Return to Atlantic Legal Briefs

COMMENTS ON NIEHS WORKING GROUP REPORT
"ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH OF EFFECTS FROM EXPOSURE TO
POWER LINE FREQUENCY ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS" (1998)

Martin S. Kaufman, Esq.

Edwin L. Lewis, Esq.

Atlantic Legal Foundation
205 East 42nd Street - 9th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Tel: (212) 573-1960
Fax: (212) 573-1959
E-mail: atlanticlaw@yahoo.com

Introduction

The Atlantic Legal Foundation ("Atlantic Legal") has reviewed the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ("NIEHS") Working Group Report "Assessment of Health of Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields" (1998) (the "Report"). We have several serious concerns regarding the methodology, the content and the conclusions of the Report.

Atlantic Legal has an ongoing interest in the question of the relationship between exposure to electric and magnetic fields, particularly power-line or extremely low frequency ("ELF") fields and disease in humans. We have, and will continue, to endeavor to insure that any asserted causal link between power line electric and magnetic fields (collectively "EMF") and disease in humans is firmly based on valid science. We believe that many of the claims of such a causal relationship are based on the unsupported speculation or bias of those making the claims.

Atlantic Legal has filed amicus curiae briefs in several court cases involving claims of disease causation related to exposure to power-line EMF. In these cases we have represented numerous prominent scientists, including Nobel laureates in physiology and medicine, physics and chemistry, other noted academics in those fields, and highly respected epidemiologists and oncologists. In preparing those briefs, we have worked with our amicus clients, and have reviewed the scientific and legal literature in the field. In addition, together with the Franklin Institute, Atlantic Legal Foundation sponsored a symposium on the health effects of electromagnetic fields, in which the panel included both experts in the field who believed there might be indications of a link between ELF EMF and disease and those who believe that there is no such link. We are familiar with almost all of the studies referred to in the Report, as well as others not cited therein.

The Congressional mandate underlying the Report and the subsequent report to Congress is set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub.L. 102-486, 102 Stat. 2776, 42 U.S.C. §§ 13201, et seq. and specifically in 42 U.S.C. §13478. Congress has instructed the Secretary to establish a program to "determine whether or not exposure to electric and magnetic fields produced by the generation, transmission, and use of electric energy affects human health." 42 U.S.C. §13478 (a)(1). The Interagency Committee to be established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §13478(d) is to submit a final report to Congress stating that Committee's "findings and conclusions on the effects, if any, of electric and magnetic fields on human health and remedial actions, if any, that may be needed to minimize any such health effects." The statute explicitly expressed "the sense of Congress that remedial action taken by the Government on electric and magnetic fields, if and as necessary, should be based on, and consistent with, scientifically valid research, such as the results and findings of the research authorized by this Act." 42 U.S.C. §13478 (k) (emphasis supplied). As noted above, this is precisely Atlantic Legal Foundation's interest and purpose in submitting these comments.

We believe that the Report's general conclusion that ELF EMF are "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Report, chapter 5, §5.1 at 396) (with the quoted language set in bold type) is misleading and alarmist. This conclusion faced a strong dissent by a significant number of members of the working group. This majority's general conclusion, and the subordinate conclusions regarding epidemiological studies of residential and occupational exposures, in vivo and in vitro evidence (Report, §5.1.1 at 396-398), is based on "inadequate," "limited" (adjectives used by the majority itself) or ambiguous evidence, or reliance on isolated studies which are not consistent with other studies. Indeed, the Working Group's overall conclusion is that "most of the studies suggest a lack of carcinogenicity and that the few that gave results of borderline positivity are inadequate". (Report at 398). We submit that this conclusion should have been given much more prominence in the Report in order to render the Report not misleading. Indeed, the one biological effect for which a majority of the Working Group found "strong evidence" was a "robust" beneficial effect on bone repair and adaptation.

Because the Working Group's Report does not represent a consensus conclusion, because there was a significant dissent, and because a number of critical scientific disciplines were not represented or poorly represented, the criteria for selection of the Working Group and the possible bias of individual members is very important. The Report does not disclose the criteria for selection of the Working Group members, nor does it disclose each member's financial interest in current or pending grants or other stipends related to a continuing analysis of the effects of EMF. This information is necessary to evaluate the "votes" on each conclusion on the Report. The Report must therefore be supplemented with this information prior to delivery of any conclusions to Congress.

