More on effects of overexposure to electromagnetic radiation

Some more things to consider about the excessive exposure to
electromagnetic radiation suffered by almost everyone today. The
brains of fetuses, infants and young children are going to be more
susceptible to the effects of exposure due to their brains not being
fully formed and also that their skulls are still malleable or not
grown completely together yet. This could also have a lot to do with
the rise in so-called child ‘depression' cases. Better to end the
cause than to mask it with pharmaceuticals that mask it or ****-up the
child. This could be the electromagnetic radiation interfering with
the operation of the brain, could also be frequency entrainment.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is as
bad as religion. Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.

James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

Some more things to consider about the excessive exposure to
electromagnetic radiation suffered by almost everyone today. The
brains of fetuses, infants and young children are going to be more
susceptible to the effects of exposure due to their brains not being
fully formed and also that their skulls are still malleable or not
grown completely together yet. This could also have a lot to do with
the rise in so-called child ‘depression' cases. Better to end the
cause than to mask it with pharmaceuticals that mask it or ****-up the
child. This could be the electromagnetic radiation interfering with
the operation of the brain, could also be frequency entrainment.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is as
bad as religion. Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.
-----------------------
You're propagating nothing but pseudoscience, that has all been shown
to be hockum that has NO substantiation in the actual evidence. If you
look at the data, any correlation is below the believable level, that
is, mathematically below the level of "believing what you want to see"
even when the data shows no statistical correlation. All experts who
have looked at it think it is unimportant.

Your notion of "psychotronic weaponry" instead points to you being
schizophrenic and needing medical help and drugs.
Steve

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

Some more things to consider about the excessive exposure to
electromagnetic radiation suffered by almost everyone today. The
brains of fetuses, infants and young children are going to be more
susceptible to the effects of exposure due to their brains not being
fully formed and also that their skulls are still malleable or not
grown completely together yet. This could also have a lot to do with
the rise in so-called child ?depression' cases. Better to end the
cause than to mask it with pharmaceuticals that mask it or ****-up the
child. This could be the electromagnetic radiation interfering with
the operation of the brain, could also be frequency entrainment.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is as
bad as religion. Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.
-----------------------
You're propagating nothing but pseudoscience, that has all been shown
to be hockum that has NO substantiation in the actual evidence. If you
look at the data, any correlation is below the believable level, that
is, mathematically below the level of "believing what you want to see"
even when the data shows no statistical correlation. All experts who
have looked at it think it is unimportant.

Your notion of "psychotronic weaponry" instead points to you being
schizophrenic and needing medical help and drugs.
Steve





No you are the one propogating mis-information and dis-information
pushed by bought and paid for pieces of garbage. It would not be a
surprise if you worked for or made money off of the electromagnetic
crap or the pharmaceutical bull. As for the psychotronic weaponry, it
is very real and you are full of ****. Anyone in this group can read
more about the weaponry by searching for the phrase "Death to
psychotronic weaponry". This might have three parts to it depending on
which browser I used to post it.

Anti-depressants should never be prescribed to children and should
probably be wiped out altogether. I certainly would never take any of
that ****. I will also go back and check my posts in another group for
a link to a site with the truth about prozac and post it in this
thread when I can.

Here is more info on electromagnetic radiation exposure with a large
spacing between the articles and a link to another set of articles:

This article sites several articles to read on the effects of
overexposure to electromagnetic radiation.

Note: This letter was sent by Dr. Curry to the editor of the Glen
Ellyn News, Glen Ellyn IL, in response to the statements by an
environmental engineer in a previous letter to the editor. That letter
questioned whether there were any reputable scientific studies
supporting the notion of cell phone related health issues.

Editor:

I am a former staff physicist at Argonne National Lab. This letter is
in response to the letter of Jeffrey Gahris in the Oct. 9, 1998 issue,
titled "Water tower heats up." Jeff Gahris stated "An Internet search
revealed that 'studies' have found dangers, but the evidence put forth
has not been accepted as good science." I challenge that
statement.Gahris should read the FAQ by Dr. John Moulder at the
Medical College of Wisconsin, (as I think he did) but disregarded
Moulder's comments and read his references instead.

I have been investigating this issue since early spring, have read
numerous papers from refereed journals, some of which I shall cite
here, and have attended two scientific meetings dealing with this and
related subjects, and I think a consistent picture of vulnerability is
emerging.

There are some electrosensitive individuals who have allergy-like
responses when exposed to microwave radiation and some other forms of
electromagnetic radiation, as well. I have personally met a number of
these people, and a journal article about their plight to which I have
just been referred is C.W. Smith, R.Y.S. Choy and J.A. Monro: "The
Diagnosis and Therapy of Electrical Hypersensitivities," Clinical
Ecology 6:119-128 (1989).

In vitro studies in the laboratories of Professors Martin Blank and
Reba Goodman at Columbia University have shown that low level
sinusoidal magnetic fields can affect biological enzyme reaction
rates, and cells go into a protective mode when bombarded with AC
magnetic fields and generate "heat shock proteins", which are nature's
way of protecting cells against lethal and environmental stresses. The
fluctuating magnetic field intensities in which these events occur are
quite low and the frequency range extends over several thousand Hz,
incorporating the frequency range of audio modulation of cell phones
and the pulsing rate (approximately 200 Hz) of PCS phones. Their work
is cited in Cell Stress and Chaperones, 3: 79-88 (1998) and
Bioelectromagnetics 18:111-115 (1997) 3)

In four different laboratories (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab,
University of California Riverside, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Lab, and Battelle Pacific National Lab) investigators have
found low level sinusoidal magnetic fields can block the ability of
Melatonin and Tamoxifen to inhibit breast cancer cell growth. This
work is too recent to be published yet, but I heard papers on it in a
recent meeting in Tucson. Also, Mice that were genetically predisposed
to have lymphatic cancer were found to be more likely (by a
statistically significant ratio) to develop cancer in the presence of
fields simulating pulsed cell phone radiation than predisposed mice
not exposed to the radiation. M.H. Repacholi, A Basten et al:
"Lymphomas in Eµ-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHz
Electromagnetic Fields" Radiation Research 147:631-640 (1997).

DNA strand breakage and failure of DNA repair mechanisms upon exposure
to electromagnetic fields have been reported in several articles, one
of which is H. Lai and S.P. Singh: "Acute low- intensity microwave
exposure increases DNA single strand breaks in rat brain cells,"
Bioelectromagnetics 16:207-210, 1995. Another is H. Lai and S.P.
Singh: "DNA Single and double strand breaks in rat brain cells after
acute exposure to low-level radio frequency electromagnetic
radiation." International Journal of Radiation Biology 69:513-5216.
Microwave fields were found to increase the mutation rate of DNA in
the presence of a carcinogen over that due to the carcinogen alone. A
Maes, M Collier et al: "954 MHz microwaves enhance the mutagenic
properties of mitomycin C." Environmental Molecular Mutagens 28:26-30,
1996).

Epidemiological studies have shown that Children living near a certain
radar installation were more prone to leukaemia than the general
population, S. Milham: Leukaemia clusters, Lancet 2, 1122 (1963). In
ham radio operators classified by age and license class (experience
level), the technician class (experience level just beyond novice
permits more powerful transmitters) has 60% higher standardized
mortality rate due to leukemia than the general population, in S.
Milham: Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields, European Journal of
Oncology 3: 93-100 (1998). c) Epidemiological data from all over the
world showing an association of cancer and other maladies are analyzed
in J.R. Goldsmith: "Epidemiologic evidence relevant to radar
(microwave) effects," Environmental Health Perspectives , 5:1579-1587
(1997). Also, Dr. Goldsmith has compared microwave radiation,
including cell phone radiation, with other public health issues in
J.R. Goldsmith: "From sanitation to cell phones: participants and
principles involved in environmental health protection," Public Health
Reviews 25: 124-149 (1997).

Bill P. Curry, Ph.D.
Home page: http://www.EMSciTek.com

This letter was published on Oct. 16, 1998 under the title (assigned
by the editor) "Scientist Warns of Antenna Radiation."




http://www.neurology.org/cgi/gca?all...F638#47/6/1477





More of what I have written and posted elsewhe


Some suggestions or recommendations for dealing with the problem of
too much exposure to electromagnetic radiation. All non-essential
broadcasts should be stopped.

Starting with television. First off cable should be made free and
available to all. The only channels that could charge are non public
channels that do not have commercials. If a satellite is used, the
signal would need to be made highly directional. Meaning that the
broadcast from the event location to the satellite would need to be
aimed directly at the satellite and not just go out in a wide angle
broadcast. In turn the broadcast from the satellite to the station
would also need to be made directional, so that it does not irradiate
the area outside of the receiving apparatus on the station premises.
The signal could then be sent out over cable. The only broadcast
television would then be one network kept off unless needed for
emergencies. If you lose power, you wouldn't be able to use your
television anyway unless you have a battery operated set. I am also
all for breaking up the media conglomerates, but that is another
topic.

Radio: Except for one broadcast in every area that would cover weather
and traffic, all other radio station electromagnetic broadcasts should
be shut down. Said broadcast could be used when other emergencies
arise also. Radio stations that operate over internet sites would
continue to operate.

The internet: Access to the internet should be made free or at least a
minimal charge for everyone. People would still need to buy their own
computers or use public ones like the library. All wireless access
should be done away with as that would be more electromagnetic
radiation broadcasts.

Cell phones: Emergency use only. No exceptions. Specific guidelines
for this can be established. Beepers and pagers should be the same
guidelines. I'll include things like the NTN trivia game here as it
uses cell phone frequencies to broadcast from the boxes. This needs to
be stopped unless they come up with a way to do it without using
electromagnetic radiation.

CB and two-way radio: CB's should only be available on a channel to
contact emergency or police personnel when needed. Police, ambulance,
fire radio's are a necessity, but should be monitored for any
unnecessary usage. Ham radio's would be limited to emergency
transmissions or just banned entirely.

Remote control devices: All electromagnetic radiation broadcast toys
should be banned. Remote controls for televisions, VCRs, DVDs and the
like should have a connection, either a telephone cord or a cable,
between them and the device they control. Old remote did have this and
were just as handy as the infrared radiation versions. Not to mention
you would never lose one. They can do anything an infrared remote can
do as far as operation. People would also need to learn how to open
their garage doors manually.

RADAR: For weather purposes, there should be two systems, one as a
back-up. While television and radio stations may have their own
software for interpreting the data received, there only needs to be
one system for obtaining the data. Air traffic radar would be cut back
with less planes, but that also gets into a pollution topic for
another writing. Military radar could be done away with along with the
militaries. Until such a time occurs however they should be limited to
essential usage only. Crap like the over the horizon radar should be
exposed for what it is or how useless it is either way.

