Is AM Radio Harmful?

KingFishKingFish
edited August 2004 in Science & Tech
Korean scientists have found that regions near AM radio-broadcasting towers had 70 percent more leukemia deaths than those without.
The study, to be published in an upcoming issue of the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, also found that cancer deaths were 29 percent higher near such transmitters. Two years ago an Italian study found death rates from leukemia increased dramatically for residents living within two miles of Vatican Radio's powerful array of transmitters in Rome. The Koreans looked at the death rates in 10 regions with AM radio-transmitting towers broadcasting at more than 100 kilowatts and compared them with control areas without transmitters. The substantially higher cancer mortality in those who lived within two kilometers of the towers led researchers to conclude that more investigation was needed. However, they also said their study did not prove a direct link between cancer and the transmitters.
Source: Wired

Comments

  • qparadoxqparadox Vancouver, BC
    edited August 2004
    Correlation does not mean causality, I wish the media would figure this one one but unfortunately most remain ignorant of scientific principles.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    If it didn't prove anything, why even publish such a horribly suggestive conclusion?
  • entropyentropy Yah-Der-Hey (Wisconsin)
    edited August 2004
    To freak out the masses. What else is the media for? :)
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    Point taken.
  • DexterDexter Vancouver, BC Canada
    edited August 2004
    qparadox wrote:
    Correlation does not mean causality, I wish the media would figure this one one but unfortunately most remain ignorant of scientific principles.

    The Article wrote:

    ...led researchers to conclude that more investigation was needed.


    However, they also said their study did not prove a direct link between cancer and the transmitters.

    "There have been many studies like these, and they aren't very convincing," said Mary McBride, an epidemiologist at the British Columbia Cancer Agency. Many other factors could have contributed to those cancer rates, said McBride, who has headed a number of similar studies and found no direct link.

    They did not say that their was a direct link of causility, and they provided a fair and balanced counter-point.

    If they were just trying to freak us all out, the article would have been a lot more lopsided. Think Fox News....

    Dexter...
  • JengoJengo Pasco, WA | USA
    edited August 2004
    idk what you guys say, that sure got me freaked....

    :(
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    Ok, ok.. I don't often use this, but I must. :rolleyes:
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited August 2004
    To re-state what's been said above:
    correlation does not imply causation.
  • TemplarTemplar You first.
    edited August 2004
    I don't know anyone who listens to the AM band..
  • LIQuidLIQuid Raleigh, NC
    edited August 2004
    you guys are so thickheaded
Sign In or Register to comment.