Information contained in a form or other document, usually a PDF.

As always, two board meetings and annual business meeting were held during the annual meeting last June at the Technical University in Munich, Germany. Following are highlights of these three sessions held on June 11th and 15th. These are not intended to include every item discussed or all actions taken by the board, but to give a brief look at a few topics of general interest.

One of the most pressing items handled by the board was the resignation of president-elect Mats-Olof Mattsson, which left the Society with no incoming president last June. The board accepted Mats’ resignation. The Board decided that the society should have the means of conducting special elections when an officer resigns. The Public Affairs Committee was asked to review the bylaws and come up with the proposal.

At the Wednesday business meeting, Monica Sandström, chair of the elections committee, announced that Frank Barnes, University of Colorado, had been elected vice president and president-elect, while Marvin Ziskin, Temple University Medical School, was elected treasurer. Other election results showed that Ruggero Cadossi from IGEA, Capri, and Maila Hietanen, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Vantaa, were elected to the board for Biological & Medical Sciences. Ewa Herbst, Herbst Research Inc., Edgewater, was elected board member for Engineering/ Physical Sciences, and Jutta Brix from the German Institute for Radiation Hygiene, Oberschleissheim, was elected as a board member at large. Outgoing president Ken McLeod transferred the gavel to Mats-Olof Mattsson, who transferred the gavel to the new president, Frank Barnes.

Treasurer Paul Gailey presented the treasurer’s report. He stated that overall income will not change much with the transition in management, but changes in grant support and declining membership might change the Society’s budget. So far, the income and expense report for fiscal year April 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000 show similar total revenues, a slight increase in total expenses (about $30,000), a decrease in earnings by $36,000 and an increase in net assets of about $25,000.

Ben Greenebaum gave a report on the BEMS Journal, reviewing changes on the Editorial Board. Joe Spadaro will take over from Raphael Lee as an associate editor, while Jutta Brix and Joe Salvatore have agreed to serve, as well. Greenebaum said he has noticed a shift in where articles are coming from -- fewer originate in North American now, and authors from elsewhere are submitting more articles for publication. About two thirds of those submitted are published; the time between acceptance and publication is about six months. Greenebaum reminded us that the publisher’s Website is: and it is linked from the BEMS Web page: In other business, the Board:

  • Expressed appreciation for improvements to the Website made andmaintained by Stefan Engström, Vanderbilt University, who was asked to continue this work for the coming year.
  • Agreed to consider holding annual meetings alternately in the U.S. and Europe or other locations. An ad hoc committee to plan future meetings was formed.
  • Received a report from Awards Committee Chair Larry Anderson, who announced that Reba Goodman and Abe Liboff are leaving. Carl Blackman, EPA, and Lyle Sasser, PNNL, agreed to substitute as evaluators at the Munich meeting, but new members are needed for the awards committee.
  • Received a report from Frank Prato of the Membership Committee. Up to June 2000, 64 new members had joined the Society, 33 as full members, 24 as associate members and 11 as student members. Gloria Parsley added that five new membership applications were received in Munich.
  • Ben Greenebaum commented that we don’t have many members from South America and we might wish to add efforts there.
  • Heard from President Frank Barnes that the BEMS 2000 annual meeting in Munich was a success financially and that more than 460 people participated.
  • Received a report on the Journal and Publications Committee from chair Asher Sheppard. He said that the grant supporting the Society newsletter will last one more year and will cover six issues. Maria Feychting and Maila Hietanen on the Development Committee agreed to look into securing another grant to support the newsletter beyond that deadline. Sheppard said that he will serve for one more year; in the meantime he plans to work with outgoing president Ken McLeod to recruit new members.
  • Heard a report from new executive director, Gloria Parsley, that the Society saw its highest non-member participation ever at the Munich meeting.


THANKS!!!! I must confess...I was speechless (not an often occurrence) when I opened the envelope left by Gloria today and found...a check! The amount was fantastic! There was no card or list of those who contributed. Nor maybe should there have been one. So I will simply say “Thank you!” to all of you.

