EMF in the News.
Controversial EMF Reviews and Research in the News

Publication by Microwave News (July/August 1995) of the NCRP report's draft summary brought a flurry of reactions by stake holders in this sensitive issue. Though the NCRP committee chairman, Dr. Ross Adey, is an outspoken proponent of the theory that EMF exposure in the general and occupational environments pose potential health risks, the conservative NCRP moved quickly to distance itself from the draft. NCRP President Charles Meinhold told Science [269(5226):911, 1995] that the report has no standing until the review is completed sometime in 1996. In a letter circulated over the Internet by Robert S. Banks Associates, Meinhold further emphasized that the draft is only a working document, and was not yet in the initial review phase. He urged interested parties to ignore the released material and to permit the NCRP process to proceed. Given the controversy raised by the draft summary, there is a strong possibility that the release of the report will be substantially delayed.

Physicist Robert L. Park, of the American Physical Society (APS) pronounced in a letter published subsequently by Science in September [269(5232):1805] that "the not-even-a-draft was leaked by its authors precisely because they knew its prospects for adoption by the [NCRP] lay somewhere between slim and zero." The editors of Science rebuked Park for his claims, having confirmed with the NCRP executive director and panel members that the draft has been approved by the panel and sent on to the NCRP for review, as is standard practice. Last spring, the APS had issued a statement dismissing the validity of EMF concerns; they claimed that there is no scientific basis for linking power-frequency magnetic field exposure to increased cancer incidence, and that public funds would be much better spent on other environmental problems rather than on EMF mitigation. This position was based on a "preponderance of the epidemiological and biophysical/biological research findings [which] failed to substantiate those studies which have reported specific adverse health effects from exposure to such fields."

With the extensive press coverage of this APS statement followed by the NCRP leaked conclusions, the public is left to wonder whether any expert opinion can be trusted on this topic. The APS statement was based, in part, on a review of the literature by physicist David Hafemeister of California Polytechnic State University (San Luis Obispo, CA) for which Hafemeister surveyed 1,000 relevant scientific papers. However, deficiencies in the APS review led biologists and epidemiologists who have been involved in studying EMF bioeffects for many years to question the value of this document. It is hoped that the NCRP final report, will lay a foundation for thorough, unbiased evaluation of power frequency EMF health risks.

In further news coverage of EMF and cancer, Science reported in September [269(5232):1816-1817] on the failure of two research teams to reproduce the results of Columbia University cell biologist Reba Goodman and Hunter College molecular biologist Ann Henderson in their studies of the EMF-enhancement of Myc gene expression. Stimulation of this oncogene is seen as a plausible mechanism for how EMF exposure might cause cancer. Goodman and Henderson have been studying this mechanism for a decade. Science summarized their results as showing a two- to three-fold increase in RNA expression for the Myc gene in immature human blood cells after cells were exposed to low-level EMFs.

Scientists Jeff Saffer and Sarah Thurston, of Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL), and A. Lacy-Hulbert et al., of Cambridge University, made extensive attempts to replicate the Myc experiments with the aim of verifying Goodman and Henderson's results. The PNL and Cambridge groups reported in the journal Radiation Research [144(1):9-17 & 18-25, 1995] that, despite visiting Goodman and Henderson's labs, inviting Goodman to their lab, and constructing identical equipment, they were unable to obtain any evidence that EMF exposure affects Myc expression. The two groups altered the original protocols in order to refine the level of control and calibration; Goodman and Henderson also took these steps. Despite this effort, and in spite of the contradictory results obtained by the PNL and Cambridge groups, Goodman and Henderson continue to report 50-60% EMF stimulation of Myc expression (even now working separately). Perhaps another replication effort now underway at a Food and Drug Administration laboratory will shed light on this inconsistency in experimental results.