The NIEHS's use of the definitions of the International Agency for Research on Cancer ("IARC") is subject to question. The IARC criteria were designed to deal with chemical carcinogens. Exposure to chemical carcinogens is generally easier to measure (particularly as to intensity) than exposure to ELF EMF. Many of the epidemiological studies which are cited to support an association of exposure to EMF and occurrence of cancer use proxies (e.g. wire codes or job titles or descriptions) rather than direct measurement of exposure.

We believe the IARC criteria are ill suited to categorize the effects of EMFs. The IARC classification for chemicals is fails to consider dose. A chemical might be carcinogenic because at high doses it has been known to cause cancer, even though actual environmental exposures are so far below the threshold that the present risk is low. It is questionable whether classification of a particular chemical as carcinogenic or possibly carcinogenic if the evidence consist of data relating to exposures much greater than environmental exposures. The importance of exposure is even greater for EMFs. There is no firm evidence that ANY field has a carcinogenic effect; exposure to electromagnetic fields even as high as 10,000 Gauss has not been shown to cause cancer. There is only a very perfunctory discussion of dose-response relationships in the Report. In view of the importance of dose this is remarkable and disturbing. We believe that the Working Group must determine more appropriate dose criteria in order to provide a better analysis of risk.

The Report's conclusion that under the IARC standards ELF EMFs are a "possible human carcinogen" is inflammatory and an unjustified stretch to apply IARC criteria that were not designed to measure non-chemical exposures. We believe that the Working Group must address and analyze this issue prior to delivery of any final report to Congress.

Because the Report basis its conclusion so heavily on the epidemiological evidence, we address that first.

The Report itself does not purport to present new epidemiological evidence with respect to the health effects of EMF. Instead, it surveys (often uncritically) prior studies.

We believe that the very recent report of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, issued October 31, 1996, which finds that there is no evidence that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields causes disease in humans correctly evaluates, assimilates and articulates the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the health effects of EMF.

A. The Epidemiological Principles

Since it is the epidemiological evidence that is at the root of the recent concerns, it seems worthwhile to review the scientific principles that are used to evaluate whether a statistical association that is found should be considered to be causal.

Sir Austin Bradford Hill in his Presidential Address to the Section of Occupational Medicine of the Royal Society of Medicine (U.K.) suggested such a list of "attributes" of the association to be considered:

1. Strength

2. Consistency

3. Specificity

4. Temporality

5. Biological gradient

6. Plausibility

7. Coherence

8. Experiment

9. Analogy

Although the "ecological" studies started by Wertheimer and Leeper showed a Risk Ratio of about 2.28, the statistical significance was marginal. Washburn, et al. find a Risk Ratio of 1.57 for some sort of association with the presence of power lines which is statistically significant. However, caution is necessary in any interpretation of these numbers, especially when the effect is small. The reduction in Risk Ratio from 2.28 to 1.57 is a two-fold reduction in predicted excess cancers since the excess cancers are proportional to (Risk Ratio -1). This is the type of reduction we would observe because of the fact that some of the cases were known before the study started (the "Feynman Trap").

Although a few of the occupational studies have high Risk Ratios which, by themselves, seem statistically significant, the average is much closer to unity.

If the average found in either the ecological studies or the occupational studies were found in a single study, the Risk Ratio of 1.57 would not normally be considered large enough to be deemed evidence for a causal relationship. Of situations where the measured Risk Ratio is less than 2, only two have been accepted as evidence of harm, and these are special situations. The carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke on the families of smokers (with an average 19% increase or a Risk Ratio of about 1.19) have been accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency, and by many physicians and scientists: this is because tobacco smoke is known to be hazardous to smokers, who receive a large dose. Likewise it is generally accepted that there is an effect of X-rays during pregnancy on the probability of childhood leukemia, even though the Risk Ratio averaged over studies is less than two, because at high level exposure radiation does clearly cause cancer.

But there is no intensity or situation where electromagnetic fields are known to cause cancer, so one cannot argue that the existence of an effect in a higher intensity field reduces the standard of proof of causation for lower intensity fields. A recent article in Science discusses problems of accepting epidemiological studies with a small risk ratio.

Hill's Attribute 2 asks whether "the same result has been repeatedly observed by different persons, in different places, circumstances and times." The record with respect to ELF EMF is decidedly mixed. The observation that excess childhood leukemias are observed near power lines has been repeated a few times, and there may be a consistent relationship between occurrence and proximity to power lines, but not with the measured magnetic field itself. The Swedish residential study is consistent with earlier studies in that no association was found with fields measured contemporaneously, but since no one else calculated fields from wire codes and historical usage, the statistically significant result cannot be properly said to be completely consistent with earlier data.

Consistency is also related to the next of Hill's Attributes, "specificity." It is not enough for successive studies to find that incidence of cancer is elevated in the presence of electromagnetic fields. The Feychting and Ahlbom study suggested that magnetic fields cause an increase in Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), but not Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), whereas the study by Floderus, et al. showed the opposite -- an increase in CLL, but not in ALL. The residential studies show no increases in leukemia in adults, and only effects in children are claimed. The most recent study of electric company workers by Savitz and Loomis shows no increase in any leukemia. For brain cancer Savitz and Loomis found that the Standard Mortality Ratio (SMR) was less than unity (showing fewer cancers than normal), for the group as a whole, but there was a marginally significant trend with estimated dose. This phenomenon has been found in no other study. There is no set of observations consistently found in all studies.

Hill's attribute 3 provides that "if the association is limited to specific workers and to particular sites and types of disease, and there is no association between the (postulated cause) and other modes of dying, then clearly there is a strong argument in favor of causation." This Attribute must be interpreted with full understanding of the generality of the exposure mechanisms. Unlike chemical carcinogens, which give the dose at well defined parts of the body, electromagnetic fields might well affect all parts of it. In this respect, and this respect only, the problem might be similar to external gamma radiation, which affects all parts of the body. This Attribute might, at first sight, be considered not to apply at all. However, if electromagnetic fields produce several types of cancer in one group of people, they should produce the same types of cancer in similar proportions in all other groups similarly exposed.

Attribute 4 demands that the adverse outcome occur after the postulated cause by whatever delay (latent period) has been seen in other studies, or is reasonable from biological principles. In the extant epidemiological studies, the cancer incidence has not been associated with a contemporaneously measured electromagnetic field, despite of searches for such an association, nor has it been possible to associate cancer incidence with a field measured at an earlier time, because of unavailability of data. Instead, the association is with a field assumed, or calculated, from configurations of high tension transmission and local distribution wires.

A very important anchor for epidemiologists is Hill's Attribute 5 -- the existence of a biological gradient or dose response relationship. In the usual models, "more is worse" and "less is better," and the adverse effect is at least proportional to the exposure if it does not rise faster than proportionality suggests. We know of no accepted medical effect of a pollutant where the effect does not increase as the dose increases, at least initially. The effect of magnetic fields on cells is expected, on general symmetry principles, to vary as the square of the field (B²) at low fields. This dependence arises because the magnetic field comes from the motion of electric charges rather than from the charges themselves, and it is not sensible to envisage that cancer incidence changes sign (from plus to minus) as the magnetic field changes sign. When one considers alternating fields, the principle is even more general. Electric power lines produce magnetic fields of 3 milliGauss or less in nearby houses. A study of Norwegian railroad workers (who work on an electric railroad with regular exposure to approximately 30 milliGauss fields and peaks of 300 milliGauss) showed no brain tumors, even though the exposure was probably greater than that of utility workers discussed by Savitz and Loomis. Electric blankets made in the past (before they were made with twisted pair wire) gave still larger fields (300 milliGauss), but epidemiological studies of people who used older-type blankets have not shown a very large effect, even though the general argument suggests that the effect should be 10,000 times greater than the effect on persons exposed to 3 milliGauss fields. The initial epidemiological study on the effects of electric blanket use showed a small effect, but a later study with improved methodology found no effect at all. Moreover still larger fields are known to exist in laboratories, and no ill effects are known.

