Slashdot Mirror
AM Radio Waves May Be Harmful?
Klar writes "Wired News reports that: 'Korean scientists have found that regions near AM radio-broadcasting towers had 70 percent more leukemia deaths than those without.' The article continues: '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.' While 'their study did not prove a direct link between cancer and the transmitters', the FDA and the World Health Organization are urging more studies, especially of radio waves from cell phones."
afaik cell phones do not use AM frequencies, right?
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Although I can't decide if it's a liberal conspiracy against Rush Limbaugh, a government conspiracy against Art Bell, or a gay conspiracy against Dr. Laura. They want them off the air whoever they are!
At my job we refer to our two way pagers as 'birth control.' We may have been right all along...
We liked pop, we liked soul, we liked rock, but we never liked disco
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Is there any alternative to using them?
I didn't think so.
We're dependent on radio whether we like it or not.
Add the fact that I live under a radio tower to the fact that I smoke, drink way more than I should, always have a cellphone and bluetooth headset near me, and work in a nuclear power plant, and I figure I'm doing pretty good!
"the World Health Organization are urging more studies, especially of radio waves from cell phones."
Isn't it already a known fact that cell phones cause cancer? Over here (Australia) they are always telling us that.
Have you metaroderated recently?
But cell phones don't work with AM, as this story more or less implies.
Wonder what this laptop, resting on my lap, cooking my legs with the battery, and my gonads with Wi-Fi is doing to me?
Get your own free personal location tracker
How is AM with their huge power and totally different band have anything to do with any of the PCS bands and their relative piddly power for health effects?
-- dieman - Scott Dier
Sean Hannity causes illness and disease in any band, or medium.
If you think
I think there's a difference between living near a 50,000 watt transmitter and a ~1 watt cell phone.
I think that the studies may have been looking at the wrong radio frequency. I know that the majority of what is on the radio waves of FM radio is slowly killing me. :)
... in medicine, and one in physics, and probably one in chemistry, waiting for anyone who can demonstrate a possible mechanism of action for health effects of non-ionizing radiation at athermal levels.
Let's see it happen. Personally, I think that if there were a smoking gun here, it would have been found at some point in the last hundred years. There have always been confounding factors in these alarmist studies. Always.
...in 3...2...1...
Every one, put on your tin foil hats!
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
Rush Limbaugh is broadcast on AM!
(And to balance things out, so is Al Frankin IIRC, but I wouldn't compare the two)
these AM towers were also located in highly populated areas, meaning other factors including pollution could have been the cause of the higher rates of cancer.
Funny how you have to be exposed to things for a few years to get cancer, etc so you can then *prove* that they are harmful. I for one am a proponent of the California "you must use a headset for your cell phone when driving" law just for reasons such as this article pointed out. Tests have shown that using headsets, especially in-ear style ones direct more cellular radio waves directly into your brain. So if the state legislates that headsets must be used if operating a motor vehicle, then I get a huge cancerous lump in my temple and resultant brain cancer, I can sue my state for millions. Of course, it'll inevitably go class action... so all of us with brain tumors will get about $25.00 each when all is said and done.
Nonetheless, after reading about toxic power supply dust from my computer and now AM radio waves, plus the stresses that are added with an always-on, get-it-right-now environment, one must truly respect the simpler life of a few decades ago.
due to living in the path of a radio tower. Whether you liked his work or not, we can all appreciate that inhaling huge quantities of blow had nothing to do with it as this latest research indicates.
Oh yeah... and Elvis is dead too. Had nothing to do with peanut butter & bananna sandwiches or drugs... nope... Graceland was just down the hill from a big 'ol King sized radio tower.
Did I mention "King sized"? Since his name came up, Stephen King is still very much alive. But Catherine Zeta Jones and that "Can you hear me now?" guy are looking pretty mortal at this point.
--Rob
You know, I used to see things first on /. and second on Fark. When did it switch? It's pretty sorry when you're a supposed news site duping a site where every third article is "Not Safe for Work".
Hmmmm. -1 Flamebait? -1 Troll? Mod me down baby! I crave rejection!
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Do not taunt the XM.
IIRC, other tests have shown that FM waves cause cancer, also.
It's really not a surprise that massive doses of a high-range frequency will cause mutations (i.e.; radiation, which does cause cancer, and has a higher frequency) - this may be simplifying excessively, but it seems that you'd be vibrating the DNA loose.
Thus, this study might just be showing that people who live in urban centers have higher a higher rate of certain cancers. Which isn't surprising in the least.
it's making you go blind.
I take it that Dijkstra the radio scientist just published a paper.
So "near" means "within two kilometers"? Given the inverse square law, isn't that close to meaningless? Someone two kilometers from a tower would get a small fraction of the exposure of someone 1/4 kilometer from it.
There might be something going on, but the cause might be something else entirely: for instance, the best neighborhoods with the best health care tend not to be near radio towers.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Frylock: "It's emitting radition."
Shake: "Yeah, but like, you know, the good kind, right? Like how they find tumors and gave Spider-Man his powers and stuff."
Frylock: "No Shake. The bad kind. The other kind. The kidney losing kind."
and that tinfoil stops RF waves.
To summarize,
Higher density of RF waves at night
Tinfoil blocks RF waves
Putting these two together, we can conclude that wrapping your body in tinfoil when you sleep at night will reduce your risk of developing RF related complications by >50%:
Its just another in a long line of studies. We've had them come up too often only to be non conclusive.
The main factor is the control(IE, what they are comparing it with)
Heck if its true with all the AM, FM, WiFi, infrared and the whole spectrum of radiation, I should be dead by now.
So, they developed this hobby of knocking down AM towers.
To fight this evil, the government release the Orcs from their Maximum Security prisons and got them to guard the towers with their life.
But, the Goblins had one more trick up their sleeves - Magical Underwear.
Now, this brand of undies granted them super-goblins strength - capable of pounding Orc flesh into dust!
