Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    Zeno Swijtink's Avatar
    Zeno Swijtink
     

    Contributions to the EMF debate

    Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:43:27 -0700
    From: michael lerner
    To: CHE EMF List
    Subject: [cheemf] Editorial comment: Ten contributions to future scenario
    thinking about the evolution of the EMF debate

    As one of the co-founders of CHE-EMF, I have followed the evolution of the great science, policy and media EMF debate with considerable interest.

    As a non-specialist, the best way I have found to stay updated, along with reading CHE-EMF postings, is to visit Louis Slesin's brilliant website Microwave News.

    In what follows, I offer ten contributions to future scenario thinking about current developments in the EMF debate and their potential significance over the coming decades. Anyone who studies future scenario developments knows how intrinsically perilous this kind of work is. Future scenarios are almost always wrong. The benefit of constructing them is that they can clarify our thinking about the significance of current and future trends at the interface of science and policy.

    1. CURRENT: First and most important, the issue of cell phones and health is no longer ignored by mainstream US media. That is an important breakthrough (a) in itself, (b) because it gives consumers the capacity to make safer choices based on their own risk appraisals, and (c) because in the long run it may lead to better research, better policies, and market shifts as manufacturers respond to consumer concerns and market opportunities.

    2. CURRENT: There is growing interest in EMF the academic and nonprofit communities. When CHE-EMF started, a very small number of academics, NGOs and advocates were actively engaged with EMF. The number of key players has significantly increased in the NGO and academic community. While differences in perspective naturally exist among the key players, the cumulative net effect of more powerful key advocates is very beneficial for the field.

    3. FUTURE: As the media, academic, and nonprofit constituencies concerned with EMF dangers increase their visibility and reach, these developments force industry, regulatory, and mainstream health constituencies that claim there is no health risk to up their game as well. Blanket denials of risk no longer suffice. The debate tends to become more granular as mainstream media, sensing a major story, does a better job of pressing both advocates and defenders of EMF to explain their positions. A more granular debate necessarily increases attention to the science. Increased attention to the science necessarily leads to better understanding of the structure of industry support for science and its implications. Likewise, loose and scientifically irresponsible positions by those concerned with EMF dangers become more vulnerable. The granularity of the debate, over time, favors more scientifically grounded arguments on both sides. The well known "sieve" model of such debates usually characterizes the outcome, in which initially widely disparate positions are forced, as the debate becomes more granular, into a narrower "sieve" that generates a broader consensus on science and policy outcomes. That does not mean the outcome will be "right" from any single perspective. But it describes what may be likely to happen.

    4. CURRENT: The fact that The BioInitiative played a key role in alerting European governments to EMF risks -- in a culture more disposed to see those risks in the first place -- created a beneficial international comparison, much as European REACH legislation did in the chemical arena. The BioInitiative gathered some of the best science in the world on EMF issues (in my humble opinion as a lay person) and seized the scientific high ground in a way that European governments seized on to issue precautionary warnings on cell phones and health. Cindy Sage and Nancy Evans of The BioIntiative (also co-coordinator of CHE-EMF), Ken Cook and his colleagues at Environmental Working Group, Devra Lee Davis, Ronald Herberman (Director Emeritus of the University of Pittburgh Cancer Institute) and David Servan Schreiber in France are among those making major contributions to the evolution of the EMF debate. Many more contributors could be cited.

    5. FUTURE: All of this means, in my view, that the EMF debate has shifted both quantitatively (more debate) and qualitatively (gradually improved debate) as media, academics, nonprofits and independent advocates amplify their critiques of health risks, and industry, government and mainstream health groups begin to respond. Over the next five years, we can anticipate that some of the mainstream health groups will begin to move away from unqualified support of industry (there are early signs of this movement already). The mainstream health groups have relatively little vested interest in supporting industry, other than their generally conservative vies on the role of the environment in health. Industry may seek to invest in support for health groups as a way of delaying the trend, but over time, assuming the science continues to go in the direction it is headed, toward substantiating a wise array of health risks, the health groups will have little choice but to recognize the concerns.

    6. FUTURE: As media, advocacy, and health concerns are better established, look for key industry segments to break away to market to those with health concerns. Look for key media personalities to establish EMF as a major concern. Look for key political figures to seize on EMF (some already have) and make it an ongoing part of their profile. Look for key labor groups including fire fighters, policy, military veterans, and others exposed to intense EMF environments to voice increasing concerns with their risks. Above all, look for a widening awareness across the US and around the world of EMF health concerns driven by people who (rightly or wrongly) attribute some of their health concerns to EMF exposures. This combination of media, advocacy, science, health, and labor, political and widespread public concern makes it highly likely that EMF concerns -- which have now achieved lift-off in the major media, will continue on a sharpening upward trajectory over the next decade. Unfortunately, there has been very little philanthropic or governmental support for independent scientific research and responsible policy advocacy to date. But as these other trends sharpen, philanthropic support for science, policy and advocacy may grow.

