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."

Comments

50,000 watts

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there's a difference between living near a 50,000 watt transmitter and a ~1 watt cell phone.

Re:50,000 watts

[Anonymous Coward]

What if that 1 watt cell phone is an inch away and that tower is say 100 ft? or maybe just shy of 19 ft?

I mean, yeah, you don't deserve insightful, which demands I put on my pedantic hat *and* look like a kook. But seriously, "These are not the bad statistics you're looking for."

How much energy does the sun deliver to say a in^2? Well it's a lot more than a cell phone or most in^2 not actually on radio towers where they're concerned. So the em-radiation probably isn't causing cancer. But it might be affecting the kinetics of cancer cells already present and floating around, helping them decide where to set up shop. But even then that would only apply to transmitters very near people, who were particularly sensitive to their effect through what amounts to bad luck.

In this study they more likely discovered those near radio towers lived in old houses, didn't have a lot of money to spend on taking care of themselves, and close to copious amounts of smog. Wow, I wonder if radio towers cause self-inflicted gunshot wounds too?

There's at least one Nobel Prize...

[Anonymous Coward]

... 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.

Re:Not true.

[Martin Blank]

When is Slashdot going to get "-1, Pointless Political Statement"?

Hrm..

[pclminion]

Given that most AM transmitters tend to be in highly populated areas, it stands to reason that most people who live near AM transmitters live in highly populated areas.

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.

Another loosey-goosey study

[PapayaSF]

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.

no news here.

[Eric Seppanen]

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.

AM transmitters live in swamps

[wa1hco]

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???

Re:Incomplete testing

[localman]

Why is it the replies to this stuff always fall into two camps:

1) The sky is falling, we're doomed
2) There is no way anything I find useful could be harmful

How about a little balance, folks. There are plenty of times throughout history where something in widespread use was later found to be more dangerous than it was worth. Asbestos and DDT come to mind. Hell, some of the early scientists who worked with radioactive materials thought it was neat that they could warm their hands over it.

The world is not doomed. Neither is the world a safe place. I hope they continue the research, take any findings with healthy skepticism, and then implement appropriate measures to improve our quality of life.

An unrelated example: brain disease has tripled in the past two decades in most developed countries. But not in Japan. Aren't you curious as to why? Or would you rather stick your head in the sand and proudly proclaim everyone who is curious to be an alarmist?

Cheers.

Someone pointed this out already...

[Dieppe]

But it's another case of misleading statisics.

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..

Something they need to check...

[Black Art]

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.

Re:Incomplete testing

[fiannaFailMan]

That's a very insightful post. It reminds me of something I saw in the Lancashire mining museum some years ago when the employers were proclaiming the health benefits of inhaling coal-dust. Apparently it 'prevented TB.' I kid you not. It always takes a while for the harmful effects of new technology or its implementation to become clear.

When I look around and see the sheer quantity of radiation that we're being bombarded with from mobile phones, mobile phone masts, power lines, terrestrial TV, digital TV, WiFi networks etc. plus the amount of carcinogens in exhaust fumes all around us it makes me wonder if it all adds up in some way that we're not yet aware of and if there's some connection with the number of people getting cancer. I fear that one day someone will do a study that will take into account ALL radiation sources and find that we've gotten a little carried away with the old spectrum.

Re:Incomplete testing

[antiMStroll]

True, but look at the lead time between introdcution of a technology and discovery of its harmful side effects. AM on the other hand has been in common operation for a century, if it had anywhere near the impact of asbestos or DDT (still contended BTW) the correlation would be unambiguous after 100 years and it wouldn't be a Slashdot topic.

Re:Incomplete testing

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Wifi signal: 100mW. (0.1 W)

Cell phone signal: 4 W.

Stepping outside under full sun: 1000 W.

We are exposed to far greater amounts of EM radiation from the sun, in all sorts of unfilitered frequencies. And we have been since before man really groked that it rose every day and set every night.

I might also add that radio operators have been using very high powered equipment for more than a century. There is only one nasty effect from working around microwaves: male sterility if you are dumb enough to stand in front of a microwave tower to keep warm. And the problem there isn't the EM radiation. It's the fact that male testes don't like heat.

Re:Incomplete testing

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Some one beat you to it.

To make a long story short: any link is statistically insignifigant. What elevated cancer risks were found couldn't rule out other causes from chemicals, lifestyles, or location.

Re:Incomplete testing

[SurgeonGeneral]

Yeah, seven years ago it was salmon recovery, recently is has been global warming....

Actually,

about 7 years ago they found that the salmon were no longer spawnng because of fishing in Greenland where the most hearty and mature of the salmon go for the winter. Over fishing of these stock left only weaklings for the fems to mate with. You may make fun of it as alarmist, but the numbers dont lie. The drop from 1.5 million to half a million migrating salmon was enough to convince Greenland to stop salmon fishing altogether. at that time only 100,000 salmon were actually laying eggs. Very funny eh?

Now they have found that the salmon spawns are now increasing in level and things may stabilize. That is, if Global Warming doesnt stop them.

Your comment about warming indicates your age, your lack of historical knowledge, and lack of general education on the environment. Warming has been a public concern since the 50s when the first effects were felt, and when people started realizing the huge effects humans and their chemicals can have on the environment through books like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which concerns the pesticide DDT.

But it has been on people's minds since the 1800s when entire cities would be choking to death on the thick black clouds of smoke that hung in the air, the temperature up several degrees due to the insulation of sunlight. You think L.A. is bad? You should read about the factory towns of the Industrial Revolution. but I have a feeling you dont do much reading anyway..