The Orcs created this huuuge scene. They're such pussies sometime, y'know?
No, no this is silly. No, the whole premise is silly and it's very badly written. So I'm stopping it.
You can't do that!
I've done it. The post is over.
It's only 'cos you couldn't think of a punch line.
Not true, not true!
afaik RF does not strip electrons from atoms, create free radicals which cause dna damage.
sure RF (microwaves) can cook you, but that's an entirely different story. afaik heating tissue does not cause cancer -- one would expect stastically significant increase of cancer in burn victims if that were true.
are there other mechanisms for cancer / leukemia other than dna damage?
Repeat after me: correlation is not causation. Yes, people near power transmission towers and antennas get cancer more frequently. But poor people tend to live in the houses next to unsightly power lines or antennas. And poor people have higher cancer risk, because they tend to be exposed to more pollution and hazardous substances, live under higher stress, and are less likely to get proper health care. Besides, you get more radation from your cellphone.
314-15-9265
Maybe not in the grand scheme, but in the end you still have a brain tumor. Just don't use your cell while driving instead.
"There have been many studies like these, and they aren't very convincing," said Mary McBride
Irony, anyone?
This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the video star.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
for non ionizing radiation to cause cancer
a nobel prize awaits if you figure it out
I work now for an ISP, and before my boss got into the internet business, he worked as a tech for a number of local broadcasters, spending three consecutive days in the "doghouse" as the basxe of the towers. All three of the other men he worked with died of cancer before they were 60.
.5 watts, a car phone or bag phone at 6-ish, and WiFi doesn't take a whole lot more, to my reccolection.
An in respect to the Wi-Fi and cell phone comments, I hate to be a wet blanket, but a cellphone operates at
AM transmitter antennas work best when placed in locations with good ground conductivity...such as swamps and other low places. They also get placed near occupied areas (short range) and where the land doesn't cost much (like old industrial areas)
Doesn't this sound like it might correlate with pollution enough to affect the results???
That's usually where the AM transmitting antennas are located (to maximize broadcast distance, of course). I'm guessing it's a lack of oxygen that's causing the higher cancer rates.
And don't overlook this point: Poorer neighboorhoods have things like AM radio towers (and high tension lines) in them. Poorer people live less long than wealthy people. (Not a value judgement; it's the sad truth.) I didn't see much in the FA about correcting for this difference.
Best Buy can have you arrested
100,000 live near AM transmission towers.
100,000 live far from AM transmission towers.
17 people who live near AM Transmission tower
get leukemia.
10 people who live far from AM transmission tower get leukemia.
So AM transmission towers cause 70% more cancers?
Don't panic folks. There's probably small sample sizes and correlation may not imply causation.
Sometimes poor, sick people can only afford to live in undesirable places, like next to a AM transmission tower. This doesn't mean that AM transmission made them sick.
Perhaps the population who lives close to AM towers are lower class than those who don't live next to AM towers and as such smoke tobacco more or don't eat salads as much...
Other factors could be contributing after all..
...everybody in Cincinnati (home of WLW) has recently been diagnosed with leukemia and/or cancer.
Where "living" means confined to a point? People walk around. They might have friends a few blocks away, maybe they jog.
Radiation might fall with the inverse square, but what happens when you integrate over the 1km radius in which people tend to "live"?
Imagine the effects of a Beowulf cluster of them!
I've been carrying a cell phone hooked to my right-side belt clip next to my hip every day for 7 years, using an earbud headset connected to it and letting the phone transmit while still attached to the belt clip. Lately I've been having pain inside my right hip, directly under where the cellphone has been riding all these years. I just went to the doctor, and an x-ray reveals a small lump growing on my hip bone. The doctor wants to have a biopsy done. This is pretty fawking frightening stuff. I used to think the cellphone-cancer stuff was a bunch of hogwash too, now I might be facing a bone tumor from it.
http://infoventures.com/private/federal/q&a/qa-hlt h3.html
A. In late 1992, researchers in Sweden reported results of a study of cancer in people living near high- voltage transmission lines. The Swedish study generated a great deal of interest among scientist, the public, and the news media. Relative risk for leukemia increased in Swedish children who lived within 50 m (164 ft) of a transmission line. The risk was found also to increase progressively as the calculated average annual 50-Hz magnetic field increased in strength. However, the risk calculations were based on very small numbers of cases (see summary below).
The Swedish researchers concluded that their study provides additional evidence for a possible link between magnetic fields and childhood leukemia. However, scientists have expressed differing opinions about this study. Some scientists believe the study is important because it is based on magnetic field levels presumed to have existed around the time the cancers were diagnosed. Others are skeptical because of the small numbers of cancer cases and because no cancer association was seen with present-day magnetic field levels measured in the home.
There are about 70 new cases of childhood leukemia per year in Sweden. The National Electrical Safety Board of Sweden estimates that if, as this study suggests, living overhead transmission lines increases a child's risk of developing leukemia, then approximately two children per year in Sweden would develop leukemia as a result of living near such power lines.
I wonder what Wi-fi will do to us, since all of us are going to be surrounded by it more and more. Here is what Google thinks about +wi-fi +cancer. And then there is Bluetooth...
Simpy
to be the leaking nuke that was upwind.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Do freak hotspots never occur in urban environments?
I've long felt that right-wing talk radio was harmful. It's nice to have scientific proof.
Radiation damages chromosomes. Enough chromsomal damages cause cancer.
Providing overwhelming evidence for it or demonstrating it in the lab with mice is the hard part.
Quite a few years back I was working for NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia) One of the studies that we were working on was the effect of mobile phone radiation on humans. All the talk of mobile phones causing cancer is BS.
Why can I not mod a message to crap?!?
Anyone have stats of 802.11 power?
is that the ridicule of fear-mongering has reached a point where it actually *is* insightful.
Now if his post had been mod'ed "informative" I think that would have been a real head shaker.