    7. FUTURE: At the same time, the installed industrial EMF base will continue to grow and the cost of shifting to less harmful technologies will continue to grow. Moreover, other environmental and non-environmental threats -- climate, chemical, biotechnology, nanotechnology, infectious diseases, nuclear developments, economic developments, and the like -- may relativize perception of the size of the risk. Industry will do all it can to cede scientific ground as slowly as possible. So even if there is an epidemic of brain cancers (for example), industry will switch to recommending ear buds or other ameliorative approaches. And if the background noise of other threats is loud enough, those concerned with health effects of EMF may ultimately win the scientific battle but lose the exposure war. Israel is a perfect example: many scientists and Israelis with scientific understanding have strong concerns about EMF exposures, but competing security concerns relativize perceptions of the EMF risk and reduce demand for action.

    8. FUTURE: A key question is whether the full scope of EMF health effects on a systemic level is recognized earlier or later in the evolution of the debate. Generally, it appears that systemic effects will be well demonstrated in lab and animal research, but the strong innate scientific conservatism that opposes generalization from these data to humans may block or marginalize societal and scientific awareness of systemic concerns. A second factor that makes recognition of systemic effects so difficult is that these effects interact with chemical contaminants and many other factors. EMF sensitivity, like chemical sensitivity (and in fact the two overlap) is a lead factor in awareness of human systemic effects, but is likely to suffer the same fate of marginalization that chemical sensitivity has suffered for decades.

    9. FOUR SCENARIOS: James McNeil of the Brundtland Commission once told me there were 4 possible futures: business as usual, descent into chaos, achieving sustainability, or becoming artificial people on an artificial planet. The truth is the real future is not one of these four but a constant negotiation for market share among all four futures. To some degree, business as usual continues. To some degree we descend into chaos. To some degree we move toward sustainability. And unquestionably we are becoming artificial people on an artificial planet. Those of us concerned with the environment and health are doing all we can to move the sustainability index upward. EMF is one of a dozen major areas in which we are making that effort.

    10. SUMMARY: In summary, these hypotheses suggest one possible future in which those of us concerned with the impact of EMF on health ultimately win the scientific debate. The scientific affirmation may come by 2015 (to pick a plausible date) as mainstream media interest increases, media stars make this their issue, industry players market to those with health concerns, key politicians join the fray (like Arlen Specter), labor expresses concerns, mainstream health groups move away from blanket denials of health concerns, new scientific studies are released into a prepared and concerned media environment, and more and more people experience what they believe to be health effects, and Europe and other regions heighten their policy and consumer response to EMF concerns. At the same time industry will fight a delaying action to discredit, discount and deny the science for as long as possible as installed infrastructure and product streams are developed. Virtually all industries under attack take this approach.

    The purpose of these future scenario notes is not to ignite an advocacy debate on CHE-EMF (which is never our purpose). It is rather to frame an awareness of the context in which we continue to work to understand the emerging science on EMF and to sustain a dialogue of science and civility. I welcome comments that contribute to our deeper understanding of the present and future context of our science dialogue.

    Michael Lerner


    Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 15:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
    From: Stan Hartman
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: [cheemf] Some thoughts on trying to see the big EMF picture

    This is a long post, but I was encouraged by Michael Lerner's excellent recent post to share these thoughts, which are hopefully not obvious or irrelevant.

    As with most environmental concerns, the EMF debate is basically a moral one, and as long as there's legitimate scientific debate about safety issues, the morality of profiting on dubiously safe technology will be debated as well. There seems to be no possible resolution of that debate short of a lot more funding for truly independent scientific analysis. This has to include epidemiology as well as other research, because I think we're much more likely to discover what's going on by carefully examining what follows what we're doing than by simply trying to pinpoint the cause of those phenomena, which may not happen for a long time, as with tobacco - though we shouldn't stop trying.

    Take the problem of measuring exposure, for instance. Any piece of measuring gear you use has severe limitations when you're trying to realistically estimate the exposure to a human being. Even if you had a spectrum analyzer with a bandwidth from DC to 300 GHz, there's no way one person (in the field, for instance) could measure the whole spectrum at once. But realistic exposure IS the whole spectrum at once. And what do you use for an input? Even the best probe has severe limitations as well. The only truly realistic probe would be something that reproduces all the complex conductors, coils, and connections in the human brain and nervous system - if you could legitimately limit it to the nervous system. But even then such a receiver would not be alive. And even if you could pull off all that, you'd still have to take into account non-structural differences, and individual variations in age, state of health, diet, etc. If you're measuring microwaves in the field, you need to include temperature, humidity, electromagnetic and other influences in the surroundings, and so forth. Even a person's mood can drastically affect the capabilities of their immune system. As Harold Saxton Burr said decades ago in his book The Fields of Life, "beliefs can have as drastic an effect on the body as a kick in the teeth."

