 whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:9 | reply to 49528867
Re: how close can a cell tower be to a house? said by 49528867:I would have to respectfully disagree that non-ionizing cannot cause health hazards... I didn't say EMF (electro-magnetic fields) doesn't cause health hazards. Obviously standing in front of a radar antenna or putting your hand in a running microwave oven is sure to mess one up. However, there have been countless studies; and decades and decades of statistical data that has been reviewed, with the collective conclusion that aside from being burnt from over-exposure to strong fields; EMF is not hazardous to our health. There have been some studies that have possibly shown a slightly higher incidence; etc. In all of those cases the studies turned out to be biased, or improper conclusions drawn. (This is not me ad-libbing. This is the general conclusion from the medical research community. Obviously, those whose research was concluded to be fault or biased, may disagree.)
said by 49528867:I [and a group in the NAB] personally feel there is a direct connection between certain forms of cancer and long term exposure to RF. I respect your feelings. And those of some people in the NAB. And anyone else's feelings. However, collectively, this adds up to absolutely zero level of scientific evidence.
said by 49528867:[I believe] This effect is compounded by both the power level of the exposure and the frequency of the RF one is being exposed to, in other words the higher the power levels and or the higher the frequency, the greater the dangers of cellular mutation. Personally I believe there is more to it. More feelings and personal beliefs - not facts. Cellular [genetic] mutation has never been demonstrated from EMF well up beyond milli-meter wave frequencies. Ever. That's why its called non-ionizing radiation. X-rays? Yes. Gamma rays? Yes. Hiroshima? Yes. But that's not what we're talking about.
said by 49528867:Now the conventional wisdom is RF only causes localized cellular heating, and the effects of any heating reverses itself once the exposure to the RF is eliminated... Well, for the record then; lets be clear here. At the molecular level, RF doesn't cause heat. It adds energy to the electrons in atoms; similarly to the photo-electric effect. The electrons bounce around; hit each other; and the result is that the energy dissipates as heat. This is why one's Swanson's dinner is still cooking after it comes out of the microwave oven. For genetic mutation to occur; the atoms themselves have to actually change. This does not happen by adding energy (or even losing & gaining) electrons (all of which occurs normally all of the time in the human body - electric currents.) This is borne out both by the laws of physics; and countless studies. There would be reams of evidence of statistical data available, if EMF actually caused mutations.
Think about cell-phone penetration. There have been no tremendous increases in diseases from genetic mutation - cancers - that is in any way attributable to an increase in cell phone use; certainly not more than what can be attributed to statistical aberation in isolated circumstances. No one has been able to show any correlation at all; which would be necessary well before cause and effect could be established. If indeed, EMF was responsible for leukemia, brain cancer, big-toe cancer, etc. - it would have long ago been clearly discerned. And it would not have needed a scientific study. The incidence of these cancers would be skyrocketing around the world.
Likewise, there haven't been any incidence of going in for an MRI, where one's body is subjected to tremendously strong electro-magnetic fields; of people developing cancer from this. Actually, the MRI has turned out to be a cancer saving miracle.
said by 49528867:Personally I have known too many broadcast engineers who have had their retirement cut short by leukemia to dismiss it as a coincidence. Thanks, Wayne. I do appreciate your points. Bear in mind, however, when it comes to science & statistics, the level of people you are talking about don't even rise to anything other than a miniscule isolated sampling pool that doesn't arise to any blip on the radar. Sorry to hear about it. In 2000, approximately 256,000 children and adults around the world developed some form of leukemia, and 209,000 died from it. (Source - Wikipedia) That is 6.4 thousandths of a percent. Certainly, if EMF were responsible, common sense alone would say those numbers have to be higher.
There have been a huge swath of studies in the interest of seeing if there is any link between leukemia and any form of EMF going back over 30 years. The only statistical evidence that even came close to correlating to something worth looking into very deeply, was a possible relationship between Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) Electro-magnetic fields and incidences of childhood leukemia. The conclusions, after 30 years of study, are as follows:
International Agency for Research on Cancer:
»monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monograph···ndex.php
quote:
There is limited evidence that high levels of ELF magnetic (but not electric) fields might cause childhood leukemia. Exposure to significant ELF magnetic fields might result in twofold excess risk for leukemia for children exposed to these high levels of magnetic fields. However, the report also says that methodological weaknesses and biases in these studies have likely caused the risk to be overstated. No evidence for a relationship to leukemia or another form of malignancy in adults has been demonstrated.
Note that when the IARC says "possibly carcinogenic to humans"; this classification is used to denote an agent for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals (other examples that are "possibly carcinogenic to humans include drinking coffee and welding fumes. There are countless others. Maybe the IAB guys just drank a lot of coffee?
World Health Organization:
»www.who.int/mediacentre/factshee···dex.html
The WHO concluded, that even if ELF exposure were later discovered to actually cause childhood leukemia, it would account for just 100 to 2400 cases worldwide each year, representing 0.2 to 4.9% of the total incidence of childhood leukemia for that year (about 0.03 to 0.9% of all leukemias). Note that taking the worst case, those numbers would account for an incidence rate of less than one-millionth of one percent. That's a long shot in comparison of one's odds of getting struck by lightning or dying in an airplane crash. Certainly, we have much, much more to live in fear about.
Note that the FCC, and IEEE, requirements, limit exposure to RF EMF by virtue of the distance that such radiators must be placed from buildings (for example). The fields from the antennas in the photo are well below any strength even rising to concern. Rumors, old-brodcaster's tales, etc - it just has not been borne out by any type of scientific facts. A lot of this started in the 1970s, when big bad three-mile island released some gawd awful radiation that decimated the population. Since then, anything to do with the word 'radiation', has become a magic enemy to be avoided. Whether consciously or subconsciously, many people harbor concerns regarding EMF from this period. Fortunately, there is nothing to be concerned about except being over-fearful. That same goes for all those people dying from sitting too close to the television; or all those people dying from having microwave ovens in their homes. No facts to back it up. None.
 |
