 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / October 2005Links with electrical shock injury
There is a definate conspiracy in the UK to hide the truth about electrical shock injury. It is well known in the USA, Canada, France Germany, Japan, China and other major countries, however we as a public in the UK are not told about what an electrical injury can do to the body. I myself am an electrical shock survivor, with no family history of breast cancer (my sister's hobby is geneology) yet I was diagnosed with Stage 3 Agressive breast cancer 3 years post injury. I have met over 300 other such survivors and the incidence of breast cancer is high amongst us. Governments constantly deny the emf's cause cancer but the worst case scenario of recieving and emf is by electrical shock injury. To think that our police forces are introducing Legalised Electrical Shock Injury by using TASERS Take Breast Cancer for example. "Women with jobs that expose them to high levels of electromagnetic fields may face an increased risk of breast cancer, a new study shows. The risk of developing breast cancer climbed by 40% among women with the highest exposures --those who worked on mainframe computers, for example--compared with women exposed only to background electromagnetic fields (EMFs), Patricia Coogan, D. Sc., professor of epidemiology and biostatistics in the department of environmental health at the Boston University School of Public Health reported in Epidemiology (1996;457-464). Magnetic fields are created any time an electric current runs through wires, whether they are in the home or the office. Background EMFs are defined as "levels of exposure no greater than what you find in the average home from appliances and so on," according to Dr. Coogan. But women shouldn't be frightened by the new report, according to one expert. "Although these results are very interesting, they could still be due to chance," said Genevieve Matanoski, M.D., a professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore. For the past decade, researchers have tried to find a link between exposure to high levels of EMFs-- such as those living near high-voltage power lines or those who work in an environment suffused with electricity--and various types of cancer. The results have been ambiguous, occasionally showing a weak association, the Boston researchers said. The new study compared 6,888 women with cancer to 9,529 healthy women, all under the age 74. The women were classified by level of exposure--low, medium or high--on the job. Low-exposure occupations included secretarial work, data entry and dress-making. Engineers, computer programmers and electricians fell under the medium-exposure category, while electrical engineers and mainframe computer operators were considered to be at a high level of exposure. Women in the high-exposure category were 43% more likely to develop breast cancer, compared with women who are only exposed to background levels of magnetic fields, according to Dr. Coogan. Among women with high exposure, the effect was stronger among premenopausal women than postmenopausal women, she noted. EMF boosted their risk by 84%, while the risk among postmenopausal women rose only by 32%, according to the Boston researcher. While commending the authors for a careful study, Dr. Matanoski noted that the results for the high-exposure women are not as strong as they might be, due to the small numbers of women in this risk category, she explained. Only 20 premenopausal women and 37 postmenopausal women had high-exposure occupations. This means that the association Dr. Coogan and her colleagues found might be due to chance. Nevertheless, Dr. Matanoski said, the results are intriguing. Dr. Coogan and her colleagues suspect that EMF might increase the likelihood of breast cancer through its effects on melatonin, a brain hormone. When melatonin is placed in a test tube with cancer cells, the cancer doesn't spread, Dr. Coogan pointed out. Other studies have shown that exposure to magnetic fields can block the production of melatonin in animals, she added. But, Dr. Coogan noted, "whether magnetic fields inhibit melatonin synthesis in humans or influence breast cancer tumor development in women remains to be shown."" Another piece of information to consider is the following: July/August Male breast cancer again linked to occupational EMF exposure; Revised Environmental Protection Agency report due shortly; National Grid announces funding of six research projects; January/February Excess breast cancer in EMF workers found in third study; July/December First UK child cancer case against local power company by Studholme family; US study finds breast cancer risk in female electrical workers; German research supports EMF-breast cancer-melatonin link; ; Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and breast cancer in men. et al. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle. Data from a population-based case-control study of breast cancer in men were used to examine the hypothesis that occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields increases the risk of breast cancer. Incident cases (n = 227) diagnosed between 1983 and 1987 were obtained from 10 population-based cancer registries of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program of the National Cancer Institute. Controls (n = 300) were selected by random digit dialing and from Medicare eligibility lists. Exposure status, defined as ever having been employed in a job which has been classified as involving potential exposure to electromagnetic fields, was assigned without knowledge of case/control status. An elevated risk was found for any job with exposure (odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95 percent confidence interval (CI) 1.0-3.7), and risk was highest among electricians, telephone linemen, and electric power workers (OR = 6.0, 95 percent CI 1.7-21) and radio and communications workers (OR = 2.9, 95 percent CI 0.8-10). Risk did not vary with duration of exposed employment. The risk was highest among subjects who were first employed in jobs with exposure before the age of 30 years and who were initially exposed at least 30 years prior to diagnosis. These results lend support to the theory that electromagnetic fields may be related to breast cancer in men. The hypothesis warrants evaluation in women. PMID: 1877594 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Occupational cancer mortality among women employed in the telephone industry. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Occupational Studies Section, Bethesda, MD 20892-7364. We conducted a mortality odds ratio (MOR) analysis among women employed in the telephone industry, using death certificates from 24 reporting states for 1984 through 1989. Usual occupation and industry from the death certificates were coded using the 1980 Bureau of the Census occupational and industrial classification system. There were 2444 cancer deaths among women in the telephone industry (code 441). Among younger (age < 49) white women, significant excess risks were observed from cancers of the rectum (MOR = 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2 to 8.7), connective tissue (MOR = 4.4; 95% CI = 2.2 to 8.8), breast (MOR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.3 to 2.1), corpus uteri (MOR = 3.3; 95% CI = 1.5 to 7.5), ovary (MOR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.3 to 3.5), and brain (MOR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.2 to 3.7). Cancer of the connective tissue showed an almost sixfold risk (MOR = 5.5; 95% CI = 2.0 to 14.8) for the age group of 30 to 39 years. Excess risks of cancer of the connective tissue were observed among engineers and technicians, office workers, telephone operators, and mechanics and repairers (MOR = 8.5, 4.9, 1.7, and 4.4, respectively), suggesting a possible relationship with modern technological exposures in the telephone industry. Risks for cancers of the breast, corpus uteri, ovary, and brain were also elevated among these jobs. We did not have information on other risk factors for these cancer sites; therefore, socioeconomic status or lifestyle may explain these observed associations, particularly for the cancers of the reproductive system.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) PMID: 7861264 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Case-control study of occupational exposures and male breast cancer. Cocco P, Figgs L, Dosemeci M, Hayes R, Linet MS, Hsing AW. Institute of Occupational Medicine, University of Cagliari, Italy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether risk of male breast cancer is associated with workplace exposures. METHODS: A case-control study of 178 cases of male breast cancer and 1041 controls was carried out with data from the United States national mortality follow-back survey, which collected questionnaire information from proxy respondents of a 1% sample of all 1986 United States deaths among subjects aged 25-74 years. Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields, high temperatures, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), herbicides, other pesticides, and organic solvents was assessed by applying job-exposure matrices, based on the 1980 United States census occupation and industry codes, to the longest job held by study subjects as reported by the informants. A socioeconomic status index was created by combining information on annual family income, education, assets, and occupation to assess the association of socioeconomic status with male breast cancer. Relative risks were derived from logistic regression modelling, which included age, socioeconomic status, marital status, and body mass index, as well as occupational exposures. RESULTS: Risk for male breast cancer increased significantly with increasing socioeconomic status index (test for trend: p < 0.01), but the risks associated with individual socioeconomic status variables were smaller and the trends were not significant. A significant increase in risk of male breast cancer was associated with employment in blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills (odds ratio (OR) 3.4; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.1 to 10.1, based on six cases), and motor vehicle manufacturing (OR 3.1; 95% CI 1.2 to 8.2, based on seven cases). However, exposures to electromagnetic fields, high temperature, PAHs, herbicides, other pesticides, and organic solvents were not associated with risk of male breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The role of workplace exposures in increasing risk of breast cancer among men employed in motor vehicle manufacturing and in blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills deserves further investigation. The finding on socioeconomic status suggests that, as well as reproductive factors, other lifestyle factors such as diet that may be related to high socioeconomic status in men should be investigated further. The articles cited here do not support the premise, as they did not last time this article was posted. I know it's a troll, but let's just allay any fears or misconceptions it may raise. Electric shock is very different in several respects from prolonged exposure to electromagnetic fields, and is by no means the worst case a far as breast tissue is concerned. In the rare case of an electric shock which passes any significant current through the breast, heart damage is much more likely to be a problem. It is not clear that working on mainframe computers represents a particularly high exposure to such radiation, compared to say medical staff in an MRI unit, heavy mobile phone use or living under power lines. Most computer operators in my experience spend most of their time at some distance from the main sources of radiation, which are in any case thoroughly screened because computers are more sensitive to EM radiation than people are. Loading a tape drive gives no more exposure than loading a washing machine. A far more likely cause of increased cancer risk in this group is that they are in the main, shift workers, a known factor which does not seem to have been accounted for in the study. The initials EMF in physics are defined as meaning Electromotive Force, also known as voltage, and it is confusing to redefine them here to mean radiated electromagnetic power. Finally I am not clear what the point of the article is. Even if electric shock were shown to be a risk factor for breast cancer, for which the evidence is scanty in the extreme, so what? We already take the risk of electric shock very seriously: what more could we do to reduce this risk? Worrying about this is about as useful as putting a "Baby on board" sign in your car window as a way of stopping vehicles hitting it. Tim Jackson Who incidentally happens to be an electronic engineer in his day job. > There is a definate conspiracy in the UK to hide the truth about electrical > shock injury. [quoted text clipped - 194 lines] > factors such as diet that may be related to high socioeconomic status in men > should be investigated further. You seem to have taken a very narrow-minded view of maggie44's post. You appear to fit the term troll more so than her. Although electric shock is different from prolonged exposure to electromagnetic fields, this type of exposure is still a component of shock. I doubt you are medically qualified to rule out the hazard. Maggie44 probably isn't medically qualified either, but I believe that is why she cites authoritative documents. To off-handedly dismiss the posting seems pretty silly. Additionally, your comparative analogy between tape drives and washing machines lacks