At $5.99 per roll for professional slide film (color and Black & white) and on average 50 rolls per location...the sum contributed by you all will cover my 2001 photographic trips to Mongolia, Mustang, Bhutan, Argentina, and Ireland (when Beth and I take Janell, our next oldest granddaughter, there this summer as her high school graduation present.)

I toyed with contributing the sum to The BEMS student travel fund...but opted to be selfish for a change.

Good luck with BEMS 2001. I sometimes wake up in a foreign land and wonder how the Society is doing without me. Then I recall who the leaders are and I roll over and go back to sleep. Life does go on.

Bill Wisecup, Natural Images
Travel & Nature Photography
301-631-1113 voice 301 371 8955 fax


Following the publication of the report by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, chaired by Sir William Stewart, and the Group’s recommendation for further research in this field, a Programme Management Committee has been set up to advise on this research programme. The Committee invites outline applications to undertake research into the possible health impact of microwave radiation from Mobile Telecommunications.

Bids are particularly invited in the following areas:

  • Effects on brain function;
  • Consequences of exposure to pulsed signals;
  • Improvements in dosimetry;
  • Sub cellular and cellular changes induced by RF radiation and their possible impact on health;
  • Psychological and sociological studies related to the use of mobile phones;
  • Epidemiological and human volunteer studies including the study of children, and individuals who might be more susceptible to RF radiation

Outline applications are invited for research projects lasting a maximum of three years. It is anticipated that a further call for research applications will be made later this year building on research funded through this initial programme. The contracts will be awarded on the basis of tenders which offer the most creative approach, are likely to be effective and practicable and offer the best value for money based on price and quality. Previous experience in undertaking similar research is highly desirable. Research projects are expected to start within three months of being awarded a contract.

For a more detailed research brief and application forms please write to: Mrs. Baljeet Rehal, PH5B, Room 688D, Skipton House, 80 London Road, Elephant & Castle, London SE1 6LH.

Further details can be found on research. The deadline for receipt of outline applications was noon on Friday 16th March 2001. It is anticipated that the deadline for full proposals will be in mid-June 2001.


The Society was founded at a time when much of bioelectromagnetics research was motivated by concerns that exposure to manmade environmental electromagnetic fields or radiation might be a human health hazard. Twenty years on, we are still not sure. However, biological effects of EMFs certainly exist and the challenge now is to understand their origin and significance. For example, we know very little of the mechanisms underlying the various therapeutic applications of pulsed fields or the precise way that relatively strong magnetic fields can influence biochemical reactions and cell functions; there is great scope for theoretical insight here. On the experimental side, EMF studies at both ELF and RF may soon be transformed by the spectacular new technologies now emerging in genomics and proteomics.

There will be three special sessions. The first, on Monday morning, reviews effects of microwaves on the blood/brain barrier. On Monday afternoon there is a session on bacterial biofilms, their importance in medicine, and their possible control by ultrasound or magnetic fields. The third session, on Tuesday morning, re-examines the controversial question of possible DNA damage and induction of micronuclei by radiofrequency radiation.


Magnetic-field-dependent changes in radical-pair recombination and in electron transfer offer one of the best-understood mechanisms by which a magnetic field can interact with a biological system. Several enzymes with radical pair intermediates are sensitive to magnetic fields and significant changes in enzyme kinetics have been observed in fields as low as 1 mT. The chemical basis of the interactions will be presented, with a discussion of the features that are necessary to observe an effect in biological systems.


The emergence of array-based cDNA expression analysis technology enables researchers to explore cellular responses to environmental agents in detail and density not previously possible. Proteomics arrays have similar potential, while previous technologies have been transformed by developments in microfluidics and microanalysis. Astounding increases in sensitivity and quantitative power are possible, but they carry risks and consequences. The notion of “no-effect level” may need to be reconsidered.