Hill's Attribute 6 requires that the claimed effect be biologically plausible. We recognize that "what is biologically plausible depends upon the biological knowledge of the day," but one a mechanism must be postulated that is not at variance with other knowledge. Before cancer was widely known, an attribution of cancer to a particular cause such as a dose of a chemical could have been considered implausible. However, such an attribution was not considered impossible. There existed (and still exist) models of chemical carcinogenesis which, although unproven and not easily provable, are nonetheless plausible. That is not the situation with electromagnetic fields. At the present time, no mechanism has been successfully postulated by which 3 milliGauss magnetic fields could cause any cancer. Because of the absence of any such model, the claims of cancer from magnetic fields fail Hill's Attribute 6.

Hill's Attribute 7 requires coherence of the data. This Attribute is related to the general plausibility mentioned in the previous paragraph. The idea that the association of lung cancer with cigarette smoking is coherent both with the increase in cigarette use, and the increase in lung cancer that followed it by a couple of decades is plausible. It is also coherent with the sex difference in both these variables. Hill also mentions coherence with in vivo laboratory experiments on animals and in vitro. Many experiments on the effects of electromagnetic fields have been cited as evidence that low intensity magnetic fields cause effects in biological systems. The results of these experiments have not been closely similar when they have been repeated, so that the ordinary scientific concept of repeatability, which can and should be applied to laboratory experiments is not satisfied. Other claims have been made which looked, at first sight, attractive for an independent replication. For example, Blackmun, et al. reported an experiment that purported to show that weak 45 Hz magnetic fields inhibit the growth of neurites from PC-12 cells treated with a growth stimulation factor. The inhibition was assessed by a "yes/no" judgment whose statistical precision is similar to that of tossing a coin. Adair correctly pointed out that the precision of the reported points is too good and could not possibly have been correctly derived from the stated measurements without adjustment.

Attribute 8 requires that the results be consistent with experiment. Hill here considers the possible experiment of taking preventive action by cessation of exposure. "Does it in fact prevent?" No one has proposed cessation of exposure to electromagnetic fields, because society needs or wants the enormous benefits that the technology brings. The opposite of cessation has, of course, occurred. The considerable increase in electricity use in the past century does not seem to have been accompanied by major increases in the incidence of the types of cancers discussed.

Hill's Attribute 9 would suggest that an effect could be accepted if it is analogous to another situation where the proof is more substantial. Are there other situations in which people detect external influences below the calculated limits of sensitivity? The physiological literature describes over 50 sensory modalities for living organisms in each of which man can detect at very close to the limit but not below it. For example in the retina of the eye, cells are sensitive to an individual quantum of light -- the limit of sensitivity. Bialek makes three points as he concludes his review of these systems:

Bialek's discussion shows that analogy not only fails to suggest that an effect might exist, but instead suggests that it is improbable. The burden of proof on anyone who claims otherwise is heavy.

B. The Epidemiological Studies

The published epidemiological studies of electromagnetic fields are of three distinct types. The first type concerns the effects of power lines on nearby residents, the second type examines the effects of electric blankets on users, and the third type explores the effects of exposure to magnetic fields (among many other environmental polluting agents) on workers in various occupations.

It is a fundamental statistical principle that one should not ask a statistical question when one already knows the answer -- the so-called "Feynman Trap." Wertheimer and Leeper, the authors of the Denver study, did not ask whether leukemias were associated with the proximity to power lines until they had already noticed that some were. Their observation is thus inherently incapable of proving, statistically, that proximity to power lines causes cancer. Yet it is obvious that Wertheimer and Leeper generated two hypotheses by asking two questions: "Is proximity to power lines associated with increases in leukemia?" and "Is this association due to the magnetic fields at the houses in question?"

Epidemiological studies by Savitz, et al. and London, et al. also found that there seems to be an association between childhood leukemia and proximity to power lines, albeit smaller than that suggested by Wertheimer and Leeper (the Risk Ratio is smaller in each of the subsequent studies). This might suggest that the hypothesis of Wertheimer and Leeper had been confirmed, but the experiments were not exact replications. The effects observed by Savitz, et al. were not apparent if the exposure classes were taken to be identical with Wertheimer and Leeper, but only showed up when a fourth (sub)class was added.

