Subject: Re Comments on Dr. Goldsmith's presentation (fwd)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 032738 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
......I suggest that in the following exchange of views TWO very
serious (not heretofor questioned) issues have been raised: (1) the
question of thermal vs non-thermal effects, and (2) the question of
ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation ... (both) in terms of their role
in producing the harmful health effects that are being observed???......
Dr. Goldsmith is boldly saying that neither of these distinctions may be
of any validity.......Dr. Lundquist is apparently agreeing in one of the
two........This discussion looks to me like it is worthy of
much more 'expansion'......
The discussion (disagreement?) over the role of "mechanism" is the usual:
shall we be pragmatic or shall we be perfectionists??? It serves the
_vested interests_ to be perfectionists while it serves the _public health
interest_ to be pragmatic.......guru......
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:29:25 +0200 (IST)
From: John Goldsmith
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Cc: emfguru@hotmail.com, John Goldsmith
Subject: Re: Comments on Dr. Goldsmith's presentation (fwd)
Marjorie:
Your comments are appropriate, but still have an experimental bias.
Data on unfavorable reproductive outcome (epidemiological), headache
(experimental and epidemiological), on sleep disorders (epidemiological
with experimental design), and on the radio-frequency sickness syndrome
(psychological and epidemiological) are included by me in non-malignant
epidemiological endpoints. Mechanisms are usually not available, and
there is a varied amount of experimental support. I insist that such
endpoints must be evalauted in establishing guide lines for health
protection.
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Roy L. Beavers wrote:
>
> ---------- 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
(Continuation of Goldsmith's reply)> While I have empathy with those
who wish to continue to explore
thermal mechanisms, the the ICNIRP organized a meeting on non-thermal
mechanisms, then from one mouth said there were no such effects, and from
the other mouth documented them. This operation , from an epidemiological
point of view was a travesty of science. As currently used by such
organizations it is a red herring, and I'll not support it as a valid
scientific guideline.
> ______________________
Thanks Marjorie.___________John Goldsmith
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