thought. There may be no more danger from a washing machine, but most people aren't exposed to that washing machine for 8 hours a day. In my experience, proefessinal computer operators are often in relatively close proximity to a field source. I don't think the cited reposrt was referring to someone merely sitting at a PC. If you only want to impress people with glib remarks and unqualified conclusions, write notes to yourself. Most others would rather have open discussion in a newsgroup. Jay Guire Who incidentally happens to be an electronic engineer and systems architect in his day job. > The articles cited here do not support the premise, as they did not last > time this article was posted. I know it's a troll, but let's just allay [quoted text clipped - 232 lines] > > factors such as diet that may be related to high socioeconomic status in men > > should be investigated further. Then too, there is what the author said two years later. Exposure to power frequency magnetic fields and risk of breast cancer in the Upper Cape Cod Cancer Incidence Study. Coogan PF, Aschengrau A. Arch Environ Health. 1998 Sep-Oct;53(5):359-67. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Massachusetts 02118, USA. Investigators used a population-based case-control study to evaluate the relationship between breast cancer risk and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields from various sources. There was no increase in breast cancer risk associated with (a) holding a job with high (odds ratio [OR] = 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4, 3.4) or medium (OR = 0.9; 95% CI = 0.5, 1.7) exposure to magnetic fields; (b) living in a home heated electrically (OR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.7, 1.4); or (c) sleeping with an electric blanket (OR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.7, 1.4). There was a nonsignificant 50% increase in risk for subjects who lived within 152 m (500 ft) of an electricity transmission line or substation (OR = 1.5; 95% CI = 0.6, 3.3). Although limited by small numbers and exposure misclassification, the data in this study did not support the hypothesis that exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields increases the risk of breast cancer in women. > You seem to have taken a very narrow-minded view of maggie44's post. > You appear to fit the term troll more so than her. Although electric [quoted text clipped - 342 lines] >> > in men >> > should be investigated further. Sandy, Thank you for presenting your opposition with authoritative documentation. It's good to see that you are giving serious thought. I won't dispute that there are differing opinions on this subject. However, some more recent studies have highlighted exposure risk. Although no direct link has been established, higher probabilities of have been reported. I won't post a long citing, but you can see an article here http://www.icr.ac.uk/press/releases/HealthRisk.html and go further from that point. Granted, the discussed probability was of leukemia and not breast cancer, but it was still a form of cancer. The panel that reviewed findings may have had a specific agenda that did not include evaluating breast cancer specifically. I won't say this is any type of proof, but it does tell me that caution is warranted. Jay TOP POST There have been many studies on the topic of cancer and electromagnetic fields, and there may be some truth to the hypothesis,but it is overall not well-substantiated. Some of the problems that have occurred in the past have been: (1) There is often no actual measurement of the electrical or magnetic fields. The studies took occupations that sounded as though they had something to do with electricity or electromagnetism without considering what the real exposure was. (2) Related to #1, because of the inverse-square relationship of field intensity to distance, a short distance can mean an enormous change in exposure. An electric blanket, with comparatively low current flow, may provide much higher exposure to electromagnetic fields than a transmission line a half-block away. (3) Someof the studies arose out of cluster investigations. As a (strong) rule of thumb, a study used to generate a hypothesis cannot be used to test the hypothesis. (4) Corollary to #3, studies done to check the hypothesis tend to be negative, while the original study is accepted as strong evidence for the hypothesis. The original study may actually have simply not found the cause of the cluster. (5) Cluster investigations have a very poor track record for identifying the cause. The problem, in my experience, is that we just don't know enough to know where to look. Many years ago, I did a case-control study of brain tumors at a chemical plant. We thought going in that we might find a relationship to vinyl chloride monomer. We found no plausible connection to any job title, plant department, or chemical exposure in the plant. What we did find was a very strong correlation with living in a certian part of a nearby town. We have no idea what that means. We did look for nearby transmission lines, and did not find them. (6) Positive studies tend to get reported, negative studies tend never to see the light of day. That leaves unchallenged hypotheses that may be false. (7) There is a balance between accepting a false hypothesis and failing to accept a true hypothesis. We have good statistical tests to warn us of the risk of accepting a false hypothesis; those are customarily set at a probability of less than 0.05 of accepting a false hpothesis. We have no good ways to guard against the second type of error, rejecting a true hypothesis. This factor tends to weigh against accepting new ideas that may be true, but the balance seems to work out not too badly overall. > Sandy, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jay Thanks for the extensive description of study dynamics. I can vouch for some of your statements and accept the others as coming from a knowledgeable person. Likelihood of study validity should always be a consideration and reported background information is not always sufficient for making a reasonable assumption of that validity. Unless we are prepared to dig heavily into these matters, we can only make our own assumptions that the studies had or didn't have sufficient controls. So where does that leave us? Believe what you want? I prefer to believe nothing as absolute unless proven so. But, since empirical studies are not meant to provide absolute proof, I note the reasonable cautions they evoke. You have given additional food for thought and I thank you again for that. Hi Sandy I could cite many cancer links to emfs however I am trying to keep the discusiion on breast cancer and electrical injury there is also these investigations which says the following: Magnetic fields and breast cancer in Swedish adults residing near high-voltage power lines. Feychting M Forssen U Rutquist LE Ahlbom A Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, stockholm, Sweden. We conducted a case-control study to test the hypothesis that residential magnetic field exposures increase the incidence of breast cancer. The study was based on people who had lived within 300 m of 220- or 400-kV power lines in Sweden at any time between 1960 and 1985. We identified 699 cases of breast cancer in women and 9 cases in men. One matched control per female case and eight per male case were selected at random. Estrogen receptor information was available for a subset of female cases. We assessed magnetic field exposure through calculations of the magnetic fields generated by the power lines before diagnosis. For calculated magnetic field levels > or = 0.2 microtesla (microT) closest in times before diagnosis, we estimated the relative risk to be 1.