Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Isolated "sell-me" stories
- Neville W Goodman (15 June 2007)
-
Clinical Data on EMR Exposures
- George L. Carlo (17 June 2007)
-
Not a new problem
- Ian Pennell (18 June 2007)
-
Relevant data for ES studies
- Michael Bevington (18 June 2007)
-
Why don't journalists mention the data?
- Andrew Goldsworthy (19 June 2007)
-
Provocation studies - a witches ducking stool?
- Grahame K. Blackwell (20 June 2007)
-
blinkeredscience is badscience
- Roderick Read (20 June 2007)
-
Explaining away the inconvenient truths.
- Peter J Flegg (21 June 2007)
-
Plenty of evidence
- Sarah J Wright MA (Cantab) (22 June 2007)
-
Re: Explaining away the inconvenient truths.
- Andrew Goldsworthy (22 June 2007)
-
Provocation studies are not the whole of the EMF literature
- Graham Philips (22 June 2007)
-
Just who is being dismissive?
- Austin C Elliott (26 June 2007)
-
Electrosensitivity Lobby? You bet.....
- George L Carlo (27 June 2007)
-
Responding to hostility
- Rod Read (30 June 2007)
-
Data, not anecdotes, please
- Austin C Elliott (1 July 2007)
-
A Comment from an EHS Grandmother
- Sandra L Lawrence (3 July 2007)
-
Journalists not using ALL the data,
- Rod Read (3 July 2007)
-
More Hidden Dangers for the EHS
- Sandra L Lawrence (10 July 2007)
-
Symptoms may be real, but is cause?
- stephen black (16 July 2007)
-
EMF as DATA
- James Chappèll (7 April 2009)
|
|
|||
|
Neville W Goodman, Consultant Anaesthetist Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB
Send response to journal:
|
The newspapers not only fail to let evidence get in the way of a good story, they also fail to make a whole story. The same newspapers (for example, the Daily Mail, (1)) that published scare stories about "electromagnetic smog" from WiFi networks also gave prominence to a story about the "plug-less" future: electricity would be broadcast from transmitters in the ceiling to all appliances in the room. In none of the stories was there any connection with the generated "smog". But it is likely to be a different matter when these systems start being installed. Advances are news only until they are commonplace. The media emphasis then changes to how dangerous they are. References: 1 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=460602&in_page_id=1965 (accessed 15 June 2007) Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
George L. Carlo, Chairman, Science and Public Policy Institute. Washington, D.C. 20004
Send response to journal:
|
The position being taken by Goldacre in his commentary that provocation studies are definitive in assessing electromagnetic radiation (EMR) health risks is simply incorrect. Current information on the pathological mechanism involved in EMR-related disease makes clear that laboratory constructs that do not have close approximation to real-world exposures are of little value in assessing these risks. For the past five years, through our Safe Wireless Initiative project, we have operated the only post-market surveillance database in the world systematically collecting symptom information from thousands of patients suffering from the effects of various types of EMR exposure. In addition, we coordinate a network of clinicians who regularly share information about their experiences treating patients with these conditions, another important and unique resource. Thus, we do not rely solely on self-reported information but have corroboration from treating doctors. It is noteworthy that our post-market surveillance registry will open in the UK soon. This is an important public health step because in the UK, there are no reliable data on the incidence and prevalence of EMR- related conditions. With no real data, speculations are all the more misinformed. We regularly share summary information from our registry database in various fora around the world, including a February 2007 presentation at the House of Commons, for the benefit of clinicians and patients alike. Goldacre seems to be relying only on one type of data in his assessment, while ignoring clinical realities. Overall, our post-market surveillance data show patterns that suggest an emerging medical and public health problem. There are symptom and pathology similarities among patients suffering from electro-hypersensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivities, alcohol- related disease as well as neuro-behavioral and learning disorders. We are now referring to the symptom constellations as Membrane Sensitivity Syndrome (MSS) and the increase in reports of symptoms consistent with MSS associated by patients with various EMR exposures has dramatically increased over the past 24 months. It is noteworthy that concurrently in the past 24 months, the penetration of mobile phones has tripled globally, from one billion to three billion. WiFi has reached the highest penetration in history. Satellite radio is not far behind. All of these technologies rely on information-carrying radio waves, the trigger for non-thermal adverse biological responses and the cascade toward MSS. In a majority of MSS cases, when EMR is removed from the patient’s environment, their acute symptoms subside. This is an important observation and indeed represents one of the Koch-Henle postulates for causation: If when the exposure is removed, the effect is diminished, there is evidence for cause and effect. Pathology and experimental findings support a mechanistic underpinning: an environmentally induced genetic change that renders daughter cells to carry membrane sensitivity characteristics with most symptoms directly or indirectly the result of consequent disrupt of intercellular communication. Therapeutic intervention regimens designed around known EMR mechanisms of harm have positively shown varying degrees of clinical symptom amelioration, another support for the causal hypothesis, but more importantly, a ray of hope for those afflicted and debilitated by these conditions. It is a fact that every serious public health problem man has faced has first been identified through clinical observations, the historically confirmed first line of evidence for preventing epidemic spread of disease. It is a disservice to clinicians and patients when uninformed speculation serves to lessen the acuity with which important early signs that can alleviate suffering are seen and heeded. Dr. George L. Carlo Science and Public Policy Institute 1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 www.sppionline.org www.safewireless.org 202-756-7744 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ian Pennell, Consultant psychiatrist Park House, Park Road, Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 2JG, UK.
