Re: Monitor Radiation

[mikew50@aol.com (MikeW50)]

In article <341D9FFA.3C63548D@concentric.net>,
Michael Madill  <msean@pop3.cris.com> wrote:

>Are any of these readings at dangerous levels?

As far as I am aware, all of the safety concerns regarding low level
electromagnetic (EM) radiation from monitors and the like stem from a study
done a number of years ago that correlated living near high power
transmission lines with some forms of cancer, most notably lukemia. (sp?) A
later, and much less widely publicised study, found the correlation to be
correct--but further found that the problem was not EM radiation per se.
They found that people exposed to similar radiation levels from underground
power lines (which of course had to be closer since they had more absorbing
material to go through) did _not_ experience higher levels of cancer. The
supposition to guide further research was that the cancer levels may have
been associated with high power lines, but were probably caused by some
other factor, such as insecticides used for weed control or byproducts of
atmosheric chemistry triggered by the EM radiation. I have not seen any
follow up studies that identifed any of these culprits as the cause, but I
have not looked for them, either.

So, the folks who quote specific levels of EM radiation as dangerous do
not, as far as I know, have any valid reason for doing so.

Conversely, high levels of repeated pulsed EM radiation are clearly linked
to brain cancer (see studies initially squelched by the Air Force), and
there is statistical evidence that repeated exposure to radio signals very
close to the body (e.g. some cellular phones and police radar guns) can
cause cancer. Again, no causal relationship I'm aware of has been
identified in either case, just a very strong statistical link. In these
cases, though, it seems unlikely that the cause could be something other
than the EM radiation.

I don't keep up on this research carefully, I just read the reports when I
come across them. If anyone knows of facts that are more recent, or that
point out that any of these studies were in error, I'd like to hear about it.

Mike Westerfield