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.7-1.5] for women and 2.1 (95% CI = 0.3-14.1) for men. Women younger than 50 years of age at diagnosis had a relative risk of 1.8 (95% CI = 0.7-4.3). For women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, the relative risk was estimated at 1.6 (95% CI = 0.6-4.1), using the exposure cutoff point > or = 0.1 microT. Among estrogen receptor-positive women younger than 50 years at diagnosis, the relative risk increased to 7.4 (95% CI = 1.0-178.1). Breast cancer and electromagnetic fields--a review. Caplan LS, Schoenfeld, O'Leary ES, Leske MC Department of Preventive Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA. PURPOSE: Several statements have been issued to the effect that no consistent, significant link has been demonstrated between cancer and electromagnetic fields (EMF). However, there continues to be much interest in a possible association with breast cancer, in part because breast cancer risk is substantially higher in industrialized countries than in other areas, and electric power generation and consumption is one of the hallmarks of industrialized societies. In 1987, Stevens proposed a biological mechanism whereby two products of electric power generation, EMF and light at night, might contribute to mammary carcinogenesis through inhibition of melatonin. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of the epidemiologic literature and hypothesized mechanisms pertaining to EMF exposure and the risk of breast cancer, in order to assess whether or not there was evidence to suggest a link between EMF and breast cancer. RESULTS: Some occupational epidemiological studies have demonstrated an increased incidence of breast cancer among mainly male electrical workers. It has been difficult to study women, as few are employed in these types of occupations. In all, there have been eleven occupational studies related to breast cancer in women, and statistically significant risk ratios have been observed: 1.98 for pre-menopausal women in occupations with high EMF exposure in one study, 2.17 in all women who worked as telephone installers, repairers, and line workers in another study, and 1.65 for system analysts/ programmers, 1.40 for telegraph and radio operators, and 1.27 for telephone operators in a third study. However, six of the studies did not find any significant effects and two found effects only in subgroups. The results of the eight studies of residential exposure and four electric blanket studies have been inconsistent, with most not demonstrating any significant association. However, this might be attributed, at least to some extent, to difficulties in assessing residential exposure in these studies, as well as other methodological considerations. CONCLUSIONS: The biologic plausibility of an association between EMF and breast cancer, coupled with suggestive data from occupational studies and unexplained high incidence rates of breast cancer, suggests that further investigation of this possible association is warranted. PMID: 9647902 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > Then too, there is what the author said two years later. > Exposure to power frequency magnetic fields and risk of breast cancer in [quoted text clipped - 372 lines] >>> > in men >>> > should be investigated further. > You seem to have taken a very narrow-minded view of maggie44's post. > You appear to fit the term troll more so than her. Although electric [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Who incidentally happens to be an electronic engineer and systems > architect in his day job. We had a long thread on the same subject from the same OP last October. I have no intention of wasting my time rehashing those lengthy arguments. If you want to argue the toss, go and read that first. I am not ruling out the hazard, I am asking what she suggests we do about it. I am also pointing out that her sources do not refer to electric shock, and that the assumption that the one can be extrapolated to the other has no scientific foundation. In any case her last reference actually contradicts her argument if anything, as it finds NO connection between EM radiation and male breast cancer. I am not accusing her of being a troll, I am pre-empting those who would criticise me for replying to a troll. In my experience of working in a mainframe hall (at Shell Oil UK), the operators spent most of their working time either sitting at consoles (a little less hazardous than PCs), mounting tapes or transporting racks of tapes between the library and the drives room, or handling stationery supplies to, or paper output from, the printers. Most of the actual computing machinery was unmanned most of the time and several metres from the manned area, and when human intervention to equipment was required inevitably that equipment was idle. I also draw your attention to such things as the EU Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations which generally require that interfering radiation from electronic equipment is a lot lower than levels of concern for human health. If you can't for example use a broadcast radio receiver a couple of metres away then it wouldn't pass those tests: that implies that there is likely to be more health risk from the local TV transmitter or cellphone mast than from the equipment. Tim Jackson > We had a long thread on the same subject from the same OP last October. > I have no intention of wasting my time rehashing those lengthy > arguments. If you want to argue the toss, go and read that first. I read it before my first reply. > I am not ruling out the hazard, I am asking what she suggests we do > about it. I am also pointing out that her sources do not refer to > electric shock, and that the assumption that the one can be extrapolated > to the other has no scientific foundation. In any case her last > reference actually contradicts her argument if anything, as it finds