So here we have a study that has not even been published yet. It is likely that the article is based on a press release rather than a reading of the study in question. Because the study is not yet published we have no idea whether the methodology used is sound or not.
Furthermore, the few figures in the report are all shown as percentage probabilities. Probabilities represented as percentages can be very misleading. An increase from 1 to 2 is a 100% percent increase, but it is still only an increase of 1.
I'm afraid that, on the basis of this article, we can draw no conclusions about the safety or otherwise of AM transmitters. There simply is not enough information. So move along people, there's nothing to see here.
Radio waves are too long and "fat" in frequency (radio = low end of light thinger). Then micro waves, then IR, then good ol' ROYGBIV, then UV (which can be harmful due to its higher frequency), X-ray (small enough to get through most cells in your body, ohnoes), and gamma rays, which are so high in frequency that it is considered deadly radiation. Gamma rays can get through even the densest materials in our bodys.
;)
On the other hand, Spongebob might need to start worrying about radio waves with those big spongey holes and all.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
I've always said that listening to Country music an Golden Oldies is bad for your health.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
i don't own a fucking wireless router
I wonder if they took into account the fact that transmitters are usually placed in areas with a high population density. If you have 70% more deaths with 1000% more people, then it could be said that it reduces cancer.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Thalidomide
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Surprise surprise, all the highly rated posts say "those environmental wackos are at it again" and explain away the correlation with a variety of explanations that we are to accept as givens.
Realize this: There will never be a study "proving" the ill effects of non-ionizing radiation. Why? Find me a control group. You can't, not on this planet. A hundred years ago, when a five watt radio signal broadcast from New York could be heard in Miami, you might have been able to perform this study then. But now we're inundated with non-ionizing radiation, and unless you build a Faraday cage into about ten thousand homes and collect data over twenty years, you will never get "pure" numbers.
Why are you all so reluctant to even entertain the notion that non-ionizing radiation might create a health risk? Are you that in love with broadcast TV and Radio? Based on the attitudes I see here about the MPAA/RIAA, I find that hard to believe. So what is your explanation? A general love of all things electronic? The chance to pass down the mockery you got from the jocks onto the tree-hugging hippies?
I simplly don't understand the attitude most of you put forward regarding this issue. It's reckless and driven by emotion.
But don't worry, even if a study or three come out demonstrating a link between non-ionizing radiation and cancer risk, the EPA will sweep it under the rug when Infinity Broadcasting supresses the evidence under the Bush Administration's Data Quality Act.
"What I don't know can't hurt me" is not a particularly effective survival mechanism. Who knows, maybe we should be buying stock in Reynolds this very minute.
... in medicine, and one in physics, and probably one in chemistry, waiting for anyone who can demonstrate a possible mechanism of action for health effects of non-ionizing radiation at athermal levels.
There are plenty of such mechanisms. For example, just about any circuit with a nonlinearity (like most biological cells) near a radio station will pick up a small audio frequency signal. Those signals are strong enough to be audible in stereo equipment, telephones, etc. that aren't well shielded. And low frequency electrical signals definitely have biological effects.
Your problem is that you think of the radio transmitter just as a source of steady, high frequency radiation. That would indeed probably not have any biological effects. But that's not what real-world RF signals are like.
The question I have is what was used to clear the brush under the antennas.
The problem could be something other than the radiation, it could be the nasty chemicals used to keep the plants from taking over the tower.
This has been found to be a problem with powerlines in some cases, it could be part of the problem here as well.
The first thing that comes to mind is not always the real cause of the problem.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
thanks to hyperwrt!
Too lazy to code a link, google it.
I remember reading a (peer reviewed--as in not online) paper where the author was trying to show the rediculousness of this theory in their iontrap MS and appeared to show that bonds can be broken with soft radiation.
2 articles:
Applicability of discovery science approach to determine biological effects of mobile phone radiation
Proteomics analysis of human endothelial cell line EA.hy926 after exposure to GSM 900 radiation
Dyslexics have more fnu.
Let's see...
The Earth's magnetic field measures about 50 microTeslas.
Doing a google, I see that a person living directly under a power line would experience a field of 8-9 microTeslas. Listening to an AM receiver is about 10 microTeslas. None of this is much compared to the normal background magnetic radiation we all experience every day of our lives, so it's hard to see how any of this could have any effect on the human body.
On the other hand, I see that fridge magnets can measure up to 0.1Teslas on a gaussmeter, so maybe we should be worrying about the effect fridge magnets have on our food?
If they really knew what they were doing, they would have made note of what kind of music the stations were playing.
Remember to hold your breath next time you fill her up!
Unless of course you run a SUV holding your breath could kill you.
...good only toward a three-year contract after purchasing the top of the line phone. Oh, and that was a $10 Verizon, a $10 T-mobile and a $5 Sprint coupon, not one $25 coupon good toward three years of service on the company of your choice...
How much "radiation" do other electronic devices--iPods, CRTs, TVs, laptops, etc--emit compared to cellphones?
In other words, if the FDA and WHO are mildly worried about the possibility of cellphones causing cancer, how do other electronic devices rank in terms of potential (and yet, unproven) risk?
Now THAT's apparently a horror story!
The article says AM broadcasting towers, which means very little. TV signals (at least the NTSC based broadcast over the air in the States) use an AM like signal for the Video and an FM based audio, so depending on your definition they are both a FM and AM broadcast tower. .5 - 1.8 MHz), or do they mean shortwave (I think 3-30 MHz)?
For the AM broadcasting, do they mean the broadcast band (which I think for most of the world is in the range
I always take *anything* seen on television with a grain of salt... But from what I've seen of Penn & Teller's show, they're usually pretty much "on the money" in their main arguments.
No, it's not supposed to be an "unbiased" show at all. It's about expressing very Libertarian ideas and applying them to current events and political agendas seen in our daily lives.
