I beg to differ in the matter of proximity near nuclear power plants...
A few years back I lost a good friend --- 53 year old VE3NBE --- to a form
of bone cancer. Ray lived right in the shadow of the Pickering nuclear power
plant here in Ontario, Canada. His mother is still alive at 95, & his father
passed away just before Ray did, at 96.
Concurrent to Ray getting ill, two other similarly-aged males in the exact
same block, who bought their homes at the same time, contracted the same
form of cancer. A study that was conducted several years ago concluded that
the rate of mis-carriages was significantly higher in that area, than in
another immediately north.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck, in my books.
Corporate agenda driven fraud is equally as fraudulent as any other kind.
But don't let my unnscientific methodology discourage you from buying your
retirement home next door to a nuclear plant near you, or discourage you
from taking a dip in the warm, temperate waters adjacent to the plant's
~73~ Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "W0UN -- John Brosnahan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: [RFI] Towers/Antennas Near 138kV Transmission Lines FRAUD ALERT
> >The power line brush growth thing occurred because ( no
> >surprise ) the utility company disturbed the environment
> >under the line soil by cutting the brush, spraying, and
> >driving over the soil with vehicles.
> >The data in the case study showing links between power lines
> >and leukemia was based on intentionally cooked facts. The
> >person who did that study was forced to retract all the
> >supporting data and the university canned him. While the
> >original finding managed to occupy many hours of media time,
> >when the guy got busted for fibbing the result was only a
> >few newspaper articles and a few minutes of time on national
> >73 Tom W8JI
> Tom's points are well taken. Agenda-driven science is always
> ripe for fraud. And factors outside of a study, such as the
> disturbed soil in the first paragraph, can also be problematic.
> It is very difficult to do good science, especially in the area of subtle
> environmental effects on health. My late partner was the Program
> Director for upper-atmospheric research at the National Science
> Foundation and heard a lot of stories from other directors about
> experiments that gave bogus results. My favorite one was the
> study of the incidence of cancer around nuclear power plants.
> The results indicated an increase of cancer in the surrounding area.
> But to test the validity of the results they then decided to run the
> study in the areas around PROPOSED nuclear power plants. And
> sure enough, they got an increase of cancer in their results in
> areas where there was NO power plant, just a STUDY of building
> a power plant. One CAN conclude that the mere ACT of thinking
> about a nuclear power plant will cause cancer. Clearly the
> methodology of the experiment was in error. But if you never
> do studies like this you will never know for sure.
> Many health tests are done by increasing the dosage rate to
> 10s to 100s of times an actual rate in lab animals in order to
> accelerate the results. But this can lead to bogus results as
> well. The problems with PCBs is one area where the hazards
> are less than initially indicated by the mega-dose methodology.
> I cannot survive without water, but mega-dose me with water
> and I will drown. So water IS hazardous to my health in large
> The logic of erring on the side of caution is probably valid, but my
> reasons for not living under power lines has nothing to do with
> health -- only with the potential for QRN on the ham bands.
> There are more hazardous activities associated with ham radio
> than living under power lines -- such as tower climbing and
> HV power supplies.
> John W0UN
> RFI mailing list
RFI mailing list