| BEMS Home | Society | Publications | Calendar | Resources |
November/December 1996
Number 133
A Publication of The Bioelectromagnetics Society
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REPORT ON POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS
Released October 31, 1996
CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
Public concern regarding possible health risks from residential exposures to low-strength, low-frequency electric and magnetic fields produced by power lines and the use of electric appliances has generated considerable debate among scientists and public officials. In 1991, Congress asked that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review the research literature on the effects from exposure to these fields and determine whether the scientific basis was sufficient to assess health risks from such exposures. In response to the legislation directing the US Department of Energy to enter into an agreement with the NAS, the National Research Council convened the Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems. The committee was asked "to review and evaluate the existing scientific information on the possible effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields on the incidence of cancer, on reproduction and developmental abnormalities, and on neurobiologic response as reflected in learning and behavior." The committee was asked to focus on exposure modalities found in residential settings. In addition, the committee was asked to identify future research needs and to carry out a risk assessment in so far as the research data justified this procedure. Risk assessment is a well established procedure used to identify health hazards and to recommend limits on exposure to dangerous agent
CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
Based on a comprehensive evaluation of published studies relating to the effects of power-frequency electric and magnetic fields on cells, tissues, and organisms (including humans), the conclusion of the committee is that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human-health hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental effects.
The committee reviewed residential exposure levels to electric and magnetic fields, evaluated the available epidemiologic studies, and examined laboratory investigations that used cells, isolated tissues, and animals. At exposure levels well above those normally encountered in residences, electric and magnetic fields can produce biologic effects (promotion of bone healing is an example), but these effects do not provide a consistent picture of a relationship between the biologic effects of these fields and health hazards. An association between residential wiring configurations (called wire codes, defined below) and childhood leukemia persists in multiple studies, although the causative factor responsible for that statistical association has not been identified. No evidence links contemporary measurements of magnetic-field levels to childhood leukemia.
STUDY FINDINGS
Epidemiology
Epidemiologic studies are aimed at establishing whether an association can be documented between exposure to a putative disease-causing agent and disease occurrence in humans. The driving force for continuing the study of the biologic effects of electric and magnetic has been the persistent epidemiologic reports of an association between a hypothetical estimate of electric- and magnetic-field exposure called the wire-code classification and the incidence of childhood leukemia. these studies found the highest wire-code category is associated with a rate of childhood leukemia (a rare disease) that is about 1.5 times the expected rate.
A particular methodologic detail in these studies must be appreciated to understand the results. Measuring residential fields for a large number of homes over historical periods of interest is logistically difficult, time consuming, and expensive, so epidemiologists have classified homes according to the sire code (unrelated to building codes) to estimate past exposures. The wire-code classification concerns only outdoor factors related to the distribution of electric power to residences, such as the distance of a home from a power line and the size of the wires close to the home. This method was originally designed to categorize homes according to the magnitude of the magnetic field expected to be inside the home. Magnetic fields from external wiring, however, often constitute only a fraction of the field inside the home. Various investigators have used from two (high and low) to five categories of wire-code classifications. The following conclusions were reached on the basis of an examination of the epidemiologic findings: Living in homes classified as being in the high wire-code category is associated with about a 1.5-fold excess of childhood leukemia, a rare disease. Magnetic fields measured in the home after diagnosis of disease in a resident have not been found to be associated with an excess incidence of childhood leukemia or other cancers. The link between wire-code rating and childhood is statistically significant (unlikely to have arisen from chance) and is robust in the sense that eliminating any single study from the group does not alter the conclusion that the association exists. How is acceptance of the link between wire-code rating and leukemia consistent with the overall conclusion that residential electric and magnetic fields have not been shown to be hazardous? One reason is that wire-code ratings correlate with many factors such as age of home, housing density, and neighborhood traffic density, but the wire-code ratings exhibit a rather weak association with measured residential magnetic fields. More important, no association between the incidence of childhood leukemia and magnetic-field exposure has been found in epidemiologic studies that estimated exposure by measuring present-day average magnetic fields.
Studies have not identified the factors that explain the association between wire codes and childhood leukemia. Because few risk factors for childhood leukemia are known, formulating hypotheses for a link between wire codes and disease is very difficult. Although various factors are known to correlate with wire-code ratings, none stands out as a likely causative factor. It would be desirable for future research to identify the source of the association between wire codes and childhood leukemia, even if the source has nothing to do with magnetic-fields.
In the aggregate, epidemiologic evidence does not support possible associations of magnetic fields with adult cancers, pregnancy outcome, neurobehavioral disorders, and childhood cancers other than leukemia. The preceding discussion has focused on the possible link between magnetic-field exposure and childhood leukemia because the epidemiologic evidence is strongest in this instance; nevertheless, many epidemiologists regard such a small increment in incidence as inherently unreliable. Although some studies have presented evidence of an association between magnetic-field exposure and various other types of cancer, neurobehavioral disorders, and adverse effects on reproductive function, the results have been inconsistent and contradictory and do not constitute reliable evidence of an association.
Exposure Assessment
The purpose of exposure assessment is to determine the magnitudes of electric and magnetic fields to which members of the population are exposed. The electromagnetic environment typically consists of two components, an electric field and a magnetic field. In general, for time-varying fields, these two fields are coupled, but in the limit of unchanging fields, they become independent. For frequencies encountered in electric-power transmission and distribution, these two fields can be considered independent to an excellent approximation. For extremely-low-frequency fields, including those from power lines and home appliances and wiring, the electric component is easily attenuated by metal elements in residential construction and even by trees, animals, and people. The magnetic field, which is not easily attenuated, is generally assumed to be the source of any possible health hazard. When animal bodies are placed in a time-varying magnetic field (as opposed to remaining stationary in the earth's static magnetic field), currents are induced to flow through tissues. these currents add to those that are generated internally by the function of nerve and muscle, most notably currents detected in the clinically useful electroencephalogram and the electrocardiogram. The currents produced by nerve and muscle action within the body have no known physiologic function themselves but rather are merely a consequence of the fact that excitable tissue (such as nerve and muscle) generate electric currents during their normal operation.