Send response to journal:
|
Ben Goldacre describes the press interest in electromagnetic radiation symptoms as a phenomenon of the last 2 years. I'm afraid it is much older than that. Between 10 and 20 years ago the Guardian newspaper carried a large article which promoted the idea that people can get severe neurological symptoms from high voltage power lines apparently rendering them wheelchair bound in some cases. It was a very poor article with a lot of the faults identified in Goldacre's article. They subsequently published a response letter from me which drew attention to some of the methodological flaws, not the least of them being that symptoms only seemed to occur when patients were near overhead lines which were obvious to see. The far more prevalent exposure to influences from hidden underground urban power lines and all the other electronic paraphenalia of modern society didn't seem to evoke the same problems. This was obvously before the existence of Wi-Fi or mass mobile phone use but electronic communications systems of various sorts have been around for decades, and if I remember school physics correctly, every time a bit of wire carries a current, EM radiation of some sort is emitted. Needless to say my response provoked numerous letters of the green ink variety and general hate mail. Maybe this letter will as well. I concluded that some people just don't want to be convinced by rational argument into moving away from an emotionally bound world view, and have mostly kept my head down ever since. However all credit to Ben Goldacre for his continuing efforts (most prominently in his articles for......the Guardian.) Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael Bevington, Head of Classics Stowe School
Send response to journal:
|
The study of Electro-Sensitivity (ES) symptoms is much wider than just provocation studies from mobile phones or similar frequencies. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have been associated with typical ES symptoms from the 1960s in Russia where there were studies of the effects of EMFs on radar and electricity-supply workers. The import of these studies was not whether such symptoms occurred, a fact quickly recognised, but their extent and characteristics at different strengths of exposure. In addition, recent epidemiological studies of the effects of other EMFs on the general population show typical ES symptoms, usually in a dose- response relationship. Again, the issue is not so much the occurrence of the symptoms but the levels of EMF exposure – conscious ES symptoms have often been shown down to an electric field strength of about 0.05 V/m. It may be relevant that the greatest correlation in double-blind provocation studies on ES patients occurred when they were tested for the frequencies to which they were most sensitive (100% accuracy for 16 patients, Rea, 1991). In my experience of ES symptoms over the last nine months, I have been most sensitive to the frequencies which originally triggered the condition, and these were not those of mobile phones. It could therefore be misleading to generalise about the causes of typical ES symptoms from studies confined to a limited range of frequencies and pulse characteristics. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andrew Goldsworthy, Honorary Lecturer in Biology 6 Sandall Rd. London W5 1JD
Send response to journal:
|
Why don’t journalists mention the data? Come on Ben. Having berated other journalists for not mentioning the data, you do not acknowledge the source of your own. However, from the wording it seems to be based mainly on the findings of a review by Rubin et al. published in Psychosomatic Medicine 67: 224-232 (2005). Unfortunately, the original experiments here are not above criticism. These criticisms include a lack of adequate screening, which contaminated the sham exposures with stray electromagnetic fields and the use of “sanitised” artificially-generated mobile phone signals that did not expose the subjects to the rich array of biologically-active amplitudes and frequencies present when someone actually talks on a real mobile phone. But even if these were put right, there is still an overarching problem with overt provocation studies. That is that the stress of taking the test can affect the result so that even genuine electrosensitive individuals stand a good chance of not being recognised. An analogy is with “white coat hypertension”, when the mild stress of a GP merely taking one’s blood pressure can completely invalidate the result (mine goes up by about 20%). Imagine the stress of an electrosensitive volunteer being placed in unfamiliar surroundings with a strange device strapped to his head and knowing that he is going to be intentionally hurt. It would not be too surprising if he then found it difficult or impossible to detect the extra stress imposed the exposure itself. This may explain why many of the subjects in these tests developed the expected stress symptoms but were then unable to tell if the device were switched on or off. Consequently, I am afraid that, despite their apparent simplicity, conventional provocation studies of this sort, using self-reported symptoms, may not be the best way to test for electrosensitivity. To be of any real value, we must avoid any psychosomatic complications and either look for symptoms when the subject is completely unaware that he is being tested, or to look objectively for visible signs in cell cultures or biopsy material. However, if you read the small print, these types of study were deliberately excluded from the review, thus biasing it in favour of the somewhat questionable notion that electrosensitivity is purely psychosomatic. There is in fact no doubt that there are non-thermal effects of weak electromagnetic fields that are well below the official safety guidelines. Even plants and microorganisms such as yeast are affected, where psychosomatic responses are not an issue. Perhaps the most significant finding in animals is the discovery in the mid 1970s by Suzanne Bawin and her co-workers in Ross Adey’s lab that weak electromagnetic fields released calcium ions from cell membranes. But these calcium ions normally stabilise the membranes and without them, they develop temporary pores and leak. Such a leakage can explain virtually all of the known biological effects of electromagnetic fields; including why some people are more electrosensitive than others (See http://tinyurl.com/2nfujj for more details and references). Leakage of calcium ions through the membranes of neurones will stimulate the generation of spurious action potentials that can degrade the signal to noise ratio of the brain and affect cognitive ability. In electrosensitive individuals, this may also result in stress-induced headaches, fatigue and various paresthesias. Leakage of the cell membranes in the blood-brain barrier will allow foreign materials to enter the brain, with perhaps more long-term effects. Leakage across a similar protective layer in the skin (the stratum granulosum) would ease the entry of allergens and other chemicals and increase the allergies and multiple chemical sensitivities, which are becoming increasingly common and are often associated with electrosensitivity. Leakage of lysosome membranes would release digestive enzymes into the rest of the cell and account for the DNA fragmentation seen in several mobile phone experiments and also the skin rashes and blistering found in some VDU users. Clearly, much more work needs to be done on this, but there is some glimmer of hope for the electrosensitives. It seems possible that at least some of them may be predisposed to electrosensitivity by having a low level of ionised calcium in the bloodstream so that less has to be removed electromagnetically from their membranes to give a biological effect. So, if a patient does present with symptoms of what could be electrosensitivity, it may be worth checking their blood calcium and, if it is on the low side, giving them an appropriate treatment. It is just possible that it may relieve some of their symptoms. Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD
Email a.goldsworthy@imperial.ac.uk Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Grahame K. Blackwell, Consultant on mast health issues Transfinite Mind Ltd, PO Box 200, Lustleigh, Devon TQ13 9WH
Send response to journal:
|
I have for some time been concerned that the nature of these provocation studies appears to totally rule out any possibility of objectivity. Participants are not only already suffering from a medical condition that they know is likely to be worsened simply by taking part (everybody appears to agree on this - even though some say it's psychosomatic), they're also subject to 'performance anxiety' as they're there in effect to prove something that no blind, deaf or otherwise disabled person has to prove - something on which their very life could possibly depend. And that's before we take account of the fact that many electrosensitives will be hypersensitised before they become aware of the condition in themselves, and so their responses to all sorts of stimuli will be magnified. Why am I put in mind of the witches' ducking stool? - if you survive underwater for half an hour you're a witch and therefore will be burned, if you drown you were innocent. Perhaps the electrosensitive who doesn't 'pass the test' should consider him/herself fortunate that they're only labelled as deluded. I would refer you to a summary of six studies undertaken specifically to assess the health impact of phone mast emissions (www.starweave.com/masts). Every one of these - the only such studies that I know of - found significant adverse health effects at standard operational power levels (Note that one of these, the TNO study, found more pronounced ill-effects in those previously recorded as ES). It's little wonder that some refer to ES sufferers as our 'canaries' - they may have a message of profound importance to every one of us. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Roderick Read, Charity director Ely Cambridge CB6 2BB