GPS: Learn how to read a map. The displays in vehicles are a
distraction and dangerous to use when driving anyway. Ask for
directions. As for tracking stolen vehicles, anyone that knows it is
there and anything about it can disable it anyway. Either do away with
it or make it into a highly directional system also. The transmitter
in the vehicle can be made so that the signal is limited to say a 45 –
60 degree wide transmission. This could also be coupled with a level
sensor in case the vehicle is not in the upright position. Again the
transmission from the satellite back to a ground station needs to be
made so that it does not irradiate the area around the ground station.
A simple computer program in the satellite could make direction
corrections. When I say highly directional I am referring to something
like a couple of feet wide at most. They can make surgical lasers,
they can narrow the transmissions.

Medical devices: Any that use electromagnetic radiation should be used
only when necessary and the room should be shielded so that none of it
gets out.

Microwave ovens: If they can't make them so that 100% of the radiation
is kept inside the oven then they need to be done away with also.

Light emitting devices: Light bulbs should actually have to have a
warning label telling people not to stare directly at the bulb as it
can damage the eye. Tvs and computer monitors should have similar
warnings about being to close or over exposure.

As I have stated before, I am for the mandatory usage of
electromagnetic radiation detectors for things like faulty wiring in
all multiple family dwellings. Along the same lines as smoke
detectors, but hey they detect the wiring being faulty before the fire
starts.

I should also add that I am for the banning of nuclear weapons and the
reactors that produce the materials for them.

With the exception of well shielded medical devices, people are
exposed to the radiation from the rest every day and night. This is
contributing to if not flat out causing some of the health problems
that occur now. These are all things you can check for yourself.



Here is a brief summary of the weaponry:

All external stimuli encountered by an individual produce electrical
impulses in the nervous system which end up in the brain. Providing
the nervous system is working correctly.

Remote neural monitoring is, simply put, broadcasting an
electromagnetic radiation frequency which when passing through the
brain gets modulated by the above mentioned electrical impulses. This
works the same as the electrical impulses in the brain modulating the
frequency/ies it naturally produces due to the overall electrical
activity which occurs in it. This is what produces the potential
patterns as seen in an EEG reading. Some fairly good diagrams of
evoked potentials he
http://www.mattababy.org/~belmonte/P.../97_Gnuroscan/
The images here may also be good, however I got 404 error at library
http://www.medcat.nl/ResearchBE/brainprod.htm
The attacks with words and images are done by taking the above remote
neural monitoring and correlating the potential patterns to the
specific stimuli. After the correlation, the attackers then modulate
an electromagnetic radiation broadcast corresponding to the potential
patterns for the effect that they want. The potential patterns of one
set of stimuli, say seeing another human, can be broken down to
specifics (meaning into the patterns corresponding to hair, eyes,
face, clothes, colors of each, size and shape of each, etc) of that
human and then mixed with or added to specific potential patterns from
other correlations, say seeing a blue can, to produce the effect of
say a blue face. Simply by replacing the specific potential/s from the
human stimuli with that of the can stimuli and broadcasting the
modulated patterns into the brain of the person under attack. They
could also make it a can with black hair if the person had black hair
or if they have the potential pattern corresponding to a black stimuli
from other remote neural monitoring. This type of breaking down and
combining or replacing potential patterns can also get very complex.
In other words, a person under attack does not have to had seen or
heard the exact image or phrase used to attack them, they just need to
have seen or heard (or imagined as the remote neural monitoring will
pick that up also for use when correlating is further along) the parts
of it. This is much the same way that the naturally occurring process
of imagination works. If you have seen a face and seen a blue can, you
should be able to imagine a blue face. With the exceptions of brain
damaged individuals and perhaps infants.

Attacks with the modulated electromagnetic radiation also include the
potential patterns that occur in the brain from touch, taste and
smell. Potential patterns also include what are often referred to as
artifacts. Artifacts are mostly what can be monitored at other places
on the body such as the potential/s corresponding to heartbeat,
respiration, etc.

The entrainment part of the attacks/torture could be done with just a
frequency broadcast, however this seems unlikely since it would also
entrain the people around the person under attack. (Except for the
early stages of the attacks when it would be more likely for the
attackers to use a frequency broadcast when the person is alone.) A
narrow broadcast directed at the person under attack is possible,
however this is also unlikely due to the fact that sudden movements
and traveling down an interstate does not stop or hinder the attacks.
More than likely the entrainment is done with the modulated potential
patterns by pulsing or spacing of the modulations corresponding to a
specific image or by modulating the broadcasts with potential patterns
corresponding to the potentials in the person's brain when they had
previously been exposed to subliminal messaging while being remotely
monitored. A pulsing in the intensity or strength of the broadcast may
also be responsible for the entrainment. Pulsing of an image would be
perceived by the brain of the person under attack as a visual stimuli.
Since everyone has different potential patterns, this would only
effect the one to whom the potential patterns match up to.



Here is somehting I wrote addressing the supposed medical uses of the
weaponry:

Other than what is mentioned in patent # 6377833, specifically the
monitoring and correlation, what medical uses would the psychotronic
weaponry have?. That patent also warns about using the MRI part for
more than a couple of hours at a time. So the device would be much
safer and could be used or extended periods or indefinitely if the MRI
part was replaced with an EEG device. Thus eliminating the remote
neural monitoring portion.
Even the article posted in alt. mindcontrol about the rats uses
implants as opposed to remote neural monitoring them.

As for medical uses in helping blindness or deafness, the weaponry
would be useless unless the people in question had had their brains
monitored for the potentials to correlate before the blindness or
deafness occurred. Because after the blindness or deafness occurred
their brains would not produce the potentials from be exposed to a
stimuli. Even though when blindness or deafness occurs after the
person has been exposed to a great deal of external stimuli, the
monitoring can not correlate from thought until after it has
correlated from exposure to external stimuli. This would apply to the
other senses as well.

Monitoring and correlation of potentials and electrical impulses even
movement has been done in efforts to help paralyzed people get around
or communicate through the control of devices. However the
psychotronic weaponry would not help unless it did monitor the brain
for particular potentials to then correlate with specific instructions
when said potentials were monitored. Much the same as the
aforementioned patent, preferably with an EEG device, the same could
be used to operate an artificial limb. The person would have to use
their brain to visualize or to think in words so that the specific
potential patterns occurred that would then be correlated by a small
computer device into the instructions for the movement of the
artificial limb. Might be a pain?

Would not this also be possible then to use with perhaps an implanted
device on the other side of where the injury to the nervous system
occurred to then send the appropriate signals within the rest of the
existing nervous system? No I am not saying all implants are a good
thing, but an artificial heart is an implanted medical device. This
would require the person to wear the EEG device and perhaps a small
rechargeable battery operated computer, but that should be able to fit
in a hat and a vest. Instead of electromagnetic radiation broadcasts
to the implant, it would be quite possible to run a wire to it.
Whether the wire was also implanted or was external part of the way.
That would cut down on interference from outside sources. There would
still be the problem of the electrical impulses from touch and
movement not getting back to the brain, so the person would need to
use caution and common sense.




Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is as
bad as religion. Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.

James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

Some more things to consider about the excessive exposure to
electromagnetic radiation suffered by almost everyone today. The
brains of fetuses, infants and young children are going to be more
susceptible to the effects of exposure due to their brains not being
fully formed and also that their skulls are still malleable or not
grown completely together yet. This could also have a lot to do with
the rise in so-called child ?depression' cases. Better to end the
cause than to mask it with pharmaceuticals that mask it or ****-up the
child. This could be the electromagnetic radiation interfering with
the operation of the brain, could also be frequency entrainment.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is as
bad as religion. Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.
-----------------------
You're propagating nothing but pseudoscience, that has all been shown
to be hockum that has NO substantiation in the actual evidence. If you
look at the data, any correlation is below the believable level, that
is, mathematically below the level of "believing what you want to see"
even when the data shows no statistical correlation. All experts who
have looked at it think it is unimportant.

Your notion of "psychotronic weaponry" instead points to you being
schizophrenic and needing medical help and drugs.
Steve

It would not be a
surprise if you worked for or made money off of the electromagnetic
crap or the pharmaceutical bull.
------------------------
You're the piece of lying trash here. I'm just a physicist-engineer.

If designing things for people to use that utilize electicity is
your idea of sin, then you can ask people to go sit in the dark
and have nothing.


As for the psychotronic weaponry, it
is very real and you are full of ****. Anyone in this group can read
more about the weaponry by searching for the phrase "Death to
psychotronic weaponry". This might have three parts to it depending on
which browser I used to post it.
-----------------------
You're an idiot. Searching for schizophrenics that commonly manifest
this paranoia proves nothing but the prevalence of untreated
schizophrenia and the fact that even the insane are not stupid and
can write web-pages.


Anti-depressants should never be prescribed to children and should
probably be wiped out altogether.
-------------------
You're an anti-humane ******* who needs a 2"x4" attitude readjustment!


No you are the one propogating mis-information and dis-information
pushed by bought and paid for pieces of garbage.
------------------------
You're the lying garbage:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/emf.html


Power Lines and Cancer:
Nothing to Fear

John W. Farley, Ph.D.

The notion that electric power lines can cause cancer arose in 1979 with
a single flawed epidemiogical study that created a stir. Subsequent
epidemiologic and animal studies have failed to find a consistent and
significant effect. No plausible mechanism linking power lines and
cancer has been found. In recent years, the verdict from large-scale
scientific studies has been conclusively negative, and scientific and
medical societies have issued official statements that power lines are
not a significant health risk. In short, there is nothing to worry
about.

History

Childhood leukemia can be used as an indicator that radiation exposure
is sufficient to cause illness, because radioactivity elevates rates of
leukemia before it produce other forms of cancer. Consequently,
childhood leukemia ought to be the easiest to detect. In 1979, two
researchers, Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper, published an article based
on their own epidemiologic study, alleging that the incidence of
childhood leukemia was higher in Denver neighborhoods that were near
electric power lines [1]. Their article generated a flurry of other
studies. The idea was picked up by Paul Brodeur, who wrote a frightening
three-part article for The New Yorker that reached a large and
influential audience. Subsequent books by Brodeur in 1989 and 1993
alleged that power lines were "Currents of Death" and that the power
industry and the government were engaged in a cover-up [2,3]. The
journal Microwave News has consistently echoed Brodeur's message.

The list of conditions purportedly related to electromagnetic fields has
grown to include Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, brain
tumors, and breast cancer, and multiple chemical sensitivity. The
alleged culprits include power lines, microwaves, radar, video display
terminals (such as computer monitors), electric blankets, and household
appliances in general. Because virtually everyone in developed
countries is exposed to appliances that use 60 Hz power (50 Hz in
Europe), this health scare would have been extremely important had it
turned out to be valid.

