Slashdot Mirror

I'm sorry that you're angry that you got modded down. It may surprise you in your impotent interweb rage that I read that source (not only the wikipedia entry, but the actual SOURCE cited for the line you quoted, which incidentally does NOT contain a breakdown of the proportions between deaths caused by secondary infections and those directly attributable to the flu) prior to making my original posting. If you read my post, you will see that it acknowledges both the role of the secondary pneumonia infections and of the virus itself, and is in no way contradicted by what you wrote in reply, especially since you acknowledge the unusually virulent nature of the virus itself that year.

Your original post did nothing to address that poster's speculations about genetic mutation (which ostensibly would also account for why that strain of flu made one more susceptible to secondary infections than past strains had). In fact, nothing in your post indicated that you understood that antibiotics have no effect on viruses. There are enough people in this discussion, and in general, who believe taking an antibiotic will cure them of the flu, and this overuse is one of the reasons why we have an increasing problem with strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria. It was completely reasonable on my part to point out that antibiotics would not have had any impact on the viral infections.

"Why so short-sighted? Why is it so important that something pay off tangibly within 25 years? Some of the great strides in medication today are applications of HEP-ph of the 30s and 50s that we continue to refine. Who knows what the future holds?"

Because the money in the here and now is finite, and decisions about allocating it need to be made with that in mind. E.g, not all states in the US fund deep brain stimulation treatment for Parkinson's disease; if the US federal money spent on nuclear research were distributed to the states for the sake of DBS, then thousands of people and their families would have a hugely-improved quality of life for months on end, something that is preferable, for most people, to years of research without any significant advance.

Evidence that eating foods with more sweeteners leads to greater obesity, which in turn leads to diabetes? Do I really need to cite studies for something so commonly accepted? Okay, here's a good start:

http://news.healingwell.com/index.php?p=news1&id=521780
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/941223597.html
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/uvahealth/adult_diabetes/obover.cfm

I'm not saying that all type 2 diabetes is caused by obesity---it is well established that this is not the case---but it is well established that a fair percentage of people with type 2 diabetes became diabetic after gaining weight and that these people often cease to be diabetic after surgical intervention to forces weight loss. That's about as clear an establishment of causation as you can get.... The causative mechanism is even somewhat understood at this point.

Or did you mean the proof about the preservatives?

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science-Nutrition/FDA-re-opens-probe-into-benzene-contamination-of-soft-drinks

Follow the links from there for loads of info on this subject.

It is fairly well established that sodium benzoate when combined with ascorbic acid (sorry, wrong acid in my previous post... my bad) releases benzene, which is a well known carcinogen.

Word to the wise: if you're buying soft drinks or fruit juices preserved with sodium benzoate, be sure to drink them immediately. Don't let them sit on the shelf of your home. What you don't know can kill you.

The first time I remember hearing of the trick of using IR for deep tissue healing it was being investigated for healing the Bends in Navy Divers at the University of Wisconsin in 2000.
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/975450257.html

The theory then was that the IR was being picked up in the cytochrome in each mitochondria and thereby providing a direct power feed to each cell.
IR light forced more ATP generation at the mitochondrial level.

How the Hell Does this Work???

Well....
This was thought to bypass failing transport mechanisms (like the blood stream) to get past the circulatory damage that the Bends caused in divers.
I could see how this same 'trick' could bypass part of the failing circulation and neuron/neuron transport that might contribute to the body not being able to heal Alzheimer's Disease.

ATP is the general power currency off the bioworld, so this is the equivalent of broadcast power for each cell.
Tesla would be proud!

Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor, I'm a mad scientist.
(OK OK, I'm a biology student/researcher at the University of Kansas.)

Yes, there are some rare cases. However, the majority of fat people are not fat because of a thyroid problem. Using rare cases as a counterexample is not a very good argument. Almost 1/3 of the people in the US are obese. That's disgusting. Thyroid problems do not account for that high of a percentage of people being overweight.

Whats this obsession with cleanliness.
Our immune systems need a good broad range of bacteria to learn to fight.
One day, we will be eating designer dirt tablets to boost our immune system.
So don't clean them... lick them!

