Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AM Radio Waves May Be Harmful?

Posted by simoniker on from the talk-is-lifethreatening? dept.

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."

10 of 548 comments (clear)

  1. Incomplete testing by Lord+Grey · · Score: 5, Funny
    ... regions near AM radio-broadcasting towers had 70 percent more leukemia deaths than those without.
    ...
    ... also found that cancer deaths were 29 percent higher near such transmitters.
    ...
    ... California's Department of Health Services reviewed all the current studies of EMF risks from power lines, wiring and appliances in 2002. It found no conclusive evidence of harm. However, links to childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease could not be ruled out.
    Yes, but did they test for lethal amounts of dihydrogen monoxide? It would be irresponsible to not test for everything possible! Alarmists, take heed! Flee to the hills! Watch out for magnetism! Gravity is also especially harmful!
    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
    1. Re:Incomplete testing by localman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Incomplete testing by Mateito · · Score: 5, Informative

      or

      3. "But think of the children"

      I actually worked with a group doing mobile phone testing. We found that the radio waves penetrated very deeply into the skulls of children 12 years and younger. At the time it wasn't a problem because there were very few kids of this age with mobiles.

      As to whether it caused damage or not... no idea. We just did the physics.

      --
      Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
  2. This is a conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  3. There's at least one Nobel Prize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.

  4. To quote last night's Aqua Teen Hunger Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."

  5. radio killed....... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 5, Funny

    the video star.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  6. Re:50,000 watts by k4_pacific · · Score: 5, Informative

    /me Runs to the calculator...

    Well, the power spreads out at a rate proportional to the square of the radius. So, if your brain averages .10 m from the phone, then the power passing through it is roughly 8 watts / m^2. (Determining the cross-sectional area of a brain and computing actual power is left as an exercise for the reader.) A 50 kW AM transmitter achieves this density of power at a radius of about 22 meters. So, if the tower is more than 22 meters high, it is safer to stand directly under it than it is to talk on a cell phone.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  7. Re:no news here. by Mateito · · Score: 5, Funny
    I'm so tired of apologists.

    Sorry

    --
    Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
  8. Epidemiologist's rule of thumb by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.