[RFI] CFLs and UV myth

Michael Coslo mjc5 at psu.edu
Wed Feb 25 14:57:10 EST 2009

On Feb 25, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Hare, Ed W1RFI wrote:

> 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. :-)

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.  
It cannot be helped, since something always gets us.

We all hear the ads saying that "Such and such has become the leading  
killer of (pick the group)". In many if not most cases it is true not  
because of any increased risk or environmental problem - it is because  
we made inroads against the previous "leading killer".

That is why so many people take lots of drugs to keep BP and  
cholesterol low, asprin to protect against heart attacks, keep slim  
and trim, to avoid all the problems arising against obesity, don't  
smoke to avoid cancer. What's likely to happen? They won't die from  
those causes, but they'll spend their last 10 years as a healthy  
Alzheimer's patient.

So in a long winded way, there is a possibility that RF might protect  
people against some ailments.

Personally, I think RF's greatest effect is that it makes some Hams  
really grumpy........

-73 de Mike N3LI -

More information about the RFI mailing list