What a surprise!
After eliminating the most sensitive electrosentive volunteers for being made too ill to continue the Essex study finds that electrosensitivity is all in the mind.
The BBC predictably quote Rubin - the king of other similarly flawed studies - to give the thumbs up.
See the BBC's predictably biased account here .
Predictably "old friends" are cooing here .
Read the Mast Sanity Press Release here.
Read Powerwatch's comments here .
Good of the Psychology department to conclude EHS is psychological. Maybe the Biophysics department would have been a better place to look?
Still, you get what you pay for and this one was paid for by the Mobile Phone Industry and the Government (although not very well paid, since most volunteers grumbled at how stingy the expenses paid were for travelling - £30 max I'm told).
Wednesday 25 July 2007
Sunday 1 July 2007
People can be Biased and so can their Research Data
Bias is defined as "an inclination to favour or disfavour one side against another in a dispute, competition, etc; a prejudice."
Scientific research can be manipulated by individuals with a specific bias or agenda to fit the result that they are after.
If you wanted to show that electrosensitivity is purely psychological you would set out with that premiss and build in fundamental flaws to your study that slanted the findings in that direction.
I am reliably informed, that a recent study into electrosensitivity was undertaken by Psychologists at a London College, in an unshielded room. This was said to "make it more realistic!" - yet with a large number of mobile phone masts and wi-fi installations in the College how could the "no-signal" / "sham" exposure be valid?
The (single) frequency chosen of 900MHz is the same as for 2 Mobile Phone Operators with masts in the vicinity and is not necessarily the frequency that an electrosensitive person may be most sensitive to.
A large number of the electrosensitive participants had to leave early since they found the experiment made them feel too ill. The overall number of participants at 90 was not a large enough sample to make the general, sweeping, conclusions made in the conclusion.
Biological samples of saliva and blood was taken although blood pressure was not taken. Crucially none of the biological samples were included in the research results - the survey question papers were all that was used to determine the results.
Did the biological samples contradict the survey results? Only the researchers know.
The mobile phone units used in the experiment only had the 900MHz circuit disabled, all other parts of the phone were working even during the sham phase, so any sensitivity to the devices themselves, which many electrosensitive people have (in conjunction to the lack of shielding in the room) could well explain the results found.
The conclusion (surprise, surprise) "The signals produced by 900 MHz GSM mobile phones do not cause greater subjective symptoms than sham exposures in which no signal is present, even in people who report sensitivity to mobile phones. The symptoms reported by “sensitive” people may be the result of a nocebo effect and may be primarily psychological in origin".
The study in question? The much quoted Rubin study by Dr. Rubin.
Biased - you decide. The research slanted - you decide.
Incidentally, when was it decided to ditch the scientific idea that physical observations take precedence over scientific theories? If the physical evidence contradicts the theory it must be the theory that is WRONG - however well accepted (or entrenched).
[ As an interesting aside I spotted an article called "The false gods of scientific medicine revealed: It's a cult, not a science" which rightfully calls into question the dodgy science used to justify western medicine. One comment I have on the piece is that the 1000% increase in ADHD corresponds with the rise in electrosmog from Mobile Phone Masts and other wireless devices and can not simply be dismissed as a bogus disease. See also a recent addition to the EHS vs. 'Skeptics' debate.]
Scientific research can be manipulated by individuals with a specific bias or agenda to fit the result that they are after.
If you wanted to show that electrosensitivity is purely psychological you would set out with that premiss and build in fundamental flaws to your study that slanted the findings in that direction.
I am reliably informed, that a recent study into electrosensitivity was undertaken by Psychologists at a London College, in an unshielded room. This was said to "make it more realistic!" - yet with a large number of mobile phone masts and wi-fi installations in the College how could the "no-signal" / "sham" exposure be valid?
The (single) frequency chosen of 900MHz is the same as for 2 Mobile Phone Operators with masts in the vicinity and is not necessarily the frequency that an electrosensitive person may be most sensitive to.
A large number of the electrosensitive participants had to leave early since they found the experiment made them feel too ill. The overall number of participants at 90 was not a large enough sample to make the general, sweeping, conclusions made in the conclusion.
Biological samples of saliva and blood was taken although blood pressure was not taken. Crucially none of the biological samples were included in the research results - the survey question papers were all that was used to determine the results.
Did the biological samples contradict the survey results? Only the researchers know.
The mobile phone units used in the experiment only had the 900MHz circuit disabled, all other parts of the phone were working even during the sham phase, so any sensitivity to the devices themselves, which many electrosensitive people have (in conjunction to the lack of shielding in the room) could well explain the results found.
The conclusion (surprise, surprise) "The signals produced by 900 MHz GSM mobile phones do not cause greater subjective symptoms than sham exposures in which no signal is present, even in people who report sensitivity to mobile phones. The symptoms reported by “sensitive” people may be the result of a nocebo effect and may be primarily psychological in origin".
The study in question? The much quoted Rubin study by Dr. Rubin.
Biased - you decide. The research slanted - you decide.
Incidentally, when was it decided to ditch the scientific idea that physical observations take precedence over scientific theories? If the physical evidence contradicts the theory it must be the theory that is WRONG - however well accepted (or entrenched).
[ As an interesting aside I spotted an article called "The false gods of scientific medicine revealed: It's a cult, not a science" which rightfully calls into question the dodgy science used to justify western medicine. One comment I have on the piece is that the 1000% increase in ADHD corresponds with the rise in electrosmog from Mobile Phone Masts and other wireless devices and can not simply be dismissed as a bogus disease. See also a recent addition to the EHS vs. 'Skeptics' debate.]
Monday 25 June 2007
Get Back Wired!
Since we believe that Wi-fi isn't safe and that you would be better off using the wired alternatives I have joined together with some friends and associates to produce a few simple tips to help you to get back to life in a wired, wireless-free world.
See my other blog.
See my other blog.
Monday 4 June 2007
Bendetta : Very Bad Science
I've given up with Ben Goldacre - he has decided that microwaves are safe and that electrosensitive people are not affected by electromagnetic radiation.
More than that he appears to be embarking on a vendetta or crusade against the victims of electromagnetic radiation.
Instead of Championing a cause against many Wireless Goliaths he is siding with them.
I have just discovered that he was an invited guest speaker for a fringe meeting sponsored by the Mobile Phone Operators Association at last year's Labour Party Conference (with Labour's favourite grocer Lord Sainsbury) - the title "Science fact or science fiction: How should politicians respond to media scare stories?".
I asked him "Do you receive income or benefits from Companies or Organisations other than “The Guardian” who are linked with the Mobile Phone or Wireless Operators?" to which he replied "don’t be pathetic, of course i’m not."
So there you have it Ben Goldacre's bias is entirely his own.
On another question of whether he had ever met an electrosensitive person he appeared to ignore the question 3 to 4 times. He did say "i have engaged with rod read [of Electrosensitivity UK] at length" - but I didn't take this to be an answer to my question.
Ben Goldacre's latest post is as follows ( http://www.badscience.net/?p=425 ):-
More than that he appears to be embarking on a vendetta or crusade against the victims of electromagnetic radiation.
Instead of Championing a cause against many Wireless Goliaths he is siding with them.
I have just discovered that he was an invited guest speaker for a fringe meeting sponsored by the Mobile Phone Operators Association at last year's Labour Party Conference (with Labour's favourite grocer Lord Sainsbury) - the title "Science fact or science fiction: How should politicians respond to media scare stories?".
I asked him "Do you receive income or benefits from Companies or Organisations other than “The Guardian” who are linked with the Mobile Phone or Wireless Operators?" to which he replied "don’t be pathetic, of course i’m not."
So there you have it Ben Goldacre's bias is entirely his own.
On another question of whether he had ever met an electrosensitive person he appeared to ignore the question 3 to 4 times. He did say "i have engaged with rod read [of Electrosensitivity UK] at length" - but I didn't take this to be an answer to my question.
Ben Goldacre's latest post is as follows ( http://www.badscience.net/?p=425 ):-
"good to see that you admit you’ve simply not read the 37 [EHS] studies examining the central hypothesis of your lobby. i’m sorry you mock the notion of reading academic research and find it onerous.
i have engaged with rod read [of Electrosensitivity UK] at length, although it’s often not very easy. like many people including those from within your own lobby and the media i have found him to be abusive, incoherent and occasionally slightly threatening, i’m afraid. there are various examples of his correspondence on badscience.net , and i should add i have been consistently very polite with him. i can happily provide you with my full email correspondence with him if he wishes to dispute that.
www.badscience.net/?p=414#comment-12988
i would also strongly recommend that people read rod read’s own words on his own website here
www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/
www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/Travesty.htm
in light of the above i must say i now do rather struggle to suppress a smile when i see him portrayed in the media as a measured and sensible authority.
rod, alasdair, and others have recklessly accused me of some very bizarre and regrettable things, i’ve made a little collection of them for a much larger piece i’m writing on the subject."
I for one, can't wait for more one-sided vitriol from this self-appointed "Expert".
One of the "37" studies was by Rubin however, this study has been criticised for flaws, with comments on the same BMJ site . Rubin is also the reviewer of many of those 37 studies mentioned. I will track them down.
For further background on Bad Science and the Guardian see the Mast Sanity forum for a thread entitled "Guardian in 'bogus' attack on Panorama".
Also see Powerwatch's reply to Ben Goldacre.
Tuesday 29 May 2007
Bad Science Goes Bananas!
Ben Goldsmith aka "Bad Science" appears to have completely lost the plot with the recent Panorama programme dedicated to Wi-fi. He made some scurrilous accusations about Powerwatch's Alasdair Philips without backing up his claims with anything more than his own "bad science". Maybe he should stick to medical issues - he is at least trained in them!
He claimed that:-
1. Powerwatch is not independent and campaigns to stop WiFi and promote the products of Alasdair Philips' linked EMFields products.
2. Alasdair Philips is not a suitable person to advise or take measurements.
3. The instruments used (especially the COM monitor) were unsuitable.
4. What we measured and how it was measured was bad science.
5. The content of the programme was badly biased against WiFi.
6. Where is the scientific evidence of possible harm?
7. Where is the scientific evidence for Electrical Sensitivity?
Read Alasdair's reply that dismisses all of Ben Goldacre's claims here.
We got a reply back from Ben Goldacre, as follows:-
[1.] Powerwatch is not independent and campaigns to stop WiFi and promote the products of Alasdair Philips' linked EMFields products.
true, would you have been impressed if they used an engineer from t-mobile?
[2.] Alasdair Philips is not a suitable person to advise or take measurements.
true, he's a great person to commentate, i like him, he's a sensible lobbyist (with one very worrying recent slip which i suspect he is addressing) but not to take measurements, clearly not.
[3.] The instruments used (especially the COM monitor) were unsuitable.
they absolutely were, he designed it, he designed what "red" was. even kenyon accepts this.
[4.] What we measured and how it was measured was bad science.
yup. right up next to the computer while it was downloading a large file is not a real world measure of day to day exposure, as i said.
[5.] The content of the programme was badly biased against WiFi.
of course it was. i don't believe anyone would doubt that for one moment
[6.] Where is the scientific evidence of possible harm?
i am very happy with the idea that concerns have been raised and that further research should be done, as i have made very clear
[7.] Where is the scientific evidence for Electrical Sensitivity?
the symptoms are very real and very distressing, they deserve research effort and practical support as they receive in sweden, but there is little evidence to show that these symptoms are caused by EM. most unforgivably of all , the program completely misrepresented the evidence that does exist. this is completely unacceptable. i don't think your case needs to rest on misleading people about the evidence, i think you can make a perfectly good case without doing that.
Ben Goldacre
We say:-
[1] , [2] You could argue the case either way for these points. When does an 'Independent' stop being an Independent and become otherwise, once they realise the dangers of such devices as Mobile Telephoen Masts and Wi-fi? There are 1 or 2 retired experts who do not have a related income, so maybe they should have been used, but their experience isn't as great. I would say ALL experts are polarised either For or Against, so an accusation of bias was always occur.
[3] The COM meter as I recall was only being used to illustrate signal strengths in Norwich from the city-wide Wi-Fi, it wasn't part of the "Scientific" part of the programme. The "red" is illustrative and corresponds well to the scale that Alasdair mentions. The COM meter as a whole scales well with the levels set by the Scientists in Salzburg a few years ago for safe(r) mobile phone usage indoors and out. It is a consumer device and doesn't fully measure 3G signals, but is professionally calibrated, and correctly illustrates signal strength.
From personal experience a COM meter is OK to measure with, but is not ideal as it does not recognise 3G fully. I would have liked to see the COM meter used with the Acousticom [sound] meter or, ideally, a more complex professional unit. Even so, the COM meter gives correct or lower readings for illustration purposes.
[4] The measurements taken were not stated as constant, but are realistic for the levels found when files are being downloaded from the internet or the school's server - which would certainly be some or a lot of the time - the transcript excerpt below illustrates what was ACTUALLY said:-
"PHILIPS: Absolutely, yes that was definitely higher than I expected. It's only there.. not there continuously but it's obviously there quite a lot of the lesson if you're downloading files from the internet.
KENYON: So we took the first measurement here in what's called the beam of greatest intensity from the mast. The advice from Sir William Stewart to the government was that this beam shouldn't fall on any part of a school's grounds, unless the school and the parents agreed. But the levels of radiation inside the classroom were far higher, three times the strength of the nearby mast - not continuously but during downloads. These are controversial findings that must be repeated and verified."
[5] The content of the programme was, rather, bringing to the public's attention information that is not forth-coming regarding the emissions from Wi-fi and its connections to Mobile Telephone Masts. The program was straight talking using facts, rather than just using ridicule. In doing so, it has helped in a small way to redress the balance of other programmes which heavily promote wireless like the BBC News, Click and other tie-ins to Product launches such as the recent launch of "The Cloud" in the City of London.
[6] The volume of Scientific evidence of possible harm is already large and is growing all the time - it just isn't artificially pigeon-holed as "wi-fi" / "this" or "that" - it's the same sorts and strengths of microwave emissions at the same frequencies which produce low-level elctromagnetic fields. Wi-fi ticks many of the same boxes for many of the Scientific research programs already carried out. You do not need to start entirely from scratch with each and every device as and when it comes out if it uses similar technology - Wi-fi's characteristics are the same as many other wireless technologies including Mobile Telephone Masts.
Why should we be subjected to a huge experiment in the mean time? A post-code lottery of wireless hot-spots and Mobile Phone Masts shouldn't be turning residents into lab rats.
[7] The whole of human history is littered with precedence of changing lifestyles causing new diseases to become more common.
In the Agricultural revolution a diet of wheat led to diseases such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome and other problems from eating foods for which our bodies had not evolved.
In the Industrial Revolution new pollutants led to the rise in diseases such as Rheumatoid Arthritis and other problems linked to industrial pollutions.
In the "Modern Age" of electricity from the 1920's onwards diseases such as Leukaemia and other similar cancers have become more widespread.
Now mobile/wireless/microwave communications are bringing their sets of problems for our bodies to cope with - more rare cancers are becoming increasingly common - the types predicted many years ago by Dr. Cherry before these technologies were widely deployed. Electrosensitive (EHS) people are an extreme reaction to this latest "leap into the unknown" that we are all taking with Wi-fi and similar technologies.
I am in contact with several EHS people who were not even aware that Wi-fi etc. had been installed by neighbours or employers until their lives were turned upside down by pains and suffering. Many sufferers can "sniff-out" wireless access points without COM meters. Their symptoms wear off when they are not in proximity to wireless devices or transmitters. This is not psychosomatic - this is very real. It is down to an environmental pollutant and that common pollutant in the case of EHS is EM.
Many so-called "double-blind" tests carried out to date on EHS sufferers have NOT taken the source of EM down to zero for the supposed "OFF" test. Would you hold a pilot light near to the skin of a burns victim? No, of course not. The cynic in me would say that such tests were designed to fail to cast "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, doubt) on EHS sufferers. By discrediting EHS sufferers - the extreme of microwave damage - you can keep the cash rolling in for the wireless industry.
I counter by asking you Ben -
6. Where is the scientific evidence of safety for Wi-fi etc.?
7. Where is the scientific evidence to explain away Electrical Sensitivity?
Ben - If you want to find out about EHS for real I can introduce you to real sufferers - real people are much less easy to explain away than statistics.
He claimed that:-
1. Powerwatch is not independent and campaigns to stop WiFi and promote the products of Alasdair Philips' linked EMFields products.
2. Alasdair Philips is not a suitable person to advise or take measurements.
3. The instruments used (especially the COM monitor) were unsuitable.
4. What we measured and how it was measured was bad science.
5. The content of the programme was badly biased against WiFi.
6. Where is the scientific evidence of possible harm?
7. Where is the scientific evidence for Electrical Sensitivity?
Read Alasdair's reply that dismisses all of Ben Goldacre's claims here.
We got a reply back from Ben Goldacre, as follows:-
[1.] Powerwatch is not independent and campaigns to stop WiFi and promote the products of Alasdair Philips' linked EMFields products.
true, would you have been impressed if they used an engineer from t-mobile?
[2.] Alasdair Philips is not a suitable person to advise or take measurements.
true, he's a great person to commentate, i like him, he's a sensible lobbyist (with one very worrying recent slip which i suspect he is addressing) but not to take measurements, clearly not.
[3.] The instruments used (especially the COM monitor) were unsuitable.
they absolutely were, he designed it, he designed what "red" was. even kenyon accepts this.
[4.] What we measured and how it was measured was bad science.
yup. right up next to the computer while it was downloading a large file is not a real world measure of day to day exposure, as i said.
[5.] The content of the programme was badly biased against WiFi.
of course it was. i don't believe anyone would doubt that for one moment
[6.] Where is the scientific evidence of possible harm?
i am very happy with the idea that concerns have been raised and that further research should be done, as i have made very clear
[7.] Where is the scientific evidence for Electrical Sensitivity?
the symptoms are very real and very distressing, they deserve research effort and practical support as they receive in sweden, but there is little evidence to show that these symptoms are caused by EM. most unforgivably of all , the program completely misrepresented the evidence that does exist. this is completely unacceptable. i don't think your case needs to rest on misleading people about the evidence, i think you can make a perfectly good case without doing that.
Ben Goldacre
We say:-
[1] , [2] You could argue the case either way for these points. When does an 'Independent' stop being an Independent and become otherwise, once they realise the dangers of such devices as Mobile Telephoen Masts and Wi-fi? There are 1 or 2 retired experts who do not have a related income, so maybe they should have been used, but their experience isn't as great. I would say ALL experts are polarised either For or Against, so an accusation of bias was always occur.
[3] The COM meter as I recall was only being used to illustrate signal strengths in Norwich from the city-wide Wi-Fi, it wasn't part of the "Scientific" part of the programme. The "red" is illustrative and corresponds well to the scale that Alasdair mentions. The COM meter as a whole scales well with the levels set by the Scientists in Salzburg a few years ago for safe(r) mobile phone usage indoors and out. It is a consumer device and doesn't fully measure 3G signals, but is professionally calibrated, and correctly illustrates signal strength.
From personal experience a COM meter is OK to measure with, but is not ideal as it does not recognise 3G fully. I would have liked to see the COM meter used with the Acousticom [sound] meter or, ideally, a more complex professional unit. Even so, the COM meter gives correct or lower readings for illustration purposes.
[4] The measurements taken were not stated as constant, but are realistic for the levels found when files are being downloaded from the internet or the school's server - which would certainly be some or a lot of the time - the transcript excerpt below illustrates what was ACTUALLY said:-
"PHILIPS: Absolutely, yes that was definitely higher than I expected. It's only there.. not there continuously but it's obviously there quite a lot of the lesson if you're downloading files from the internet.
KENYON: So we took the first measurement here in what's called the beam of greatest intensity from the mast. The advice from Sir William Stewart to the government was that this beam shouldn't fall on any part of a school's grounds, unless the school and the parents agreed. But the levels of radiation inside the classroom were far higher, three times the strength of the nearby mast - not continuously but during downloads. These are controversial findings that must be repeated and verified."
[5] The content of the programme was, rather, bringing to the public's attention information that is not forth-coming regarding the emissions from Wi-fi and its connections to Mobile Telephone Masts. The program was straight talking using facts, rather than just using ridicule. In doing so, it has helped in a small way to redress the balance of other programmes which heavily promote wireless like the BBC News, Click and other tie-ins to Product launches such as the recent launch of "The Cloud" in the City of London.
[6] The volume of Scientific evidence of possible harm is already large and is growing all the time - it just isn't artificially pigeon-holed as "wi-fi" / "this" or "that" - it's the same sorts and strengths of microwave emissions at the same frequencies which produce low-level elctromagnetic fields. Wi-fi ticks many of the same boxes for many of the Scientific research programs already carried out. You do not need to start entirely from scratch with each and every device as and when it comes out if it uses similar technology - Wi-fi's characteristics are the same as many other wireless technologies including Mobile Telephone Masts.
Why should we be subjected to a huge experiment in the mean time? A post-code lottery of wireless hot-spots and Mobile Phone Masts shouldn't be turning residents into lab rats.
[7] The whole of human history is littered with precedence of changing lifestyles causing new diseases to become more common.
In the Agricultural revolution a diet of wheat led to diseases such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome and other problems from eating foods for which our bodies had not evolved.
In the Industrial Revolution new pollutants led to the rise in diseases such as Rheumatoid Arthritis and other problems linked to industrial pollutions.
In the "Modern Age" of electricity from the 1920's onwards diseases such as Leukaemia and other similar cancers have become more widespread.
Now mobile/wireless/microwave communications are bringing their sets of problems for our bodies to cope with - more rare cancers are becoming increasingly common - the types predicted many years ago by Dr. Cherry before these technologies were widely deployed. Electrosensitive (EHS) people are an extreme reaction to this latest "leap into the unknown" that we are all taking with Wi-fi and similar technologies.
I am in contact with several EHS people who were not even aware that Wi-fi etc. had been installed by neighbours or employers until their lives were turned upside down by pains and suffering. Many sufferers can "sniff-out" wireless access points without COM meters. Their symptoms wear off when they are not in proximity to wireless devices or transmitters. This is not psychosomatic - this is very real. It is down to an environmental pollutant and that common pollutant in the case of EHS is EM.
Many so-called "double-blind" tests carried out to date on EHS sufferers have NOT taken the source of EM down to zero for the supposed "OFF" test. Would you hold a pilot light near to the skin of a burns victim? No, of course not. The cynic in me would say that such tests were designed to fail to cast "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, doubt) on EHS sufferers. By discrediting EHS sufferers - the extreme of microwave damage - you can keep the cash rolling in for the wireless industry.
I counter by asking you Ben -
6. Where is the scientific evidence of safety for Wi-fi etc.?
7. Where is the scientific evidence to explain away Electrical Sensitivity?
Ben - If you want to find out about EHS for real I can introduce you to real sufferers - real people are much less easy to explain away than statistics.
Monday 21 May 2007
Bill Blog - Off Again Defending WiFi
Hey Bill,
Are you off on another rant to defend WiFi?
That dihydrogen monoxide sounds bad - why don't you campaign against if you believe it is so dangerous?
Then you could leave us to campaign against what we believe is so dangerous - wireless.
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't reply to me about my complaint to the BBC about your previous article -
you obviously didn't read the evidence and links that I sent you.
I know what, why not answer it now? - ( the links work at my version )
EVIDENCE - check
MECHANISM - check
Let's not leave it so late that we're counting the body bags for WiFi etc. as you obviously are for DHMO...
Good old Guardian - The old physicists' inverse square law - it doesn't matter if the small amounts getting through are harmful over time - Paddy Regan, University of Surrey - never heard of him.
BBC Online - you can rely on them too - "Not Proven" says Prof. Challis - "Not Proven" also extends to the risks of smoking, yet the risks are now widely accepted and smoking bans are coming into force...
By the way, I'll soon be meeting up with an ex-colleague of mine who is electrosensitive (not so much to TV and radio - different frequencies and wave forms, apparently). He said "If you fancy a beer in a quiet DECT/dimmer free pub somewhere not too far away I'd be up for it."
Isn't it sad that he has problems going out - and you don't care.
I spoke to an electrosensitive lady last week - she told me "My problems began several months ago when my neighbours directly through the wall installed wireless broadband. It nearly drove me crazy as I am electrosensitive." ... [usual list of many EHS symptoms including rapid and irregular heart beat, headaches, burning on legs, sleeplessness, loud ringing in her ears, feeling suicidal etc.] ... "Most of these symptoms clear up when away from the house. During a 10 day trip away in March I felt completely relaxed and normal and symptoms came back on my return. When in the house for prolonged periods I feel like I'm going to die and would welcome that as I would be released from this torture." ... "I sleep in the car as it's the only place I can get a decent nights sleep. I feel much better if I sleep in the car than if I sleep in the house. The neighbours are aware of the situation but do not seem to care."
And you don't care. But then she isn't in a body bag yet, is she?
Martin Sharp
Are you off on another rant to defend WiFi?
That dihydrogen monoxide sounds bad - why don't you campaign against if you believe it is so dangerous?
Then you could leave us to campaign against what we believe is so dangerous - wireless.
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't reply to me about my complaint to the BBC about your previous article -
you obviously didn't read the evidence and links that I sent you.
I know what, why not answer it now? - ( the links work at my version )
EVIDENCE - check
MECHANISM - check
Let's not leave it so late that we're counting the body bags for WiFi etc. as you obviously are for DHMO...
Good old Guardian - The old physicists' inverse square law - it doesn't matter if the small amounts getting through are harmful over time - Paddy Regan, University of Surrey - never heard of him.
BBC Online - you can rely on them too - "Not Proven" says Prof. Challis - "Not Proven" also extends to the risks of smoking, yet the risks are now widely accepted and smoking bans are coming into force...
By the way, I'll soon be meeting up with an ex-colleague of mine who is electrosensitive (not so much to TV and radio - different frequencies and wave forms, apparently). He said "If you fancy a beer in a quiet DECT/dimmer free pub somewhere not too far away I'd be up for it."
Isn't it sad that he has problems going out - and you don't care.
I spoke to an electrosensitive lady last week - she told me "My problems began several months ago when my neighbours directly through the wall installed wireless broadband. It nearly drove me crazy as I am electrosensitive." ... [usual list of many EHS symptoms including rapid and irregular heart beat, headaches, burning on legs, sleeplessness, loud ringing in her ears, feeling suicidal etc.] ... "Most of these symptoms clear up when away from the house. During a 10 day trip away in March I felt completely relaxed and normal and symptoms came back on my return. When in the house for prolonged periods I feel like I'm going to die and would welcome that as I would be released from this torture." ... "I sleep in the car as it's the only place I can get a decent nights sleep. I feel much better if I sleep in the car than if I sleep in the house. The neighbours are aware of the situation but do not seem to care."
And you don't care. But then she isn't in a body bag yet, is she?
Martin Sharp
Monday 14 May 2007
Re: Wifi- why worry
(Copied to BBC Online Editors and Media Lens)You state : "However there are no reputable studies to demonstrate any adverse effects from the use of wifi and, as I point out in my article, there is no credible model for how such effects could be caused."
Dear Bill,
Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6583815.stm "Wi-fi? Why worry?"
I found your answer somewhat glib and self-indulgent. I will answer your comments in order of "merit".
Which Studies are you familiar with, and why do you dismiss them?
Is it simply because they aren't explicitly "wi-fi"?
I would argue that there are no credible studies which have actually proved there isn’t a health issue.
Have you read the research personally?
If not, on whom are you relying for the statement that there is "no credible research"?
What exactly are your qualifications for making your statements?
I can safely assume that you have no Biology or Bio-Physics qualifications.
By referring to "credible model" I can see that you are purely referring to the physics aspect. Biologists do not use this type of terminology.
CREDIBLE MODEL
Several highly "credible model"s exist and one such "credible model" has most recently been explained by Dr. Andrew Goldworthy, Honorary Lecturer in Biology from Imperial College, London (his biography is at http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/heseuk/profile.php?id=ag ) - a recent interviewee on the BBC's Newsnight program 2 weeks ago (* see later) - on just this subject. Weak Electromagnetic Fields are precisely what are created when you turn on a wireless LAN in wi-fi - otherwise wi-fi wouldn't work!
In fact he left a comment on the Newsnight part of the BBC website which reads :-
"Next time someone says that there are no known mechanisms by which weak electromagnetic fields can have biological effects, ask them to visit: -
http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/, You will find in it an article that I wrote recently explaining in non-mathematical but science-based terms just how such effects arise. It contains many references to work published in peer reviewed journals and explains most of the known biological effects from risks to fertility to interference with brain function. I don't ask you to believe it; just read it and make up your own mind. Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD Honorary Lecturer in Biology Imperial College London"
In his paper entitled "The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields" he explains in simple terms how such a credible model works. In the conclusion of this document (found at http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/goldsworthy_bio_weak_em_07.pdf ) he states "In the latter part of this article, I have explained how weak electromagnetic fields can interact with cell membranes to weaken them and make them more permeable. As with all theories, it will be subject to modification and refinement as time goes by, but some facts are already inescapable. There is undeniable experimental proof that weak electromagnetic fields can remove bound calcium ions from cell membranes. There is also no doubt that bound calcium ions are essential for the stability of these membranes. Consequently, their loss will increase temporary pore formation under the mechanical stresses from pressure differences within the cell and abrasion by its moving contents. This very simple conclusion can account for virtually all of the known biological effects of electromagnetic fields, including changes in metabolism, the promotion of cancer, genetic damage, loss of fertility, deleterious [harmful] effects on brain function and the unpleasant symptoms experienced by electrosensitive individuals."
I have the details of 5 or 6 other "credible model"s which explain other specific mechanisms, but I won't put them all in this reply, if you want them you only have to ask.
I suspect that my reply to you will not be taken seriously since you have stated categorically that there is no evidence to date to show that non-ionizing radiation is any problem at all. This is clearly wrong.
You have clearly decided to discount the large body of evidence on non-ionising radiation just because you don't believe (or have been "encouraged" not to believe) that there is a problem. You appear to have completely ignored years and years of research in one statement just because it suits your lifestyle.
SYMPTOMS
Below are a long list of people who can not enjoy your lifestyle since it doesn't suit them, because it makes them ill. These are people who figure in the many cases of health problems triggered by Wi-Fi installations in school and elsewhere, for example John Fox (Teacher) , Robert Thinker (Home Owner) , Michael Bevington (Teacher) , Tony (Resident in flat) , Kate Figes (Author) , Ryan Warne (Furniture Worker) , Poppy Rhodes (Journalist) , David Dean (Councillor, London) , Sarah Dacre (former TV Executive) , Brian Stein (Chief Executive) ,
As reported by the Times Educational Supplement recently in a BECTA report from 2000, but never published, "some engineers complained of headaches at the end of the working days".
In the Independent on Sunday (13/05/2007) published a letter from yet another sufferer entitled "Wi-Fi headache" it went on to say "I have worked in an IT environment for 20 years, suffering little more than the odd trip-up on trailing cables ("Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi", 29 April). My organisation has used wireless routers on and off for a year. As soon as the device is booted up I sense a searing head pain that can last several hours. Using a mobile also causes headaches. My home network is wired." from David Williams, SALE, CHESHIRE .
Additionally, I personally know of several other examples where people have been made ill by the presence of Wi-fi and have recovered afterwards:-
1. A neighbour always ill in various ways over a long period of time whilst wi-fi was in the house recovered soon after it was turned off.
2.Family friend, also over a long period, often had a migraine when sat by the wi-fi router - he recovered when wi-fi was removed.
3.An ex-colleague who could not stand to stay in his office when wi-fi was introduced - had to give up his work there - his reaction was so severe that he is now electrosensitive and has to avoid all other forms of microwave emissions.
4.Another member under took a straw poll of parents and children leaving local school with wi-fi - 1/3 of children were described as often having headaches, migraines, sleep problems, nose bleeds and mouth ulcers.
None of these symptoms occurred before Wi-fi was installed, and all are commonly associated with findings from research into other comparable forms of microwave radiation.
Also everyone who is registered with the charity electrosensitivity will also not be able to go near Wi-fi.
THE BBC
People think that the BBC employ people who know what they are talking about.
By speaking within the BBC via its website you represent the BBC.
60 years on from the start of research into the effects of non-ionising radiation in the 1940s we DO understand enough about the nature of microwave emissions and weak electromagnetic fields to see how there can be a danger to human (and animal) health and YOU are foolhardy to placate public concern.
As is the BBC in not allowing Scientists with negative views on the technology publicise their views:
(*) Dr. Andrew Goldworthy was apparently given a rough time by the "unbiased" BBC - this is quoted from his e-mail found at ( http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/thisweek.htm )
"I was asked as a scientist to give a recorded interview for a BBC "Newsnight" programme on the safety of Wi-Fi in schools. I was subjected to hostile questioning (which I expected) but I was surprised to find that they were not at all interested in the science. The official line in the UK seems to be that there are no known mechanisms that can explain any deleterious effects on health and they would prefer not to have their views disturbed by scientific facts.
When I pointed out in the interview that there was now firm scientific evidence of serious effects on health and fertility from mobile phones (which share similar technologies with Wi-Fi) and some of this could be related to experimentally proven damage to DNA, the interview was brought to an abrupt end. I was escorted politely to my waiting taxi and advised that very little of the interview would be broadcast.
Instead the bulk of the science slot in the programme was given over to "scientists" offering soothing words about how little danger Wi-Fi presented because the signal level was lower than that from mobile phones. But to say that Wi-Fi is safe just because the signal is lower than that from mobile phones is meaningless unless they can also specify what a safe level is, and they have not established this. Despite this serious omission, they went on to say that any research to discover the health risks from Wi-Fi "should be given a very low priority.
So there we have it, it is down to our non-consenting children to act as guinea pigs to test the technology in the class room. The proposal by Lawrie Challis that the effects on their health may be monitored offers no comfort to their parents. "
Since your editor sees no reason to amend or withdraw the article I demand the right to reply to your article in a reply to your article as prominently as your article on the BBC News Online website.
I hope to hear from you and your editor soon.
Yours Sincerely,
Martin Sharp
Bill Thompson wrote:
Dear Mr Sharp
My editor has passed your comment on to me as I am the author of the column you have complained about and I have discussed the matter with him. It is clear that you and I have very different views on the issue, but it is rare to find that all readers agree with the views I express in my writing, but he sees no reason to amend or withdraw the article, which has been received poisitively by other correspondents.
My columns are clearly labelled as such, and I do not speak for the BBC. However there are no reputable studies to demonstrate any adverse effects from the use of wifi and, as I point out in my article, there is no credible model for how such effects could be caused. I stand by all the views expressed, and I rather hope that people do believe what I have written and check out the research for themselves. At the time of the BSE crisis we understood enough about prion chemistry and the nature of scrapie to see how there could be a danger of cow to human transmission, and Mr Gummer was foolhardy in his attempt to placate public concern. No credible model or mechanism is put forward by those who object to low-power non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, and so I have no worries about my daughter's health - or of mine as I write this on my wireless laptop.
yours sincerely
Bill Thompson
Friday 27 April 2007
A last word on bees and mobile phones...
A Reply to the Guardian's article:
You are quite wrong to poo-poo the effects that wireless microwave technologies such a Wi-fi, digital cordless (DECT) and Mobile Phone Masts have upon biological creatures such as humans. There is a vast amount of Independent Scientific Research which points to potentially very serious health problems and real symptoms such as electrosensitivity (EHS) right up to statistically improbable clusters of rare cancers in close proximity.
The Wireless Myths that you appear to subscribe to are removed with referenced Scientific studies at "Dispelling the Wireless Myths".
The Scientific Study that you mentioned may not have directly linked Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) with Mobile Phone Masts as such, but it clearly demonstrated a noticeable effect upon the delicate creatures by a related DECT microwave transmitter working at a comparable frequency. And a follow up comment in the Independent on Sunday last weekend gave the example of a house cleared of (admittedly unwanted) bees by the turning on of wi-fi. The
potential link of microwave/wireless/mobile technologies to CCD warrants proper study.
You also state that "Though bees navigate by the sun and light polarisation anyway." Not so - I don't know where you got this idea from?. Studies actually indicate that "Honey bees navigate by observing changes as small as 0.6% in the Earth's magnetic field" ( see ) and that can be effected by the sort of electromagnetic emissions from microwave transmitters at wi-fi, DECT and Mobile Phone frequencies.
In the end the fate of the bees and ourselves is the struggle between Consumerism (i.e. Profit) and Environmentalism (i.e. our survival). If it is a choice between mass health epidemic and environmental destruction or being able to surf any minute of the day wherever whenever, I know which is more important.
(see background article via Mast Sanity site here)
You are quite wrong to poo-poo the effects that wireless microwave technologies such a Wi-fi, digital cordless (DECT) and Mobile Phone Masts have upon biological creatures such as humans. There is a vast amount of Independent Scientific Research which points to potentially very serious health problems and real symptoms such as electrosensitivity (EHS) right up to statistically improbable clusters of rare cancers in close proximity.
The Wireless Myths that you appear to subscribe to are removed with referenced Scientific studies at "Dispelling the Wireless Myths".
The Scientific Study that you mentioned may not have directly linked Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) with Mobile Phone Masts as such, but it clearly demonstrated a noticeable effect upon the delicate creatures by a related DECT microwave transmitter working at a comparable frequency. And a follow up comment in the Independent on Sunday last weekend gave the example of a house cleared of (admittedly unwanted) bees by the turning on of wi-fi. The
potential link of microwave/wireless/mobile technologies to CCD warrants proper study.
