Extra Low Frequency
Power Lines!
The Melatonin Hypothesis and other Theoretical Issues


15 April 2000

With the publication of this (top) message, we are completing a "train" of five or six messages below -- which traverse through a rather broad 'swath' of the theoretical issues in the EMF saga......  Be sure you read all of them.......  They include messages from Drs. Lopez, Maxey, Havas, Ms Letecia Chaparro and Ms Lyn Milnes as well as much additional commentary by the guru.....Cheerio........

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:38:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
Subject: The melatonin hypothesis (Milnes)..

Hi everybody:

........The melatonin hypothesis is certainly not new to this list. (If you will go to guru's archives and search under "melatonin" and/or "Liburdy," you will find a great deal of discussion and information that has been covered on EMF-L over the past five years.....)

The book cited below (forwarded by Lyn Milnes) is the "magnum opus" on the subject that was produced by the "father" of the idea - Dr. Richard Stevens of Battelle Laboratories.  It contains the most complete, but not the latest, information on the subject....

The researcher who has perhaps contributed most to the subject is Dr. Robert Liburdy.  One of his most recent and most important statements regarding the effects of EMF on melatonin is provided on guru's website - in the "Research" file.

For our many NEW readers - who have joined us since the issue was first raised: -- The other IMPORTANT thing you need to know about this subject is that, the U.S. Government has virtually TOTALLY ignored it ... since Dr. Liburdy's "dispute" with the government over some of his earlier research.

The earlier research (conducted in 1992) dealt with an entirely different subject!!!  While it was EMF related, it had NOTHING to do with his very important - and scientifically valuable - research conducted in the 1995-98 time frame, that has contributed to an understanding of the EMF/melatonin bioeffects under exposure to low levels of 60 Hz EMF radiation (as low as 12 mG).....

Some of Dr. Liburdy's experiments - which showed some dramatic results (on the levels and the performance of human melatonin when exposed to 12 mG of EMF) have, in fact, been replicated by two of the leaders of the EMF research community, Dr. Richard Luben and Dr. Carl Blackman.

Nevertheless, the 'peevishness' of the U.S. government over his 1992 paper (though unrelated to the melatonin matter) apparently caused NIEHS to severely down-play ALL of his subsequent research, including his most valuable work on the "melatonin thesis"!!!

When it came time for NIEHS to write up the results of the EMF RAPID research project, the entire "melatonin thesis" was treated like a family "skeleton" that was supposed to be "kept out of sight" and mentioned as little as possible....

Thus, the most "proved" potential "mechanism" - showing a direct biological effect upon the human neuroendicrine system (and perhaps the immune system) - is today being treated as a "non-fact."  This - in spite of the fact that the "EMF/depressed melatonin behavior" is the strongest demonstrated evidence ... so far ... that EMF CAN do biological harm......!!!

(And, yes, as the Stevens book demonstrates, this thesis could be the explanation of the apparent link between EMF and breast cancer - in men and women!!!)

The book cited below is a good one, but - for a quick, easy understanding of the "science" and the "biology" on this matter - go to the guru's website and read the Liburdy paper.....


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, 15 Apr 2000 14:33:04 +1200
From: lyn <llm@chong.co.nz>
To: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
Subject: Re: Problem with "official" norms (guru) (Havas)..


Reading your letter with Magda's mention of Health Canada's Expert Panel report on health effects of exposure to EMF prompts me to mention some interesting studies in a book I just acquired.

"The Melatonin Hypothesis:  Breast Cancer and Use of Electric Power", edited by Richard G Stevens, Bary W Wilson, Larry E Anderson, published 1997 by Battelle Memorial Institute (http://www.Battelle.org).

It contains scientific studies that cover EM field exposure and human effects, mostly related to melatonin and breast cancer, some more general. I thought if people were looking for this sort of information they might like to know this book exists.

I quote from the Conclusions:

"In this book, investigators from a wide array of disciplines have contributed information and insights that allow a clearer evaluation of the biological rationale, the circumstantial case, and the limited direct evidence bearing on the "Melatonin Hypothesis":  i.e., that certain aspects of the use of electric power may be implicated in the high rates of breast cancer in industrialised societies (Stevens et al. 1992; Stevens and Davis 1996).  At the foundation of this hypothesis is the body of evidence suggesting that LAN*, and perhaps anthropogenic EMF, can affect neuroendocrine function and, specifically, the production of melatonin by the pineal gland..."

(*LAN = light at night.)

