> > I understand that a cellphone company ran a test on mice and were > > understandably quiet when the cancer rate detectably increased, > > "Urban myths" are hard to deal with, aren't they? In the above case (perhaps unusually) its not an urban myth - its well documented and is relatively recent. An Australian university did a study with proper controls where a cellphone with a designed on/off pattern was placed in appropriate proximity to a colony of mice and results were compared to a control sample. The results showed a statistically significant increase in certain type(s) of cancer. The results were poblished in a report but were not given the circultaion that would have been expected normally. The result leaked out as such results needs must (people being involved). All this is well documented. BUT - and there's always a but - while the methodology of the study may not be in question (as I understand it) the meaningfulness is. The mice were of a type which have been bred to be especially susceptible to cancer (this being an accepted way to get accelerated results over useful time periods), mice ain't people, and exposure levels distances to aerial, exposure times etc were ofd course questioned severely by those who would rather the results were meaningless. This is not to say that the results are not meaningless - just that there are both people who will query results - some because they wish to ensure they are being objective and others because they have vested interests in skewing the results (which sort of people do you think work for tobacco companies? :-). Some details of the above may be wrong - I believe the majority is essentially correct - it can be looked up if anyone absolutely has to have the details. > My apologies. My medical training and my understanding of physics and > cause and effect in particular mean that I'm *not* a "true believer" in > curious (spurious) effects of non-ionising radiation. What I *do* find > bizarre is that people should concern themselves with such things when > so many still *smoke*! I don't consider this to represent an objective position (but there is no reason that anyone has to be objective if they don't want to be.) The use of the term "(spurious)" here suggests fore judgement. I am an electrical engineer with a Masters degree and the certain knowledge that I certainly don't know everything. I have read casually but reasonably widely on this subject (first doing a project wherer it was relevant in 1973) and I conclude that "while it is by no means certain that non-ionising radiation causes health problems I would not be at all surprised if it is ultimately generally accepted that this is the case". I suspect that those who insist loudly and strongly that there is no problem whatsoever from non-ionising radiation (such as the "scientists" at our national radiation laboratory and "world experts" who are imported by NZ Telecom to tour the country and tell everyone how safe the cell sites are) are selling their scientific soul and may well look extremely foolish many years from now. In the mean time I still look right then left before crossing the road (we drive on the wrong side of the road down under here), don't use carbon-tetrachloride, don't smoke and try and keep away from suspected carcinogens. I also do not carry a cellphone in my left jacket pocket, would never buy a house under high voltage power lines and have used a field strength meter to establish the field strength of a nearby pylon line.