Moreover, before reaching a conclusion, one must look at all the data. Thirteen studies of childhood leukemia due to residential exposure were reviewed and compared by Washburn, et al. If one makes the assumption that the only uncertainty in each study was the statistical sampling error due to the limited number of leukemias observed and then weighted each study by the number of cases and averaged the results, one finds a statistically significant relationship between leukemia and some measure of proximity to power lines (Risk Ratio = 1.49 with 5% and 95% confidence limits of 1.11 and 2.00). But one should look at the data further. If the magnetic fields really increased the incidence of leukemia, we would expect that the Risk Ratio would be higher when the fields themselves were measured than when only a "surrogate" for the fields, the proximity to power lines, is used. The opposite is the case. In only three studies were magnetic field measurements made contemporaneously at the houses in question. In these the Risk Ratio for proximity to power lines was 1.57 (and statistically significantly different from unity) but for actual field measurements was 1.30 (and not statistically significantly different from unity). This seems to many scientists to exonerate magnetic fields as the real cause of the leukemias found.

Various alternative explanations have been postulated for the claimed association. Jones, et al. showed that there is a selection bias: people who live near power lines move residences more frequently and hence are not comparable to those who do not live near power lines. This will produce a "selection bias." If the persons respond to researchers' questions if they have leukemia, but do not usually respond if they do not have the disease, it would (erroneously) appear that the power lines cause leukemia. Proximity to power lines is not then a proper "surrogate" for whatever causes the disease. It has been noted that overhead power lines are usually found in neighborhoods where the streets are thoroughfares, resulting in moderate traffic. Newer neighborhoods that have fewer through streets and lower traffic density also often have no overhead powerlines.

It remains possible that the proximity to power lines is a better indicator of past electromagnetic fields than present (contemporaneous) measurements. A recent study from Sweden included in the review by Washburn, et al., was one of the studies that found no correlation between cancer and contemporaneously measured magnetic fields, but found a correlation with fields calculated from historically recorded electric currents in the wires. The historical calculation was made for the time when the leukemia was diagnosed. Although the Risk Ratio in this particular study is reasonably large (about 3), the number of leukemias observed was small and therefore the study is of marginal statistical significance. Moreover, it appears that the authors chose to examine the historically calculated fields after seeing the medical data. Since they did not ask the specific question in advance, the "Feynman Trap" may apply and the statistical validity may be reduced, by an unknown amount. There are other concerns with this study. There are two possible surrogates for the relevant average of past exposure to electromagnetic fields -- contemporaneous measured fields, and fields calculated from historical usage. Marshall has pointed out that if there is really a causal relationship one would expect a higher Risk Ratio if a combination of the two measures of exposure to electric transmission lines were used. Yet the Risk Ratios average to be less when a combination of the two measures, historically calculated fields and contemporaneously measured fields, is used.

In five of the studies, searches were made for lymphomas (found not to be statistically significant) and in seven for nervous system tumors (statistically significant relationship found with proximity to power lines). After the Wertheimer and Leeper study, there was a search for situations where there is a larger magnetic field than produced by power lines, and also situations where there is a reliable comparison population. One comparison is with electric blankets. The wires in almost all electric blankets were wound very simply, and produced a magnetic field 10 to 100 times that of neighboring power lines. This immediately suggests that one should compare cancer incidence rates among those who regularly use electric blankets with the rates among those who do not. The first such study suggested a difference, but more careful studies found none. This is a very important conclusion, because the comparison is direct and the likely confounding effects are fewer than for the power line studies described earlier.

The ORAU report carefully analyzed a number of occupational studies. These are grouped under studies with different cancer end points. They include brain cancer in children, lung cancer, and leukemia. It is important to note that leukemia is at least four different diseases. The different types are:

If the effect of exposure to EMF is real, one expects the same distribution of cancers in all studies, and the same distribution of types of leukemia. Indeed, there should be the same type of leukemia in the residential studies also. This does not seem to be the case.

The studies of leukemias among people in occupations where there is exposure to electromagnetic fields involve situations which are more complex than the studies of exposure to electric blankets. Occupations expose people to many different pollutants, so that a small overall increase in cancer is not unlikely and would be hard to attribute to electromagnetic fields. Because these are case control studies, there was no automatic search for all cancers. The average Risk Ratio (properly weighted for statistical accuracy) in the studies reviewed in the ORAU Report is small -- 1.12. It is significant if only statistical sampling errors are included. The non-statistical errors change this picture. The incidence of Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML) in 27 studies gives an average Risk Ratio of about 1.35, but in the studies where both total (undifferentiated) leukemia and AML were studied, the risk of AML is greater than the risk of undifferentiated leukemia only half of the time. The slight average increase in Risk Ratio may not, however, be related to electromagnetic fields, even if it can be properly attributed to occupation. AML can be caused, for example, by exposure to benzene, probably by exposure to other solvents and also by exposure to ionizing radiation.

