secretary's
office" at least. And, it is quite possible that -- due to the
controversial nature of the subject matter and the official nature of the
reply -- it was "staffed" up to the White House as well.....
We cannot ever know the facts on that.... One of the "cardinal rules" of
duty in Washington is that one must ALWAYS leave the President in a
position of "plausible deniability." It must NEVER be provable that
he "knew about" or could be held "accountable" in any way on
controversial matters..... That's the way our system works.... Yes, its
a lousy system.
Cheerio.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at:
EMF-L archives can be found at:
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
.........DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST??????...........
(Excerpts from a letter written to Ms. Linda S. Statham of Alpharette,
Georgia, by Mr. Thomas L. Eddy, Director, Power Supply Division, U.S.
Department of Agriculture....)
Dear Ms. Statham:
///////skip//////
"We are aware that there is concern regarding possible cancer associated
with electric and magnetic fields (EMF). EMF exists around energized
electric distribution and transmission lines and substations. EMF also
exists around a variety of common household appliances such as electric
blankets, hair dryers, television sets, computers, and microwave ovens.
There have been numerous studies to determine whether there are any health
risks related to power line EMF. Results from most of these studies
indicated that there appear to be no recognizable health risks related to
EMF. However, some study results identified possible correlation of
health risks. Because of the obvious concern and the conflicting
conclusions, Congress, in 1992, authorized funding for the Research
and Public Information Dissemination (RAPID) program, a 5-year study to
research EMF.
Recent reports of RAPID findings have broadened our knowledge of EMF, but
have not definitely answered the cause-effect question. One RAPID project
task called for an independent review and report from the National
Research Council (NRC). The NRC concluded that the results of its study
into the EMF concern do not support the contention that the use of
electric power poses a major unrecognized public health danger. Another
phase of the RAPID project called for a similar review and report from
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). NIEHS
recently reported that it concluded that extra low frequency EMF exposure
can not be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence
that exposure may pose a leukemia risk.
More EMF research and study is needed. NIEHS's conclusion is based on
those laboratory experiments and epidemiological studies that suggest
there is some correlation between exposure of people to EMF and certain
biological effects. Although the correlation has been identified as being
weak, it nevertheless is a concern that cannot be ignored. In addition
to the indication of weak correlation, there is insufficient information
available to establish either a cause-effect relationship or a dose-effect
relationship. Knowledge of these relationships is needed to identify EMF
sources involved with many risks. The Rural Utilities service will
continue to monitor the available literature, studies and reviews for new
developments in the EMF concerns."
///////skip//////
//s// Thomas L. Eddy
Director
Power Supply Division
**************************************
Guru responds......
Keep in mind my statement above -- that we can be confident that this
letter has been reviewed "higher up." Perhaps to "the top." Though,
of course, the White House will always be in a position to deny that....
The letter, itself, is pure paternalistic bureaucratese. (A condescending
response to one of the poor unknowledgeable "peons" out there among the
great unwashed.) Pure bureaucratic Gobbledy-Gook.....
Let us consider, however, what larger significance it may have.....
First paragraph:
Mr. Eddy covers the waterfront with his description of all the places
one may encounter EMF, as if to suggest that they are all potentially the
same in their health consequences. He is suggesting that your household
appliances may be a more serious threat than the power line in your front
yard. Where have you heard that before? Wasn't it at the last utility
briefing you attended on this subject?
--"Other" EMF sources, of course, should be taken seriously as
potential risks. (We call it the "Blue World," don't we?) But, in its
May 4, 1999 report, the NIEHS has recognized that (in those homes where
EMF measurements are high), "transmission lines and certain types of
distribution lines produced the greatest [EMF] fields."
--The important question, then, is NOT, to ignore those other sources,
but: The question is, is it appropriate to place them on the same level
of concern ... with the much stronger and more constant (in exposure time)
"power line" sources???....
--None of the experts it has been my experience to meet at the nearly six
years worth of meetings which I attended while monitoring the EMF RAPID
project, ... (I attended every scientific meeting but one during the run
of the project.) ... has ever suggested that these "other" household
sources pose as great a threat as the electric lines themselves, overall,
within the big picture.
--More importantly! In those situations where eminent domain is being
exercised to FORCE the power line into your environment -- i.e., you have
no choice of the matter as you do in the case of your hair dryer or your
computer, etc. So, the question (which Mr. Eddy totally finesses) really
is: Is it "fair" or appropriate for the government to take an
'industry supportive' position against you in cases where eminent domain
is being exercised?
--That is exactly what Mr. Eddy is doing in his first paragraph..... He
is embracing all of the "industry arguments" and some of the evidence
which you are likely to encounter in court. (Indeed, throughout the
letter, that seems to be Mr. Eddy's goal: to give all the reassuring
"help" he can ... to the power company that is building "bullying" that
potential health hazard into your environment....)
