Here it is the beginning of another year! EMF-L has been on the internet just 15 months. We do not know exactly how many messages about the EMF health hazards have been exchanged by our members, but we know the number is now over a thousand!
At this time, we have 146 members in 21 countries: Sweden (18), Canada (10), Germany (5), United Kingdom (4), Netherlands and Italy (3), Belgium, South Africa, Singapore, and Norway (2). One in each of the following: Peru, Switzerland, China, Croatia, Spain, Iceland, Australia, Austria, Taiwan and New Zealand. We think we're doing pretty good!!!
Let us hear from you!!!
Today's (Jan. 4, 1997) Springfield (MO) NEWS-LEADER provides a front page story telling us of the Army's plans to conduct "smoke-screen training" at the base which is noted for the high quality of its infantry and engineering training facilities.
The point of the story, however, is the reaction by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to the Army's plans. "Unsatisfactory adverse impacts" on people and the environment is the claim made by the EPA in a letter to the Army over the planned use of fog oil for this smoke-screen training.
"We believe that the assurances of safety contained [in the Army's statements] are based upon limited data of uncertain quality," says the regional EPA administrator. According to the administrator's letter, it is the possible toxicity of the smoke to humans and animals that is being questioned. "83 percent of the [fog oil] substances have not been identified and there are few health standards for those that remain."
"There is no data on effects of inhaling the fog oil over long periods of time for people who are very old or very young, or have a pre-existing health problem such as asthma or allergies."
It is not clear, says the EPA, what the cumulative risks might be -- to animals such as the bald eagle and two species of endangered bat.
Bravo!! Guru genuinely applauds the EPA for the job it is doing in the pristine Missouri Ozarks in protecting the environmental interests of the bald eagle and two species of endangered bat -- not to mention some 40,000 to 50,000 (civilian) residents of the region!
We do have difficulty understanding, though, a governmental policy that is so considerate of possible adverse consequences to the bald eagles and bats ... while at the same time ignoring the plight of a few million children who are being forced to live under the shadow of EMF-loaded power lines?
The evidential case on behalf of the children living in the shadow of power lines is much stronger than that being cited to protect the bald eagles!!! And the children, unlike the bald eagles, cannot fly away in the wind effortlessly and magnificently to new nesting places.
More than a score of scientifically recognized epidemiological studies (including a number done outside the U.S.) have now found a consistent association between EMF exposure in the shadow of the power lines and childhood leukemia.
Moreover, that epidemiological evidence is now bolstered by a dozen or so scientifically recognized biological studies which are beginning to explain "how" the leukemia may be biologically triggered. The strongest evidence implicates the immune system and/or the disrupted production of melatonin or possibly other hormones as well.
We believe it may also be reasonable to consider the "radon daughter" (a form of ionizing radiation which occurs when EMF reacts with the natural radon that is in the air) hypothesis as a related factor. This was strongly suggested by a recent study completed in Toronto, Canada, which investigated EMF exposure in the workplace (rather than the home) and found that the electric field (which concentrates the "radon daughters") may be an even more important factor than the magnetic field.
We know that the so-called "proof" (as defined by the electric industry) will take many more years of research. We are not arguing that.
Our argument is -- why are we placing higher standards of "proof" -- before taking environmental action to protect our children -- than we place upon the environmental needs of bald eagles and bats??? It is a FACT that we are!!!
Besides ... who (other than the industry) has decided that the industry's standards of proof should control our decision???
We agree with the following statement from the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE:
"Science is a hard taskmaster, and in the light of mounting evidence that suggestions of toxicity are for the most part ultimately confirmed by painstaking inquiry, perhaps it is time to reexamine whether scientific standards of proof of causality -- and waiting for the bodies to fall -- ought not to give way to more preventative health policies that are satisfied by more realistic conventions and that lead to action sooner." NEJM of April 1987...
THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW ... that if we follow industry's standard of proof ... we are waiting for the bodies to fall!!!
And many already have!!!!
We are asking here, simply, treat the kids as well as you do the bald eagles.......
Whatever became of that EPA study which linked EMF to cancerous health risks, anyway?????
Cheerio,