Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / October 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Study: Radar not responsible for Cape cancer rates

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
c palmer - 14 Oct 2005 10:32 GMT
my comments.....i guess this is one of those times where i know too
much.  when i read this article,  i thought about reversal of thought.
only in this case,  what would happen if they said that radiation caused
prostate cancer or breast cancer?   would they treat it with MORE
radiation?  

~ curtis

=======================

October 14, 2005

BOURNE, Mass. --Another study has found that the Air Force's early
warning radar system in Bourne is not responsible for Cape Cod's
elevated cancer rates, a published report said Friday.

The epidemiological study found "no convincing evidence" that pulsed
radar waves emitted by the PAVE PAWS radar facility cause adverse health
effects, The Cape Cod Times reported.

There was no evidence of increased death rates for cancers such as lung
cancer in women and for leukemia, among those exposed to the radar, the
International Epidemiological Institute study found.
"We conclude there is currently no convincing evidence for adverse
health effects associated with the operation of the PAVE PAWS radar
system," the study authors wrote.

It was the last of four studies paid for by the Air Force and led by
public health officials to determine whether the radar facility on the
Massachusetts Military Reservation was in part to blame for some cancers
on the Upper Cape.
In January, a National Academies of Sciences study concluded that the
output from the Cold War-era PAVE PAWS station is no different than
normal radio waves that bombard people every day.
The Air Force station, built in 1978, has thousands of antennae that
send a powerful radar beam over the Atlantic Ocean, scanning for
incoming missiles from sea level to space. While most of the beam shoots
over the tree line, some "side lobes" spill onto surrounding communities
24-hours a day.

The International Epidemiological Institute analyzed cancer mortality
rates both before and after PAVE PAWS came on line. The study looked at
lung cancer, female breast cancer, leukemia, brain cancer, colorectal
cancer and prostate cancer.

Researchers compared the disease trends in Barnstable County with the
trends in Berkshire, Hampshire and Worcester counties and found no
changes in the mortality rates that could be related to exposure to PAVE
PAWS radar, the study said.

Bob Tarone, biostatistics director for the institute, cautioned that the
epidemiological study has its limitations.
"No one study can rule out entirely all adverse effects," he told the
newspaper. "It is an impossibility. Science is not that precise. All we
can say is that we have found no significant evidence."

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
MrP - 14 Oct 2005 15:52 GMT
>my comments.....i guess this is one of those times where i know too
>much.  when i read this article,  i thought about reversal of thought.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>warning radar system in Bourne is not responsible for Cape Cod's
>elevated cancer rates, a published report said Friday.

Do not confuse non-ionizing radiation (such as radio frequency
emitters, radar, etc.) with ionizing radiation from sources such as
radium, X-rays, etc.  There has been essentially no evidence to show
that non-ionizing radiation is responsible for either initiating tumor
growth or hastening its progress, other than heating effect in extreme
cases.  Therapeutic application of ionizing radiation is generally
used to selectively destroy malignant cells, that are in many cases
(for certain forms of cancer) more susceptible than normal ones.
c palmer - 14 Oct 2005 22:36 GMT
From: KBob@nowhere.net (MrP)
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 04:32:06 -0500,

Do not confuse non-ionizing radiation (such as radio frequency emitters,
radar, etc.) with ionizing radiation from sources such as radium,
X-rays, etc. There has been essentially no evidence to show that
non-ionizing radiation is responsible for either initiating tumor growth
or hastening its progress, other than heating effect in extreme cases.
Therapeutic application of ionizing radiation is generally used to
selectively destroy malignant cells, that are in many cases (for certain
forms of cancer) more susceptible than normal ones.  

==========

having spend many years in the field of radiation and radiation
poisoning, i feel i can offer an explanation.  

yes, there is a difference if someone is talking about omni directional
electric magnetic frequency (EMF) radiation, and directional radio
frequency radiation (RF).

the article specifically stated, "that pulsed radar waves emitted by the
PAVE PAWS radar facility cause adverse health effects"

in summary, here's what the PAVE PAWS radar system does.

