-----Original Message-----
From: Sage Associates [mailto:
Sent:Wednesday, December 15, 2004 4:54 PM
Subject: REFLEX Final Report
To REFLEX researchers -
This report documents excellent work in RF-EMF, and I thank
you for what must have been a great effort.
However, after reviewing the Final Report, I am puzzled about the
apparent disconnect between the stated purpose of the
research program (1) and the conclusions reached by
various researchers [Examples are (2), (3), (4) below].
The Report is titled "Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards
from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro
Methods". Yet, conclusions presented defer any "Risk Evaluation" to other
bodies including WHO, IARC and ICNIRP (page 257).
If the stated purpose of the REFLEX project was "Risk Evaluation", and all studies conducted were
in vitro studies; but participants then state that "the results of in vitro studies are not suitable to draw conclusions about risks to humans", how could these results have ever been expected to lead to a Risk Evaluation by the REFLEX Project? When, in the course of the Project did the participants decide that their stated objective of a Risk Evaluation was unachievable?
This Report clearly documents the possiblity of risk to humans {(2) and (3) among others]. The standard of evidence required to document "possible risk" has been met by numerous studies conducted in this project, and summarized in the Report. Why then does the Report not conclude that the project studies have confirmed the "possibility of risk to humans"? Why do the participants belatedly conclude that the Risk Evaluation should be deferred to other bodies? The conclusions of these scientific studies clearly demonstrate at least the "possibility" if not likelihood, that RF-EMF exposure is a risk to humans, with a need for additional research to provide conclusive evidence.
(1) From the Introduction - Gene mutations, cell proliferation, and apoptosis are caused by or result in an altered gene and protein expression profiles. The convergence of these critical events is required for the development of all chronic diseases. The REFLEX Project is, therefore, designed to answer the question whether or not any of these disease-causing critical events could occur in living cells after EM exposure." (page 8)
(2) Genotoxic effects and a modified expression of numerous genes and proteins after EMF exposure could be demonstrated with great certainty" (page 257)
(3) RF-EMF produced genotoxic effects in fibroblasts, HL-60 cells, granulosa cells of rats and neural progenitor cells derived from mouse embryonic stem cells (Participants 2, 3 and 4). Cells responded to RF-EMF exposure between SAR levels of 0.3 and 2 W/Kg with a significant increase in single and double strand DNA breaks and in micronuclei frequency (Participants 2 and 3). In HL-60 cells an increase in the intracellular generation of free radicals accompanying RF-EMF exposure could clearly be demonstrated (Participant 2).
(4) "Taken together, the results of the REFLEX project were exclusively obtained in in vitro studies and are, therefore, not suitable for the conclusion that RF-EMF exposure below the presently valid safety limits causes a risk to the health of people. They move, however, such an assumption nearer into the range of the possible." (page 241)
I hope you will not take these questions as criticism or lack of support for the Project.
But, where there is clear evidence of effects that are unequivocally harmful, it is deeply frustrating for those of us involved in policy issues, and providing advice to agencies involved in day-to-day decision-making to have such equivocal and ambiguous guidance. This looks like an end-field fumble, where the research is great, but the final write-up led to chaos about whether the intended objectives could be said to be met. Was there consensus among the Participants with respect to this Report as written?
Best regards,
Cindy Sage
Sage Associates