On Sat, 16 May 2009 22:50:04 -0700 (PDT), MacaualyFlower
wrote:

This has what to do with amateur radio or antennas?

Amateur radio uses radio waves, and I believe that antennas propagate
them and receive them don't they?

But in any case, I thank you for your answer.

Ok. That's closer than most of the off topic rubbish the pollutes
most newsgroups. I can see you logic. After reading some of the
postings in this newsgroup, I too might suspect that exposure to RF
and antennas might produce insanity, illogic, political conservatism,
and delusions of omniscience.

Incidentally, someone wrote me noting the peak on the graph around
1985 and offering various theories as to the origin of the peak. I
should point out that the total variation over 30 years (from 0.6 ppm
to 0.7 ppm) yields a total variation of 0.001%. That's well within
statistical error limits, and is essentially flat. The most likely
reason for the slight increase in incidence is that PET scanners
became available for diagnosis in the early 1980's, which probably
produced a small increase in additional early diagnosis cases. This
peak tapered off as PET scans became routine.

There's also the issue of delayed reactions to RF exposure. This is
certainly a real possibility as some cancers appear perhaps 20 years
after exposure. However, with such a huge increase in cell phone use
between 1975 and 2006, there's not even the slightest indication in
the cancer incidence curves of a corresponding, but delayed, increase.
If anything, there's a slight decrease in brain cancer incidence,
which suggests that using a cell phone may help PREVENT brain cancer.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558