Subject: RE Comments on Dr. Goldsmith's presentation (fwd)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 052103 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:26:28 +0200
From: "High, Ingrid"
To: "'Roy L. Beavers'"
Subject: RE: Comments on Dr. Goldsmith's presentation (fwd)
Dear Marjorie,
on your answer to item 3 I think there are misunderstandings going
around. I also have a comment to your response to item 5.
"3." - The trouble today is that the discussion is geared towards ONLY
talking about the strenght of the signals in energy-form and thus
concentrating both discussions and research on the erroneous concepts
that "the higher strength - the more healtheffect". They then do not
pursue the more real fact of the other effects which have been found,
where there seems to be active windows in both frequency and also low
dosage.
- Thursday and friday I was at a seminar (on telephone systems) where
one chap (independent consultant) compared different cordless telephone
systems to each other for use in a firm. He also had a part on the
possible healtheffects. He had done a thorough and honest job of trying
to find information, but the only kind that had filtered down to him was
the energy/thermal-related effect. (He was pleased to get additional
information, I must say).
"5." - As to your point 5, I would have agreed with you, but in
preparing myself for eventual opposition during this seminar, I also
found (somewhere? - probably in the NIEHS documentation which was good
reading) a reference to the classification of the different carcinogene
classifications. 2B as emf was voted into, contained as examples
substances like DDT, and other substances which are accepted and known
as strong toxic agents - but apparently have a low carcinogenic effect.
I can agree that it is a starter to prove that something is not
harmless, but it can also be a possibility to "de-harmify" emf. What
also worried me was that the reference this chap at the seminar, had
used was a chap called Moulder at ?University of Wisconsin? - who in is
FAQ "can emf be detrimental to ones health" - only referred to
investigations into cancer (and answered thus No).
with warm greetings,
Ingrid High
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roy L. Beavers [SMTP:rbeavers@llion.org]
>Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 1:34 PM
>To: emfguru@hotmail.com
>Subject: Comments on Dr. Goldsmith's presentation (fwd)
>
>
>---------- 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.
>
>[High, Ingrid] ........... snip ..........
>
>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.]
>
>[High, Ingrid] ......... snip ...........
>
>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