But, there is another, far more serious, flaw in Mr. Eddy's first
paragraph that needs to be noted:
Mr. Eddy writes that: (in the "numerous" studies about the EMF problem)
"Results from most of these studies indicated that there appear to be no
recognizable health risks related to EMF."
--That statement is patently untrue!! It is there to placate industry
and to give them a sentence which they can quote out of context for
the benefit of the "unknowing" public and press!!! The untruthfulness
of the statement can be shown, in part, by the extent to which
it is contradicted later in the letter. But, the evidence below (next
paragraphs) is better.
--If the epidemiological studies -- which tie "power line frequency"
exposure to a consistently higher incidence of leukemia -- are not telling
us that EMF poses a "recognizable health risk," what are they telling
us?
--In order to justify his statement, perhaps Mr. Eddy is "weighing" the
number of studies pro and con, thereby implying that ALL the studies are
of the same quality, and thereby entitled to be "weighted" the same.
Thus, he may be thinking that he can get by with saying "most" of the
studies did not indicate a problem??? Wrong... In fact, Mr. Eddy,
you are wrong on all counts with regard to the epidemiological
evidence.....
--Both, by the NUMBERS of studies that found a problem, and
differentiating by studies of the best "quality" (as did the RAPID study
group), clearly the result is a flat-out contradiction of Mr. Eddy's claim
that "no recognizable health risk" was found.....
(Even the NRC, which he later cites to support his position, has found
that the "association" between "closeness to power lines" and the
incidence of childhood leukemia -- though the NRC avoided trying to
explain it -- is a genuine "finding" in the published research
documentation which they reviewed, and they so stated in their final
report in 1995.)
--Mr. Eddy: Don't let it escape the attention of ANYBODY:
Scientifically, the epidemiological evidence accumulated on a world wide
basis over the last twenty years ... showing a linkage between EMF and
childhood leukemia ... is unmistakably consistent!!
--Most recently, one could add the results of the Toronto study (sponsored
by a Canadian utility company) which found the risk factors to be in
the range of 2.0 to 4.0. This study, of course, was completed just
some six months ago, after the RAPID results were published.
--The so-called "weak" association issue, mentioned in Mr. Eddy's letter,
will be dealt with below.
Second paragraph of Mr. Eddy's letter:
--Here, we hear about the NRC, which (predictably) recently said of the
RAPID results: "We don't agree." OF COURSE, that body -- which is
chosen, financed, and in many cases directly employed -- by the vested
industries, does not agree. That is not surprising. Ignore them.....
Everybody else does..... (Speaking of the science community, which knows
them for what they are -- A "science" special interest group.... )
--It is time, though, that somebody should point out the DISTURBING
proclivity of the U.S. Government (Congress, the Executive and the
Bureaucracies) to rely on "vested interest" study groups and "science"
'second opinion' bodies (like the NCR) when the government wants to
persuade the public of the government's objectivity.... Balder-dash!!!
(Or, as we say it in Missouri: B___ S___!!!) The public interest is
"naked" in its vulnerability to the biased misinformation which these
groups -- created and funded by "conflict of interest" industry and
"conflict of interest" government (like the military Project
SANGUINE) -- habitually use to "officially" inject government or
industry "party line" conclusions into an unsuspecting public.....
--These phony "scientific review" organizations are too transparent to be
ignored any longer. It is a pattern of bureaucratic activity that
deserves the attention of a congressional inquiry on the grounds that they
are a threat to the very well being of the Republic and the health and
welfare of the body politic. We have seen this pattern repeat, and repeat
again, and again, the dissemination of misleading information to the
public over recent decades in, e.g., the tobacco case, the lead case, the
dioxin case, etc. Mr Eddy does not strengthen his letter (or the
government's position) by relying on such readily identifiable, and well
known, "conflict of interest" sources as the NRC (actually created out of
the National Academy of Science -- another conflict of interest group that
consistently serves its "master" industry/government sponsors rather than
public objectivity.....)
But, it is also in Mr. Eddy's second paragraph that we find the issue of
the so-called "weak" EMF/leukemia association:
--That word "weak" was provided by the NIEHS (and its Director, Ken Olden)
in the final report from that agency to the Congress. Here is Eddy's
sentence: "NIEHS recently reported that it concluded that extra low
frequency EMF exposure **can not be recognized as entirely safe** because
of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia risk."
[....italics by guru....]
--First, don't forget the judgment!! The part that is in italics. EMF
can NOT be recognized as entirely safe.... That IS the final judgment of
the NIEHS paper....
