|
Is AM Radio Harmful?
Is AM Radio Harmful?
By Stephen Leahy Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,64579,00.html 02:00 AM Aug. 16, 2004 PT Korean scientists have found that regions near AM radio-broadcasting towers had 70 percent more leukemia deaths than those without. The study, to be published in an upcoming issue of the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, also found that cancer deaths were 29 percent higher near such transmitters. Two years ago an Italian study found death rates from leukemia increased dramatically for residents living within two miles of Vatican Radio's powerful array of transmitters in Rome. The Koreans looked at the death rates in 10 regions with AM radio-transmitting towers broadcasting at more than 100 kilowatts and compared them with control areas without transmitters. The substantially higher cancer mortality in those who lived within two kilometers of the towers led researchers to conclude that more investigation was needed. However, they also said their study did not prove a direct link between cancer and the transmitters. "There have been many studies like these, and they aren't very convincing," said Mary McBride, an epidemiologist at the British Columbia Cancer Agency. Many other factors could have contributed to those cancer rates, said McBride, who has headed a number of similar studies and found no direct link. Equally important is that studies in the lab don't show how radio waves can produce cancers, she said. Debate continues over the health effects of radio waves from transmitters, both large and small, and other forms of electromagnetic fields, including power lines and microwaves. Sam Milham, a Seattle-based epidemiologist and a pioneer in electromagnetic-field research, is convinced there are health effects. "Lots of research papers from around the world show increased cancers near transmitters, although TV and FM transmitters are more often implicated." Moreover, many lab studies show low-frequency EMF disrupt living cells, Milham asserts. Critics like McBride say such results are often difficult to reproduce at other labs. Milham says that's because of differences in the Earth's magnetic field and stray EMF. In an attempt to settle some of this, California's Department of Health Services reviewed all the current studies of EMF risks from power lines, wiring and appliances in 2002. It found no conclusive evidence of harm. However, links to childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease could not be ruled out. "I'm convinced that politics and corporate interests are behind denials (that say) there are no health effects," said Milham. Meanwhile, the FDA and the World Health Organization are urging more studies, especially of radio waves from cell phones. |
Korean scientists have found that regions near AM radio-broadcasting towers
had 70 percent more leukemia deaths than those without. They are full of it! Lawyers in action to milk money from another "danger" Look how many broadcast engineers that lived inside of AM station antennas are still alive and in their 90ies. RF kills cancers (properly used). Yuri, K3BU |
Heavy
It is quite possible that the findings of the Korean scientists who authored this publication are in disagrement with the findings of the scientists here in Los Angeles Calif.. I see that many new homes are being built very close to the base of KNX antenna tower. Since OSHA and other agencies like that have so much control over "health hazards', I'd expect any known problems from AM radio waves would have prevented the builders from building the homes. Jerry "Heavy Hitter" wrote in message ... Is AM Radio Harmful? By Stephen Leahy Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,64579,00.html 02:00 AM Aug. 16, 2004 PT Korean scientists have found that regions near AM radio-broadcasting towers had 70 percent more leukemia deaths than those without. The study, to be published in an upcoming issue of the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, also found that cancer deaths were 29 percent higher near such transmitters. Two years ago an Italian study found death rates from leukemia increased dramatically for residents living within two miles of Vatican Radio's powerful array of transmitters in Rome. The Koreans looked at the death rates in 10 regions with AM radio-transmitting towers broadcasting at more than 100 kilowatts and compared them with control areas without transmitters. The substantially higher cancer mortality in those who lived within two kilometers of the towers led researchers to conclude that more investigation was needed. However, they also said their study did not prove a direct link between cancer and the transmitters. "There have been many studies like these, and they aren't very convincing," said Mary McBride, an epidemiologist at the British Columbia Cancer Agency. Many other factors could have contributed to those cancer rates, said McBride, who has headed a number of similar studies and found no direct link. Equally important is that studies in the lab don't show how radio waves can produce cancers, she said. Debate continues over the health effects of radio waves from transmitters, both large and small, and other forms of electromagnetic fields, including power lines and microwaves. Sam Milham, a Seattle-based epidemiologist and a pioneer in electromagnetic-field research, is convinced there are health effects. "Lots of research papers from around the world show increased cancers near transmitters, although TV and FM transmitters are more often implicated." Moreover, many lab studies show low-frequency EMF disrupt living cells, Milham asserts. Critics like McBride say such results are often difficult to reproduce at other labs. Milham says that's because of differences in the Earth's magnetic field and stray EMF. In an attempt to settle some of this, California's Department of Health Services reviewed all the current studies of EMF risks from power lines, wiring and appliances in 2002. It found no conclusive evidence of harm. However, links to childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease could not be ruled out. "I'm convinced that politics and corporate interests are behind denials (that say) there are no health effects," said Milham. Meanwhile, the FDA and the World Health Organization are urging more studies, especially of radio waves from cell phones. |
Only if you take the talk shows seriously. |
Why AM?? FM is safe? What frequency is more to the point.
