Subject: Comments on Dr. Goldsmith's presentation (fwd) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 063332 -0500 (CDT) From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org> To: emfguru@hotmail.com -------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 04:42:44 From: marjlundquist@usa.net To: rbeavers@llion.org Subject: Comments on Dr. Goldsmith's presentation About ten days ago Chris Beaver provided a report on the presentation made in California by Dr. John Goldsmith. In the spirit of discussion I'd like to offer some comments on what Dr. Goldsmith said. I agree with the first two summary statements in Chris Beaver's report which I repeat below. 1. Although there may be variations or limitations in the epidemiological research conducted in the field of radiofrequency radiation exposures, these variations do not negate the basic agreement among all the studies Dr. Goldsmith surveyed. There is a clear and significant health risk from exposure to radiofrequency radiation at levels well below the current American standard. 2. From the standpoint of taking immediate action to protect the health and well-being of the public, it is not necessary to understand the exact biological mechanism by which these disorders are produced. [Lundquist: While I personally agree with this position, I recognize that many others don't, so for the practical purpose of convincing others, I am prepared to pay some attention to mechanism just because it is important to others.] I disagree with the third item. 3. The thermal/non-thermal dividing line currently used as the basis for standards of readiofrequency radiation exposures is no more than a "red herring", a distraction from our understanding of the actual health effects of radiofrequency radiation and therefore our ability to protect the public. [Lundquist: Unless I have seriously misunderstood what Dr. Goldsmith meant by this, I disagree strongly. I think this is fundamental and that it is impossible to understand what is going on unless one can distinguish between thermal and nonthermal health effects. That said, I do acknowledge that one can look at health effect data in a totally pragmatic way and determine where hazard lies, without giving any consideration at all to concepts of thermal and nonthermal health effects; if this is what Dr. Goldsmith meant, then I agree with him. However, there are a great many people (including most electrical engineers) who think in terms of mechanism, and simply will not accept health effects that cannot be explained. These people tend to be the adversaries of those who desire to protect against low-level, non-thermal health effects; the only effective way to neutralize their opposition is to educate them as to the differences between thermal and nonthermal health effects and how they are caused. So I see this as a very practical tool of battle.] I largely concur with item four. 4. It increasingly appears invalid to distinguish ionizing from non-ionizing radiation with respect to their health effects. [Lundquist: It has long been assumed that ionizing radiation was hazardous because it caused ionization, and that non-ionizing was not hazardous because it did not cause ionization. This idea probably should be discarded for several reasons; one of them being that there is some evidence to indicate that at the high-frequency end of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, the radiation CAN cause ionization, though at a very low rate; and another of them being the possibility that the health effects are not caused by ionization at all! If this latter possibility is true, it means that the division of the spectrum into ionizing and non-ionizing regions may be meaningless.] I halfway agree, and halfway disagree, with item 5. 5. We would be incorrect in targeting cancer as the only or primary marker of public health. There are many additional and serious health effects from overexposure to non-ionizing radiation including, but by no means limited to: sleep disruption, nervous system disturbances, and psychological disorders. They may be indicators of more life-threatening illnesses to come or not, but they are all deserving of a public health remedy. [Lundquist: Taken literally, I agree with this statement. In fact, I would add to the list of diseases/disorders: autoimmune diseases, electrosensitivity, and certain types of cardiovascular disorders (certain cardiomyopathies). However, there is a very practical reason for giving a high priority to cancer, above all other diseases. The data associating disease with radio-frequency (RF) or microwave (MW) radiation exposure is only correlative, not conclusive. Case reports and epidemiological studies can only show association and correlation; they cannot prove cause. In the case of cancer, and ONLY in the case of cancer, is there evidence that rules out OTHER possible causes of the health effect: I am referring to controlled laboratory studies of rodents. THESE studies are what permit us to say that there is a one-to-one relationship between the RF or MW exposure, and the disease -- which is what provides a sound scientific basis for claiming that the RF/MW exposure CAUSED the disease. There are always other agents that might be the cause in an epidemiological study, and they can't be ruled out in such studies. Only the controlled laboratory study can rule out other possible causes. So the fact is that we can make much stronger statements, at this time, about RF/MW exposure causing cancer than about it causing any other disease -- except possibly for electrosensitivity, which I regard as a condtion, not a disease.] This is enough of my comments for one message. If I have more to say, I'll put it in another message. -- Marjorie Lundquist ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 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