RFI
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] CFLs and UV myth

To: "RFI List" <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] CFLs and UV myth
From: "Hare, Ed W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:43:08 -0500
List-post: <rfi@contesting.com">mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
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 on the subject.

The most interesting point is that in the study, although a slight
increased risk of two forms of cancer was seen, the average age of death
of the Amateurs was about 10 years greater than the median age of death
in the US.

I have never seen a single person that claims that the study proves that
RF can cause cancer also claim that it proves that RF makes people live
longer. :-)

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio
ARRL Laboratory Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: W1RFI@arrl.org
Web: http://www.arrl.org/
Member: ASC C63 EMC Committee
   Chairman: Subcommittee 5, Immunity
   Chairman: Ad hoc BPL Working Group
Member: IEEE P1775 BPL EMC Committee
Member: IEEE, Standards Association, Electromagnetic Compatibility
Society
Member: ICES SCC-28 RF Safety
Member/Secretary: IEEE EMC Society Standards Development Committee
   Chairman, BPL Study Project
Member: Society of Automotive Engineers EMC/EMR Committee
Board of Directors: QRP Amateur Radio Club International 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug Rehman [mailto:doug@k4ac.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:10 PM
>To: 'RFI List'
>Subject: Re: [RFI] CFLs and UV myth
>
>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 of whether there was any 
>consideration given for the occupational exposure of the hams; 
>it also makes no mention of the activity level of the hams. I 
>know a lot of hams who are inactive. Since no mention of 
>considerations is mentioned, along with the amount of work 
>that would have been required to conduct a scientifically 
>valid study, I suspect it is just more junk "science".
>
>We can thank the academic community's publish or perish 
>mentality, coupled with the media's continual need for 
>headlines, for much of the junk science articles.
>
>Doug
>K4AC
>
>> On Feb 25, 2009, Michael Coslo wrote:
>---snip---
>> A cite:
>> Increased mortality in amateur radio operators due to lymphatic and 
>> hematopoietic malignancies.
>> 
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3422125
>---snip---
>
>_______________________________________________
>RFI mailing list
>RFI@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>