Subject: Re Burden of Proof for Health Effects (Slesin)(Groves).
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 053352 -0500
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
...........A quality response from EMF-L........
Tessa's thoughts below have the "ring" of good sense.....guru......
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof for Health Effects (Slesin)..
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:56:46 +0100
From: Tessa Groves
To: roy@emfguru.com
References: <39C173C8.546C0D8A@emfguru.com>
The discussion over the last few months concerning burden of proof and
related issues has been fascinating.
Attaching labels ("scientist", "electrical engineer" "public health
scientist", "politician") is only OK up to a point to illustrate the
qualification and competence of the person concerned. It is irritating
to find these terms used in a less than constructive way around otherwise
interesting discussions. I believe one of the great strengths of this
list is the way people from various fields come together and find a
vocabulary which we all understand.
For example, I never took any qualifications in biology, I have a
knowledge of the human body which amounts to that of an interested
amateur, so I rely on others in this list to make sensible explanations.
I can only guess about the signifigance of papers on Medline, and the
abstracts are not a big improvement either!
Also I think the idea of a bioelectromagnetic hygienist is a good one,
although I think the word hygienist may have different connotations here
in the UK. There are already university courses which bridge between
human biology and physics or engineering.
The legal viewpoint mentioned by Roy could be immediately useful, even
in the absence of consensus: "to use **the best evidence they now have**
as a basis for their "official" position and policies".
But consensus remains important, it is not the privilege of politicians,
it is a useful state to achieve, and unless it includes the scientists,
engineers, public health scientists, etc, then it is not a true consensus.
If there were a wider consensus, then it might reasonably include the
users of mobile phones.
Incidentally there is one thing that alarms me about the comments made
about the IEEE standards work - the work I have done in UK standards
committees within the BSi is done under a balanced membership of the
standards committee that does not publish without first achieving a
consensus. This may seem far from the truth at times, but it is the
basis on which BSi work is carried out. Does IEEE work the same way?
All the best
Tessa Groves
Communications Engineer
Roy Beavers wrote:
> Hi everybody:
>
> It is always such a rare (rewarding) experience when we hear from our
> esteemed colleague, Dr. Louis Slesin ... that it is very rude of me
> to respond as I do here..... But I totally disagree with Louis....
>
> In his response to Susan Clarke below, he ties the question of
> "the burden of proof" in science to the need for a "consensus."
>
> Now, Louis, YOU are talking like a politician!! I am the one who should
> talk that way..... Not you, Louis. You ARE a scientist. Louis, you know
> -- The truth is NEVER dependent upon consensus!!! Often, in history,
> it has NECESSARILY BEEN a **minority** view.....!!
>
> Worse, rarely, in the history of science has **"consensus" even recognized
> the truth in the same generation it was discovered!!!......**
>
> Your editorial below about the blood brain barrier is a good one. But it
> says -- implicitly -- we (whomever you want "we" to be) are not going to
> accept the evidence until it is "our" evidence..... We are not going to
> accept the work of Allen Frey or the others you cite (including the U.S.
> Army!) until "we" have done it....
>
> Fine. There is certainly nothing wrong with "more research." But,
> does that also confer upon those who take such a stand ... the right
> to **ignore** the evidence others have produced??? Evidence that
> contradicts the "consensus" "they" find more comfortable -- for getting
> along with their political (bureaucratic) and industrial patrons???
>
> Then -- as you correctly point out, Louis -- so long as "they" do not do
> the research, are "they" entitled to deny the validity of Frey's (and the
> others) work???
>
> Or -- is it not incumbent upon them to use **the best evidence they now
> have** as a basis for their "official" position and policies??? --Rather than
> deny its validity ... while they procrastinate about the additional research
> that they "talk" about, but do-nothing about.....???
>
> I submit the latter paragraph is virtually a self evident "obligation" that
> is the responsibility of any and all of our "science" public officials......
>
> The "ostrich head in the sand" position that they are taking (like those
> you are writing about in your editorial) ... is not science -- that is
> rationalization..... That is **bias** -- against even the **seeking of
> the truth**.....