Send response to journal:
|
I hesitated over your competing interests question because as director of the charity electrosensitivity-UK I represent the interests of the 400 individuals who have unexpectedly developed an extra-sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation. We have a clear point of view based on our experience. But our interest is in good objective science and medicine properly exploring this problem, and we work to raise public awareness of it by educating the public in the face of opposition claiming not only 'there are no health effects', but all our sufferers, including those scientifically qualified themselves, are misled and deluded. We upbraid Goldacre regularly about this indignity and degredation (humiliate, dishonour)of them and their experience. To no effect. Simple folk start from our premise, the common sense fact on the ground, that hundreds of people here, and thousands in the US, (according to expert doctor, George Carlo) and tens of thousands recognised by the authorities in Sweden, all suffer from reacting to low level electromagnetic radiation on their bodies. It is an extra-sensitivity, and actually in their bodies is more accurate. We anticipate how the science will catch up eventually, the facts crying out for explanation being there. But it is delayed by distortions due to funding and PR primarily. We are confident there is the competence and cleverness, even with restricted funding chances, that will result in inter-disciplinary scientific skills cracking the present conundrum soon. Good science, that is science pursued with a well informed eye to its social/commercial context and times, plus vital common sense and medical purpose, is already isolating the mechanisms and linkages which unite cause and effect. See how long term politically aware scientific expert Dr Louis Slesin puts it today in 'Microwave News': "Current EMF Paradigm at Risk It's become axiomatic that wide acceptance of non-thermal effects will come from developing biomedical therapies rather than from studying potential hazards. The health effects work is mostly sponsored by those who don't want to find any. And they usually don't (cf: the USAF, EPRI, CTIA, FGF, MMF etc.) So no one should be surprised that the latest advance comes from a small high-tech Israeli company, NovoCure, which is looking for innovative ways to treat cancer. It's a breakthrough --most likely a major breakthrough. NovoCure uses weak 100-200 kHz electric fields --the company calls them tumor treating fields or TTFields-- to stunt the growth of cancer cells, either by slowing down their proliferation or by killing them off entirely. The company has now demonstrated this in four different cancer cell lines. Even more impressive is that tumor growth has been curtailed in mice, rats and, in a small pilot project, ten human patients with recurrent brain tumors (glioblastoma). ...." [continues] There is an acceptance and use of beneficial bioeffects from weak EMFs in medicine, but we are expected to believe, absurdly, that deleterious bioeffects from similar sources cannot happen. We now know from clinical evidence how bioeffects result from EMFs, especially pulsing PEMFs, and pulsing information carrying radiowaves, PICRs, are interfering with protein receptors on cell membranes, studied as ‘electroporation’ in medical research texts. Cells seize up and die from chronic exposure to this toxic assault, with serious immune system deficiency ensuing. Melatonin production reduction of up to 50% has long been established at a ‘smoking gun’ level of evidence (see Dr Russ Reiter and Dr Jerry Philips) and this vital hormone is essential for bodily repair and homeostatic balance. Increases in leukaemia levels are now accepted by all, even the HPA, as a consequence of exposure to power line electromagnetic effects. (Drs Draper and Henshaw). So from disparate scientific sources pieces of the jigsaw are being fitted together and the fact of EMR bioeffects and thus hypersensitivity on the ground is being scientifically explained, necessary precautions in usage and therapeutic techniques will soon inexorably follow. But where do we find this reported? Certainly not by industry apologists with an eye on future career moves. Only in some papers, and on the occasional thought through programme, others pretend this evidence does not exist. A mind-set wants to wish it away, especially vested interests. When full properly informed science, questioning safety as did Panorama, is published or broadcast there is a vituperative emotional overreaction by some parts of the ‘commentariat’, as on Goldacre's website. He seems to revel in leading rude and crude acolytes on this issue, while claiming scientific purity. Dr Carlo (who after all did supervise the 25 million dollars of US Cellphone Safety Research,) finds this appalling as you report below: “the insensitive, mean-spirited and factually incorrect responses that have been put forth by various industry apologists. The premise that patients suffering from symptoms of electro-hypersensitivity are misinformed hypochondriacs.” Well so do we find it appalling. It leads to ridicule, mockery, disbelief and enormous difficulties within families and in workplaces, and not least with getting a fair hearing for diagnosis and treatments such as there are. All those with an awareness of recent history know it cautions against blinkered science shorn of its cultural and political awareness, and used without humanity. Blindly following the railway lines of strict logically and methodologically correct science, shorn of context, leads to the same ultimate dark hole of no return. Badscience is not only what is improperly performed, but what is pursued with blinkers and a narrow vision, used mendaciously as a tool for propagandists. Also its bad if it commences from an upside down reversal of what actually is the situation needing analysis, simply that sensitive bodies are being saturated and sickened over time with weak widespread electromagnetic radiation and pulsing penetrative signals. Our corporatist new century unfolds with global corporate behemoths influencing pliant governments when billions to the exchequer are at stake, they control research funding streams, and locate their placemen at institutional and regulatory choke points. Panorama showed this clearly with Repacholi questioned on industry links before and after spells at the WHO and ICNIRP. These powerful corporations play a ‘long game’ learned from tobacco and other health disasters. While appearing unlike the old traditional, and nakedly political, C20 parties and regimes, who harnessed scientific techniques and skills to murderous holocaust efficiency, there is the same production and exploitation of so-called ‘objective scientific truths’ and methods. Today these are not for genetic or racial arguments like eugenics, but ‘prove’ in order to counter, or at least obscure, perceived threats to their vested interests and core technology. They are purchased in the ‘knowledge’ market among institutions and universities, while truly objective work is blocked and underfunded, so squeezed out. This is the distortion of good science which needs attention in public debate and understanding. Goodscience will eventually triumph over badscience, succour will be provided for the unfortunate and unintended victims of this latest surge in technological progress with all its boons, but there are many delays and distortions plainly visible along the way. Those who dance and prance on the pin head of scientific methodological correctitude provide amusement with their capering unawareness of the social and even moral dimension, but do their readers a grave disservice. They fail to warn, and they denigrate true sufferers of the electro-sensitive reaction as deluded, mistaken and misled, which is untrue, vile, and hurts. Rod Read ES-UK charity 1103018 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter J Flegg, Consultant Physician Blackpool
Send response to journal:
|
Both Andrew Goldsworthy and Grahame Blackwell attempt to explain away the lack of any objective evidence for electrosensitivity by indulging in the classic ploy of post hoc rationalisation. They both blame vague and unquantifiable events that are only peripherally related to the testing procedure for interfering with the test results. If one is looking for an explanation for the failure of provocation studies of "electrosensitivity" to show any positive results, the analogy of "white coat hypertension" is inappropriate. A more suitable example can be found in those who claim paranormal powers such as clairvoyance and telepathy, but who are mystifyingly unable to make accurate predictions above what would be expected by chance when studied under controlled conditions. I guess it’s just those pesky "bad vibes" around that are confusing the harmonic fluctuations of their auric energy fields. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Sarah J Wright MA (Cantab), researcher Surrey SM6
Send response to journal:
|