By the mid-90s, at least 100 epidemiologic studies had been published.
Most found no correlation between cancer and measured powerline
magnetic fields in houses. The evidence accumulated that power lines are
not a health risk. In 1995, the PBS-TV's Frontline aired a
skeptical report, "Currents of Fear," that included interviews with
Brodeur and his critics [4]. By this time, a number of high-level review
panels has assessed the published studies. One prominent panel,
assembled by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities, concluded:

There is no convincing evidence in the published literature to
support the contention that exposure to extremely low-frequency
electric and magnetic fields generated by sources such as household
appliances, video display terminals, and local power lines are
demonstrable health hazards." [5]

Commenting on this report, Robert L. Park, Ph.D., executive director of
the American Physical Society asked, "Will this report end the
controversy? Of course not. An entire industry (including researchers)
is now dependent on the fear of an EMF hazard." [6] In 1995, the
society's executive council concluded:

The scientific literature and the reports of reviews by other panels
show no consistent, significant link between cancer and
power line fields. This literature includes epidemiological studies,
research on biological systems, and analyses of theoretical
interaction mechanisms. No plausible biophysical mechanisms for the
systematic initiation or promotion of cancer by these
power line fields have been identified. Furthermore, the
preponderance of the epidemiological and biophysical/biological research
findings have failed to substantiate those studies which have
reported specific adverse health effects from exposure to such
fields [7].

In 1996, a committee of the National Research Council concluded:

Based on a comprehensive evaluation of published studies relating to
the effects of power frequency electric and magnetic fields
on cells, tissues, and organisms (including humans), the conclusion
of the committee is that the current body of evidence does
not show that exposure to these fields presents a human-health
hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence
shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields
produce cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or
reproductive and developmental effects [8].

In 1997, the National Cancer Institute produced the largest
epidemiological study to date, which found no association between
childhood
leukemia and either wiring codes or measured magnetic fields [9]. The
New England Journal of Medicine published the results together with
an editorial calling for an end to wasting money on EMF research [10].

In 1999, The Lancet published a population case-control study covering
the whole of England, Wales, and Scotland. All children diagnosed
with leukemia or other childhood cancer during the previous four years
were eligible. Each case was matched with two controls randomly
selected for gender and date of birth from government registries. In the
main study, 3838 cases and 7629 controls were interviewed. The
EMF part of the study included only one control per case, and household
EMF measurements and school measurements where relevant
were taken on 2226 matched pairs. The measurements, adjusted for
historical line load and appliance fields, were used to estimate average
exposure in the year before the date of diagnosis, or an equivalent date
for controls. To ensure that the EMF doses found inside the
homes were the same as absorbed by the children, 100 of the children
wore monitors for one week periods, three times a year. The study
found no evidence that exposure to magnetic fields associated with the
electricity supply increased risks for childhood leukemia, cancers of
the central nervous system, or any other childhood cancer [11].

The Science

Thus, even though very hard to prove a universal negative, there have
been so many studies over two decades that it is virtually certain
that any significant hazard would have been discovered by now. The
critics make a number of very telling points.

1. The fields produced by power lines are very small. Power lines
produce both electric and magnetic fields. The electric field is greatly
reduced in magnitude within the human body, because the body is an
electrical conductor. In fact, power lines produce electric fields
inside
the human body that are much smaller than the electric fields that
normally exist in the body. The magnetic field is not significantly
shielded inside the human body, so the only realistic possibility of
health effects come from the magnetic field. The magnetic fields from
power lines are rather small. Typically they are about 2 milliGauss. By
comparison, the earth's field is typically 300-500 milliGauss, with the
exact value depending on the location on the surface of the earth.
Magnetic fields from power lines are therefore hundreds of times smaller
than the magnetic field from the earth. If the relatively weak magnetic
fields from power lines had significant adverse health effects, you
would expect the much stronger magnetic field from earth to be
devastating. Yet no such effect has ever been found. In experiments on
animals, mice have lived for several generations in 60 Hz magnetic
fields as high as 10,000 milliGauss, thousands of times higher typical
power line fields, without any adverse effects.

It is well known that fluctuating magnetic fields give rise to an
electric field by the Faraday effect in physics. Yale physics professor
Robert
Adair demonstrated that these electric fields are very small in
comparison with the naturally occurring electric fields arising from
thermal
fluctuations [12]. This is a good benchmark to indicate that the
powerline magnetic fields can't be important.

2. No plausible mechanism for adverse health effects has been
postulated. It is well known that electromagnetic fields at high
frequencies (e.g., ultraviolet light) can have adverse biological
effects. This is why sunlight is a good disinfectant: it kills bacteria.
However,
the frequency of power line fields (60 cycles per second, or 60 Hz) is
too low to have this effect by many orders of magnitude.

3. The initial study was flawed. Wertheimer and Leeper did not actually
measure magnetic fields from power lines. Instead, they
classified the homes according to their wiring code. The wiring code was
then used as a surrogate for the powerline magnetic field, which
was unmeasured and unknown. This is a flaw in the study. Later studies
actually measured the magnetic fields from power lines and found
no consistent relationship between measured magnetic field and incidence
of cancer [13]. It is important to realize that there are important
possible confounding factors in such epidemiologic studies. For example,
one possible confounding factor is an income effect. Living right
under electric power lines is not a desired residence, and often is a
low-income housing location. People living near power lines tend to be
poorer than the control group, and there is a strong and well-known
epidemiological relationship between poverty and cancer. Gurney and
others showed that the homes with the presumably higher-current wiring
code tended to be lower income [14]. Thus the original
Wertheimer-Leeper study was biased. In addition, it was based on a
relatively few cases, and the statistics were consequently rather poor.

Later epidemiologic studies were properly designed, and some were much
larger in scale. For example, the government of Finland
performed a huge study of 134,800 children, with one million
person-years of exposure. There were 140 cancers in the group, 5 fewer
than would be expected by chance [15].

Consequently, the epidemiologic studies, taken as a whole, consist of a
few early low-quality studies, some of which yielded positive
effects, and later, higher-quality studies, which yielded negative
studies. If power lines really caused cancer, it is natural to expect
the later
studies to confirm the earlier studies. Instead, this has all the
earmarks of a nonexistent effect.

4. The incidence of leukemia has been decreasing. During the last few
decades, the use of electric power and electric appliances has
increased the 60 Hz powerline magnetic fields to which we Americans are
exposed by roughly a factor of twenty. If power line fields were a
significant cause of leukemia, there should have been a dramatic rise in
leukemia. Leukemia rates, however, have slowly decreased. As
noted by the physicist J.D. Jackson, this argues against any significant
causal relationship [16].

Vested Interests

Once the health scare was started in a big way, a number of factors have
kept it going.

Researchers who want their funding continued have pressed for
"further research" into the possible danger, even though the data
are overwhelmingly negative. Some researchers have spent much of
their careers studying this question, and have staked their
reputation on the existence of a link between electromagnetic fields
and cancer. Naturally they argue strenuously against terminating
their field.
Engineering consulting firms are advising clients on strategies for
EMF minimization.
Various individuals and organizations are marketing
low-magnetic-field electric blankets, clocks, computer terminals for
"electrically
hypersensitive" people," measuring devices [A, B], and various
"protective" devices. [C, D]. For example, in 1998, Nature's
Distributors of Fountain Hill, Arizona, sold a $39.95 CELL SENSOR
Cellular Phone/EMF Detection Meter, which its Web site described
as:

The world's first meter to address the health issues associated
with the cellular phone and EMF power line
controversies. Learn to detect and measu cellular phone RF
radiation, electromagnetic fields generated by power
lines, computer monitors, TVs, appliances, home wiring, and
other unsuspected sources. The key to EMF avoidance
is detection. Now for the first time, detection is made
affordable by CellSensor, the hand-held, battery-operated,
guaranteed-accurate EMF detector. . . . It lets you instantly
measure the levels in your environment, and helps you
make informed purchasing decisions regarding appliances.

Public officials who not understand the science have responded
imprudently to the fears of their constituents.
Public distrust of utilities, big business, and established
scientists also plays a role. Brodeur's claim of a massive cover-up of
the
purported danger was a very clever posture because it tended to
discredit in advance the scientists who disagreed with him. Brodeur
charged that there was a cover-up in his book The Zapping of America
[17], published two years before the 1979
Wertheimer-Leeper report.
A few suits have been won property owners who claimed that the value
of their property was reduced by power lines that crossed it
[18]. Other suits have claimed that people nearby power lines have
caused tpeople to develop cancers [18]. To avoid lawsuits, power
companies have been following a policy of "prudent avoidance"; i.e.,
acting as if there were a danger. In the United States, as much
as $1 billion a year is spent in minimizing magnetic fields, mostly
by rerouting electrical power lines. The total cost before 1993 has
been estimated at $23 billion [19]. A huge cost for a nonexistent
problem.

In 1998, a 30-person panel convened by the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS - a component of the National
Institutes of Health) concluded -- by a 19-9 vote -- that electric and
magnetic fields like those surrounding electric power lines should be
regarded as a "possible human carcinogen." [20] Although described by
NIEHS as as "an international panel of experts," the panel included
the editor of Microwave News and several other well-known promoters of
an EMF-cancer link. Dr. Robert L. Park said that most of the
panelists have staked their reputations on such a link [21].

I believe that the panel's conclusion was not based on new data but
represents a political effort to prevent the cutoff of research funds.
Indeed, its chairperson declared:

This report does not suggest that the risk is high. It is probably
quite small, compared to many other public health risks.
However, I strongly believe that additional hypothesis-driven,
focused research should be pursued to reduce uncertainties in
this area [20].

In June 1999, the NIH Office of Research Integrity announced that Robert
P. Liburdy, Ph.D., a former staff biochemist at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, had engaged in scientific misconduct by
intentionally falsifying and fabricating data and claims about purported
cellular
effects of EMF reported reported in two scientific papers [22]. The
papers [23,24]. published in 1992, had reported data indicating that
EMF exert a biological effect by altering the entry of calcium across a
cell's surface membrane. These claims were potentially important
because they purported to link EMF and calcium signaling, a fundamental
cell process governing many important cellular functions.

The Bottom Line

The power line "issue" illustrates how persistent a health scare can be
when promoted by an author who tells a frightening tale. The
power-line scare has certain things in common with other health scares:
Magnetic fields are not understood by the public. Nor can they be
felt, tasted, seen, or touched. This makes them mysterious, easily
portrayable as threatening, and profitable to their advocates.

