Replies

1. 
   TPBosworth | Jul 29, 1999 12:06am | #2

   *
   kai:

   I have no idea what a "Plugmaster" is. If it's a surge protector, it'll give some measure of protection against various spikes, surges, etc. Otherwise, I think Mike is right on target with the UFOs. ;)

   TPB

2. 
   Guest_ | Jul 29, 1999 12:52am | #3

   *
   Electromagnetic Field (EMF) is the new radon. I understand that one company markets little bulbs that you put on your computer monitor to disrupt the EMF that's supposedly frying your brain. I would believe that shielding the house's roof and walls with a thick ferrous material or lead would protect you from power line EMF. Don't let any AC conductors cross each other, so as to reduce inductive EMF within the house. I guess long term electric blanket users are already toast, so to speak. What does Plugmaster claim to do?

1. 
   Guest_ | Jul 29, 1999 11:23am | #4

   *Same thing as magnets, only better...right.AdamPS Radon is a known danger. EMF is not. Recently, a university prof who published on this "danger" agreed to resign due to problems with his research.

1. 
   Guest_ | Jul 29, 1999 07:06pm | #5

   *Adam,You're right about radon. I wasn't trying to make light of it being a real danger. Nonetheless, there's tremendous disagreement as to how much radon poses a danger.

1. 
   Guest_ | Jul 30, 1999 11:45am | #6

   *Steve;From the viewpoint of it being a lucrative cottage industry of sorts, I'd agree.Adam

1. 
   Guest_ | Jul 30, 1999 09:36pm | #7

   *JOSEPH PERKINS Junk science exposed by a real investigation Joseph Perkins THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE July 30, 1999 Michael Withey, a Seattle trial lawyer, is credited with taking to trial the first multimillion-dollar damage suit against a utility company claiming personal injury from electromagnetic fields. The case was filed back in 1993, right here in San Diego. It involved a Serra Mesa couple, Ted and Michele Zuidema, whose 5-year-old daughter, Mallory, suffered from a rare form of kidney cancer. Withey blamed San Diego Gas and Electric power lines for causing the child's illness. Well, a jury found no link between the San Diego utility's power lines and little Mallory's cancer. The Zuidemas were devastated by the outcome. Attorney Withey, undaunted, moved on to other more promising (or so he hoped) EMF lawsuits. Withey was convinced that electromagnetic fields cause cancer. And, at the time he was waging his courtroom jihad against Big Electric, he had at least two widely reported scientific papers to support his conclusion -- to give him real hope that, one day, he just might extract an asbestos-like or breast-implant-like settlement from the nation's deep-pocket utilities. The two papers were published the year before Withey's first EMF suit went to trial. One of the papers appeared in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The other appeared in FEBS Letters, which is published by the Federation of European Biochemical Societies. The author of both widely reported papers was Robert P. Liburdy, a cell biologist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley. His research concluded that electromagnetic fields exert a biological effect that leads to a variety of illnesses, including childhood leukemia. That was all trial lawyers like Withey needed to beat a hasty path to the courthouse. And that's all "public interest" groups needed to hound power companies around the country to move electric lines, to install shielding or to bury new power lines in the ground (at a cost of more than $1 billion a year, according to government estimates). Well, as it turns out, all the scary stories about electromagnetic fields causing cancer, all the lawsuits seeking millions of dollars in damages from electric companies, were based on a false premise. For Liburdy has recently been exposed as a scientific fraud. Indeed, the federal Office of Research Integrity, an arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that Liburdy "engaged in scientific misconduct in biomedical research by falsifying and fabricating data and claims about the purported cellular effects of electric and magnetic fields." This finding by the integrity office, published last month in the Federal Register, is consistent with earlier findings by the Lawrence Berkeley lab, which took a hard look at Liburdy's EMF research back in 1995 after a whistle blower challenged his results. Lab investigators surmised that the cell biologist unscrupulously discarded data that did not fit his conclusion. Indeed, practically ever major study of electromagnetic fields published since Liburdy's 1992 papers have contradicted the scientist's conclusion that power lines cause cancer. Perhaps, the most authoritative of these studies was completed two years ago by the National Cancer Institute. It involved 636 children with leukemia and 620 healthy children matched to the cancer patients by age, race and neighborhood. After tracking the children's exposure to electromagnetic fields from power lines, they found no correlation between exposure and cancer. So what motivated Liburdy to doctor his research results, to mislead the public into believing that power lines cause cancer? Well, at least one long-time skeptic of the EMF-cancer link, University of Maryland physics professor Robert Park, told The New York Times that the kind of junk science promoted by Liburdy is not altogether uncommon for the field, which seems to attract crusaders out to demonize certain industries. But there is also a huge financial incentive for junk scientists like Liburdy. Indeed, on the basis of his fraudulent EMF research, he managed to score $3.3 million in federal grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Energy Department and the Pentagon. That's why junk science is such a growth industry in this country. Scientists have a tremendous financial incentive to hype some putative public health threat -- whether it be asbestos in schools and office buildings, pesticide traces in foods or electromagnetic fields from power lines. Moreover, some scientists have an unholy alliance with trial lawyers, who use their research, no matter how questionable, as pretexts for multimillion-dollar, personal-injury lawsuits (sometimes paying scientists generous consulting fees to tell a jury how, say, EMF can cause leukemia in five-year old little girls). The nation's utilities got off lucky. The trial lawyers were unsuccessful in using junk science to shake them down for billions of dollars. It's a pity that other industries targeted by junk scientists and lawyers -- like the silicone implant industry -- were not similarly lucky

