| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
August 17th 04, 06:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#2
August 17th 04, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#3
August 17th 04, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#4
August 17th 04, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Only if you take the talk shows seriously. |
|
#5
August 17th 04, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#6
August 17th 04, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#7
August 17th 04, 11:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#8
August 18th 04, 12:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#9
August 18th 04, 12:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
August 18th 04, 06:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| What about digital radio? | Antenna | |||
| messing with a car radio | Antenna | |||
| What Exactly is a Radio Wave? | Antenna | |||
| How to connect external antenna to GE Super Radio III | Antenna | |||
| Review: Amateur Radio Companion 3rd Edition | Antenna | |||
Linear Mode
