Date: Fri, 21 May 93 04:01:00 From: ISU Space Power Digest Reply-To: Space-Power-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Power Digest V1 #007 To: Space.Power.Talkers Precedence: bulk Space Power Digest Fri, 21 May 93 Volume 1 : Issue 007 Today's Topics: how to evaluate bioeffects of microwaves experiments Welcome to the ISU Space Power Digest!! This digest will seek to provide a forum for discussion of wireless power transmission, solar power systems. It is hosted by alumni and faculty of the International Space University, but is open to everyone with an interest in this area. Send e-mail contributions to: space-power@isu.isunet.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe, send your e-mail request to: space-power-request@isu.isunet.edu If you experience technical problems, send an e-mail message detailing the problem to: digests@isu.isunet.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 17:42 EDT From: USRNAME Subject: how to evaluate bioeffects of microwaves experiments re: studies of the effects of microwaves on cells, animals and humans Dr. Martin Meltz at U of Texas, Austin has been doing careful studies as to whether microwaves can cause mutagenesis in cells. He has obtained only null results so far. Reprints of his papers available upon request. There are literally thousands of papers on the subject of microwave affects, much of them contradictory or confusing. Dr. Meltz and David Erwin wrote up a set of criteria for evaluating this pile of information. For any experiment using microwaves and cells or animals, there are certain pieces of information that must be present in order to 1) understand the data and 2) compare it to other experiments. Without this information, a paper is not very useful, unless you can call up the author and obtain the missing information. What follows is his "lab notes" on what to look for. *************************************************** LAB NOTES Essential RFR Study Information The authors list "essential items" recommended for inclusion in publications describing radio-frequency radiation (RFR) bioeffect research. Their list is designed to reduce inconsistencies observed in either performing RFR research, or in reporting the results. This material was presented in part at a workshop on In Vitro Methods at the 1986 annual meeting of the Bioelectronics Society. Comments on the evaluation criteria listed are encouraged and should be addressed to M.L. Meltz. INTRODUCTION An objective evaluation of the potential health hazards of radio-frequency radiation (RFR) is becoming more critical as the environmental exposure of the general population and occupational subgroups continues to increase. When the RFR health effects literature is reviewed, it immediately becomes obvious that many articles can be criticized for lack of information necessary for the evaluation of the research. Some of this information would be essential if other investigators are to perform confirming experiments. Described herein is a list of "essential" items, which we recommend for inclusion in all RFR bioeffects reports, and which we expect will reduce inconsistencies previously observed in either 1) performing the experiments or 2) reporting the results. EVALUATION CRITERIA In any publication, six major areas of concern are evident and represent the "package" in which 15 definable items would hopefully be included. Because of the lack of robustness in many purported RFR effects (called for by Packard 1985-1986), these areas of concern take on even greater significance; they include: 1. Was the experiment adequately described? 2. Was the numerical data presented? 3. Was the data accumulated and reported in the manuscript sufficient for meaningful statistical analysis? 4. Was a statistical analysis performed? 5. Was the experiment independently repeated in the same laboratory, and was the data from the minimal second experiment also reported and analyzed? 6. Was the conclusion drawn in the paper adequately supported by the data? The need for affirmative answer to each of these questions would seem to be self-evident. In the existing literature, however, this has not always been the case, perhaps due to the complex, interdisciplinary nature of the work. As just indicated, our objective is to clearly define necessary information which should be included in RFR bioeffect manuscript. Our suggested list is as follows: 1. A clear statement of the objective(s). 2. An adequate description of the biological system: a. For in-vitro studies, inclusion of indices of the proliferative and/or physiological state of the exposed and unexposed cells. b. for in-vivo studies, inclusion of indices of the physiological state of the exposed and unexposed animal/organism. Considerations for in-vivo exposures have recently been summarized by Michaelson (1983) 3. A statement of the relevance of the endpoint chosen for measurement. 