2. 
   Guest_ | Jul 31, 1999 05:06am | #8

   * Go figure,

   I've always thought that EMF was the abbreviation for "Electro Motor Force." Maybe the pig man would like to respond?

   Joseph Fusco View Image

3. 
   Guest_ | Jul 31, 1999 11:21am | #9

   *Electro-Magnetic Fields

4. 
   Guest_ | Jul 31, 1999 05:40pm | #10

   *Gary,

   This is from Microsofts Bookshelf;emf. . . emf or EMF abbreviationElectromotive force. Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

   A good habit to get into is to know what your speaking about. . .

   Joseph FuscoView Image

5. 
   Guest_ | Jul 31, 1999 08:20pm | #11

   *Another reason to justify skepticism about a couple of scientific studies that claim a house can be heated for mere pennies per year and that attic ventilation is not only unnecessary but harmful.John

3. 
   Bob_Z | Aug 01, 1999 09:35pm | #12

   *
   Many acronyms have more than one meaning.
   Dictionary's often contain only the most common. This does not mean others do not exist. For example EEC might stand for Electronic Engine Controller, European Economic Community, or maybe even something like Electo Encephalographic Cardiogram. It all depends on the context of the discussion. As an electrical engineer who has read a thing or two on this subject in particular, I can assure you that EMF - in the context of this discussion - means Electro Magnetic Field(s).

   (P.S. Carnegie Mellon University published a pamphlet about 8 years ago that said there was no conclusive evidence either way. But in the meantime, rational risk avoidance is justified. First off, quite smoking, drinking, eating smoked meats, eating peanut butter (aflatoxins), I think radon venting was in there also, etc.. and then get rid of your electric blanket and motor driven analog alarm clock on your bed stand (replace with a digital LCD (Liquid Crystal Display – low EMF technology) clock, or place the old fashioned motor driven clock across the room on the dresser). As I recall, they said, these two sources will expose you to more EMF (measured with a Gauss meter) than living 150’ from major transmission lines because of the close proximity of the exposure. Going further, if you’re a lathe operator or such, with a high HP electric motor in close proximity to you body for 8 hours per day, you might be able to lower your health risk by switching to a belt driven, pneumatic, or hydraulic machine. But cutting out lunch meat (nitrates) from you diet may remove even greater risk factors affecting your health.

   In terms of construction measures that may fit within the rational risk avoidance criteria - with little effort or cost – one could avoid placing wires in the bedroom walls against which the headbaords will be placed. This would help to keep any sources of EMF at least a few feet from the body during a daily 5-9 hour sleep period. Adjacent walls could have extra plugs to satisfy code. (may need a variance).

   As for a little plug-in device that lower EMF? – Well conceivably, if it impeded current, if could lower EMF down line – but your motorized alarm clock would likely run slow. Sounds like the equivalent of that device you could put under hood to align the gas molecules and get 100 mpg from a Town Car. In otherworlds, sounds like hooey.

4. 
   Guest_ | Aug 03, 1999 05:16am | #13

   *
   I don't know about E's but I have known for a long time what MF stands for. You see tractors with MF on them. I've heard that stands for Massey Furgason, but every body I know just calls them Mother........

1. 
   Guest_ | Aug 03, 1999 06:33am | #15

   *A thought-provoking post, Bob Z ... I would suggest, however that the plug-in device (if it reduced EMF at all) wouldn't slow down the alarm clock (which is timed by the 60hz AC), but would bring it to a halt if the current is sufficiently limited.Whatever.All this brings to mind the cow magnets that were the rage during the "gas crisis" in the '70's. The idea was that you tape cow magnets to the gas line of your vehicle, and somehow the gasoline molecules would vaporize more efficiently, yielding greater gas mileage. Of course, people swore this really worked.I was once approached by a sincere, serious salesman who was distributing a pyramid shaped object which, when placed over the fuel line for an oil-fired furnace or boiler, was claimed to significantly reduce heating costs. The key, he said, was the critical dimensions of the (hollow) pyramid.Oh, well ... back to building ... Steve

5. 
   Guest_ | Aug 03, 1999 06:33am | #14

   *
   Anyone (electricians, esp.) heard of this? Have an opinion? Supposedly, they help counteract whatever alleged bad effects from EMFs.

   TIA

1. 
   Guest_ | Jul 28, 1999 10:40pm | #1

   *They will keep UFOs from attacking your house, too. I can guarantee that.