--Few, who know all of the facts about the RAPID study and the NIEHS
published conclusions, have any doubts that the word "weak" was added to
get the government off the hook. Any pronouncement stronger than that
would have left the government with a problem it would HAVE to deal with,
like it or not. Absent the word "weak," the press and a large portion of
the public would now be clamoring for some action. Well they should,
anyway!!!
--As one who participated in the original lobbying effort to gain
congressional passage of the RAPID project, guru can testify that RAPID
was created to "get rid" of the EMF problem -- not to solve it.....
Thus, the word "weak" was "attached" to a judgment that is really
"not so weak." (See further discussion of this below.) Its purpose,
clearly, is to stem the tide of demand for public action that otherwise
would now be knocking at the doors of government at all levels.
--The purpose of RAPID was to "kill" or "sweep under the rug" any thought
that EMF was a genuine health problem!!! Lo and behold!!! The scientists
at the working level -- those who did the actual research (not their
bureaucratic bosses) -- were too honest and found out too much about what
Mother Nature is really hiding under her skirts concerning the bioeffects
of EMF.
--Those honest (and courageous) working level scientists found that
EMF bioeffects on the cells and tissue of mankind are real!! And, that
these bioeffects can occur as a result of exposures we are receiving in
our home and work environments.... We don't know very much about them,
yet. But we DO know NOW that bioeffects are occurring. And that
judgment is not one that generates much controversy or doubt anymore.
The evidence is also gaining acceptability (as more research confirms
earlier work) that SOME of those bioeffects CAN have adverse health
consequences..... (Not a conclusion one could find in Mr. Eddy's letter,
is it???.....) That is what the government SHOULD have answered to Ms.
Statham ... or any other citizen who asks......
--Indeed, if the major criterion for saying that results are "weak" is
based upon the 'risk factor' results shown by the epidemiological
studies, then one (who WANTS that judgment) can "justify" it by the
consistent 1.5 to 3.5 risk factor results that are being found -- even in
the most recent Toronto study, where the numbers were 2.0 to 4,0.. But,
good science is more than that!! Virtually ALL of the epidemiologists who
have confronted this aspect ... are saying something very different!!!
--They are saying: The "calculated" risk factor results are low (and we
must hereafter expect them to remain so) because of the ubiquitous
presence of EMF in our environment today. It is everywhere. That means
that researchers are not getting unexposed "control groups" (to compare
with the "exposed" groups) in their studies. That means that control
groups which HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXPOSED TO EMF -- to a degree that can
rarely be even estimated -- skews the comparisons between the two groups
... ALWAYS in the direction of calculating the low risk factor
results..... (Look again at the first sentence in this paragraph.)
--Thus, the scientific judgment that SHOULD be driven by the above
reality is: NOT one of low risk assessment (weak association); instead
it should be that the ACTUAL (real world) risk factors are almost
certainly higher than what we are able to show....!!! Thus,
scientifically speaking, the "weak" association (we get from our studies)
is misleading and should not be used as the basis for our assessment of
the actual risk..... THAT is what the overwhelming majority of the
epidemiologists who have worked these studies are saying.....!!!
--That is something very different than the 'reading' we get of
the government's position in accordance with Mr. Eddy's letter....
Third paragraph:
Here, Mr. Eddy's letter raises the often heard "smokescreen" issue.
"We cannot accept the epidemiological evidence," it is being said,
"because our laboratory results (in vivo and in vitro) did not provide
any/enough substantiation of the epidemiology." That statement is simply
a smokescreen or a "red herring," depending on which metaphor you prefer.
--Folks, that assumes that our laboratory research was looking in the
RIGHT PLACES and using the CORRECT ASSUMPTIONS for that "proof" of the
elusive biological "mechanism" (s) to be discovered as the product of our
research.... The simple and now well recognized fact is: we weren't!
So, let us not give undue importance to our failure. Certainly NOT to the
point of "throwing out" or invalidating the epidemiology....
--Very germane, here, but too long and complicated to get into (because
it is not part of the Eddy letter) is the matter of "where" we were
looking and "what assumptions" we were using as the active aspect(s) of
the EMF exposure. I'll just list a few words, here, which will trigger in
the minds of the knowledgeable, the many doubts about this aspect of the
research that were raised during RAPID and since: time weighted average,
electrical field effect, transients effect, harmonics effect, induced
current effects, is the cell "vulnerable" to EMF effect on its surface
membrane as well as beneath the membrane (?), etc... The list of "doubts"
about the direction of our research in RAPID could go on and on.
