Olin Lathrop wrote:

    "First as someone else has already pointed out,
     we evolved with these fields, so they can't be
     the cause of recent increases in cancers and
     the like."

This statement needs to be supported because what I read appears to
conclude nothing quite so concrete:

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

KENNETH R. FOSTER
Associate Professor of Bioengineering
University of Pennsylvania

A recent National Research Council (NRC) report (National Research Council,
Possible Health Effects of Residential Exposure to Electric and Magnetic
Fields, Washington: National Academy Press, 1996) may help put to rest the
longstanding controversy about possible health risks from weak power
frequency electromagnetic fields. The report, an exhaustive and critical
review of the scientific literature, found no persuasive evidence for cancer
or other chronic illness often attributed to such fields.

...

The controversy began with a 1979 report by two Denver investigators of an
apparent link between living near neighborhood distribution lines and
childhood cancer risk. Hundreds of studies, including dozens of
epidemiological studies, followed up this finding. No clear evidence for a
hazard emerged. But a scattering of weak and inconsistent positive results,
most near the limits of detectability, helped to keep the controversy alive
...

NOISY DATA. The issue is whether hazards exist from weak RF fields that
science (or the scientific establishment) has so far overlooked. Looking for
subtle health hazards is a difficult and contentious business, and the level
of scientific noise is very high.

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

Excerpted from:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/INST/feb97/viewpoint.html


"Noisy Data" - "Near the limits of detectability" - so-called 'evidence'
apperaing as nebulous as this should not be the basis upon which one
literally 'leaps' to any one conclusion (unless, of course, one simply
*wants* to) ...

Jim




----- Original Message -----
From: "Olin Lathrop" <olin_piclist@EMBEDINC.COM>
To: <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [EE]: IEE position statement"The Possible....."


> >      "There would still be those who'd argue
> >       about cell phone towers next to schools
> >       and HV power lines across residential
> >       areas,"
> >
> > It's fnuny that none of these types seem concerned
> > that we are bathed in a 200V/M electrostatic field
> > about the earth or also continually exposed to a
> > 1 Guass (it it?) magnetic field at all times ...
> > and since MUCH before our time (and our ancestor's)
> > time as well ...
>
> First as someone else has already pointed out, we evolved with these
fields,
> so they can't be the cause of recent increases in cancers and the like.
>
> Second, these are static or slowly changing fields, which is quite
different
> from 60Hz power or radio transmissions.  I don't pretend to know whether
> these things actually do pose a threat in the long term, but I think
Maxwell
> would agree that rapidly changing fields is a whole different ballgame
from
> static fields.
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
> (978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
> (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics