AM Radio Waves May Be Harmful? 548
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."
Cancer causing phones? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it already a known fact that cell phones cause cancer? Over here (Australia) they are always telling us that.
Cell phones harmful? (Score:4, Insightful)
50,000 watts (Score:4, Insightful)
There's at least one Nobel Prize... (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Yet they contend cell phones are safe... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not true. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hrm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
please explain a mechansim (Score:4, Insightful)
a nobel prize awaits if you figure it out
It's true (Score:2, Insightful)
An in respect to the Wi-Fi and cell phone comments, I hate to be a wet blanket, but a cellphone operates at
AM transmitters live in swamps (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't this sound like it might correlate with pollution enough to affect the results???
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What's an "AM Radio Wave" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Select 200000 people. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Someone pointed this out already... (Score:4, Insightful)
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..
Re:50,000 watts (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Cell phone cancer (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony though is that 200 years ago the average life span was 50 to 60 years due to sicknesses, viruses, weather, etc. Now, 200 years later, we have combatted most of the illnesses that threaten our life spans, but might be shortening them again with technological advancements that are *supposed* to improve our quality of life, not shorten it. Perhaps we're too smart for our own good.
Population Density (Score:3, Insightful)
you forgot the biggy (Score:4, Insightful)
what part of "needs further study" dont' you get? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [washingtonpost.com] 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.
Something they need to check... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case, however, it's pretty obvious that it's complete alarmist nonsense.
Leukemia and brain tumors are such rare diseases, that any statistic is not going to be representative (I've once read about a study that "proved" that churches cause brain tumors.) Even a single case can skew the whole study into one direction.
Why don't they look at lung cancer? Prostate cancer? Breast cancer? Those are much more common.
Of course I can tell you why: Because with not-so-rare diseases, it all evens out and there is no statistical link between disease and radio emitter any more.
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes the NAS's report so much better than Koreas? Are the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health not peer reviewed or something?
I hope you're not making the mistake of conflating a big name at the top of the paper with its validity. Science is about being open to new ideas, let's not slam the paper on the grounds of dogma without at least reviewing what it has to say.
What gives? (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
It turns out that lead, oil, and mercury were far more likely to have been the culprit. Each of those contaninates DID have a profound and immediate effect on the animals tested.
Links [junkscience.com]
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
There is a third point of view: the scientific perspective:
1. It is an extraordinary claim that electromagnetic radiation of energy that is too low to damage any biological material can nevertheless cause biological damage.
2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily evidence.
3. Correlative retrospective studies are fraught with potential biases, which are difficult to anticipate and eliminate, and have often turned out to be misleading unless the effect is very large. A rule of thumb is to be very skeptical when the increase in risk is less than twofold.
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
Re:Hrm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:3, Insightful)
you can die from too much oxygen, too. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention that, at least in the U.S., mostly lower-income housing is located next to antenna facilites and power lines. Newer, "richer" neighborhoods typically have no unsightly towers and power lines are all buried.
Unfortunately, these same lower-income folks are the prime target market for fast food chains, beer and liquor companies, tobacco companies, corner drug dealers, etc.
So who's to say it's not the less-healthy lifestyle of those living near antenna facilites and power lines that's causing the statistical bump in cancer rates?