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002421.html

You can find the official recommended intake amounts here though. There is 400 IU of vitamin D added to fortified milk (ref, so the article is recommending that one consume 1200 IU, but if you check the offical recommendations I linked to you can see they say 200 is enough. So they are saying the min. intake is currently too low, not just that people don't consume or synthesize enough due to inadequate sunlight.

        Another thing I found out is that you can't get an optimal amount of Vitamin D from supplements because it is all preformed vitamin D so your blood levels will track your intake, and nobody really knows exactly how much is best. When skin gets exposed to sunlight on the other hand, the vitamin D is stored and released appropriately to maintain the optimum concentration (assuming there's enough sunlight).....

Who said they were waiting to see that too much vitamin D causes some other serious illness? It causes "hypercalcemia", at least. If you were to consume a bottle of vitamin D supplements that would be lethal, if my memory serves correctly (and it's not a really small bottle). A bottle of halibut liver oil would also do it, though the vitamin A would get you first (In fact vitamin A overdose from consuming livers is how some arctic explorers died).

Can anyone make a useful comment about those sunlamp things, *please*? Do they output enough UV for vitamin D production? I have read that UV exposure below a certain intensity produces no vitamin d at all (it gets destroyed as a fast as it can be produced), but I don't remember the threshhold :(.... You also need UVB for vitamin D production, and I think most "sunlamps" or tanning lamps produce mostly UVA, as that can produce a tan but not a burn very easily. I think that would be the optimum solution - just point one of those sunlamp things at my chair and have it turn on for 15 minutes a day when I'm working. Apparently exposure of the face and forearms only, for 15 minutes at noon with clear skies at 75 degrees north, facing the sun, 3 times a week, is enough. Try getting a straighter answer from any other source - no, I had to cobble that together myself from the almost uselessly vauge recommendations authorities spit out and relative uvb intensities at my latitude.... to bad I forget the numbers I used. If you are behind a window it reduces the intensity of UVB by only about 10 percent. After 15 minutes or so the skin actually stops producing vitamin D so there's no point in exposing a specific area of skin for more than than amount of time in one day for this purpose. I think it takes at least 1 day to reset, but good luck finding that sort of thing out from medical literature...... I just want some dam numbers! If you get an "erythmal" exposure, that is past the saturation point. That's when your skin turns slightly pink, - from the UV, not the heat mind you-, and takes about 15 minutes in full sunlight.

http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-FAQ/ toc.html

I am not an expert, but it just fits into the several pieces of information I have. For a long time it was thought that nerve cells like in the brain does not regenerate. New connections between brain cells might be created, but dead brain cells cannot be replaced, so the absolute number of cells can only decrease. This seems to be wrong. It could be shown that learning a language actually increases the number of cells in certain brain areas. Dementia might at least partly the result of more cells dying than new cells formed. And this might partly be the result of life style. Knowing a second language simply might mean that one starts with more cells to begin with.

Similar effects should be possible by constant learning new and different stuff. I do suspect that learning one computer language might also qualify, but probably not learning a second or third. The second and third computer language might not require new cells, but only new connections when the secondary languages are 'explained' in terms of the first learned computer language. If someone is a technician, literature might help. If someone is proficient in humanities, dealing with math might be a good way to remain active.

http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa102199.h tm http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/926345803.html

And how often is (bad) respiratory depression encounted in hospitals?

Here's a hint In fact, morphine-related toxicity will be evident in sequential development of drowsiness, confusion and loss of consciousness before his respiratory drive is significantly compromised

Look here:

http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309054478/html/1.html

and here

http://infoventures.com/emf/federal/gao/health/gao ch1.html

and read the following:

Ahlbom, E Cardis et al: Review of the epidemiologic literature on EMF and health. Environ Health Perspect 109:911-933, 2001.

KR Foster et al: Weak electromagnetic fields and cancer In the context of risk assessment. Proc IEEE 85:733-746, 1997.

JE Moulder: Power-frequency fields and cancer. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 26:1-116, 1998.

BE Butterworth et al: A strategy for establishing mode of action of chemical carcinogens as a guide for approaches to risk assessments. Cancer Letters 93:129-146, 1995.

GM Williams et al: Epigenetic carcinogens: evaluation and risk assessment. Exper Toxicol Pathol 48:189-195, 1996.

M Mevissen et al: Study on pineal function and DMBA-induced breast cancer formation in rats during exposure to a 100-mG, 50-HZ magnetic field. J Toxicol Environ Health 48:169-185, 1996.