Occasionally, sure, I think there are some strong arguments against points they're making which get glossed over or omitted. But in all fairness to the show they're trying to air, there's only so much you can cram in the short period of time they make each episode. It would be hard to so much as discern any "side" they were trying to take on a topic if they took out much more time than they do listening to the opposing views.
As it is, almost all their interviews with people (whether for or against their overall "argument" for the episode in question) are chopped up into little sound bytes/clips. I think their show would easily run at least twice the length it does now if it was done any other way.
That's a bogus argument...
If from standard radio bands were having ill effects on people, we would have seen studies revealing some increased rates of cancer in certain professions.
For example, cops cradling radar guns in their laps were found to have elevated rates of testicular cancer. Police unions were concerned that walkie-talkies would have the same effect, and conducted all sorts of studies that found no correlation.
Rumors about cancer causing power lines and cell phones have been around for ages. If they were true, somebody would have come up with more conclusive evidence.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
From the article:
50,000 watts is probably close to the legal limit for AM commercial stations in the US. I found Why AM Radio Stations Must Reduce Power, Change Operations, or Cease Operations at Night at the FCC (for US-interested readers.)
My father said that in the old days, the transmitter for a radio station in Texas was actually located over the US-Mexico border where the FCC power limitations did not apply. Dad said that he was able to receive this station with some regularity when he was growing up in Western Kentucky (which would have been in the late 1940s to late 1950s.)
Also, I remember Feynman talking about crystal sets, and saying that he could pick up WACO "in Waco Texas" as a child on a radio he puttered with as a child: that would have been in the late 1920's-1930's.
Any radio experts out there want to tell me if my Dad and Feynman were listening to the same station? And if so, what was its power?
I also remember from my amateur radio theory that the phenomena of atmo/tropo/iono/spheric layers changing as a result of the transition from day to night is slightly complicated by the numbers of layers (which represent different average states of ionization for particles at a particular altitude.) I believe the transition between one layer and the next represents an effective change in the refractive index (which is in turn related to the variable speed of light in a particular material.)
At any such boundary between average quantum energy states, there is an amplitude (possibility) for some of the energy of an incident wave to be reflected, and part of it to be transmitted (with the concomitant change in angle of transmission given by Snell's law.)
This reflection will take place at both the "inner" and "outer" surfaces of a particular layer. So in addition to the refractive bending of the earth's ionosphere, it is possible to have not just one-hop reflections off the "inner" surface of one layer, but extended "multi-hop" transmissions, where part of the wave makes it through the inner surface of the layer only to be bounced back by the outer surface of that layer, and then part of this once-transmitted, once-reflected energy leaks back down to the ground through the inner surface, while another fraction still is reflected back upwards from the inner surface for another shot at being reflected downwards...but at a much greater distance from the source. So at each pass, you lose energy, but you go this enormous distance.
So with layers appearing and disappearing all the time, I imagine experienced DX shortwave radio operators look at the ionization meterology data the way I as a web geek would look at an ever changing network status chart...
73 DE KD4WCN1. Radio stations tend to be located in more populated and therefore polluted areas.
2. Radio towers are unsightly and therefor e likely to be located in industrial areas. (not quite the same as #1)
And that's just off the top of my head...
Ahh, who needs real science when we can be over-the-top alarmists and therefore actually harm the case for environmentalism by discrediting all that are associated with it...
Such damn fanatical dumbasses make it harder to actually work with people to make this a cleaner and safer Earth.
Light pulsing at certain intervals can give you a fit. Who's to say that certain modulations at certain frequencies can't interact with your bone marrow in some -as yet undiscovered way- that can cause cancer?
It's a little shocking to see so many bright people here with clamped shut minds. Let these guys do their study. I'm sure they know as good as any ego here that "non ionising radiation doesn't cause cancer...blah blah blah". If we all went around not bothering to study things because we already 'knew' better, where the hell would be be today? They've found something, and they're going to study it. And then we'll know a bit more about the possible causes of cancer. Good!
Why has brain disease not tripled in Japan?
To shutdown Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Rielly and Michael Savage!
OH NO! The 'copters are back!
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
I have a conclusion... and now I'm gonna look for things that substantiate it, ignorign whatever conflicts with it...
That is in fact what you say they are doing (I do not know the program)
That is not a very good way to get a conclusion based on anything other then your beliefs.
When you are looking for Truth(tm), the first thing to learn is to recognize your own bias and get to know how it affects your perception of things (not that absolute truth exists.. or maybe it does, but I haven't heard of it yet.. yet you can try to look for it)
... is to minimize the sum probability of dying from either radiation or suffocation.
The only difference between AM and X-Ray is the frequency. There are various property differences, such as penetration and refelectivity, but generally, it's the same stuff.
Quantum mechanics shows that introducing energy into a system can cause the electrons to "jump" out of the normal band and into the conduction band. I'd suggest that according to QM, any energy can be ionizing radiation. Since I'm not going to get any points for this post anyway, that's good enough for the peanut gallery here.
We don't know what's causing all the tumours. As you say, they want to take a closer look to find that cause. Maybe it will be pollution from the swamp, or death rays from Mars, or maybe even the AM broadcasts. We don't know, but we should find out. It's a better use of funding than [generic flamebait reason].
Perhaps people are scared to take a good look because they don't want to think about how much damage all that naked surfing's been doing to their offspring.
I don't use a cellphone, but that's because I never have to call anyone, not because I'm afraid of baearain tmourus
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
These birds falling from the sky are a true observation in very-high-power RF systems. I have heard of this fenomenon occurring around (military/naval) high-power radar installations as well.
However, the cause of this effect is not at all related to the suspected relation between RF and cancer.
Things that drop dead nearly instantly close to transmitters (beit birds or careless engineers) generally suffer from thermal exposure - i.e. their (brain) tissue heats up to dangerous levels - very similar to putting a bird in a microwave oven and turning it on.
please explain a mechansim for non ionizing radiation to cause cancer
Cancer seems to be entirely explained by a small number of changes to cell DNA (perhaps as few as 6 or less, depending on the cancer type). Here are several ways this could be achieved by non-ionizing radiation:
First: Electric fields - transient or otherwise - can cause polar molecules or molecules with movable charges to align with the field, and be stressed by it.
