Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!ptb@Mitre-Bedford
From: ptb@Mitre-Bedford
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: Radio Hams Prone to Leukemia? - new study cited
Message-ID: <10655@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 14-May-85 08:53:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.10655
Posted: Tue May 14 08:53:35 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 05:58:17 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 27

I have another question on that study.... (FLAME ON)

Is 1600 some odd hams, and only 24 people who were affected REALLY
statistically significant?  I guess in order to really believe the
results, it would have been nice to have been done on a much wider
range of people.  (I am not one of those who believes everything that
they read, even if it IS in a medical journal.)

As far as I know, RF has also been linked to other things, including
cataracts in the eyes (if the exposure is excessive), headaches, and skin
burning effects.  But with only 24 people (as opposed to 12.6 for a control
group) I am skeptical.  It is possible that the other 11.4 people were
careless, affected by the water in that area, etc.

We are all aware that there is some hazards in this hobby, with
cautions about high voltages, possible problems with lightening, etc.,
in the study material when we go for our licenses.  I guess I'm not
too worried at this time that my hobby poses a significant risk to my
health.  If we are really going to paranoid, how about cleaning up the
water supplies, the air we breathe, and the food we eat (not to
mention damage done by cigarettes, PCBs in DUMMY LOADS, etc.).  I'm
sure we could go on and on, but that's not the point.

(FLAME OFF)

				Peter Baldwin, Wa1snh
				(ptb@mitre-bedford)