[Home] | [Forum] | [Library] | [Links] | [Whats New]

The Ugly Secret

EMF Epidemiology Studies Are Misleading Us

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:41:08 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" 
To: rbedard@cruzio.com
Subject: The Ugly Secret, EMF epidemiology studies are misleading us...

Robert:

I don't want to delay your new page project.  If we need to
do anything differently (later) we can.....

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
Mailto: rbeavers@llion.org
Website: http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness


The following is a shortened and revised version of Mr. Beavers paper
"San Antonio meeting report" and "Blue World" revisited, which appears on
The EMF(guru) web-page on the internet at:

http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMFL-1-98.html

        
   By Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
    
   This report is being prepared immediately following my return from the
   San Antonio (Jan 12-14, 1998) meeting of the EMF RAPID review process,
   which is being managed and conducted by the National Institute of
   Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). So far, they are doing a good
   job of conducting an open and unbiased review process which is not
   "tilted" to protect industry interests at the expense of the public.
   
   But, "The proof," as they say, "is in the pudding." The distortions of
   truth (which have occurred so frequently in the past in this EMF saga)
   RARELY occur at the working level. The dishonesties begin to appear
   when the work of the (by and large) dedicated, objective and
   conscientious "working" scientists is passed up "the chain of command"
   to their bosses higher in the bureaucracy. It is there that political
   and economic (read "profits") considerations begin to distort the true
   science which began at the bottom (not always, but too often!!!).
      
   Anyway, my present belief is that the people I see at these meetings
   (I attend ALL of them.) WANT to do their "dead-level" best to
   honorably complete this task in keeping with the highest possible
   science traditions and standards. If they fail in that ... I WILL TELL
   YOU....... THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW.................
   
Where We Are (After San Antonio).....
  
   I have long since learned that all who have an EMF problem of some
   sort are convinced that "their" problem is the most serious and the
   most threatening to humanity. If they live in a neighborhood or
   community that is about to be deluged with cellular telephone
   antennas, they believe the cell-phone is the worst of all EMF
   contingencies. If they have a friend or relative (or particularly
   "they" themselves) carrying the burden of breast cancer, then of
   course that is the worst hazard. (As you will see below, we may soon
   be including the male gender in this tragic "reproductive hormone"
   picture -- prostate cancer is also now suspect.) Much the same can be
   said of brain cancer or Alzheimer's or ALS or Parkinson's, the brain
   neuron conditions which may be showing the strongest EMF associations
   of all.
   
   If the EMF victim lives near power "transmission" or even
   "distribution" lines, then it is the power company that becomes the
   target of condemnation, as childhood leukemia is consistently
   showing-up there more frequently than it should. The O.R. (odds ratio)
   for childhood leukemia is also consistently low, but I believe there
   is an explanation for that which is NOT reassuring. (More will be said
   below on the "ugly secret" low O.R. issue.)
   
   In fact, it now seems quite possible that ALL of the above adverse
   health conditions are possible as a result of EMF exposure -- and
   more! In the end, it may not be easy to say which is the most adverse
   EMF/health situation because it appears more and more likely that: (a)
   EMF exposure from whatever source can be cell damaging (thus health
   threatening), if sufficient in strength and duration ... probably
   through the process of promoting or allowing the buildup of free
   radicals which damage human cells, and (b) it does not appear that the
   frequency (wave-length, ELF or RF, etc.) of the exposure is "defining"
   -- though, until we know more, it is perhaps alright to say: some
   frequencies "may" have a greater propensity for the induction of cell
   and tissue damage than others.
   
   Most important of all, the exposure "strength" required to cause the
   suspect illnesses cited above is now clearly conceded to be in the
   ranges of those exposure conditions which are -- at least in certain
   situations -- occurring in our home and work environment. The picture
   that is emerging is one of potentially _broad overall health impact_
   -- not just childhood leukemia or breast cancer or brain cancer. It is
   a picture of EXPOSURE and EFFECT that is so broad -- and so "buried"
   within the historical process of worldwide electrification that has
   occurred over the past 100 years -- that it could easily have been
   missed for many more years had not a few prescient observers (like
   Robert Becker or Nancy Wertheimer) spoken out forcefully ... and in
   spite of the condemnation that was heaped upon them by an
   "establishment" medical and science community which "did not see the
   forest for the trees."
   
   EMF researchers, who have been reporting the results of their research
   efforts to their colleagues at the recent NIEHS-sponsored symposia (at
   Durham in March of 1997 and most recently at San Antonio in January of
   1998), are also saying that EMF induced biological damage is (1)
   probably cumulative, and (2) is subject to the natural cell "healing"
   processes which can work to overcome much of the free radical damage.
   
