Medical, Effects of RF energy

Effects of RF energy

Author	Message
Jeff Sicherm #1 / 23	Effects of RF energy Are RF wavelengths and energy levels associated with any particular cellular or nuclear processes or phenomena ? Since there has been preliminary data linking possible damage to high intensity magnetic fields (near power lines) and microwaves at various frequencies have known damaging effects, I'm wondering whether ubiquitous and saturation-level use of the RF range will have any possible negative biological effects. Such use is going to increase with wireless lans, personal communications devices (high use cellular), and other broadcast applications.
Sat, 18 Jun 1994 18:18:14 GMT

Frank Muennema #2 / 23	Effects of RF energy Quote: > Are RF wavelengths and energy levels associated with any particular >cellular or nuclear processes or phenomena ? > Since there has been preliminary data linking possible damage to high >intensity magnetic fields (near power lines) and microwaves at various >frequencies have known damaging effects, I'm wondering whether ubiquitous >and saturation-level use of the RF range will have any possible negative >biological effects. Such use is going to increase with wireless lans, >personal communications devices (high use cellular), and other broadcast >applications. The only detrimental effect of non-ionizing radiation (i.e. not UV or X-rays) I know to be demonstrated is cell damage caused by heating. It apparently doesn't matter much what causes the heating, except that different wavelengths penetrate to different depths in the body. RF wavelengths could be more dangerous than 50/60Hz fields around metallic structures which concentrate their energy. Some kinds of jewelry fit in this category. Please clarify: 1) What are the data which link damage to high intensity fields 2) What does "saturation-level" mean? Frankly, I believe that doomsayers have unjustifiably scared people away from electric appliances by claiming that even small AC magnetic fields (a few gauss) are harmful. Also note that the actual field values and radiated power from devices like wireless LAN transmitters will be extremely low-- the FCC doesn't like people blasting away at the RF spectrum :-)
Sat, 18 Jun 1994 22:43:38 GMT

Jeff Sicherm #3 / 23	Effects of RF energy Quote: >> Are RF wavelengths and energy levels associated with any particular >>cellular or nuclear processes or phenomena ? >> Since there has been preliminary data linking possible damage to high >>intensity magnetic fields (near power lines) and microwaves at various >>frequencies have known damaging effects, I'm wondering whether ubiquitous >>and saturation-level use of the RF range will have any possible negative >>biological effects. Such use is going to increase with wireless lans, >>personal communications devices (high use cellular), and other broadcast >>applications. [ ... ] >Please clarify: >1) What are the data which link damage to high intensity fields Preliminary and anecdotal reports of high leukemia (sp?) rates for people, esp. children, living near major power conduits. Not claiming they are authoritative. Quote: >Frankly, I believe that doomsayers have unjustifiably scared people >away from electric appliances by claiming that even small AC >magnetic fields (a few gauss) are harmful. Also note that the >actual field values and radiated power from devices like wireless >LAN transmitters will be extremely low-- the FCC doesn't like >people blasting away at the RF spectrum :-) I haven't heard claims for small magnetic fields, only (very) large ones. However, there is no evidence on the other side either. Namely, that being bathed most of the time in high amount of em radiation from other parts of the spectrum is entirely a good thing. Perhaps the FDA should take the same approach: that anything that hasn't been proven harmful (yet) should be automatically approved with no studies. -- Jeff Sicherman up the net without a .sig
Tue, 21 Jun 1994 20:40:24 GMT

Robin Salmanso #4 / 23	Effects of RF energy Quote: >In article >> Are RF wavelengths and energy levels >> associated with any particular >>cellular or nuclear processes or phenomena ? A lot of the 'studies' are misinformation as they are only statistical studies, and fail to take other factors in to account. -- Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!273!715!Robin.Salmansohn
Fri, 24 Jun 1994 00:28:42 GMT