The unique aspect of this radar is the phased array antenna technology.
This system differs from a mechanical radar, which must be physically
aimed at an object in space to track and observe it. The phased array
antenna is a fixed position and is part of the exterior building wall.
Phased array antenna aiming, or beam steering, is done rapidly by
electronically controlling the timing, or phase, of the incoming and
outgoing signals.

Controlling the phase through the many segments of the antenna system
allows the beam to be quickly projected in different directions. This
greatly reduces the time necessary to change the beam direction from one
point to another, allowing almost simultaneous tracking of multiple
targets while maintaining the surveillance responsibility. The large
fixed antenna array through its better beam focusing improves system
sensitivity and tracking accuracy.

Background

A phased array antenna, as any other directional antenna, will receive
signals from space only in the direction in which the beam is aimed. The
maximum practical deflection on either side of antenna center of the
phased array beam is 60 degrees. This limits the coverage from a single
antenna face to 120 degrees. To provide surveillance across the horizon,
the building housing the entire system and supporting the antenna arrays
is constructed in the shape of a triangle. The two building faces
supporting the arrays, each covering 120 degrees, will monitor 240
degrees of azimuth. The array faces are also tilted back 20 degrees to
allow for an elevations deflection from three to 85 degrees above
horizontal.

The radar system is capable of detecting and monitoring a great number
of targets that would be consistent with a massive SLBM attach. The
system must rapidly discriminate between vehicle types, calculating
their launch and impact points in addition to the scheduling, data
processing and communications requirements. The operation is entirely
automatic, requiring people only for monitoring, maintenance and as a
final check of the validity of warnings. Three different computers
communicate with each other from the heart of the system, which relays
the information to Cheyenne Mountain AS.

the energy deliver system is very close to that of radiation types used
from treating prostate cancer.

for example,  they have found out that if you uses just a one power
pulse phase burst of energy, it doesn't do hardly any damage to body
tissue.  and if you take two beams and phase them is a 3 - D position
system, now, you are able to shoot that beam straight into the human
body from two different angles and where the two beams intersect, the
power of the beams are added algebraically and general enough heat and
power to destroy the cancer tissue.

that is how they use the pulse beams for medical purposes.  

on BOB treatments, they are using photon bombardment and it can be
adjusted to the depth of penetration needed to kill the pca cells.  one
advantage of this type of treatment is that it does penetrate the human
body, it doesn't go through the human body, but drops all of it's energy
inside at the point needed.  none of the other radiation treatments do
this.  this is why radiation for SRT is not as effective.  you are doing
a wide spread beam radiation in hopes of killing the loose pca cells in
the prostate bed, but you can't focus on one object, such as the
prostate, because it has been taken out.  you just hope you can soak the
human body with enough radiation to do the damage and not cause the host
any more problems.

seeds are a form of radiation,  some principle.  to bombard the pca from
within instead of outside the body.

bottom line - radiation is radiation.  the body responds to it that
exact same way as the body responds to a burn, whether it was caused by
heat or cold.  

which is why i made the original comment.  if one was to get cancer from
radiation,  treating it with radiation may not be the best answer.

here's a case in point.  it's common knowledge that too many chest
x-rays MAY produce lung cancer.    

now, if one uses radiation in their treatment of prostate cancer to kill
all those bad pca cells,  what happened to the good prostate cells?
whose to say that in 5 years or so,  that the excessive radiation don't
cause them to go rogue and turn into pca?   they haven't done a study on
that one yet.

oh, here's a tid bit for everyone.  with the new tracking system,  they
can use low radiation to find the plane and find out if it is friend or
foe.  if it is war time and if it is a foe,  all the do, is keep the
track on the plane and turn up the power output and the plane is like it
is stuck in a microwave and the excessive radiation kills the pilot.  

