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

["Björn Cedervall" <bjorn_cedervall@hotmail.com>]

First my thanks to Glenn (or John Moulder - was it you who wrote that 
excellent chem-phys EMF review a year ago BTW? July 1997 if I remember 
right) who explained the original questions.

The bottom line is that headlines (at least in Sweden) can be 
constructed about anything according to "XYZ CAN CAUSE CANCER" (the 
Swedish word for "can" - "kan" is used both in the sense "can" and "may" 
which the media exploit - most people probably don't notice alternative 
interpretations). XYZ could be carrots, seing yellow color, listening to 
a particular politician, you name it. Just because one cannot prove that 
certain hypothetical risks do not exist. Therefore this can go on 
forever.

And then my best thoughts about Ruth's comments:
>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?
One of our sensational newspapers had the following question out five 
months ago: "DO CELLULAR PHONES CAUSE BRAIN TUMORS? (Cast your) VOTE!" 
And then the public could give their arguments also (that part was 
illuminating). This is part of the entertainment business - in case you 
haven't noticed previously.

Think about it for a moment! How much research money wouldn't we save 
replacing "the old method" with new way of determining scientific 
issues? And we could cut down on complicated education.

Furthermore, there is reason to be concerned about that probably more 
than 85% of our (Swedish) political leaders do not know the difference 
between an association and a cause effect relationship. If the media say 
"FRENCH AND CANADIAN ELECTRICTY WORKERS ASSOCIATED WITH LEUKEMIA" few, 
if any, will discuss why U.S. electricity workers may show a (weak) 
extra association with another tumor but not with leukemias (discussed 
in Science some 3-4 years ago). Hypothetically, one may correlate the 
French and Canadians (if that is the story) with consumption of certain 
wines, French Dijon mustard or some cheese that U.S. people don't eat. 
This as well as other - perhaps more reasonable explanations (like 
statistical variations...) is of course never analyzed and the confusion 
goes on - and more money goes down the drain.

Obviously my very own opinion - and not necessarily those of my
employers.
bjorn_cedervall@hotmail.com
Depts. Medical Radiation Biology and Medical Radiation Physics,
Karolinska Institutet, Box 260,
S-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden
_________________________________
>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
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com