Electricity and Cancer
well...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Here's one for ya. I have heard this beating around the block, but this is to
much ! ! ! The article below was taken from my wife's new McCall magazine. Gee,
I did'nt know McCall's got into electrical engineering !
ELECTRICITY AND CANCER:
How to be on the safe side
Recently some of us have started to feel a little nervous around television
sets and microwave ovens. This is because new research suggests that exposure
to electromagnetic fields - the alternating magnetic and electric fields
produced by power lines and certain appliances - can increase our risk of
cancer. There's no reason to be overly alarmed, however, says Nancy Wertheimer,
Ph.D., an expert on electromagntic fields at the University of Colorado Medical
Center. By exercising a little caution you can minimize the potential risk. The
basic rule to follow: If it stays on, stay away.
What's a healthy distance ?
FAN 2-3 FEET
CLOCK 3-4 FEET
COMPUTER 3-4 FEET (need a long stick to hit the keyboard !)
TELEVISION 5 FEET
COPY MACHINE 5 FEET (toss the paper at it and hope it copies ??)
LASER PRINTER
Wertheimer also points out that studies suggesting a connection between
electromagnetic fields and cancer risk remain controversial. "Much more
research is needed," she says, "before we can determine what and how dangerous
that connection is."
Did you ever get the idea that everything around you causes cancer ? Sex,
money, a pipe, and now your computer terminal ! ! I have worked for 24 years
with electronics and high energy devices and now I know why, when I turn of the
bedside lamp, I glow a nice blue ! ! !
---- Wes Ellison ----
The Nashville Flash
>[from an article in that well known scientific tome McCall's...]
> ELECTRICITY AND CANCER: How to be on the safe side
>cancer. There's no reason to be overly alarmed, however, says Nancy Wertheimer,
>Ph.D., an expert on electromagntic fields at the University of Colorado Medical
>Center. By exercising a little caution you can minimize the potential risk. The
>
>Wertheimer also points out that studies suggesting a connection between
>electromagnetic fields and cancer risk remain controversial. "Much more
>research is needed," she says, "before we can determine what and how dangerous
>
Nancy Wertheimer is an epidemiologist. She is not an electrical engineer.
She is the one that started this whole B-field/E-field mess wrt power lines
and such. I went to the trouble of pulling her original paper and reading
her "methodology" and "conclusions." IMHO she is trying to get herself more
funding for more research... damn the truth. She is saying a connection
exists and there is danger. That is pure conjecture, not science.
I agree that research ought to be done. But some engineers ought to be
included. That research should be "TO determine IF there is a connection
between EM fields and cancer."
===============================================================================
SAVE AMERICA... DUMP THE INCUMBENTS!
incumbent: adj. 1. Lying, leaning, or resting upon something else.
The Nashville Flash - d...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu - DoD # 412
James J. Szinger
when compared with the ammount of property damage, injuries and
deaths caused each year by electrocution and electrical fires?
Also consider the suffering caused by the lack of affordable and
dependable electricity in the underdeveloped regions of the
world. I think some perspective is needed.
Jim
Dave Pierson
d...@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (The Nashville Flash) writes, in part:
>In article <1991Nov13.0...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
>well...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>[from an article in that well known scientific tome McCall's...]
>> ELECTRICITY AND CANCER: How to be on the safe side
>....
>>cancer. There's no reason to be overly alarmed, however, says Nancy
>>Wertheimer, Ph.D., an expert on electromagntic fields at the University of
>>Colorado Medical Center.
>>Wertheimer also points out that studies suggesting a connection between
>>electromagnetic fields and cancer risk remain controversial.
>Nancy Wertheimer is an epidemiologist. She is not an electrical engineer.
>She is the one that started this whole B-field/E-field mess wrt power lines
>and such. I went to the trouble of pulling her original paper and reading
>her "methodology" and "conclusions."
An acquantance analyzed the paper. The number of cases examined, and
the number of cases of cancer are such as to pass a test of statistical
significance by _one_ case of cancer. No allowance for "confounders"
was made. An interesting side note is that NO measurements of E or H
fields were made in the original Wertheimer/Leaper(?) study.
"estimates" (guesses) of what the fields were, based on what the
investigators "thought" would result from the types of wiring used
were employed. When (admittedly, years later) the fields were measured
there was no correlation between cancer incidence and measured fields.
>I agree that research ought to be done. But some engineers ought to be
>included. That research should be "TO determine IF there is a connection
>between EM fields and cancer."
There are a large number of studies in progress as we "speak". Some
funded by governments, some funded by the power industry. Some funded
independently. All with more equipment and expertise than the original
studies.
thanks
dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation |the opinions, my own.
600 Nickerson Rd
Marlboro, Mass
01752 pie...@cimnet.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing." A J Raffles