    I've met some little old ladies who were much more sensitive than any of my test gear, as some of that gear confirmed after their suggestions of where and how to use it.

    As Gerard Hyland pointed out almost ten years ago:

    "difficulties sometimes experienced in attempts to independently replicate certain frequency-specific non-thermal effects are actually to be expected, in consequence of the highly non-linear, non-equilibrium nature of living systems, whereby even the slightest differences in the physiological state of the biosystems used and in conditions obtaining in a particular experiment can, in consequence of deterministic chaos, assume singular importance."

    And people on both sides of the debate need to avoid jumping to conclusions. Doing so is inevitable at times, but we have to always identify those leaps as such and emphasize the appropriate caveats.

    We can't take wonder and speculation out of science and should never try to, and should never try to explain away riddles out-of-hand. We should treasure them as part of the expanding horizons of our knowledge. If we see dark clouds on those horizons, though, we should take precautionary measures, even if it turns out we didn't need to, and remember as we do that unreasoning fear is also a danger in itself that limits rather than expands the awareness we need to respond effectively.

    Given all that, there ARE reasons to be cautious, and a purely scientific attitude is not enough in itself to fulfill our responsibilities to our children and the future. As queasy as it may make some scientists to acknowledge, human beings can have more awareness than just of those things that can be measured mechanistically, and can have ways of knowing that are not limited to reasoning about what's replicable. The obvious difficulty in determining the validity of such perceptions doesn't by itself refute them. I think reality resembles the scientist more than it resembles science.

    - Stan Hartman
    Boulder, CO
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. TopTop #2
    ItsaNewDawn
    Guest

    Re: Contributions to the EMF debate

    Hi~ thanks for posting and interest. I didnt read every word but it was very well written! EMF's debate is not a morality issue. Its something that affects everybody on the planet. I dont know all about it, but just the fact that it Might not be good for our health is enough for me to look at it all closer.
    It seems that our civilization has expanded more quickly than our bodies have adapted to it. All of a sudden theres stuff in the air that we cant see or realize If its bothering us.
    Lets just look at it more and ask ourselves, hey maybe Ill be even more vital, more healthy, more intuitive if i wasnt surrounded by so many emf's. hmmmmm....
    blessings~
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  3. TopTop #3
    Karl Frederick's Avatar
    Karl Frederick
    Supporting member

    Re: Contributions to the EMF debate

    Great post . . . thanks Zeno.

    Quote Zeno Swijtink wrote: View Post
    Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:43:27 -0700
    From: michael lerner
    To: CHE EMF List
    Subject: [cheemf] Editorial comment: Ten contributions to future scenario
    thinking about the evolution of the EMF debate
    . . . .
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. TopTop #4
    Garden Goddess
    Guest

    Re: Contributions to the EMF debate

    First, I am not a scientist. I began to research EMFs in relation to honeybees and have learned that mainstream scientists will have their funding revoked and their right to publish in established journals, as well as their right to teach curtailed if their findings do not support the continued delay, testing, and endless discussion about whether the EMFs being emitted from human created sources are harmful to eco-system of this planet, which includes ourselves.

    The human body (as well as all other life forms) are composed of cells which communicate with each other via electromagnetic impulses. Our senses make up an array which transmits and receives signals.

    Only recently has mainstream science admitted that the human body has an electromagnetic field at all. It would seem that the scientists who study these fields already know, through the study of physics, the frequencies that will interfere with each other and cause some sort of degrading of the signal.

    Since our bodily processes are dependent on cell-to-cell communication, it would make sense to stop discussing exposure levels (if harmful, use a frequency that isn't harmful) and quit listening to those who are jockeying for bargaining positions. Because they stand to make money, they would like endless discussions on relative harm.

    Nowhere in these discussions do I see any talk of the science behind how EMFs actually interact with each other.

    Since I am not a scientist, I would appreciate an explanation of EMF interference from someone who has studied physics. Anyone?

    What happens when EMFs of differing frequencies co-exist. Is there an interference pattern? What happens when EMFs of the same frequency come into contact with each other? There are other measurements of these fields that matter in terms of how they interact with one another.

