Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+CFLs\s+and\s+UV\s+myth\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+CFLs\s+and\s+UV\s+myth\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [RFI] CFLs and UV myth (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:43:40 -0600; If you guys want to expend a lot of time and energy debating junk science hoax/scare myths you may as well focus on nonsense that's a threat to ham radio, namely the stupid bs about RF exposure limit; /archives//html/RFI/2009-02/msg00132.html (8,365 bytes)
2. Re: [RFI] CFLs and UV myth (score: 1): Author: "James Chaggaris" <jimc@pwrone.com>; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:03:39 -0600; Rob, I agree.. Other COMPLETE SHAM's are Radon and Asbestos but that's for another reflector. 73, Jim N9WW James Chaggaris PowerOne/PowerOne Environmental 1020 Cedar Avenue Suite 203 St. Charles, IL; /archives//html/RFI/2009-02/msg00133.html (10,078 bytes)
3. Re: [RFI] CFLs and UV myth (score: 1): Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:45:05 -0500; A cite: Increased mortality in amateur radio operators due to lymphatic and hematopoietic malignancies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3422125 Where did you do your research to know that there ar; /archives//html/RFI/2009-02/msg00134.html (8,824 bytes)
4. Re: [RFI] CFLs and UV myth (score: 1): Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:50:25 -0500; Cigarettes are good for you too - at least that is what Arthur Godfrey tells me. And let's bring back Carbon Tet Fire extinguishers and Benzene while we're at it! hehe. -73 de Mike N3LI - ___________; /archives//html/RFI/2009-02/msg00135.html (7,219 bytes)
5. Re: [RFI] CFLs and UV myth (score: 1): Author: "Doug Rehman" <doug@k4ac.com>; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:10:16 -0500; We are perhaps wandering a bit far afield, but I guess the RF Interference could be with carbon based life? Unfortunately the link is only to the abstract of the study. The abstract makes no mention; /archives//html/RFI/2009-02/msg00136.html (8,400 bytes)
6. Re: [RFI] CFLs and UV myth (score: 1): Author: "Hare, Ed W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org>; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:43:08 -0500; A good article that explains the issues with the study is at: http://www.arrl.org/rfsafety/lapin/2000/04/18/1/ The ARRL web page on RF safety, http://www.arrl.org/rfsafety, has some good information; /archives//html/RFI/2009-02/msg00137.html (10,218 bytes)
7. Re: [RFI] CFLs and UV myth (score: 1): Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:57:10 -0500; Well, the interesting thing is that could be true. One of the interesting aspects of health studies is that any time you decrease the chance of mortality from one cause, you increase it from others.; /archives//html/RFI/2009-02/msg00138.html (9,055 bytes)
8. Re: [RFI] CFLs and UV myth (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:40:19 -0500; If you take the likely hood of any individual getting these cancers, then add 10 years to the average life time you automatically increase the likely hood for those individuals of getting quite a few; /archives//html/RFI/2009-02/msg00139.html (12,125 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]