General conclusions from the review of the literature involving studies of exposure assessment and the physical interactions of electric and magnetic fields with biologic systems are the following: Exposure of humans and animals to external 60-hertz (Hz ) electric and magnetic fields induces currents internally. The intensity of these currents in nonuniform throughout the body. The spatial patterns of the currents induced by the magnetic fields are different from those induced by the electric fields. Electric fields generally are measured in volts per meter and magnetic fields in microtesla (uT) or milligauss (mG) (1 uT =3D 10 mG).
Higher levels are encountered directly under high-voltage transmission lines and in some occupational settings. Some appliances produce magnetic fields of up to 100 uT (1 G) or more in their vicinity. For comparison, the static magnetic field of the earth is about 50 uT (500 mG). Magnetic fields of the magnitude found in residences induce currents within the human body that are generally much smaller than the currents within the human body that are generally much smaller than the currents induced naturally from the function of nerves and muscles. However, the highest field strengths to which a resident might be exposed (those associated with appliances) can produce electric fields within a small region of the body that are comparable to or even larger than the naturally occurring fields, although the magnitude of the largest locally induced fields in the body is not accurately known.
Human exposure to a 60-Hz magnetic field at 0.1 uT (1mG) results in the maximum current density of about 1 microampere per square meter (uA/m2). The endogenous current densities on the surface of the body (higher densities occur internally) associated with electric activity of nerve cells are of the order of 1 mA/m2. The frequencies associated with those endogenous currents within the brain range from less than 1 Hz to about 40 Hz, the strongest components being about 10 Hz. therefore, the typical externally induced currents are 1,000 times less than the naturally occurring currents.
Neither experimental nor theoretic data on locally induced current densities within tissues and cells are available that take into consideration the local variations in the electric properties of the medium. Because the mechanisms through with electric and magnetic fields might produce adverse health effects are obscure, the characteristics of electric or magnetic fields that need to be measured for testing the linkage of these fields to disease are unclear. In most studies, the root-mean square (rms) strength of the field, an average field-strength parameter, has been measured on the assumption that this measurement should relate to whatever field characteristics might be most relevant. As noted earlier, wire-code categories have been used in many epidemiologic studies as a surrogate measurement of the actual exposure.
Exposure levels of electric fields and other characteristics of magnetic fields (harmonics, transients, spatial, and temporal changes) have received relatively little attention. Very little information is available on the ambient exposure levels to environmental electric fields other than the rms measurements of field strength. Those might vary from 5 to 10 volts per meter (V/m) in a residential setting to as high as 10 kilovolts per meter (kV/m) directly under power transmission lines. Likewise magnetic-field exposures are generally characterized only in terms of their rms field strengths with little or no information on such characteristics as the frequency and magnitude of transients and harmonics. Residential exposures to power-frequency electric and magnetic fields are generally on the order of a few milligauss.
Indirect estimates of human exposure to magnetic fields (e.g., wiring configuration codes, distance to power lines, and calculated historical fields) have been used in epidemiology. These estimates of magnetic fields correlate poorly with spot measurements of residential 60-Hz magnetic fields, and their reliability in representing other characteristics of the magnetic field has not been established. Because of the many factors that affect exposure levels, great care must be taken in establishing electric- and magnetic-field exposures. Unless exposure systems and experimental protocols meet several essential requirements, artifactual results are likely to be obtained in laboratory animal and cell experiments. Many of the published studies either have used inferior exposure systems and protocols or have not provided sufficient information for their evaluation.
In Vitro Studies on Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields
The purpose of studies of in vitro systems is to detect effects of electric or magnetic fields on individual cells or isolated tissues that might be related to health hazards. The conclusions reached after evaluation of published in vitro studies of biologic responses to electric- and magnetic-field exposures are the following: Magnetic-field exposures at 50-60 Hz delivered at field strengths similar to those measured for typical residential exposure (0.1-10 mG) do not produce any significant in vitro effects that have been replicated in independent studies. When effects of an agent are not evident at low exposure levels, as has been the case for exposure to magnetic fields, a standard procedure is to examine the consequences of using higher exposures. a mechanism that relates clearly to a potential health hazard might be discovered in this way.
Reproducible changes have been observed in the expression of specific features in the cellular signal-transduction pathways for magnetic-field exposures on the order of 100 uT and higher. Signal-transduction systems are used by all cells to sense and respond to features of their environments; for example, signal-transduction systems can be activated by the presence of various chemicals, hormones, and growth factors. Changes in signal transduction are very common in many experimental manipulations and are not indicative per se of an adverse effect. Notable in the experiments using high magnetic-field strengths is the lack of other effects, such as damage to the cell's genetic material. With even higher field strengths than those, a variety of effects are seen in cells.
At field strengths greater than 50 uT (0.5 G), credible positive results are reported for induced changes in intracellular calcium concentrations and for more general changes in gene expression and in components of signal transduction. No reproducible genotoxicity is observed, however, at any field strength. Again, effects of the sort seen are typical of many experimental manipulations and do not indicate per se a hazard. Effects are observed in very high field-strength exposures (e.g., in the therapeutic use of electromagnetic fields in bone healing).
