Re: E-M fields health risks

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

I guess "..... might be a problem with ..." is the same as "do not pose a sig.
health risk."

bc



William Beaty wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Bernard Cleyet wrote:
>
> > I suspect a problem with some of the suppositions posted -- granted life
> > expectancy has increased much.  The "real" question is: how much more would it
> > have increased is we had not added E & M fields ubiquitously?
>
> One thing has changed recently in the official response to EM danger
> scares:  knowledgeable people have stopped insisting that low freq AC
> magnetic fields cannot produce bioeffects.
>
> The exact mechanism involved is still unknown as far as I know, but the
> controversy has shifted from "magnetic fields do not measurably affect
> biochem", to "magnetic fields do not pose a signficant health risk."
>
> ((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
> William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
> billb@eskimo.com                                  http://www.amasci.com
> EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
> Seattle, WA   206-789-0775          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L