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

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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.

The delay for skin cancer risk after sun exposure (which is also EM rad)
is more like 40 years.

On Mon, 18 May 2009 12:36:07 +1000, Clifford Heath
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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.

The delay for skin cancer risk after sun exposure (which is also EM rad)
is more like 40 years.

Yep. We may be dead before symptoms appear.

http://www.healthnewsflash.com/conditions/skin_cancer.php
In addition, skin cancer is related to lifetime exposure to
UV radiation. Most skin cancers appear after age 50, but the
sun's damaging effects begin at an early age. Therefore,
protection should start in childhood to prevent skin cancer
later in life.

It's possible that brain cancer induced by RF exposure might work the
same way. At this time, there's no evidence of such a mechanism.
Widespread handheld cell phone use started in about 1990. If it
really takes 40 years to see problems, we'll just have to wait until
2030.

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

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
It's possible that brain cancer induced by RF exposure might work the
same way.

The IEEE Spectrum magazine reported the following:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/40764.php
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mon, 18 May 2009 06:24:56 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
It's possible that brain cancer induced by RF exposure might work the
same way.

The IEEE Spectrum magazine reported the following:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/40764.php

Yep. Using the NCI statistics I previously excavated, the incidence
of new brain and CNS cases is about 6 cases per 100,000 population per
year. The current population of Sweden is 9.2 million. Assuming the
same cancer rate in Sweden as the US, that's 552 cases of brain cancer
per year. Where did they find 905 brain cancer victims in a country
that only generates 552 cases per year? Perhaps the numbers seem a
bit odd?

I haven't read the original report, but my guess(tm) the 240% higher
risk is due to statistical anomalies resulting from using small
samples culled from extremely small incidence rates. All it takes is
one or two more events (cases), and the results look like 100% or 200%
increases.


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

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Where did they find 905 brain cancer victims in a country
that only generates 552 cases per year?

That's not the question. The question is: Where on
earth did you get the idea that benign tumors and
cancer are the same thing? Hint: They are not.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mon, 18 May 2009 13:21:48 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Where did they find 905 brain cancer victims in a country
that only generates 552 cases per year?

That's not the question. The question is: Where on
earth did you get the idea that benign tumors and
cancer are the same thing? Hint: They are not.

Oops. You're right. The original question was about RF and cancer. I
didn't notice that the Swedish study apparently (not sure without
reading the study) includes both malignant and benign brain tumors. It
may also not include CNS (central nervious system) tumors, which the
ACI graph I presented does include.

I couldn't find the article in question due to the vague references,
but did manage to find another article on the same topic by the same
author:
"Symptoms Experienced in Connection with the Use of Digital
and Analog Mobile Phones for Poeple Using Both Transmitter
Systems: A Swedish-Norwegian Epidemiological Study."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k2k224/?p=414fd7433b85492a967c4624feddf2ca&pi=0
It appears to be part of the book "Wireless Phones and Health II". I
also found a series of other articles dealing with RF exposure and
medicine by Kjell Mild, but no source for the original article under
"International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health".

Incidentally, one of my neighbors recently had a brain tumor removed.
She didn't use a cell phone prior to the diagnosis, but bought one so
she could remain in contact during the treatment and recovery.

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

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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. . .

The effect seems to peak at about 75 meter wavelength, with a minor peak
at about 2 meters. The cautious and same amateur will avoid exposure to
those wavelengths.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:

The effect seems to peak at about 75 meter wavelength, with a minor peak
at about 2 meters. The cautious and same amateur will avoid exposure to
those wavelengths.

I of course meant "sane" and not "same". My apology for the typo.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
line...
Roy Lewallen wrote:

The effect seems to peak at about 75 meter wavelength, with a minor peak
at about 2 meters. The cautious and same amateur will avoid exposure to
those wavelengths.

I of course meant "sane" and not "same". My apology for the typo.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Of course, it is a given that the only truly sane band is six meters.

Ed, AJ4PJ