The overall conclusion, based on the evaluation of these studies, is that exposures to electric and magnetic fields at 50-60 Hz induce changes in cultured cells only at field strengths that exceed typical residential field strengths by factors of 1,000 to 100,000.
In Vivo Studies on Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields
Studies of in vivo systems aim to determine the biologic effects of power-frequency electric and magnetic fields on whole animals. Studies of individual cells, described above are extremely powerful for elucidating biochemical mechanisms but are less well suited for discovering complicated effects that could be related to human health. For such extrapolation, animal experiments are more likely to reveal a subtle effect that might be relevant to human health. the obvious experiment is to expose animals, say mice, to high levels of electric or magnetic fields to observe whether they develop cancer or some other disease. The experiments of this sort that have been done have demonstrated no adverse health outcomes. Such experiments by themselves are inadequate, however, to discount the possibility of adverse effects from electric and magnetic fields, because the animals might not exhibit the same response and sensitivities as humans to the details of the exposure. For that reason a number of animal experiments have been carried out to examine a large variety of possible effects of exposure. On the basis of an evaluation of the published studies in this area, the committee concludes the following: There is no convincing evidence that exposure to 60-Hz electric and magnetic fields causes cancer in animals.
A small number of laboratory studies have been conducted to determine
if any relationship exists between power-frequency electric- and magnetic-field
exposure and cancer. In t he few studies reported to date, consistent
reproducible effects of exposure on the development of various types of
cancer have not been evident. One area with some laboratory evidence
of a health-related effect is that animals treated with carcinogens show
a positive relationship between intense magnetic-field exposure and the
incidence of breast cancer.
There is no evidence of any adverse effects on reproduction or development
in animals, particularly mammals, from exposure to power-frequency 50-
or 60-Hz electric and magnetic fields. There is convincing evidence
of behavioral responses to electric and magnetic fields that are considerably
larger than those encountered in the residential environment; however,
adverse neurobehavioral effects of even strong fields have not been demonstrated.
Laboratory evidence clearly shows that animals can detect and respond behaviorally
to external electric fields on the order of 5 kV/m rms or larger.
Evidence for animal behavioral response to time-varying magnetic fields,
even up to 3 uT, is much more tenuous. In either case, general adverse
behavioral effects have not been demonstrated.
Neuroendocrine changes associated with magnetic-field exposure have been reported; however, alterations in neuroendocrine function by magnetic-field exposures have not been shown to cause adverse health effects. The majority of investigations of magnetic-field effects on pineal-gland function suggests that magnetic fields might inhibit nighttime pineal and blood melatonin concentrations; in those studies, the effective field strengths varied from 10 uT (0.1 G) to 5.2 mT (52 G). The experimental data do not compellingly support an effect of sinusoidal electric field on melatonin production. Other than the observed changes in pineal function, an effect of electric and magnetic fields on other neuroendocrinie or endocrine functions has not been clearly shown in the relatively small number of experimental studies reported. Despite the observed reduction in pineal and blood melatonin concentrations in some animals as a consequence of magnetic-field exposure, studies of humans provide no conclusive evidence to date that human melatonin concentrations respond similarly. In animals with observed melatonin changes, adverse health effects have not been shown to be associated with electric- or magnetic-field related depression in melatonin.
There is convincing evidence that low-frequency pulsed magnetic fields greater than 5 G are associated with bone-healing in animals. Although replicable effects have been clearly demonstrated in the bone-healing response of animals exposed locally to magnetic fields, the committee did not evaluate the efficacy of this treatment in clinical situations.
CHARLES F. STEVENS (Chair), Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA; DAVID A. SAVITZ (Vice Chair), Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; LARRY E. ANDERSON, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA; DANIEL A. DRISCOLL, Department of Public Service, State of New York, Albany, NY; FRED H. GAGE, Laboratory of Genetics, Salk Institute, San Diego, CA; RICHARD L. GARWIN, IBM Research Division, T.J. Watson Research Division, Yorktown Heights, NY; LYNN W. JELINSKI, Center for Advanced Technology-Biotechnology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; BRUCE J. KELMAN, Golder Associates, Inc., Redmond, WA; RICHARD A. LUBEN, Division of Biomedical Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA; RUSSEL J. REITER, Department of Cellular and Structural Biology, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX; PAUL SLOVIC, Decision Research, Eugene, OR; JAN A.J. STOLWIJK, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; MARIA A. STUCHLY, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Victoria, BC, Canada; DANIEL WARTENBERG, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson, Medical School, Piscataway, NJ; JOHN S. WAUGH, Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; JERRY R. WILLIAMS, The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, Baltimore, MD
Return to Publications Page
Return to Society's Home Page
NAS REPORT CONFIRMS NEED FOR EMF RESEARCH, SAY SCIENTISTS
The following is a press release from Richard Luben, Larry Anderson and Maria Stuchly, all members of the NAS Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems. Released on October 31, 1996
The President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, Dr. Richard Luben, today welcomed the release of the official report of a National Research Council - National Academy of Sciences Committee, entitled "Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields." Dr. Richard Luben, a Biomedical Sciences professor at the University California, Riverside and president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, along with two past presidents of the Society, Dr. Maria Stuchly of the University of Victoria, Canada, and Dr. Larry Anderson of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington, all served on the NRC-NAS committee which compiled the report. They stated that "The most important aspect of this report is that is establishes that even under the strictest possible standards of proof, there is a reliable, though low, statistical association between power lines and at least one form of cancer. this fact in itself shows that we need to do more to find out why this relationship exists."