Robin Salmanso #5 / 23	Effects of RF energy Quote: >> Are RF wavelengths and energy levels associated >> with any particular A recent study on magnets has shown there to be no significant effect on biomolecules. -- Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!273!708!Robin.Salmansohn
Fri, 24 Jun 1994 21:59:29 GMT

Hoyt A. Stearns j #6 / 23	Effects of RF energy Quote: >>> Since there has been preliminary data linking possible damage to high >>>intensity magnetic fields (near power lines) and microwaves at various... Do the studies about power line hazards to health take into account the ozone created, the 60Hz hum (noise pollution), the dust precipitation caused by the high voltage, possible nitrogen oxides, periodic chemical cleaning of insulators, effects of the low flying helicopter periodic patrols, and any other effects caused by high voltage AC, or do they just assume any measurable effect is due to electromagnetic effects directly? -- 4131 E. Cannon Dr. \| \| Advancing the Phoenix, AZ. 85028 \| voice \| The Reciprocal System- a unified theory _______USA_________\|_602_996_1717__\|_The Universe in two postulates!_________
Sun, 26 Jun 1994 02:24:08 GMT

DURR.. #7 / 23	Effects of RF energy jr.) says: Quote: >(Jeff Sicherman) writes: >>>> Since there has been preliminary data linking possible damage to high >>>>intensity magnetic fields (near power lines) and microwaves at various... >Do the studies about power line hazards to health take into account the >ozone created, the 60Hz hum (noise pollution), the dust precipitation >caused by the high voltage, possible nitrogen oxides, periodic >chemical cleaning of insulators, effects of the >low flying helicopter periodic patrols, and any other effects >caused by high voltage AC, or do they just assume any measurable effect >is due to electromagnetic effects directly? >-- It's worse than you imagine. The research shows quite clearly that the effect(leukemia in children) is unrelated to fields generated by the power lines(which are not the primary component of EM fields in your home), and unrelated to the fields generated by ground loops(due to the fact that plumbing is the common ground for many homes), but is related to proximity to power lines, weighted by 1/r, where r is the distance from the power line for the home. Despite this, both the researchers and the media reporting the issue focus solely on the power lines and the possible damage "electromagnetic fields" can do. My personal guess is ozone, but I hadn't thought of several of your other possible explanations. Roo-Dog Rip """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Roo-Dog Rip is: <>SLAC, Stanford, the DOE and the Derrell Durrett <>University of Colorado neither claim
Mon, 27 Jun 1994 07:22:05 GMT

Henry E. Schaff #8 / 23	Effects of RF energy Quote: >jr.) says: >>(Jeff Sicherman) writes: >>>>> Since there has been preliminary data linking possible damage to high >>>>>intensity magnetic fields (near power lines) and microwaves at various... >>Do the studies about power line hazards to health take into account ... >It's worse than you imagine. The research shows quite clearly that the >effect(leukemia in children) is unrelated to fields generated by the >power lines(which are not the primary component of EM fields in your >home), and unrelated to the fields generated by ground loops(due to the >fact that plumbing is the common ground for many homes), but is related >to proximity to power lines, weighted by 1/r, where r is the distance >from the power line for the home. ... My observation is that proximity to high tension power lines is correlated negatively with affluence. Has this been taken into account? --henry schaffer n c state univ
Mon, 27 Jun 1994 10:18:18 GMT

DURR.. #9 / 23	Effects of RF energy Schaffer) says: Quote: >>jr.) says: >>>(Jeff Sicherman) writes: >>>>>> Since there has been preliminary data linking possible damage to high >>>>>>intensity magnetic fields (near power lines) and microwaves at various... >>>Do the studies about power line hazards to health take into account ... >>It's worse than you imagine. The research shows quite clearly that the >>effect(leukemia in children) is unrelated to fields generated by the >>power lines(which are not the primary component of EM fields in your >>home), and unrelated to the fields generated by ground loops(due to the >>fact that plumbing is the common ground for many homes), but is related >>to proximity to power lines, weighted by 1/r, where r is the distance >>from the power line for the home. ... > My observation is that proximity to high tension power lines is >correlated negatively with affluence. Has this been taken into >account? >--henry schaffer n c state univ According to the only person I know who has researched this extensively the answer is that the effect has been controlled for, and it is not the cause. Roo-Dog Rip """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Roo-Dog Rip is: <>SLAC, Stanford, the DOE and the Derrell Durrett <>University of Colorado neither claim
Tue, 28 Jun 1994 02:59:12 GMT

