Re: Power Lines and Magneti

[John Moulder <jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu>]

> There is some in vitro science to suggest ELF fields may be hazardous as
> carcinogens 

Can't imagine what in vitro science you are referring to here.  Every in 
vitro study of genotoxic potential that I am aware of is negative

> and support for this area has bee&?_pn so poor that critical research
> is not put to the test of replication for years.  

The lack of replication is not due to a lack of funding.  This is one of 
the most intensely studied unproven hazards in history.  I would argue 
that this area has been funded (generally by set-aside funding) in total 
diregard to the level of evidence and the quality of the science.

> If the science goes untested due to lack of interest as manifested by funding,
> then there will be a core of science to underpin public concern.

If there was all the money in the world, then I would agree.  But when 
money is very tight, as it is now, investigators have the obligation to 
prove that they have something before they demand public funds.

> The Federal government didn't help.  

Are you arguing that the feds should set aside money for this area??  why 
isn't the science good enough that it can compete for funding against 
other areas and biomedical science??

> Congress moved in and got NIEHS to take the lead.

I'd phrase that differently.  Congress mandated that NIEHS set aside 
money from its regular research grant pool and fund power-frequency 
studies, even when peer-review did not give the studies merit scores, in 
the general competition, that would have merited funding.

> I feel the answers lie in the lab, not in more epi studies unless
> epi studies address such phenomena as transients, harmonics, and
> resonance/windows.  Even then, replicated lab studies will probably do a beter
> job of determining what's happening.

But the lab studies are out there, in the peer-reviewed literaure. 
- they show that power-frequency fields are not genotoxic
- they show little evidence that power-frequency fields have epigenetic 
activity
- they show essentially no evidence that power-frequency fields of the 
intensity  encountered in occupational and environemtnal settings have 
any biological effects at all

What additional studies do you want done, and waht other fields of 
biomedical research do you propose to divert funds from to pay for these 
studies.

Disclaimer:  Although I was a member of the review groups that reviewed 
most of the proposals submitted to the NIEHS under the program being 
discussed here, my comments are based entirely on material that is in the 
public record.

john moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu)