Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / October 2005
Study: Radar not responsible for Cape cancer rates
|
|
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
|
|
|