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).
Showing posts with label mobile phone masts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mobile phone masts. Show all posts
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, 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.
Friday, 29 December 2006
Easy Money or Fools Gold?
Before landlords rush to cash in on the idea of placing a Mast or Mobile Phone Antenna on the top of their block of flats, as Bernard Slade in Wimbledon Park intends to do, they might like to consider a few points.
Firstly, more and more evidence of negative health effects and cancer clusters are being linked to Mobile Telephone Masts in residential areas. If, or more likely, when these health effects are proven to be directly linked to the masts in court, compensation will be forthcoming from land owners, since Telecommunications operators are unlikely to fully indemnify land owners against legal action. In the recent TV drama Judge John Deed, (an episode entitled “Silent Killer”), the landlord of a Block of Flats was taken to court by a sick resident who lived below a Mast – albeit a TETRA/Airwave (Police) antenna rather than a similar 3G Mobile Telephone Mast. This may be fiction at the moment, but in the near future many such cases are no doubt inevitable.
Secondly, once the initial contract period is up, you may not be able to have the mast removed, since the Operator can claim the right to stay – even if the owner may wish to sell or redevelop the site. The text below recently arrived at mast Sanity from the owner of a Water Tower, who wanted to terminate his contract with T-Mobile:-
“I have given 12 months notice to T Mobile under the terms of the original 10 year lease I have with them requiring them to remove the aerials from the top of my house in order that we can sell it in 12 months time without the aerials on top. They have responded under the Telecomms Act serving a “Code Notice” saying basically they are a utility provider and are entitled to stay. In a without prejudice side letter they have said they do not want to inhibit the sale of the house but will need to find an alternative site. This will be very difficult in the area where I live. In discussions they have said they recognise that they will be liable to pay compensation if they stay beyond the end of the notice period.”
Question: “Does anyone have any help or advice to help us bring pressure to bear to ensure they vacate the site at the end of the notice period?”
The Reply: “Presumably you have taken fairly profitable payments from them in the past to have their antennas on your building. Nothing comes for free. Now comes the payback time.
Maybe you will have to accept that it has discounted the current value of your building and sell it for less than you had hoped - just like many of your neighbours may have lost value on their houses and found them harder to sell because you had the antennas on your house.
You could try asking around to see if any of your neighbours would be prepared to take them. I suspect you will be in for a long hard fight with T-Mobile - they became much harder to deal reasonably with after they had been bought by Deutsch Telecom.”
Thirdly, Is it morally right for the Owners of Blocks of Flats to take money in exchange for putting residents' lives and health at risk, purely for financial gain? Don't they have a “Duty of Care” toward their residents? If we were discussing the storage of Toxic waste or the installation of Asbestos sheeting on the roof nobody would rush to take the companys' cash – the only difference is the Official and Corporate mis-information and ignorance which surround Mobile Telephone Masts i.e. the very real and serious health effects from the microwaves emitted from them, incidentally including the residents living directly below the antennae. Surely it is completely wrong for anyone to impose such risks on people living within their care, when those people will have no choice about being bombarded with microwave radiation from those masts, purely to satisfy the landlord's desire for ever more money.
So, to recap, with the moral dilemma and the future serious problems that any Flat Owner may have with agreeing to host a Mast, is it sensible to take the Operator's money, or is it really Fools' Gold?
Firstly, more and more evidence of negative health effects and cancer clusters are being linked to Mobile Telephone Masts in residential areas. If, or more likely, when these health effects are proven to be directly linked to the masts in court, compensation will be forthcoming from land owners, since Telecommunications operators are unlikely to fully indemnify land owners against legal action. In the recent TV drama Judge John Deed, (an episode entitled “Silent Killer”), the landlord of a Block of Flats was taken to court by a sick resident who lived below a Mast – albeit a TETRA/Airwave (Police) antenna rather than a similar 3G Mobile Telephone Mast. This may be fiction at the moment, but in the near future many such cases are no doubt inevitable.
Secondly, once the initial contract period is up, you may not be able to have the mast removed, since the Operator can claim the right to stay – even if the owner may wish to sell or redevelop the site. The text below recently arrived at mast Sanity from the owner of a Water Tower, who wanted to terminate his contract with T-Mobile:-
“I have given 12 months notice to T Mobile under the terms of the original 10 year lease I have with them requiring them to remove the aerials from the top of my house in order that we can sell it in 12 months time without the aerials on top. They have responded under the Telecomms Act serving a “Code Notice” saying basically they are a utility provider and are entitled to stay. In a without prejudice side letter they have said they do not want to inhibit the sale of the house but will need to find an alternative site. This will be very difficult in the area where I live. In discussions they have said they recognise that they will be liable to pay compensation if they stay beyond the end of the notice period.”