      
Biological Activity is the Key.....
  
   The amount of biological activity is the key. Without doubt, the
   amount of free radical (potentially cell damaging) biological activity
   that is being induced within the human race by EMF exposure of all
   kinds and frequencies ... has been multiplied on the order of a few
   'thousand-fold' to a few 'million-fold' since the introduction of 
   electricity into our lives over a century ago. In the beginning, we
   simply did not "see" the results in terms of health consequences.
   
   Whereas "science" once considered such "non-ionizing" radiation to
   be biologically benign (at least at levels of exposure than being
   experienced by the human population), it is now virtually certain that
   not ALL of it is benign!  It is far more active than was previously
   imagined!
   
   This brings us again to the "Blue World" scenario I described in my
   last message before going to San Antonio.  Here, the important thing to
   note is that our EMF-background environment is not only an electronic 
   "blue world" (see below) that is rapidly getting "bluer" as a 
   result of more and more of this EMF radiation exposure worldwide ... it
   is also building a background "health condition" in the human population 
   (e.g., depressed immunity and disrupted hormone systems) which make it
   more and more difficult to detect the effect!!!  

   This is an important point which requires careful attention and
   explanation to ensure that everyone understands it......
   
The MYTH of Low Risk Factors -- The Ugly Secret.....
  
   The principal method science has to track the existence and causes (or
   increases within the human population) of such health conditions as
   cancer, leukemia, etc., is that branch of medical science known as
   'epidemiology.' In its simplest form, epidemiology compares "groups"
   of the population which have been exposed (to a suspected
   health-damaging cause or "risk") to other groups that have _not_ been
   exposed (called "the control group"). The result of this comparison
   provides the "O.R." the observed risk factor or "odds ratio.".
   
   An O.R. of 1.0 means that the groups which were compared resulted in
   "no observable difference." The incidence of the illness, in other
   words, was 1 to 1. Neither group showed any higher propensity to
   contract the disease. If, on the other hand, the 'exposed' group
   showed 50% more incidence of the illness than the 'unexposed' control
   group, then the O.R. factor would be described as "1.5," meaning that
   the exposed group was 50% more likely to contract the illness; and
   therefore it could be inferred that the "risk" exposure being compared
   was a causative or contributing factor to the illness in some way. An
   O.R. of 1.5, however, is not considered to be a very "strong"
   association. If an O.R. of 2.0 or 3.0 were found in the comparison
   then it could be inferred that the "strength" of that causative or
   contributing risk was stronger (than in the 1.5 case).
   
   From the above "basic" explanation, it should be obvious that the
   epidemiologist conducting the study needs at least two conditions if
   he/she is going to produce a valid study:
   
   (1) The composition of the two groups being compared should be as
   nearly similar as possible. Ideally, in fact, the researcher wants the
   two groups to be out of the same population, the same socio-economic
   population, the same racial background (because of possible genetic
   confounders) and/or the same neighborhood population. In short, the
   goal is to "match" the two groups as perfectly as possible in every
   respect except one!!!
   
   (2) The researcher does NOT want his two groups to have been exposed to
   the same risk (or the same 'amount' of risk) that is being measured in
   the comparison. When comparing two groups in the case of tobacco
   exposure, for example, the researcher wants his control group to be a
   group of _non-smokers_ (or as much so as he can find) which he will
   then compare to a group of smokers to determine the O.R. of whatever
   health condition is being studied (e.g., lung cancer).
   
   If this contrast between "exposed" and "non-exposed" cannot be based
   upon two groups that have genuinely different levels of exposure
   (though otherwise similar and of the same "population"), the O.R.
   obviously will tend to "level out" in the direction of 1 to 1..... No
   contrast (or very little contrast) will be observable!!!!
   
   Now, do you see the problem that is being presented to the
   epidemiologists in EMF research?   EMF in our environment is so
   widespread ("ubiquitous" is the word currently being used) in our
   modern industrial electrified western societies that it is becoming
   more and more difficult to find control groups which have not been
   exposed!  Or have been only minimally exposed!
   
   The result is a tendency for the EMF study comparisons to "level out"
   at or near the 1 to 1 ratio.  Clearly, there exists in such studies a
   built-in "bias" _against_ obtaining results that would show the true
   adverse health effect of the EMF exposure.  Much of the 'real' effect
   is being lost in the "leveling out" that occurs when 'exposed' groups
   are in fact being compared to so-called "non-exposed" groups ... but
   which, in fact, _have_ been exposed (perhaps substantially), though we
   really cannot tell how much???
   