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
Alan Meyer - 15 Oct 2005 19:04 GMT
> From: KBob@nowhere.net (MrP)

<-- Very interesting explanation snipped -->

> now, if one uses radiation in their treatment of prostate cancer to kill
> all those bad pca cells,  what happened to the good prostate cells?
> whose to say that in 5 years or so,  that the excessive radiation don't
> cause them to go rogue and turn into pca?   they haven't done a study on
> that one yet.

I believe there was a study recently that found increased rates of
rectal and bladder cancer starting about 5 years later in cancer in
patients treated for with PCa with radiation.

This may be an argument for a) performing surgery instead of
radiation in younger men who have more likelihood of living long
enough to develop radiation induced cancers, and b) making
sure that the radiation oncologist one chooses for treatment
(assuming one has a choice) is competent, up to date, and using
up to date equipment.

In my own particular case, I'll tell you whether I'm happy I chose
radiation when I'm ready to kick the bucket.  If I'm dying of prostate,
bladder or rectal cancer, I'll wish I had chosen surgery.  If I'm
dying of heart attack or pneumonia, I'll be glad I chose radiation.

> oh, here's a tid bit for everyone.  with the new tracking system,  they
> can use low radiation to find the plane and find out if it is friend or
> foe.  if it is war time and if it is a foe,  all the do, is keep the
> track on the plane and turn up the power output and the plane is like it
> is stuck in a microwave and the excessive radiation kills the pilot.

Going off topic here ...

Is that really true?  Can they project enough energy through the
atmosphere (which absorbs some and disperses some) in
a narrow enough beam to actually damage a plane or missile?

If you figure a plane presents 20 or 30 square meters of target
area, at 10 kilometers, it occupies about 5 E-10 of the total
hemisphere of the sky.  I would think that even a parabolic
antenna would have to be mighty well constructed to target
so small an area and punch enough energy through the atmosphere
to damage it.  And a phased array wouldn't have a chance.
As I understand it, the phased array puts out a uniform signal
in each direction - broadcasting energy randomly into space.
It's just that the wave peaks from each element of the array
all intersect at the desired point so the return signal from that
point will be much stronger.

Have I missed something?

   Alan
c palmer - 15 Oct 2005 19:48 GMT
Is that really true? Can they project enough energy through the
atmosphere (which absorbs some and disperses some) in a narrow enough
beam to actually damage a plane or missile?
If you figure a plane presents 20 or 30 square meters of target area, at
10 kilometers, it occupies about 5 E-10 of the total hemisphere of the
sky. I would think that even a parabolic antenna would have to be mighty
well constructed to target so small an area and punch enough energy
through the atmosphere to damage it. And a phased array wouldn't have a
chance. As I understand it, the phased array puts out a uniform signal
in each direction - broadcasting energy randomly into space. It's just
that the wave peaks from each element of the array all intersect at the
desired point so the return signal from that point will be much
stronger.
Have I missed something?
        Alan
=========

hi alan - with the old 1950's radar, they could track a seagull flying
around in the ocean at 10,000 yards.

you know those weather balloons that these radars track?   because of
their round reflective surface, the radar can only see one square inch.
the rest of the radar energy is reflected outward and away from the
radar receiver.

you only need 5 watts of power to bounce a signal off of the moon and
look how far it is away.

these radars that were used back 60 years ago had enough power to fry
eggs    2 1/2 miles away.

there was an incident of a reporter with the old flash camera.  he kept
his extra flash bulbs in his pants pockets.  the pilot thought he would
have some fun and just triggered an instant one time burst from the
plane's radar.   the power from the radar caused every flash bulb to go
off in the reporter's pants and he suffered 3rd degree burns and needed
skin grafts.

if this is amazing, can you just imagine what we are doing with lasers.
the radar band operates in the X band and can give us a measurement
within a foot (plus or minus) at 50 miles away.   the frequency of the
laser operates in a higher frequency band and can do the same thing at
50 miles to within a fraction of an inch.

