My 02c. worth:
I am reasonably persuaded that the biological effects on adult humans from
being subjected to strong rf fields in the vlf-hf region are minimal.
As has been pointed out whole poulations in major cities have had
considerable exposure over decades and it hard to attribute any adverse
effects to the rf fields alone. Also all of us know individuals who have
worked in transmitter halls all their lives and their seems ot be no unusual
incidence of health problems, at least detectable by common observation. In
other industries, it was known by workers and families that there were
health risks long before they could be identified by science.
I am more cautious about effects on young growing humans. If I had choices I
would prefer not to raise my children under major power transmission lines
or next door to a radio transmitter that ran all the time. Not that I think
there is significant risk, but if one has alternatives why not play it safe?
There has been good and reliable research ?Slovic on public risk perception.
It show that public fears are not random or irrational per se.
There are main two dimensions: Dread, associated with possible major
catastrophes involving large numbers of innocent and helpless people, and
Strangeness associated with poorly understood technical or mystical powers.
The other poles are familiarity and benefit.
Hence people underestimate the risks from things with which they are
familiar and bring them benefits eg automobiles, home swimming pools, motor
mowers etc and overestimate possible risks from technologies with which they
are not familiar, or ghosts, wild animals, nuclear technoogies.
These findings seem to hold up well with replication.
Matters are not improved by self serving or ignorant individuals on the
technology side of the fence dismissing public fears insensitively, and
minimising small but finite risks.
This does lead to a theme about technology gone mad, alienation,and the
building of a world which is unsustainable, but I do not want to go there.
I live in voluntary exile on an island away from anywhere.
cheers
end
Barry Kirkwood PhD ZL1DD
Signal Hill Homestay
66 Cory Road
Palm Beach
Waiheke Island 1240
NEW ZEALAND
www.waiheke.co.nz/signal.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: John T. M. Lyles <jtml@lanl.gov>
To: <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 06 November, 2001 5:39 AM
Subject: [AMPS] another myth on EMF
>
> Cellphones cause brain tumors......
> In study after study, the link of 800-1800 MHz RF emissions to cancer
> has NOT been scientifically proven. RF heating, some affects on
> nerves, auditory affects at pulsed rep rates, but the energy from RF
> on cells is low compared to the ioning energy from nuclear phenomina.
>
> For about 20 years now, I have looked at dozens of research reports,
> papers and books, on this very subject, and there is no such proof
> out there. Every study can be interpreted either way. Studies show
> that even the studies are flawed. It is very difficult to prove that
> RF causes cancer. Its difficult to prove a lot of things which might
> be suggested to cause cancer. Diet, smoking, genetics (a big one),
> stress, some chemical exposures - all may cause cancer. Male tower
> workers getting breast cancer, ham radio operators develop brain
> tumors, cellphone users get cancer more frequently, children living
> near a substation getting leukemia, certain configurations of power
> line conductors causing more risk, and on and on and on. The media,
> and a lot of hypocritical phone users seem to continue to promote the
> cellphone myth. There is a lot of truth that cellphones cause auto
> accidents. And the media always says that 'big brother' is trying to
> suppress information, i.e., the lobbyists for cellphone companies and
> providers and Motorola, Nokia, etc. And what is the media interest:
> To sell more papers, get more listeners, win ratings for their
> market, get more advertisements. What a vicious circle.
>
> Recently, the city of Santa Fe, NM tried to ban cell towers for
> various political, esthetic and other reasons. The very same myths
> were brought up, by many of the same people who also confuse nuclear
> radiation with RF. (it radiates, right?). Needless to say, it was
> hilarious reading their statements and 'scientific evidence' in the
> news.
> And it is sad to know that unqualified opinionated people are
> influencing the direction of decisions. These same people would not
> think twice about ~using~ a cellphone, however, and have the silly
> things ringing at them.
>
> When this technically savy discussion on RF amplifiers starts to
> degrade into a forum similar to what you can tune into in your local
> paper and TV news, its time to find a more challenging group.
>
> K5PRO
> John
> --
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
> Submissions: amps@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
>
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|