The human body is a very small portion of a wavelength below 1710 kHz, and it would difficult to couple a lot of energy into one. Pete |
Heavy Hitter wrote:
Is AM Radio Harmful? By Stephen Leahy Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,64579,00.html 02:00 AM Aug. 16, 2004 PT Korean scientists have found that regions near AM radio-broadcasting towers had.... Debate continues over the health effects of radio waves from transmitters, both large and small, and other forms of electromagnetic fields, including power lines and microwaves. Now that I think of it, my hairloss began sometime around my early days in ham radio, and has progressed along with my time in the hobby. Other side effects noted are that, as my friends will vouch, I have become somewhat crazier, my eyesight is degraded, and my joints have tightened up somewhat. One of these days I'm gonna give up hamming... well, maybe! More study will be required. Irv VE6BP -- -------------------------------------- Diagnosed Type II Diabetes March 5 2001 Beating it with diet and exercise! 297/215/210 (to be revised lower) 58"/43"(!)/44" (already lower too!) -------------------------------------- Visit my HomePage at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv/ Visit my Baby Sofia website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv4/ Visit my OLDTIMERS website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv5/ -------------------- Irv Finkleman, Grampa/Ex-Navy/Old Fart/Ham Radio VE6BP Calgary, Alberta, Canada |
Heavy Hitter wrote in message . ..
Is AM Radio Harmful? By Stephen Leahy Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,64579,00.html 02:00 AM Aug. 16, 2004 PT Korean scientists have found that regions near AM radio-broadcasting towers had 70 percent more leukemia deaths than those without. Do they define "near"? How do they control for other factors? Do they look at many diseases or just a few? The study, to be published in an upcoming issue of the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, also found that cancer deaths were 29 percent higher near such transmitters. Same questions. How much does, say, smoking increase the cancer risk? Two years ago an Italian study found death rates from leukemia increased dramatically for residents living within two miles of Vatican Radio's powerful array of transmitters in Rome. How dramatically? 10 times? 100 times? The Koreans looked at the death rates in 10 regions with AM radio-transmitting towers broadcasting at more than 100 kilowatts and compared them with control areas without transmitters. The substantially higher cancer mortality in those who lived within two kilometers of the towers led researchers to conclude that more investigation was needed. Of course more is needed. However, they also said their study did not prove a direct link between cancer and the transmitters. Indeed! "There have been many studies like these, and they aren't very convincing," said Mary McBride, an epidemiologist at the British Columbia Cancer Agency. Many other factors could have contributed to those cancer rates, said McBride, who has headed a number of similar studies and found no direct link. Which means they didn't have a big enough study, nor adequate control group. Equally important is that studies in the lab don't show how radio waves can produce cancers, she said. Debate continues over the health effects of radio waves from transmitters, both large and small, and other forms of electromagnetic fields, including power lines and microwaves. Sam Milham, a Seattle-based epidemiologist and a pioneer in electromagnetic-field research, is convinced there are health effects. "Lots of research papers from around the world show increased cancers near transmitters, although TV and FM transmitters are more often implicated." Implicated but not proved. Have controlled animal studies been done? I think not. Moreover, many lab studies show low-frequency EMF disrupt living cells, Milham asserts. Critics like McBride say such results are often difficult to reproduce at other labs. Milham says that's because of differences in the Earth's magnetic field and stray EMF. We're all sitting in 500 milligauss field from the planet... In an attempt to settle some of this, California's Department of Health Services reviewed all the current studies of EMF risks from power lines, wiring and appliances in 2002. It found no conclusive evidence of harm. However, links to childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease could not be ruled out. Of course they cannot be ruled out because you cannot prove a negative. "I'm convinced that politics and