You also state that "Though bees navigate by the sun and light polarisation anyway." Not so - I don't know where you got this idea from?. Studies actually indicate that "Honey bees navigate by observing changes as small as 0.6% in the Earth's magnetic field" ( see ) and that can be effected by the sort of electromagnetic emissions from microwave transmitters at wi-fi, DECT and Mobile Phone frequencies.
In the end the fate of the bees and ourselves is the struggle between Consumerism (i.e. Profit) and Environmentalism (i.e. our survival). If it is a choice between mass health epidemic and environmental destruction or being able to surf any minute of the day wherever whenever, I know which is more important.
(see background article via Mast Sanity site here)
Tuesday 24 April 2007
The Gizmorance of the Techno Sheep - Dispelling the Wireless Myths
An open letter to Bill Thompson (and the other gadget freaks).
I admire your ostrich like attitude to wireless technologies. I can only assume that your body works along different lines to those of most humans and that the laws of physics and biology don't apply to you. Or maybe you should get out more.
For those of us who live and breathe with other people I would rather side with the "tin hat brigade" than follow your Gadget Gang of Techno Sheep (or is it Techno Lemmings?) who blindly buy gadgets and believe that the Government and Large Companies only have their well-being in mind and would never expose them to dangers in the name of profit. Oh no.
Wake up and smell the coffee! So-called experts set (far too high) exposure limits according to measurements made years ago taking notice of a very narrow set of studies dating back even further. Non-thermal effects were conveniently excluded. Manufacturers and Wireless/Mobile Operators exploit these limits to the maximum and produce gadgets which emit up to the allowed limits to produce the best coverage and to maximise battery life for the optimum cost. All other factors, such as the safety and comfort of users, come a very poor second.
It is YOUR understanding of the Science that is wrong! You have glibly put all of your misunderstandings and slant on the situation - 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't it?
I suggest that you re-acquaint yourself with the real picture at "Dispelling Wireless Myths" - with referenced studies.
Referenced studies were strangely absent from your article - maybe none could be found to support your stilted view?
If the Large Companies don't totally succeed in destroying all life on the planet it will surely be the "tin hat brigade" who will inherit (the remnants of) the earth from the extinct Techno Sheep. You won't be missed.
Martin Sharp
(With a Scientific and Technical background - gasp!)
I admire your ostrich like attitude to wireless technologies. I can only assume that your body works along different lines to those of most humans and that the laws of physics and biology don't apply to you. Or maybe you should get out more.
For those of us who live and breathe with other people I would rather side with the "tin hat brigade" than follow your Gadget Gang of Techno Sheep (or is it Techno Lemmings?) who blindly buy gadgets and believe that the Government and Large Companies only have their well-being in mind and would never expose them to dangers in the name of profit. Oh no.
Wake up and smell the coffee! So-called experts set (far too high) exposure limits according to measurements made years ago taking notice of a very narrow set of studies dating back even further. Non-thermal effects were conveniently excluded. Manufacturers and Wireless/Mobile Operators exploit these limits to the maximum and produce gadgets which emit up to the allowed limits to produce the best coverage and to maximise battery life for the optimum cost. All other factors, such as the safety and comfort of users, come a very poor second.
It is YOUR understanding of the Science that is wrong! You have glibly put all of your misunderstandings and slant on the situation - 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't it?
I suggest that you re-acquaint yourself with the real picture at "Dispelling Wireless Myths" - with referenced studies.
Referenced studies were strangely absent from your article - maybe none could be found to support your stilted view?
If the Large Companies don't totally succeed in destroying all life on the planet it will surely be the "tin hat brigade" who will inherit (the remnants of) the earth from the extinct Techno Sheep. You won't be missed.
Martin Sharp
(With a Scientific and Technical background - gasp!)
BBC Bias Reaches New Heights : Wi-fi? Why worry?
After the excellent articles in the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Times on Sunday 22nd April there was bound to be a backlash from those interested parties, but it is very disappointing that it came mostly from the BBC.
In an article entitled "Wi-fi Why worry?" correspondent Bill Thompson has completely gone off into a rant and lost the plot. I was so incensed that I have complained, as follows:-
I will post the response (if any) from the BBC here later.
The links to the Sunday Times and Independent on Sunday stories can be found at :-
http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129&Itemid=1
In an article entitled "Wi-fi Why worry?" correspondent Bill Thompson has completely gone off into a rant and lost the plot. I was so incensed that I have complained, as follows:-
"This item entitled "Wi-fi? Why worry?" is the most opinionated baseless and biased piece of reporting I have seen so far on the BBC website.
The parts stating "Unfortunately the science says he is wrong, and his students are suffering as a result." and "Cellphones heat the brain and could cause problems. Wi-fi doesn't, and it is safe." can not be substantiated, are conjecture and belittle a serious topic.
THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN FORTHWITH and Bill Thompson should be reprimanded for such baseless and biased statements. It does not deserve to be present on the BBC site where people may actually believe it and think that the BBC endorses such statements.
The last part "My daughter is sitting here as I write, her new wireless laptop beside her, and I'm a lot more worried about the damage she would do if she dropped it on her foot than I am about the impact of the low power radio waves it emits." is sick! It reminded me immediately of John Gummer feeding the beef burger to his child at the height of the BSE / mad cow crisis."
I will post the response (if any) from the BBC here later.
The links to the Sunday Times and Independent on Sunday stories can be found at :-
http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129&Itemid=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)