Analysis of MDH February 4 Testimony before the Sunfish Lake City Council

Topic	Statement from Transcript	Comment
The Department’s Research Process	“[T]his position reflects not just my personal opinion but the consensus of a team of scientists at the health department.” p.29	This means nothing. How did he determine the consensus? What review process was used?
Research Process – 2	“The Department’s position is supported by a vast body of research.”p.30	But never does he specify what constitutes this “vast body.” So, therefore, it is impossible to validate the statement.
Outside review	The Department’s position is consistent with the views of expert scientists and federal state agencies such as the National Toxicology Program, The National Institute of Environmental Science and the US Environmental Protection Agency p.30	It’s hard to check this out since he cites nothing. However, we are aware of no research conducted by any of these organizations since 1998 and no statements since 1999. Nor are we aware of evidence their positions (to the extent they have any) are consistent with Stroebel’s.
Recent developments	“I have recently contacted individuals affiliated with the National Institute of Environmental Health [Sciences] and was informed that there was no change in the NIEHS policy as stated in the 1999 report.” p.31	This is hearsay. To whom did he talk? What is their position or authority? We do not believe the NIEHS is doing any work on EMF at the present time so it is not possible for it to create a new position statement.
Scientific Consensus	“In June, I attended the Annual BioElectromagnetic Society meeting….I had an opportunity to speak with individuals…it was apparent that there was no scientific consensus that magnetic fields cause leukemia.”p.32	More hearsay. We are confident there is a scientific consensus that magnetic fields are associated with cancer. Our consultant, Martin Blank, is the ex-president of the BioElectromagnetic Society, and he tells us there is a strong consensus that magnetic fields probably cause cancer. But since Stroebel names nobody, his statement cannot be verified.
Data consistency	“I can assure you that it’s highly unlikely given the current state of knowledge there will be any agreement at the federal and state level on magnetic fields exposure simply because the data are really lacking.”p.33	The characterization of the data as “really lacking” is egregiously wrong. There is a virtually unanimity of opinion around the 2-4 mG level as being the breakpoint between safe and dangerous.
Data interpretation	“Epidemiological studies by themselves don’t provide evidence for a causal relationship between magnetic fields and cancer or any other adverse health effects. And that is exactly what’s being suggested by testimony provide here.” p.34	Both the PLTF and its experts have been careful to not suggest epidemiological studies can demonstrate cause/effect relationship. Our expert, Magda Havas, put great emphasis on this point. Stroebel is totally wrong as it exactly not what the testimony suggests.
Laboratory Studies	“There really isn’t an understood scientific consensus for how magnetic fields could…promote cancer.”p.35	True, but why is it important? As the California Project points out, an understanding of mechanisms is not a prerequisite for government actions in the health field.
Studies finding a link	“When you look at the high exposure categories, the number of cases in the high exposures is relatively low and that reduces the statistical power.”p.42	This statement is ridiculous, as it suggests the authors of the studies were incorrect in finding their results were statistically significant.
Outside review of conclusions	“We also met with individuals over at the University of Minnesota Pediatric Cancer Center, an individual physician…and his name is Les Robinson, and he read our conclusions and our assessment and said that this is consistent with his position and the position of his colleagues and the people that he knows.” p.43	Les Robinson is not a physician. He has a doctorate in public health. At one time, he worked for the Department, so he is hardly an outsider. While he has participated in recent research on childhood leukemia, neither he nor the university has done work since 1996 on magnetic fields. An informal reading of conclusions by a former employee hardly constitutes outside review.
Failings of the California Project	“I’m also aware that there was a Science Advisory Panel in September, and there were some pretty heavy criticism of the report.”p.45	This is just further hearsay, as we could find no evidence of reports of such a meeting. The Science Advisory Panel reviewed and approved the report before it was released.
Other health departments	“Of the ones I know about, Virginia and Wisconsin and Massachusetts , our position is consistent.”p.48	Massachusetts recognizes an association between EMF and cancer and Virginia’s last report was issued in October 2000, thereby not incorporating the recent studies reversing previous findings.
On the leukemia link	“The strongest evidence that is available is the childhood Leukemia in terms of an association and even that evidence is weak.”p.54	That statement is wrong. There is strong evidence of a so-called weak association (relative risks of 2 to 4).
On the abortions studies	“The assertion that 40 percent of miscarriages are due to magnetic fields seems a little bit outrageous to me.”p.56	Are we now reduced to using Mr. Stroebel’s emotional state as a measure of health risks?
On the reversal of the WHO position	“I looked at the World Health Organization’s web page about a month ago…but I wasn’t aware they made any conclusions or reversals.”p.75	On October 3, the WHO said “siting decisions should ... consider ways to reduce peoples' exposure,” which is a sharp reversal from its 1998 position.
On the reversal of the NRPB position	“I’m not aware of any reversal”p.75	In its June 2001 statement, the NRPB recognized an association between magnetic fields and cancer, thereby completely reversing its 1999 position.

Mr. Stroebel also handed out copies of the webpage he maintains on magnetic fields. (http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/emf/conclusions.html)

In support of his assertions he cites six studies, which he characterizes on the web site as the output of the “[s]everal scientific committees [that] have been convened by the US Congress, and federal and international health agencies to evaluate EMF health effects research.”

Two are not issued by government authorities, two are badly outdated, one is misquoted, one has subsequently been reversed, one has been invalidated, one identifies a link between magnetic fields and cancer, one is of dubious origin, and several important reviews are omitted.

Source	Analysis
American Physical Society (1995)	This society, which has no connection with government, has “as its objective the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics." It has no expertise in biology. This old statement, which is no longer available on the Society’s website, was created by a small, self-appointed group.
National Research Council (1997)	This report was based upon the research that has been reversed by the research leader, Martha Linet.
NIEHS (1999)	The EMFRAPID study has also been badly outdated by new studies that show a statistically strong association between EMF and cancer. Even so, Mr. Stroebel fails to mention the report’s conclusion regarding power lines. It concluded they should be sited so as to minimize the impact of magnetic fields upon people.
COMAR (1999)	This report was produced by the Electrical Engineer society, which would hardly be expected to be sensitive to electricity-related health concerns. The IEEE has no connection with government. The report bases its conclusions largely upon the now-reversed NRC study. It is therefore invalid.
NRPB (2001)	Even the passage cited recognizes the association between higher levels of magnetic fields and childhood leukemia. What the carefully selected passage does not show is that the “higher” magnetic field levels refer to intensities greater than 4 mG, which is commonly experienced near power lines. The NRPB is a UK organization. The report downplays risks from power lines, which makes sense because the UK has long required lines to be sited away from people. In effect, the UK has already solved the problem. Stroebel fails to mention the NRPB’s recognition of an association represents a sharp change from its statement two years previously that concluded there was no such link.
IARC (2001)	The cited passage notes correctly the IARC has just classified magnetic fields as a Group 2B carcinogen. This is another dramatic change from an earlier position. Stroebel downplays the importance by noting that 2B is the lowest of the cancer categories. He fails to mention that the vast majority of agents are not characterized as carcinogens.
Japanese EMF program (2001)	Little is known about this program, which is not complete. The power industry financed the distribution of a book that purports to contain information on the program, and Stroebel quotes from the book.

Among the old reviews, Mr. Stroebel does not include the December 1996 “Electric and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines” by the Bonneville Power Administration, which is a government unit, and which does identify a link between magnetic fields and cancer.

Among the new reviews, he does not include the California Project’s report, which was conducted by the California Department of Health. It finds a wide variety of links between magnetic fields and adverse health outcomes.