corporate interests are behind denials (that say) there are no health effects," said Milham. Nobody who understands science says there are no health effects. What they do say is that no health effects have been scientifically demonstrated. BIG difference. Meanwhile, the FDA and the World Health Organization are urging more studies, especially of radio waves from cell phones. A good idea - if they are real scientific studies. Some years back, there was a "study" done on cause-of-death of hams reported in the Silent Key column of QST. Researcher looked up the cause of death for a pretty large number of West Coast hams, and found somewhat higher frequency of death from certain cancers and leukemias. There was quite a buzz about it. I did some digging and found a *bunch* of holes in the study: - it compared West Coast hams to the general population, not to the West Coast population - it looked only at hams reported in the SK column of QST - it did not compensate for differences in age, occupation, or other environment factors like smoking that would have a big influence on disease. Nor did it research what sort of hamming the amateur did, or for how long. (The ham who did a little QRP for a few years as a senior citizen got as much weight in the study as the ham who'd run high power since teenage years and worked his entire career at a broadcast station, etc.) - it found only minor elevations in the named diseases - (this is the biggie) it found that there were some cancers and leukemias that were *less common* causes of death in the studied group. That little factoid was conveniently ignored in most media reports - Most of all, the study repeatedly stated that it was not conclusive and that much more work needed to be done. But we rarely hear "the rest of the story".. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
The more I listen to AM radio, the more I list to the right when I walk.....
"N2EY" wrote in message om... Heavy Hitter wrote in message . .. Is AM Radio Harmful? By Stephen Leahy Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,64579,00.html 02:00 AM Aug. 16, 2004 PT Korean scientists have found that regions near AM radio-broadcasting towers had 70 percent more leukemia deaths than those without. Do they define "near"? How do they control for other factors? Do they look at many diseases or just a few? The study, to be published in an upcoming issue of the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, also found that cancer deaths were 29 percent higher near such transmitters. Same questions. How much does, say, smoking increase the cancer risk? Two years ago an Italian study found death rates from leukemia increased dramatically for residents living within two miles of Vatican Radio's powerful array of transmitters in Rome. How dramatically? 10 times? 100 times? The Koreans looked at the death rates in 10 regions with AM radio-transmitting towers broadcasting at more than 100 kilowatts and compared them with control areas without transmitters. The substantially higher cancer mortality in those who lived within two kilometers of the towers led researchers to conclude that more investigation was needed. Of course more is needed. However, they also said their study did not prove a direct link between cancer and the transmitters. Indeed! "There have been many studies like these, and they aren't very convincing," said Mary McBride, an epidemiologist at the British Columbia Cancer Agency. Many other factors could have contributed to those cancer rates, said McBride, who has headed a number of similar studies and found no direct link. Which means they didn't have a big enough study, nor adequate control group. Equally important is that studies in the lab don't show how radio waves can produce cancers, she said. Debate continues over the health effects of radio waves from transmitters, both large and small, and other forms of electromagnetic fields, including power lines and microwaves. Sam Milham, a Seattle-based epidemiologist and a pioneer in electromagnetic-field research, is convinced there are health effects. "Lots of research papers from around the world show increased cancers near transmitters, although TV and FM transmitters are more often implicated." Implicated but not proved. Have controlled animal studies been done? I think not. Moreover, many lab studies show low-frequency EMF disrupt living cells, Milham asserts. Critics like McBride say such results are often difficult to reproduce at other labs. Milham says that's because of differences in the Earth's magnetic field and stray EMF. We're all sitting in 500 milligauss field from the