Examples of the 22 studies in the book:

"Overview of Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Dosimetry" by Douglas L Miller;  "Human Exposure to Magnetic Fields:  Effects on Melatonin, Hormones and Immunity" by Charles Graham and Michael Gibertini; "Effect on EMF Exposure on the Neuroendocrine System" by Bary W Wilson and Kathleen S Matt; "Laboratory Studies on ELF (50/60 Hz) Magnetic Fields and Carcinogenesis" by Wolfgang Loscher and Meike Mevissen; "Epidemiologic Studies of EMF and Breast Cancer Risk:  A Biologically Based Overview" by Thomas C Erren.

Incidentally, the breast cancer referred to includes breast cancer in males - one Norwegian analysis referred to in the Erren study above suggested 9 times the expected rate of male breast cancer in telephone workers, for instance.

Lyn Milnes

Message forwarded to EMF-L by EMFguru......

Magda: I don't mind forwarding the material (you send below) from "SC6," Safety Code 6 - the Canadian "standards" for RFR exposure protection.....

But, in fact, we DID take note of the document, here on EMF-L, when it was first produced some months (nearly a year) ago....

I thought then - and the portions you quote below confirm - that it was a pretty "sorry" effort ... both scientifically and as a government document exhibiting pretentions to protect its citizens.....???

As the sections you have selected (below) show very clearly - it just "dances around the issue."......

It IS ... (as I think you may be suggesting) ... a good example of what is WRONG with the approach that is being taken by virtually ALL the "Western democracies" ... under U.S./ICNIRP leadership ... on this RFR health hazards issue.....  (I call it the EMF/EMR health hazards issue....)

The ICNIRP standards protect INDUSTRY ... NOT the people.....!!!

The ICNIRP standards beg the question about the non-thermal effects of EMF/EMR.....  As Neil Cherry argues very effectively (I think) -- the ICNIRP is virtually fabricating reasons to avoid (to "look the other way") the NOW ABUNDANT evidence that there are non-thermal effects....  So ... does ... Canada's SC6.........!!!

That is what we have been trying to "shine the light on" here on EMF-L for the (approaching five) years that I have been moderating this list......

Cheerio.....  (Everybody:  Magda - like Neil Cherry - has identified the problem all right!!!)

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: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:42:30 -0400
From: Magda Havas <mhavas@trentu.ca>
To: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
Subject: Re: Problem with "official" norms (guru)


I wonder if your readers have had a chance to read "A Review of the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices" 1999?  This is an Expert Panel report prepared at the request of The Royal Society of Canada for Health Canada (the Canadian federal regulating body for radiofrequency radiation.  For those who would like a copy ISBN 920064-68-X ... it can be ordered via email at: adminrsc@rsc.ca.

I quote from this document:

Page 2

"What are the non-thermal biological effects and/or potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to radiofrequency fields?

"There is a growing body of scientific evidence which suggests that exposure to RF fields at intensities far less than levels required to produce measureable heating can cause effects in cells and tissues.  . . . Whether or not these low-intensity RF mediated biological effects lead to adverse health effects has not been clearly established."

Page 3

"There are documented biological effects of RF fields at even low, non-thermal exposure levels.  These biological effects include alterations in the activity of enzyme ornithine decarboxylase (ODC), in calcium regulation, and in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier. . . . Some of these biological effects brought about by non-thermal exposure levels of RF could potentially be associated with adverse health effects."

Page 4

The committee states that Safety Code 6 (federal saftey limit used in Canada) is sufficient to protect against "thermal" effects "[h]owever, since there is insufficient evidence to conclude that such {referring to non-thermal} biological effecs are associated with adverse health effects, the potential signficiance of biological effects observed at non-thermal exposure levels requires clarification before non-thermal effects are considered for inclusion in Safety Code 6."

Page 5

"What research is needed to better understand the potential health consequences for non-thermal exposure?

"Continued studies of exposed human populations provide the primary means of directly assessing the potential effects of RF fields on human health.  Since cellular telephones and similar devices, have been in use for relatively shrot period of time, further observation of exposed populations is required to examine potential adverse health effects due to long term exposure to RF fields."

So what is Safety Code 6 as it relates to cell phone frequencies?

Table 3.1 SC6 Exposure Limits for Radiofrequency Fields, Applicable to Base Station Transmitters. Frequency (MHz)     Power density Limit (W/sq m)

                                         workers                          public

300-1500                   f/30 (W/sq m)                f/150 (W/sq m)
1500-15,000                50 (W/sq m)                    10 (W/sq m)


so for 300 MHz the W/sq m is 10 for workers and 2 for the public.

Table 3.2 SC6 Exposure Limits for Radiofrequency Fields Applicable to Cellular Phones.