References

1.Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and
childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 109:273-284, 1979.
2.Brodeur P. Currents of Death: Power Lines, Computer Terminals, and
the Attempt to Cover Up the Threat to Your Health. New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1989.
3.Brodeur P. The Great Power Line Cover-Up: How the Utilities and
Government Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard Posed by
Electromagnetic Fields. (Little-Brown, 1993, hardback). There is
also a 1995 paperback edition.
4.PBS Frontline. Currents of Fear. Program #1319, originally aired
June 13, 1995.
5.Davis JG and others. Health Effects of Low-Frequency Electric and
Magnetic Fields. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 1992.
6.Park RL. Review panel exonerates low frequency electromagnetic
fields. What's New, Nov. 20, 1992.
7.American Physical Society, Executive Council Statement, April 23,
1995.
8.National Research Council Committee on the Possible Effects of
Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems. Possible Health Effects of
Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press, 1997. [Press release] [Complete
book]
9.Linet MS and others. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and
acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. New England Journal of
Medicine 337:1-7, 1997.
10.Campion EW. Power lines, cancer, and fear. New England Journal of
Medicine 337:44-46, 1997.
11.Day N. Exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of
childhood cancer. Lancet 354:1925-1931, 1999.
12.Adair RK. Constraints on biological effects of weak
extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Physics Review
A43:1039-1048,
1991.
13.Savitz DA and others. Case-control study of childhood cancer and
exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields. American Journal of
Epidemiology 128, 21-38, 1988.
14.Gurney JG and others. Childhood cancer occurrence in relation to
power line configurations: A study of potential selection bias in
case-control studies. Epidemiology 6:31-35, 1995.
15.Verkasalo PJ and others. Risk of cancer in Finnish children living
close to power lines. British Medical Journal 307:895-899, 1993.
16.Jackson JD. Are the stray 60-Hz electromagnetic fields associated
with the distribution and use of electric power a significant cause of
cancer? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
89:3508-3510, 1992. [Jackson authored a well-known graduate
physics textbook in electromagnetism.]
17.Brodeur P. The Zapping of America: Microwaves, Their Deadly Risk,
and the Coverup. (Norton, 1977).
18.Morgan JLG. EMF emerges as high-voltage litigation. Issues of
Injury, Summer, 1994.
19.Hafmeister D. Background Paper on Power Line Fields and Public
Health, March 29, 1996.
20.Environmental Health Institute report concludes evidence is 'weak'
that electric and magnetic fields cause cancer. NIEHS press release
#9-99, June 15, 1999. The full text of the report is available in
HTML and PDF versions.
21.Park RL. EMF: Health panel exhumes remains of power-line
controversy. What's New? July 3, 1998.
22.Findings of scientific misconduct. NIH Guide, June 18, 1999. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
23.Liburdy RP. Biological interactions of cellular systems with
time-varying magnetic fields. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
649:74-95, 1992.
24.Liburdy RP. Calcium signaling in lymphocytes and ELF fields.
Evidence for an electric field metric and a site of interaction
involving the
calcium ion channel. FEBS Letters 301:53-59, 1992.

For Additional Information

Adair RK. Fear of weak electromagnetic fields. Scientific Review of
Alternative Medicine 3(1):22-23, 25 , 1999.
Bennett WR. Cancer and Power Lines. Physics Today 47:23-29, April
1994.
Bennett WR. Health and Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
Moulder JE. Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health. An extensive
list of frequently asked questions and references.
Park R. Currents of Fear. In Park R. Voodoo Science. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2000, pp 140-161.
Canadian Health Protection Branch. Electric and Magnetic Fields at
Extremely Low Frequencies. Nov 20, 2002.
World Health Organization. Electromagnetic fields and public health:
Extremely low frequency (ELF). WHO fact sheet 205, Nov 1998.

__________________

Dr. Farley is Professor of Physics at the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas. He has never been employed by the electric power industry, or by
its research organization, EPRI. He can be reached on the Internet or by
email at

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

Some more things to consider about the excessive exposure to
electromagnetic radiation suffered by almost everyone today. The
brains of fetuses, infants and young children are going to be more
susceptible to the effects of exposure due to their brains not being
fully formed and also that their skulls are still malleable or not
grown completely together yet. This could also have a lot to do with
the rise in so-called child ?depression' cases. Better to end the
cause than to mask it with pharmaceuticals that mask it or ****-up the
child. This could be the electromagnetic radiation interfering with
the operation of the brain, could also be frequency entrainment.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is as
bad as religion. Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.
-----------------------
You're propagating nothing but pseudoscience, that has all been shown
to be hockum that has NO substantiation in the actual evidence. If you
look at the data, any correlation is below the believable level, that
is, mathematically below the level of "believing what you want to see"
even when the data shows no statistical correlation. All experts who
have looked at it think it is unimportant.

Your notion of "psychotronic weaponry" instead points to you being
schizophrenic and needing medical help and drugs.
Steve

It would not be a
surprise if you worked for or made money off of the electromagnetic
crap or the pharmaceutical bull.
------------------------
You're the piece of lying trash here. I'm just a physicist-engineer.

If designing things for people to use that utilize electicity is
your idea of sin, then you can ask people to go sit in the dark
and have nothing.


As for the psychotronic weaponry, it
is very real and you are full of ****. Anyone in this group can read
more about the weaponry by searching for the phrase "Death to
psychotronic weaponry". This might have three parts to it depending on
which browser I used to post it.
-----------------------
You're an idiot. Searching for schizophrenics that commonly manifest
this paranoia proves nothing but the prevalence of untreated
schizophrenia and the fact that even the insane are not stupid and
can write web-pages.


Anti-depressants should never be prescribed to children and should
probably be wiped out altogether.
-------------------
You're an anti-humane ******* who needs a 2"x4" attitude readjustment!


No you are the one propogating mis-information and dis-information
pushed by bought and paid for pieces of garbage.
------------------------
You're the lying garbage:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/emf.html


Power Lines and Cancer:
Nothing to Fear

John W. Farley, Ph.D.

The notion that electric power lines can cause cancer arose in 1979 with
a single flawed epidemiogical study that created a stir. Subsequent
epidemiologic and animal studies have failed to find a consistent and
significant effect. No plausible mechanism linking power lines and
cancer has been found. In recent years, the verdict from large-scale
scientific studies has been conclusively negative, and scientific and
medical societies have issued official statements that power lines are
not a significant health risk. In short, there is nothing to worry
about.

History

Childhood leukemia can be used as an indicator that radiation exposure
is sufficient to cause illness, because radioactivity elevates rates of
leukemia before it produce other forms of cancer. Consequently,
childhood leukemia ought to be the easiest to detect. In 1979, two
researchers, Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper, published an article based
on their own epidemiologic study, alleging that the incidence of
childhood leukemia was higher in Denver neighborhoods that were near
electric power lines [1]. Their article generated a flurry of other
studies. The idea was picked up by Paul Brodeur, who wrote a frightening
three-part article for The New Yorker that reached a large and
influential audience. Subsequent books by Brodeur in 1989 and 1993
alleged that power lines were "Currents of Death" and that the power
industry and the government were engaged in a cover-up [2,3]. The
journal Microwave News has consistently echoed Brodeur's message.

The list of conditions purportedly related to electromagnetic fields has
grown to include Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, brain
tumors, and breast cancer, and multiple chemical sensitivity. The
alleged culprits include power lines, microwaves, radar, video display
terminals (such as computer monitors), electric blankets, and household
appliances in general. Because virtually everyone in developed
countries is exposed to appliances that use 60 Hz power (50 Hz in
Europe), this health scare would have been extremely important had it
turned out to be valid.

By the mid-90s, at least 100 epidemiologic studies had been published.
Most found no correlation between cancer and measured powerline
magnetic fields in houses. The evidence accumulated that power lines are
not a health risk. In 1995, the PBS-TV's Frontline aired a
skeptical report, "Currents of Fear," that included interviews with
Brodeur and his critics [4]. By this time, a number of high-level review
panels has assessed the published studies. One prominent panel,
assembled by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities, concluded:

There is no convincing evidence in the published literature to
support the contention that exposure to extremely low-frequency
electric and magnetic fields generated by sources such as household
appliances, video display terminals, and local power lines are
demonstrable health hazards." [5]

Commenting on this report, Robert L. Park, Ph.D., executive director of
the American Physical Society asked, "Will this report end the
controversy? Of course not. An entire industry (including researchers)
is now dependent on the fear of an EMF hazard." [6] In 1995, the
society's executive council concluded:

The scientific literature and the reports of reviews by other panels
show no consistent, significant link between cancer and
power line fields. This literature includes epidemiological studies,
research on biological systems, and analyses of theoretical
interaction mechanisms. No plausible biophysical mechanisms for the
systematic initiation or promotion of cancer by these
power line fields have been identified. Furthermore, the
preponderance of the epidemiological and biophysical/biological research
findings have failed to substantiate those studies which have
reported specific adverse health effects from exposure to such
fields [7].

In 1996, a committee of the National Research Council concluded:

Based on a comprehensive evaluation of published studies relating to
the effects of power frequency electric and magnetic fields
on cells, tissues, and organisms (including humans), the conclusion
of the committee is that the current body of evidence does
not show that exposure to these fields presents a human-health
hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence
shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields
produce cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or
reproductive and developmental effects [8].

In 1997, the National Cancer Institute produced the largest
epidemiological study to date, which found no association between
childhood
leukemia and either wiring codes or measured magnetic fields [9]. The
New England Journal of Medicine published the results together with
an editorial calling for an end to wasting money on EMF research [10].

In 1999, The Lancet published a population case-control study covering
the whole of England, Wales, and Scotland. All children diagnosed
with leukemia or other childhood cancer during the previous four years
were eligible. Each case was matched with two controls randomly
selected for gender and date of birth from government registries. In the
main study, 3838 cases and 7629 controls were interviewed. The
EMF part of the study included only one control per case, and household
EMF measurements and school measurements where relevant
were taken on 2226 matched pairs. The measurements, adjusted for
historical line load and appliance fields, were used to estimate average
exposure in the year before the date of diagnosis, or an equivalent date
for controls. To ensure that the EMF doses found inside the
homes were the same as absorbed by the children, 100 of the children
wore monitors for one week periods, three times a year. The study
found no evidence that exposure to magnetic fields associated with the
electricity supply increased risks for childhood leukemia, cancers of
the central nervous system, or any other childhood cancer [11].

The Science

Thus, even though very hard to prove a universal negative, there have
been so many studies over two decades that it is virtually certain
that any significant hazard would have been discovered by now. The
critics make a number of very telling points.

1. The fields produced by power lines are very small. Power lines
produce both electric and magnetic fields. The electric field is greatly
reduced in magnitude within the human body, because the body is an
electrical conductor. In fact, power lines produce electric fields
inside
the human body that are much smaller than the electric fields that
normally exist in the body. The magnetic field is not significantly
shielded inside the human body, so the only realistic possibility of
health effects come from the magnetic field. The magnetic fields from
power lines are rather small. Typically they are about 2 milliGauss. By
comparison, the earth's field is typically 300-500 milliGauss, with the
exact value depending on the location on the surface of the earth.
Magnetic fields from power lines are therefore hundreds of times smaller
than the magnetic field from the earth. If the relatively weak magnetic
fields from power lines had significant adverse health effects, you
would expect the much stronger magnetic field from earth to be
devastating. Yet no such effect has ever been found. In experiments on
animals, mice have lived for several generations in 60 Hz magnetic
fields as high as 10,000 milliGauss, thousands of times higher typical
power line fields, without any adverse effects.

It is well known that fluctuating magnetic fields give rise to an
electric field by the Faraday effect in physics. Yale physics professor
Robert
Adair demonstrated that these electric fields are very small in
comparison with the naturally occurring electric fields arising from
thermal
fluctuations [12]. This is a good benchmark to indicate that the
powerline magnetic fields can't be important.

