From: oopdavid@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (D.RODMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Ham Radio Causes Cancer
Date: 28 Jan 93 11:52:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <44051@zygot.ati.com>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes...
>In article <C1F8Fp.4wM@inews.Intel.COM> jreece@sousa.intel.com writes:
> 
>>There have been a number of "reports" on the major TV news magazines and
>>tabloid shows about electromagnetic fields in general, and RF in particular,
>>causing cancer.  

Your comment is typical of an uninformed (and likely uneducated) bias
about this subject.  It is my contention that epidemiological studies
to date, often quoted in the media, mention a link between exposure to 
electromagnetic fields and various cancers.  Basic research has evaluated
the mechanisms whereby such fields "promote" cancer.  This is a topic
that should be considered by all as an important one, not apparently
something to ignore.  Would you say that smoking does not cause cancer
because you never saw anyone die under laboratory conditions and ruled 
out all other causes?  Get real.  There is more to life and biological 
systems than even the most learned in our scientific community can 
explain.  

 It's hard to say how much there is in it, given how
>>the media loves to peddle health and safety scares.  
> 
>Given that there are absolutely no studies making a scientific link
>between RF and cancer, it is safe to say that until there is real
>evidence to the contrary, there is NOTHING in it.
> 
>Please remember that this latest hoohah is the result of a lawsuit
>against NEC and GTE Mobilnet blaming a cellular phone for the death of
>a woman. This is a court action; neither side will have the slightest
>amount of science on its side (the studies are just not there), but the
>court will rule one way or the other. Based upon what? Based upon what
>courts usually decide upon: who presents the best emotional case.
> 
>By all rights, the case should be thrown out of court for lack of REAL
>evidence. But the man who lost his wife to cancer has beaucoup
>emotional points in his favor and the other side has some very deep
>pockets. It looks like a real legal horserace to me. And, of course, if
>the court decides against NEC/GTE Mobilnet, then that very case will be
>used as "evidence" to prove that cellular phones cause cancer.
> 
>>RF tissue heating is mentioned in the various ARRL license manuals.
> 
>This is about all we know about RF and its effects upon living tissues.

This statement sounds like an "Adairism" if I have ever heard one.  You
are WRONG, my friend.

>Particularly sensitive are the eyes which can develop cataracts. But
>again, we are talking about many watts from a feedhorn, not a couple of
>watts from a 450 handheld (with intermittant duty, at that). And I
>would not lose much sleep over the fixed base unit, either. The
>inverse/square law has not yet been repealed.
> 
>I swear if I hear about one more thing that "causes cancer"...
> 
>-- 
> John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
> john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc