>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
>news.
>
>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
quantities.
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@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|