Xref: utzoo rec.ham-radio:3631 sci.med:3811 sci.electronics:1887 sci.misc:729 sci.physics:2753
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!umd5!uvaarpa!mcnc!gatech!udel!princeton!mind!greg
From: greg@mind.UUCP (Greg Nowak)
Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio,sci.med,sci.electronics,sci.misc,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cancer and Electromagnetic Radiation
Message-ID: <1562@mind.UUCP>
Date: 8 Jan 88 05:28:20 GMT
References: <1077@kodak.UUCP> <2174@vice.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: greg@mind.UUCP (Greg Nowak)
Organization: Cognitive Science, Princeton University
Lines: 18
Keywords: Cancer, Radio, Electromagnetic Radiation, ANSI, Chemical Hazards

In article <2174@vice.TEK.COM> keithl@vice.TEK.COM (Keith Lofstrom) writes:
>There may or may not be something here, but it can't be found simply by
>counting death certificates.   For example: what if, for some reason,
>hams have a lower heart disease rate than the general population, and
>live longer?  Cancer primarily strikes in old age.  A cure for heart
>disease would show up in non-age-specific statistics as a powerful carcinogen.
>How old were those hams when they died?

Let's not forget that hams are also not a random sampling. For
starters, they probably have much higher disposable income than
average... which would affect a number of other things, such as diet,
travel, and so on. Given these factors, I don't find the
slightly-higher-than-expected numbers that surprising.

-- 


                              greg