The NRC-NAS report concludes that although a statistical association can be shown between measurements of the current-carrying ability of power lines near residences and the relatively rare blood cancer, childhood leukemia, proof that this association is due to the electric or magnetic fields from the power lines is still lacking. Epidemiologic studies cited in the report show that households in the "high-wire-code" categories, which have higher-capacity wiring or are closer to power stations or high-energy transmission lines, show approximately a 1.5-fold increase in childhood leukemia over households with low capacity wiring or those farther away from power sources. In previous public statements, the Bioelectromagnetics Society has taken the position that more research is needed on the relationship between EMF exposure and cancer-like changes in cells, and on the possible mechanisms by which EMFs, perhaps in concert with other factors, may contribute to leukemia and other cancers in humans.
The report states on page 1 that "Based on a comprehensive evaluation of published studies relating to the effects of power-frequency electric and magnetic fields on cells, tissues, and organisms (including humans), the conclusion of the committee is that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human-health hazard". However, the report also concludes that "the energy policy act of 1992 is not anticipated to answer all the questions regarding the possible health effects. . . "and that "continued research is important. . ." It goes on to make several further points. To summarize some of these points, 1) a link appears to exist between distance to power lines and risk of at least childhood leukemia; 2) there are biological effects of magnetic fields down to at least 1 gauss (about twice the magnetic field of the Earth); and 3) mammary (breast) tumor experiments need to be pursued. The concluding paragraph of the report indicates "continued research is important, however, because the possibility that some characteristic of the electric and magnetic is biologically active at environmental strengths cannot be totally discounted. If ongoing or future research should uncover evidence of potential mechanisms that could lead to such a result, research should be continued to follow those leads and address that possibility."
Drs. Luben, Anderson and Stuchly agree with the report's key conclusions that the data are not convincing that there is a proven danger to the public from electromagnetic fields -- but also that EMF exposure does result in a number of biological effects. They caution against taking the attitude that a lack of confirmed proof at this point in the study of EMF effects means that the question can be ignored. they point out that even in the case of cigarette smoking, it took nearly 50 years after the demonstration of a statistical association with lung cancer for scientists to define a specific cellular mechanism by which compounds in smoke could definitely cause the cellular changes associated with lung cancer. They emphasize that, in the view of scientists, research is the only way to find the answers to unexplained observations such as the apparent link between EMF exposure and some forms of cancer.
"There are many factors contribution to all cancers," said Luben, "this report documents that EMF exposure produces a number of biological effects, both on cells in the laboratory and on animals, that could possibly play a role in cancer development." The report points out that none of these effects have been reliably demonstrated at the field strengths normally encountered as background levels in households, even those which may be at slightly higher risk for leukemia due to their "wire code" ratings. However, the three scientists emphasized that most of the studies published to date have been preliminary studies in which high "doses" of the suspected agent (EMF in these cases) are applied to demonstrate effects. More extensive studies are currently being funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and companies in the energy and communications industries; results of these studies are scheduled to be evaluated and reported to Congress by NIEHS in 1998.
"In the final analysis," said Luben, "the approach taken by this Committee is the only way to answer the questions raided here or in any scientific disagreement. We looked at the available data with an objective, impartial attitude, asking what the data really showed and not what we wished it to show. We found a few answers, but there are still important questions that need to be addressed."
Return to Publications Page
Return to Society's Home Page
BIOELECTROMAGNETICS JOURNAL NEWS
by Ben Greenebaum, Editor-in-Chief
RAPHAEL LEE APPOINTED ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Raphael C. Lee has been appointed Associate Editor of Bioelectromagnetics replacing Roy Aaron, who resigned after three years of dedicated service. Dr. Lee's editorial specialties will include clinical uses of electromagnetic fields and basic biological or biophysical experiments particularly those with implications for tissue remodeling and growth. Dr. Lee is Professor of Plastic Surgery, Organismal Biology and Anatomy (Biomechanics) at the University of Chicago. He also directs the Burn Center and the Electric Injury Research Program. In addition to his work with patients, he presently is actively involved in clinical research on treatment of severe electrical injuries and laboratory research and computer simulations of the effects of electric and magnetic fields on cells and animals. He is Past President and Council Member of the Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine, a member of the Board of Directors of BEMS, and on the program committee for the Second World Congress. Dr. Lee also is active in many organizations outside of the area of bioelectromagnetics. Authors are encouraged to send papers directly to Dr. Lee if he appears to be the Associate Editor best suited to the subject matter. Otherwise papers should be sent to one of the other Associate Editors or the Editor-in-Chief.
ASSOCIATE EDITOR SEMM ON LEAVE
Due to an unfortunate series of health problems, Dr. Peter Semm will take a leave of absence from his duties as Associate Editor of Bioelectromagnetics. Papers previously assigned to Dr. Semm have been reassigned to Dr. Michael Bornhausen, Dr. Kjell Hansson Mild, or the Editor-in-Chief. Authors of these papers have been notified directly. Authors are requested not to send new papers to Dr. Semm until further notice.
EDITORIAL BOARD CHANGES
The members of the Editorial Board of Bioelectromagnetics assist the editors in two ways: they form a diverse group of knowledgeable, active scientists upon whom the editors know they can call for good reviews, and they act as a sounding board for the Editor-in-Chief when questions of policy are being considered.
The membership of the Board rotates. As of January 1, 1997, Stephen F. Cleary, Arthur W. Guy, and Mary Ellen O'Connor complete their service on the Board. Each has served for many years and each has furnished the editors with many valuable insights. They have the warm thanks of all of the editorial staff and they deserve the gratitude of the entire bioelectromagnetics community.
Board members whose terms begin in 1997 are Mary Cook, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO; Birgitta Floderus, National Institute for Working Life, Solna, Sweden; Sheila Galt, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden; and Janet Rubin, Emory University School of Medicine, Decatur, GA. We welcome them to the Board.