NO > connection between EM radiation and male breast cancer. Your opinion and it may or may not be shared by others. > I am not accusing her of being a troll, I am pre-empting those who would > criticise me for replying to a troll. Gosh, how could anyone possibly misunderstand your words "I know it's a troll" as you accusing her of being one? > In my experience of working in a mainframe hall (at Shell Oil UK), the > operators spent most of their working time either sitting at consoles (a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from the manned area, and when human intervention to equipment was > required inevitably that equipment was idle. Your experience differs greatly from mine. In communications industries we rarely have the luxury of working on idle equipment and sometimes must spend extended periods less than a metre from it. > I also draw your attention to such things as the EU Electromagnetic > Compatibility Regulations which generally require that interfering [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tests: that implies that there is likely to be more health risk from the > local TV transmitter or cellphone mast than from the equipment. I would really like to believe that every piece of equipment meets regulations, but I know that is not the case. Actually, I have come across non-compliant equipment many times. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that regulations were made more stringent in relatively recent years and anything manufactured before the compliance cutoff date has a good possibility of not meeting current standards. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. I only ask that people have an open mind to the possibility of danger and take reasonable precautions. Electromagnetic radiation hazard is the subject of much research at the moment and I don't believe we can dismiss anything at this time. The term "safe" has been redefined countless times throughout history and it was often challenged by those who did not want their beliefs questioned. >>In any case her last >>reference actually contradicts her argument if anything, as it finds NO >>connection between EM radiation and male breast cancer. > > Your opinion and it may or may not be shared by others. No it's not my opinion, it's a fact. I quote the OP: "However, exposures to electromagnetic fields, high temperature, PAHs, herbicides, other pesticides, and organic solvents were not associated with risk of male breast cancer." That's pretty unambiguously negative. I don't see how my opinion comes into it. >>In my experience of working in a mainframe hall (at Shell Oil UK), the >>operators spent most of their working time either sitting at consoles (a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > industries we rarely have the luxury of working on idle equipment and > sometimes must spend extended periods less than a metre from it. Sure, been there too, but that is irrelevant. The article in question referred to "mainframe computer operators", not communications workers. My point was that as well as being not necessarily at high exposure, this particular trade has another known risk factor (shift work) which was not controlled for and seriously confounds the result. Whatever the actual exposure, and whether or not they included network room guys, (maybe they just asked "Occupation?") they didn't measure the real exposure and the study was badly flawed. > I am not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. I only ask > that people have an open mind to the possibility of danger and take [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > countless times throughout history and it was often challenged by those > who did not want their beliefs questioned. I'm not saying it's safe, I'm saying there are worse dangers. I'm saying most people (including many that would describe themselves as computer operators) get more (non-ionising) radiation dose from broadcast transmissions 24/7 than from work equipment. But this also is a side issue. You seem to be somewhat quixotically fighting a different battle. Read the subject line. The post was NOT about electromagnetic radiation. It was about electric shock, which is -not- radiated and is high level, short term current with observable clinical effects. But all the evidence offered was about low level, long term electromagnetic radiation with no detectable short term effect. I'm not disputing the evidence, weak as it is, I am disputing its relevance. She has shown no evidence of a similarity of effect between such radiation and electric shock or of any connection between cancer and electric shock except her own personal testimonial. My main point is as I said, that it is not clear what she wants done about it even if she could show that electric shock was a cancer risk factor. Electric shock isn't exactly a lifestyle or occupation that can be changed. It's like saying being hit by a truck is a risk factor for cardiac arrest. Tim Jackson "" > No it's not my opinion, it's a fact. I quote the OP: > "However, exposures to electromagnetic fields, high > temperature, PAHs, herbicides, other pesticides, and organic solvents were > not associated with risk of male breast cancer.""" Your facts are wrong i quote "Electrical Injuries: Engineering, Medical and Legal Aspects, Second Edition Co-Authors: Robert E. Nabours, Raymond M. Fish, Paul F. Hill Product Code: 0993 ISBN: 1-930056-71-0 Publisher: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company The most complete summary of electrical injury issues for the electrical injury litigator and investigator. Electric currents and electromagnetic radiation, both ionizing and nonionizing, can produce harmful biological effects in humans; these effects are the subject of an ever growing number of lawsuits. This book provides an introduction to the biological effects of electric currents and EMFs and the state of engineering and medical knowledge. " http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=15202128&query_hl=2 A cluster of male breast cancer in office workers. Milham S. smilham2@comcast.net Three cases of male breast cancer were diagnosed among a small group of men who worked in a basement office of a multi-story office building. This office was adjacent to an electrical switchgear room which generated high magnetic fields in their work space. The risk of male breast cancer in this group was increased about 100-fold (observe three cases, expect 0.03 cases; P < 0.00001). Since 1991, 15 epidemiologic studies have associated male breast cancer with exposure to electromagnetic field. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc. PMID: 15202128 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE I don't think you get my point, with electrical injury is associated with emf going through the body, if emfs cause breast cancer then electrical injury also causes breast cancer. A lifestyle where an engineer takes silly chances with electricity could be changed if they were made more aware of the risks. > My main point is as I said, that it is not clear what she wants done about > it even if she could show that electric shock was a cancer risk factor. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tim Jackson > "" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Your facts are wrong i quote They are not my facts they are your own words. Are you denying posting the above? I cut and pasted it from near the end of your original post. It's easy to go back and check. > I don't think you get my point, with electrical injury is associated with > emf going through the body, if emfs cause breast cancer then electrical > injury also causes breast cancer. Oh I do. Maybe it does. Both involve passing electrical current through parts of the body but that is where the similarity ends. Different amounts of current, different time-scales, different parts of the body. By that logic, photo flash causes sunburn and melanoma. It might or might not be true but it isn't a logical conclusion and it certainly isn't quantifiable. Do lightning strike survivors get breast cancer? That's one hell of a shock, so the rate should be much higher. For example it's known that long term exposure to high level electromagnetic radiation can cause eye cataracts, but electric shock doesn't cause cataracts: one reason is that it's damn difficult to get a shock to pass current through the eye. Or the breast for that matter. > A lifestyle where an engineer takes silly chances with electricity could be > changed if they were made more aware of the risks. Do you know one who does? Such a lifestyle tends to be "nasty brutish and short" with or without male breast cancer. I think their risk of sudden death would be a lot more worrying than cancer. All the electricians and electrical engineers I know (quite a lot) take great care to avoid electric shock, and in the main are pretty successful at doing so. Myself I only took silly risks (and got shocks) when I was a schoolboy. I quickly learnt not to. I think that is the way of it - it tends to be amateurs who take silly risks. A bit like motorcycling: if you survive the first couple of years then you've probably learnt enough to stay out of trouble. I can't really see how telling someone they have a tiny increased chance of contracting a rare disease is going to put them off dicing with death if that is what they want to do. Look how many smoke. I don't have statistics but in my experience most people suffering electric shocks are not engineers but ordinary people who get some sort of accidental exposure such as equipment failure. Sometimes because of failing to observe the sort of precautions that are second nature to EEs - eg fixing frayed cords or switching equipment off before working on it. I've had more shocks from a nylon sheet coming out of a tumble drier than from electrical equipment. (Hint - hold a coin in your hand and ground yourself through it before touching anything else after handling the charged fabric.) Even from pushing my (late) wife around a shopping mall in a wheelchair. Perhaps this is where the computer operator comes in. I have a personal anecdote about a computer operator who worked in an air conditioned computer hall unfortunately fitted with nylon carpets. When he fancied a break he would shuffle his feet across the room and with a grand gesture like a Marvel hero point his finger at the CPU. A spark would fly and the computer inevitably go down. Maybe he and his ilk are the source of the statistics on computer operators. <g> But then what about another one who used to amuse himself by setting light to the isopropyl alcohol aerosol spray used for cleaning the equipment? What sort of risks was he running? It's just a boring job. The things that went on on the night shift...... Tim Jackson I wasn't going to bother replying to this, but after some thought I decided I'd better or people will be misinformed. > Oh I do. Maybe it does. Both involve passing electrical current through > parts of the body but that is where the similarity ends. Different amounts > of current, different time-scales, different parts of the body. By that > logic, photo flash causes sunburn and melanoma. There is No maybe about it. Professor Duane A. Dahlberg. Is there any one potential effect that poses more dangers than others? A: The most familiar EM energy effect is electric shock. Various levels of electric shock are experienced by humans and animals. Some shocks are hardly noticeable, whereas others can cause great distress and are sometimes lethal. The possibility of a lethal shock is associated mainly with making contact with a high voltage wire in the home or business or on the distribution system. People have been encouraged to take greater care when in the presence of electrical lines and equipment. Additional research assessing the electrical injury effects from severe non-lethal shock has revealed both acute and long-term chronic effects. While the acute effects are quite well known, the chronic effects, which are more difficult to assess, have only been studied more recently. The chronic effects are long-term and associated with complex interactions of the shock current with the electrical systems of the body. In general, the central nervous and immune systems experience the greatest effects, some of them associated with stress (Hooshmand, et.al. 1989). Q: Have there been any other studies of potential effects? A: In addition to electrocution and shock, studies have been conducted to analyze possible effects from extra low frequency (ELF)-EM energies. Research literature provides reports of EM energy studies from nearly every country of the world (Becker and Marino 1982, Delgado, et.al. 1982, Konig, et.al. 1981, Marha 1971, Norden and Romel 1992). Both Eastern and Western Europe have provided valuable information concerning health effects from exposure to microwaves and ELF EM energies. In the United States, the greatest interest has been in the study of potential effects of 60 Hz magnetic fields (National Research Council 1997). As mentioned previously, the research results sometimes reveal a correlation between exposure to specific EM energies and specific health effects. There are many studies that have shown a correlation between EM energy exposure and a number of types of cancer, including cancer of the brain, both male and female breast cancer, testicular cancer, kidney and bone cancers, and leukemia (Ahlbom, et.al. 1987, Kheifets, et.al. 1997, Liburdy, et.al. 1993 Nair, et.al. 1989, Tenforde, et.al. 1987). Childhood cancer has been studied most often (Linet, et.al. 1997, Wertheimer and Leeper 1979). > It might or might not be true but it isn't a logical conclusion and it > certainly isn't quantifiable. Do lightning strike survivors get breast > cancer? That's one hell of a shock, so the rate should be much higher. Yes lightning survivors have been known to get breast cancer. > For example it's known that long term exposure to high level > electromagnetic radiation can cause eye cataracts, but electric shock > doesn't cause cataracts: one reason is that it's damn difficult to get a > shock to pass current through the eye. Or the breast for that matter. http://adam.about.com/reports/000026_4.htm I quote from the above source " Other conditions that can trigger the process leading to cataracts include the following: a.. Physical injury to the eye (such as a hard blow, cut, or puncture). b.. Chemical burns. c.. Electrical shock injuries d.. Chronic exposure to intense heat or cold. " >> A lifestyle where an engineer takes silly chances with electricity could >> be changed if they were made more aware of the risks. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the first couple of years then you've probably learnt enough to stay out > of trouble. I know quite alot of electrical engineers also, and now after discussions they do not take as many chances as they used to. Tell your information to the HSE I'm sure they would dismiss your claims. > I can't really see how telling someone they have a tiny increased chance > of contracting a rare disease is going to put them off dicing with death > if that is what they want to do. Look how many smoke. We are not discussing smoking. > I don't have statistics but in my experience most people suffering > electric shocks are not engineers but ordinary people who get some sort of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > charged fabric.) Even from pushing my (late) wife around a shopping mall > in a wheelchair. I have statistics, plenty of them Most of the bought from the HSE, in fact 90 pages of statistics. Approx 1000 electrical engineers suffer major electrical injury every year in the UK. >>Both involve passing electrical current through >>parts of the body but that is where the similarity ends. Different amounts [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Tenforde, et.al. 1987). Childhood cancer has been studied most often > (Linet, et.al. 1997, Wertheimer and Leeper 1979). So what? That is a big quote but it does not mention cancer in connection with electric shock, or correlate electric shock with EM radiation. One answer discusses electric shock and unspecifically mentions "acute and chronic effects", then a separate answer mentions a relationship between EM radiation and cancer. I don't particularly disagree with either, but butting the two together doesn't make them connected. I don't see the point of continuing this discussion if you insist on presenting non-evidence. And while I am at it, it is true that "There are many studies that have shown a correlation", but one should not forget that there are also many studies that have failed to do so. As he says, they "sometimes reveal a correlation". I would agree that exposure to EM radiation should be minimised but I believe the nature of the risks involved is really still largely unknown. I suspect this is largely due to the technical difficulties in measuring or assessing an individual's exposure history, some of which we have already discussed. >>It might or might not be true but it isn't a logical conclusion and it >>certainly isn't quantifiable. Do lightning strike survivors get breast >>cancer? That's one hell of a shock, so the rate should be much higher. > > Yes lightning survivors have been known to get breast cancer. That wasn't the point. Sure, people get breast cancer, we know that. The implied question was, do lightning survivors get MORE breast cancer risk proportionate to large amount of charge they pass. >>For example it's known that long term exposure to high level >>electromagnetic radiation can cause eye cataracts, but electric shock [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > c.. Electrical shock injuries > d.. Chronic exposure to intense heat or cold. " I mean that most severe shocks don't result in cataracts. As far as I know it only happens if there is trauma to the eye involved. Like one would say being kicked doesn't cause cataracts, but of course it can if you happen to be kicked in the eye. You are playing with words. I guess that might happen with lightning strike. I get the impression that it is a considerably less common outcome of electric shock than say death is. >>>A lifestyle where an engineer takes silly chances with electricity could >>>be changed if they were made more aware of the risks. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > they do not take as many chances as they used to. > Tell your information to the HSE I'm sure they would dismiss your claims. Which claim? That electricians try to avoid electric shock? The HSE only really sees hospitalisation or work-loss incidents, which is only the very worst electric shocks. Surely if there is a cancer problem, it would relate to the large number of low-level incidents rather than the very few serious incidents. >>I can't really see how telling someone they have a tiny increased chance >>of contracting a rare disease is going to put them off dicing with death >>if that is what they want to do. Look how many smoke. > > We are not discussing smoking. No, we are discussing risk avoidance behaviour, or lack of it. Smoking is a valid example. >>I don't have statistics but in my experience most people suffering >>electric shocks are not engineers but ordinary people ... > > I have statistics, plenty of them Most of the bought from the HSE, in fact > 90 pages of statistics. Approx 1000 electrical engineers suffer major > electrical injury every year in the UK. Yes and 3000 people a year are killed on the roads. Alone it is meaningless. What proportion of the whole shocked population is that? Does "electrical engineers" include electricians or just those with recognised engineering qualifications? Is this just RIDDOR-reportable incidents in the workplace or does it include incidents in the home. Does it analyse how many were misadventure, and how many unavoidable by the victim (eg claimable against another party)? Look, I am happy to support a campaign to increase awareness of the danger of electric shock, and to cost-effectively improve electrical safety in homes and workplaces. Although in my experience there are far worse hazards in both. Virtually all the accidents I have seen, been involved in or been told about in 30 years in industry, major or minor, even to electricians, have involved mechanical injury - mostly traps and sharp edges. And of course the ubiquitous bad back. I have never encountered a major electrical injury 1st or 2nd hand. I think attempting to involve a breast cancer risk factor