Posted by Chloe on November 8, 2007, 5:12 pm
>>
>> * In 1990, David Savitz, an epidemiologist at the University of North
>> Carolina, determined through a study that pregnant woman who used
>> electric blankets have children who have a 30% increased risk of cancer
>> as compared to children whose mothers didn't use electric blankets.
>>
>>
> I don't see what the * refers to. Savitz was a leader in such studies,
> but his own studies contradicted each other. In 1995 he said, "I hate to
> give up on epidemiology outright, but I think that it needs to evolve."
> http://www.ehponline.org/docs/1995/103-5/forum.html
I don't know what a "30% increased risk" means, either. Apparently what it
*doesn't* mean is that there were actually 30% more cancers, or it would
just say so.
Posted by Rod Speed on November 8, 2007, 5:50 pm
>>>
>>> * In 1990, David Savitz, an epidemiologist at the University of
>>> North Carolina, determined through a study that pregnant woman who
>>> used electric blankets have children who have a 30% increased risk
>>> of cancer as compared to children whose mothers didn't use electric
>>> blankets.
>> I don't see what the * refers to. Savitz was a leader in such
>> studies, but his own studies contradicted each other. In 1995 he
>> said, "I hate to give up on epidemiology outright, but I think that
>> it needs to evolve."
>> http://www.ehponline.org/docs/1995/103-5/forum.html
> I don't know what a "30% increased risk" means, either. Apparently
> what it *doesn't* mean is that there were actually 30% more cancers,
> or it would just say so.
Wrong, that is precisely what it means except that its talking about
getting cancer at all rather than getting more than one cancer.
Posted by Rod Speed on November 8, 2007, 7:51 pm
> Chloe wrote:
>>>> * In 1990, David Savitz, an epidemiologist at the University
>>>> of North Carolina, determined through a study that pregnant woman
>>>> who used electric blankets have children who have a 30% increased
>>>> risk of cancer as compared to children whose mothers didn't use
>>>> electric blankets.
>>> I don't see what the * refers to. Savitz was a leader in such
>>> studies, but his own studies contradicted each other. In 1995 he
>>> said, "I hate to give up on epidemiology outright, but I think that
>>> it needs to evolve."
>>> http://www.ehponline.org/docs/1995/103-5/forum.html
>>
>> I don't know what a "30% increased risk" means, either. Apparently
>> what it *doesn't* mean is that there were actually 30% more cancers,
>> or it would just say so.
>>
>>
> The above link shows how it works. Savitz studied 138,905 utility
> workers, exposed to high levels of EMFs up on power poles. 151 died
> of brain cancer. Savitz and Dana Loomis published a paper saying this
> meant utility workers were 2.6 times more likely than the general
> population to die of brain cancer.
> Researcher Philip Cole said hold on, from a control group of 138,905
> from general population, one would have expected more, 159, to die of
> brain cancer. Savitz said utility workers are so much healthier than
> the general population that he would have expected only 58 to die of
> brain cancer.
> Hmmm... it sounds as if exposure to high levels of EMFs protects a person from
most diseases,
Nope, that utility workers are nothing like average health wise
quite separately from their exposure to power line fields.
> but there's not much reduction in brain cancer. It's quite a jump to say it
causes brain cancer.
Yep, not a shred of evidence that it does. And it would require a matched
group of individuals on health and sex etc to be say anything useful brain
cancer incidence wise, and it would be quite difficult to find a matched
group that werent exposed to other possibilitys like cellphones etc too.
Posted by Don K on November 9, 2007, 9:50 pm
> Chloe wrote:
> The above link shows how it works. Savitz studied 138,905 utility workers,
exposed to
> high levels of EMFs up on power poles. 151 died of brain cancer. Savitz and
Dana
> Loomis published a paper saying this meant utility workers were 2.6 times more
likely
> than the general population to die of brain cancer.
> Researcher Philip Cole said hold on, from a control group of 138,905 from
general
> population, one would have expected more, 159, to die of brain cancer. Savitz
said
> utility workers are so much healthier than the general population that he
would have
> expected only 58 to die of brain cancer.
In other words, apply whatever fudge factor is needed to get the answer you want.
Don
Posted by Don K on November 7, 2007, 10:08 pm
> Electric blankets create a magnetic field that penetrates about 6-7 inches
into the
> body.
It only penetrates 6 or 7 inches? What is stopping the field?
The magnetic field from the earth goes straight thru your entire body.
Likewise the fields from the wiring and electric devices in your house
cut thru your entire body too.
It's time to put on the mu-metal hat.
Don
XML site map
>> * In 1990, David Savitz, an epidemiologist at the University of North
>> Carolina, determined through a study that pregnant woman who used
>> electric blankets have children who have a 30% increased risk of cancer
>> as compared to children whose mothers didn't use electric blankets.
>>
>>
> I don't see what the * refers to. Savitz was a leader in such studies,
> but his own studies contradicted each other. In 1995 he said, "I hate to
> give up on epidemiology outright, but I think that it needs to evolve."
> http://www.ehponline.org/docs/1995/103-5/forum.html