Subject: Ottawa EMF Conference Report (fwd)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 201210 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 19:27:14
From: "Richard W. Woodley"
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Ottawa EMF Conference Report
World Health Organization
International Seminar & on EMF Risk Perception and Communication
August 31 - September 1 1998. Ottawa, Canada
REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS
First of all I should thank Dr. Repacholi for making it possible for me to
attend the conference and be a participant on the public viewpoint panel.
My first impression came from reading over the delegate list - heavily
dominated by industry - cell phone industry in particular - with some
government and academics - I was the only (token?) EMF activist there
although there was also a Consumers Assocuation representative and at least
one public health oficial and as the conference went along it became
apparent there were a number of other "independent thinkers" there asking
good questions.
The most aggressive participants at the conference were the cell phone
industry who appeared to be trying to use the conference as their own PR
vehicle. On the other hand a number of utility people were actually willing
to admit that there might be a health risk from EMFs, a considerable move
from the position Ontario Hydro displayed (and I beleve still does) when I
first got involved in this issue.
DAY ONE
A large part of the presentations concerning risk communication seemed to
be focussed on how industry can do a better PR job of convincing the public
there is no risk or justifying that position, although much of it was
couched in coded language.
I get the impression industry is running scared - "Public Outrage" and
"Outrage Bias" were terms often used. There is a real push to contain
public concerns before they reach the stage of public outrage. this is
apparently very prevalent in the UK where Dr. Coghill was used several
times as an example, although not mentioned by name.
One example of the discussion on that was when one Judy Larkin said there
needed to be a partnership between industry, scientists and government to
communicate accurate information (the underlying assumption being to
convince people there is no problem. I asked her if she deliberately left
the public out f that list and if so why. After avoiding the question the
next questioner commented that she had not answered it and she again gave
an unsatisfactory answer. A few questions later the Consumers Association
delegate again asked for an answer which was still nt satiisfactorily
answered.
When you excluded the presentations on communication the rest of the
conference was considerably more balanced with a number of usefull
presentations.
At the end of one presentation where the disparity between the epidemiology
and lab experiments the niehs panel looked at I broufght up the possibility
that they may be because the lab exposures did not involve real life fields
with spikes and transients, etc. (oft discussed on this mailing list). Dr,
repacholi commented that it was a "priority" of the WHO project to do lab
studies that used real life fields, including these factors (how you design
a controlled study to duplicate random factors will be an interesting
challenge).
There was though at least one presentation stressing the importance of
meaningfull public consultation.
There was also mention of the concept of uncertainty and who should bear
the burden of uncertainty - indusry or public.
One of the most interesting presentations was on how activists use the
Internet to obtain information and the case of a Canadian cell tower
dispute where the community was eventually succesful in getting the
transmitters removed. William Leiss stressed the fact that the public can
now find out as much as the propnrnts or more and that you cannot get away
with liening to them anymore. I have requested an electronic copy of the
paper from Dr. leiss and if it is available I can send it to anyone who
wants it.
I did get a chance to put forth my views by questioning presenters and at
the Public viewpoint panel (see end of this message). One of the things I
stressed is that we cannot get anywhere until industry accepts that EMFs
are a hazard - then perhaps we can enter into a dialogue on what the levels
of risk are, what are acceptable levels and what can be done to reduce the
risk.
There was reference to the Swiss Reinsuance Electrosmog document be a very
good document - from one of the more neutral presenters. It is available
for download at:
http://www.swissre.com/download/download.cgi/download/public/elek-e.pdf?cont
ent=Electrosmog+-+a+phantom+risk
Another reference was made to the Royal Society of Canada RF study. More
information available at:
http://www.rsc.ca/english/aug-98-new.htm
OF IMPORTANCE !!!
The next new technology to hit Canada in the first quarter of next year
will be "Multipoint Communications Systems" a wireless technology that will
apparently put a transmitter on EVERY TELEPHONE POLE.
DAY TWO
Dr. Daniel Wartenberg presented a paper looking at why scientists come to
different conclusions from the same data depending on what type of analysis
model they use. It included a meta analysis that indicated that 6% of
childhood leukemia cases in the US could be attributed to EMF exposure.
Christopher Portier went through the NIEHS panel process and the various
votes. On all the issues there was virtually no support for the position
that EMFs are proven not to be carcinogenic.
The presentations on prudent avoidance were very interesting because of the
dichotomy of attitudes presented. While both Ireland and Australia have
adopted prudent avoidance the Irish presenter, Tom McManus seemed to have a
dismissive attitude to the health issue and saw prudent avoidance as a
political move - path of least resistance. Irsh prudent avoidance measures
include assymetric phasing of lines and a target of 50 metres from
buildings for lines (98% of lines met this) and a minimum of 23 metres.