--There were/are just a myriad of "questionable" assumptions that guided
the research, which -- the more we learned -- the more we were caused to
doubt. They raise serious questions about the validity of the direction
of the total RAPID (laboratory) effort.... So, do not let yourselves be
taken in (Mr. Eddy!) by the "no confirming laboratory results" smokescreen
which now, after the RAPID project has been ended, is being elevated to a
position of prominence it did not enjoy during the research.
--It is fair to ask: Has this occurred in order to suggest that the
failure to find a suitable mechanism justifies doubt about the
validity of the epidemiological work???..... That just isn't so!!! The
two disciplines (epidemiology and the laboratory) are entirely separate,
and the weak laboratory results do not justify a "weak" judgment about the
epidemiology -- which, though not ever "robust" in risk factor numbers,
was very consistent.....
--What the "weak" laboratory results justify is many questions about
some of the assumptions that were in vogue at the time.....
--Mechanism "proof" would be nice to have. There is no arguing
against that. Someday, no doubt, we will find the mechanism, or, more
likely, the mechanisms. But, that has NOTHING to do with the need for
defensive measures that should be instituted NOW on the basis of what WE
DO KNOW from the epidemiology!!
--More importantly, the public (Ms. Statham) has a right to know -- from
her government -- the truth about the extent of the alarm bell warnings we
are being given by the epidemiology!!! Think about science's and the
government's experience with: tobacco, lead, a long list of chemicals for
which we have no biological explanation as to "how" the damage is being
triggered, etc..... Surely, the lessons of these many failures to respond
in a timely fashion to the alarm bells we got, are not unknown to you, Mr.
Eddy ... or Mr. President....???
--To talk about the "failure" of the "laboratory" results is to join in
an effort to raise a "straw man" ... a "smoke screen" ... behind which
more "Inertia and Malfeasance" of government policy and inaction can take
place..... (See "Inertia and Malfeasance" on the guru's web-site....)
As the lead sentence in paragraph three, we find:
--"More research is needed." Are those just words??? Where is
the Administration's proposal for more research? And what is the
Administration prepared to do to ensure that future EMF research will
not be tainted with the "conflict of interest" by the vested interests
that was manifest in the RAPID project???
Finally, the issue about which the loudest clamor should be raised;
in paragraph three, Mr. Eddy states: "In addition to the indication of
weak correlation, there is insufficient information available to establish
either a cause-effect relationship or a dose-effect relationship."
--Is that so!?! What about the government's policy and legal court
cases that are being mounted in the case of tobacco -- and second hand
smoke?!? The risk factors for second hand smoke have consistently
been reported in the 1.3 to 1.5 range. That is far below the 1.5 to 3.5
that has been found in the case of EMF/leukemia.....
--The cause or dose-effect relationship in the EMF case is at least as
valid as is the second hand smoke case. If I were one of the tobacco
industry lawyers, I would put that into their case against the Justice
Department. It shows very dramatically the hypocrisy of our government
in the two instances...... (Guru's regular readers, however, know very
well that he is no "friend" of tobacco....)
Conclusions.......
So, what are the conclusions that can be drawn from Mr. Eddy's letter
about the position of the U.S. Government on EMF health hazards?
1) The government (Clinton Administration) is more concerned about
protecting "industry" than it is concerned about protecting the public
health....
2) Clearly, the government realizes that it DOES have a problem here.
But it has adopted a policy of "keep the problem out of sight." Save it
for the next administration. Don't let it happen on our watch. Pursue
the "damage control" strategy.... (Like the Monica Lewinsky strategy.)
3) TALK about the need for more research, but don't DO anything about it.
4) Join in with industry (and the other vested interests, e.g., the
military, the international trade interests) in conducting a campaign
of obfuscation and misinformation about the extent of the EMF hazards....
After all, it takes a long time for cancer or Alzheimer's or some of the
other highly suspect illnesses to "show up." That (latency period)
lag-time will protect them until they are out of office...
5) Try to ignore the most damning judgment of the NIEHS study: that
EMF cannot be recognized as "entirely safe." i.e., Let that study "swing
slowly in the wind." (Washington parlance for "hang 'em high, ignore 'em
until natural death occurs.")
6) Join-in with the power companies (and the telecom industry) ... to
build and build and build ... as fast as we can ... power lines, cell
phone systems, HDTV, etc. ... before the public fully understands what may
be at stake here!!!
7) Above all -- don't do anything to offend the big $$$$$$$ contributors
... or the Wall Street crowd.....
8) The government's position vis-a-vis the second hand smoke tobacco
hazard case is inconsistent with the government's lack of action on the
EMF case.... Hypocritical is the word.....
8) When you get an inquiry from some little "smart alek" like Ms.
Statham, brush her off. Turn it over to some middle level bureaucrat to
send her a letter of Gobbledy Gook......
Cheerio......
October 10, 1999
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com