Re: Question: EMF Researcher Made Up Data, ORI Says (Science, 2 July, 1999)

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>]

Bjorn,



As I interpret the case--and this is something that I've preliminarily 

researched on the Web--this case set back the legitimate studies by a decade.



There is a list member here, John Moulder, who is very supportive of the 

electrical industry status quo and I believe he is not convinced by any of 

the current research.



My one qualm with his writings is that he seems to want 100% proof of the 

dangers while complaining (rightfully so) that the opponents want 100% 

proof of the safety. We can't have it both ways.



Recent studies apparently have formalized the threshold (see: it's NOT an 

LNT model) in the 2-4mG region for magnetic fields.



One place which admits to be biased but offers primary sources for 

reference is http://www.powerlinefacts.com



I have found this information useful in helping to slow down some (err 

rather unwanted) new high-end residential development under some 330kV 

power lines.



NOTE: I am not citing the power line facts Web site as a primary source, 

I'm only suggesting that they have done a good job of collecting at least 

some papers that are primary sources that reinforce their points.



This is a very controversial issue and it is too bad that someone cheated 

on an early study. The truth (whatever that really is) will eventually come 

out...after all, it's not ionizing radiation (wry tongue-in-cheek comment 

based on recent threads on this list).



Personally, I won't live anywhere near a HV power line--it messes with my 

shortwave radio reception...forget the health effects <big grin>.



Cheers,



Richard



At 04:49 AM 08/18/2002 +0000, Bjorn Cedervall wrote:

>To my surprise there was no response to my question about three weeks ago 

>regarding the EMF affair in 1999. As I interpret the case:

>

>The story goes back to 1992-93 when two papers by R. Liburdy were 

>published. These "showed" that EMFs increase the flow of calcium through 

>the membranes of lymphocytes - and in turn switching genes on and off and 

>thereby perhaps played a role in cell division.

>

>A panel of four lab scientists investigated the case in 1995 and stated: 

>"These actions fall within the definition of scientific misconduct". This 

>was based on "Liburdy's claims that EMF causes cellular effects related to 

>calcium signaling (in three figures in the two articles in FEBS Letters & 

>Ann. NY Acad. Sci. respectively) are not supported by the primary data." 

>The panel had concluded that Liburdy "deliberately created 'artificial 

>data'...in order to mislead the reader." The Federal (U.S.) Office of 

>Research Integrity (ORI) made a formal review starting in 1997. The ORI 

>came, I understand, to a similar conclusion as the first panel group.

>

>OK - so this is the approximate story - some 5-6 newspaper articles can be 

>found in the www.junkscience.com search system and a few comments in the 

>Radsafers archives (July-August 1999).

>

>Now, my question is: Is there any formal statement from the Lawrence 

>Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) regarding the case? Something that can 

>be found on a website or elsewhere. What is the overall formal status?

>

>Two of the critical graphs in FEBS were formally retracted in Vol. 478 

>(2000:304). In this retraction Liburdy writes "I admit no wrongdoing".

>I haven't seen a parallel for Ann. NY Acad. Sci.

>

>If any of the above is incorrect or should be modified - please comment.

>

>Bjorn Cedervall    bcradsafers@hotmail.com



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/