---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 11:43:35 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: emfguru <email@example.com>
Subject: Endocrine disruptors -- artificial chemicals, EMFs (Kelley)..
In the article submitted below, Libby Kelley raises the question that EMF (like certain chemicals) may act as an "endocrine disruptor?"
.......Before reading the following, I recommend that you go to guru's ORIGINAL (follow the link on my home-page) website -- and read: EMFguru#8-96, "Our Stolen Future," which introduced and looks more deeply into the following subject.... Clearly, the "endocrine disruptor" scenario is relevant to the EMF issue.....
Are we all beginning to understand that the EMF biological activity (the 'bioeffects' that are no longer disputed) is the REASON that we are observing the serious (and minor in some cases) illnesses and symptoms that are being reported......?? These reports now come much more frequently -- and freely -- than they did while this issue was being diagnosed as "psychosomatic."
In such cases, it is the 'biological environment' (including human cells and tissue) that is being acted upon by EMF in a manner similar to that of the action of other chemicals.
Or ... if it is not acting directly in ALL cases ... it may be playing a promotional indirect role ... as, for example in Professor Henshaw's aerosol concentration hypothesis.....
Either way -- direct or indirect -- we (society) need to acknowledge this SUBSTANTIAL EMF influence upon our biological environment ... and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT ... before it is too late......!!!
In all probability, EMF is acting BOTH directly -- and indirectly. Just as most researchers believe that we should expect to find more than one "mechanism" -- in all probability -- there is not ONE answer to the EMF saga...... There will be many answers.......)
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness
People are more important than profits!!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 23:29:43 -0800
From: Libby Kelley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Endocrine disruptors -- artificial chemicals, EMFs
Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 108, Number 1, January 2000
NRC: "Not Enough Data"
A committee of experts convened by the National Research Council (NRC) at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has concluded that there is insufficient research, and therefore insufficient evidence, to say whether particular environmental contaminants known as endocrine disruptors, or hormonally active agents (HAAs), may be dangerous to humans and wildlife. A 4 August 1999 report released by the NRC titled Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment says it is clear that exposure to HAAs--chemicals that interfere with normal hormonal functions such as behavior, growth, and metabolism--can affect wildlife and human health, but uncertainties lie in not completely understanding their causal mechanisms.
In its report, the committee addressed potential harm for developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune systems. "The field is rife with uncertainty," said committee chairman Ernst Knobil, a professor of biology at the University of Texas Medical School in Houston, in an article in the 4 August 1999 issue of The New York Times.
The NRC report states that 70,000 industrial chemicals in use cannot be tested for endocrine-disrupting activity because the necessary tests do not even exist. "Determining what these exposures actually are is therefore of primary importance," says Knobil. The NRC report recommends improved monitoring of the development of HAAs, studies to determine exposure pathways and background concentrations of HAAs in humans, and initiation of long-term studies of HAA exposures.
The committee concluded that the lack of evidence could not be taken asan indication that HAA exposure is completely risk-free. Although the report clearly states this consensus, it also addresses the disagreements among committee members. "Differences among committee members could be divided among two perspectives on the weight-of-evidence approach," says the report. Some members placed more weight on experimental evidence than others. Members were also divided on the use of the precautionary principle--the idea that in the face of uncertainty the most cautious approach is the best.
"The absence of information can't be used to say these chemicals are safe," says committee member Frederick vom Saal, a professor of biology at the University of Missouri in Columbia.
Committee members agreed that wildlife and human populations should continue to be studied for effects including defects in development, declines in fertility, increased incidences of various cancers, and possible population declines in wildlife species.
"Determining the risk of environmental HAAs to humans and wildlife is
difficult because exposure to these agents has not been routinely monitored,"
says the report. "We need to focus our research on the embryo, from conception
to birth," adds Theo Colborn, a senior conservation scientist at the World
Wildlife Fund. "When studying the research results, once the embryos have
reached a reproductive age we are almost a generation late."
-Lindsey A. Greene
Council on Wireless Technology Impacts
aka ~ Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned about
the FCC's Radiofrequency Radiation Health and Safety Rules