Has anyone read the results of the REFLEX report, 2004? Twelve institutes in seven countries have found genotoxic effects and modified expressions on numerous genes and proteins after Radio frequency and extremely low frequency EMF exposure at low levels, below current international safety guidance, to living cells in-vitro. These results confirm the likelihood of long-term genetic damage in the blood and brains of users of mobile phones and other sources of electromagnetic fields. The idea behind the REFLEX study was to attempt replicate damage already reported to see if the effects were real and whether, or not, more money should be spent of research into the possible adverse health effects of EMF exposure. They concluded that in-vitro damage is real and that it is important to carry out much more research, especially monitoring the long-term health of people. http://www.verum-foundation.de/cgi-bin/content.cgi?id= euprojekte01 Dr Lai and Singh had previously found double strand DNA breaks in rat bains exposed to 2.45 GHz radiation Lai H, Singh NP. (1996) DNA Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to low-level radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 69:513-521 Then there's the Ecolog report, 2000. A review of 220 pieces of peer reviewed and published research showing clear evidence for cancer and genetic damage from exposures below the guidelines. http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/ecologsu m.php Not to mention the Stewart Report, 2000, itself which states 1.18 ..there is now evidence, however , which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines..; More evidence has accumulated since then. I ask you if microwave radiation were a drug and in lab tests it was found that double strand DNA breaks were occurring as a result of exposure in vitro and to animals in vivo, would it be ethical/allowed under guidelines to go on and test humans? Moreover even if one did decide to go ahead and do provocation studies, wouldn't it be rather unusual to subject test subjects 'claiming EHS' to signals in an unshielded room in the centre of London as was the case in the Rubin study? Provocation studies may have their place if properly done but this is merely tinkering at the edges. There is plenty of research (not mentioned here) including new epidemiological evidence showing adverse health effects from exposure to microwave radiation at current levels to justify reducing exposure levels as has been done in other countries. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andrew Goldsworthy, Honorary Lecturer in Biolgy 6 Sandall Road
Send response to journal:
|
In a sense, Peter Flegg is right. As every doctor knows, for every person having a disease there may be several others who only think they have. However, these will confuse the whole issue and must be screened out from any provocation study on electrosensitivity if it is to give statistically meaningful results. To the best of my knowledge, this has not normally been the case; so we have another valid reason for the failure of studies based on self-reported symptoms to reach an acceptable level of significance. How you approach this problem depends on your objectives. If the object is to rubbish the whole concept of electrosensitivity then you do not screen. On the other hand, if you want to establish scientifically whether electrosensitivity does or does not exist, you have to do a preliminary screen and reject all subjects where their ability to detect the fields is no better than chance. If after doing this, you find that there are now one or two who can reliably detect the presence of the fields, then the condition does exist and must be taken seriously. In which camp do you sit Peter? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Graham Philips, Technical Manager Sutton, Ely, CB6 2QA
Send response to journal:
|
The majority of the studies highlighted in the "double blind" provocation literature are indeed from the Rubin review (31 out of 37). In his review 466 papers that were considered "potentially relevant" but excluded under the basis that they were a) review papers, b) editorials, c) duplicate publications, d) were not specifically EMF only papers, and e) did not describe double-blind provocation experiments. All of these exclusions were appropriate within the framework of his review, but with the exception of c), all of the excluded literature is still highly relevant to the subject. Why has it been decided to ignore these other 466? As recently as March 2007 we can find epidemiological literature showing these "Microwave syndrome" effects for living near mobile phone base stations (Abdel-Rassoul G et al, 2007). This backs up the findings of Santini from a few years earlier (Santini R, 2002 and 2003). In 2004 the REFLEX report found a large number of papers showing cellular effects from CW 1800-MHz exposure, such as DNA strand breaks and chromosome aberrations in cell lines, human blood, animals and living humans. As far back as 2000, the ECOLOG report concluded that mobile telecommunication frequncy EMFs has a (small) role in the increase of some brain tumours and an effect on CNS and cognitive function. The ECOLOG statement on ES is as follows: "The correlation of the complaints with electromagnetic exposures and other environmental influences seems to vary strongly not only between affected persons but also in time, a fact that has so far impeded the conclusive scientific proof of a cause-effect relationship in provocation studies. The present results of scientific studies are often not conclusive and partly contradictory." This in fact highlights one of the real problem with provocation studies on ES at this point in time: It is impossible to find a consistent exposure metric under which self-assessed "ES" are affected, and there is also a varied and inconsistent set of responses that manifest themselves after a varied and inconsistent period of time. If we take 20 people that claim to suffer from headaches 2 hours after using the phone, then asking them to tell whether or not a phone was ringing (silently) in a bag is hardly going to produce a positive result. Another of the main flaws is a fair and accurate exposure metric of both the sham and the "real" exposures: Whilst the mechanism of effect is entirely unknown, removing the ELF component from the real exposure (Oftedal et al, 2007) or having the sham emitting CW RF at a much lower level (Rubin et al, 2005) may bring into question the validity of the study as a whole - the real exposure is not a good representation of real life exposure, and a CW RF sham may be triggering a response in the truly sensitive. Finally, and crucially, the selection criteria of the vast majority of these double-blind provocation studies is one of self assessment. The participants are selected from a group of people that already believe they have a real problem - whenever the selection basis is on self assessed symptoms, you will also select a proportion (possibly significant) with entirely nocebo responses. If 80% of allegedly sensitive people are reacting on a nocebo level, statistical significance calculations will remove any difference between the control and sensitive group, even if the exposure metrics are well designed. This is yet another factor not catered for in a number of the studies cited in the 37. It may well be possible at some stage to create a suitable double- blind provocation study for a proportion of electrosensitive participants with the same symptoms from the same devices, but until the mechanism is known and a better method of devising real life and sham exposure is put together, the epidemiological and in vitro literature that is already in the public domain should have at least equal weight when balancing relevant evidence. Competing interests: Technical Manager of Powerwatch |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Austin C Elliott, Scientist and lecturer Manchester
Send response to journal:
|
The critiques of Ben Goldacre’s piece come, to no great surprise, from representatives of the Electrosensitivity lobby - most of whom omit to declare formally their competing interests, even though these are implicit in the titles of the organisations they represent. The responses follow a pattern familiar from the work of other advocacy groups. Single studies suggesting electrosensitivity effects are quoted approvingly, while many negative consensus statements based on overviews of published data are ignored. Consensus statements suggesting non-electrosensitivity explanations of the described symptoms – such as somatisation – are angrily dismissed as “insensitive” or “mean-spirited”. Ben Goldacre states that: “Symptoms, of course, stand as real, regardless of their cause”, which hardly seems insensitive. The Electrosensitivity advocates, on the other hand, reject attempts to offer therapies aimed at symptom relief that do not explicitly accept their view of the causation. Just who is being dismissive? Competing interests: AE is a mainstream biocientist who believes evidence over anecdotes |
|||
|
|
|||
|
George L Carlo, Chairman, Science and Public Policy Institute Washington, D.C. 20004
Send response to journal:
|
I, for one, would be proud to be seen as part of the 'electrosensitivity lobby'. What have we come to where compassion for those who suffer is so casually dismissed as political jockeying? As I said in our meeting at the House of Commons, whilst some folks are arguing the merits of one study over another, we are focused on saving lives. And, we are very comfortable with that positioning. Competing interests: Compassion for those who suffer..... |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rod Read, charity administrator Cambridge CB6 2BB
Send response to journal:
|