DNA is such a molecule. It is of enormous length. In the presence of an electirc field it aligns with it. (Lined-up DNA strands are diagnostic of death by electrocution or lightning strike.)
The force on a molecule is proportional to the spacing of the charges and the potential difference across the field. The wider the separation of the charges, the stronger the force on the molecular backbone between them for a given field. DNA molecules are ENORMOUS, so if the field is strong enough to line them up, it could easily be strong enough to snap them once they're lined up. Even if not, uncoiling them, un-hairpinning them, and peeling them apart from binding protiens are likely to modify gene expression, switching genes on and off in ways not part of the normal mechanisms (with considerable opportunity for secondary effects leading to permanent damage to the DNA strand).
Second: Conductive structures of lengths with certain relation to wavelengths (such as 1/2, 3/2, 5/2 etc.) resonate. This allows multiple photons to dump energy into currents in the conductive structure, combining their energy. The currents can break the molecule, heat it, or otherwise promote its reactions with the molecules around it. There are also extremely strong electric fields at the ends of such structures, which could affect bonding of nearby molecules. Free radicals (with their cascading fallout of molecular damage) can be produced by such fields.
Again DNA, being very long and somewhat conductive, seems a likely antenna for such events. Such currents in the DNA strand could affect the strand itself, its regulatory neighborhood, or create enough chemical havoc in its vicinity to provoke damage to the gene.
Third: Many cell-surface proteins, including those regulating cell activity, are affected by cell membrane potentials. Electric and electromagnetic fields affect those potentials, and may result in activation (or deactivation) of such signaling paths. That could inappropriately modulate cell activity, in ways that stress the cell and increase the chance for DNA damage.
I could go on.
a nobel prize awaits if you figure it out
Unlikely.
This stuff is all pretty well known. To get a Nobel I'd have to prove it rigorously in a lab environment, produce some significant technologocial or theoretical fallout, come to the Nobel committee's attention, and win the annual political battle within the committee. And be a leader in the work. (Which seems unlikely, since the above phenomenon are already well known.)
So I'm not holding my breath waiting for the call in response to this post. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I always thought cancer was caused by specific mutations in DNA.
stendec@gmail.com
> The only difference between AM and X-Ray is the frequency. There are various property differences,
> such as penetration and refelectivity, but generally, it's the same stuff.
The only difference between a heating pad and a blowtorch is the temperature. There are various property differences, such as heat transfer and light generation, but generally, it's the same stuff.
Chris Mattern
Some studies (not from Sweeden) have also claimed to find a correlation between living near substations and some cancers (such as leukemia).
In addition to the issue of substations usually being in the poorer and more industrialized areas (which can be expected to have all SORTS of other pollution sources), substation transformers for a long time were filled with PCB (PolyChlorinated Byphenol), a very good fire retardant but an extremely nasty substance gene-damage wise.
It might be interesting to redo those studies and try to separate field and PCB effects.
(Then again, it might not. There was a BIG scandal recently. It turns out one of the main researchers claiming to have found a utility-company electric-field vs cancer linkage had been completely faking his data.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There does seem to be a correlation between the incidence of cancer and proximity to these towers. But rather than concluding that the AM waves cause the cancer, maybe having cancer causes people to be more likely to buy homes near AM transmitters. Hmmm...
It might be that a gene that predisposes you to cancer makes you prefer to live somewhere that gives you clear reception of the local cheesy pop music channel.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
there is also evidence that leukemia incidence is higher for powerline workers, radio operators and people living near high power transmission systems. it may not be the power fields themselves but the effects of those fields on nuclear particles.
I wonder how much am radio radiation a person gets from going to the beach... :)
what we really need is a giant sheild that surrounds the planet and blocks all radiation from the sun...think of all the cancer we could avoid.
stendec@gmail.com
Found this link on world wide brain cancer stats. And another one, here , on causes - though like any scientific stuff this is subject to change.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
When you have statistics as your only data and no matched control group, most of the correlations you can find will be coincidence or garbage.
Epidemiologists use the heuristic that they start paying attention when one group has three or more times the risk of another group.
>maybe we should be buying stock in Reynolds
Smoking is a good example: the risk of lung cancer among smokers is about thirty times higher than among nonsmokers.
>Find me a control group. You can't, not on this planet.
That's what lab studies are for. You can shield one group of rats from RF and microwave a genetically identical group. You can start from conception and have useful results in a year.
>Why are you all so reluctant to even entertain the notion that non-ionizing radiation might create a health risk?
After a hundred years of experience and a zillion negative lab studies skepticism is indicated. I'm willing to be surprised but I don't expect to be.
I'm sure that the property value / income / health care is lower around the towers than the control areas too.
Honestly, I'm just waiting for this statement to come out of a Scientist. It would get it over with and wouldn't spend millions of Dollars.
"If it is or uses either Electricy or a Chemical, and/or its not found in nature in any way, it will kill you slowly"
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
Did you read the actual publication
I'd like to. Got a link?
Never assume the authors of a paper have done proper statistical analysis. People fudge that stuff all the time. It's nice to see the raw data and the protocols. Providing data give others the opportunity to not only find problems with the study but also to enhance and find new things.
If it's AM-radio-specific, I can't help but think that the Starland Vocal Band must somehow be to blame..
microwave ovens work using the inconclusive principle that exposure to RF transmissions may cause a change. Basic RF theory that used to be published as FACT said that exposure to any RF transmission is un-safe. It is only the degree of exposure that is in question.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
The only difference between AM and X-Ray is the frequency.
The only difference between visible light and X-Ray is the frequency.
What was your point again?
everything in moderation
This is a much more insightful comment than its parent.