co.. #10 / 23	Effects of RF energy [deleted stuff about fields from power lines] Quote: > My observation is that proximity to high tension power lines is > correlated negatively with affluence. Has this been taken into > account? > --henry schaffer n c state univ This comment was obviously made by a Euro-centrist, non-PC, reactionary thinker! It has been proved in the best PC manner possible that all ills and travails in this world are caused by wrong thinking such as this! (No flames please - I can't put enough smileys on the screen to indicate the amount of sarcasm intended) D. Cox standard disclaimer applies
Mon, 27 Jun 1994 17:32:36 GMT

Paul Johns #11 / 23	Effects of RF energy Quote: >It's worse than that: The studies which have found a correlation have found a >correlation between PREDICTED exposure to electromagnetic fields and disease. >However, when someone took the unthinkable step of actually MEASURING the >field strength, the correlation vanished. So while there does appear to be a >correlation between proximity to power lines and certain diseases, this >correlation apparently has nothing to do with electromagnetic fields. Wait a moment, this does not make sense. Surely this implies that there was no correlation between predicted and measured exposure. I would have thought that predicting the exposure would be one of the more trivial jobs. Can you explain further? Give some references even? Paul. -- --------------------------------------------+---------------------------------- These ideas and others like them can be had \| GEC-Marconi Research is not for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. \| responsible for my opinions
Tue, 28 Jun 1994 16:53:46 GMT

DURR.. #12 / 23	Effects of RF energy Quote: >writes: >>It's worse than that: The studies which have found a correlation have found >a >>correlation between PREDICTED exposure to electromagnetic fields and disease. >>However, when someone took the unthinkable step of actually MEASURING the >>field strength, the correlation vanished. So while there does appear to be a >>correlation between proximity to power lines and certain diseases, this >>correlation apparently has nothing to do with electromagnetic fields. >Wait a moment, this does not make sense. Surely this implies that >there was no correlation between predicted and measured exposure. I >would have thought that predicting the exposure would be one of the >more trivial jobs. Can you explain further? Give some references even? >Paul. >-- >--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------- >- >These ideas and others like them can be had \| GEC-Marconi Research is not >for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. \| responsible for my opinions Predicted exposure is that obtained by assuming the exposure to EM fields in a given location is pre{filter}ly due to fields from the nearby power lines, which falls off as 1/r. Measured exposure means that the radiation in a given home was actually measured. The original study neglected to do this as funding was very small. The reason the assumption was not valid is that the largest component of the the field in the homes tested was due to the currents running through the plumbing(most homes have the ground attached to the plumbing, but this establishes a ground loop with the neighbor's house). When the loop was broken the local fields fell dramatically. No, I don't have the reference. I just saw the talk. I'll try to get the string of references and post them. Roo-Dog Rip """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Roo-Dog Rip is: <>SLAC, Stanford, the DOE and the Derrell Durrett <>University of Colorado neither claim
Thu, 30 Jun 1994 06:25:48 GMT

