EMF III

["Fritz A. Seiler" <faseiler@nmia.com>]

Hi all,

More comments have been made, so here is our joint
response. (Just because it originates from one e-mail
address does not mean that we did not co-author the
comment!).

So here is yet another comment by Fritz Seiler and Joe
Alvarez on the EMF problem and the attempts to keep
the controversy alive.

In a recent post, Brian Gaulke cited the EMF-dedicated journal
of the BEMS as an authoritative source for biological effects of
EMFs (By the way, the acronym EMF makes every physicist
cringe, because for us it means electro-motive force or emf; and
capitalizing it for distinction just adds insult to injury).  But once
you peruse his long list of articles that he deems noteworthy, you
have to ask: Effects of what on what and at what fields?  We do
not know the answer to these questions.  However, in these cases,
we have often found our "SO WHAT?!" TEST to be useful: If
there had been anything in these many papers - anything at all -
that could have even remotely been construed as evidence for a
carcinogenic EMF action, we would not just have been treated to
a tepid Committee statement, we would have been subjected to a
proper media uproar and would have been deluged with the latest
news about EMF and Cancer every morning for breakfast.
However, the silence in this regard is so overwhelming that it
speaks for itself.

Even if there were EMF effects of ambient fields over cellular or
tissue dimensions, that fact means nothing much by itself.  At least
one of the effects has to point to a pathway that has a plausible
chance of influencing carcinogenic processes.  But again, if you
discount mere hand waving arguments - and we do - there is only
deep silence.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that this lack of
hectic activity on the EMF-Cancer front indicates that the proper
attribute is still "innocent" and not "not guilty".

Also, we found Björn Cedervall's comment most enlightening, for
it points out potential pitfalls and thus potential sources of systematic
errors in EMF investigations.  Every new field of investigation has
to come to terms with the problem of systematic errors before its
results become credible.  Brian Gaulke states that this has been
done, but then neither he nor we are experts in this area.  All we
know is that in Physics some systematic errors have been called
dead several times, but seemed to have nine lives and were not
easily overcome.  In this particular case, we are somewhat
skeptical because such effects tend to be nonlinear (such as being
proportional to a product of field strengths) and will, therefore,
not decrease as the field strengths decrease, but will do so at a
faster rate.  And then there is always that pesky problem of a
signal-to-noise ratio  of 1:1,000!

And there is yet another aspect that deserves comment.  Enemies
of the Scientific Method often cite the Mad Cow Disease and
Wegener's Continental Drift Theory as examples of cases where
the Scientific Method has failed.  And since it failed, it need not be
applied so strictly and could, therefore, be bent a little in some
cases.  Of course that is always held to be true for the particular
effect being considered.

Actually, Wegener's continental drift theory initially had two
problems: One was the mistake Wegener made in calculating the
energy balance of his model, and the other was the fact that the
detailed structure of the seabed was not known.  It was only
recognized during World War II, by a captain who kept his
depth sonar going all the time and saw the dramatic structures
of the mid-ocean ridge of the Atlantic during several crossings.
Once the seafloor was mapped, the paradigm shift occurred
rapidly.

A similar problem occurred with the Mad Cow disease, only
in this case, it was more a problem of proper risk management.
Initially, the role of prions as carriers was not known.  Thus in
the absence of any scientific data supporting a link between the
Mad Cow Disease and man, the decision to wait and do more
research, still seems rational, particularly since the risk was
known to be small.  Once it was shown that prions were the
carriers of spongiform encephalitis and were able to infect man
by the ingestion route with a low probability, this knowledge
changed the situation and led to a ban of contaminated meat
and to the slaughter of large numbers of infected cows.

The fact that there may be some unknown effect out there, is
a risk inherent in making decisions on the basis of incomplete
information.  What should the British government have done,
initially?  Confiscated all the beef?  If so, on what grounds?
Slaughter all the cows?  What would have been the reason given?
We cannot say that we can fault the British government's
management decision to wait and do more research.  Finding
fault in this case is exercising 20/20 hindsight which is neither
part of common horse sense nor part of  the Scientific Method.
One thing that we cannot do, is to go running after every possible
effect, particularly when the is no indication of a corresponding
action by the agent under suspicion.  We have neither the funds
nor the scientific capacity for such an enormous undertaking.  So
it is a risk management decision, not a scientific one.  Once some
data are available, appropriate action can be taken.  But again,
this is a problem of risk management, not of risk assessment and,
therefore, not of the Scientific Method.  This shows that the use
of the Mad Cow Disease as an example is not well considered.


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

Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.
Principal
Sigma Five Associates
P.O. Box 14006
Albuquerque, NM 87191-4006
Tel.     505-323-7848
Fax.    505-293-3911
e-mail: faseiler@nmia.com

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