I know that there is some concern that cell phones may cause cancer.
But is there any possible correlation between the radio waves we use
to communicate, either by commercial radio or other sources and
cancer? Or what about the radio waves that are being emitted from our
personal electronic appliances? I have heard that there is some
concern that if you live near a power line that you may be at risk for
cancer. What is the state of research into this subject?

Thanks

On Sat, 16 May 2009 21:25:24 -0700 (PDT), MacaualyFlower
wrote:

I know that there is some concern that cell phones may cause cancer.
But is there any possible correlation between the radio waves we use
to communicate, either by commercial radio or other sources and
cancer? Or what about the radio waves that are being emitted from our
personal electronic appliances? I have heard that there is some
concern that if you live near a power line that you may be at risk for
cancer. What is the state of research into this subject?

This has what to do with amateur radio or antennas?

I covered the topic about 2 years ago in:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/fd25bae4b3f10c13
The US incidence rate for brain and central nervous system cancers has
been fairly flat at about 6-7 cases per 100,000 population per year
since about 1975 (SEER 9). It's kinda difficult to pry a usable graph
out of the web pile, so I ran the "fast stats" for long term brain
cancer, for all age and ethnic groups. See:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer.jpg
(Note that the incidence of brain cancer is actually decreasing with
time). If there were a correlation between cell phone use and cancer,
one would expect to see at least a nominal rise in brain cancer
incidence, as cell phone use has dramatically increased the same time
period.

The current FCC position on RF safety is at:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet60/oet60a.pdf

Your risk of dying from a vehicle accident, while driving and talking
on a cell phone, is far greater than the alleged risk of contracting
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

On Sat, 16 May 2009 22:07:17 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

I covered the topic about 2 years ago in:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/fd25bae4b3f10c13
The US incidence rate for brain and central nervous system cancers has
been fairly flat at about 6-7 cases per 100,000 population per year
since about 1975 (SEER 9). It's kinda difficult to pry a usable graph
out of the web pile, so I ran the "fast stats" for long term brain
cancer, for all age and ethnic groups. See:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer.jpg

Sorry, I forgot to include the URL of the cancer data:
http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?series=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

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.

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:

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

On Tue, 19 May 2009 10:30:44 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

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

Ham radio has its very own industry specific cancer called "cancer of
the vocabulary". Upon over-exposure to RF, a fairly normal individual
will soon develop symptoms which include ultra-long monologs,
inserting "ahhhhh" between sentences, foaming at the mouth, phonetic
alphabet creativity, and an apparently irresistible urge to eat
microphones. An early indication of impending trouble is a tendency
to identify oneself with a call sign after leaving a voicemail
message. Advanced cases exhibit additional symptoms of language
aberrations, political conservatism, compulsive knob twiddling, an
insatiable desire to listen for intelligence in random white noise, a
preference toward high wire acrobatics, and strangely coded speech.
After several decades of RF exposure, the victim may show symptoms of
pontification, pomposity, self-authority, and ossification of the
technology. While not fatal, cancer of the vocabulary has been known
to cause divorce, impoverishment, and curmudgeonificiation.
Unfortunately, the symptoms are not reversible, even when the victim
has withdrawn from ham radio for extended periods, such as to raise a
family.

Despite almost a century of historical data, little effort has been
made to correlate RF exposure with cancer of the vocabulary. I
suspect this may be due to the efforts of the ARRL to block such
research. While it is obvious that different frequencies had
different effects, it would be both interesting and useful if the
connection were properly researched and documented. For example, it's
apparent that exposure to low frequency (HF) waves causes a marked
preference for noisy environments, the exact opposite effect is found
after exposure to high frequencies (VHF), where signal clarity is
preferred. This phenomenon and others should be investigated.

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