...what I've known all along: Rush Limbaugh causes cancer!
Please don't shoot me.
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
It's not a program about truth, it's about calling out liars.
My cousin was operated on for testicular cancer last summer. He blames using his laptop over his groin area while lying back in bed.
Meh.
From the article:
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.
Difficult to reproduce is sign No. 1.
I remember one swedish study that found if they simply drew the lines a little different, living near low frequency RF sources actually decreased the likelyhood of cancer. More importantly, once Sweden decided to move all schools away from low frequency RF (just in case), they were fortunately stopped when someone pointed out the additional milage on school buses would make the move away from RF sources more dangers (higher chances of car/bus accidents vs. any potental decrease in cancer risk.
I think 'effects too small to measure' is sign No. 2 of junk science.
Of course, all these AM radio antennas are probably on towers, and all these towers have red flashing lights.... The real culprit.TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
Tihs isa junk post to void my moderation damage
Hmm yes, I see.. you can tell out liars without knowing the truth maybe, but makign any convincing argument as to why they are liars without having an idea about the truth or something you can represent as such....
Alcoa bought Reynolds recently. Reynolds is just a brand name now.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Romans drank from lead pipes (and cups) for centuries, never realizing they were poisoning themselves. Is it that difficult to believe we could be doing something similar by barraging ourselves with radiation at all times? I think with the rapid technological progress we've made in the last two or so centuries we've become overconfident in ourselves and haven't taken the amount of time required to properly ascertain the potential problems we could be creating.
will develop cancer...
Oh well, what the hell...
For the record, I grew up approx half a mile from WSB 750, one of the few "clear channel" stations that operates at the max (50kW) day and night. And it's true you could get it all over the South at night. (It also had the nasty habit of playing in the background on phone lines when I was growing up - in fact it still does).
No cancer yet...
X-Ray is a wonderful example of EM radiation that does cause cancer. I believe they say ultraviolet, now, too, right? Increased risk of skin cancer in relation to the average amount of time spent in the sun.
In any case, the amount of power the human body absorbs from a 1500kHz AM signal is phenomenally small. The body is small compared to the signal wavelength (2m/200m=0.01 wavelength), which means it absorbs almost none of the radiated power. The only way it is likely to be a hazard is if you touch a conductor with considerable RF voltage on it. That could give you an RF burn.
Cool!
Yeah, dead birds in cornfields are such an uncommon phenomena. Especially around installations that disrupt their native habitat. /sarcasm
:)
No offense, really, but I suspect your professor was a city boy
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
OK, so we've heard the studies for and against EM causing cancer and other ill effects. How old are these towers... What about the effects of lead paint on the tower and runoff as it ages and gets washed away into the local water supplies? There are so many things to be considered in these situations - It could be something to do with the EM radiation - I have no doubt in my mind that living next to a high power transmitter would cause some unnatural biochemical events in the body, but under normal conditions? Probably not for the MW band.
I can see it coming now. Restaurants, shops, bars -- they all ban cell phone use. Reason: employees should not have to be exposed to all that second-hand radiation!
It's hard to draw conclusions about a program you haven't even watched, so I'd suggest checking out an episode or two.
What Penn & Teller are doing is largely modeled after "The Amazing Randy" - who made a career out of debunking claims of "supernatural powers" and the like from psychics, magician con-artists, etc.
Much of their first season focused on such topics as Ouija boards, quack medicine (magnet therapy, for example) and UFO abductions. They weren't exactly topics that were tough to make some logical assumptions about from the start.
...plus we evolved under it...
Why are you all so reluctant to even entertain the notion that non-ionizing radiation might create a health risk?
1. Because it is very hard to come up with a plausible mechanism whereby radiation that doesn't have enough energy to damage biological molecules can nevertheless produce biological damage.
2. Because the effects that have been reported have been smaller than is considered reliable in retrospective correlative studies of this sort, and many studies have found no risk.
Ever hear that Limbaugh character? Made me pull the radio out of my car...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I don't know. Maybe they have no brains.
And at the end of every Ice Age, there has been, uhhhh, global warming. Long before man and Hummers, Before Coal fired industry, etc.
How about just calling it a natural cycle.
No doubt all that polution is bad, though... Hell, I can't even stand to visit Denver. Moved to the Black(end) Hills 5 years ago from there, and All my allergies cleared up, and I can breathe... Now I can smell a single car, two blocks away... and not some smoking POS, any car. Deisel trucks gag you just driving by. I visit The big city, and eyes water, chest gets tight, and the stink is noticable. After 24 hours, I cannot smell it anymore. Then I get home, take a shower, and smell it all over again. And in big cities everywhere people LIVE in that shitty air.
The Sturgis rally just ended, and while it was going on, you could see and smell the pollution from the bikers.
However, after about 6 months of winter, You start to think that some global warming might be a pretty good idea.
Hell. Mod me up, down or sideways... I dont give a rats ass. Just had to get that off my chest.
Actually, a study or three demonstrating a statistically significant link between nonionizing radiation and cancer is exactly what I would expect, even in the absence of real harmful effects.
This is epidemiology--hardcore statistics. When determining the risk associated with some factor, you can never be entirely certain that the effects you see are 'real', and not just due to random clustering. Toss a coin ten times--you'd expect to get heads five or so times, but occasionally (1 time in about a thousand) you'll see ten heads in a row.
By making (generally reasonable) assumptions about the nature of the randomness in the data, scientists and epidemiologists tend to come up with one or more measures of how likely an apparent result is to be genuinely significant. Generally, a result is taken to be 'real' if there is less than a 5% chance that the result is the result of noise (a P value of less than 0.05). Alternately, a study may state an odds ratio and 95% confidence interval ("If you take drug foostatin you are 1.7 times more likely to have symptom bar (95% CI 1.4 to 1.95)") denoting that the relative risk is 95% likely to fall in the stated interval.
