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

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 8/18/02 12:05:01 PM Mountain Daylight Time, lists@richardhess.com writes:



> Recent studies apparently have formalized the threshold (see: it's NOT an 
>
> LNT model) in the 2-4mG region for magnetic fields.



Could you give some citations, please?  I thought the whole controversy was settled more than a decade ago.  The Bonneville Power Administration did some studies showing fairly conclusively that no consistent dose-response relationship could be demonstrated.  The Leeper/Wertheimer study was discredited years ago (that was a study supposedly correlating childhood leukemia with line-of-sight powerline existence).


I don't know the magnetic field of the average hair dryer, but if there is a threshold, it would have to be quite a bit above that.


> One place which admits to be biased but offers primary sources for 
>
> reference is http://www.powerlinefacts.com



"Admits to be biased" is an understatement.  I looked at the site and was struck by three things: 

(1) claims are made without actual citations, like journal volume, actual date of publication, page number, who the authors were -- anything so that I could actually go to the UNM library and look it up.  

(2) much of the material, like the glioblastoma question, is a rehash of what was brought up years ago, 

(3) essentially all the claims of harm boil down to something like (I am paraphrasing, not quoting) "re-examination of the data showed an increased risk of (miscarriage, leukemia, brain cancer, etc.)  Re-examination of data means, to me, manipulating your statistics (perhaps to show the result you want?)  What does "show an increased risk of..." mean?  Does it really mean that there is a direct positive correlation between exposure to electromagnetic fields and observed incidence of the health effect, including correction for confounding factors, and including the negative or "control" showing  that less exposure to electromagnetic fields means less incidence of whatever the health effect is?  How was exposure measured?  Did the subjects carry gauss meters?  Did the researcher record how many times they were close to some appliance that generated an electromagnetic field?  the strength of those fields?  Was there a correlation w!

ith distance?   


> 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.


Are you really slowing down that development because of the information on the website, or do you just not want the residential development?  Hey, I used to be real active with environmental organizations, and I observed firsthand how anything remotely applicable was used to slow down or stop unwanted (by whom?) developments.  that's one reason I got fed up.  I believe in being honest.  For example, I do not believe that air pollution can be tied to deaths, but I certainly think we are entitled to clean air.


> 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).

It is actually only a controversial issue because those like the contrbutors to that website keep it alive.  I am not surpried there was cheating. That is not the first study claiming a positive correlation between EMF exposure and some health effect that was discredited.


Since you convinced yourself about radiation by getting a monitor, how about an gauss meter?  I suggest you compare the fields from the ordinary appliances that you ge within feet or inches of with the fields inside a house, or even outside, under a high-tension line.  I am not being facetious.  I was very interested in the early studies in this area, and might have been convinced of a correlation, had subsequent data supported it.


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com