Exposure Condition                                SAR Limit
(W/kg)                             Workers                 General Public

Whole Body                      0.4  (W/kg)              0.08  (W/kg)
Head, Neck and Trunk      8.0  (W/kg)              1.60  (W/kg)
Limbs                              20.0  (W/kg)              4.00  (W/kg)

"Although the most recent revision of SC6 does not include a separate SAR limit for the eye, the Code suggests that organ averaged SAR for the eye should not exceed 0.2 W/kg." (page 20)

The eye is extremely sensitive and RSC recommends more research on eye exposure so that lower limits can be set.

I Trust this is useful information.


Another earlier message to EMF-L from the guru (below)......

Hi Ed and everybody:

I had previously received the request below from Professor Lopez.....

........As I had earlier advised Professor Lopez, I have a problem with his question......  In response to his question about existing governmental RF/MW exposure regulations, he is going to be given the existing internationally defined "norms" as dictated by the ICNIRP.....

These ICNIRP "standards" are simply no longer worthy of ANY 'credible basis' for their claim to provide to the PUBLIC adequate protection against the exploding levels of elecromagnetic radiation now occurring in our worldwide environment......

Anyone who will read Dr. Neil Cherry's excellent paper on my website (also that of Dr. Hyland) should be able to recognize that these ICNIRP "defined" standards  ... are badly out of date ... in terms of the abundant research information of the past decade or so ... (actually going back 20 to 30 years, if one considers the work of Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski of Poland or the Russian information, all of which SHOULD be considered!!)......

No worthwhile progress will be made in addressing this issue, if all "we" (our governments) are willing to do is "take a poll" of what other governments are doing - and then make a decision on that basis.....

Until this moment, the overwhelming "consensus" of the government's of the world has accepted the U.S.-ICNIRP standards -- which ignore the consequences of non-thermal electromagnetic effects.....!!!

In the U.K. at this time, a serious (governmental) review appears to be underway which is looking BEYOND the thermal effects ... and seeking to achieve a new concept of "standards" which would recognize that the thermal effects, alone, are an inadequate basis for setting RF/MW exposure health standards......

I urge that this effort in the U.K. be given an opportunity to achieve some kind of a "new level" of understanding on this matter.....  Let us NOT continue to play "follow the leader" behind the "profit-driven" self-serving (actually U.S. controlled) ICNIRP standards.....!!!

Let's allow an opportunity for the new criteria, recognizing that there ARE non-thermal bioeffects,  to come to the surface - as it is now struggling to do so in the U.K. (and, in a few cases, elsewhere).....

(Perhaps the June 7th and 8th meeting on this subject in Salzburg, Austria, will lead to a consensus on some "higher level" of understanding about this matter....??

Cheerio.....   (I hope everyone will take notice of dr. Ed Maxey's information about the "infamous" Linet study, below....)

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: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 09:28:34 -0500
From: Edward Maxey <edmaxey@pol.net>
To: letichg@acnet.net
Cc: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
Subject: official norms

Hello Leticia,

Please ask your professor friend to contact Roy Beavers (roy@emfguru.com) and ask to be put on his list service.  He will then receive abundant information automatically.

He could also visit Roy's website... http://emfguru.com.  Here he will find all sorts of information dealing with the EMF hazard.

The power line EMF hazard has been of particular interest to me. The recently obtained raw data from the National Cancer Institute Linet study shows that there is a 23 trillion to one likelihood that childhood leukemia is somehow related to 60 Hertz magnetic fields of low intensity (0.3 to 5 milligauss).  A document showing this will be emailed to your professor friend upon his request.

You also already have a reply from Alasdair Philips, an outstanding worker in this field.  Do follow up on his information.

Good luck,

Ed Maxey

Monterrey, N.L., Mexico, April 8, 2000

I received a mail from CARLOS LOPEZ, he is a professor who works for Universidad de Puebla in Mexico, he is an engineer researching about EMFs, and  he needs to know if you can help to get the following information, - OFFICIAL NORMS (regulations) IN OTHER COUNTRIES TO MEASURE (to regulate) THE MAXIMUM EXPOSITION TO EMF IN THE RANK OF FREQUENCIES FROM 100 KHZ to 300 GHZ

We will appreciate very much if you can give us information about this, if you can tell us where we can look for this information? some electronic addresses or if you can send us some information about this to our postal address. Please tell us if we need to send you money for the delivery expenses .

Also we need to get a copy of the BIOELECTROMAGNETICS edited in February 2000.

We will appreciate very much your assistance, you can send the information directly to CARLOS LOPEZ his e-mail is       clopez@ece.buap.mx or if you want to know more about his research.

Thanks in advance for your assistance



Dr. Magda Havas
Environmental & Resource Studies,
Trent University,
Peterborough Ontario, K9J 7B8

phone:  (705) 748-1232
fax:       (705) 748-1569
email:    mhavas@trentu.ca

Back to Top