planet... In an attempt to settle some of this, California's Department of Health Services reviewed all the current studies of EMF risks from power lines, wiring and appliances in 2002. It found no conclusive evidence of harm. However, links to childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease could not be ruled out. Of course they cannot be ruled out because you cannot prove a negative. "I'm convinced that politics and corporate interests are behind denials (that say) there are no health effects," said Milham. Nobody who understands science says there are no health effects. What they do say is that no health effects have been scientifically demonstrated. BIG difference. Meanwhile, the FDA and the World Health Organization are urging more studies, especially of radio waves from cell phones. A good idea - if they are real scientific studies. Some years back, there was a "study" done on cause-of-death of hams reported in the Silent Key column of QST. Researcher looked up the cause of death for a pretty large number of West Coast hams, and found somewhat higher frequency of death from certain cancers and leukemias. There was quite a buzz about it. I did some digging and found a *bunch* of holes in the study: - it compared West Coast hams to the general population, not to the West Coast population - it looked only at hams reported in the SK column of QST - it did not compensate for differences in age, occupation, or other environment factors like smoking that would have a big influence on disease. Nor did it research what sort of hamming the amateur did, or for how long. (The ham who did a little QRP for a few years as a senior citizen got as much weight in the study as the ham who'd run high power since teenage years and worked his entire career at a broadcast station, etc.) - it found only minor elevations in the named diseases - (this is the biggie) it found that there were some cancers and leukemias that were *less common* causes of death in the studied group. That little factoid was conveniently ignored in most media reports - Most of all, the study repeatedly stated that it was not conclusive and that much more work needed to be done. But we rarely hear "the rest of the story".. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:27:02 -0400, "Jim Leder"
wrote: The more I listen to AM radio, the more I list to the right when I walk..... Yes, but do you list to the right when you vote? :-) "N2EY" wrote in message . com... Heavy Hitter wrote in message . .. Is AM Radio Harmful? By Stephen Leahy Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,64579,00.html 02:00 AM Aug. 16, 2004 PT Korean scientists have found that regions near AM radio-broadcasting towers had 70 percent more leukemia deaths than those without. Do they define "near"? How do they control for other factors? Do they look at many diseases or just a few? The study, to be published in an upcoming issue of the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, also found that cancer deaths were 29 percent higher near such transmitters. Same questions. How much does, say, smoking increase the cancer risk? Two years ago an Italian study found death rates from leukemia increased dramatically for residents living within two miles of Vatican Radio's powerful array of transmitters in Rome. How dramatically? 10 times? 100 times? The Koreans looked at the death rates in 10 regions with AM radio-transmitting towers broadcasting at more than 100 kilowatts and compared them with control areas without transmitters. The substantially higher cancer mortality in those who lived within two kilometers of the towers led researchers to conclude that more investigation was needed. Of course more is needed. However, they also said their study did not prove a direct link between cancer and the transmitters. Indeed! "There have been many studies like these, and they aren't very convincing," said Mary McBride, an epidemiologist at the British Columbia Cancer Agency. Many other factors could have contributed to those cancer rates, said McBride, who has headed a number of similar studies and found no direct link. Which means they didn't have a big enough study, nor adequate control group. Equally important is that studies in the lab don't show how radio waves can produce cancers, she said. Debate continues over the health effects of radio waves from transmitters, both large and small, and other forms of electromagnetic fields, including power lines and microwaves. Sam Milham, a Seattle-based epidemiologist and a pioneer in electromagnetic-field research, is convinced there are health effects. "Lots of research papers from