LB Sasser et al: Exposure to 60 Hz magnetic fields does not alter clinical progression of LGL leukemia in Fischer rats. Carcinogenesis 17:2681-2687, 1996.

JE Morris, LB Sasser et al: Clinical progression of transplanted large granular lymphocytic leukemia in Fischer 344 rats exposed to 60 Hz magnetic fields. Bioelectromag 20:48-56, 1999.

  L Devevey, C Patinot et al: Absence of the effects of 50Hz magnetic fields on the progression of acute myeloid leukaemia in rats. Int J Radiat Biol 76:853-862, 2000

LE Anderson, JE Morris et al: Large granular lymphocytic (LGL) leukemia in rats exposed to intermittent 60 Hz magnetic fields. Bioelectromag 22:185-193, 2001.

YL Zhao, PG Johnson et al: Increased DNA synthesis in INIT/10T1/2 cells after exposure to a 60 Hz magnetic field: A magnetic-field or a thermal effect? Radiat Res 151:201-208, 1999.

I like that one the best. Both exposing to magnetic field and PRETENDING to expose to a field had the same result.

I found most of these studies at:
http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-FAQ

Yes, of course the basestation can use all timeslots, and average power could be = peak power.

The power from one GSM base station frequency channel is of the order 10 W. A typical three-sector base would have three channels, and would get a total of 22 useful channels. Statistically, the peak use is in the afternoon, when the averaged power is around 20 W. Short periods, maybe for 30 seconds a day or so, all time-slots and channels are used and the average power will be 30 W.

In one survey the number of channels spanned from one to five, where the total average power spanned 1 to 60 W. Thus an average lightbulb would outshine most basestations...

All this would of course be depending on the scenario, but this is roughly the situation. Averaging over 24/7 gives a much lower average power level. Can dig out some references, but they are probably in the deep strata in the heap of reprints under my desk...

Moulder's site http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/ toc.html has a lot of useful info on this topic.

See also for example http://www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p1 857.pdf on power density levels.

Sometimes it's really, really a good idea to go to the actual source: http://147.52.72.117/IJO/2003/volume22/number2/399 .pdf

"In total use of analogue
cellular telephones gave an increased risk with odds ratio
(OR)=1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.04-1.6, whereas
digital and cordless phones did not overall increase the
risk significantly"

They go on to show some increased correlation for digital phones for "ipsilateral" (same side) use, as well an increased correlation as time of exposure increases.

A more interesting question: what is it about people who use cell phones (esp. early adopters who heavily used analog phones) that increases their chance of brain tumors? Do they fly more? Are they more likely to be exposed to other environmental agents?

A very similar set of results came out about living near power lines. After the dust settled, it became clear that there wasn't a direct correlation, but that other factors (economic, access to quality health care) was the cause of a weak indirect correlation: http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-FAQ/ toc.html#1

If people fear electromagnetic (EM) radiation that much, wait until they read about EM fields. Maybe Gillette needs to start this paranoia to attack electric shavers. A good resource on the truth about EM fields, check out http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/static-fields-cancer-F AQ/toc.html

I'll call you on that one - the new iMacs, and even G5s had performance benchmarks that mattered very much for our research group. If you take a look at the page http://www.neuro.mcw.edu/afni_speedo.html , you will see benchmark results for several different types of machines, all running the same analysis on the same set of data. The new iMacs are barely slower than an Athlon 4000 when using a single thread, and even surpasses the old G5s and everything else when using 2 threads. This benchmark tests FP and memory access performance, and let's just say that with the current performance results, people ARE looking into getting more of these newer Macs.

And also keep in mind, when you go to 64-bit and Opteron/Pentium D class machines (as with the old G5s), you're moving up into another machine and price class. For 64-bit and the performance, these machines were VERY much worth it - both the old G5s (performance and larger memory space) and seemingly, the new iMacs (performance).

Another interesting paper on that, with lots of outside links to resources.

Apparently there is an "answer" but it is dependent on manner factors such as weather, location, skin tone and ability to absorb vitamin D. So, you would consult a doctor I guess to determine optimal exposure. My guess is that a safe bet would be to be outside in the sun for short periods of time at least once a day. By that I don't mean "sunbathing" though. CDC web site has some info.