   That is the "ugly secret" that is _not being reported_ in the EMF
   epidemiology studies: The _public is not being told_ about the many
   epidemiological study results that 'bias' the outcome in the direction
   of low odds-ratios (on the order of 1.5 to 2.5) -- even though the
   "real world" of 'mother nature' could be causing health damage that
   would justify _much higher_ O.R. results. (On the order of 2.5 to 5.0
   perhaps.)
   
   How many times have you heard that "utility spokesman" say: Oh, these
   "risk factors" (O.R.s) are so low that they are showing that the
   problem "caused by the power lines" (or TV or cell tower antennas,
   etc.), "is just not very great." 

   That statement is a myth..... It is certainly not "scientific."
   
   The _scientific_ truth is that this EMF health threat is substantially
   greater than "second hand smoke" (O.R. 1.2 to 1.5), for example,
   though that is the kind of comparison that is often made by industry
   spokesmen or their "friends" in the scientific community.....
   
   Still, look at what the U.S. government has been willing to do about
   second hand smoke!!  Yet many, many more people are being affected by
   EMF exposure than second hand smoke!  The EMF RAPID report, when it is
   finally prepared upon the completion of these symposia meetings ...
   should lay to rest this "low risk factor" myth once and for all......
   
   At San Antonio, I asked a group of about ten epidemiologists
   specifically about this aspect. I got no answer. No denial. No
   argument. Every scientist who is working on this issue -- certainly
   every epidemiologist -- knows that this ugly reality is not being
   explained to the public.  Why? Because it literally DESTROYS the
   argument that EMF is a minor problem!!!!
   
The Blue World........

   EMF is no minor problem.... It is a major problem..... And
   it is not getting any better. It is getting worse, fast ... as that
   "frenzy" of electrical/electronic technological advances and
   commercial sales to the public (not to mention governmental and
   military activity) -- which was first cited in my "Blue World" 
   essay -- charges onward under the watchful eye of an indifferent
   government that is consciously determined to be oblivious to the long
   term health consequences for ALL of mankind.......
   
   The "vested interests" (telecommunications and electrical industry)
   have about given up on their denial that these biological interactions
   are occurring. "But," they argue, "that doesn't prove that adverse
   health consequences are the result."
   
   To argue that these (now many, many documented) interactions CAN NOT
   lead to health problems of the suspected nature (leukemia, cancer,
   Alzheimer's, nervous system disorders, etc.) really requires that they
   argue against mathematical probabilities.... ALL of this biological
   activity, they must argue, is harmless???.... And, they must argue
   that it is harmless ... IN SPITE OF the epidemiological evidence which
   shows, in effect, the end result damage in the form of cancer, etc.
   
   There are not many of the serious and knowledgeable scientists --
   looking at this research -- who "buy" that argument anymore....
      
   BUT ... the government's vested interest in this matter is almost as
   great as the industries!!!!  Between them, they have so far succeeded
   in keeping much of this info from the public.  What info HAS gotten to
   the public has been successfully obfuscated by claims like, "but this
   hasn't been 'proved' yet," etc. ...or...."There is much disagreement
   within the scientific community, etc."  By implication, the public
   should ignore the "weight of the evidence" until there is
   "overwhelming" agreement or "consensus." ..... 
   
   With industry able to "hire" and "influence" the scientific judgments
   to the very great extent that they can, and with industry's
   'advertising and political' ("ownership" in the U.S.) control over the
   public information media ... the kind of "consensus" industry says we
   should wait for ... will never occur!!! .... IT IS, INDEED, VERY MUCH
   LIKE THE TOBACCO CASE, twenty or thirty years ago!!!!  (Only, I submit,
   it is worse!!!)
   
   It should be evident to most objective readers, the issue is certainly
   NOT ... what we now can say has been "proved."  The issue is:  what is
   the WEIGHT of the evidence telling us?????
   
   Though the vested interests (both industry and the government) may
   try to _force_ a decision on the EMF issue based on some kind of
   "what we have 'conclusively' proved" criterion, the "weight of the
   evidence" is clearly the best way to decide this issue -- at this 
   time -- if one is genuinely putting PUBLIC HEALTH at highest
   priority ... where it should be!!!  

   I even heard (at San Antonio) some of the "science community" using
   that "weight of the evidence" expression.  As one "old hand" said: most
   scientific questions initially "have" to be resolved on a "weight of 
   the evidence" basis.
   
   There is very little in science, today, that has been "conclusively
   proved" -- in the manner "assumed" by industry (and by the 1996 NAS-
   National Academy of Science EMF study which attempted to wholly
   'exonerate' the EMF threat.)
   