>
> Those who have public health responsibility in such matters -- and who
> rationalize the existing evidence in that manner (for whatever reason --
> but we DO know why) are guilty of **malfeasance** in office: failure to
> perform one's lawful duty..... (Just as surely as the Firestone officials
> who rationalized and failed in their lawful duty in the recent automobile
> tire case.)
>
> Do you really want to provide to such "science" the additional
> rationalization -- as you appear to do below.....
>
> Besides, Louis, as you well know ... there is MUCH MORE evidence than the
> blood brain barrier research....!!! There is PLENTY of evidence to say:
>
> EMF can do harm to human health ... and it is doing so NOW ... in some
> work place and home environments (probably including the cell phones).
>
> Cheerio...... (My esteemed friend and colleague.)
>
> Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
> roy@emfguru.com
>
> It is better to light a single candle
> than to curse the darkness..
>
> WEBSITE: http://emfguru.com
>
> People are more important than profit$$
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Burden of Proof for Health Effects
> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:11:50 -0400
> From: mwn@pobox.com (Louis Slesin / Microwave News)
> To: roy@emfguru.com
>
> This is a belated reply, with apologies, to Susan Clarke, about how much
> evidence is needed to meet some burden of proof about EMF health effects.
>
> I cannot be as specific as Susan Clarke asks. It is really a matter of
> consensus for which there are no magic formulas. The only way to achieve
> consensus is to do the necessary studies.
>
> And there lies the frustration with much of the RF/MW radiation health
> debate...Very little is ever settled because so little research gets
> funded.
>
> For instance, at the present time, not a single study on cell phone
> radiation is being carried out in the U.S. This is a remarkable state of
> affairs given that over 100,000,000 people now use cell phones in the U.S.
> alone and that there are more than 100,000 cell phone towers (an educated
> guess) across the country.
>
> We ran an editorial in Microwave News at the end of last year pointing to
> one example of an effect that has never been adequately addressed:
> RF/MW-induced permeability of the blood-brain barrier. It ran in our
> November/December 1999 issue and is available free on our Web site.
>
> I reproduce it here:
>
> _____________
> A Simple Wish for 2000
>
> A hallmark of electromagnetic health controversies is that they are never
> resolved. When an effect is reported, it is quickly countered with an
> opposing result and the contradiction is left to fester.
>
> It's time to resolve one important microwave health effect: whether
> low-level microwave radiation can cause leakage through the blood-brain
> barrier (BBB).
>
> This fall, the European and Australian press warned that Swedish
> researchers are concerned that mobile phones could cause chemicals to pass
> through the BBB, possibly leading to Alzheimer's and other neurological
> diseases. This was hardly news. The same Swedish team had announced a
> BBB-microwave effect more than seven years ago (see MWN, J/A92). And even
> then it was not news.
>
> Dr. Allan Frey first reported the BBB effect 25 years ago, and U.S. Army
> researchers confirmed it in 1977.
>
> The BBB work is as controversial today as it was then. James Merritt of the
> U.S. Air Force tried to debunk the BBB effect at the recent Moscow
> conference --just as he had tried to refute Frey's original work a
> generation earlier.
>
> The impact of microwaves on membrane permeability has important
> implications for cell phones. The risk is not limited to the brain: The
> eye-blood barrier has also been shown to be vulnerable.
>
> This is a clearly defined problem and could be settled without a major
> research program. It is about time.
> _____________
>
> Our wish is still a long way from coming true.
>
> Best,
> Louis Slesin
>
> >Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:56:13 -0400
> >From: Susan Clarke
> >
> >Louis Slesin is right on in many respects, but not in his last clause,
> >"we will not know if there are health risks".
> >
> >I would ask Dr. Slesin to reveal to List members what types of studies
> >and medical case reports, and how many of each, perhaps with which p
> >values and CIs, he feels would provide, say, "reasonable medical
> >certainty" that there are health effects (not "risks").
> >
> >Then we can compare Dr. Slesin's criteria to other standard criteria -
> >EPA, FDA, etc.
> >
> >Susan Clarke
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Louis Slesin, PhD
> Editor, Microwave News
> A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation
> Phone: 212-517-2800; Fax: 212-734-0316
> E-mail: , Internet:
> Mail: PO Box 1799, Grand Central Station
> New York, NY 10163, U.S.A.
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com