Interesting URL:
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002458.html

Cut from Page:
"An initial exposure to sunlight (10 -15 minutes) allows adequate time for Vitamin D synthesis and should be followed by application of a sunscreen with an SPF of at least 15 to protect the skin. Ten to fifteen minutes of sun exposure at least two times per week to the face, arms, hands, or back without sunscreen is usually sufficient to provide adequate vitamin D."

Check this FAQ for good reference material. I started reading the author's work about power lines and antennas several years ago and he is a fact based resource for information about the effects of radio radiation. http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/ toc.html

"Yes long term exposure to power lines do cause cancer. Many states have laws that limit government and homes to certain distances to high powered lines."

Actually, the link between power lines and cancer is still tenuous at best. See this page for some details.

The author of that page says, "Overall, most scientists consider that the evidence that power line fields cause or contribute to cancer is weak to nonexistent." It seems that the sorts of fields setup by power lines don't seem to cause cancer in animals or adults. Chilhood lukemia looks like the only possible connection, and that evidence is still considered "weak" by the AMA.

I'm not sure if states have laws based on the idea that power lines cause cancer, but it would not surprise me. It would be far from the first time that legislators went off half cocked over bad or inconclusive science. This hardly proves the validity of the viewpoint.

Now I agree that GHz microwaves are a considerably different situation, but the issue of power lines should serve as a cautionary example that things (esp. in medicine) are not often as clear as a single study would suggest. We should wait for a scientific consensus to form before taking this too seriously, assuming the supposed risk isn't quite acute.

Apparently, Sydney Brenner, 2002 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and long-time geneticist, coined the phrase "junk DNA". He championed the pufferfish, due to it having a low amount of "junk DNA", to replace Drosophila as the best model organism on which to perform large scale metagenesis experiments. To paraphrase a quote from Dr. Brenner:

junk DNA != trash

http://big.mcw.edu/display.php/239.html

Seriously, I am on Cipro , second time for a bout of prostatitis myself, I waqs experiencing night sweats, heart pains and most disturbingly severe liver pain, after a ton of tests everything was Ok except I was still fevered and had the liver pain, all kinds of unexplainable and very serious seeming symptoms,

It turned out that My GALL Bladder is pretty much DOA , The coincidental timing with my prostatits was just bad luck.

I also have Reiter's Syndrome which can cause ALL Kinds of seemingly unrelated symptoms (INCLUDING HEART) AND IT generally goes hand in hand with prostatits in younger (under 40) men,

Mine was caused from a very serious bout as in nearly dead, case of Campylobacter.

Now I have just regined myself to taking lots of NSAIDS, for the arthritis part (but as many broken bones as I ve had its hard to tell if its from those or this) and dealin with a bout of the big P every other year or so. he heart issues are serious but treatable.

what you are looking for is an open-source DICOM Viewer. OpenRad is a great source for open source radiology projects and information.

Okay, firstly I'd like to point to an article stating that Japanese are more prone to alcohol poisoning than Westerners because they lack or are deficient in an enzyme required for to break the substance down. Ergo, people from different parts of the world have different reactions when exposed to the same substances.
There's a similar case here.
What got me thinking about this was that a friend of mine often does clinical trials, and he mentioned one 'live-in' trial, in which 50% of the people were British/caucasian, and 50% were of cantonese origin. The trial was for a drug which was already on sale in the US/Europe, but the corp wanted to open the Japanese market, and so it had to be tested all over again.
Apparently there were no side-effects for the western subjects, but their oriental counterparts were in need of diapers fairly soon.
If you are a medical expert, then you might like to read Geographical/interracial differences in polymorphic drug oxidation, and Prostate Cancer Test Works Well for Black Men, in which it is stated that Black males have more of a certain enzyme than white males.
Would it be so easy to find a mixture of 773 asians, orientals, afro-americans, latinos and caucasians in Delhi?

According to this page, it's a minimal risk. I remember a study a while back that said that communities that had standard household power lines running through the yards of the homes yielded a higher cancer rate, but now that seems to not be the case.

Better insulating perhaps?

This Henry Lai dude has shouted the wolf too many times. I do not believe him anymore. He has tried to prove that cell phones and power lines and everything related to electricity is dangerous and is going to kill us all. Believe if you want, but in the meantime, check the page about cell phones.

Why? Do magnets have cooties or something?