JOURNAL EXPANDS FOR 1997; BACKLOG WILL DECREASE
Bioelectromagnetics is increasing its frequency of publication for 1997. Eight issues will be published during the coming year. The journal published four issues yearly from its first appearance in 1980 until 1991 when the frequency increased to six issues yearly. The journal's basic page allocation will also increase for 1997 from 432 to 512; although approximately 512 pages will appear in 1996 because the extra pages were subsidized by BEMS in order to decrease publication time for papers. The combination of an increase in submissions and somewhat faster reviewing created a situation in which papers accepted in early 1996 waited almost a year before appearing. The extra pages for 1996 have decreased this wait by 1-2 months for papers accepted in mid-1996.
The goal of the editors and publishers is to bring the publication time to about six months. The first three issues of 1997 will contain more than the usual number of pages and articles. By late spring the delay is estimated to be at or close to the six month target. The editors and publisher believe that the Society will have to subsidize additional pages in 1997, but that if present submission rates continue and the editors institute tighter enforcement of editorial policy (see below) there should be little need for subsidies in the future. The Society's Board of Directors will consider the subsidy proposal at the February meeting.
The editors will continue to work with reviewers to speed the reviewing time. The editors remind authors that the time it takes the authors to revise a once reviewed manuscript is generally a major contributor to the time between initial submission and ultimate acceptance. The revision time is fully under the control of the authors. Furthermore, a manuscript which the authors and some of their colleagues have critiqued thoroughly before submission will generally need less revision and will also flow through the review system more quickly.
EDITORS SEEK BETTER, TIGHTER, SHORTER PAPERS
"Not that the story need be long, but it will take a long while to make it short." (Thoreau)
"I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it short." (Pascal)
The editors of Bioelectromagnetics ask authors and reviewers to assist them in improving the quality of articles in the journal as well as keeping down the backlog of articles waiting to be published. The editors' primary concern will continue to be to ensure that the science meets current standards. Marginal methodology may bring rejection more frequently than in the past. But the editors also will be seeking to shorten articles that are longer and more discursive than necessary, particularly in the introductory and discussion sections. The introduction is intended to provide the reader a rationale and enough prior science to place the work being discussed in context. However, the supposedly brief introduction need not review all bioelectromagnetics nor need it be written in a rambling style. Similarly, discussion sections ought to be relevant to the results being reported and generally ought not repeat material from the introduction.
The introduction and discussion sections tend to be the most loosely written and authors are asked to ensure that all parts of their papers really help the reader's understanding. Method sections should be as brief as possible while still helping the reader understand the experiment. They should refer when possible to prior publications of techniques, outlining the basics very briefly but taking great care to describe any departures from prior publications or new techniques fully. Results sections should present tables and then repeat every figure from the table in text without providing additional information.
The "Instructions to Authors" are being revised to emphasize statements that have been long present but are sometimes ignored. Two such statements need special mention. First, we continue to ask that, except in rare instances, no more than 20 pages (exclusive of tables and figures) should be submitted. Second, the new, two-column format of the journal means that figures will generally be reduced to one-column width, smaller than they would have been in the old format. Few figures have enough detail to need two-columns in order to be understood. However, authors should be careful to proportion their figures so they fit gracefully into the one-column width (about 8.25 cm or 3.25 in) and should be especially careful to make the figures' lettering large enough and dark enough so that it will be legible after reduction.
Most important, authors should heed Thoreau and Pascal's comments and try to write a strong article before submission. They should take the time to read their words carefully and ask others to do so. Authors should consider not only whether what they have written is correct, but also whether it is clear and concise. Given the time and care that goes into research, contributors owe it to their work as well as to their readers to take the time to produce a quality manuscript.
Return to Publications Page
Return to Society's Home Page
KJELL HANSSON MILD RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT NAS COVERAGE OF SWEDISH RESEARCH
The following letter was sent from Kjell Hansson Mild to the Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences subcommittee, Dr. Charles F. Stevens. Dr. Hansson Mild questions the exclusion of certain Swedish studies and the apparent misinterpretation of others. Dr. Hansson Mild is with the National Institute for Working Life in Umea, Sweden and is the current Past-President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society.
I have read the prepublication copy of the report "Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields" and after that reading I feel that I need to write to you in your role as chairman for the committee to find out how it can be that the report has turned out to be so biased in the selection of papers included.
I have been working in the area of biological effects of electromagnetic fields for the last twenty years, and I have following the ELF problems in particular. During the last ten years I have served as Associate Editor for the journal, Bioelectromagnetics, and I am also the immediate Past President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. I have served as a full member of the IEEE COMAR for many years. My curriculum vitae includes over 100 publications in the area and about the same number of abstracts for conference presentations. I find it rather strange that the selection of the papers quoted in the report includes mainly those showing no effect, but leaving out the ones showing that magnetic field exposure, in fact, did have a biological effect.
I have made some specific comments below in the areas where our own research has been involved. Finding all these erroneous citations of our work leaves quite a bit of doubt as to the rest of the report.
Experimental studies of in vitro effects
Comments on page 57
The work by Nordenson et al. (1994) has been grossly misquoted in the report. The paper reports on significant increase in chromosomal aberrations after intermittent exposure to 30 mT rms magnetic fields, either 2 s on/20 s off, or 15 s on/15 s off, both of which gave a twofold increase. However, a previous report by Nordenson et al. (1992) showed that a continuous exposure at 30 mT gave a threefold increase. In the NAS report it is implied that no effect is seen after continuous exposure and that this is true for the flux density 300 uT, thus implying an amplitude window effect instead of a no-effect.