A listing of the epidemiological data on brain tumors can be found in the paper by Loh, et al. A review of the epidemiological data that might relate to occupational exposure to electric and magnetic fields and brain cancer is presented in Kheifets, et al. Both of these articles agree that a meta analysis suggests a small statistically significant association. Further, it is noted that in the article by Kheifets, et al., the association observed is with occupational job titles presumed to be associated with exposures to electric and magnetic fields, and not with actual measurements of the fields themselves.

A summary of the results of the occupational studies also shows a small increase for CLL. (The Risk Ratio for an average of 14 studies is 1.26). One of the recent studies, from Sweden shows a small (statistically insignificant) trend of an increase of Risk Ratio with occupational exposure to magnetic fields.

While it might be true that the proximity to electromagnetic fields in the workplace is statistically associated with brain cancer incidence, that does not constitute proof that electromagnetic fields are responsible for the increase. One must distinguish between risks that are occupationally related and risks that are related specifically to electromagnetic fields.

In the discussion in the paragraphs above, epidemiological studies, weighted by their statistical accuracy, have been combined. This would a correct approach if there are no systematic errors, such as a selection bias or unknown "confounders" (alternative explanations). It is unlikely that epidemiologists can correctly calculate the precise numerical effect of such biases or confounders. This suggests that a small effect, which would be considered barely significant if only statistical sampling errors are included, should be considered insignificant if other systematic and unsuspected errors are included.

The American Physical Society in the Spring of 1995 issued a formal statement declaring that "The scientific literature and the reports of reviews by other panels show no consistent, significant link between cancer and power line fields.... While it is impossible to prove that no deleterious health effects occur from exposure to any environmental factor, it is necessary to demonstrate a consistent, significant, and causal relationship before one can conclude that such effects do occur. From this standpoint, the conjectures relating cancer to power line fields have not been scientifically substantiated." (Council of Am. Physical Society, Power Line Fields and Public Health (April 1995).) The American Medical Association (AMA) likewise adopted a policy statement declaring that the association "will continue to monitor developments and issues relating to the effects of electric and magnetic fields, even though no scientifically documented health risk has been associated with the usually occurring levels of electromagnetic fields; (AMA Policy Compendium (1995) Policy No. 60.938, emphasis supplied). The recent study by the Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, prepared pursuant to a request of the United States Congress issued October 31, 1996, after extensive effort, is a comprehensive examination and evaluation of approximately 500 published studies relating to the effects of power-frequency electric and magnetic fields on cells, tissues and organisms (human and non-human). The National Research Council study concluded that:

National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, "Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields" at 1 (1996) (hereafter the "NRC Study") (emphasis supplied). The NRC Study continued, "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." (Id. at 3)(emphasis supplied).

Other reviews by committees composed of distinguished and competent persons and set up by responsible public bodies and professional associations have reached similar conclusions. We list some reviews below:

None of the groups listed has concluded that there is an effect of electromagnetic fields against which we must guard.

CONCLUSION

We question whether the Working Group Report complies with the spirit and letter of the mandate of the 1992 Energy Policy Act regarding the Report from the NIEHS Director to Congress identifying the possible human health risks.

There has been a great deal of taxpayer and private funding of this Working Group Report. Its conclusions should be scientifically accurate, evaluated using a standard that fits the EMF issue, not inflammatory to the public and not misleading to the Congress. We do not believe that the Working Group Report meets these standards in its present form, and we do not believe that it is balanced. We ask the NIEHS to remedy these deficiencies before the Report is submitted to the United States Congress.

Because the Working Group Report is not based on any new data, we do not believe that its conclusion, which differs so markedly from that of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, should be reported to Congress without major revisions and/or explanations. The Report’s conclusion is, as currently written, too susceptible of misinterpretation.

Dated: New York, New York

October 9, 1998

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________________

MARTIN S. KAUFMAN

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
205 East 42nd Street - 9th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(212) 573-1960

Return to Atlantic Legal Briefs