Since we have a tendency to revert to 25 hour circadian cycle anyway, it should be even easier for us to operate on a mars day than an earth day, as long as we don't have our cycle forced to reset by factors such as sunlight or alarm clocks.

As to the dusty solar panels -- I wonder why they don't build on a robotic arm to brush off the dust? There must be more to it than just dust, or it would seem like a small investment could greatly prolong the life of the mission.

Take a lookt at the Power Lines and Cancer FAQ and decide the risks for yourself. Then remember that you are sitting in front of computer monitor with a flyback transformer producing 20-30kV, and it is 2 feet from your head.

The IOC no longer sets anti-doping policy; that's the job of WADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency. WADA sets policy that governments and sports governing bodies are effectively obliged to implement, because if they don't the IOC can yank their right to appear at the Olympics.

WADA has just decided to remove caffeine and pseudoephedrine from the 2004 Prohibited List, and while this hasn't beem explained by WADA, the presumed rationale is that while they definitely have performance-enhancing (ergogenic) effects, these two substances do not pose a substantial threat to health. It's a controversial move.

Similarly, there have been calls for the control of use of creatine, which is also generally accepted to have some fairly minor ergogenic effects; but any health negatives are unproven, so it hasn't been controlled.

Just about everything that is on the controlled list does have negative health effects. Control of drugs in sport is supposed to be about protecting the health of athletes, though this point usually gets lost in drug-warrior ranting about catching 'cheats'.

Health is the only remotely rational basis for restricting what substances and methods athletes may or may not use to enhance performance, in my opinion. The alternative is hand-waving about fairness and the purity of sport, and arbitrary decisions about what is therefore permitted and what isn't.

However, I think a precautionary principle should also apply: if an ergogenic substance or method is not demonstrated to pose a nil or very low risk to athlete's health it should be banned. The idea there is to discourage athletes from messing about with experimental drugs and techniques that may turn out to have negative effects in the long term.

Ergogenic gene therapy gets caught by the precautionary principal. It's way to early to tell if it's even safe for people whose lives it might save (and I hope for the sake of people like the poster with Cystic Fibrosis and Celiac Disease that it does turn out to be safe and effective). There's no way we should be letting athletes mess about with gene therapy just so they can kick a ball harder or run faster.

Blaming software fashions on SFV is just like blaming flu outbreak on a SVV (stupid virus victim).

Not so. The "stupid" part of SFV means something like "susceptible to memetic infection". So in making an analogy with biological viruses, you'll need to change "stupid" to something which connotes susceptibility to viral invasion (such as sleep deprivation, old age or stress).

If you are concerned about these issues, you should regularly consult prof John Moulder's site Cellular Phone Antennas (Mobile Phone Base Stations) and Human Health. There you can find for instance, that there are other studies on the same subject that find no effect on the blood-brain barrier.

Cheers.

3.6*900 = 3.2 watts

Your 600W microwave simulates cooking at 300W when you put it on Defrost NOT by halving the GaAs oscillator's Vds but by running the GaAs at full power for 10 seconds, then stopping it for 10 seconds. In other words, once your food starts cooking, if you remove the heat it doesn't become raw again - it's a cumulative chemical change.

The issue is does the 200W GSM pulse trigger even a small amount of your brain to cook? If so the damage is cumulative.

So you can cook a man's brain with 200W in one second, or you can cook a man's brain with 10,000 x 200W 0.1ms pulses
GSM has chosen the latter (unless being a living organism the brain's self-repair can detect and replace the cooked cells, but usually with repetitive damage cells become irreparably precancerous like in Barrett's Sydrome).

As an alternative to pop, I switched to tea. Iced, hot, whatever. As long as you drink it without putting any sugar in it, it's a nice choice to have besides just water. I figure it's probably ok for you, as when my grandma recently found out she was diabetic, her dr. told her she could drink as much tea as she wanted without causing problems with her diet. It seems to be helping me lose weight, just because all the empty sugar calories from the soda aren't in my diet anymore. And I really like it!

As a bonus, it's been suggested there are other health benefits to drinking tea.

Interesting, but as a "cell-phone-cancer freak" (who works with someone that will quite likely be dead by the end of the year from brain cancer that started right where his cell phone used to live, on the left side just above his ear) I'd like to something more rigorous than a back of the envelope calculation by an anonymous self-proclaimed physical chemist.