Question: “Does anyone have any help or advice to help us bring pressure to bear to ensure they vacate the site at the end of the notice period?”
The Reply: “Presumably you have taken fairly profitable payments from them in the past to have their antennas on your building. Nothing comes for free. Now comes the payback time.
Maybe you will have to accept that it has discounted the current value of your building and sell it for less than you had hoped - just like many of your neighbours may have lost value on their houses and found them harder to sell because you had the antennas on your house.
You could try asking around to see if any of your neighbours would be prepared to take them. I suspect you will be in for a long hard fight with T-Mobile - they became much harder to deal reasonably with after they had been bought by Deutsch Telecom.”
Thirdly, Is it morally right for the Owners of Blocks of Flats to take money in exchange for putting residents' lives and health at risk, purely for financial gain? Don't they have a “Duty of Care” toward their residents? If we were discussing the storage of Toxic waste or the installation of Asbestos sheeting on the roof nobody would rush to take the companys' cash – the only difference is the Official and Corporate mis-information and ignorance which surround Mobile Telephone Masts i.e. the very real and serious health effects from the microwaves emitted from them, incidentally including the residents living directly below the antennae. Surely it is completely wrong for anyone to impose such risks on people living within their care, when those people will have no choice about being bombarded with microwave radiation from those masts, purely to satisfy the landlord's desire for ever more money.
So, to recap, with the moral dilemma and the future serious problems that any Flat Owner may have with agreeing to host a Mast, is it sensible to take the Operator's money, or is it really Fools' Gold?
Saturday, 23 December 2006
Cancer Clusters & Mobile Telephone Masts – The Time for Action is Now
Various UK towns and cities, town in Spain (new Saville), Naila (Germany)
Long term effects:
- Start off as sleep disturbance, migrains, heat rashes, high blood pressure
- Progress to depression (whose incidence has greatly increased over last 10-15 years)
- Progressing to pre-cancer conditions and cancers
In UK studies, Dr. John Walker, Physicist ex-of Dunlop said, “I know of no mast that has been erected for more than 8-10 years where we haven't seen cancer clusters of more than the expected incidence – in adjacent properties, all where the emissions from the mast is reaching its maximum – and corresponding fall in symptoms as the emissions drop off”.
We need a moratorium on the erection of masts, and for system such as 3G and TETRA to be turned off until such time as they are proven to be safe. Although the evidence I have seen points to such masts not being safe. Some people have suggested dropping the output from masts to the levels agreed a few years ago in Salzburg – some 1/900 - 1/9000th of the current UK values. Phones will still work outside, but not inside (where people can use normal phones instead).
We also need epidemiological studies to fully examine medical data against actual mast emission plots in very localised locations – not averaged over 3 digit postcode sized areas where all useful data is lost. If such none-specific statistics had been done in the days of the Cholera outbreaks in London in Victorian times, the contaminated wells would never have been identified.
Medical data wouldn't need to be identified to specific individuals, so confidentiality wouldn't be breached. However, such studies would need to be independently run and overseen – not funded by the Telecoms Industry as we have seen with the recent Danish study into Mobile Phone use.
This is a growing problem, and with the increasing number of masts and transmitters erected for 3G and Wi-fi, as well as domestic use of digital cordless (DECT) phones and Wi-fi, our exposure to damaging radiation steadily increases.
With an estimated 3% of the population electrosensitive (and I have met some) the current situation has meant hell on earth for many individuals – many who are not aware of why they are suffering.
The effect of microwave radiation from masts and wireless equipment from studies appears 3-fold.
Firstly sleep patterns are disrupted and melatonin production is affected. Consequently people do not sleep so well, so their bodies can not re-generate and fix what problems they have.
Secondly, DNA breaks in cells is increased way above natural levels and the body struggles to repair the breaks. Any breaks which are not repaired are the start of cancer.
Thirdly, the blood-brain barrier is weakened, allowing damaging chemicals from our environment to enter – so in towns and cities, especially industrial ones, toxic chemicals get into the brain and cause symptoms like ME (which used to be known as Yuppy Flu), etc.
When you add all of the 3 effects together, the body's immune system is being worn down in coping, so ill health, cancers and ultimately death become foregone conclusions.
Also, many researchers are starting to believe that once people's bodies become so saturated with microwave radiation, that previously non-electrosensitive people can become electrosensitive.
All of these effects are happening NOW in the UK and the developed world. These effects occur at levels much below those permitted by the ICNIRP Guidelines adopted in the UK which only take into account thermal effects. The time for action is NOW – not when thousands of people have been made very ill or died as a result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)