Under those circumstances, if the scientists do everything correctly, and account for every possible confounding factor, and do all their math correctly...that still leaves as many as one study in every twenty potentially reaching the incorrect conclusion.
The journal in question here--The International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health--isn't exactly a top-flight journal, either. I'm not at work at the moment so I can't check their archives, but their impact factor is fairly low. (Down to 0.924 in 2002, declining steadily since 1997.) Yes, impact factor is by no means the only criterion by which a journal should be judged--but Nature they are not. Unfortunately, the Wired article refers to an 'upcoming' paper, so I can't get at the publication cited.
Looking at the other paper mentioned in the Wired article demonstrates that Wired can't be trusted to accurately report the findings of scientific papers, either. Wired says:
The abstract of the original paper in the American Journal of Epidemiology says: (in part, emphasis added)
~Idarubicin
ever been to a US transmitter site? no? well, there are big yellow signs with a red triangle on them at the perimeter fence, saying that excessive amounts of RF energy found within the boundaries can be disruptive and may affect health. I forget what the radiative standard is, something on the order of a half millivolt per meter, at which the FCC requires these signs be posted.
long-term transmitter engineers, like HV and VHV linemen, tend to have a lot of cancer deaths. but when I grew up around all these guys, they smoked like chimneys and cleaned tools with gasoline as well. they sprayed lots of pesticides. they changed transmitter tubes without wearing masks (beryllium ceramics used in the tubes can cause berylliosis with the tiniest breath of chips or dust.) amazing any of them got to retirement parties.
also, notice how everybody says they need more studies when they publish a study. although "cell phones cause brain cancer, so fscking hang up and drive!" has been screamed from the treetops for 15 or so years, and "power lines cause childhood leukemia" has been around for 30 years, a funny thing happened on the way to publication. the only two large double-blind environmental studies to tackle these issues found no effect at all. none.
the power of microwaves to cook food was discovered in alaska when microwave techs with candy bars in their shirt pockets found after adjusting the dishes that their pockets were full of melted chocolate sludge on a cold tundra work shift. it is well known that directed or exceptionally strong RF fields, such as would be found in the open transmitters of the 20s and 30s or on broadcast towers, will cause cataracts. so there are federal limitations on exposure now in broadcast, and you can't go up a tower while the buzzbox is lit unless it's a pennywhistle station with a few hundred watts.
these are for the folks who are drowned in the beam, whose iPods wouldn't work and who, if equipped with pacemakers, cannot work the transmitter any more.
joe average on the other side of the fence? no problem.
another scare study, get fifty of them with good double-blind methodology and large enough controlled study groups to mean something statistically past four nines, and call me in the morning.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
shows that if you are located in a region where a study be being conducted you are 70% more likely to die.
"Tests have shown that using headsets, especially in-ear style ones direct more cellular radio waves directly into your brain."
Can you get a link on that? I see no reason why an earphone would be broadcasting the cell's signal, if this was true wouldn't there be antennas for cellphones that could plug into the headset port to improve signal?
Someone get a source on this if possible pls.
An example that says headsets reduce exposure
DON'T USE A FSCKING CELL PHONE WHILE DRIVING!
There is no need for it.
Never whistle while your pissing, and all that.
Being next to other Humans are dangerious to your health!
.... at least attempt to have a long term view of problems.
People defending DDT usage are eminent short termists, which could not care less about future generations as long as they are OK during their lifetimes.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
" ..... recently is has been global warming.... "
So you say you are, but frankly to be still debating global warming (which is how your comment came accross, maybe is not what you wanted to imply) is frankly a show of ignorance, no matter if you are a Nobel Prize winner.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I don't believe you:
http://www.epa.gov/pbt/ddt.htm
DDT high concentrations of course are not found in nature (er, Duh!) the problem with it is that it accumulates in fatty tissues, so the higher you are in the food chain the more you accumulate in your body, with the effects mentioned above.
And it takes 15 years to degrade in the environment.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A recent Danish study shows that the total dose of radio energy received by people using cell phones decreases if the distance to the (fixed) antennas decreases. Even if they only use the cell phone for a few minutes per day. Why?
Because a cell phone is a two-way device. It must transmit stronger to reach a distant antenna and it has no sense of direction. The GSM protocol provides a power control which makes the cell phone reduce power as much as possible, the goal is just enough to reach the closest antenna tower.
Parents demanding that cell phone antennas are removed from the school roof are NOT doing the children a favor.
-- From Denmark
Well to cast someone as a liar you don't need to completely and precisely describe the whole of the truth. Rather you just need one example where the, so-called, liar diverges from it.
wouldn't the signal get drowned out?
next they'll be telling you cigarettes cause cancer. damn teenagers and their music.
> Rather you just need one example where the, so-called, liar diverges from it.
Lets say that that is a pretty low standard you are using there...
No 'evidence' or even suggestion of evicence is given to make clear that this is not a one of a kind mistake, if the person acts out of good faith or malice or such, and if what you represent has anything to do with the truth..
If that standard is acceptable to you, fine, makes life easy for sensationalists there where you live.
> Much of their first season focused on such topics as Ouija boards, quack medicine (magnet therapy, for example) and UFO abductions. They weren't exactly topics that were tough to make some logical assumptions about from the start.
And the problem is that while such logical assumptions may appeal to you, and to the public, they are just that, logical assumptions. That is no standard whatsoever to call peopel a liar because there is no evidence or even hint of evidence that the logical assumption is true.
Yeah, its entertaining, but not a way to make a good case. For that I do not really have to see the program (even if I could.. it is not being broadcasted in EUrope for what I know, we do have similar programs tho)
I can't understand why people get all upset about the "cancer risk" of cellular phones but no one worries about the risk of cordless telephones, which also operate in frequency bands of a very short wavelength. Oh, and 802.11(b/g)!
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
Could the frequency being broadcast have a correlation to the damage? Perhaps we are more vulnerable to AM frequencies than cell phone frequenncies?