Considering we commenced our response with a reference to our hesitation over the 'competing interests' section it is pretty pettifogging to criticise us for not being open, and 'having interests'. This is quite typical of the hostilty, venality and heat we have to put up with on this issue. Why so much objection and emotion? Let us consider. What we claim is not startingly new or original in electromagnetic scientific history, only the manifestation of symptoms because of everyday exposure is new. “Radiation sickness” with the identical symptoms is old hat. Dr Cyril Smith author with Simon Best of the seminal ‘Electromagnetic Man’ ISBN 0-460-04698-5 writes over twenty years ago “By the mid 1970s it was already becoming apparent to many that microwave radiation can be biologically harmful; Dr Milton Zaret was demonstrating clearly (despite the now customary hostility from the authorities and industry) that tumours and unusual subcapsular cataracts of the eye can be caused by indiscriminate microwave exposure from radar and telecommunications equipment or leaky microwave ovens.(Zaret 1977)” We as ES-UK entered a public arena already very hostile when we started to support electrosensitives. Initially we put a great deal of effort, possibly naively but in good faith, into forging links with the Health Protection Agency (Dr Jill Meara) the Department of Health (George Hooker) the Health and Safety Executive and many others. After two years of this we realised they were the opposition, the roadblock, not assisting us despite their worthy names in getting expanded recognition and vital assistance. This ES reaction, suffered by our increasing numbers, (400 now in the UK voluntarily making donations to keep us going, this is a two sided mutual trust) had implications that were politically and commercially unacceptable, alluded to by Dr Meara at the W.H.O Prague Conference on Electrical Hypersensitivity. Despite offering evidence we were continually brushed off, dismissed, unconsidered, labelled as cranky and deluded. When we learned even the previous head of WHO, Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former Prime Minister and medical doctor to boot, has publicly referred to her own electrosensitivity, (interview in Dagbladet) adding her contribution to the pile of “mere” anecdotes I began to wonder just what do we have to do to fulfil our registered charitable aim “to advance the education of the general public in all areas relating to electrosensitivity”, being already located in Cyril Smiths 'hostile environment'. What we have concluded is that we represent the interests of those with the first "politically incorrect" health condition, and our ES sufferers live with the horrid consequences. Who are we competing with? Answer "Those who deny this reality." Now it becomes clearly Alice in Wonderland, “What I say is real and stamp my foot…”. Why are there reality-deniers? To us it’s more than inconclusive science as a whole, it is the consequence of another agenda, hidden, less open than ours. A lengthening history exists of political, military and commercial desire for the fruits of this technology, they do not intend to be thwarted. Unless overwhelming vivid proof of dangers is exhibited no adjustments will be made. This partly covert, but massive opposition, has obliged us to take a more forceful line on the issue and appeal directly to "the street" and common sense. To do our job now we are pointing out the vested politics (who benefited from sale of licenses?) and commerce (who is enormously rich and powerful and dangles rewards before advocates for the safety of this technology?). Many who have prospered in a career now committed to outdated physics, and often ignoring biology, find their dogmatic spoutings most welcome, to rebut and refute our case on TV. This Point of View we are forced to adopt is then used as a reason to criticise us as having an invalid case because we are lobbyists. Catch 22? The hostility continued into the nineties. Maybe we were not the targets of the jibe of having interests because of our organisation’s name, was it the ‘Safe Wireless Initiative’? Where is the science accumulated by the US Cellular Telecommunications Industry in their Federally required 25 million dollar research programme under Dr George L Carlo, who now chairs the SWI? Where are the always energetic American lawyers hustling him into a courtroom and denying what he reveals in “Cell Phones – Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age” ISBN 0-7867-0818-2? (only $10.00 at Amazon). This evidence has been suppressed, and this distortion of the science is, on this issue, the hostile norm, because they, the deniers of risk, must avoid close scrutiny at all costs, there is just all too much good evidence. AJP Taylor the historian said “the scientist who believes that he has discharged his duty by working devotedly in his laboratory evades his responsibility as Ranke did; and will end in the service of blind power”. Many careerist journalists are willing to assist the scientist, colluding in that blinkered state. Many medical conditions lack full scientific understanding, always have, but only ours is as vigorously and vituperatively dismissed. Now why is that? Why are some others so bothered? Is it reasons of pure correct science? But they do not employ pure proper science in the round, they do not consider ALL the studies, they are very selective in their science. We know there are studies and summaries of studies which count against us, a well funded campaign, only partly organised by such as the Mobile Operators Association under Mike Dolan distorts the science, leaps in to offer pliant denier ‘scientists’ to the media and spins any negative reports away, but is still unable to suppress this issue. As Dr Ian Gibson MP told us they are alarmed by such as us because “they know we know…” and what we know is there are sound scientific truths for precaution, as well as 400 individuals as living proof, guinea pigs if you like. We now believe it is because any serious consideration of electrosensitivity threatens several constituencies a barrage of essentially non-scientifically selected arguments are laid down. Two sides are dug in lobbing scientific studies like hand grenades from the trenches, one side refusing fully to examine what does not suit. This stalemate is fine for the 'deniers', nothing changes for lack "of conclusive scientific proof" that elusive old chimera on enviromental issues. The subjects of this "scientific" debate are however totally overlooked, stalemate does not help them at all, they struggled alone and now with us. All they/we have to offer are ignored science from our 'side' and "mere" anecdotes. Indeed the ES are de-humanised, treated like silent amoebas or nematode worms, or sub-atomic particles without sentient capacities, but they are real live rational humans, some even scientists themselves, these ‘guinea pigs’ can talk back! They in many cases were quite able to KNOW what makes them ill before ES-UK ever came on the scene, and how avoiding those sources, ie EMFs, (not just microwaves) by using their intelligence, helps them get better (a Koch-Henle postulate for causation incidentally). To accuse them of being misled, or us of corrupting even, or misleading them is laughably far from the truth, as those who employ those arguments would understand if they interacted and talked with them. Over and over again we know the actuality without "rocket science", but as daily, uncomfortable, and sometimes painful, lived experience. We are not inventing a health reaction with electrosensitivity, if the one we have is anomalous and contradicts scientific theory then the theory needs revision and improvement to encompass the new facts. It is absurd and childish even, definitely unscientific, to keep denying the facts; how many anecdotes make the need for a hypothesis? Proper investigation following that formulation is proper science. At present it is worse than Alice in Wonderland because it exposes all of us and especially our children with their special vulnerability, which concerned Sir William Stewart on Panorama, to a future of unquantified disregarded new risks 24/7, 365, we oldies never faced. Rod Read www.electrosensitivity.org.uk Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Austin C Elliott, Scientists and lecturer Manchester
Send response to journal:
|
Rod Read writes: "[The electrosensitivity sufferers] in many cases were quite able to KNOW what makes them ill before ES-UK ever came on the scene, and how avoiding those sources, ie EMFs, (not just microwaves)... helps them get better." Anecdotes again. Always anecdotes. Richard Feynman, as so often, put it best: 'Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.' In evidence-based medicine and science, the key data is that LEAST subject to personal bias and confounding effects. Self-reported sensitivities and anecdotes, being the type of evidence most subject to such influences, are the least reliable. Rod Read fails to address this key point. Competing interests: AE is a mainstream biocientist who believes evidence over anecdotes |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Sandra L Lawrence, Retired Selsey, Chichester PO20 0TE
Send response to journal:
|
