Re: Microwaves for You

[Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 03:09 09.03.97 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear Radsafers:
>     Those of you interested in possible health risks from microwaves 
>should look at the first two articles in th American J. of Epdemiology 
>for 1997,vol 145,1-17 by Dolk et al. on Cancer Incidence nar Radio and 
>Television Transmitters in Great Britain.  A cancer cluster was observed near 
>the Sutton Coldfield TV and FM tranmission towers.  Using postcoded cancer 
>incidence data for 1974-1986, a study area was defined with a 10 km radius.
>Adult lukemia within 2 km was 83% greater than expected.  Maximum power 
>density summed across frequencies was 0.013 W/m2 for TV and 0.057 W/m2 
>for FM, well within the non-thermal range. The second paper attempts to 
>see what  the relationship is for another 20 high powerd TV and FM 
>stations in Great Britain.   A decline in risk for adult leukmia with 
>distance was significant, but the overall excess was small but significant, 
>1.03.  Similar methods were used and rings were looked at within 10km.
> Hocking et al. have a similar study for N. Sydney in the Med. 
>J. of Australia, December16, 1996 Vol 165,pp601-605, based on closer and 
>more distant communities.
>John R. Goldsmith, M.D.,M.P.H. Professor Epidemiology, Ben Gurion U. ISRAEL
>gjohn@BGUMAIL.BGU.AC.IL                                            


Dear radsafers,

I ask you beforehand to forgive me my comment, in case you feel offended or
scientifically annoyed.

B u t : I am getting a little tired of all the studies showing that there is
an effect found a little above nothing in the effects of ionizing, non
ionizing radiation, followed by a study, which shows, that there has been
used a wrong assumption and that the effect is a little below nothing. (One
can of course use the scientific expressions, of for instance "the overall
excess was small but significant" 1.03. The studies show, that there are
clusters here and there are clusters there, and they are close to a nuclear
power station, close to a TV-tower, they are far away of a nuclear power
station and they have been found far away from any microwave source. 

There must be clusters - anybody claiming a homogeneous distribution of
cancer, of whatever disease or effect must be .....

On the other hand I read nearly every day in the papers that there have been
hundreds of victims when a ferry sank, there are thousands and even tens of
thousands of victims in certain "religious wars" - people killed
deliberately. We know that smoking is the most important cause of lung
cancer, but some people search for casualities originating from radon at 400
Bq/m3. I "praise" the US for acting against tobacco abuse, but I do not know
of any other country which has a similar attitude. We know about the danger
of drug and alcohol abuse, there must be even figures available for the
death toll - but is there really done enough to cope with it? When will ever
the population learn to compare risks?

To summarize - why are these studies undertaken? I have an opinion, but I do
not dare to disclose it - so most of you will guess it.....

Franz
Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 WIEN
AUSTRIA/EUROPE
Tel./Fax:	+43-1-4955308
Tel.:		+43-664-3380333
e-mail:		schoenho@via.at