Over the past few centuries, attitudes toward the role of electricity in life have swung between two extremes. One came to be defined by the fictional image of Dr. Frankenstein bringing a monster to life with the aid of Tesla coils and a titanic electrical storm - the other by the electronic cardiac pacemaker, which has returned millions of patients to health over the past 50 years. Ironically, the tremendous success of pacing and other biomedical technologies has led in some cases to an uncritical faith in the power of science that is just as naïve as the Frankenstein mythology.

This year’s contributed papers are fewer than usual, but there is a high proportion of student contributions, both platform and poster, and we expect keen competition for the student awards due for presentation at the end of Thursday morning.

A hearty welcome, one and all;
It will be good to see you in St Paul.
This year’s program is the best.
Who could fail to be impressed?
Papers drawn from many nations:
Europeans, Yanks and Asians;
Fringe events and outings too,
Organised by us for you.
You’ll experience euphoria.
Courtesy of John and Gloria.

John Male, Technical Program Chair

June 14, 201. BEMS Board of Directors Meeting. St. Paul, Minn. 12:30 – 4:30 p.m. Radisson Riverfront Hotel. For more information, contact Gloria Parsley, executive director, The Bioelectromagnetics Society, (301) 663-4252; FAX (301) 694-4948. E-mail: or see the Website:

July 20 - 22, 2001. International Association for Biologically Closed Electric Circuits in Biomedicine (IABC), The Marienlyst Conference Center, Helsingør, DENMARK. Sponsored by the Humlegaarden Cancer Clinic, the symposium will focus on Biologically Closed Electric Circuit (BCEC) -related research and complimentary medicine such as hyperthermia, ozone therapy, orthomolecular medicine, cranial electro therapy for addiction, music therapy, and others. For more information contact the Congress Secretariat, Carit Etlarsvej 3, DK-1814 Frederiksberg Copenhagen, Denmark, Phone: +45 33 31 08 47; FAX: +45 33 31 63 99. E-mail: or Conventum Congress Services on the Internet:

August 1-4, 2001. Asia-Pacific Radio Science Conference. Tokyo, JAPAN. For more information, contact APRASC Secretariat, The Japanese URSI Committee, c/o Dr..Y. Furuhama, Communications Research Laboratory, Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, 4-2-1 Nukuikita-machi, Koganeishi, 184-8795, Tokyo, JAPAN or see the Web site:

September 6-8, 2001. European Bio Electromagnetics Association (EBEA) 5th International Congress, Marina Congress Center, Helsinki, FINLAND. Topics will include dosimetry and exposure systems, biological mechanisms, in vitro, in vivo and human clinical EMF studies, epidemiology and medical applications. Contact: EBEA 2001 Secretariat, Solveig Borg, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topieliuksenkatu 41 aA, FIN-00250 Helsinki, FINLAND. Tel. +358 9 4747 2900; FAX: +358 9 2413 804. E-mail: project/ebea2001 or Dr Maila Hietenan, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A, Helsinki, FINLAND Fin00250. Tel: +358 9 4747 714, Fax: +358 9 4747 805,e-mail:

October 2001. World Health Organization (WHO) EMF Biological Effects and Standards Harmonization SOUTH KOREA regional meeting is being finalised. This will be an opportunity for Asian countries to participate in WHO’s EMF standards harmonization process. For more informaiton, contact: Dr. Michael Repacholi, WHO, Geneva, SWITZERLAND. Fax: +41 22 791 4123. E-mail:

May 12-16, 2002. Seventh International Workshop On Seeds. Salamanca, SPAIN. Some papers related to EMF exposure and biological effects are expected in this seed biology program. Information, on-line registration at: Mail or fax form to: Congress Secretariat, HalcÛn Viajes Congresos, Serranos 35. 37008 Salamanca SPAIN. Phone: +34 9 2321 0728; Fax: +34 9 2321 0749. E-mail: Chair Gregorio Nicols E-mail:

June 23-27, 2002. Bioelectromagnetics Society 24th Annual Meeting: Loews le Concorde Hotel, Québec, Canada. Room rates: Single $197 Canadian, Double $217 Canadian. Reservations (418) 640-5800. Contact: Gloria Parsley, The Bioelectromagnetics Society, 2412 Cobblestone Way, Frederick, MD 21702. (301) 6634252; FAX: (301) 694-4948. Email: or Web:

The California Department of Health Services’ EMF Program postponed its May 7 Scientific Advisory Panel meeting in Oakland, where draft EMF health risk evaluation and policy integration reports were to have been released to the public. No new date has yet been set.