    These are basic questions that I have not seen addressed in any of the debate. It would seem that physicists already know the answer to the whole EMF problem, yet no one is asking the right question, since we've started with the premise that more and more EMFs need to be added to our world without regard for life.

    All the talk about determining what level of exposure will cause a certain level of harm to allow a certain portion of the population to live for x number of years with a governmentally acceptable level of x number of cancers, etc. in their lifetime does not really blow my dress up.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  5. TopTop #5
    ItsaNewDawn
    Guest

    Re: Contributions to the EMF debate

    right on garden goddess~I appreciate the way your write also, as im not so great at getting my thoughts out as smoothly as u. Plus I notice that its great that u are ahead on this knowledge cuz were gonna need some folks to get the word out. gently. ha. Im noticing thats its a lot to digest and peoples stress levels are quite high now. on the heath topic~
    I have heard about a machine that vibrates a certan frequency into the body/hands to elliminate toxins or parasites, etc. Its said that they each vibrate at a different frequency. Its made me wonder, also, so what Else vibrated to that frequency? Or are there unlimited number of wavelenghths so theres no overlapping? lol I must sound funny to u science folks. and to myself!
    Also~There are healing modalities and techniques that we can do to balance our brains and help us out w this transition into and thru the radiation age...and im sure there are other ways and tools that im not aware of yet. Thats why we need someone on the front lines like u to educate us.
    its like wtf? all over again. but we cant just only be mad. or just those few moments of a week. but to also learn from it. quickly.lol

    Im remembering a friend tell me about a device she put in her house to block emf's. She also said something about having to do it slowly. As in only block out one frequency at a time. So thats what is disturbing is~
    Is withdrawing from Emf's completely, harmful to health?
    Or simply knowing more about it, one could withdraw in a pattern and
    all is well.


    Quote Garden Goddess wrote: View Post
    First, I am not a scientist. I began to research EMFs in relation to honeybees and have learned that mainstream scientists will have their funding revoked and their right to publish in established journals, as well as their right to teach curtailed if their findings do not support the continued delay, testing, and endless discussion about whether the EMFs being emitted from human created sources are harmful to eco-system of this planet, which includes ourselves.

    The human body (as well as all other life forms) are composed of cells which communicate with each other via electromagnetic impulses. Our senses make up an array which transmits and receives signals.

    Only recently has mainstream science admitted that the human body has an electromagnetic field at all. It would seem that the scientists who study these fields already know, through the study of physics, the frequencies that will interfere with each other and cause some sort of degrading of the signal.

    Since our bodily processes are dependent on cell-to-cell communication, it would make sense to stop discussing exposure levels (if harmful, use a frequency that isn't harmful) and quit listening to those who are jockeying for bargaining positions. Because they stand to make money, they would like endless discussions on relative harm.

    Nowhere in these discussions do I see any talk of the science behind how EMFs actually interact with each other.

    Since I am not a scientist, I would appreciate an explanation of EMF interference from someone who has studied physics. Anyone?

    What happens when EMFs of differing frequencies co-exist. Is there an interference pattern? What happens when EMFs of the same frequency come into contact with each other? There are other measurements of these fields that matter in terms of how they interact with one another.

    These are basic questions that I have not seen addressed in any of the debate. It would seem that physicists already know the answer to the whole EMF problem, yet no one is asking the right question, since we've started with the premise that more and more EMFs need to be added to our world without regard for life.

    All the talk about determining what level of exposure will cause a certain level of harm to allow a certain portion of the population to live for x number of years with a governmentally acceptable level of x number of cancers, etc. in their lifetime does not really blow my dress up.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. TopTop #6
    Garden Goddess
    Guest

    Re: Contributions to the EMF debate

    Thanks, ItsaNewDawn,

    I also wonder about possible mitigation and/or neutralization of the effects of harmful and or simply "different" radiation that may affect the human body in various ways.

    I feel that because of the profit-making nature of industries that rely on being able to utilize certain bands of airwaves, the public is not being told the full story. Hence, the need for all of this testing and debate about what amount of harm is acceptable.

    Though I do not know the techniques or terms to describe any of the laws of physics involved nor the plausibility of using less harmful frequencies and/or processes (not having been trained in communications technology) I feel compelled to remark that the public has always been told that the airwaves above our nation are being regulated for the public good.

    Humans are capable of inventing technology that is not harmful to plants, animals, humans or the planet. I'm waiting for someone to stand up and prove it, without regard for personal profit.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-28-2010, 02:04 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-20-2009, 12:15 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-04-2009, 05:37 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 09:57 PM
  5. Where's the debate?
    By Valley Oak in forum WaccoTalk
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-23-2008, 08:26 AM

Bookmarks