4. An adequate description of the technique used (with specifics of size and shape of containers, the composition of liquids used, volumes, etc.) 5. A description of the physical exposure system, including: a. Specifics of the equipment used to generate the radiation b. A description of the antenna, horn, or waveguide, etc. c. The forward and net forward power; and an indication of how measured. d. The frequency and whether the radiation is AM or FM; if modulated, the percent modulation used and its frequency. A description of how any modulation was achieved. e. For pulse-wave (PW) radiation, specification of 1. the pulse repetition rate 2. the pulse width 3. the duty factor 4. the pulse shape 6. If applicable, the antenna/horn to sample distance. Indication should be given as to whether the sample is in the near or far field. 7. The power density in air at the sample position. An indication whether this value is at the center of the field or averaged over the field. 8. For low frequencies, a description of both the electric and magnetic field components and how they are determined. (In some cases, it is more appropriate to describe the applied voltage and currents or current densities, such as for electrodes immersed in preparation.) 9. A description of the instrumentation used for measuring the power density or the electric and magnetic field components. 10. A description of the sample environment. a. for in-vitro studies, a description of the immediate environment of the sample and/or its container (e.g. waterbath, support, etc.). Is there enough information to reproduce the exposure in another laboratory? b. For in-vivo studies, a description of the animal holder/container and its positioning in the RFR field, especially with regard to orientation, 11. Specification of the specific absorption rate (SAR) for each experimental protocol. A report of not only the average, but also the distribution in the sample (as applicable). 12. A description of the technique and instrumentation used for SAR measurement or calculation. 13. A description of how the temperature is monitored; this should include: a. A statement as to whether the measurement is made before, during, after or continuously during the exposure b. The temperature distribution in the sample c. the sample temperature before the exposure begins d. the pattern (rate) of temperature increases e. the technique used to reach the final temperature (medium exchange, immersion in a hot waterbath, etc.) f. how temperature controls compare to the above radio- frequency exposed samples. 14. A description of the ambient temperature and humidity conditions; this is essential for in-vivo investigations and can be important for in-vitro studies also. 15. Data analysis a. Provision for quantifiable data from a minimum of 2 independent experiments performed using equivalent conditions, with replicate independent samples in each experiment. b. A statistical analysis of the data, with specification of statistical method used c. A clear statement as to whether or not the data is statistically significant. d. A statement of whether or not double-blind scoring was employed; this is most desirable, and for some experimental end points, a requirement. CONCLUSION We have found in drafting manuscripts summarizing our own experiments, that it is very easy to leave out portions of the essential information just described. We would suggest a checklist approach, i.e., after the manuscript is drafted, check its contents against the previously listed essential items. Obviously, awareness of the need for this essential information can also be of assistance in experimental design. While inclusion of all the recommended information might not be possible in every case, this list is proposed as and ideal to which we can all aspire. Finally, while we have made an attempt to be inclusive, we do not expect that this first listing will be complete. We solicit comments and recommendations from other involved scientists. Martin L. Meltz The U of Texas Health Science Center 7703 Floyd Curl Dr. San Antonio, TX 78284 David N. Erwin USAF School of Aerospace Medicine Human Systems Division (AFSC) Brooks AFB, San Antonio, TX 78235-5301 References: Pickard WF (1985-1986): Bioelectromagnetics Society Newsletter, Nos 64-66 Michaelson SM (1983): Criteria for electric, magnetic or electromagnetic field bioeffects investigations. In: Biological Effects and Dosimetry of Static and ELF Electromagnetic Fields, ed. Michaelson and Rindi, New York Plenum Press p 15-29 ************************************************** e-mail(Internet): CANOUGH@BINGVAXA.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU (GEnie) : G.CANOUGH phone/fax= 607 785 6499 voice mail = 800 673 8265 radio call sign: KB2OXA 'Snail Mail: ETM, Inc. PO Box 67 Endicott, NY 13761 ------------------------------ End of Space Power Digest Volume 1 : Issue 007 ------------------------------