Dr. Raymond Neutra, chief of the DHS EMF Program, said that DHS acted at the request of the California Public Utilities Commission, which asked for a briefing on the risk evaluation before public release.

Ellen Stern Harris, executive director of the Fund for the Environment, Beverly Hills, tried to get the reports released using the Public Records Act, but her request was denied. DHS’s senior staff counsel explained in a letter which was circulated widely by e-mail that the reports are “predecisional” and releasing them before CPUC review might “discourage candid discussion within our respective agencies, inhibit the free exchange of ideas, and thereby undermine each agency’s ability to perform its functions.”

Watch the California EMF Program’s Web site: for future developments.

by Paolo Vecchia, National Institute of Health, Rome

Characteristics of the Vatican Radio station

A broadcasting station of the Vatican Radio is located about 30 km North of Rome. The plant occupies an area of about 2 by 1.5 km, which is part of the Vatican State.
The station is equipped with 29 antennas, for radio broadcasting by frequency modulation (2) and by short-waves (27). FM radiation is emitted almost isotropically, to serve Central Italy; SW are radiated by one or two antennas at a time, along specific directions, to send transmissions in different languages to different areas of the World. Each sector (8 in all) is typically irradiated up to one or two hours per day.

The maximum power of the antennas reach 500 kW for FM, and 600 kW for SW. The electric field strength measured outside the plant, at the time of maximum radiation, reaches values of 15-20 V/m at a few selected locations.The station has raised protest in the past, mainly due to interference problems with domestic devices such as intercoms. More recently, concern has been expressed for possible long term effects; reports of cases of leukaemia and other diseases have been spontaneously collected by local committees of citizens, who claim an incidence of cancer much higher than the average of the Country.

The facts

The Vatican officially adopted the ICNIRP limits several years ago. However, in 1998 a regulation was enforced in Italy setting a limit – for the electric field – of 6 V/m, irrespective of the frequency, not to be exceeded in inhabited areas. The problem arose whether the emission from the Vatican Radio (originating in a foreign Country) should be such as not to make the limits exceeded in the Italian territory outside the plant. Initially, the Vatican refused to modify its plan of transmission, with the argument of its independence and of its compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines. Following this, a diplomatic panel was created to discuss the question.

The case was followed (particularly by the media) with great attention because of the special status of the Vatican, the diplomatic implications, and the ideological aspects. Of special interest is the fact that a case was filed in Court, with three executives (priests) of the radio accused of creating harm to the public health. At the end of March 2001, the results of a survey performed by epidemiologists of the Regional Health Agency of Latium were made public. The survey was performed in response to the claims of local committees that the incidence of childhood leukaemia (and possibly other tumours) in the area was much higher than expected. The results of a retrospective analysis over 14 year showed no increase of childhood leukaemia in the whole area (10 km radius) around the plant. However, a geographical analysis over separate rings around the centre of the plant showed a decreasing risk with increasing distance from the centre of the plant. The relative risk was in fact about 6 between 0 and 2 km, about 2 between 2 and 4 km, and about 1.5 between 4 and 6 km.

Evaluation of these findings requires extreme caution because:

  • The observation is based on a very small number of cases (8). In particular, the relative risk of 6 is based on 1 case observed in comparison to 0.16 expected. In the next rings, the observed cases were 2 and 5, respectively.
  • No cases (in comparison to about 4 expected) were observed between 6 and 10 km.
  • There is no indication of any correlation between the distance from the plant and the level of exposure. On the contrary, the characteristics of the emissions (directionality, intermittence) and of the area (hills, differences between typology of the houses) suggest a lack of correlation. Sparse measurements of electric field strength (outdoor) seem to confirm this hypothesis.
  • Childhood leukaemia is known to occur typically in clusters, both in space and in time. In addition, it should be noted that inside the observed cluster (the 8 cases in the inner rings compared to 0 cases in the outer rings) a sub-cluster exists: 4 of the 5 cases between 4 and 6 km are concentrated in the same, small residential village.
  • It is also to note that the measurements available, although sparse, were performed on request of the citizens and local committees, at locations and at time of presumed maximum exposure. The electric field level never exceeded the ICNIRP limits. A maximum value of 17 V/m was detected on the terrace of a 7-story building. In the above mentioned residential village, measurements performed in sight of the antennas over a 24 h period showed a maximum below 2 V/m.

Political implications and consequences

Politics has played an important role in the case. The report on leukaemia incidence, that had been sent to the Regional authorities for comments and approval, was unduly made public by the Green Party exactly on the same day when the trial against the executives of the Vatican Radio started in Court. It must also be considered that political elections will take place in Italy at mid-May.

The Minister of the Environment sent an ultimatum to the direction of the Vatican Radio: since there is no possibility of direct intervention on a plant located abroad, he threatened to cut the supply of electric power if the exposure were not reduced below the Italian standard (6 V/m). The initial deadline (March 31) was postponed to April 17, to allow transmissions during the Easter festivities. The decision was taken following a hard debate inside the Council of Ministers. The date has been further moved, first to the end of April and later to the end of May, to allow an experimental survey to be performed jointly by Italian and Vatican experts and an agreement be found by the bilateral panel.

In the meantime, the case has become a top issue of the media, with full-page reports in the newspapers almost daily. The typical message is that incidence of leukaemia near the plant is up to 6 times more than the national average, with no information about the main result, i.e. the absence of an overall increase. Sometimes, the media incorrectly report a 6-fold increase in the whole area.

Not surprisingly, the worries of the local population have dramatically increased. New cases of leukaemia and other diseases are continuously claimed. Based on the data of the survey (and on their interpretation), a new trial has been filed in Court, with the accuse of manslaughter.

The management of the Vatican Radio has decided to reduce emissions, in the attempt to attain compliance with Italian regulations. The first step has been a substantial reduction of the transmission time for FM programs. Later on, the power of some antennas has been reduced. No official communication has been released about the results of measurements performed after these actions. There are rumours that the level of 6 V/m is still exceeded in some limited areas.

To protest against the refusal by other Ministers to immediately act against the Vatican, the Minister of the Environment resigned on March 3. Future developments are unpredictable. Presumably, they will depend upon the findings of the joint survey in progress, but also on the outcome of the political elections, on the conclusion of the hard controversy between the Ministers of the Environment and Health, and on the impact of the protest of scientists.

Disclaimer: Although the intention is to objectively present facts, these notes may reflect the personal point of view of the Author. They do not necessarily represent the position of the Italian National Institute of Health. Also critical remarks are the personal opinion of the Author.

Compiled by Ben Greenebaum, Editor in Chief, Bioelectromagnetics

There has recently been a vigorous exchange of e-mail messages in the on-line Bioelectromagnetics discussion group, prompted by a note from a scientist whose abstract was rejected by the Program Committee of the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Society.

The Board of Directors discussed this at their meeting in February, where I was present, and the exchange of ideas continued on for some time afterwards, via e-mail. At the suggestion of the Society’s newsletter editors, I present for readers’ consideration an edited version of a recent message to the directors. I have edited it to avoid attributing particular opinions to particular individuals, as well as to move the discussion from one of a particular abstract and research group to a more general level.

Here is a paraphrase of some of those remarks.

Recent e-mails from directors to other members of the BEMS board about screening and possibly rejection of abstracts offer two possible reasons for rejection: Quality of science or methods, and the anticipated behavior of the authors. The same two lines of argument are also present—but less clearly separated— in messages we read in the public on-line discussion of the issue.

Questions about the scientific quality are at the core of what the BEMS annual meeting and the Society are all about. The machinery we have set up — program committee, guidelines and criteria, etc., appropriately judge abstracts on these terms. As long as those who make the judgment are using these criteria, others can argue about whether they agree with the judgment, but no one can make an effective argument against the program committee’s right and obligation to act on these principles.

However, some bring up past or anticipated behavior by scientists. These questions usually involve concern about someone misrepresenting a meeting abstract as a publication or as a completed, peer-reviewed piece of work. Comments in a similar vein have been made in the on-line discussions, implying some kind of prejudice on the part of judges — though it’s unclear whether personal prejudice, scientific prejudice or both. Some have asked for the names of the committee members, which, by the way, are published in the abstract book we receive at the annual meeting.

Such questions are based on personal, not scientific issues, and they are a minefield.... But because good people can have awful ideas and awful people can have good ideas, we do have to be careful to judge the science on the science and judge the people, using a different process, on their behavior as people.

We have to decide.... Will we emphasize being open to a wide range of ideas and thereby become more open to misuse of our forum? Or will we try to restrict the use of our programs for purposes outside the science and thereby also restrict the range of ideas? The first definition is the pure model of science, and I would submit that—while perhaps we fall short of its most pure form—this is closer to what we are as a Society.

To make this work as well as it can, we need a very clear statement by the Society about what is and what is not acceptable use of presentations at the meeting. This we basically have. It should be used aggressively if members step over the line. If the case also involves non-members, the statement should be used aggressively with both them and the member.

Stefan Engström, maintainer of the Bioelectromagnetics Web site and moderator of its discussion group, soon sent this message to all subscribers:

“I am very glad to see scientific discussion on this list, and I will use the option to moderate for a few reasons (listed below). It is my hope that this can be a forum for serious exchange, and I don’t want to discourage subscribers to the list to go away because there is a lot of redundant and/or personal messages on the list.

Every post here goes to all subscribers (approximately 300 people). I think it is worth to consider that you have a substantial audience when you post here. Here is what I think should not go on the list, and I moderate accordingly.

1) Severely off-topic (bioelectromagnetics) posts.
2) No new arguments/content.
3) Strictly personal correspondence.

Finally, another “chat” participant made these remarks:

I would like to make a few comments concerning what may appear as conflicts. Recently on this chat site the most frequent conflict seems to be the feeling that new ideas are not being accepted. I do not know of any scientist who feels we know all the answers and thinks the prospects of new knowledge is closed.

The conflicts are not due to the actual facts but in the manner in which we explore new frontiers. I personally fall into a category I believe to be in the middle. I think it is good to jump into free space without a net but then it becomes imperative to develop a net before hitting the ground. Others do their homework first before leaping. This has the advantage of moving with intelligence and the disadvantage of slow progress as everything needs to be worked out before any movement occurs. The other extreme is leaping without any thought and then not ever doing the needed homework. This has the advantage of being able to move quickly but the disadvantage of not ever establishing anything of substance. What is the best method? I believe that is up to the individual.

However, when it comes to convincing the rest of the world your ideas have merit it is no longer a personal choice but the choice of the world audience. Traditionally, science is trial by fire. If you have an idea and it survives being torn apart by your peers then there is a good chance you may have something worth while. For this to occur you must allow your data and theories to be fully exposed.

If you hold back on the secret formula that portion cannot be scrutinized and your theory will not be accepted.

Another problem is that as science advances there is a tendency that for something to be real it must be understood. Whether good or bad this is a very real obstacle for new ideas. One method to overcome this obstacle is to provide data from experiments that test various subsets of the idea. One set of observations, even if repeated hundreds of times, does not make a convincing story. Also, a set of observations that are merely consistent with an idea or theory also does not make a convincing story. In fact, many of the theories and hypothesis that are out there are good preliminary data that can be used to warrant further research. However, it appears many use the preliminary data as proof of concept. It is not proof.

It is my view that everybody involved in low-energy EMF research needs to recognize we need to go to the next level of proof. We have lots of preliminary data, now lets actually prove something.

