The AM Forum

Now smart meters are going to kill us.

Article (http://electronicdesign.com/Blogs/SecondaryEmissions/tabid/732/entryid/90/Default.aspx?cid=ed_powernewsletter&NL=1&YM_RID=32v@operamail.com)

He was off by four years on the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building...

see his brain is cooked.
I worked with K1DH at mot. He thought nothing of working on a tower full of UHF transmitters keying away. He always had a tan darker then me and he was a WASP. Yup he cooked himself and now SK.

Anyone who spends any time at the Empire State Building is bound to be a bit whacky.

For the record:

Much of the scrutiny regarding RF and ELF exposure causing "cancer" started in the seventies following a rather well done study which was reported on widely in the lay press. It examined the cancer rates among "electrical workers" (meaning persons working around power distribution as well as electricians). It concluded that this cohort exhibited a pronounced spike in the occurrence of "acute myeloid leukemia".  It vaguely speculated that this could be chemically induced from exposure to toxins used in the manufacture of electrical devices but did not delve further there.

Naturally, the media distorted "radiated ELF" to "radiation"  and "Radio" and you know the rest with video monitors, etc.   Later, cell phones became yet another villain.  While I don't relish the idea of warming my head or other parts with cellular RF I have yet to see any indication that RF exposure and cancer can be definitively linked.

In fact, RF at the levels we cannot feel has never been shown to be "ionizing" radiation one would expect to cause cellular mutation of the DNA structure.  When I was completing my degree in Microbiology I did a trial study of mutagenicity vs. RF exposure (HF) using E. Coli.  (mutagenicity as determined by Ames protocol for those who care). I dropped the project when it became clear that no level of RF below that which cooked the cells dead would induce any noticeable mutations.   The control mutagen was nitrosoguanidine, a chemical that causes mutations in unbelievable small amounts.

Bottom line; for my money don't worry about RF and use plenty of ventilation with those electrical solvents.

Mark

Just think of the crap they coat the wood poles with. I bet it is far more toxic than 60 Hz radiation. Remember the smell of a fresh pole on a hot day when we were kids.
Can you imagine spending your work day hugging that crap as you climbed up and down them with tree spikes. With your nose inches away.

There was one series of events that cornvinced me that exposure to MW/HF RF had no negative effect on human longevity...

Back in the mid 1990's I was reading the AWA news and noticed a large cluster of SK's by the old timers - the guys who pioneered radio throughout the 1920's, 30's and 40's.  If anyone was exposed to unshielded, high power HF RF, it was these guys.   The obits were showing these guys dying at 97, 99, 100 years of age, etc.  The average lifespan for U.S.A. males was about 76 years.

This is hardcore scientific fact that  HF RF kills the bad cooties, caw mawn.. ;)

Since then I use Plexiglas for HF shielding, stand naked next to the big rigs during OB transmissions, and expect to live to 130!  

T

The power lines cause cancer hoopla (which broke into the national psyche in
the late '80s through the "currents of death" articles in the New Yorker
magazine) started with a 1979 study on childhood leukemia in Denver. The
electrical workers studies came later...these later studies actually
showed the cancer rate of such workers is the same as that of the general population (actually, the US study showed it was LOWER than that of the
general US population)

Peter

The guy who wrote the article is basically right even if he did get the date of the airplane into Empire wrong.   RF is non-ionizing radiation.  the energy needed to mutate DNA isn't there.  The paranoia is fueled by a toxic mix of extremely poor education in the sciences and critical thinking, suspicion and distrust of Big Industry, and a few quacks with questionable credentials out to make a buck by authoring inconclusive studies that vaguely find that there may be a risk, but more research (i.e. grant money) is needed.  They will keep asking for more grant money until they are old enough to retire.  

The reality is that there is far more radiation risk involved in being outside on a sunny day without sunscreen.  
The real danger is that if enough people get whipped into a hysteria over RF, then some politician will smell votes, and introduce legislation advocating draconian curbs on emissions (as long as they don't affect what the majority want).  I've been telling people for a few years at least, that after BPL, hash and buzzies, and antenna restriction idiots, the RF paranoia idiots are next in line.   We already have the stupidity of these ludicrous FCC exposure limits, one of the dumbest things FCC has ever come up with, since lawyers took over the FCC.

I am glad to know these facts.

This is Pulitzer Prize material. Media interviews welcome. (For a slight fee, of course)

T

Maybe the reasoning behind "Dr  Strangelove"??? :)

Thanks for the visual.... :(


--Shane
KD6VXI

There was an article in our local paper here abt the smart meters.  Various towns are banning them for various fears and loathings.  One knitwit  claimed the meter RF was causing him to be "restless" at night and another claimed it caused her aches and pains.   You see its a matter of religion on this stuff.  You just gotta believe in it.  8)

I recently attended a seminar where one subject was RF hazards (or perceived hazards).  One of the panelists gave a very well thought out paper and listed most of the RF signals that are out there in the ether.  He even listed...egads...ham operators.  He came to a figure of about -85DBm for the agregate of all signals in your home. That is something like .000001 milliwatts if I recall.  Definate brain frying RF.   ;D

Actually its the RF content that is evil and dangerous (like NPR)....just kidding!   :)

~ps