Comments on page 61-63: Signal transduction
In several publications we have shown effects on intracellular calcium oscillations induced by weak magnetic fields (Lindstrom et al, 1993; 1995) as well as showing the importance of CD45 phosphatase for the occurrence of effects of the field (Lindstrom et al, 1995b). We have also shown increased IP3 levels in Jurkat cells exposed to magnetic fields (Kortz-Sleptsova et al, 1995). Much to my surprise none of these findings are mentioned in the report, although they are widely known and quoted among researchers in the field.
Carcinogenic and mutagenic effects
Comments on page 80-81
The work of Rannug et al, (1994) has been quoted as essentially showing no effect, whereas in the latest paper they reported that female SENCAR mice given DMBA as an initiator and the magnetic field as a promoter with intermittent 15 s on/15 s off at 50 mT and 0.5 mT showed a significant dose trend with flux density and Tesla-hours for cumulated skin tumors per tumor-bearing animals.
Nonmammalian studies of time-varying magnetic fields
Comments on page 86
Although a reference to earlier work is given to Chernoff et al, (1992) it seems out of context to say that Martin (1992) found no exposure-related effects on the chick embryos, when he earlier showed significant effects on development especially during the first 24 h of incubation (1988). The work from 1992 is concerned with other parameters. Furthermore, reference to the work done by Litovitz et al, (1994) is missing from the report. They showed a significant increase in abnormal development in chick embryos after exposure to the "Henhouse" signal.
Mammalian studies of time-varying magnetic fields
Comments on page 87-88
A Swedish study performed by Frolen, Svedenstal and Paulsson (1993) showed a statistical significant increase of resorptions (RP=early fetal death) in mice continuously exposed during pregnancy to a sawtooth 20 kHz, 15 uT p-p magnetic field compared to sham controls. This study is unique in the large amount of animals involved (totally 1414 exposed and sham controls) and was performed in close agreement to good laboratory practice (GLP). Therefore the interpretation stated in the NAS report about the Wiley et al., (1992) publications was wrong in stating that the study was unusual in the large number of animals studied (totally 743 or 53% of the Frolen study). Not only Frolen's work but also that of Stuchly (199?) used more animals than Wiley and both studies shoed effects on reproduction from magnetic field exposure.
The NAS report pointed out that "none of the increases in RP were reflected in reduction of litter size, and this lack of correlation between increases of RP ad litter size makes it unlikely to be due to biological significance." This is a very dangerous conclusion and should not be used when we are discussing possible environmental impacts. This conclusion made by NAS means that if a woman had 3 children it is not of biological significance if the 4th pregnancy ended up in a magnetic field induced miscarriage. The rate of RP in control mice in the Wiley study was also much higher than in the Frolen study, which first ,could indicate suboptimal conditions for the animals and second, could increase the "noise" so that small changes in resorption may be hidden.
It should also be mentioned that both of the above studies were done as a result of the outcome of the study by Tribukait et al., (?) where an increase of malformed fetuses was found after exposure to the sawtooth waveform magnetic field with 15 uT p-p. One of the reasons for the difference in outcome between the three studies that have been discussed is the fact that they all used different strains of mice (Hansson Mild and Sandstrom (1994).
The work by Rusovan et al, (1992) showing that the regeneration of rat sciatic nerve after magnetic field exposure is frequency dependent is also omitted from the quoted literature that shows effects.
I would very much like to hear from you with respect to the above comments and how the misinterpretation of our work came about.
Yours sincerely,
Kjell Hansson Mild, Ph.D.
References
Chernoff et al, (1992): Toxicology 74:91-126.
Frolen et al, (1993): Bioelectromagnetics 14:197-204.
Hansson Mild et al, (1994): In Lin J (ed): "Advances In Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems." Vol. 1, Plenum Press, pp 155-183.
Korzh-Sleptsova et al, (1995): FEBS letter 359:151-154.
Lindstrom et al, (1993): J Cell Physiol 156:395-398.
Lindstrom et al, (1995): Bioelectromagnetics 16:41-47.
Lindstrom et al, (1995 b): FEBS letter 370:118-122.
Litovitz et al., (1994): Bioelectromagnetics 15:105-113.
Martin (1992): Bioelectromagnetics 13:223-230.
Nordenson et al, (1992): In Norden B, Ramel C (eds.): "Interaction Mechanisms of Low-Level Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems -- Resonant Phenomena." Stockholm: Oxford University Press, pp 240-250.
Nordenson et al, (1994): Bioelectromagnetics 15: 293-301.
Rannug et al, (1994): Carcinogenesis 15:153-157.
Rusovan (1992): Exp Neurol 117:81-84.
Wiley (1992): Teratology 46:391-398.
Return to Publications Page
Return to Society's Home Page
ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY: EUROPEAN UNION REGULATIONS, STANDARDS AND PRACTICE
Published by Innovation 128, 24 rue du Quatre Septembre, 75002 Paris - France [Tel: +33-1-44-51-15-00; Fax: +33-1-42-65-47-76]
Within the European Economic Community (EEC), January 1, 1966 marked the date after which compliance with European Directive 89/336/EEC was mandatory. This Directive, which relates to electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) creates both a threat and an opportunity to all those companies who wish to sell electrical or electronic equipment within the Common Market. Manufacturers offering products which comply with the Directive are able to trade freely within the EC market and gain access to market opportunities denied to those companies who fail to meet the specified requirements. It is incumbent on all suppliers to the electrical and electronics (E&E) market to know and understand the implications of the Directive. The principal objective of this report is to inform individuals in all sectors of the E&E industry of the questions raised by the need to comply with the EMC Directive, to suggest possible solutions, and to indicate sources of technical support.