I work alone to try to raise awareness for those who are electro hypersensitive in the UK, without any financial support or competing interests (unless being EHS is classified as such). I also listen to them because they sometimes have no one else who understands in their family or community. EHS is a very isolating condition because there are lots of places you can't go to, lots of things you can't do and lots of people who don't want to believe that this wonderful technology might have flaws or cause problems for people or animals. It puts great stress on relationships of all kinds and can invoke animosity. It must be difficult for doctors and other medical staff to understand what these people experience from these newer technologies and in everyday life, but I have lived with being sensitive to pulsed microwave radiation for four years now, so I do. I am not medical,technical or scientific. I am simply a compassionate human being who cares about other people who are distressed and in pain with no one to turn to. I also care passionately about animal life and our environment.They have no help either while we "wait for the science" As this technology is exploding and expanding there are hidden dangers for EHS sufferers. They come as the different technologies mix together and when an EHS sufferer is exposed to two different technologies within a relatively short space of time. I can give you no scientific or medical information on this because I do not have the training and experience to do so, but I ask you please to keep an open mind about electro hypersensitivity. You are probably well aware that in research and scientific terms it is impossible to state either way whether or not this technology can cause harm to human and animal life. It may be many years before there is fairly conclusive evidence that will be accepted. For us, the conclusive "evidence" has already been found. Since most electro hypersensitive people do not want to be prisoners and outcasts in society, it took most of us a long time to accept that we are, after exploring many different avenues and questioning our own motivation and perspective. None of the people I know or speak to have any doubt whatsoever and we question some of the science that declares pulsed microwave radiation to be almost safe. We question those with vested financial interests and think of the asbestos and tobacco fiascos because we KNOW! We see non-sensitives with the same symptoms we get when we can feel higher power from these technologies. We watch the birds and see them fleeing an area in panic when high power is used for testing or making alterations to a masts. There is smoke! we are the smoke and the cancer clusters around masts are more smoke. If you wait for the fire many lives could be lost. That is what we and some truly independant scientists think. We are worried for our children and their future. Please listen to the electro hypersensitives and try to understand what they are telling you. They have to take care of themselves because non one else is. They are the ones breaking new ground in research and it should be the scientists. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rod Read, charity director Cambridge CB6 2BB
Send response to journal:
|
NOT A CLEAR CUT ISSUE despite what is said by advocacy journalists and some scientists, who claim there is “no evidence” for health effects from EMFs, electromagnetic fields, and microwaves. This is not fair comment, but untrue and wrong. The following scientists say there IS scientific evidence of health risk: 1) Professor Sir William Stewart, on PANORAMA, Chief Government Advisor, head of the Health Protection Agency, HPA, and the Mobile Telecommunications Health Report. “it was "timely" for a delay in the rush for WiFi while health investigations were made: “We recommend a precautionary approach….this has been lamentably ignored” 2) Dr Henry Lai, DNA researcher over decades on PANORAM from University of Washington,USA. http://www.feb.se/emfguru/Research/dr- henry.html “I can name 600 studies showing bioeffects from microwaves off the top of my head” 3) Dr Gert Oberfeld, Public Health Austria on PANORAMA having large antenna-masts banned from proximity to schools and WiFi banned from use inside schools as threatening children’s health. Worked on the international, Europe-wide REFLEX report which highlights RF-induced DNA breaks, 4) Professor of Human Radiation Effects Dr Denis Henshaw, Corona effects from power lines and EMFs, melatonin reduction. See Henshaw, EMFs, Melatonin) 5) Professor Russ Reiter of the University of Texas Medical Centre Has proclaimed a ‘smoking gun’ level of proof has existed for EMF effects harming melatonin production and hence the functioning of the immune system, thus increasing the likelihood of cancer and other chronic health problems, since 1995. He may be accessed at: http://www.leukaemiaconference.org/programme/speakers/day3-reiter-pres.pdf scroll through to slide 9. 6) Dr. Ross Adey, scientist and chairman of the expert committee of the USA National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCR, under a Congressionally chartered organisation contracted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and "carefully selected to cover the great majority of societal interests on this scientific problem, including power industry engineers, epidemiologists, public health specialists as well as molecular and cellular biologists". The NCRP Committee states that, "In key areas of bioelectromagnetic research, findings are sufficiently consistent and form a sufficiently coherent picture to suggest plausible connections between ELF EMF exposures and disruption of normal biological processes, in ways meriting detailed examination of potential implications in human health." 7) Dr Neil Cherry, Lincoln University, New Zealand http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/emr_expert1_revised.html He says there “is a substantial body of research which under normal circumstances would be taken to prove that RF/Microwave radiation is genotoxic” "Our frame of reference determines what we look at and how we look. And as a consequence, this determines what we find." Neil.Cherry@ecan.govt.nz 8) Dr Robert O Becker, Nobel laureate twice, pioneer in orthopaedics and researcher refers to “the many other studies that have lent support to the causal association between microwave exposure and cancers of all types (not just brain tumours) and genetic abnormalities.” He goes on to say “The scientific data at this time indicate that microwaves have major biological effects at power levels far below those required to cause heating. In ‘Cross Currents’ ISBN 0-87477-609-0 9) Professor Gerard J HylandAssociate Fellow, Department of Physics, University of Warwick, UK. Executive Member, International Institute of Biophysics, Neuss-Holzheim, Germany. “we are ourselves, as living human beings, electromagnetic instruments of exquisite sensitivity” http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/reports/20030701_hyland_basestations.pdf 10) Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reviews new and old scientific findings to explain how the physics and chemistry of the collective water structure in the cell and the organism can interact with extremely weak EMFs to cause a multitude of biological effects. ISIS Press Release 15/02/05 http://www.i- sis.org.uk/CMPBDASG.php 11) Anke Huss, 12) Matthias Egger, 13) Kerstin Hug, 14) Karin Huwiler-Müntener 15) Martin Röösli “Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies” (in Environmental Health Physics, in press, published online September 15, 2006 http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/9149/9149.pdf ) “The objective of this study was to examine whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies.” There is systematic bias shown according to funding. 16) Dr Grahame Blackwell Independent UK physicist and consultant has summarised six studies of masts and effects: “These above six studies are the only studies known of that specifically consider the effects of masts on people. All six of these studies show clear and significant ill-health effects. There are no known studies relating to health effects of masts that do not show such ill- health effects. In this respect, any statement by industry or official sources that claims (or suggests) that: (a) There is no evidence of ill-health effects from masts; or (b) The overwhelming evidence is that masts do not cause ill-health effects; is completely and blatantly untrue.” http://www.starweave.com/ 17) Professor Santini et al. Pathol Biol (Paris) “… it is advisable that mobile phone base stations not be sited closer than 300 meters to populations” Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) Study for the Netherlands Ministries of Economic Affairs, Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment,and Health, Welfare and Sport found significant effects on wellbeing, according to a number of internationally -recognised criteria (including headaches, muscle fatigue/pain, dizziness etc) from 3G mast emissions well below accepted ‘safety’ levels (less than 1/25,000th of ICNIRP guidelines). Dr Gerd Oberfeld 1, 18) Dr Navarro A. Enrique, 19) Dr Portoles Manue, 20) Dr Maestu Ceferino 21) Dr Gomez Perretta Claudio in THE MICROWAVE SYNDROME FURTHER ASPECTS OF A SPANISH STUDY found significant ill-health effects in those living in the vicinity of two GSM mobile phone base stations. They observed that: “The strongest five associations found are depressive tendency, fatigue, sleeping disorder, difficulty in concentration and cardiovascular problems.” 22) Ronni Wolf MD, Danny Wolf MD of The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL found ‘INCREASED INCIDENCE OF CANCER NEAR A CELL-PHONE TRANSMITTER STATION Published in: International Journal of Cancer Prevention Volume 1, No. 2, April 2004 23-27) Naila Study, Germany (November 2004) Report by researchers (five medical doctors) shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 metres from the cellular transmitter site, which bas been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier. “the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.” 28) Austrian Study Press Release 1st May 2005 “The radiation of a cell phone base station at a distance of 80 metres causes significant changes of the electrical currents in the brains of testees (measured by electroencephalogram, EEG). All the testees said they felt unwell during the radiation, some of them seriously.” According to the scientists, this is the first worldwide proof of significant changes of the electrical currents in the brain by a cell phone base station at a distance of 80 metres. It has been scientifically established before that the radiation of cell phone base stations leads to unwellness and health complaints. 