around the world show increased cancers near transmitters, although TV and FM transmitters are more often implicated." Implicated but not proved. Have controlled animal studies been done? I think not. Moreover, many lab studies show low-frequency EMF disrupt living cells, Milham asserts. Critics like McBride say such results are often difficult to reproduce at other labs. Milham says that's because of differences in the Earth's magnetic field and stray EMF. We're all sitting in 500 milligauss field from the planet... In an attempt to settle some of this, California's Department of Health Services reviewed all the current studies of EMF risks from power lines, wiring and appliances in 2002. It found no conclusive evidence of harm. However, links to childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease could not be ruled out. Of course they cannot be ruled out because you cannot prove a negative. "I'm convinced that politics and corporate interests are behind denials (that say) there are no health effects," said Milham. Nobody who understands science says there are no health effects. What they do say is that no health effects have been scientifically demonstrated. BIG difference. Meanwhile, the FDA and the World Health Organization are urging more studies, especially of radio waves from cell phones. A good idea - if they are real scientific studies. Some years back, there was a "study" done on cause-of-death of hams reported in the Silent Key column of QST. Researcher looked up the cause of death for a pretty large number of West Coast hams, and found somewhat higher frequency of death from certain cancers and leukemias. There was quite a buzz about it. I did some digging and found a *bunch* of holes in the study: - it compared West Coast hams to the general population, not to the West Coast population - it looked only at hams reported in the SK column of QST - it did not compensate for differences in age, occupation, or other environment factors like smoking that would have a big influence on disease. Nor did it research what sort of hamming the amateur did, or for how long. (The ham who did a little QRP for a few years as a senior citizen got as much weight in the study as the ham who'd run high power since teenage years and worked his entire career at a broadcast station, etc.) - it found only minor elevations in the named diseases - (this is the biggie) it found that there were some cancers and leukemias that were *less common* causes of death in the studied group. That little factoid was conveniently ignored in most media reports - Most of all, the study repeatedly stated that it was not conclusive and that much more work needed to be done. But we rarely hear "the rest of the story".. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
YES! AM can be almost as harmful as cocaine. I got addicted to 6 meter AM
back about 1978. Spent almost a year trying to make a local net using an ancient kit somebody had cobbed together. It had some special need sensor that allowed it to work FB until it was my turn to check in then nothing ..... til the net was over. Drove me to kicking the dog! Oh! You meant PHYSICAL harm. Sorry ..... |
I list from top to bottom.
"Jim Leder" wrote in message ... The more I listen to AM radio, the more I list to the right when I walk..... |
In the 1920's and 1930's there were scores of people
claiming to "hear radio in [their tooth cavity] fillings". Today, we have more people in more countries with more tooth fillings near more (and more powerful) transmitters than ever before, yet nobody claims to hear radio in their teeth. The focus has shifted to other, more fashionable sources of radiation, such as cellphones. It all boils down to whether low-level, non-ionizing radiation has any effect at the molecular level or not. Conventional wisdom had it that being that radiation non-ionizing, if its intensity was short of sufficient for inducing macroscopic heating, it would not be harmful. On the other hand, heating had long been tied to cataracts and male sterility, and of course to burns. In recent years, it was discovered that many birds had the capability to convert the earth magnetic field into electrochemical nerve signals. As microscopic magnetic crystals were found in birds' brains (and later in humans' brains as well), speculation is now focusing on the possibility that physical effects may have some heretofore unnnoticed chemical impact too. Bad statistical manipulation is easy to spot, bad data much less so. As an RF addict and a statistics aesthete, I hope research will continue, but I am not terribly concerned. |
|
Actually...
