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."
cell phones? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wi-Fi? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:3, Interesting)
ROFL
FM waves, too (Score:0, Interesting)
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.
Re:Cancer causing phones? (Score:1, Interesting)
Most I know consider that conjecture pure fiction.
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:2, Interesting)
Or the ever dangerous hydrogen hydroxide, which is corrosive and excessive amounts in the lungs may cause breathing dificulties and even death.
We keep several crystals in a freezer, but don't know why as nobody ever seems to need them and they sublimate into the air, which is quite worrying.
A week or two back I posted on a different topic about the broadcasting power which once was used for AM/MW broadcast in the USA, exceeding in some cases 300,000 watts. The radiant energy, picked up by wiring could make streetlamps glow. I rather expected there could be something undesireable about being that close to high power RF transmitters, aside from maybe the possible fringe benefit being you could rig up some coil so your food cooked on a perpetual stove...
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:5, Interesting)
First it was microwave towers, then power lines, then cell phones.
And every time, the National Academy of Sciences found NOTHING to warrant the claim of a causal link between elecromagnetics OF ANY FORM and cancer.
how does RF cause cancer? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Another loosey-goosey comment (Score:2, Interesting)
Radiation might fall with the inverse square, but what happens when you integrate over the 1km radius in which people tend to "live"?
Swedish Powerline Transmission Study (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Wi-fi, Bluetooth and cancer (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:3, Interesting)
"I can put a spare bulb in my hand
And light up my yard"
The idea behind the song is from a news report about that, and how Ed realized that they were talking about his neighborhood. Yeah yeah, offtopic, whatever.
Re:There's at least one Nobel Prize... (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to agree with you, but a number of studies recently have shown that under these radiation wavelengths, some membranes in the body pass some molecules when they would otherwise block them.
Example here [iinet.net.au].
It turns out it's insufficient to just consider heating effects and ionization effects, since lipid membranes are composed of dipolar molecules which can be subject to other electromagnetic effects.
hmm (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
I doubt it (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I'll bite... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:There's at least one Nobel Prize... (Score:3, Interesting)
Many organisms, humans included, depend on biomineralization. Fergzample, bones are calcium, and which are (obviously) created biologically. Less well known, however, are ferrous crystals, set down by biological organisms. Some rodents have iron crystal structures in their teeth. Some molluscs have magnetite teeth. Many species, including birds and mammals, have magnet-sensitive structures in their brains.
So why is this relevant? Well, this is a pathway for EM radiation to affect organisms that hasn't been studied deeply in this context. It'd be a physical force argument. And, while histology is not my field, I would imagine that tissue and cellular membranes could be affected by localized physical pressure.
It's no smoking gun, certainly, but it is worth considering. (And, if you need an extreme gedankenexperiment on a organism level, consider the fact that you could kill a chiton by immobilizing it with a strong electromagnet.)
Personally, I'm not worried about getting cancer from cell phones, AM radio, WiFi, or using Microsoft Products. But I'm also not at all convinced that EM radiation, even at low levels, has *no* effect. Subtle effects are worthy of study. Think about chaos theory, and that damn destructive butterfly in China.
Another interesting thing to look at is the effect of heat-stress on cells and the relation to apoptosis. There may or may not be a clean threshhold for a heat-stress effect.
Re:no news here. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not where I live. AM transmitter sites, as you'ld expect of any endevour requiring acres of land, were built outside of urban areas where land was cheap when most were erected 20+ years ago. One of the big issues facing them today is the encroachment of housing developments. Any AM site I've maintainted over the past couple decades are surrounded by middle class and up housing less than 20 years old.
That's not to say I agree radiation is an issue, except to radio engineers charged with fixing claims of "the radio coming from my toaster", but the correlation you posit doesn't hold in my experience.
Re:What gives? (Score:2, Interesting)
Have you not been following this topic for the last 20 years? Every study that reveals a higher disease rate gets the headlines, every study that reveals a lower disease rate gets ignored. In either case, the only important point -- whether there is a statistically significant relationship between exposure and disease is ignored.
Yet, to the scientists, this is the only part that matters. So, I read the article, and do I find any statistically significant relationships established? No!
Now, maybe you never took design-of-experiments in college, but believe me, the difference between a exciting "70% higher" headline and a demonstrated relationship is immense. "How can this be?" Leukemia is very rare. As a result, any clumping in distribution can swing the numbers dramatically. From the article, please tell me... how many people were included in the sample space? Oh... hmm... they left that part out. If, based on the expected distribution there were 5 people with leukemia in the "watch area" and the expected number is 3, then that would be a headline grabbing "70% increase in leukemia" -- yet it means nothing. Statistical significance requires a numeric relationship that survives the scrutiny of appropriate sample sizes, and takes into consideration other known factors.
More often than not, these headline grabbing "scientists" are just milking the public cow by laying claim to research money that is better spent on real science. There is no better way I know of to get grant money than to threaten the world with unsubstantiated luddite hysteria.
Epidemiologist's rule of thumb (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder about some of the same things as the parent mentions (although you have to be careful comparing to the sun, as a lot of that energy is in different regions of the spectrum).
If the EM radiation is bad at these low frequencies, what about the radio operators, or even worse, various scientists that are exposed to extremely high levels of the stuff? A lot of the equipment around various labs probably produces orders of magnitude stronger low-energy EM radiation. I don't hear too much of there being that much cancer in the scientists I know that passed away. Of course anecdotal evidence doesn't show much, so maybe it would be appropriate to study those that really get blasted by this stuff.
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:3, Interesting)
This is an important point that is no emphsized. What are the other things other than radio waves associated with AM towers? And, can they cause cancer? Assuming the correlation panned out, correlation with AM towers does not equal causation by radio waves.
This part of the article struck a cord:
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.
That sounds a lot like cold fusion experiments. And, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Get it over with (Score:5, Interesting)
"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"
Junk Science strikes again.... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.Re:Incomplete testing (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Rachel Carson and that damn book will probably go down in history as one of the most misguided attempts at evironmentalism ever. Personally I think Carson should be put against a wall and shot for crimes against humanity.
If you don't agree then do some research on malaria, and you'll see what I mean. Stop being a knee jerk environmentalist and google malaria and DDT before defending that fucking idiot.
Re:Incomplete testing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Something they need to check... (Score:3, Interesting)
Given the possibilities of runoff and water supply contamination, I'd say that brush clearing chemicals are *very* relevant. Not that most of these Luddite-style EM "studies" seem to take the other environmental factors in mind. Pffft.
SB
Re:what part of "needs further study" dont' you ge (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [akademisyen.com], declining steadily since 1997 [unc.edu].) 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 [wired.com] says:
The abstract of the original paper in the American Journal of Epidemiology says: [oupjournals.org] (in part, emphasis added)
Re:I'll bite... (Score:2, Interesting)
Stevia, a natural herb which is sweeter than sugar and almost calorie-free, is banned [stevia.net] in Europe and North America.
Cell phone antennas should be close to you (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:what part of "needs further study" dont' you ge (Score:4, Interesting)
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.