[TowerTalk] FCC RF Safety Regs Info Sept 1
EUGENE SMAR
SPELUNK.SUENO@prodigy.net
Sun, 3 Sep 2000 17:31:34 -0400
TT:
<The most recent news that I had heard of on this subject was that there was
some scientific evidence linking cellular phone use to certain types of
ephithelia cancer (I believe the study showed a significant correlation
between
the side of the head where the cancer occured and which side of the head
the person held the phone against).>
An article in a recent wireless industry trade mag (the mag is at work
and I'm not at the moment) states that the patients/subjects in the study
were asked the question about which side of their heads they held their
cellphones AFTER they had been diagnosed with brain cancer. The implication
is that the patients responded invariably with the answer the side with the
tumor.
-Gene Smar AD3F
-----Original Message-----
From: W4EF@dellroy.com <W4EF@earthlink.net>
To: TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>; K3BU@aol.com <K3BU@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, September 02, 2000 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] FCC RF Safety Regs Info Sept 1
>
>Yuri,
>
>The most recent news that I had heard of on this subject was that there was
>some scientific evidence linking cellular phone use to certain types of
>ephithelia cancer (I believe the study showed a significant correlation
between
>the side of the head where the cancer occured and which side of the head
>the person held the phone against). I do not know whether or not the study
>proved causation. Studies of low frequency EM fields have indicated that
>unless you are in prolonged close "occupational" proximity to power lines,
there is
>no evidence of increased risk for disease (e.g. its safe to live next to
powerlines).
>All this should be put in proper perspective though. A well know
environmental
>pundit in California put it very well when he stated that you are hundreds
of time
>more likely to die of cancer (from all know causes) or heart disease than
you are to
>succumb to a disease originating from any of these very weak and somewhat
>dubious causal factors (e.g. the srict vegetarian who hasn't quite smoking
yet is
>a good example of the thinking involved). People tend to worry about
insignificant
>things that have a very weak effect (neighbor with ham radio tower), and
ignore
>things that are very likely to kill them (poor fitness, diet, high stress
levels, lack
>of proper preventive care, etc).
>
>As far as ozone depletion being an environmental myth, I think you may be
>suffering from somekind of ditto head political zealotry. Space based
millimeter
>wave radiometers clearly show that upper atmospheric chlorine "eats" O3.
>Furthermore, it is known that HCFCs are a major source of upper atmospheric
chlorine.
>What is in question, is whether or not the reductions in global use of
HCFCs will
>have the desired effect (that is, an increase in ozone levels). Similary,
with global
>warming the science clearly shows that atmospheric C02 levels have been on
the rise
>for the last 100 years, and that this rise is due to industrial activity.
As I understand it,
>this part is undisputed. The main and current unanswered question is what
will be the
>overall effect of this CO2 rise on the earth's climate. Will it be
cataclysmic, or it will it
>"in the noise" compared with natural varations variations that are beyond
our control.
>Science does not have a clear answer to this question yet. More data is
needed.
>
>The most dangerous thing I see out there is the emotional reactionary
thinking
>that exists on both sides of these controversial issues. Ditto head
zealouts who
>think that all environmental policy is "hogwash" spawned by commy pinkos
>in black helicopters are just as dangerous as environmental wackos who
>think that anything that smacks of being pro-environment is good public
>policy. Charlatons disguised as new age healers are more than happy to
sell
>you poison because Congress put them beyond the reach of the evil pinkos
>at the FDA. On the other hand, bozos in the California Air Resources Board
were
>dumb enough to fall for the MTBE scam because it was sold as good
environmental
>policy. Nothing like more expensive gasoline that poisons drinking water
and does
>nothing to clean up the air. When caught up in their political enthusiasm,
people
>often forget that hucksters, hustlers, scam artists, and even the well
meaning but
>misguided activist can appear clothed in garb of either political extreme.
>
>Mike,
W4EF........................................................................
......................................
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <K3BU@aol.com>
>To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
>Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 7:11 PM
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] FCC RF Safety Regs Info Sept 1
>
>
>>
>> In a message dated 9/1/2000 7:57:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> mcduffie@actcom.net writes:
>>
>> >
>> > By the way, there is far more evidence that says rf damages human
>> > tissue, than there is that says it doesn't.
>> >
>>
>> Where is it? Can you point to some valid studies besides
>> "environmentablist's" press releases? Like there "may be" danger?
>>
>> You can wrap your head in 40m dipole and transmit kilowatt for days, and
>you
>> will be OK. Again look at all those 90-year old farts, licensed since no
>> licenses were around, working around multi killowatt stations for 8 hrs a
>day
>> and fooling around with big amps at home, many of the alive and QRV.
(Just
>> ask W8AH :-)
>>
>> >>Every time I see some newbie wanting to
>> get on hf and stringing his dipole across the ceiling in the house
>> because he "can't" put up outside antennas, I am just that much more
>> disappointed in where our hobby has gone. Many of these people are
>> putting their ceiling dipoles right under someone else's floor, possibly
>> within inches of someone's children.<<
>>
>> Yea, because he can pass his dummied down extra license, and he is not
>> allowed to put up tower. What a way to feed the rebars in the concrete
>floor,
>> only "light extra" can dream this up.
>>
>> It is amazing how people can get brainwashed by our "media". Few
"reports"
>> that there may be a danger, and bingo it becomes a "fact".
>>
>> If you want to live long, stop stuffing your body with sugars and
>> carbohydrates, eat meat and protein, strengthen the immune system and
call
>CQ
>> 24 hours a day till your 100th birthday.
>>
>> It is the same hogwash as freon causes ozone holes, global warming and we
>> should be eating vegetarian. You can believe what you want, but the facts
>> speak for themselves, just the facts maaam!
>>
>> Yuri, K3BU
>>
>> --
>> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
>> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
>> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>> Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
>Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com