How about the long term effects from exposure to fields on the order
of 50kV/meter?? All external fields are ORDERS of magnitude SMALLER than
the fields the body generates internally as muscles and nerves operate!
The external fields are just minuscule noise by comparison. I should know,
I work in Neuroscience and recorded muscle and nerve signals for a living.

Many EMF studies have neglected to look at the effects of cosmic radiation
being focused by the M fields of parallel power lines. Wireless World (UK)
had a series of letters on this effect back in the early '80s.

IMO it's not the EMF that is the problem. It is the focusing effect on
external radiation sources.
Most studies have NOT convincingly eliminated OTHER causes (Cosmic rays,
Radon, etc.).

And the irony (hypocrisy??) is that the very people who are screaming the
loudest about the dangers are the same ones who let their children watch
TV 4' from the screen, where the EMF is about 3 times as high as from a
HV power transmission tower. Or who use old computer screens and thereby
expose themselves to 10 times the EMF of a HV power tower.


Robert
Fed up with the hypocrisy of the EMF hysterics.

SM Ling wrote:
>
> As far as I know the loudest voice are all very sure that there is no
> ill-effect.  I have noticed quite a good numbers are "non-bias" studies
> funded by Cellphone makers, Electrical companies, etc.
>
> IEEE spectrum ran an article some months back about the possible ill-effect
> about cellphone, and this invited strong debuttal from members of the IEEE
> International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety , and from former and
> current members of IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR).
>
> The latest response from the author published on Dec2002 issue of Spectrum
> prompted my earlier question:
>
> "The latest release of C95.1 was based on studies done in the 1960s through
> 1985. The baseline for the safety margin for near-field exposure in C95.1
> cited by the members of COMAR is based on thermal damage to tissue. The very
> timeframe of this research precludes the use of the advances in technology
> and research techniques available today. Nor was this body of experiments
> designed to study cellular-level damage from long-term, low-level exposure.
>
> Ling SM
>
> > I have followed this "health effects of electric fields" thing for quite a
> > while.  The other night, my wife was freezing in bed with a heap of covers
> > over her.  This is her normal state, always cold.  I told her to turn on
> > the electric blanket which was laying on top, unplugged.  "No, I have
> > heard they are bad for you."
> >
> > The last time I looked itno this issue it had been thoroughly debunked,
> > but has somehow got into the popular culture and just won't die.  Anybody
> > heard any facts lately?
> >
> > -- Lawrence Lile
> >
> > What do you all think about the wireless LAN effect on young kids?  I
> > tried
> > resisting it out of the fear, but thinking to try it because of the wiring
> > hassle.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Ling SM

--
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