2. No plausible mechanism for adverse health effects has been
postulated. It is well known that electromagnetic fields at high
frequencies (e.g., ultraviolet light) can have adverse biological
effects. This is why sunlight is a good disinfectant: it kills bacteria.
However,
the frequency of power line fields (60 cycles per second, or 60 Hz) is
too low to have this effect by many orders of magnitude.

3. The initial study was flawed. Wertheimer and Leeper did not actually
measure magnetic fields from power lines. Instead, they
classified the homes according to their wiring code. The wiring code was
then used as a surrogate for the powerline magnetic field, which
was unmeasured and unknown. This is a flaw in the study. Later studies
actually measured the magnetic fields from power lines and found
no consistent relationship between measured magnetic field and incidence
of cancer [13]. It is important to realize that there are important
possible confounding factors in such epidemiologic studies. For example,
one possible confounding factor is an income effect. Living right
under electric power lines is not a desired residence, and often is a
low-income housing location. People living near power lines tend to be
poorer than the control group, and there is a strong and well-known
epidemiological relationship between poverty and cancer. Gurney and
others showed that the homes with the presumably higher-current wiring
code tended to be lower income [14]. Thus the original
Wertheimer-Leeper study was biased. In addition, it was based on a
relatively few cases, and the statistics were consequently rather poor.

Later epidemiologic studies were properly designed, and some were much
larger in scale. For example, the government of Finland
performed a huge study of 134,800 children, with one million
person-years of exposure. There were 140 cancers in the group, 5 fewer
than would be expected by chance [15].

Consequently, the epidemiologic studies, taken as a whole, consist of a
few early low-quality studies, some of which yielded positive
effects, and later, higher-quality studies, which yielded negative
studies. If power lines really caused cancer, it is natural to expect
the later
studies to confirm the earlier studies. Instead, this has all the
earmarks of a nonexistent effect.

4. The incidence of leukemia has been decreasing. During the last few
decades, the use of electric power and electric appliances has
increased the 60 Hz powerline magnetic fields to which we Americans are
exposed by roughly a factor of twenty. If power line fields were a
significant cause of leukemia, there should have been a dramatic rise in
leukemia. Leukemia rates, however, have slowly decreased. As
noted by the physicist J.D. Jackson, this argues against any significant
causal relationship [16].

Vested Interests

Once the health scare was started in a big way, a number of factors have
kept it going.

Researchers who want their funding continued have pressed for
"further research" into the possible danger, even though the data
are overwhelmingly negative. Some researchers have spent much of
their careers studying this question, and have staked their
reputation on the existence of a link between electromagnetic fields
and cancer. Naturally they argue strenuously against terminating
their field.
Engineering consulting firms are advising clients on strategies for
EMF minimization.
Various individuals and organizations are marketing
low-magnetic-field electric blankets, clocks, computer terminals for
"electrically
hypersensitive" people," measuring devices [A, B], and various
"protective" devices. [C, D]. For example, in 1998, Nature's
Distributors of Fountain Hill, Arizona, sold a $39.95 CELL SENSOR
Cellular Phone/EMF Detection Meter, which its Web site described
as:

The world's first meter to address the health issues associated
with the cellular phone and EMF power line
controversies. Learn to detect and measu cellular phone RF
radiation, electromagnetic fields generated by power
lines, computer monitors, TVs, appliances, home wiring, and
other unsuspected sources. The key to EMF avoidance
is detection. Now for the first time, detection is made
affordable by CellSensor, the hand-held, battery-operated,
guaranteed-accurate EMF detector. . . . It lets you instantly
measure the levels in your environment, and helps you
make informed purchasing decisions regarding appliances.

Public officials who not understand the science have responded
imprudently to the fears of their constituents.
Public distrust of utilities, big business, and established
scientists also plays a role. Brodeur's claim of a massive cover-up of
the
purported danger was a very clever posture because it tended to
discredit in advance the scientists who disagreed with him. Brodeur
charged that there was a cover-up in his book The Zapping of America
[17], published two years before the 1979
Wertheimer-Leeper report.
A few suits have been won property owners who claimed that the value
of their property was reduced by power lines that crossed it
[18]. Other suits have claimed that people nearby power lines have
caused tpeople to develop cancers [18]. To avoid lawsuits, power
companies have been following a policy of "prudent avoidance"; i.e.,
acting as if there were a danger. In the United States, as much
as $1 billion a year is spent in minimizing magnetic fields, mostly
by rerouting electrical power lines. The total cost before 1993 has
been estimated at $23 billion [19]. A huge cost for a nonexistent
problem.

In 1998, a 30-person panel convened by the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS - a component of the National
Institutes of Health) concluded -- by a 19-9 vote -- that electric and
magnetic fields like those surrounding electric power lines should be
regarded as a "possible human carcinogen." [20] Although described by
NIEHS as as "an international panel of experts," the panel included
the editor of Microwave News and several other well-known promoters of
an EMF-cancer link. Dr. Robert L. Park said that most of the
panelists have staked their reputations on such a link [21].

I believe that the panel's conclusion was not based on new data but
represents a political effort to prevent the cutoff of research funds.
Indeed, its chairperson declared:

This report does not suggest that the risk is high. It is probably
quite small, compared to many other public health risks.
However, I strongly believe that additional hypothesis-driven,
focused research should be pursued to reduce uncertainties in
this area [20].

In June 1999, the NIH Office of Research Integrity announced that Robert
P. Liburdy, Ph.D., a former staff biochemist at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, had engaged in scientific misconduct by
intentionally falsifying and fabricating data and claims about purported
cellular
effects of EMF reported reported in two scientific papers [22]. The
papers [23,24]. published in 1992, had reported data indicating that
EMF exert a biological effect by altering the entry of calcium across a
cell's surface membrane. These claims were potentially important
because they purported to link EMF and calcium signaling, a fundamental
cell process governing many important cellular functions.

The Bottom Line

The power line "issue" illustrates how persistent a health scare can be
when promoted by an author who tells a frightening tale. The
power-line scare has certain things in common with other health scares:
Magnetic fields are not understood by the public. Nor can they be
felt, tasted, seen, or touched. This makes them mysterious, easily
portrayable as threatening, and profitable to their advocates.

References

1.Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and
childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 109:273-284, 1979.
2.Brodeur P. Currents of Death: Power Lines, Computer Terminals, and
the Attempt to Cover Up the Threat to Your Health. New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1989.
3.Brodeur P. The Great Power Line Cover-Up: How the Utilities and
Government Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard Posed by
Electromagnetic Fields. (Little-Brown, 1993, hardback). There is
also a 1995 paperback edition.
4.PBS Frontline. Currents of Fear. Program #1319, originally aired
June 13, 1995.
5.Davis JG and others. Health Effects of Low-Frequency Electric and
Magnetic Fields. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 1992.
6.Park RL. Review panel exonerates low frequency electromagnetic
fields. What's New, Nov. 20, 1992.
7.American Physical Society, Executive Council Statement, April 23,
1995.
8.National Research Council Committee on the Possible Effects of
Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems. Possible Health Effects of
Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press, 1997. [Press release] [Complete
book]
9.Linet MS and others. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and
acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. New England Journal of
Medicine 337:1-7, 1997.
10.Campion EW. Power lines, cancer, and fear. New England Journal of
Medicine 337:44-46, 1997.
11.Day N. Exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of
childhood cancer. Lancet 354:1925-1931, 1999.
12.Adair RK. Constraints on biological effects of weak
extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Physics Review
A43:1039-1048,
1991.
13.Savitz DA and others. Case-control study of childhood cancer and
exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields. American Journal of
Epidemiology 128, 21-38, 1988.
14.Gurney JG and others. Childhood cancer occurrence in relation to
power line configurations: A study of potential selection bias in
case-control studies. Epidemiology 6:31-35, 1995.
15.Verkasalo PJ and others. Risk of cancer in Finnish children living
close to power lines. British Medical Journal 307:895-899, 1993.
16.Jackson JD. Are the stray 60-Hz electromagnetic fields associated
with the distribution and use of electric power a significant cause of
cancer? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
89:3508-3510, 1992. [Jackson authored a well-known graduate
physics textbook in electromagnetism.]
17.Brodeur P. The Zapping of America: Microwaves, Their Deadly Risk,
and the Coverup. (Norton, 1977).
18.Morgan JLG. EMF emerges as high-voltage litigation. Issues of
Injury, Summer, 1994.
19.Hafmeister D. Background Paper on Power Line Fields and Public
Health, March 29, 1996.
20.Environmental Health Institute report concludes evidence is 'weak'
that electric and magnetic fields cause cancer. NIEHS press release
#9-99, June 15, 1999. The full text of the report is available in
HTML and PDF versions.
21.Park RL. EMF: Health panel exhumes remains of power-line
controversy. What's New? July 3, 1998.
22.Findings of scientific misconduct. NIH Guide, June 18, 1999. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
23.Liburdy RP. Biological interactions of cellular systems with
time-varying magnetic fields. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
649:74-95, 1992.
24.Liburdy RP. Calcium signaling in lymphocytes and ELF fields.
Evidence for an electric field metric and a site of interaction
involving the
calcium ion channel. FEBS Letters 301:53-59, 1992.

For Additional Information

Adair RK. Fear of weak electromagnetic fields. Scientific Review of
Alternative Medicine 3(1):22-23, 25 , 1999.
Bennett WR. Cancer and Power Lines. Physics Today 47:23-29, April
1994.
Bennett WR. Health and Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
Moulder JE. Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health. An extensive
list of frequently asked questions and references.
Park R. Currents of Fear. In Park R. Voodoo Science. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2000, pp 140-161.
Canadian Health Protection Branch. Electric and Magnetic Fields at
Extremely Low Frequencies. Nov 20, 2002.
World Health Organization. Electromagnetic fields and public health:
Extremely low frequency (ELF). WHO fact sheet 205, Nov 1998.

__________________

Dr. Farley is Professor of Physics at the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas. He has never been employed by the electric power industry, or by
its research organization, EPRI. He can be reached on the Internet or by
email at





No once again, you are the asshole pushing the bull****. You claim to
be a physicist/engineer then you turn around and use words like sin in
your crap (you probably work for the government or a contractor of the
government). Religious scientist is an oxymoron. I will use the e-mail
at the bottom of your post and send the info about the weaponry to it.
I wonder if he is another so-called scientist that believes in magic.
By the way, since you think that electromagnetic radiation is so safe
why don't you go work on some of the power lines? Better yet why don't
you go stand in front of a radar broadcast for awhile? The world would
be ever so slightly better. Again you are trying to twist what I wrote
around. I point out the actual dangers of overexposure to
electromagnetic radiation and have suggested methods of stopping some
of it.