I know there are no studies showing a link, and a good body of work discussing this (references), but I think I'll wait another 10 years before I really believe it. There hasn't been enough long-term study yet to suit me (and if we're throwing out creds, I'm a physicist so I understand most of what I read in these journal articles)

Two watts? Are you on crack? Try 600 - 125 milliwatts.

You can use the convenient online pregnancy calculator for this sort of thing.

Dude, do not tie you panties in a knot. 400 people around you will need to shove their wi-fi up your ass and wrap you in tin foil for you to absorb all that energy. Not that it is entirely impossible, it's for you to tell, but for most of us - highly unlikely usage pattern.

Some data HERE

Found a nice page with info on power lines and cancer. A choice quote...

Calculations show that the typical maximum power radiated by a power line would be less than 0.0001 microwatts/cm^2, compared to the 0.2 microwatts/cm^2 that a full moon delivers to the Earth's surface on a clear night.

I dunno, but...

Do laboratory studies indicate that power-frequency fields can cause cancer? Short answer, no. There's a ton of good info on that site.

... Having such a cable to your home (dsl or power line) is like having a big powerful antenna into your home.

What about the impact on our health? I know, the impact of high frequency magnetic fields is not fully studied, and even scientists disagree... So aren't we pushing for radio-antennas to stay far away from our homes? Didn't someone tell us, that having a cellular phone near our brain may cause damages? And now we want this high-frequency antennas to our homes, and to our desktop???

"Don't Panic!" -- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Short answer: If there's any real threat from non-ionizing EM radiation, then well over a decade of research by lots of different groups hasn't found it. (And, they've been looking hard too. Finding a threat would bring a big budget increase. ;^)

But, don't take my word for it. Rather than relying on what "somebody" said, check out this FAQ Cellular Phone Antennas (Mobile Phone Base Stations) and Human Health from the Radiation Oncology department of the Medical College of Wisconsin. It has a fairly comprehensive treatment of the subject.

They've got other EMF related FAQs, too:

• Static Electric and Magnetic Fields and Human Health
• Power Lines and Cancer FAQs

Anyway, the actual signal power levels on this scheme will be fairly low. In fact, most home power lines are "noisy" with EMI right now. That's a problem for signal processing, but my point is -- adding a modulated signal to all the crap that is already there would be no real change from a "health" aspect, if any such thing exists at all....

... Having such a cable to your home (dsl or power line) is like having a big powerful antenna into your home.

What about the impact on our health? I know, the impact of high frequency magnetic fields is not fully studied, and even scientists disagree... So aren't we pushing for radio-antennas to stay far away from our homes? Didn't someone tell us, that having a cellular phone near our brain may cause damages? And now we want this high-frequency antennas to our homes, and to our desktop???

"Don't Panic!" -- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Short answer: If there's any real threat from non-ionizing EM radiation, then well over a decade of research by lots of different groups hasn't found it. (And, they've been looking hard too. Finding a threat would bring a big budget increase. ;^)

But, don't take my word for it. Rather than relying on what "somebody" said, check out this FAQ Cellular Phone Antennas (Mobile Phone Base Stations) and Human Health from the Radiation Oncology department of the Medical College of Wisconsin. It has a fairly comprehensive treatment of the subject.

They've got other EMF related FAQs, too:

• Static Electric and Magnetic Fields and Human Health
• Power Lines and Cancer FAQs

Anyway, the actual signal power levels on this scheme will be fairly low. In fact, most home power lines are "noisy" with EMI right now. That's a problem for signal processing, but my point is -- adding a modulated signal to all the crap that is already there would be no real change from a "health" aspect, if any such thing exists at all....

... Having such a cable to your home (dsl or power line) is like having a big powerful antenna into your home.

What about the impact on our health? I know, the impact of high frequency magnetic fields is not fully studied, and even scientists disagree... So aren't we pushing for radio-antennas to stay far away from our homes? Didn't someone tell us, that having a cellular phone near our brain may cause damages? And now we want this high-frequency antennas to our homes, and to our desktop???

