Remember the Swedish auto plant? That didn't have a CRT magnetic field problem? Just paint particles attracted to CRT's and repelled onto the word processor operator's faces?
Cortland KA5S > [Original Message] > From: Chris Wells <[email protected]> > To: Oscar Overton <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Date: 7/31/2008 9:57:56 PM > Subject: Re: RF What-if (was: RE: Another Cancer Scare?) > > Oscar - I will take some pot shots at my experience. > The wire resistors are these large units where the wire coils are in a > frame. > The whole assembly was covered with dust. > As I dumped 10-20KW into these loads they did heat up and cause some fumes. > I do have alergies and so maybe there was somthing to this vapor exposure. > > Another issue was my concern about the safety of the loads. > This was a lab where we tested motor starters till failure. > If you've experienced enough phase to phase faults at 480 from a stiff > utility feed it will make you nervous. > So another issue was my paranoia of the loads. > > But I was typically wrapped up in seeing if my code changes were working. > I am just pointing out how there are so many variables to this event. > > I no longer work at that lab but do have the opportunity to work with > engineers that are regulary exposed to large AC magnetic fields. > I will see if any of them have had similar expriences. > > Chris Wells > > > > > From: "Oscar Overton" <[email protected]> > Chris, > > I appreciate you comments and also the additional information related to > your experience. > The additional data contributes to your assessment conclusions. > Also, from your previous comment about the three options: > > 1. Self-testing is not comfortable but sometimes necessary. > > 2. Not telling others that they are being exposed would be unethical. > > 3. A company with a vested interest will probably not investigate but > this too borders on the unethical. > > There are two additional alternatives. > > 1. Obtain volunteers to do testing that have been informed of the > previous results and possible risks. However, this might skew the results > because of psychological factors of knowing. The only other alternative is > inform the test subjects that they are being tested but do not reveal to > them what is being tested. This reduces the available test subjects but > reduces the chance of psychological bias. A problem with this is then the > type of people that are willing to accept conditions such as this. Is this > sample representative of the general population. > > 2. An independent lab does the testing. Unfortunately, unless they > get funding, no one is going to just go out and spend money on this. > Usually the only funding available for something like this is from a source > that has already taken a position and only wants proof of their position. > Therefore the source of funding often taints the perception of the results, > even if not actually tainting the testing protocol or assessment. > > There are just too many variables to be able to come to a overwhelmingly > valid conclusion on just about any thing that effects humans (or for that > fact animals) in the natural environment. Many studies that seemed to > conclusively shown some trait or connection have later been shown to be the > possible result of other factors that were not addressed in the original > analysis. > I don't remember where it was that I read it (not enough time to go back > and research it now) but I read about a study that linked high power > transmission lines to cancer risk. > The authors of the original study published that they had found a > conclusive link between these two. The article showed that the data had > been groomed (probably not intentionally) to the point that the conclusion > was valid, but only for a very small geographical area. The results were > attributed to statistical grouping. There was in fact a significant > concentration of cancer events near a high power transmission line but > similar conditions in other geographies could not substantiate the > conclusions of the study. In other words, sample size matters. > Also, there were possibly other factors that were not investigated as > possible causes of the cancer concentration. > > Sloppy science produces sloppy results (GIGO). > > Your case provides a good data point from which to establish a study. > It may also be that you are particularity sensitive to the conditions to > which you were exposed. Similar to those with certain chemical > sensitivities. > Your experience may not be representative of the population as a whole. > > Maybe you can offer your co-workers the opportunity to participate in your > study. Put the load center in their workspace (with their knowledge of > course). > Tell them it is all for the cause of science and the well being of mankind > as a whole. > > Oscar > > > > "Chris Wells" > <radioactive55man > @comcast.net> To > "Oscar Overton" > 07/30/2008 09:25 <[email protected]> > PM cc > <[email protected]>, > <[email protected]> > Subject > Re: RF What-if (was: RE: Another > Cancer Scare?) > > > > > > > > > > Oscar - I spend a lot of time debugging systems and separating coincidence > from cause so I appreciate your skeptic stance. > I would agree that it was not a controlled experiment but it was my > experience that I wanted to share. > My exposure was over a good part of a month and my flu like symptoms > happened at the exposure time and stopped ~ 4hrs+ later after leaving the > area. > I would estimate ~ 15 exposures events over that month and then many months > before and after without any problems. > As a result of my experience I am being cautious, limiting unnecessary > exposure and since I work with power being observant of other situations. > > Chris Wells > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society > emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > > To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] > > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html > > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Scott Douglas [email protected] > Mike Cantwell [email protected] > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > David Heald: [email protected] > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