To join the Bioelectromagnetics chat, visit the Society’s Web site: The site also features calendar items, past issues of the newsletter, book announcements, occasional job postings, annual meeting registration pages and technical program schedules and details, and more.

by Ben Greenebaum

Bioelectromagnetics has recently named a new associate editor and made several changes to its Editorial Board. Rene de Seze was named an associate editor by the Board of Directors at its February meeting, after nomination by the European Bio Electromagnetics Association. He replaces Jukka Juutilainen, who resigned after many years of highly-appreciated service because of the press of other duties. Dr. Juutilainen remains on the Editorial Board. Dr. de Seze, like the other Associate Editors, will act as a generalist, but he brings special expertise on the biomedial aspects of exposures at both low and high frequencies.

Rene received his MD in 1985 on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and his PhD in “Sciences de la Vie” in 1991 from the University of Bordeaux II, France. After some years at the Radiology Department and the Medical School of Nimes, University of Montpellier 1, he has recently joined the Toxicology Laboratory of the French National Institute for Industrial Environment and Risks (INERIS), located near Paris. He has published about 15 papers and presented more than 70 meeting communications in various areas of EMF research, including therapeutics, exposure systems, and (mainly) biological effects, particularly in human volunteers. His research has focusesd in recent years on the health effects of radio-cellular phone microwaves. He served as member or secretary of some national (SFRP), European (EBEA) and international (BEMS) organisations which are working on bioelectromagnetics. He has served on the ICNIRP Subcommittee II (Biology) since May 2000.

Authors and others may contact or send manuscripts to Dr. de Seze at: Dr. Rene de SEZE, INERIS, DRC - Toxicologie Parc ALATA - BP2, 60550 Verneuil-en-Halatte FRANCE. Phone +33 3 44 55 65 94; Fax: +33 3 44 55 66 05

Other changes in the Editorial Board adopted at the February Board meeting include acknowledgment, with appreciation for their fine service, the resignations or term expiration of Mays Swicord, Sheila Galt and Jan Walleczek.

I am very pleased to share the news of our upcoming 21st annual scientific conference with you, January 30 to February 2, 2002, at the Westgate Hotel in San Diego, Calif. Dr. Michael Cho of the University of Illinois-Chicago will chair a program which promises to continue the SPRBM tradition of great scientific presentations and professional discussions between new and old friends.

Our thematic emphasis will continue to be on physical regulatory processes in biologic systems, and the application of these ideas across medical sciences. Invited symposia as well as basic and clinical research reports are planned.

The Society needs your help in recruiting attendance at the conference. Here are some ideas for how you can assist:

  • Let your colleagues know the SPRBM Conference schedule—Southern California in January can be a welcome respite from winter in most of the rest of the country!
  • Identify graduate students with mature projects to submit to the SPRBM Conference. SPRBM has committed to increasing participation among younger scientists early in their career. This meeting is a wonderful opportunity for scholarly interaction.
  • E-mail collaborators about the SPRBM Conference. Your personal messages will encourage the interest of those who might be unfamiliar with the “Gordon-like” feel of our conference. Do you have a colleague who hasn’t been to the meeting in years? Invite them!

An Official Call for Papers will be mailed this month. Submission deadline is in early August. If you have any questions about the submission process or abstract preparation, please do not hesitate to contact one of the following people.

Mary Capelli-Schellpfeffer:

Program Director Michael Cho:

Executive Director Gloria Parsley:

Our goal is to have a successful and enjoyable scientific gathering. To this end, Ms. Parsley has organized a hotel with a lovely European elegance in the heart of downtown San Diego. We will be near restaurants, shopping at Horton Plaza, Sea World, and the waterfront. Complimentary hotel transportation is provided to and from the airport only 10 minutes away. If you are able to bring a friend or family members with you to the conference, there will be plenty for them to see and do during meeting times.

We are looking forward to a dynamic and rewarding time together in January 2002. As meeting planning proceeds, please feel free to e-mail me suggestions or comments. See you in San Diego!

Mary Capelli-Schellpfeffer, MD, MPA
CapSchell, Inc.
1700 East 56th Street, #1405
Chicago, IL 60637