Carl J Lydi #13 / 23	Effects of RF energy Quote: >>It's worse than that: The studies which have found a correlation have found a >>correlation between PREDICTED exposure to electromagnetic fields and disease. >>However, when someone took the unthinkable step of actually MEASURING the >>field strength, the correlation vanished. So while there does appear to be a >>correlation between proximity to power lines and certain diseases, this >>correlation apparently has nothing to do with electromagnetic fields. >Wait a moment, this does not make sense. Surely this implies that >there was no correlation between predicted and measured exposure. If correlation were transitive, this would follow, but it's not. E.g. I can generate three sets of data in which the first and second sets are uncorrelated, but each has, say, a 10% correlation with the third. Quote: >I would have thought that predicting the exposure would be one of the >more trivial jobs. Can you explain further? Give some references even? What the original study did, as I understand it, was to predict that the field strength would vary inversely as the distance from the main power lines. However, there are many other factors involved (e.g., radiation from power lines and appliances within the home, parts of the structure of the home providing shielding from the main power lines, etc.), which apparently swamped the 1/r predicted field strength. Someone else has promised to try to track down the references. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Thu, 30 Jun 1994 12:42:02 GMT

Alexander E. Pens #14 / 23	Effects of RF energy Quote: > >I spent 15 years of my childhood living within 200 feet of high-tension > >power lines. I certainly don't remember any 60Hz hum, helicopter patrols, > >chemical cleanings, or excessive dust precipitation. Nor do I recall > >that we lacked affluence. > >The power company left the lines strictly alone, except for periodic > >visits by locals hired to _mow_ (not spray) the weeds, and trim encroaching > >tree branches. > >As to the increased cancer risk, well, I'll post again in 30 years and > >let you know whether I'm still healthy. :-) > Reasoning requires looking beyond _ONE_ case Did you miss the smiley? My point was that, as far as I know, none of the proposed causative agents (noise, helicopters, chemicals, dust, poverty, etc.) are necessarily or even commonly present where there are transmission lines. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allen-Bradley Company 747 Alpha Drive, Highland Heights, OH 44143 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 01 Jul 1994 21:33:14 GMT

Schroebel Charles B. RMC x62 #15 / 23	Effects of RF energy Quote: >> >I spent 15 years of my childhood living within 200 feet of high-tension >> >power lines. I certainly don't remember any 60Hz hum, helicopter patrols, >> >chemical cleanings, or excessive dust precipitation. Nor do I recall >> >that we lacked affluence. >> >The power company left the lines strictly alone, except for periodic >> >visits by locals hired to _mow_ (not spray) the weeds, and trim encroaching >> >tree branches. >> >As to the increased cancer risk, well, I'll post again in 30 years and >> >let you know whether I'm still healthy. :-) >> Reasoning requires looking beyond _ONE_ case >Did you miss the smiley? >My point was that, as far as I know, none of the proposed causative agents >(noise, helicopters, chemicals, dust, poverty, etc.) are necessarily or >even commonly present where there are transmission lines. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Allen-Bradley Company 747 Alpha Drive, Highland Heights, OH 44143 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------A One reason that the predicted field from a powerline might differ from the measured field would be the presence of three phases and their physical proximity to each other. The fields from each phase interact in a vector sum and the result is no longer a 1/r relationship. To make matters worse, most power transmission line studies assume a linear powerline and do not account for turns or catenaries. The studies (and I can find the references if I have to) I am referring to were done to show powerline-soil voltages as a result of tower spacing and powerline geometry regarding single, duel, three phase and multiple three phase power lines. The purpose for finding the tower to soil voltages was for corrosion control and safety (ever wonder why there are grounding mats under switches on hv (30 Kv) lines. Another concern reported in the press: oscillating magnetic fields as low as 200 nano Tesla are claimed to be a health hazard. Now, 200 nT is easily obtained in any home. Just operate a toaster. I'm not going to do the calculation, but a couple of amps (remember, B-fields don't care about voltage, just current) at a meter or so should be more than 200 nT. So the real concern should be what about low-voltage, high current lines. Charles B. Schroebel Johns Hopkins University Just 'cause I say it don't me it true
Sun, 03 Jul 1994 01:36:19 GMT

Page 1 of 2

[ 23 post ]

Go to page: [1] [2]