On 2013-02-13 10:11 PM, RussellMc wrote:
>> I bet they said the same thing about cigarettes.
>=20
> This could get messy fast.
> This aspect of the question properly lies in TECH or maybe EE but has
> too much risk of running amok to be left there.
>=20
> But,
> Cigarettes had and have excellent epidemiological support for the
> conclusions drawn about their results, good well known mechanisms of
> action, highly intuitive cause and effect linkage  and lots of good
> demonstrations on a case by case basis of the effects.

The idea I meant to get across with that comment is that health effects,
even if searched for, may not become apparent until 50 years down the
line. Among many other examples, this was the case with cigarettes. Most
RF technology is extremely new - one may or may not yet have the
required technology or yet be asking the right type of questions in
order to determine whether long term exposure to high power RF is
detrimental to health. But it certainly seems like a possibility, and is
definitely undergoing a continuing long-term investigation. I just don't
think it's safe to jump to conclusions either way.

--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.