[ReidNews]
Sounds like a market for a new product!
First of all, I applaud your analysis of both Wired's journalism and the original statistics.
3 73 3-2004Aug15.html
But is statistics the only way? Can every ill health effect be demonstrated via the appropriate confidence interval and a large enough sample size? (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?)
Clearly a jump from 4 to 8 leukemia cases means practically nothing -- statistically. But I don't think it's always good science, esp. when dealing in real-world non-controlled systems with intangible variables, to rely on statistical analysis as the impetus for public policy decisions.
I encourage you to read the Washington Post article I cited (now with extra spaces)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A
Over-reliance on statistics as the ultimate sanity check is now a tool wielded by big industry, at the expense of public health.
Well, we're talking biochemistry here, so there's really no cause or need to invoke the Incompleteness Theorem.
Further, no--it's not possible to demonstrate every ill health effect. A thought experiment, if you will...
If Wired saw thirteen cases in LA, they'd say that compound Y causes a dramatic (thirty percent!) increase in disease X. If a scientist saw thirteen cases in LA, they'd say that's interesting, but easily attributable to noise.Clearly a jump from 4 to 8 leukemia cases means practically nothing -- statistically. But I don't think it's always good science, esp. when dealing in real-world non-controlled systems with intangible variables, to rely on statistical analysis as the impetus for public policy decisions.
If there is sound evidence (good animal or at least biochemical models) that particular conditions are harmful, then by all means such evidence should be considered. Controlled trials in the laboratory are very useful for sorting out cause and effect. In the absence of demonstrated mechanisms for harm in the lab, epidemiological data are all that we have. If sound statistical analysis reveals a significant correlation--that cannot be reasonably explained by other means or attributed to confounding factors--then it may be a fair basis for policy decisions.
I suppose the problem arises when one asks what constitutes a 'sound' analysis...and in some cases that's a difficult question.
~Idarubicin
I accidentally swallowed a whole bottle of AM-FM Radio Waves and now I can't feel my legs! What should I do?
I work for a public university ag dept.
On one of our sites we have large portions of corn feed, the birds love the stuff, however there is one prob. They have a hard time digesting the corn. You find atleast 3 or 4 new dead birds a day.
I wouldn't count too much on the dead bird in the corn field theory unless they were cooking, and then I would look for an oven.
The sibling post mentioning visible light raises a point I like.
I'll focus on the physics, however, and your misunderstanding of it. In your post you claim that, according to quantum mechanics, any energy can be ionizing radiation; this is simply not the case. You completely missed the point of quantum mechanics: that the energy states of matter are quantized.
In other words, you have to add at least as much energy as the difference between the two closest energy states for anything to happen, and moreover you have to do it with a single photon--three photons are not the same as one photon with 3x the frequency.
Read up on Einstein and his groundbreaking explaination of the photoelectric effect.
... between the amount of energy absorbed and the increase in cancer probability???
Really, if all biology would reason 'there either has to be a linear, direct relationship to factor X of phenomenon Y to endpoint Z, or else I've just proven that Y has nothing to do with Z', then it wouldn't advance very fast as a science.
It can as well be the frequency, or there can be a non-linear relationship (eg. anything above 0,2 mW/cm2 gives 5 % increase), or whatever.
Cheers,
Emile.
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
Well, my tax kroner at work is giving me an education that helps me understand how the world works.
Oh, God.
A.---Could it be that antennaes are built in poorer secions of towns and cities, hence lower land values, and poorer living conditions?
B.--- Could it be that antennaes are built more often on mountains, hence higher radiation levels in general?
C.--- Could it be that un-used (un-plowed) land near antennaes (guide wires) attracts higher concentrations of settling contaminates?
D.--could it be that the use of tin foil hats doesn't block all those alien signals from Zeta Reticuli?
People seem to think that before cell phones and Wi Fi, somehow radio itself didn't exist. I have been a ham radio operator for over 30 years, and my grandfather for nearly 70 years. I have been shocked by RF, zorched by stray B+, curdled by un-grounded capacitors, and zapped by unseen third transformer wires. I have been inches from enough RF energy to zap a cell phone into a pile of slag. Besides for a bit of a twitch once in a while, I feel fine.
Perhaps a comparison of ham radio operators health who used high power HF in the 50s-and 60s (the era of big tubes) with the general public of the same era and age would serve as a better study than one go un-controlled as this one seems to be.
Reality is all that stuff that doesn't care if you believe in it or not.--Solomon Short
the birds are singing, and it's GREAT weather today... And I'm sweating like a warthog.
Actually, the name of my motherland has to do with the history of my fatherland... ^_^
(Well, Scandinavia, anyway)
Back in the time of the Sagas, a person name Erik das Rote (nm the casus), an icelandic castout sought North for a place to live free (he couldn't go back to Scandinavia, because he was the son of another outcast)... And at the time of the Vikings, the weather was very mild (on the Northern hemisphere, anyway), and he came in the summer time. I've been there a dozen times in the summer, and it is, indeed, very green...
I'd rather that someone conserve in the short term rather than take the long term view, when that view is usually something like "We'll find more resources, or increased efficiency will solve that problem".
Natural resources have to be MANAGED. And, there are
other ways to get wood pulp than raping the under-developed world when you're blocked in North America.
There are hundreds of sites worldwide where forests have been flooded by hydro-electric projects. Why not just harvest those trees instead of clear-cutting old growth forests? Yes, you'll have to cut underwater but you won't have to worry
of trees falling and having to transport them out of the forest since most will float to the surface and you can collect them downriver.
Also, a lot of the changes that enviros fear most have critical mass - once they've progressed to a certain point, it takes a great deal of time for the changes to be reversed.
We need to take a look at the TOTAL cost of doing
(or not doing) something. Not just what it'll cost the company, not just what the loss of a resource may cost but also the cost in terms of human life or health and the rate at which changes can be reversed, if at all.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body