they can not only do what i said, but with pencil point accuracy,  blind
the pilot as he flies the plane.

of course, the dangers of laser damage to the eye would take a lot more
explain that what many posts would take.

allow me to say this about laser safety and damage.  everyone thinks
this laser pens that people have are safe.  it depends.  you see, let me
give you two examples of the same light - different outcome.  it is
bright daylight outside.  your iris is clamped down tight to allow just
a little bit of light inside the eye and you can see well.    

now, you are inside an darken room and you iris has opened wide open to
allow as much light in so you can see.   this is nature at work.

because of the second example at work,  the eye takes ALL the light and
concentrates it to the focal point.  can you imagine what would happen
if you got hit with a laser light at that point.  a very weak laser can
be concentrated by the eye to make it a dangerous light level because of
eye design.

i caution everyone - because we see lasers at night and they are
beautiful.  but if the technician doesn't aim these lights just right
and the laser bounces off a reflective surface, even a reflective round
surface, it could cause eye damage.  and you won't know you are damaged
by the laser for a couple of hours when the eye tries to repair itself
by healing and you will see basically what a cataract would be.

now, this is not the same type of laser application that they do for eye
surgery.  that is in a controlled environment and perfectly safe.

hope this info helps folks.

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
Steve Jordan - 15 Oct 2005 19:51 GMT
On October 15, Alan Meyer wrote, in pertinent part:

> Going off topic here ...
>
> Is that really true?  Can they project enough energy through the
> atmosphere (which absorbs some and disperses some) in
> a narrow enough beam to actually damage a plane or missile?

I have my doubts.

But I do know that experiments with high-powered lasers have resulted in
destruction of missiles in fixed-location experiments. I think but do not
know for sure that in-flight experiments have been conducted. Results = ?

The objective is/was to destroy enemy missiles during the initial boost
phase of flight using satellite-mounted lasers.

Regards,

Steve J

"Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be
despised."
--Niccolo Machiavelli
c palmer - 15 Oct 2005 22:08 GMT
From: mycroft@cox.net (Steve Jordan)
On October 15, Alan Meyer wrote, in pertinent part:
Going off topic here ...

Is that really true? Can they project enough energy through the
atmosphere (which absorbs some and disperses some) in a narrow enough
beam to actually damage a plane or missile?
------

I have my doubts.
But I do know that experiments with high-powered lasers have resulted in
destruction of missiles in fixed-location experiments. I think but do
not know for sure that in-flight experiments have been conducted.
Results = ?

The objective is/was to destroy enemy missiles during the initial boost
phase of flight using satellite-mounted lasers.
Regards,
Steve J

=======
hi steve - i can understand the reasoning of your doubts.  but trust me,
having been in this field for many years and now that i'm out of this
field,  it has long past me by.  the thing that can be done with lasers
boggles the mind.  

in a the civilian side.  we use lasers like it's not a big deal.  your
DVD player uses a laser. your DVD burner on your computer uses a laser.

taking it one step further,  ever seen the silver and the gold foil
DVD's?   the difference between the two is that power of the laser and
the information that is on them.  they can pack TWICE as much
information on the gold type because the laser will pick up the original
data on the silver layer and then pick up the data on the gold level.
here's just one example of two different types of data on one disk.
they say that they can stack data on the same disk with many layers, so
that one laser can only pick up certain information while another type
of laser can pick up more information, and so on.

the difference between RF energy and photon energy is that RF energy can
be absorbed by moisture in the air.  this is the very principle that
grain mills used to measure the amount of moisture in the crop for
drying.

but photon energy is not absorbed.  and because of that, can offer a lot
of different applications.

getting back to prostate cancer. this might explain the difference
between the different types of radiation treatments.  it is the manner
in which they are applied, but photon treatment is different yet.  there
are only three treatment centers in the united states.  

maybe keith will want to shed more light on the subject from here.

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
 
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



©2008 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.