When I was 14 years old, my parents moved us to another house in my home town. It had a field opposite with large power lines running across the field. About that time, I noticed that in damp weather the lines crackled and occasionally seemed to emit sparks around the large cables in which the high voltage electric ran. After we moved my mother started getting these odd migraine-like headaches. Since none of the rest of the family had these headaches we didn’t give it another thought, although my mother, who was a hypochondriac always blamed the power lines. Curiously, when she retired and moved to another town, the headaches she had for years ceased to occur. Now it could be that the stress of her work caused the headaches, although before we moved she had not had the headaches, and being retired eased the conditions, or it could have been the power lines. No way to prove anything. However, it was always in the back of my mind, that electro-magnetic fields that I learned about in physics class at school were a prominent aspect of electrical current running through wires. Years later, I was not surprised that EMR and EMFs had become an environmental problem with many cases of disease clusters being attributed to them. The research was scant and any serious findings were poo-pooed by energy department scientists and politicians. A red flag for me is that when a potential problem may exist and from my science knowledge I can postulate why it may be so, mainstream scientists, the mass media, and politician go out of their way to debunk any such claims, without actually sanctioning serious research to explore the problem for a credible conclusion.
Humans evolved within natural EMFs produced by the sun and natural processes, but we did not evolve with the artificial EM radiation we find prevalent in our lives today. We are literally bathed 24/7/365 in artificial EMFs everywhere we go. Wherever you find electricity wired into a home, you will find that the wires embedded in the walls radiate low levels of EMFs throughout the room. When switched on, all the electronic equipment radiates non-ionizing EMFs. In the late 1980s, a series of studies came out that explored the effect of non-ionizing EMFs on cell growth. Essentially, cells were grown in flasks that were surrounded by electrical wires (like in a house) against control flasks with no wires around them – an experiment controlling cause-effect. The cells grown in the EMF were clearly affected in that they were slower growing and also showed anomalies in cell shape. Unfortunately, the conclusions for why this occurred were unclear. It was postulated that perhaps the EMFs interfered with molecular interaction by polarizing some atoms within a molecule or more likely that the EMFs interfered with cell ion pump systems. Rather than a concerted effort to isolate the cause, the research seemed unpopular and wasn’t followed up. Since then many epidemiological correlational studies with patients claiming EMF effects have been done showing a whole slew of symptoms. Remember, correlational studies are not definitive cause-effect, only statistical association. The problem we have is not just with scientists under the gun to publish or perish for career survival, but anything that is against the mainstream may not be accepted simply because peer review refuses to accept it for many reasons, including but not isolated to hierarchical big money concerns.
To put this in very simple perspective, most statistics work on the arbitrarily accepted figure that show a 95% statistical probability the cause-effect is a real connection (usually given as a p-value of 0.05). A statistically significant result (SSR) is a result that the effect observed is not due to chance. So, in an experiment, if it was done 100 times, then a SSR would be that the effect was seen 95 times out of 100. That means that in an experiment, scientists will accept that there are 5 outliers that didn’t work as expected. In a correlational study, the same probability may be seen, which shows high probability the factors of interest are related, but since no direct manipulation of the factors is done, it is up to the researcher to clearly explain that the factors are actually in the same model. The problem with all research types is that the models driving the researchers thinking are usually incomplete. Extraneous or spurious variables may be present that are not observed but have an effect on the model. So, ALL research conclusions (whatever the research type) are crouched in NON-definitive terms. Reputable scientists will always say most likely, probably, highly confident, or statistically significant, but never will they say ‘proved.’ (Mathematicians will say ‘proofs’, but they may spend years building up such proofs that a formula is valid). Politicians (almost all NON-scientists – mostly business or lawyers) if they even listen to scientists want definitive answers (proof), which will never come as such, before they spend money on solving a problem. Unless there is a major public outcry on any given problems, politicians usually just say that there is no ‘proof’ of the problem and wait until the public get outraged before they do something. Add to that ALL the DISINFORMATION aimed at creating doubt and you get both an apathetic and/or polarized public, and politicians who listen to whomever gives them the campaign money to continue their political careers.
Who gains from research into environmental and health problems and who doesn’t? This simple question answers a whole slew of issues that get action versus more likely being dumped into research oblivion. So, back to EMFs. The evidence (not proof) shows a list of problems people have attributed to non-ionizing EMFs. These are, Asthma, Autism, Cancer, Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, Enzyme Dysfunction, Eye Problems, Fertility, Genetic Damage, Insomnia or Sleeplessness, Liver Damage, Neuron Growth, Behavioral Disorders, Radiation Sickness, and Toasted Skin Syndrome (Erythema ab igne). Is there a problem that needs looking at? You might think so, BUT to add to the complexity is the population, statistical BELL CURVE. This is a continuum that runs from never affected, to always affected, with a bulk of people lying in the middle part of the curve. A typical example is one where grandad smokes 60 cigarettes a day all his life and died in his sleep at 100 years old (unaffected) and then another Grandma that never smoked at all but inhaled a little cigarette smoke occasionally on a Sunday that died of Lung cancer at age 42. Cigarette proponents will mention grandad, while opponents will mention grandma. The statistical correlation on a population will show varied results depending on which part of the bell curve people fall within. Now add yet another complexity, the toxicity factor. This is related to the bell curve in that on a lethal dose (LD) the toxicity varies with the whole population. The shape and toxicity numbers on a LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of the measured population) curve tells toxicologists a lot about the problem under study, but nothing about who will be affected in a general population.
So how comfortable are you with any problem that at a significantly high level of exposure you will have a 50/50 chance of dying. Bear in mind that at the bottom of the LD50 curve, at the 1% level are a group of people dying at the risk level of 1 in 100. You can’t predict who will die in the 1% level or still be alive at the 99% level. To put this in simple perspective, at what point do we as a society draw the line that says the regulatory level of dying from any risk is 5%, or 10% or 90% – who makes that decision? If we say zero risk, then what are the consequences of eliminating the technology that creates that risk. I’ll end this post by returning to EMFs. If we do eventually find a situation that non-ionizing EMF’s from electrical fields cause a problem, how do we go about using electricity that causes no harm, or how many people do we allow to suffer because we will not give up electricity as currently used? For most people, their empathy depends a lot on whether they, or someone they know, is a sufferer or not, doesn’t it! To Be Continued…….
0 Comments