The first part (Chapter 1 to 4) of the report is concerned with European regulations and standards relating to EMC. The regulations are analyzed in detail and the most important points are highlighted. Procedures leading to the EC Declaration of conformity and to the CE Mark are clearly identified.
In the second part (Chapters 5 and 6), the various ways that the individual member states of the EEC have adopted the European arrangements are discussed. The national EMC regulations of some other countries are considered in order to provide useful comparisons with the new European requirements.
The third part (Chapters 7 and 8) of the report looks at the problem of EMC compliance from a comprehensive strategic commercial viewpoint. Technical, economic and legal considerations are brought together and analyzed according to their impact on different types and levels of managerial responsibility (including the perspectives of manufacturers, distributors, importers...)
A final section (Chapter 9 to 15) provides a valuable compendium of practical information which incorporates references to official texts, a listing of organizations and institutions, references to national standards, suppliers of products and services, titles of recent publications and a listing of conferences and exhibitions.
Return to Publications Page
Return to Society's Home Page
**In a recent IEEE's Newsletter, The Institute, a reference and resource book was cited - William G. Wells, Jr., Working with Congress: A Practical Guide for Scientists and Engineers (second edition), published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, $15.95 (U.S.), paperback, 160 pages.
**IEEE Committee C63.19 is preparing two standards addressing compatibility between hearing aids and wireless technology. One is a protocol for making measurements, "Method of Measurement for Hearing Aid Compatibility with Wireless Communications." The other is a set of guidelines to prevent interference, "Limits for Hearing Aid Compatibility with Wireless Communications." The Committee met in Minneapolis in June and in Santa Clara, CA in August. The standards are expected to be finished by fall 1998.
**Thomas Maney, a former chair of the board of directors of the EMR Alliance, died on June 5 of a heart attack at the age of 72.
**Wireless Technology Research (WTR) announced on June 28 that it would fund a $419,000 case-control study of cell phone use and brain cancer research. The study will be conducted by the American Health Foundation (AHF) in New York City, and the results are expected in about two years.
**In an article by Dr. Susan Preston-Martin and colleagues, UCLA, which was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE, 143, pp. 1116-1122, June 1, 1996), they report that exposures to electric blankets and water bed heaters in utero and after birth suggests that exposures do not promote brain tumors in children. Their results stand in contrast to those of Dr. David Savitz, University of North Carolina (AJE, 131, pp. 763-773, May 1990).
**COST 244 on Biomedical Effects of EMFs (part of the European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research) organized a workshop on "Delineation of Differences in the Mode of Energy Coupling and Mechanisms of Interaction at ELF and RF," held in Zagreb, Croatia, October 5-6. Also part of the agenda included a discussion comparing various measurements standards. Contact: Dr. Dina Simunic, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Unska 3, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia. (Tel: +385-1-6129-789; Fax: +385-1-6129-606; Email: <dina.simunic@fer.hr>; or look up <http://pubwww.srce.hr/cost244/zgwork> on the World Wide Web.
** Norway's defense department is studying the potential link between RF/MW radiation and birth defects among children of 30,000 naval officers over the last 30 years. The study was spurred by a chance discovery by two officers from a motor torpedo vessel who discovered each had a child with clubfoot. An investigation found three more officers from the same vessel had children with clubfoot. The data analysis is under way but is not expected to be completed until 1998.
**Dr. Marko Markov is no longer with Electropharma-cology and is available for a position for research in and industrial or university laboratory. Dr. Markov has 27 years of experience in studying the effects of various EMF on biological systems, both in respect of basic science and applied science. Dr. Markov also has 23 years of teaching general physics and general biophysics.
**S.I. Shkuratov and E.F. Talantsev have published The Commonwealth
of Independent States: 1996-1997 Directory of Physics and Astronomy
Staff. The directory is in five parts and contains information about
5,151 professional scientists from more than 540 institutions in Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
The directory sells for $89.25(US) with postage of $10.50 North America,
$9.50 Europe and $11.00 other countries and can be obtained from Dr. S.I.
Shkuratov, Institute of Electrophysics, Urals Division of the Russian Academy
of Sciences, 34 Komsomolskaya Str., Ekaterinburg 620049, Russia.