   The weight of the evidence is telling us that we have a really BIG
   problem ... and that it is getting bigger ... faster ... as we
   actually are "saturating" our environment in a "technological/sales
   frenzy" -- of cell phones (and their 140,000 retransmission antennas),
   space-based satellites, power lines, TV transmitters, not to mention
   all the electronics now in our homes and businesses, etc. [And P.S.,
   there are some new military projects which dwarf past exposure
   levels.  The military of all nations has ALWAYS been a major source
   of EMF pollution.]
   
   This frenzied growth in EMF exposure, which has no comparable historic
   parallel in terms of worldwide pollution, is giving us an "electronic
   smog" at more and more frequencies of the EMR spectrum ... and at
   higher and higher levels of transmission energy...... If this "stuff"
   would just emit a light blue "glow," we would all see that we are now
   living in a deep blue world!!!!  And it is rapidly getting bluer....
   And, contrary to about one-hundred years of scientific "assumptions,"
   it IS biologically active!!!!  And at least SOME of that biological
   activity is harmful to our health......
   
   Industry (and the government???) want us to wait until we have
   determined what are the parameters of "health-affecting" and
   "non-health-affecting" exposure? They want us to wait until we can
   show "how" the damage is being done??  Worst of all, they want us to
   show that the human "cost" of NOT dealing with this problem is "worth"
   the economic "cost" that will be incurred in dealing with it???
   (That's the old, "if you install safety measures in the mine you will
   drive up the cost of coal"... argument.) In short, they want us to
   wait until virtually all the details have been "filled in" before we
   try to do anything about this (now virtually certain) health
   menace......
   
   In 1985, Dr. Robert O Becker, M.D., published his (now) classic study:
   THE BODY ELECTRIC, Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life......
   ISBN --0-688-06971-1.
   
   On page 275 of the most recent edition, you will find:
   
     "The human species has changed its electromagnetic background more
   than any other aspect of the environment. For example, the density of
   radio waves around us is now 100 million or 200 million times the
   natural level reaching us from the sun. Nor is there any end in sight.
   When superconducting cables are introduced, they'll increase the field
   strength around power lines by a factor of ten or twenty....."
   [Written in 1985. We now have the "super-conductors." -- guru] 
   ......//skip//...... 

     "A few years ago most investigators believed that each wavelength
   ["frequency"] interacted mainly with objects comparable to it in size.
   This was a comforting notion that theoretically limited each frequency
   to one type of effect and predicted that really troublesome problems
   for humans would come from only one portion of the spectrum -- the FM
   band. Now, however, we know there are primary effects on all life forms
   at ELF frequencies, and in other parts of the spectrum there can be
   consequences for specific systems at 'any' level, from the subatomic to
   the entire biosphere as a unit.......//skip//........ ".......There's
   often no direct relationship between dose and effect, however; a low
   power density sometimes does things that a higher one does
   not..........//skip//........ "In a sense, the entire population of
   the world is willy-nilly the subject of a giant experiment....."
   
   Dr. Becker is an M.D. who got "lost" and became a scientist, in the 
   truest sense of the word.  He pursued the truth even when it led to
   major confrontation with the "establishment" (medical, scientific or
   political). He was eventually "pushed out" of the research community.
   I believe he is now living in retirement in New York.
   
   When the final chapter of the EMF saga is written, Robert Becker's
   contribution will loom as large as any. I have previously stated that
   I see this subject as the most important science event since E =
   mc(squared). It is that because of the really 'huge' window of
   knowledge (and, hopefully, understanding) it opens into the vistas
   both of physics and biology -- and the 'relationship' of the two.
   Before Robert Becker, only the Russians (in "modern" times) had peered
   thru that window.
   
   If you get hold of his book be sure you read about the 'Soviet'
   activities in EMF at least two decades before U.S. science even
   acknowledged its existence.  As he tells you, they used that knowledge
   to direct a campaign of EMF signals against the employees of the U.S
   Embassy in Moscow.  Two Ambassadors died of cancer, perhaps as a
   consequence of this Soviet EMF activity.  More to the point, adverse
   health effects were also documented with regard to other employees as
   well. The health-effects data was "collected" (not very thoroughly) by
   the U.S. government, but much of that data has mysteriously
   disappeared........
   
   It is my view that Dr. Becker should be seriously considered for the
   Nobel Prize for his pioneering work in the EMF field, though that was
   admittedly a "sideline" in his ground breaking, controversial career.
   The EMF saga is going to be so big and so important ... that it will
   produce more than one Nobel winner, I am sure......
   
   Cheerio...
   February 4,1998
       
   Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
   Mailto: rbeavers@llion.org
   Website: http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
       
  
                 It is better to light a single candle ...
                        than to curse the darkness!

[Home] | [Forum] | [Library] | [Links] | [Whats New]

---