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On 20 Aug 2004 02:19:00 -0700, (SpamHog) wrote: Today, we have more people in more countries with more tooth fillings near more (and more powerful) transmitters than ever before, yet nobody claims to hear radio in their teeth. All of the metal in my teeth has been replaced with composites or capped. This shifts the resonance out of the AM band into the marine band where there are fewer, less powerful transmitters nearby. YMMV 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC I have many amalgam fillings and lived 1 mile from a 50KW. station on 1160 Kc. (they were sending out kilocycles back then). The only thing that picked up un wanted signals was the house built-in intercom radio. You had WJJD about every 50KC on the dial. Of course a razor blade and a pair of earphones did pretty well too. The state of Wisconsin has a rather good public radio network (also on the net). Saturday mornings there is a doctor's call-in show. A woman called in claiming that she _heard_ music coming from the mouth of her young son/daughter. So there are claims... And BTW. I have been working with RF for the last 30+ years and there are absolutely no side eff...f..f..f..ff..ec...t..t..s. -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
"Steve Nosko" wrote in message ... Actually... SNIP The state of Wisconsin has a rather good public radio network (also on the net). Saturday mornings there is a doctor's call-in show. A woman called in claiming that she _heard_ music coming from the mouth of her young son/daughter. Turn down the volume of the little gangsta's headphones! Wait a minute, I take that back. If the mother could identify the audio power as "music", then it couldn't have been anything the kid would have voluntarily listened to! Ed wb6wsn |
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On 20 Aug 2004 02:19:00 -0700, (SpamHog) wrote: Today, we have more people in more countries with more tooth fillings near more (and more powerful) transmitters than ever before, yet nobody claims to hear radio in their teeth. All of the metal in my teeth has been replaced with composites or capped. This shifts the resonance out of the AM band into the marine band where there are fewer, less powerful transmitters nearby. YMMV 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard, you gotta pay closer attention to what the doc is doing inside your mouth! Caps have a ceramic layer atop a metal (titanium?) mandrel. And even more fun is that there's a rather large and long stainless steel post that was drilled down to nearly the end of the root of that tooth. After the post is cemented into the base of the tooth, the cap is cemented onto the post. The post might be 5/8" long, and the cap sits on the post separated by a dielectric adhesive. Although the nerve was "killed" at the point it enters the root of the tooth, the rest of the nerve bundle really isn't that far from the end of the stainless steel post. Sounds like an interesting collection of resonant structures, lossy dielectrics, conductive fluids and potential diodes; all located quite near to your nervous system. Any of our EZNEC gurus care to model that structure? Ed wb6wsn |
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 02:17:36 -0700, "Ed Price"
wrote: Richard, you gotta pay closer attention to what the doc is doing inside your mouth! Caps have a ceramic layer atop a metal (titanium?) mandrel. And even more fun is that there's a rather large and long stainless steel post that was drilled down to nearly the end of the root of that tooth. Hi Ed, I know the dentistry business quite intimately. I help a buddy out with new dentistry technologies. What you describe are rather old techniques. My dentist built up a cap in the office on an NC machine in 15 minutes to replace one that had been built without any coloring (it was as white as chalk). I've only had one root canal after the dentist got tired of waiting for years to fix the abscess (never bothered me as much as it did him). Even then, the cap required no post, he filled the excavation in much the same way as any prepped cavity and capped it off. No metal involved, much to the loss of another buddy who has a patented technique in gold based construction. All the work I am aware of is now done by casts. By the way, the profit margin is HUGE for the dentist. He easily pays only $100 for the cap from the laboratory. I can only hazard a guess to what you pay the dentist (me, about $600). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 02:17:36 -0700, "Ed Price" wrote: Richard, you gotta pay closer attention to what the doc is doing inside your mouth! Caps have a ceramic layer atop a metal (titanium?) mandrel. And even more fun is that there's a rather large and long stainless steel post that was drilled down to nearly the end of the root of that tooth. Hi Ed, I know the dentistry business quite intimately. I help a buddy out with new dentistry technologies. What you describe are rather old techniques. My dentist built up a cap in the office on an NC machine in 15 minutes to replace one that had been built without any coloring (it was as white as chalk). I've only had one root canal after the dentist got tired of waiting for years to fix the abscess (never bothered me as much as it did him). Even then, the cap required no post, he filled the excavation in much the same way as any prepped cavity and capped it off. No metal involved, much to the loss of another buddy who has a patented technique in gold based construction. All the work I am aware of is now done by casts. By the way, the profit margin is HUGE for the dentist. He easily pays only $100 for the cap from the laboratory. I can only hazard a guess to what you pay the dentist (me, about $600). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Well, I'm an old guy! I grew up being conditioned to having carries drilled and filled. (Never did the orthodontia route though.) I then graduated to the next life-phase, wher the carries became multi-surfaced. That morphed into putting on caps. And then the cap jobs moved onto crown jobs. Now I've got myself my first bridge; hey, I finally own a bridge! Yeah, crowns are about $600 in Southern California too. Been a while since I bought one, but I did know about the mark-up. Unfortunately, do-it-yourself dentistry is quite difficult. I find it interesting that many local dentists are still one-man shops, while individual practitioner physicians are almost extinct. I had talked with my dentist about advanced lab techniques like you described; but she got a misty look in her eyes as she described the financial aspects. Anyway, as it is now, I've got enough metal bits in my mouth that I could probably qualify as a diplexer on some band. Ed wb6wsn "You will feel a slight pressure." "Is it safe yet?" |
The material in fillings has changed. One of the more prominent cases
involved Lucille Ball during WW2. She had come from the dentist and picked up a radio It was traced to a Japanese gardner. He was sending ship movements back to Japan. He was arrested as a result. Or so the story goes, YMMV. Back in the AM days, my wife came running into the shack yelling she could hear me on the stove. The old gas stove had carbon deposits that apparently actied like a rectifier when a pot was placed on the burner. "SpamHog" wrote in message om... In the 1920's and 1930's there were scores of people claiming to "hear radio in [their tooth cavity] fillings". Today, we have more people in more countries with more tooth fillings near more (and more powerful) transmitters than ever before, yet nobody claims to hear radio in their teeth. The focus has shifted to other, more fashionable sources of radiation, such as cellphones. It all boils down to whether low-level, non-ionizing radiation has any effect at the molecular level or not. Conventional wisdom had it that being that radiation non-ionizing, if its intensity was short of sufficient for inducing macroscopic heating, it would not be harmful. On the other hand, heating had long been tied to cataracts and male sterility, and of course to burns. In recent years, it was discovered that many birds had the capability to convert the earth magnetic field into electrochemical nerve signals. As microscopic magnetic crystals were found in birds' brains (and later in humans' brains as well), speculation is now focusing on the possibility that physical effects may have some heretofore unnnoticed chemical impact too. Bad statistical manipulation is easy to spot, bad data much less so. As an RF addict and a statistics aesthete, I hope research will continue, but I am not terribly concerned. |
Fred Hambrecht Sr - Gilbert News wrote:
Back in the AM days, my wife came running into the shack yelling she could hear me on the stove. The old gas stove had carbon deposits that apparently actied like a rectifier when a pot was placed on the burner. Back in the 50's, the local Assembly of God church installed an audio amplifier. Many of the congregation said they could hear the Voice Of God coming out of the amp when nobody was speaking. Turned out, it was My voice. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
The material in fillings has changed. One of the more prominent cases
involved Lucille Ball during WW2. She had come from the dentist and picked up a radio It was traced to a Japanese gardner. He was sending ship movements back to Japan. He was arrested as a result. Or so the story goes, YMMV. http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/fillings.htm http://www.cord.edu/dept/concord/iss...ions/cody.html http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=367925 -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR |
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:26:56 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote: http://www.cord.edu/dept/concord/iss...ions/cody.html When the nervous old maids of the neo-con persuasion look under their beds for nightmares, they find towering villians: Lucille Ball was just one of many Hollywood elites that were unabashed Communists We're lucky she passed on before GW had her shipped to Gitmo. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com