Oh yeah, since you think overexposure to electromagnetic radiaiton is
safe you could also go to the desert and lay out in the radiation from
the sun (which is naturally occurring) without any sun block and see
how long it takes for you to be a corpse. Or even just stare straight
into the sun and see how long it takes for damage to your eyes.
Staring into a light bulb will cause the same kind of damage. That is
tissue damage.


Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is as
bad as religion. Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.

P.S. Here is more about electromagnetic radiation ****ing up the
planet and how that in turn affects its inhabitants.

Electromagnetic radiation broadcasts and their part in global warming,
altering the natural electromagnetic field of the earth and causing
weather problems. This is just a brief write up. Radar can literally
cook someone. Knowing that, it should be rather obvious that the radar
installations aimed across the northern polar regions would cause the
air to warm. The warmer air would in turn add to global warming and
the melting of the ice cap. This would affect the southern polar
region as well, however there are not as many broadcasts crossing it.
All the radio, television, cell phones and other electromagnetic
broadcasting devices add to this or cause it themselves. The warming
of the air is not limited to the polar regions either, it occurs
everywhere the broadcasts are to some extent. More when a continuous
usage of the broadcasts occurs. This does not exonerate cell phones
just because you (anyone reading) may only use yours for a couple of
minutes. Everyone else that has one is pretty much doing the same and
not at the same time, so that the radiation frequencies are constantly
being broadcast.

The above mentioned warming also affects the weather. Say for instance
an area where there would be little warming from electromagnetic
radiation broadcast exposure. This area having colder air that flows
towards an area that is inundated by electromagnetic radiation
broadcast exposure which causes the air to be warmer than what it
should be. When the air intersects it produces even more severe
weather than what would have happened without the air being heated by
the broadcasts. This again is not limited to regions that get cold.
The electromagnetic radiation can also cause a kinetic energy transfer
to start and even a pressure wave in some instances which will also
affect weather or add to a storm to make it worse. Depending on how
the radiation is broadcast, the effects can also occur at elevation
levels due to the warming.

As for the interference with the earth's natural electromagnetic
field, this should be rather obvious also. Especially when the same
frequencies are used but broadcast in a different direction of the
flow of the earth's field. The current ‘moving' of the magnetic pole
is more than likely accelerated by said radiation broadcasts. The
radiation broadcasts are more than likely affecting the polarization
of the earth's core also.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is as
bad as religion. Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.

James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

Some more things to consider about the excessive exposure to
electromagnetic radiation suffered by almost everyone today. The
brains of fetuses, infants and young children are going to be more
susceptible to the effects of exposure due to their brains not being
fully formed and also that their skulls are still malleable or not
grown completely together yet. This could also have a lot to do with
the rise in so-called child ?depression' cases. Better to end the
cause than to mask it with pharmaceuticals that mask it or ****-up the
child. This could be the electromagnetic radiation interfering with
the operation of the brain, could also be frequency entrainment.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is as
bad as religion. Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.
-----------------------
You're propagating nothing but pseudoscience, that has all been shown
to be hockum that has NO substantiation in the actual evidence. If you
look at the data, any correlation is below the believable level, that
is, mathematically below the level of "believing what you want to see"
even when the data shows no statistical correlation. All experts who
have looked at it think it is unimportant.

Your notion of "psychotronic weaponry" instead points to you being
schizophrenic and needing medical help and drugs.
Steve

It would not be a
surprise if you worked for or made money off of the electromagnetic
crap or the pharmaceutical bull.
------------------------
You're the piece of lying trash here. I'm just a physicist-engineer.

If designing things for people to use that utilize electicity is
your idea of sin, then you can ask people to go sit in the dark
and have nothing.


As for the psychotronic weaponry, it
is very real and you are full of ****. Anyone in this group can read
more about the weaponry by searching for the phrase "Death to
psychotronic weaponry". This might have three parts to it depending on
which browser I used to post it.
-----------------------
You're an idiot. Searching for schizophrenics that commonly manifest
this paranoia proves nothing but the prevalence of untreated
schizophrenia and the fact that even the insane are not stupid and
can write web-pages.


Anti-depressants should never be prescribed to children and should
probably be wiped out altogether.
-------------------
You're an anti-humane ******* who needs a 2"x4" attitude readjustment!


No you are the one propogating mis-information and dis-information
pushed by bought and paid for pieces of garbage.
------------------------
You're the lying garbage:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/emf.html


Power Lines and Cancer:
Nothing to Fear

John W. Farley, Ph.D.

The notion that electric power lines can cause cancer arose in 1979 with
a single flawed epidemiogical study that created a stir. Subsequent
epidemiologic and animal studies have failed to find a consistent and
significant effect. No plausible mechanism linking power lines and
cancer has been found. In recent years, the verdict from large-scale
scientific studies has been conclusively negative, and scientific and
medical societies have issued official statements that power lines are
not a significant health risk. In short, there is nothing to worry
about.

History

Childhood leukemia can be used as an indicator that radiation exposure
is sufficient to cause illness, because radioactivity elevates rates of
leukemia before it produce other forms of cancer. Consequently,
childhood leukemia ought to be the easiest to detect. In 1979, two
researchers, Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper, published an article based
on their own epidemiologic study, alleging that the incidence of
childhood leukemia was higher in Denver neighborhoods that were near
electric power lines [1]. Their article generated a flurry of other
studies. The idea was picked up by Paul Brodeur, who wrote a frightening
three-part article for The New Yorker that reached a large and
influential audience. Subsequent books by Brodeur in 1989 and 1993
alleged that power lines were "Currents of Death" and that the power
industry and the government were engaged in a cover-up [2,3]. The
journal Microwave News has consistently echoed Brodeur's message.

The list of conditions purportedly related to electromagnetic fields has
grown to include Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, brain
tumors, and breast cancer, and multiple chemical sensitivity. The
alleged culprits include power lines, microwaves, radar, video display
terminals (such as computer monitors), electric blankets, and household
appliances in general. Because virtually everyone in developed
countries is exposed to appliances that use 60 Hz power (50 Hz in
Europe), this health scare would have been extremely important had it
turned out to be valid.

By the mid-90s, at least 100 epidemiologic studies had been published.
Most found no correlation between cancer and measured powerline
magnetic fields in houses. The evidence accumulated that power lines are
not a health risk. In 1995, the PBS-TV's Frontline aired a
skeptical report, "Currents of Fear," that included interviews with
Brodeur and his critics [4]. By this time, a number of high-level review
panels has assessed the published studies. One prominent panel,
assembled by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities, concluded:

There is no convincing evidence in the published literature to
support the contention that exposure to extremely low-frequency
electric and magnetic fields generated by sources such as household
appliances, video display terminals, and local power lines are
demonstrable health hazards." [5]
[]
[]
Dr. Farley is Professor of Physics at the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas. He has never been employed by the electric power industry, or by
its research organization, EPRI. He can be reached on the Internet or by
email at


No once again, you are the asshole pushing the bull****.
--------------------
You're nothing but a deluded liar!


You claim to be a physicist/engineer
----------------------
No, I *AM* a physicist-engineer!


then you turn around and use words like sin in
your crap
--------------
I never use the word "sin" except facetiously against you.


(you probably work for the government or a contractor of the
government).
---------------
Nope, you're being paranioid again!


Religious scientist is an oxymoron.
-----------------
Agreed, but that's not your problem, you are chemically defective
in your brain function.


I will use the e-mail
at the bottom of your post and send the info about the weaponry to it.
--------------------------
Don't bother, nutcake, you'll be bounced with the other SPAM!
Steve

..

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

Some more things to consider about the excessive exposure to
electromagnetic radiation suffered by almost everyone today. The
brains of fetuses, infants and young children are going to be more
susceptible to the effects of exposure due to their brains not being
fully formed and also that their skulls are still malleable or not
grown completely together yet. This could also have a lot to do with
the rise in so-called child ?depression' cases. Better to end the
cause than to mask it with pharmaceuticals that mask it or ****-up the
child. This could be the electromagnetic radiation interfering with
the operation of the brain, could also be frequency entrainment.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is as
bad as religion. Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.
-----------------------
You're propagating nothing but pseudoscience, that has all been shown
to be hockum that has NO substantiation in the actual evidence. If you
look at the data, any correlation is below the believable level, that
is, mathematically below the level of "believing what you want to see"
even when the data shows no statistical correlation. All experts who
have looked at it think it is unimportant.

Your notion of "psychotronic weaponry" instead points to you being
schizophrenic and needing medical help and drugs.
Steve

It would not be a
surprise if you worked for or made money off of the electromagnetic
crap or the pharmaceutical bull.
------------------------
You're the piece of lying trash here. I'm just a physicist-engineer.

If designing things for people to use that utilize electicity is
your idea of sin, then you can ask people to go sit in the dark
and have nothing.


As for the psychotronic weaponry, it
is very real and you are full of ****. Anyone in this group can read
more about the weaponry by searching for the phrase "Death to
psychotronic weaponry". This might have three parts to it depending on
which browser I used to post it.
-----------------------
You're an idiot. Searching for schizophrenics that commonly manifest
this paranoia proves nothing but the prevalence of untreated
schizophrenia and the fact that even the insane are not stupid and
can write web-pages.


Anti-depressants should never be prescribed to children and should
probably be wiped out altogether.
-------------------
You're an anti-humane ******* who needs a 2"x4" attitude readjustment!


No you are the one propogating mis-information and dis-information
pushed by bought and paid for pieces of garbage.
------------------------
You're the lying garbage:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/emf.html


Power Lines and Cancer:
Nothing to Fear

John W. Farley, Ph.D.

The notion that electric power lines can cause cancer arose in 1979 with
a single flawed epidemiogical study that created a stir. Subsequent
epidemiologic and animal studies have failed to find a consistent and
significant effect. No plausible mechanism linking power lines and
cancer has been found. In recent years, the verdict from large-scale
scientific studies has been conclusively negative, and scientific and
medical societies have issued official statements that power lines are
not a significant health risk. In short, there is nothing to worry
about.

History

Childhood leukemia can be used as an indicator that radiation exposure
is sufficient to cause illness, because radioactivity elevates rates of
leukemia before it produce other forms of cancer. Consequently,
childhood leukemia ought to be the easiest to detect. In 1979, two
researchers, Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper, published an article based
on their own epidemiologic study, alleging that the incidence of
childhood leukemia was higher in Denver neighborhoods that were near
electric power lines [1]. Their article generated a flurry of other
studies. The idea was picked up by Paul Brodeur, who wrote a frightening
three-part article for The New Yorker that reached a large and
influential audience. Subsequent books by Brodeur in 1989 and 1993
alleged that power lines were "Currents of Death" and that the power
industry and the government were engaged in a cover-up [2,3]. The
journal Microwave News has consistently echoed Brodeur's message.

The list of conditions purportedly related to electromagnetic fields has
grown to include Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, brain
tumors, and breast cancer, and multiple chemical sensitivity. The
alleged culprits include power lines, microwaves, radar, video display
terminals (such as computer monitors), electric blankets, and household
appliances in general. Because virtually everyone in developed
countries is exposed to appliances that use 60 Hz power (50 Hz in
Europe), this health scare would have been extremely important had it
turned out to be valid.