The Australian position presented by Michael Dolan (he will be emailing me
his paper) seemed much more sincere. The Australian policy is based on a
1991 commission report that found that health effects were not established
nor refuted. It provides for a number of technical means to reduce fields,
wider rights of way, conductor configuration and phasing and current
reduction and provides for around 5% of a projects cost to be spent on
prudent avoidance measures. This is similar to California's policy of
spending 4% of a projects cost on prudent avoidance as described later by
Jack Saul.
I asked Mr. Dolan if there was reluctance by the utilities to implement
prudent avoidance because it could be seen as an admission of a health risk
and leat to legal problems. Mr. saul, a lawyer explained that the way the
policy was worded, based on uncertainty avoided that. He also admitted that
there might be a health risk - we don't know. He cited a case where he
wrote a letter supporting a resident's request to move to a lower EMF level
public housing unit becaise she had an immune system disorder and two
children. A BC Hydro representative also stated that he tells people who
have personal concerns about EMFs not to buy homes near power lines. he
also ointed out that power lines reduced property values by 6 to 7%.
Certainly that is a much more positive attitude than that presented by the
cell phone industry.
OVERALL IMPRESSIONS
The conference was worthwile to me. I learned some technical things
particularly as relates to the concepts of risk and hazard. I changed the
way I think of the 2 milligaus level from a level that is probably safe to
a level of acceptable risk. Mainly because we have no true unexposed
control group but lower and higher exposed groups we cannot say the
leukemian and cancer cases below 2 mg are not caused by EMFs, BUT unless we
are going to argue for the elimination of electricity we have to establish
a reasonable level that is considered an acceptable level of risk and 2 mG
seems reasonable at this point in time.
I became aware that the Bridlewood EMFs Information Service is viewed by
many people in the EMF community and is well respected. pleasant feedback.
I think we have to be vigilant in exposing those who want to distort the
science and put spins on report results but try and find a way to work with
those who are sincerely not convinced yet but are willing to implement
prudent avoidance measures in the meantime.
------------------------
World Health Organization
International Seminar & Working Group Meeting on
EMF Risk Perception and Communication
August 31 - September 4 1998. Ottawa, Canada
Remarks to Public Viewpoint Panel
Richard W. Woodley, Webmaster
Bridlewood Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Information Service
The Politics of EMFs - An Activists Viewpoint
What is the public viewpoint on electromagnetic fields. From my
persepective as an actiivist I see it as one of confusion. Confusion by
reading about study after study pointing to a link between EMFs and health
risks such as cancer and leukemia and seeing contradictory statements from
various agencies saying “there is no definitive proof” of such risks.
Why is the public subjected to this. It is because of the politics of
EMFs. The politics of EMFs that sees reports linking EMFs and health
suppressed by the White House,. The politics of EMFs that sees agencies
releasing reports with press releases that downplay or even contradict the
findings of health links that are contained in the reports.
The latest piece of confusing information the public has been exposed to
is the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences panel finding
that EMFs are a “possible” human carcinogen. What does that say to the
public - nothing. Bombarded with news stories about studies linking all
sorts of things, including common foods, to cancer the typical public
response is “so what - everything causes cancer these days”.
However, if the truth be known, in my humble opinion, that is not the
message the panel intended to convey. I believe they would not have
examined the massive amount of reports and studies out there, and agonized
over them just to say something as innocuous as that. I believe that they
really want to convey the message that EMFs are PROBABLY, not possibly, a
human carcinogen, but the politics of EMFs prevented them from going that
far.
What the public deserves to hear is the truth. Not everyone exposed to
EMFs is going to get cancer, indeed most won’t. But there is now
overwhelming evidence that those who are exposed have a much greater risk
of cancer, leukemia and other heatlh problems. Indeed the studes indicate
that children, in particular, exposed to higher EMF levels have two to
three times the liklihood of getting cancer or leukemia.
What the public wants to know - is what are we going to do about it. When
are we going to do the research necessary to find out how EMFs are linked
to health problems so we can find out what we need to do to reduce the
risks. And when are we, as a society, going to start taking serious prudent
avoidance measures.
We know we cannot eliminate the risk, just as we cannot elimate the risks
associated with driving automobiles, because no more are we going to ban
electricty than we are going to ban cars. But we can take measures to
reduce it, especially when children are concerned. For example, nobody
would allow a 100 kilometre an hour highway beside a school so why do we
allow high voltage power lines beside schools.
So what is holding us back. It is the politics of EMFs. The public
deserves better than to be subjected to the politics of EMFs.
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