On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>
> I challenge anyone to provide any credible scientific study, a REAL
> study, not some garbage from some anti-power line cell phone kooks on
> the fringe, that proves that HF RF is a danger. You won't be able to
> BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY. Instead, you'll find a lot of smoke, vague
> iffy conclusions that say more study is required but until we're sure,
> (and get more grant money) we'd better abide by some arbitrary
> exposure guidelines, just to be safe.
A cite:
Increased mortality in amateur radio operators due to lymphatic and
hematopoietic malignancies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3422125
> I challenge anyone to provide any credible scientific study, a REAL
> study, not some garbage from some anti-power line cell phone kooks on
> the fringe, that proves that HF RF is a danger. You won't be able to
> BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY.
Where did you do your research to know that there aren't any real
studies, Rob? The way studies work is that a person or group comes up
with a hypothesis, then tests it. Sometimes the tests show the
anticipated effect, sometimes they don't. You can't test for every
possible effect in any one study, there are just too many. A test
which doesn't show any effect is not a failure, but rather another
good data point.
Here is another link regarding RF exposure.
It's got a lot of stuff, UHF included since you mentioned the cell
phone kooks:
http://www.iegmp.org.uk/report/text.htm
but the scientific evidence pdf is worth a download:
http://www.iegmp.org.uk/documents/iegmp_5.pdf
This is stuff complied over quite a few years. Let me know who the
kooks are in that group.. 8^)
-73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|