29) Cao Zhaojin, an electromagnetic radiation expert from the Environment Supervision Institute of the Academy of Preventive Medical Science China and Li Liangdu journalist published ‘Living in Microwaves’ China.org.cn July 6, 2004 http://www.china.org.cn/english/2004/Jul/100459.htm 30) Dr Samuel Milham occupational public health physician, in 1982, conducted a study in the US state of Washington on the effects of large electrical and magnetic fields on workers. He wrote in the ‘New England Journal of Medicine’ that he found more leukaemia-related deaths in men whose work brought them in contact with electrical and magnetic fields. 31) Professor Olle Johansson, Karolinska Health Insitute, University of Stockholm, Sweden who was on PANORAMA too worked with 32)Shabnam Gangi, 33) Yong Liang, 34) Ken Yoshimura, 35) Chen Jing and 36) Peng-Yue Liu on this research paper: “Cutaneous mast cells are altered in normal healthy volunteers sitting in front of ordinary TVs/PCs – results from open-field provocation experiments” Conclusions: “By definition, normal healthy volunteers are assumed not to react to a TV/PC screen provocation. To our great surprise, this proved not to be true.” 37)Professor Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, S-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. Melanoma Research. 16(2):115-118, April 2006 http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(2bs5kg55j5wm3c45uaxxrmy2)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,1,7;journal,6,17;linkingpublicationresults,1:105519,1 Conclusions: “The age-specific incidence of malignant melanoma of the skin appears to be following a pattern of response to an imposed environmental change in 1955. We believe that the frequency modulation (FM) broadcasting radiation at whole-body resonant frequencies is such an environmental stress.” 38) Dr Jerry Philips Professor and Director of the Science Learning Center at the University of Colorado . He was one of the first scientists to study the health effects of cell phone radiation - recruited to do work by Motorola. Phillips' research came up with results the cell phone company didn't like - they shut down any attempts to publish his work according to http://www.mastvictims.org/index.php?content=resources and their audio interview 39) Andrew Goldsworthy Honorary lecturer at Imperial College, University of London. Also of importance is “it is not only humans that are affected. Well researched responses in other organisms include the more rapid growth of higher plants (Smith et al. 1993; Muraji et al. 1998; Stenz et al. 1998), yeast (Mehedintu and Berg 1997) and changes in the locomotion of diatoms (McLeod et al. 1987). The last two are significant because they are both single cells, implying that the effects occur at the cellular level. Furthermore, we can explain virtually all of the electromagnetic effects on humans in terms of changes occurring at the cellular level that may then affect the whole body.” From ‘The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields’ Andrew Goldsworthy, 2007 http://www.radiationresearch.org/goldsworthy_bio_weak_em_07.pdf 40)Massot O, 41) Grimaldi B, 42) Bailly J, 43) Kochanek M, 44) Deschamps F, 45) Lambrozo J, 46) Fillion G, Unite de Pharmacologie Neuro-Immuno-Endocrinienne, Institut Pasteur, 25-28 rue du docteur Roux, Paris, France. Heavy going, hard science below, for illustration rather than understanding for most non-scientists but it explains why magnetic fields screw up the central nervous system via the hormone serotonin. http://www.emf-portal.org/suche.php?sform=1&go=MALDI 47) Dr Don Maisch Independent outspoken physicist in Australia http://www.emfacts.com/papers/newspeak.pdf He describes the ‘weasel words’ techniques used to obscure the sleight of verbal hand that turns black into white on this ES issue. “Newspeak”, far from being a fictional medium of expression, is alive and well in the ongoing Cellphone controversy. George Orwell’s classic Sci -fi novel ‘1984’ probably sits in many a corporate reference library, under a section titled: “Risk Management”. And on children “What we have is an ideological battle between an increasing number of well qualified experts, calling for a precautionary approach to safeguard our children’s health, versus the corporate might of a billion-dollar industry with concerns based solely on maximizing corporate profits at the possible expense of our children’s future wellbeing.” ES-UK refers to ‘corporate psychopaths’ without a moral compass, not the individuals usually, but the corporation activities. http://www.emfacts.com/papers/children_mobiles.pdf 48) Dr George Carlo was Chief Scientist of the ‘World’s Largest Research Effort’ into wire-less cell-phone safety and he reports “an insider’s alarming discoveries about cancer and genetic damage”. It states this on the cover of his quite astounding story as told in “Cell Phones – Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age” pub Carroll & Graf, 2001, ISBN 0-7867 0818-2. Dr Carlo, Ph.D, M.S., J.D, is a public health scientist, epidemiologist, lawyer, and the founder of the ‘Science and Public Policy Institute’. He headed the $28.5 million research program funded by the cell phone industry from 1993 to 1999. Interviews and information can be found at: http://www.emf-health.com/dr-george-carlo.htm Very rare for the boss to be the 'whistleblower', and very strange. 49) John Rogers ONC: HND: FMAA., ex government microwave researcher of 40 years, technical advisor to www.electrosensitivity.org.uk 50) Alasdair Philips BSc(Eng), DAgE, MIAgE, MInstPhys., Electrical engineer employed for monitoring for PANORAMA programme, on government and HPA committees. Points out scientifically established risks at http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/ 51) Keith Jamieson Dip.AAS. Bsc(Hons) RIBA. Inst.Ph., Environmental Consultant. At Imperial College, University of London There are many many more. Rod Read www.electrosensitivity.org.uk Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Sandra L Lawrence, Retired Selsey Chichester PO20 0TE
Send response to journal:
|
We who are EHS badly need doctors and medical staff to take us just a little more seriously, even in the absence of “scientific evidence”. It can crush our spirits to be constantly told “it is all in your head” and to be expected to have to prove that we are not delusional and do not have psychosomatic tendencies. However, when nothing changed for those who did, we smelt a rat and our spirits became more determined! I thought that if doctors read of some of the experiences EHS sufferers endure, they might be inclined to hesitate just a little if they encounter such people. I can but try for those others who are unable to do what I do. More Hidden Danger for the EHS
NOTE: There may be exceptions to the rule but we just don’t know enough. This is because no one is monitoring the people who are EHS or carrying out meaningful and useful research in the UK into its cause(s) and the reactions and symptoms that sufferers have to deal with without any relevant health authority to advise them. Just this year I have discovered two areas that can cause more concern for the EHS: NOTE: I can only explain in detail my own reactions, but the accounts of other electro hypersensitive people who have shared their experiences with me are surprisingly similar when they share the same primary sensitiser i.e. TETRA. I don’t talk to many people who have another technology as their primary sensitiser and some people don’t know which technology sensitised them originally, so is this just a TETRA + other technology off-shoot? Again we do not have enough information/knowledge due to lack of monitoring and research. 1. THE EFFECTS OF MIXING TECHNOLOGIES – ADDING TO THE AGONY
TETRA mixing with 2G/3G and the Harmonics of TETRA June/July 06 when the harmonics of TETRA were added. There is high powered testing going on. The people who are sensitive to TETRA suffer badly and those who are not had flu-like symptoms, headaches, and felt physically and mentally drained. I am having some really bad nights and some awful experiences with pain and discomfort in the daytime. My husband is having sleepless nights or nightmares – which he has never had in his life. He is not EHS. My health may be deteriorating and I am in constant pain and/or discomfort. It is useless to go to a doctor because they are not informed of the effects to people who are sensitive to this technology. I suddenly plunge into deep depressive states, become very apathetic, mentally confused, have memory/concentration lapses. My husband has disturbed sleep; nightmares; memory/concentration lapses; an aggressive and irritable attitude previously never present in his nature. It is hell. Our relationship is under real pressure. When I was still sleeping in the worst affected bedroom I used to have dreadful nightmares or wake up to find I could not move or could not breathe. Some nights I had the feeling that I was plugged into the electricity supply and my body was jerking or rippling with the stuff. They were terrifying experiences. Even though we have moved our beds to the safer spot either side of the middle wall, we still experience nightmares and are awake in the night. I have tingling sensations, sharp chest, head and neck pain and wake up panicking and in terror sometimes. Sometimes one or other side of my body is cramped badly and I have to try to force my body to move mentally as I did in the other bedroom when I couldn’t breathe or move. The Harmonics of TETRA mixing with 2G
TETRA and/ or Harmonics of TETRA mixing with Wi-Fi 06 January 07 I went to town yesterday and really could not handle
it. I felt sick and ill and my neck and legs/feet really hurt. My blood
circulation slowed badly in my left foot. I also had trouble breathing.