Return to Publications Page
Return to Society's Home Page
Applications are invited from individuals with a biomedical engineering or related degree who have an interest in studying the mechanisms by which powerline-frequency electromagnetic fields can interact with excitable cells and cause effects at the cellular, sub-cellular and molecular levels. The research is part of an interdisciplinary, NIH-funded project that utilizes fluorescence imaging of intracellular calcium, assays of biosynthetic processes and analysis of gene expression in cultured cells exposed to electromagnetic fields generated by Helmholtz coil and Merritt coil exposure systems. Experience in bioelectromagnetics, imaging techniques, biochemistry or molecular biology is desirable. The position is for two years with a start date of April 1, 1997. Salary is commensurate with NIH salary scales for postdoctoral fellows and is negotiable based on experience. To apply, please send curriculum vitae, a statement regarding research experience and interests, and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of three references to Dr. Gale L. Craviso, Department of Pharmacology, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Howard Building, Reno, NV 09557. AA/EOE
Return to Publications Page
Return to Society's Home Page
April 2-3: Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Crystal Forum, Crystal City Marriott, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Principal Scientific Session: The Effects of Pre- and Postconception Exposure to Radiation. Contact: NCRP, 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20814-3095. (Tel: 301-657-2652; Fax: 301-907-8768)
May 23-25: 3rd Congress of the International Association of Biologically Closed Electric Circuits in Biomedicine (IABC) and the 2nd International Symposium on Electrochemical Treatment of Cancers, Beijing, China. Contact: Yu-ling Xin, M.D., Professor, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing 100029, China. [Tel: +86-10-64227535 (Mme. Yihua Li); Fax: +86-10-64217749; Email: gzliu@hns.cjfh.ac.cn]
June 8-13: The Second World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, Bologna Congressi S.P.A., Bologna, Italy. Contacts: Congress Chair, Dr. Jørgen Bach Andersen, Aalborg Univ., Fr. Bajers Vej 7A, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark (Tel: +45-98-15-85-22; Fax: +45-98-15-15-83; Email: jba@kom.auc.dk); Program Chair, Dr. Martin Blank, Columbia Univ., Dept. of Physics and Cellular Biophysics, 630 W 168 St., New York, NY 10032 (Tel: 212-305-3644; Fax: 212-305-5775; Email: mb32@columbia.edu); or Logistics and Management: W/L Associates, Ltd., 7519 Ridge Road, Frederick, MD 21702 (Tel: 301-663-4252; Fax: 301-371-8955; Email: 75230,1222@compuserve.com)
June 30-July 5: XXXIII International Congress on Physiological Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia. (Workshop devoted to electromagnetic fields; co-sponsored by BEMS; see Newsletter 129) Contact: Kjell Hansson Mild, NIWL, Box 7654, S-907 13 Umea, Sweden. (Tel: +46-90-165098; Fax +46-90-166508; Email: mild@niwl.se)
July 7-11: Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium, Royal Sonesta Hotel, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Abstract deadline December 2, 1996. Contact: T. M. Habashy (Tel: 203-431-5563) or M. L. Oristaglio (Tel: 203-431-5566), Schlumberger-Doll Research, Old Quarry Rd., Ridgefield, CT 06877-4108. (Fax: 203-438-3819)
July 13-18: 1997 IEEE AP-S International Symposium and URSI North American Radio Science Meeting, Queen Elizabeth Hotel, Montreal, Canada. Technical contacts: IEEE/AP-S, Dr. Prakash Bhartia (Tel: 902-426-3100, ext. 133; Fax: 902-426-9654; Email: bhartia@drea.dnd.ca); or URSI, Dr. Lot Shafai (Tel: 204-474-9615; Fax: 204-261-4639; E-mail shafai@ee.umanitoba.ca). General inquiries: D. Ruest, Conference Manager, 1997 URSI and IEEE/AP-S Meeting, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0R6.
September 15-17: Genetic Toxicology of Non Ionizing Radiations:
Genetic- and Epigenetic Effects, Carcinogenesis, Developmental Effects,
etc., Holiday Inn Crown Plaza, Bruges, Belgium. Organized by the
Belgian Environmental Mutagen Society and VITO (Flemish Institute for Technological
Research); see Newsletter 132. Contact: Dr. Luc Verschaeve,
VITO, Environment Division, Boeretang 200, B-2400 Mol, Belgium. (Tel:
+32-14-33-52-17; Fax: +32-14-32-03-72;
Email: verschal@vitoosfl.vito.be)
October 16-19: Life Sciences '97 and 2nd Slovenian-Coratian Meeting on Molecular Oncology Today, Gozd Martuljek, Hotel Spik, Slovenia. Organized by the Slovenian Biophysical Society and Institute of Oncology, Ljbljana. Contact Gregor Sersa, Institute of Oncology, Department of Tumor Biology, Zaloska 2, SI-1105 Ljubljana, Slovenia. (Tel: +386-61-133-74-10 or 323-063, ext. 29 33; Fax: +386-61-131-41-80; Email: gsersa@mail.onko-i.si)
October 30 - November 2: 19th Annual International Conference IEEE/EMB Society, Chicago Marriott Downtown, Chicago, Illinois. Contact Conference Secretariat, Meeting Management, 2603 Main Street, Suite 690, Irvine, CA 92714, USA. (Tel: 714-752-8205; Fax: 714-752-7444; Email: MeetiingMgt@aol.com, and embs97@ieee.org).
Return to Publications Page
Return to Society's Home Page
The BIOELECTROMAGNETICS Society Newsletter is published and distributed to all members of the Society. Information regarding the Society may be obtained by writing to BEMS, 7519 Ridge Road, Frederick, MD 21702-3519. Institutions and libraries may subscribe to the Newsletter at an annual cost of $58.50 ($67.50 for overseas subscribers). The Newsletter serves the membership and subscribers in part as a forum for the presentation of ideas and issues related to bioelectromagnetics research. All submissions to the Newsletter must be signed and reflect the individual views of the authors and not official points of view of the Society or of the institutions with which the authors are affiliated. The Society solicits contributions to the Newsletter from its members and others in the scientific and engineering communities. News items as well as short research notes and book reviews are welcome. Advertisements inserted and distributed with the Newsletter are not to be considered endorsements.
Submit items for consideration to: M. E. O'Connor, University of Tulsa, Psychology Department, 600 S College, Tulsa, OK 74104-3189. (Tel: 918-631-2838; Fax: 918-631-2833; Email: OCONNORME@centum.utulsa.edu)
M. E. O'Connor, Editor
For Newsletter items, contact the Editor.
For other Society business, contact: The Bioelectromagnetics Society, 7519 Ridge Road, Frederick, MD 21702-3519. Tel. 301-663-4252; Fax 301-371-8955; Email: 75230.1222@compuserve.com.
BEMS Homepage:
http://www.bioelectromagnetics.org/index.html
Return to Contents
Return to Publications Page
Return to Society's Home Page
| Last updated: November 17, 2000 | Contacts: | Web Editor | BEMS Office | Back to top |