in this is irrelevant and possibly scaremongering. On the other hand there are known connections say between various cancers and workplace chemical exposures which are often beyond the control or knowledge of the victims, and where awareness and improved regulation could make a difference. Tim "> The articles cited here do not support the premise, as they did not last > time this article was posted. I know it's a troll, but let's just allay > any fears or misconceptions it may raise." The articles do support the premise, we are discussing exposure toelectrical shock injury and their links to breast cancer. I resent being called a troll, if you can't debate an issue without name calling then I suggest you should seriously look to yourself first and foremost. "Electric shock is very different in several respects from prolonged > exposure to electromagnetic fields, and is by no means the worst case a > far as breast tissue is concerned. In the rare case of an electric shock > which passes any significant current through the breast, heart damage is > much more likely to be a problem." Electrical shock is different from prolonged exposure to electromagnetic forces nobody is disputing that fact. However electrical injury especially alternating current changes the molecular patterns in cells particularly in the very sensitive nature of breast cancer cells. promoting excitabilility and growth (The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life (Paperback)by Robert Becker, Gary Selden) Heart damage is only one symptom of electrical shock injury, the hand is the most common site of contact via a tool that is in contact with an AC electric source. Since the flexors of the hand and forearm are much stronger than the extensors, and alternating current travels through the high water content of blood vessels, the lymphatic system, and the nervous system (do not forget this includes the brain), brain injury is very often associated with electrical injury. because AC travels sporadically throughout the body trying to get to ground, every single organ in the body may be damaged internally without any evidence of external damage. (I am trying to keep this part very short) Therefore to say that heart damage is "much more likely to be a problem" is very much I hate to say it an Old wive's tale. "> It is not clear that working on mainframe computers represents a > particularly high exposure to such radiation, compared to say medical > staff in an MRI unit, heavy mobile phone use or living under power lines. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than people are. Loading a tape drive gives no more exposure than loading > a washing machine. " Most operators spend most of their time in front of their computers and to put this in context most Railway Electrical Engineers spend most of their time working on electrical lines, mainframe workers usually are not even in the same room as the computers. How washing machines comes into this discussion I wouldn't really know.We are talking about electrical injury, not environmental emf's lets keep the debate in perspective. "> Finally I am not clear what the point of the article is. Even if > electric shock were shown to be a risk factor for breast cancer, for which > the evidence is scanty in the extreme, so what? We already take the risk > of electric shock very seriously: what more could we do to reduce this > risk? Worrying about this is about as useful as putting a "Baby on > board" sign in your car window as a way of stopping vehicles hitting it." The point of the discussion its to debate electrical shock injury causing breast cancer, it is really very simple. Electric shocks can change the dna in breast cells. With electrical shock injury the survivor is also exposed to non-ionising radiation, and anyone disputing that there is a high probability of a link between cancer and non-ionising radiation is obviously wrong in view of the recent findings. We do not take the risk of electrical shock seriously in the UK. If you ask any electrical engineer what he knows about the risks of electrical injury he wouldn't be able to tell you, your comment about heart damage being more likely a problem just goes to prove my point. What is the point of worrying? Surely its a matter of providing a more thorough safety education in our nations colleges. Maggie44 who happens to be a qualified electrical and electronics engineer. > I myself am an electrical shock survivor, with no family history of breast > cancer (my sister's hobby is genealogy) yet I was diagnosed with Stage 3 > Agressive breast cancer 3 years post injury. I have met over 300 other > such survivors and the incidence of breast cancer is high amongst us. Just curious, What does Genealogy have to do with the discussion at hand? I'm sure even genealogists sit in front of computer terminals, and use washing machines, microwave ovens, cook on electrical ranges, dine under fluorescent lights. We could go on and on. What's the point? If these activities cause cancer, at least 50% of the population of the modern world would have cancer of one type or another attributable to EMFs. > The women were classified by level of exposure--low, medium or high--on > the > job. Low-exposure occupations included secretarial work, data entry and > dress-making. Engineers, computer programmers and electricians fell under > the medium-exposure category, while electrical engineers and mainframe > computer operators were considered to be at a high level of exposure. Being an engineer doesn't necessarily subject one to high levels of EMF. Some of we EE's sat at desks and never got near high intensity fields of EMF. Surely, if one sits in front of a radar antenna, he'll surely get warm and may even melt the Hershey bar in his pocket. Hmmmm. . . Danger? yeah, I suppose so. Lowell an E.E. that believes we need concrete facts. only! In reality, think of all the people that work around any number of electrical devices every day and don't have any problem with cancer what-so-ever. I think the point there was that medical authorities regard a family history of cancer to increase the odds. She ruled out the possibility of that argument by stating the history. I have had jobs where I sat in front of a desk in an office building, but also those where my desk was in the same room as operating electronic equipment. I think it reasonable to assume for study purposes that engineers as a group have a higher exposure than the average person. BTW, I've never stood near a microwave radio with a Hershey bar in my pocket. Too bad; I might be rich today. :) > To think that our police forces are introducing Legalised Electrical Shock > Injury by using TASERS Maybe, but they sure beat the socks off BULLETS when it comes to minimising body injuries.  Signaturemadiba |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.