The Harmonics of TETRA mixing with 2G/Wi-Fi Late January 07 At home one evening, I also experienced both of my legs/feet becoming numb/red/mauve/white up to the knees where the circulation slows right down when I am within TETRA emissions. Obviously the WiFi makes it worse as usually it is just the left foot or occasionally both. 2. THE EFFECTS OF BEING EXPOSED TO TWO DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES IN A SHORT SPACE OF TIME – HOW YOUR BODY AND MIND CAN MALFUNCTION NOTE: TETRA covers all areas of the UK as the communication system for the emergency services. Wi-Fi is now being used extensively and many town centres/areas will be blanketed by it in the near future. Sir William Stewart, Chairman of the Health Protection Agency, called for a precautionary approach in his 2004 report for the RNPB (Now HPA) because children may be more vulnerable and because a minority of the population that might be susceptible to the biological effects of pulsed microwave radiation. He has stated that TETRA was not in his remit. Extract from the transcript of the Panorama program 21st May 2007 “KENYON: We asked the government for an interview about all this. It said no and referred us instead to the Health Protection Agency. The Chairman of that is.... hang on a minute - it's Sir William Stewart! The very man who has indicated to Panorama just how uncomfortable he feels about the speed with which wi-fi is being rolled out. STEWART: I believe that there is a need for a review of the wi-fi and other areas. KENYON: How important is it to do that swiftly? STEWART: I think it's timely for it to be done now.” EXPOSURE TO TETRA AND/OR HARMONICS OF TETRA AND WI-FI WITHIN A SHORT SPACE OF TIME Short extracts from personal log of events since December 2002 February 07 The bank staff knew of my condition from previous visits so when they said it would take a while I said I would go out and come back. I walked to a safer area and began to recover. My husband had gone to do some shopping for me, as he had for the last month or so, so I went to the car to see if he had returned. He had to move the car for some reason and we got stuck on a TETRA line for a few minutes. It really shook me up. My husband came back to the bank with me and we had only been there for a few moments when I felt I was going to pass out. My husband said I just collapsed and was not breathing until he moved me. I can only remember that I was having trouble breathing. When I began to recover I shook violently and could not talk straight. I was unwell for days and will not go into town anymore. JUNE 07 I used to be able to feel the emission lines of TETRA as pain and so I could always avoid them quickly, but I have lived in an almost emission-free flat for four months now and healing has lessened my sensitivity a great deal. I only feel TETRA now when I have been in the emissions for several minutes and I only know because of the way my head feels and because my left foot hurts and changes colour from red to mauve/white where the blood flow slows down. This condition only occurs when I am within TETRA emissions. I have proved that to myself by trial and error over the last three years. After I had been exposed to TETRA line along a part of the beach I had not visited before, I felt a bit strange but not unwell. I also mixed words up or couldn’t remember what I was going to say a second or two before, but otherwise I was fine. Two hours or so later I went to visit family and my head felt the heaviness of emissions as I entered the house. Some ten to fifteen minutes later I literally exploded verbally when I saw a young girl with a mobile phone in her hand holding it close to her head, her younger brother’s head and a puppy’s head. I am capable of fiery anger to defend people but it is usually controlled until I can use it coolly to fight verbally for others. However when affected by pulsed microwave radiation, there have been times when I have lost control and this was one of them, although I did not realise it at the time. NOTE: Can the increase in violence, verbally and physically, be associated with this ‘lose of control’ phenomena around some of this technology? I DEFEND when angry, some people are prone to ATTACK when angry. About half an hour after this I began to feel quite sick and unwell. My head was swimming and I couldn’t think straight. My chest was very tight and I was having trouble breathing properly and I suddenly remembered my previous attack and tried to call my husband. I couldn’t call him or move to get up, my body was like jelly. I could hear children playing and a child spoke to me but I couldn’t respond. I don’t remember how long I was like that. My husband thinks for between 20 to 30 minutes. When my husband found me I tried several times to ask him to open a window or get me outside because that helped with the last attack (I don’t know why). He could not understand what I was saying as the words were not coming out right. I still could not get up or move, but once the patio door was opened I felt a bit more normal. Suddenly I began to shake and shiver violently all over my body. This lasted probably for about 10 minutes I am told. After that I gradually got back to normal but felt exceedingly drained and still unwell for a further two days or so. I also had concentration and memory loss. I had been healing over the past 4 months and hardly felt the technology. Now I am sensitised again and have to hope to recover again to get a little of my life back. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
stephen black, management consultant london sw1w 9sr
Send response to journal:
|
One of the responses that seems to arise often in debates like this is the claim that the "establishment" is denying the illnesses of those who claim to be suffering. But this is not the issue at all. Nobody is denying the illness; the debate is about the correct causes of the illness. If the cause really is exposure to radiation, then it should be easy to identify it in blinded trials. If the cause is something else, then blaming it on EMF is no help to sufferers. It should not be necessary to remind advocates of EMF-sensitivity that anecdotes are a poor substitute for well-controlled trials (of which there is a disturbing lack). Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
James Chappèll, bioelectromagnetic consultant Kapiti Coast, New Zealand, 5036
Send response to journal:
|
As a result of reading all the books, scanning most of the research papers and visiting and measuring dozens of homes of sufferers, I have a slightly different view of the problem of electromagnetic radiation fields. We know that it affects cells and changes how they respond. We know that it upsets the metabolism in unlimited ways. We know that every person experiences slightly different results and to different degrees. It is clear to me that the cell is a cybernetic function as are organs and systems which make up the body. Each is a part of a self organising distributed system. These systems are parts of a holonic structure. How the cell interprets the information it is receiving as electromagnetic signals is up to the cell to decide. It makes its own decisions just as the neurons in the brain make their own decisions on how to respond to information. This accounts for the unpredictability of the result. It is a stochastic process. The parts scientists like to test are the predictable bits that follow the laws of Newtonian physics. The biocybernetic element is unpredictable. Therefore, to discuss whether field strength is enough to cause currents in flesh, what it takes to destroy DNA and similar minutae are pure diversion. They miss the point. Each human entity is an extremely complex computer, self programmed and self maintaining. The "EMFs" are interfering with the programs and the data flow. I am offering to a small group of volunteers, the opportunity to experiment with autogenic training as a means of correcting aberrant signals. We make contact with the systems which are in trouble and communicate directly with them to get better results. It could be regarded as a self managed phobia release program. Each person has ones own individual problems and needs to work on it from within. This does not in any way stop the sources of EMFs which have to be dealt
with physically by shielding, grounding, and distance. EMFs can not be
reduced to zero in the world today so the autogenic training method offers
some relief and recovery to sufferers.
Competing interests: I work with people who have been diagnosed as ME, CFS, EHS, MCS, etc and those who cant get any diagnosis but suffer. |
|||