Re[2]: NIH: Electric fields pose cancer risk

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

What relationship does the vote (VOTE?) of this panel bear to the wealth of 
documented, peer-reviewed, published evidence that there is no consistent 
dose-response relationship between the magnetic field produced by AC voltages 
and cancer or anything else?  I seem to recall an issue of HEALTH PHYSICS about 
a year or so ago devoted to this issue.  

I am even more concerned that, once again, a government agency does not look at 
accumulated, published, experimental evidence, but instead asks people what they
think.  What has happened to the scientific method?  I will not burden or bore 
the readership with cases where, because of real concerns about real hazards, we
all look at experimental evidence and data (AIDS transmission comes to mind).  
My concern is: what is NIH trying to get at by taking this kind of opinion 
survey?  That now opinion is substituted for evidence?  That NIH doesn't want to
believe EMF appears to pose no cancer threat?  What?

Clearly only my own opinion.

Ruth Weiner
rfweine@sandia.gov
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: NIH:  Electric fields pose cancer risk
Author:  GACMail98@aol.com at hubsmtp
Date:    7/5/98 11:46 PM


In a message dated 98-07-05 22:11:38 EDT, jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John 
Moulder) writes:
     
<< the panel was asked whether power-frequency fields were carcinogenic.
 Under their rules, the possibilities were limited to: 
 - proven human carcinogen
 - probable human carcinogen
 - possible human carcinogen
 - proven non-carcingenic in humans
 - unclassifiable
     
* * *
     
Since there is no test, or finite set of tests, that can prove that an agent 
is not carcinogenic (at any level or under any conditions), everything that is 
not a "proven carcinogen" is a "possible carcinogen: >>
     
The panel apparently did not agree that EMF meets the criteria to be "proven 
non-carcinogenic in humans" or even to be "unclassifiable."  It would be 
interesting to know what the criteria are for each classification, but I'd bet 
the criteria for possible carcinogen are NOT "everything that is not a 'proven 
carcinogen'."
     
Glenn
GACMail98@aol.com