Re: Dangers of SSTCs ! ! ! Measured

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Jim Lux by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net>

At 07:39 AM 3/11/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Original poster: "Paul Marshall by way of Terry Fritz 
><teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <klugmann-at-hotmail-dot-com>
>
>Captain,
>   About two years ago 60 Min came out with an article that tied cell 
> phone use to brain tumors. In addition to that many Police officers who 
> ran radar regularly had a very high incidence of brain tumors. It's all 
> been linked to microwave radiation.
>
>
>
>Paul S. Marshall


Hmmm.. the cellphone/brain tumor link doesn't stand up on close examination 
of the study, which was not very well controlled epidemiologically. Not to 
say that there isn't a connection, but the widely cited reference on 60 
Minutes doesn't show it.

The police officer/cancer was not brain tumors, but other cancers, 
noticeably testicular. Again, this was a occupational/survey type of study 
(i.e. no effort made to identify whether there was a discernable causal 
relation), however, speculation was that officers had this (not following 
the instruction manual) procedure of turning on the radar so it emitted, 
then holding it in their lap (on), then bringing the radar up to make the 
measurement.  sort of improvising an "instant on" feature.

There is another study that looked at exposure from window mounted radars 
where the officer would use the metal clipboard to shield the beam (like a 
theatrical lamp "douser").


Remember, correlation is not causality.  There are a lot (a whole lot) of 
potential confounding factors in these sorts of studies. For all anybody 
knows, the residue of the dry cleaning solvent used to clean their uniforms 
may have had an effect (and for that, there IS good experimental evidence 
for a causative mechanism).


The "link to microwave radiation" tends to be in the writing of the news 
article, not in the original study.  One also has to be careful about how 
many layers of repetition has been gone through.  Two examples:

1) CRT monitors cause miscarriage - original study identified possible 
correlation between miscarriage and use of CRT monitors at Kaiser "cubicle 
farm".  Much todo in popular press about "radiation hazards from 
monitors".  Later studies showed that a) increased incidence was not 
statistically significant (i.e. could have been chance) and b) that 
operator positional stress (i.e. back strain) was more highly correlated 
with (statistically significant) effects.  I still see third and fourth 
hand references to the original study in newsletters, etc. in (shall we 
say, non-rigorous) things like "Today's Admin Assistant", where they cite 
some other magazine, which cites some other magazine, and which going back 
through, finally gets to the original reference.

2) Powerline fields cause cancer - original study looked at epidemiological 
data for cancer incidence in various census tracts and found correlation to 
"estimated field strength".  field strength was not actually measured, but 
estimated based on distance from power line and some other factors (not 
from first principles and em field calculations, but based on some ad hoc 
rules).  Upon review: a) the actual measured field didn't correlate very 
well with the estimated values; and b) no attempt was made to control for 
the very strong correlation between income and cancer incidence.  People 
who live under power lines tend to have lower incomes (because the property 
is less expensive because of the "ugly" power line).


This sort of thing is important, folks.  As a tesla coiler, you're in a 
position to be treated as a knowledgeable "expert" in the eyes of the 
general public with respect to things high voltage and electrical.  You 
have a responsibility to dig a bit deeper than watching "20/20" or reading 
the magazines in the doctor's office waiting room.

Ask questions...