By the mid-90s, at least 100 epidemiologic studies had been published.
Most found no correlation between cancer and measured powerline
magnetic fields in houses. The evidence accumulated that power lines are
not a health risk. In 1995, the PBS-TV's Frontline aired a
skeptical report, "Currents of Fear," that included interviews with
Brodeur and his critics [4]. By this time, a number of high-level review
panels has assessed the published studies. One prominent panel,
assembled by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities, concluded:

There is no convincing evidence in the published literature to
support the contention that exposure to extremely low-frequency
electric and magnetic fields generated by sources such as household
appliances, video display terminals, and local power lines are
demonstrable health hazards." [5]
[]
[]
Dr. Farley is Professor of Physics at the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas. He has never been employed by the electric power industry, or by
its research organization, EPRI. He can be reached on the Internet or by
email at


No once again, you are the asshole pushing the bull****.
--------------------
You're nothing but a deluded liar!


You claim to be a physicist/engineer
----------------------
No, I *AM* a physicist-engineer!


then you turn around and use words like sin in
your crap
--------------
I never use the word "sin" except facetiously against you.


(you probably work for the government or a contractor of the
government).
---------------
Nope, you're being paranioid again!


Religious scientist is an oxymoron.
-----------------
Agreed, but that's not your problem, you are chemically defective
in your brain function.


I will use the e-mail
at the bottom of your post and send the info about the weaponry to it.
--------------------------
Don't bother, nutcake, you'll be bounced with the other SPAM!
Steve

.



To the asshole Stevie boy, I would really enjoy you calling me a
nutcake to my face. No not paranoid just trying to figure out why you
would be such an asshole. Maybe it was just bad parenting?

To others reading this thread here is some more valid information.

Here is a link to a yahoo news page with a story about a recent
Swedish study that links mobile phone usage to auditory nerve tumors.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._tumor_risk_12

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is as
bad as religion. Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.

P.S. Here are some things to keep in mind when checking into studies
about the effects of electromagnetic radiation exposure.

Check into what they used. Example: Did they take one cell phone and
then not even consider the return broadcast to it? When is someone
only exposed to the radiation from one cell phone or the return
broadcasts to it?

The governments 'acceptable' limits of microwave exposure. Do they
take into account that microwaves are a frequency band of
electromagnetic radiation? Or did they just point out the the
microwave exposure from one station's broadcast frequency was under
the limit? When is someone only exposed to one station's broadcasts?
Same for radio frequency electromagnetic radiaiton.

Nuclear radiation as it is called is simply the radiation caused by an
atomic reaction. The radiation is still electromagnetic radiation, the
reaction just produces radiation in several of, if not all of, the
frequency bands. The only difference between ionizing and non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiationother than the frequency band is that
ionizing radiation makes what it contacts radioactive. Non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiation can kill you.

After having a discussion with my mother the other day, I would ask
the following. Why do radio and television stations use the
expressions "over the air" or "on the air" when the radiation passes
through the air? She actually thought the broadcasts used air and
probably isn't the only one. Unless the air contains particles that
interfere with the broadcasts, it does not affect them. Wind usually
affects the broadcasting or receiving equipment and that causes the
static or bad reception.

James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message

No you are the one propogating mis-information and dis-information
pushed by bought and paid for pieces of garbage.
------------------------
You're the lying garbage:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/emf.html


Power Lines and Cancer:
Nothing to Fear

John W. Farley, Ph.D.

The notion that electric power lines can cause cancer arose in 1979 with
a single flawed epidemiogical study that created a stir. Subsequent
epidemiologic and animal studies have failed to find a consistent and
significant effect. No plausible mechanism linking power lines and
cancer has been found. In recent years, the verdict from large-scale
scientific studies has been conclusively negative, and scientific and
medical societies have issued official statements that power lines are
not a significant health risk. In short, there is nothing to worry
about.

History

Childhood leukemia can be used as an indicator that radiation exposure
is sufficient to cause illness, because radioactivity elevates rates of
leukemia before it produce other forms of cancer. Consequently,
childhood leukemia ought to be the easiest to detect. In 1979, two
researchers, Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper, published an article based
on their own epidemiologic study, alleging that the incidence of
childhood leukemia was higher in Denver neighborhoods that were near
electric power lines [1]. Their article generated a flurry of other
studies. The idea was picked up by Paul Brodeur, who wrote a frightening
three-part article for The New Yorker that reached a large and
influential audience. Subsequent books by Brodeur in 1989 and 1993
alleged that power lines were "Currents of Death" and that the power
industry and the government were engaged in a cover-up [2,3]. The
journal Microwave News has consistently echoed Brodeur's message.

The list of conditions purportedly related to electromagnetic fields has
grown to include Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, brain
tumors, and breast cancer, and multiple chemical sensitivity. The
alleged culprits include power lines, microwaves, radar, video display
terminals (such as computer monitors), electric blankets, and household
appliances in general. Because virtually everyone in developed
countries is exposed to appliances that use 60 Hz power (50 Hz in
Europe), this health scare would have been extremely important had it
turned out to be valid.

By the mid-90s, at least 100 epidemiologic studies had been published.
Most found no correlation between cancer and measured powerline
magnetic fields in houses. The evidence accumulated that power lines are
not a health risk. In 1995, the PBS-TV's Frontline aired a
skeptical report, "Currents of Fear," that included interviews with
Brodeur and his critics [4]. By this time, a number of high-level review
panels has assessed the published studies. One prominent panel,
assembled by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities, concluded:

There is no convincing evidence in the published literature to
support the contention that exposure to extremely low-frequency
electric and magnetic fields generated by sources such as household
appliances, video display terminals, and local power lines are
demonstrable health hazards." [5]
[]
[]
Dr. Farley is Professor of Physics at the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas. He has never been employed by the electric power industry, or by
its research organization, EPRI. He can be reached on the Internet or by
email at


No once again, you are the asshole pushing the bull****.
--------------------
You're nothing but a deluded liar!


You claim to be a physicist/engineer
----------------------
No, I *AM* a physicist-engineer!


then you turn around and use words like sin in
your crap
--------------
I never use the word "sin" except facetiously against you.


(you probably work for the government or a contractor of the
government).
---------------
Nope, you're being paranioid again!


Religious scientist is an oxymoron.
-----------------
Agreed, but that's not your problem, you are chemically defective
in your brain function.


I will use the e-mail
at the bottom of your post and send the info about the weaponry to it.
--------------------------
Don't bother, nutcake, you'll be bounced with the other SPAM!
Steve


To the asshole Stevie boy,
--------------------
YOU'RE the ONLY ****-****ing asshole here, make NO mistake!


I would really enjoy you calling me a
nutcake to my face.
---------------------
Not if you responded irrationally, because you might actually be
harmed. I'm significantly dangerous.


No not paranoid just trying to figure out why you
would be such an asshole. Maybe it was just bad parenting?
----------------------
You're the only asshole, AND you're schizophrenic, not me!


To others reading this thread here is some more valid information.
-------------------------
No, only more of your insane paranoid lies!


Here is a link to a yahoo news page with a story about a recent
Swedish study that links mobile phone usage to auditory nerve tumors.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._tumor_risk_12
-------------------------------
The Swedes have been notorious nervous nellies about EMF studies, and
have legislated pop-terror instead of science repeatedly. They have a
pronounced cowardice in their academic sectors's participation in
democracy.


Death to psychotronic weaponry.
------------------------
There is no such thing being used on morons like you, or they'd have
shut you the **** up HERE.


Religion is fraud.
------------------
Of course it is.


Pseudoscience is as bad as religion.
------------------
And so are you.


Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.
-------------------
Ain't any, just a loose and poorly governed association of capitalist
thieves who steal from each other as often as from the rest of us.


P.S. Here are some things to keep in mind when checking into studies
about the effects of electromagnetic radiation exposure.

Check into what they used. Example: Did they take one cell phone and
then not even consider the return broadcast to it?
-----------------------
By the inverse-square law of physics, the return signal is MILLIONS of
times smaller.


When is someone
only exposed to the radiation from one cell phone or the return
broadcasts to it?
-----------------------------
Not more than that tiniest millionth all together.


The governments 'acceptable' limits of microwave exposure. Do they
take into account that microwaves are a frequency band of
electromagnetic radiation?
---------------------------
Of course, how stupid you are.


Or did they just point out the the
microwave exposure from one station's broadcast frequency was under
the limit?
--------------------------
The neighbor's microwave leakage is more than any cell phone, and did
you know that ANY hot object produces microwaves???? A large CAMPFIRE
produces MORE MICROWAVES THAN ANY MICROWAVE OVEN!! And if you didn't
use electonics and modern conveniences, THAT IS WHAT YOU'D HAVE TO
USE OR YOU'D FREEZE!!!! Life without the EM spectrum is IMPOSSIBLE!!


When is someone only exposed to one station's broadcasts?
-----------------------------
You know that very tiny light you see in the distance? Well that's
the power of most transmissions of the other frequency ranges as
well.


Same for radio frequency electromagnetic radiaiton.
-----------------------
Irrelevant, light IS EM radiation!
The sun is MONSTROUSLY brighter than any earthly source!


Nuclear radiation as it is called is simply the radiation caused by an
atomic reaction. The radiation is still electromagnetic radiation,
------------------------
Nope, not accurate.


the
reaction just produces radiation in several of, if not all of, the
frequency bands.
--------------------
Sort of, butalso quite inaccurate.


The only difference between ionizing and non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiationother than the frequency band is that
ionizing radiation makes what it contacts radioactive.
------------------------
Absolute anti-science nonsense. Ionizing radiation is simply either
electrons or nuclei that can add or remove charge from the outside
of atoms, or else it is ultraviolet light that can do so. It in NO
WAY makes anything radioactive!! IDIOT!


Non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiation can kill you.
-----------------------------
Nonsense, only UV, xray, and gamma rays in the EM spectrum can kill
you and they are IONIZING! And these are the tiniest parts of
the EM spectrum we receive, and 99.9999999999% come from the Sun!!

The rest of the lower EM spectrum that humans produce is harmless
and NON-IONIZING!


After having a discussion with my mother the other day, I would ask
the following. Why do radio and television stations use the
expressions "over the air" or "on the air" when the radiation passes
through the air? She actually thought the broadcasts used air and
probably isn't the only one. Unless the air contains particles that
interfere with the broadcasts, it does not affect them. Wind usually
affects the broadcasting or receiving equipment and that causes the
static or bad reception.
---------------------------------
Your mother is as much of an idiot as you are, no wonder!!
Steve

Xc9-A4_88-16_99 wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Enjoy Steve..........

1.Frequencies that may be used in short range emf weapons systems:
-----------------------
Aren't any. The supposed principle behind such weapons is fraudulent.
Anything that can generate sufficient EMF in short ranges also
generates explosive power that destroys most things at that range.


1. Frequencies in the ultrasonic range between 20 KHz and 100 KHz.
The most destructive effects occurring with 600 V pulses, at 7.5Hz and a 4
msec pulse
width using an 18" diameter
--------------------------------
Pain-field baloney. Try selling it to idiots, the money from that
fraud will do you more good.


2. Waveform generators for low to high pitch coasting with the waveform
pulse rate
that varies about 10-30Hz which is in the brainwave frequency band
-------------------------
Doesn't work through tissue. Salt-water is like a metal shield.


3. In order to target a specific body organ the frequency range has to
exceed 1GHz to focus
the EMF in the organ sized area
-----------------------------
And at such a close range that a knife would do more damage.


4. Magnetic fields are more harmful than electric fields.
------------------------
You have no grasp of Maxwell, do you, little newbie?


The biological
effects of
EMFs have very little to do with the frequency involved but more with the
waveform
(Randomness, Low Duty Cycle, Pulse Shape, Fast Rise and Fall), Type of Field
(Field
changes induced by randomness and high rise and fall times), Low Duty Cycle,
and Field
Direction
-------------------
Balderdash. Complexity spew to conceal your desperate ignorance.


5. Microwave frequencies of 500MHz are required for wavelengths of organ
size and to
deliver enough energy to produce significant thermal effects
---------------------------------------
You need more study.


6. The type of emf weapon used and corresponding frequencies depends on its
purpose. If
the weapon is being used to create behavioral conditioning then 200Hz emfs
are used. If
the weapon is being used to experiment on extrasensory perception then
microwave
pulsed audiograms might be used
--------------------------------
I'm a physicist-engineer. I can see you're pretending knowledge.
You're an idiot.
Steve

[further garbage truncated]

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
James M. Vierling Jr. wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message

No you are the one propogating mis-information and dis-information
pushed by bought and paid for pieces of garbage.
------------------------
You're the lying garbage:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/emf.html


Power Lines and Cancer:
Nothing to Fear

John W. Farley, Ph.D.

The notion that electric power lines can cause cancer arose in 1979 with
a single flawed epidemiogical study that created a stir. Subsequent
epidemiologic and animal studies have failed to find a consistent and
significant effect. No plausible mechanism linking power lines and
cancer has been found. In recent years, the verdict from large-scale
scientific studies has been conclusively negative, and scientific and
medical societies have issued official statements that power lines are
not a significant health risk. In short, there is nothing to worry
about.

History

Childhood leukemia can be used as an indicator that radiation exposure
is sufficient to cause illness, because radioactivity elevates rates of
leukemia before it produce other forms of cancer. Consequently,
childhood leukemia ought to be the easiest to detect. In 1979, two
researchers, Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper, published an article based
on their own epidemiologic study, alleging that the incidence of
childhood leukemia was higher in Denver neighborhoods that were near
electric power lines [1]. Their article generated a flurry of other
studies. The idea was picked up by Paul Brodeur, who wrote a frightening
three-part article for The New Yorker that reached a large and
influential audience. Subsequent books by Brodeur in 1989 and 1993
alleged that power lines were "Currents of Death" and that the power
industry and the government were engaged in a cover-up [2,3]. The
journal Microwave News has consistently echoed Brodeur's message.

The list of conditions purportedly related to electromagnetic fields has
grown to include Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, brain
tumors, and breast cancer, and multiple chemical sensitivity. The
alleged culprits include power lines, microwaves, radar, video display
terminals (such as computer monitors), electric blankets, and household
appliances in general. Because virtually everyone in developed
countries is exposed to appliances that use 60 Hz power (50 Hz in
Europe), this health scare would have been extremely important had it
turned out to be valid.

By the mid-90s, at least 100 epidemiologic studies had been published.
Most found no correlation between cancer and measured powerline
magnetic fields in houses. The evidence accumulated that power lines are
not a health risk. In 1995, the PBS-TV's Frontline aired a
skeptical report, "Currents of Fear," that included interviews with
Brodeur and his critics [4]. By this time, a number of high-level review
panels has assessed the published studies. One prominent panel,
assembled by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities, concluded:

There is no convincing evidence in the published literature to
support the contention that exposure to extremely low-frequency
electric and magnetic fields generated by sources such as household
appliances, video display terminals, and local power lines are
demonstrable health hazards." [5]
[]
[]
Dr. Farley is Professor of Physics at the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas. He has never been employed by the electric power industry, or by
its research organization, EPRI. He can be reached on the Internet or by
email at


No once again, you are the asshole pushing the bull****.
--------------------
You're nothing but a deluded liar!


You claim to be a physicist/engineer
----------------------
No, I *AM* a physicist-engineer!


then you turn around and use words like sin in
your crap
--------------
I never use the word "sin" except facetiously against you.


(you probably work for the government or a contractor of the
government).
---------------
Nope, you're being paranioid again!


Religious scientist is an oxymoron.
-----------------
Agreed, but that's not your problem, you are chemically defective
in your brain function.


I will use the e-mail
at the bottom of your post and send the info about the weaponry to it.
--------------------------
Don't bother, nutcake, you'll be bounced with the other SPAM!
Steve


To the asshole Stevie boy,
--------------------
YOU'RE the ONLY ****-****ing asshole here, make NO mistake!


I would really enjoy you calling me a
nutcake to my face.
---------------------
Not if you responded irrationally, because you might actually be
harmed. I'm significantly dangerous.


No not paranoid just trying to figure out why you
would be such an asshole. Maybe it was just bad parenting?
----------------------
You're the only asshole, AND you're schizophrenic, not me!


To others reading this thread here is some more valid information.
-------------------------
No, only more of your insane paranoid lies!


Here is a link to a yahoo news page with a story about a recent
Swedish study that links mobile phone usage to auditory nerve tumors.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._tumor_risk_12
-------------------------------
The Swedes have been notorious nervous nellies about EMF studies, and
have legislated pop-terror instead of science repeatedly. They have a
pronounced cowardice in their academic sectors's participation in
democracy.


Death to psychotronic weaponry.
------------------------
There is no such thing being used on morons like you, or they'd have
shut you the **** up HERE.


Religion is fraud.
------------------
Of course it is.


Pseudoscience is as bad as religion.
------------------
And so are you.


Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.
-------------------
Ain't any, just a loose and poorly governed association of capitalist
thieves who steal from each other as often as from the rest of us.


P.S. Here are some things to keep in mind when checking into studies
about the effects of electromagnetic radiation exposure.

Check into what they used. Example: Did they take one cell phone and
then not even consider the return broadcast to it?
-----------------------
By the inverse-square law of physics, the return signal is MILLIONS of
times smaller.


When is someone
only exposed to the radiation from one cell phone or the return
broadcasts to it?
-----------------------------
Not more than that tiniest millionth all together.


The governments 'acceptable' limits of microwave exposure. Do they
take into account that microwaves are a frequency band of
electromagnetic radiation?
---------------------------
Of course, how stupid you are.


Or did they just point out the the
microwave exposure from one station's broadcast frequency was under
the limit?
--------------------------
The neighbor's microwave leakage is more than any cell phone, and did
you know that ANY hot object produces microwaves???? A large CAMPFIRE
produces MORE MICROWAVES THAN ANY MICROWAVE OVEN!! And if you didn't
use electonics and modern conveniences, THAT IS WHAT YOU'D HAVE TO
USE OR YOU'D FREEZE!!!! Life without the EM spectrum is IMPOSSIBLE!!


When is someone only exposed to one station's broadcasts?
-----------------------------
You know that very tiny light you see in the distance? Well that's
the power of most transmissions of the other frequency ranges as
well.


Same for radio frequency electromagnetic radiaiton.
-----------------------
Irrelevant, light IS EM radiation!
The sun is MONSTROUSLY brighter than any earthly source!


Nuclear radiation as it is called is simply the radiation caused by an
atomic reaction. The radiation is still electromagnetic radiation,
------------------------
Nope, not accurate.


the
reaction just produces radiation in several of, if not all of, the
frequency bands.
--------------------
Sort of, butalso quite inaccurate.


The only difference between ionizing and non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiationother than the frequency band is that
ionizing radiation makes what it contacts radioactive.
------------------------
Absolute anti-science nonsense. Ionizing radiation is simply either
electrons or nuclei that can add or remove charge from the outside
of atoms, or else it is ultraviolet light that can do so. It in NO
WAY makes anything radioactive!! IDIOT!


Non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiation can kill you.
-----------------------------
Nonsense, only UV, xray, and gamma rays in the EM spectrum can kill
you and they are IONIZING! And these are the tiniest parts of
the EM spectrum we receive, and 99.9999999999% come from the Sun!!

The rest of the lower EM spectrum that humans produce is harmless
and NON-IONIZING!


After having a discussion with my mother the other day, I would ask
the following. Why do radio and television stations use the
expressions "over the air" or "on the air" when the radiation passes
through the air? She actually thought the broadcasts used air and
probably isn't the only one. Unless the air contains particles that
interfere with the broadcasts, it does not affect them. Wind usually
affects the broadcasting or receiving equipment and that causes the
static or bad reception.
---------------------------------
Your mother is as much of an idiot as you are, no wonder!!
Steve





You think your so dangerous you pathetic lying ass piece of **** any
****ing time you want go toe to toe. The only thing you are dangerous
to is the minds of people you **** up with your bull****. You think
microwaves can't kill you then you are truly a moron. By the way
asshole I did send the info to the person in your previous response
and also pointed out what you wrote about doing so to him.

Ionizing radiation is defined as radiation that can remove electrons
from a tighly bound atom. What do you think radioactive materials do?
They break down releasing radiation. Non-ionizing radiation is
supposedly radiation that does not remove electrons from a tightly
bound atom. Maybe true however they can sure as **** boil water which
is breaking down molecules into atoms. Why do you think even the
military tells people in it to avoid standing in front of the radar
broadcasting equipment? Because it can kill you or cause very severe
injuries. Moron.

As for your bull**** about nuclear radiation, just what the **** do
you think it is? The only reason it is called nuclear is because of
the reaction producing the electromagnetic radiation. You are the
IDIOT.

Then you push that any hot object produces microwaves. Then the old
steam heat radiators produced microwaves? They were called radiators
because the heat radiates not because it is radiation. That was simply
water heated to turn it to steam being pumped through a metal pipe
structure which heated the metal which heated the air around the
metal. Where are the microwaves? There would not be any electricity
involved other than the pump which was located elsewhere or the
heating element that heated the water to get the steam also located
elsewhere. There certainly wasn't a nuclear reaction so where would
said microwaves come from?

Light can cause blindness. That blindness is tissue damage. Focused
light or a laser can most certainly kill someone. Even focusing the
light from the sun through a magnifying glass can produce temperatures
high even to do great cellular damage to what the focused beam comes
in contact with and can even kill.

Death to psychhotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is
as bad as religion. Big brother sucks. James M. Vierling Jr.