"Don't Panic!" -- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Short answer: If there's any real threat from non-ionizing EM radiation, then well over a decade of research by lots of different groups hasn't found it. (And, they've been looking hard too. Finding a threat would bring a big budget increase. ;^)

But, don't take my word for it. Rather than relying on what "somebody" said, check out this FAQ Cellular Phone Antennas (Mobile Phone Base Stations) and Human Health from the Radiation Oncology department of the Medical College of Wisconsin. It has a fairly comprehensive treatment of the subject.

They've got other EMF related FAQs, too:

• Static Electric and Magnetic Fields and Human Health
• Power Lines and Cancer FAQs

Anyway, the actual signal power levels on this scheme will be fairly low. In fact, most home power lines are "noisy" with EMI right now. That's a problem for signal processing, but my point is -- adding a modulated signal to all the crap that is already there would be no real change from a "health" aspect, if any such thing exists at all....

Yup, I agree with you. For an in-depth look at the evidence, take a look at the Cellular Phone Antennas (Base Stations) and Human Health FAQ maintained by Dr. John E. Moulder, Prof of Radiation Oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin. He goes through the available literature and issues in exhaustive detail. It may be a while before the Epidemiology article is included, though.

Short answer: There is no replicated and verified risk factor found with the radiation from cell phones. Enough studies have been done over the years to limit any potential risk to a very small value. The known risks due to distraction from driving are much greater. (Although I find the distraction from a cell phone conversation much less than 2 or 3 kids fighting in the back seat. ;^)

Executive Summary of Short Answer: Don't worry about it. It's not a problem. All the uproar is just to sell books and push certain political agendas.
--

Did you read the article from the Medical College of Wisconsin?

IANAD, but I seem to recall something called the Scientific Method, which is the accepted way by which scientists, collectively and over time, construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of our existence. The researchers are in the middle of that process now, so you should probably hold off on your judgements until they're finished. Then, maybe you'll have something 'a little bit more convincing'.

Then again, maybe not.

--

Maybe. Until there's any reason to think that cell phones really do cause cancer, why give people ideas?

Regardless, such a wavier could note that the chances of future research revealing a non-zero cancer risk can be bounded by present research to be pretty dern low.

For details, see the FAQ file Cellular Phone Antennas (Base Stations) and Human Health maintained by Doc Moulder, prof of Radiation Oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

(There are a number of other useful EMF FAQs available at the same site.)
--

Did anyone ever conclusively prove that power lines caused brain tumors? If not, I think we've found them a volunteer...

Short answer: Despite looking since the '80s, there is no solid evidence that any kind of EM field from power lines cause cancer of any sort. There is a slight correlation between working in an electrical profession and cancer, but that is probably due to the chemicals used, or something.

Check out the Power Lines and Cancer FAQs maintained by John E. Moulder, Ph.D, Radiation Oncology prof of the Medical College of Wisconsin. Doc Moulder also has some other EMF / cancer websites.
--

Neitz Color Vision Lab

While there are some interesting bone therapies that use low frequency, I just don't see the problem with microwaves. I knew someone with a degenerative hip. Part of his therapy was to wear a pair of magnets strong enough to make a phone reciever hum. It was not a good thing to put on the head! But don't listen to me, trust some of these folks intead:

Here, for those who have asked, are some more specific links about cell phones. http://www.mcw.edu/gc rc/ cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.html http://www.foxnews.com/sci enc e/junkscience/000721.sml http://www.microwavenews.com/makesense.html

How much money has to be spent before this issue dies? I don't know, there's money in it.

Poster worries about the health of people who use cell phone while driving, mountian climbing, skakeboarding, bike riding, you get the picture. Poster does not own a cellphone, because it cost too much.

For those interested, a very level-headed, well researched FAQ on "Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health" can be found at http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.html. It is very good reading for anyone concerned about this topic.

The FAQ has some interesting information about how the writers of most of those "cellphones cause cancer" papers, which get picked up by the media in no time, have actually no tenure at any universtity and how their papers haven't undergone peer-review.

I work at a research institute of the University of Helsinki and ever so often we get long letters and research "papers" by people certain of having found ways to explain quantum gravity / the universe / theory of everything. These papers are nothing more than comic entertainment for us and a freetime hobby for whoever is sending them. As long as it's theoretical physics no-one cares. However, write a paper about cancer and cellphones and you may actually get some attention and perhaps even money. As long as your name has a PhD. in front of it the media wont bother to mention that you're actually unemployed or that your paper hasn't actually been published.